throbber
Filed: May 10, 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,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`————————————————
`Case IPR2016-013321
`Patent 8,822,438 B2
`
`————————————————
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2017-00853 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER ALL OF PETITIONERS’
`COMMERCIAL SUCCESS EVIDENCE ...................................................... 3
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER THE FULL RECORD OF
`SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RELEVANT AND
`SUPPORTS PETITIONERS’ OBVIOUSNESS POSITIONS ...................... 6
`A.
`Janssen Misrepresents That Certain Exhibits Are Not Discussed
`In The Petition Or Reply Brief ............................................................. 7
`The Full Record Of Evidence Is Relevant, Including Evidence
`That Is Not Specifically Referred To By Pin Cite In The
`Briefing ................................................................................................. 7
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER THE EXHIBITS OBJECTED
`TO DUE TO LACK OF AUTHENTICITY AND HEARSAY ................... 11
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 13
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC,
`IPR2015-01953, 2017 WL 1418497 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Mar.
`23, 2017) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`BTG Int’l Ltd. v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-05909 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2017), ECF No. 274 .................................. 13
`
`Meadwestvaco Packaging Sys., LLC Requester I v. Patent of C.
`Brown Lingamfelter,
`No. 2011-000001, 2011 WL 901354 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2011) ........................... 4
`
`Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00249, 2016 WL 4366980 (P.T.A.B. June 2, 2016) ........................... 12
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................. 3, 5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 ............................................................................................. 10
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) ...................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) ........................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(17) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The patent at issue (U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438, or the ’438 patent) relates to
`
`the administration of abiraterone acetate and prednisone to treat metastatic
`
`castration-resistant prostate cancer (“mCRPC”).
`
` Abiraterone acetate and
`
`prednisone have both been in the prior art since at least the mid-1990s, and both
`
`were known to be useful agents in prostate cancer treatment. Janssen now seeks to
`
`uphold a patent on the combination of these two agents, arguing that a skilled
`
`artisan would not have been motivated to use prednisone—commonly co-
`
`administered with other anti-cancer agents—with abiraterone acetate. The prior art
`
`provided ample motivation to combine these drugs. Indeed, during prosecution of
`
`the ’438 patent, the Examiner found that the claimed method was prima facie
`
`obvious over the prior art and allowed the patent to issue solely on the basis of
`
`Janssen’s commercial success arguments. Janssen now moves to exclude evidence
`
`that reinforces Petitioners’ obviousness positions. The motion has no merit.
`
`In its Motion, Janssen seeks to exclude three categories of evidence: (1)
`
`expert declarations and exhibits on the subject of commercial success; (2) sections
`
`of Petitioners’ expert declarations and exhibits that Patent Owner argues are
`
`irrelevant; and (3) certain exhibits Janssen claims are not authentic or constitute
`
`inadmissible hearsay.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`None of this evidence should be excluded. In order to evade Petitioners’
`
`strong commercial success rebuttal, Janssen misconstrues the aim of Petitioners’
`
`commercial success arguments by characterizing those arguments as a “ground”
`
`for invalidating the ’438 patent. Not so. Petitioners’ arguments simply set forth
`
`why the patent examiner possessed an incomplete picture of commercial success
`
`when allowing the ’438 patent to issue solely on that basis. Petitioners thus set
`
`forth a fulsome commercial success analysis to establish why this secondary
`
`indicia does not overcome the obviousness of the ’438 patent.
`
`Janssen also asserts that certain exhibits and paragraphs of Petitioners’
`
`expert declarations are irrelevant simply because they are not explicitly cited
`
`within Petitioners’ Reply or Petition. The record is not limited to the Petitioners’
`
`Petition and Reply Brief. The objected-to exhibits are discussed in Petitioners’
`
`expert declarations, and the objected-to declaration paragraphs provide highly
`
`relevant information and detail supporting Petitioners’ obviousness arguments.
`
`Finally, Janssen asserts that numerous exhibits lack authenticity, failing to
`
`even mention Petitioners’ supplemental evidence. Janssen also claims three
`
`exhibits constitute hearsay, only providing reasoning for two of the three exhibits.
`
`All three exhibits do not constitute inadmissible hearsay and should not be
`
`excluded.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`None of Janssen’s bases to exclude evidence have merit. The Board should
`
`consider all the aforementioned evidence, and deny Janssen’s motion.
