`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`Date Filed: May 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL,
`INC., AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, AMNEAL
`PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC, DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., SUN
`PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD, SUN PHARMACEUTICALS
`INDUSTRIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., WEST-
`WARD PHARMACEUTICAL CORP., AND HIKMA
`PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-013321
`Patent 8,822,438 B2
`
`_______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-00853 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`Deposition of Dr. Garnick
`
`I. Docetaxel
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2185, p. 54, l. 20, through p. 55, l. 4, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Do you agree, upon the approval of docetaxel chemotherapy, the field
`
`became focused on finding additional chemotherapy treatments that would
`
`improve survival?
`
`A.
`
`In general, we're constantly trying to improve therapies for our patients with
`
`prostate cancer.
`
`Q. So my statement is correct.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Paper 35 (“PO Response”) at p. 42 (“future
`
`clinical trials focused on building on the survival improvement seen with
`
`docetaxel-based therapy.”). This testimony is relevant to Dr. Garnick’s opinions at
`
`¶¶ 39 and 113 of his reply declaration (Ex. 1104), and Dr. Rettig’s opinions at ¶¶
`
`61, 188, and 220 of his declaration (Ex. 2038).
`
`II. Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone
`
`In Exhibit 2185, p. 51, l. 21 through p. 52, l. 1, the witness testified:
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Q. Do you agree that the approval of abiraterone acetate in combination with
`
`prednisone was also a significant milestone in the treatment of metastatic
`
`castration-resistant prostate cancer patients?
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`A. Yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Garnick’s opinions at ¶ 96 of his opening
`
`declaration (Ex. 1002), Dr. Rettig’s declaration at ¶¶ 51, 220, and 210-213 (Ex.
`
`2038), and the PO Response at p. 54. This testimony is further relevant to Dr.
`
`Garnick’s deposition testimony at 139:13-140:16 (Ex. 2126).
`
`III. Attard (2009)
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2185, p. 95, ll. 7-11, the witness testified:
`
`Q. So over 95 percent of patients in the Attard 2009 study, who received a
`
`thousand milligrams of abiraterone acetate, did not receive prior treatment with
`
`ketoconazole, correct?
`
`A. That's what it says.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Garnick’s opinions at fn. 4, ¶¶ 97-99, and ¶
`
`101 of his reply declaration (relying on the fact that “Attard 2009 enrolled patients
`
`who were previously on ketoconazole” as a basis for his opinion that it is improper
`
`to compare results from COU-AA-001 with COU-AA-002) (Ex. 1104). This
`
`testimony is further relevant to Dr. McKeague’s opinions at ¶ 47 of his declaration
`
`(opining the same) (Ex. 1091). This testimony is relevant to Ex. 2015 (Attard
`
`2009) at 3744.
`
`4. In Exhibit 2185, p. 100, ll. 4-23, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Okay. Just reading the sentence as it appears in Attard 2009, where the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`researchers report that they have not previously observed, and to their knowledge,
`
`there are no published reports of secondary responses to reinstitution of single
`
`agent dexamethasone in patients who have previously experienced progression on
`
`this therapy, do you understand that to be an accurate statement concerning what is
`
`described in 2009?
`
`Mr. Beel: Objection to form and foundation.
`
`A. There's no reason for me to doubt what's stated there.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Garnick’s opinions at ¶¶ 104-106 of his
`
`reply declaration (Ex. 1104). This testimony is further relevant to Dr. Rettig’s
`
`opinions at ¶¶ 196-202 of his declaration (opining that the dexamethasone
`
`extension study results were incorporated into design of Phase III trials of
`
`abiraterone acetate in combination with prednisone) (Ex. 2038), and Ex. 2015
`
`(Attard 2009) at 3747.
`
`IV. Trump
`
`5. In Exhibit 2185, p. 104, ll. 13-19, the witness testified:
`
`Q. So on page 1097, in the right-hand column, third full paragraph it states,
`
`“Overall, ketoconazole plus hydrocortisone would have to be judged ineffective as
`
`secondary hormone therapy for most patients with advanced prostatic cancer,”
`
`3
`
`correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Garnick’s opinions at ¶¶ 17, 20, and 35 of
`
`his reply declaration (Ex. 1104). This testimony is also relevant to Ex. 1107
`
`(Trump) at 1097, and Dr. Rettig’s declaration at ¶¶ 186-188 and 225 (Ex. 2038).
`
`V. Sonino
`
`6. In Exhibit 2185, p. 108, l. 19 through p. 109, l. 5, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Do you see where it says, “Since ketoconazole interferes with C17-20 lyase,
`
`and is a more potent inhibitor of cholesterol side-chain cleavage activity, it can be
`
`expected that patients treated with the agent will be free of side effects such as
`
`mineralocorticoid excess.” Do you see that?
`
`Mr. Beel: Objection to form and foundation. Outside the scope of the declaration.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. This was part of what was known in the art as of August 2006, correct?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Garnick’s opinions at ¶ 79 of his reply
`
`declaration (Ex. 1104), ¶¶ 33, 41, and 44 of his opening declaration (Ex. 1002), his
`
`testimony at p. 37 l. 17 - p. 38 l. 12 (Ex. 2126), and Ex. 2163 (Sonino) at 815. This
`
`testimony is further relevant to the PO Response at § IV.A.2.a.
`
`VI. Gerber
`
`7. In Exhibit 2185, p. 129, ll. 4-9, the witness testified:
`
`Q.
`
`Is it correct that Gerber does not teach that the prednisone was administered
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`for purpose of treating the prostate cancer?
`
`Mr. Beel: Objection to form and foundation. Calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`A. Yeah. Yes.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Garnick’s opinions at, for example, ¶¶ 24,
`
`36, 38, and 53 of his reply declaration (Ex. 1104), and Dr. Rettig’s declaration at ¶
`
`77 (Ex. 2038). This testimony is further relevant to the PO Response at § III.C.1.
`
`VII. ZYTIGA 2015 Package Insert
`
`8. In Exhibit 2185, p. 148, ll. 11-18, the witness testified:
`
`Q. When you prescribe abiraterone acetate in combination with prednisone for
`
`the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, do you typically
`
`prescribe it as it is indicated in the Zytiga package insert?
`
`Mr. Beel: Objection, form, and outside the scope of the expert declaration.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the PO Response at p. 62. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Garnick’s opinions at ¶108 of his reply declaration (Ex. 1104), Ex.
`
`2163 (ZYTIGA Package Insert) at 1 and 2, and PO Response at § V.D.1 (nexus
`
`between claimed invention and commercial success).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`Deposition of Dr. Bantle
`
`VIII. Adrenal Insufficiency versus Mineralocorticoid Excess.
`
`9 (a). In Exhibit 2188, on p. 21, ll. 10-17, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Can a patient with low adrenal reserve not develop adrenal insufficiency?
`
`A. Yes, I think hypothetically it’s possible for someone to exist for many years
`
`indefinitely with low adrenal reserve and without decompensating to complete
`
`adrenal insufficiency.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Bantle’s opinions at ¶¶ 44-47, 49, and 50-
`
`55 of his declaration regarding interpretation of Synacthen data in O’Donnell and
`
`its implications (Ex. 1097). Further, this testimony is relevant to Paper No. 65
`
`(PO’s Identification of New Arguments and Evidence in Petitioners’ Reply) at 1-2.
`
`9 (b). In Exhibit 2188, on p. 23, ll. 20-24, the witness testified:
`
`Q. And mineralocorticoid excess is not the same as adrenal insufficiency; is that
`
`right?
`
`A. Yes. They’re different disorders, sort of opposite disorders producing
`
`opposite sorts of problems.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Bantle’s opinions at ¶¶ 58-59 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1097), Dr. Garnick’s testimony at p. 82, ll. 15-19 (Ex. 2126), and
`
`Paper No. 65 (PO’s Identification of New Arguments and Evidence in Petitioners’
`
`6
`
`Reply) at 1-2.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`10. In Exhibit 2188, on p. 102, l. 20 through p. 103, l. 4, the witness testified:
`
`Q.
`
`So is it fair to say that there’s nothing reported in the O’Donnell reference
`
`that would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill that abiraterone acetate
`
`caused mineralocorticoid excess during the time period that the study was
`
`performed?
`
`Ms. Greb: Objection. Vague.
`
`A. Yes. I don’t see any suggestion in the data presented or the discussion
`
`subsequently that mineralocorticoid excess was present or a problem.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Bantle’s opinions at ¶ 60 of his declaration
`
`(Ex. 1097), Dr. Rettig’s opinions at ¶¶ 109-123 of his declaration (Ex. 2038), Dr.
`
`Garnick’s deposition testimony at p. 153 ll. 11-17, p. 155 l. 18 - p. 156 l. 24, and p.
`
`89 l. 16 - p. 90 l. 23 (Ex. 2126), and the PO Response at §§ III.A and IV.