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER ALL OF PETITIONERS’
`COMMERCIAL SUCCESS EVIDENCE
`
`Janssen seeks to exclude a whole body of Petitioners’ evidence directed to
`
`the secondary consideration of commercial success, erroneously alleging that it is
`
`“barred by statute.” But, none of the grounds asserted in the Petition include
`
`anything other than “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Paper
`
`1 at 3–4; 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In fact, Petitioner complied with the statute by
`
`requesting to cancel the ’438 patent on the basis of three patents or printed
`
`publications: O’Donnell, Gerber, and U.S. Patent No. 5,604,213 (the “’213
`
`patent”). Paper 1 at 3–4. Petitioners do not seek to cancel the ’438 patent on the
`
`basis of commercial success; rather, Petitioners respond to the commercial success
`
`arguments Janssen advanced during prosecution of the ’438 patent, which the
`
`Examiner ultimately accepted as the sole reason for allowance. Paper 1 at 15–17,
`
`51–54, 59–61; see generally Ex. 1017.
`
`Janssen misinterprets 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Section 311(b) pertains to
`
`allowable grounds for bringing a petition for inter partes review, not to all
`
`evidence the Board may consider during the IPR proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)
`
`(“A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or
`
`more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`printed publications.”); see also Meadwestvaco Packaging Sys., LLC Requester I v.
`
`Patent of C. Brown Lingamfelter, No. 2011-000001, 2011 WL 901354, at *10–11
`
`(B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2011) (rejecting the argument that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 311
`
`bars the Patent Office from considering commercial success evidence offered by a
`
`challenger in an inter partes reexamination). Janssen’s lack of commercial success
`
`is not the basis of requesting cancellation of patent claims—it is evidence
`
`disproving secondary indicia of nonobviousness. Meadwestvaco at *11 (“The
`
`[commercial success] evidence objected to by the Patent Owner is not the basis on
`
`which these claims are rejected. Rather, the evidence was considered as being
`
`pertinent to the Patent Owner’s assertions that the prior art combination would not
`
`have been obvious based on secondary considerations.”). Indeed, in the Amerigen
`
`IPR, the Board previously weighed both Janssen’s and Amerigen’s commercial
`
`success arguments in denying Janssen’s request for rehearing. IPR2016-00286,
`
`Paper 23 at 5.
`
`The evidence Janssen seeks to exclude demonstrates that a review of the
`
`complete commercial success record does not justify commercial success rendering
`
`the ’438 patent nonobvious. During prosecution, the Examiner allowed the ’438
`
`patent to issue, after numerous obviousness rejections, based on evidence Janssen
`
`submitted allegedly showing commercial success. Ex. 1012, 1013. Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s declaration addresses this prosecution history and the Examiner’s
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`decision to allow the ’438 patent on the basis of commercial success. Ex. 1017
`
`¶¶ 20, 29, 31, 33–34. Mr. Hofmann’s declaration examines numerous factors not
`
`before the Examiner during prosecution. For instance, the Examiner did not
`
`analyze whether the sales and market share data Janssen submitted had any nexus
`
`to the claims. Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 29, 31, 33–34. The Examiner also did not consider the
`
`effect of a blocking patent, which excluded all others from making, using, or
`
`selling abiraterone acetate at the priority date. Ex. 1017 ¶ 31. Mr. Hofmann also
`
`observes that the commercial success metrics Janssen provided to the Examiner
`
`were misleading. Id. ¶¶ 35–38. The evidence Janssen seeks to exclude is therefore
`
`highly relevant to evaluating whether the Examiner erred in allowing the ’438
`
`patent and whether Janssen can, in fact, establish commercial success here.