`
`IX. Ketoconazole’s Mechanism of Steroidogenesis Inhibition
`
`11. In Exhibit 2188, on p. 47, l. 15 through p. 48, l. 9, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Of the pathways for the production of cortisol that are being inhibited by
`
`ketoconazole, which pathway contributes the most to the inhibition of the
`
`production of cortisol?
`
`Ms. Greb: Objection. Vague. Outside the scope of the report.
`
`A.
`
`The glucocorticoid pathway, of course.
`
`Q. And which conversion is that?
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`A. Well – There are at least three spots where ketoconazole is interfering with
`
`cortisol productions. The first step, the desmolase conversion of cholesterol to
`
`pregnenolone, then the step were pregnenolone is converted to 17-
`
`hydroxyypregnenolone, or alternatively the step where progesterone is converted
`
`to 17-hydroxyprogesterone, and then finally the step where 11-deoxycortisol is
`
`converted to cortisol.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Bantle’s opinions at ¶¶ 22, 44 and Exhibit C
`
`of his declaration regarding differences between abiraterone acetate and
`
`ketoconazole in inhibiting androgen synthesis (Ex. 1097). Further, this testimony
`
`is relevant to PO Response at pp. 14-16, Ex. 2180, and Ex. 2182.
`
`12. In Exhibit 2188, on p. 40, ll. 12-17, the witness testified:
`
`Q. And a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that
`
`ketoconazole would reduce levels of cortisol in a matter of days; is that correct?
`
`Ms. Greb: Objection. Vague.
`
`A. Yes. I think that’s true.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Bantle’s opinions at ¶ 72 of his declaration
`
`(opining clinical symptoms relating to cortisol reduction were likely after 11 days
`
`of treatment with abiraterone acetate) (Ex. 1097); see also ¶¶ 44, 46-47, 48-54, and
`
`56-62 of his declaration (interpreting the results of O’Donnell based on experience
`
`with ketoconazole) (Ex. 1097). This testimony is further relevant to Dr. Rettig’s
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`opinions at ¶¶ 109-119 of his declaration (Ex. 2038), and the PO Response at §§
`
`III.A and IV.
`
`X. Aminoglutethimide Mechanism of Steroidogenesis Inhibition
`
`13 (a). In Exhibit 2188, on p. 54, ll. 17-23, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Okay. So from this, a person of ordinary skill in the art in August of 2006
`
`knew that aminoglutethimide, like ketoconazole, inhibited the biosynthesis of all
`
`adrenal steroids; correct?
`
`Ms. Greb: Objection. Misstates prior testimony.
`
`A. Yes.
`
`13 (b). In Exhibit 2188, on p. 56, ll. 14-20, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Aminoglutethimide was not known to inhibit CYP17, was it?
`
`Ms. Greb: Objection. Vague. Outside the scope of the expert report.
`
`A.
`
`I can’t answer that question with certainty, but it’s my belief it did not
`
`inhibit the CYP17 enzyme.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Bantle’s declaration at ¶¶ 46-47, 48-54, and
`
`56-62 (analogizing aminoglutethimide’s co-administration with glucocorticoid
`
`replacement to abiraterone acetate) (Ex. 1097); and Ex. 2181 and Ex. 2182.
`
`XI. Data Reviews
`
`14.
`
`In Exhibit 2188, on p. 89, l. 11 through p. 90, l. 12, the witness testified:
`
`Q. What is the difference between a clinical trial and a data review?
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`Ms. Greb: Objection. Vague. Outside the scope.
`
`A. Well, the differences are quite substantial. A clinical trial would pose a
`
`hypothesis and typically evaluated by randomly assigning patients to one of several
`
`treatments, and then objectively looking at which treatment was best and
`
`confirming or denying the hypothesis. A data – I’m sorry, can you tell me again
`
`the term you used for the other sort of study?
`
`Q. A data review.
`
`A. Data review would usually be a compilation of retrospective medical records
`
`– or I said that poorly – medical records looked at to gain information about what
`
`had happened in the past to try to determine what might be the best way to handle a
`
`situation. And such reviews are fraught with scientific problems and issues. It’s
`
`easy for bias to be introduced. It’s easy for the wrong conclusion to be reached
`
`because the sample evaluated is not a random sample, so its applicability would be
`
`highly limited, if any applicability at all. I would view that sort of data review as a
`
`method to develop a hypothesis that would then be tested in a clinical trial.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the PO Response at p. 9 (describing Gerber as a
`
`“retrospective chart review”) and pp. 28-29 (regarding how a POSA would have
`
`understood the effects of ketoconazole in mCRPC). This testimony is relevant to ¶
`
`44 of Dr. Bantle’s declaration (Ex. 1097), ¶¶ 32-38 of Dr. Garnick’s reply
`
`declaration (Ex. 1104), and the Petition at pp. 12, 5, 20, 21, and 33-35.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`XII. Role of Corticosterone
`
`15. In Exhibit 2188, on p. 26, ll. 8-16, the witness testified:
`
`Q.