`
`Janssen’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) is untenable. To the extent
`
`Janssen asserts that Petitioners cannot introduce evidence that is not “prior art
`
`consisting of patents or printed publications,” Paper 69 at 3, Janssen’s argument
`
`would prohibit Petitioners from rebutting Patent Owners’ contentions of
`
`commercial success or unexpected results,
`
`topics
`
`that frequently require
`
`consideration of post-priority evidence. Alternatively, if Janssen’s objection is
`
`with the fact that Petitioners submitted Mr. Hofmann’s initial declaration and
`
`exhibits with its Petition rather than Reply, the Board should just consider this
`
`evidence with Petitioners’ reply evidence. Patent Owner also cannot point to any
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`prejudice from Petitioners’ submission of Mr. Hofmann’s initial declaration and
`
`exhibits with their Petition when, in so doing Petitioners provided Janssen with
`
`additional notice and opportunity to rebut Petitioners’ arguments. In fact, Janssen
`
`has had the opportunity to respond to this evidence twice—in its Preliminary
`
`Response and again in its post-institution Response. Had Petitioners introduced
`
`this evidence for the first time with their Reply, Janssen would never have been
`
`able to respond. Janssen’s motion to exclude Petitioners’ commercial success
`
`evidence is thus without merit and should be denied.
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER THE FULL RECORD OF
`SUBMITTED EVIDENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RELEVANT AND
`SUPPORTS PETITIONERS’ OBVIOUSNESS POSITIONS
`
`The record is not limited to the Petition and Reply Brief. Petitioners’ expert
`
`declarations and evidence cited therein are relevant to support the positions
`
`Petitioners advanced in the Petition and Reply Brief. This evidence gives
`
`necessary detail on the relevant knowledge of the POSA at the priority date and
`
`provides comprehensive support for Petitioners’ obviousness positions. Janssen
`
`cites nothing to support its argument that a Petitioner is required to cite to every
`
`exhibit or paragraph of its expert declarations in its Petition or Reply Brief in order
`
`to obtain a threshold level for relevancy. But the relevancy of evidence is not so
`
`narrow and is judged on the standard set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`As explained in more detail below, each objected-to declaration paragraph and
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`exhibit is relevant, and therefore Patent Owner’s request that this evidence be
`
`excluded should be denied.
`
`A.
`
`Janssen Misrepresents That Certain Exhibits Are Not Discussed
`in the Petition Or Reply Brief
`
`To start, Janssen erroneously claims that certain exhibits—Ex. 1050, 1055,
`
`1100, 1102, 1103—are not discussed in the expert declaration paragraphs cited in
`
`Petitioners’ Petition or Reply Brief. Janssen is incorrect. See Paper 1 at 52 (citing
`
`Ex. 1017 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 1050)); Paper 1 at 52 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 38, Attachment
`
`B-1 (citing Ex. 1055)); Paper 55 at 18 (citing Ex. 1097 ¶ 96 (citing Ex. 1100));
`
`Paper 55 at 19 (citing Ex. 1097 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 1102)); Paper 55 at 20 (citing Ex.
`
`1097 ¶ 100 (citing Ex. 1103)). Janssen’s motion to exclude these exhibits is
`
`therefore without basis.
`
`B.
`
`The Full Record of Evidence Is Relevant, Including Evidence
`That Is Not Specifically Referred to by Pin Cite in the Briefing
`
`As to the other declaration paragraphs and exhibits, Janssen is throwing
`
`stones in a glass house. Janssen complains that Petitioners do not cite to every
`
`expert declaration paragraph and exhibit in their Petition or Reply Brief, yet
`
`Janssen itself does not cite to every expert declaration paragraph and exhibit in its
`
`Preliminary Response and Response. See, e.g., Ex. 2038 (Rettig Decl.) ¶¶ 11–18,
`
`21–24, 51–53, 69–76, 78–79, 96, 121–22, 153, 161, 163, and 194–95.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Regardless, “there is no requirement that Petitioner must cite evidence in its
`
`Reply or Opposition to be relevant.” Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay,
`
`LLC, IPR2015-01953, 2017 WL 1418497, at *32 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Mar. 23,
`
`2017). The objected-to exhibits are cited in Petitioners’ expert declarations. The
`
`entirety of Petitioners’ expert declarations, along with all evidence cited therein,
`
`are relevant to provide necessary detail and support Petitioners’ case.
`
`The Federal Rules of Evidence set a low threshold for establishing
`
`relevance. Janssen’s motion to exclude contains no substantive discussion of why
`
`the objected-to evidence is irrelevant. In addition to the Petitioners’ complete
`
`statement of the reasons the ’438 patent is unpatentable in their Petition and Reply,
`
`the objected-to expert declaration paragraphs and exhibits provide highly relevant
`
`information about, inter alia, the POSA’s knowledge and understanding of the
`
`prior art, as well as specific information to support Petitioners’ arguments. For
`
`instance:
`
`• Ex. 1002 (Garnick Decl.) ¶ 30 is relevant because it explains the POSA’s
`
`knowledge on first-line mCRPC treatments.
`
`• Exs. 1040, 1041, 1046, and 1066 are relevant because they support the
`
`prostate cancer and Zytiga sections of Mr. Hofmann’s first declaration (Ex.
`
`1017).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`• Exs. 1049, 1064, and 1139 are relevant because they are cited or relied
`
`upon2 in the lack of nexus portions of Mr. Hofmann’s declarations where
`
`Mr. Hofmann discusses his understanding
`
`that glucocorticoid co-
`
`administration was common in the field.
`
`• Ex. 1086 is relevant because it was used in the Rettig deposition to expose
`
`Dr. Rettig’s use of the wrong inhibition values to advance the argument that
`
`abiraterone acetate has differential inhibition on the hydroxylase and lyase
`
`functions of the CYP17 enzyme. Ex. 1135 at 41:10–50:4. Dr. Rettig’s error
`
`is discussed in Petitioners’ Reply. Paper 55 at 9–10.
`
`• Ex. 1089 is relevant because it was used in the Vellturo deposition to discuss
`
`Janssen’s marketing of prednisone as ameliorating abiraterone acetate’s side
`
`effects, rather than as providing anti-tumor effects. Ex. 1136 at 57:14–65:1.
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Although Ex. 1139 (2015 Taxotere prescribing information) was not cited in Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s second declaration, the 2004 Taxotere prescribing information was
`
`cited
`
`to support Mr. Hofmann’s understanding
`
`that glucocorticoid co-
`
`administration was common in the field. Ex. 1134 ¶¶ 25–26. Mr. Hofmann
`
`considered both the 2004 and 2015 prescribing information in forming his
`
`opinions. Id. at Attachment A-1 (Materials Considered).
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`• Ex. 1091 (McKeague Decl.) ¶¶ 17–29 and 31 are relevant because they
`
`provide information on prostate cancer, Janssen’s clinical trials, statistical
`
`principles, and summaries of why Dr. Rettig has not demonstrated any
`
`unexpected
`
`results, opinions which are elaborated
`
`throughout Dr.
`
`McKeague’s declaration. Ex. 1092–94 are relevant because they support the
`
`prostate cancer section of Dr. McKeague’s declaration.
`
`• Ex. 1097 (Bantle Decl.) ¶¶ 11–16 and 95 are relevant because they
`
`summarize Dr. Bantle’s opinions that are developed throughout his
`
`declaration.
`
`• Ex. 1104 (Garnick Decl.) ¶¶ 5–9 and 11–13 are relevant because they
`
`describe legal standards, reiterate Dr. Garnick’s POSA definition, and
`
`summarize Dr. Garnick’s opinions described more fully in his declaration.
`
`• Ex. 1104 (Garnick Decl.) ¶¶ 88–90, 92–95, and 119–122 are relevant
`
`because they describe Dr. Garnick’s opinions on lack of unexpected results
`
`and nexus, topics also addressed by Dr. McKeague and Mr. Hofmann and
`
`discussed thoroughly in Petitioners’ papers.
`
`As outlined above, all of the expert declarations and exhibits to which
`
`Janssen objects are highly relevant, and none unfairly prejudice Janssen. Janssen
`
`has not met its burden of demonstrating that the substance of any of these exhibits
`
`or declaration paragraphs merits exclusion under Federal Rules of Evidence 401,
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`402, or 403. The Board should deny Janssen’s motion to exclude.
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER THE EXHIBITS OBJECTED TO
`DUE TO LACK OF AUTHENTICITY AND HEARSAY
`
`Janssen moves to exclude certain exhibits Petitioners have already properly
`
`authenticated—Petitioners timely served supplemental evidence on Janssen on
`
`February 8, 2017, including declarations providing proper authentication for the
`
`objected-to exhibits (Ex. 1017 [B-1], 1028, 1048, 1049, 1053, 1055, 1057). See
`
`Exs. 1153–1154. Petitioners also timely serve supplemental evidence concurrently
`
`with this Opposition, properly authenticating all remaining exhibits Janssen objects
`
`to for lack of authenticity (Ex. 1088, 1092, 1095, 1117, 1125). See Exs. 1151–
`
`1152. All this evidence is now filed with the Board. Handi-Quilter v. Bernina,
`
`IPR2013-00364, Paper 30 at 2-3
`
`(allowing
`
`filing of previously-served
`
`supplemental evidence with opposition to motion to exclude).