`
`But corticosterone can play a role in preventing the development of adrenal
`
`insufficiency; isn’t that correct?
`
`Ms. Greb: Objection. Vague.
`
`A.
`
`I think potentially corticosterone could prevent adrenal insufficiency if
`
`present in very large amounts. And I would add I don’t know of good literature
`
`that would address how effective it would be or what amounts would be necessary.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Bantle’s opinions at ¶¶ 85-88 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1097), and Dr. Auchus’s declaration at ¶¶ 45-47 (Ex. 2040).
`
`Deposition of Dr. Ivan T. Hofmann
`
`XIII. Commercial Success – Sales and Use
`
`16.
`
`In Exhibit 2187, p. 80, ll. 11-19, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Well, that -- that was my question, whether you did an independent analysis
`
`of the extent of on-label use. . . .
`
`A.
`
`I don’t think I did beyond – I didn’t do an independent analysis of that
`
`beyond the consideration of what he included in his declarations.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hofmann’s opinions at ¶¶ 23 and 30 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1017) and ¶¶ 32-36 of his reply declaration (Ex. 1134).
`
`XIV. Commercial Success – Nexus
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`17.
`
`Q.
`
`In Exhibit 2187, p. 65, l. 7 through p. 66, l. 1, the witness testified:
`
`I mean is efficacy a -- a fundamental factor in driving commercial
`
`performance of pharmaceutical therapies in general? . . .
`
`A.
`
`. . . I think, with serious advanced-stage cancer, it certainly is. . . .
`
`
`
` This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hofmann’s opinions at ¶¶ 35-37 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1134). This testimony is further relevant to PO Response at § C.1
`
`(discussing nexus between claimed invention and commercial success), and Dr.
`
`Rettig’s opinions at ¶¶ 214-219 of his declaration (Ex. 2038).
`
`XV. Commercial Success – ’213 Patent Licensing
`
`18.
`
`In Exhibit 2187, p. 21, ll. 6-12, the witness testified:
`
`Q.
`
`Is it your understanding that in the -- at least in the 2002 time frame, BTG
`
`was seeking licensees for the ’213 patent?
`
`A.
`
`It's certainly published. I mean, it seems that according to this document,
`
`that there was an interest in partnering with respect to the ’213 patent.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Hofmann’s opinions at ¶ 24 and fn. 23 of
`
`his declaration (regarding whether the ’213 patent was a “blocking” patent) (Ex.
`
`1017), and is also relevant to Dr. Rettig’s declaration at ¶¶ 222-224 (Ex. 2038).
`
`Deposition of Dr. McKeague
`
`XVI. Lack of Knowledge
`
`19.
`
`In Exhibit 2186, on p. 15, l. 23 through p. 16, l. 7, the witness testified:
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`Q. So what is your understanding of the state of the art with respect to the
`
`treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer as of August 2006?
`
`Mr. Swanson: Object to form. Calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`A: Yes. I'm not going to answer that because I don't have an understanding of
`
`the field as an expert in that field. I have an understanding as a layman essentially.
`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. McKeague’s declaration at ¶¶ 12, 16, and
`
`30 (regarding the bases for his opinions and whether the clinical trial results
`
`demonstrated unexpected clinical efficacy) (Ex. 1091). Further, this testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Rettig’s opinions at ¶¶ 194-213 of his declaration (Ex. 2038).
`
`XVII. Confidence Intervals
`
`20 (a). In Exhibit 2186, on p. 50, l. 21 through p. 51, l. 3, the witness testified:
`
`Q. So is it fair to say that there can be situations in which there are overlapping
`
`confidence intervals but statistical significance does exist?
`
`Mr. Swanson: Object to form.
`
`A.
`
`Statistical significance is best assessed directly in terms of the question
`
`being asked with the data. And if you have the data, of course, there are many
`
`approaches that can be used.
`
`20 (b). In Exhibit 2186, on p. 88, ll. 1-6, the witness testified:
`
`Q. Could you have calculated whether or not the data sets are statistically
`
`significantly different?
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`Mr. Swanson: Object to form. Outside the scope.
`
`A.
`
`That's a very broad question. I was not asked to do that.
`
`20 (c). In Exhibit 2186, on p. 94, ll. 2-11, the witness testified:
`
`Q. But you don't know, one way or the other, whether or not the median TTPP
`
`values are statistically significantly different. Is that fair to say?
`
`Mr. Swanson: Object to form. Asked and answered. Outside the scope.
`
`A. Yeah, it's outside the scope. This is coming back to the scope of my report,
`
`which is assessing the evidence for whether there is a statistically significant
`
`difference.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. McKeague’s opinions in his declaration at
`
`¶¶ 33-35, 38, and 39 (regarding whether overlapping confidence intervals indicate
`
`no statistically significant difference) (Ex. 1091). This testimony is relevant to
`
`Exhibits 2183 and 2184. This testimony is further relevant to Dr. Rettig’s opinions
`
`at ¶¶ 194-213 of his declaration (Ex. 2038).
`
`21 (a). In Exhibit 2186, on p. 86, ll. 18-22, the witness testified:
`
`Q. And that error is misleading with respect to the amount of overlap?
`
`A.
`
`I just said my point is there's an overlap. I think you're right. Do I talk about
`
`the extent of the overlap, no. I just say there is an overlap.
`
`21 (b). In Exhibit 2186, on p. 95, ll. 1-6, the witness testified:
`
`Q. And do you believe the information on the CLINICALTRIALS.GOV
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`website is more reliable than the information that's reported in the peer reviewed
`
`publications?
`
`Mr. Swanson: Object to form.
`
`A.
`
`I do not say that here.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. McKeague’s opinions in his declaration at
`
`¶¶ 33-39 (regarding representation of amount of COU-AA-001 and COU-AA-002
`
`confidence interval overlap and whether other data should be used in a comparison
`
`of the study results) (Ex. 1091), and is further relevant to Dr. Rettig’s opinions at
`
`¶¶ 194-213 of his declaration (Ex. 2038).
`
`XVIII. Cross Study Comparison
`
`22.
`
`In Exhibit 2186, on p. 122, ll. 10-18, the witness testified:
`
`Q. So how would you determine whether or not the median base line PSA
`
`levels are compatible?
`
`Mr. Swanson: Object to form. Outside the scope.
`
`A: That's a hypothetical question. How would I do it.
`
`Q. Yes. You're an expert. So I'm asking you.
`
`A.
`
`I haven't been asked to think about it.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. McKeague’s opinions in his declaration at
`
`¶¶ 44-50 (regarding assessment of “meaningful differences” in cross-study
`
`comparisons) (Ex. 1091). This testimony is also relevant to Dr. Rettig’s opinion at
`
`¶¶ 194-213 of his declaration (Ex. 2038), and to the PO Response at § V.A.
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Dianne B. Elderkin/
`Dianne B. Elderkin (Reg. No. 28,598)
`delderkin@akingump.com
`Barbara L. Mullin (Reg. No. 38,250)
`bmullin@akingump.com
`Ruben H. Munoz (Reg. No. 66,998)
`rmunoz@akingump.com
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
`FELD LLP
`Two Commerce Square
`2001 Market Street, Suite 4100
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 965-1200
`Fax: (215) 965-1210
`
`David T. Pritikin (pro hac vice)
`Bindu Donovan (pro hac vice)
`Paul J. Zegger (Reg. No. 33,821)
`Todd L. Krause (Reg. No. 48,860)
`Alyssa B. Monsen (pro hac vice)
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel.: (212) 839-5300
`Fax: (212) 839-5599
`ZytigaIPRTeam@sidley.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`
`
`Dated: May 3, 2017
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination was served on counsel of
`
`record on May 3, 2017 by filing this document through the End-to-End System, as
`
`well as delivering a copy via electronic mail to counsel of record for the Petitioners
`
`at the following addresses:
`
`Brandon M. White – bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`Crystal R. Canterbury – ccanterbury@perkinscoie.com
`Bryan D. Beel – bbeel@perkinscoie.com
`Shannon Bloodworth – sbloodworth@perkinscoie.com
`Emily J. Greb – egreb@perkinscoie.com
`Robert D. Swanson – rswanson@perkinscoie.com
`
`Samuel S. Park – spark@winston.com
`Ryan B. Hauer – rhauer@winston.com
`Jovial Wong – jwong@winston.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Dianne B. Elderkin/
`Dianne B. Elderkin
`Registration No. 28,598
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`17
`
`
`
`Date: May 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`