`
`Janssen also moves to exclude Exhibits 1055, 1088, and 1095 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay. Beginning with Exhibit 1095, Janssen does not explain why
`
`Ex. 1095 purportedly constitutes hearsay. Janssen has therefore not carried its
`
`burden of showing that Ex. 1095 should be excluded, and its motion to exclude this
`
`exhibit should be denied. Nevertheless, Ex. 1095 (COU-AA-001 Synopsis) is not
`
`hearsay because (1) it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and
`
`(2) it is a party admission. Petitioners do not offer Ex. 1095 to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted—Dr. McKeague uses Ex. 1095 to highlight that a clinical trial
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`result Janssen publicly reported on clinicaltrials.gov conflicts with the number Dr.
`
`Rettig uses to advance his unexpected results argument. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); Ex.
`
`1091 ¶ 36. Ex. 1095 is also not hearsay because it is a party admission. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 801(d)(2).3
`
`Exhibit 1055 (Top 50 pharmaceutical products by global sales, reported by
`
`PMLiVE) falls within the market reports hearsay exception. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`803(17). At minimum, Ex. 1055 should be allowed under Fed. R. Evid. 703 as
`
`industry publications like Ex. 1055, and the IMS data underlying the publication,
`
`are widely relied upon by economists in the field—including Janssen’s commercial
`
`success expert, Dr. Vellturo. Nestle, 2016 WL 4366980, at *7–8; Fed. R. Evid.
`
`703; Ex. 2044 ¶ 64.
`
`
`
` 3
`
` Even if the Board finds that Ex. 1095 constitutes hearsay, it falls within the
`
`business record exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). And
`
`regardless, the Board should allow Ex. 1095 under Fed. R. Evid. 703. See, e.g.,
`
`Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., IPR2015-00249, 2016
`
`WL 4366980, at *7–9 (P.T.A.B. June 2, 2016) (allowing a hearsay exhibit because
`
`Rule 703 permits an expert to base an opinion on facts or data that an expert in the
`
`field would have reasonably relied upon).
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Finally, Ex. 1088 (BTG press release announcing Cougar license) is not
`
`hearsay because it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rather,
`
`Petitioners use this document to demonstrate that BTG represented to the public in
`
`2004, over two years before the priority date of the ’438 patent, that it had
`
`exclusively
`
`licensed abiraterone acetate
`
`to Janssen predecessor Cougar
`
`Biotechnology. Ex. 1134 ¶¶ 11–12, 15. Therefore, based in part on Ex. 1088,
`
`others would have understood that the ’213 patent blocked them from pursuing the
`
`alleged invention claimed in the patent at issue. Alternatively, Ex. 1088 falls
`
`within the party admission exemption4 and the business record exception to the
`
`hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2), 803(6).
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth above, Petitioners oppose Janssen’s motion to
`
`exclude, and Janssen’s motion should be denied.
`
`
`
` 4
`
` BTG has been added as an assignee to the ’438 patent in a related district court
`
`case involving the ’438 patent. Second Am. Compl., BTG Int’l Ltd. v. Actavis
`
`Labs. FL, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-05909 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2017), ECF No. 274.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Dated: May 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`Reg. No. 52,354
`Perkins Coie LLP
`700 13th St., NW, Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 654-6206
`E-mail: bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorney for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioners’ Opposition
`
`to Janssen’s Motion to Exclude was served electronically via email as follows:
`
`Patent Owners:
`
`Dianne B. Elderkin
`Barbara L. Mullin
`Ruben H. Munoz
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`JANS-ZYTIGA@akingump.com
`
`Todd L. Krause
`David T. Pritikin
`Bindu Donovan
`Paul J. Zegger
`Sidley Austin LLP
`ZytigaIPRTeam@sidley.com
`
`
`
`Petitioners:
`
`Samuel S. Park
`Jovial Wong
`Ryan B. Hauer
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`spark@winston.com
`jwong@winston.com
`rhauer@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`
`Attorney for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket