throbber
Filed on behalf of: Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: October 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICAL LLC,
`AND WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
`Petitioners
`v.
`NOVARTIS AG
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`Case IPR2016-014791
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`_______________________
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Argentum Pharmaceutical LLC was joined as a party to this proceeding via a
`Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01063; West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International
`Limited was joined as a party via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01078.
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Board should deny Novartis’s motion to exclude as a thinly
`veiled second sur-reply .................................................................................... 2
`The Board should deny Novartis’s motion to exclude Dr. Ratain’s
`Declarations ..................................................................................................... 3
`III. The Board should deny Novartis’s motion to exclude paragraphs and
`exhibits not cited in the Reply ......................................................................... 9
`IV. Novartis’s catch-all fails to identify any objections or evidence or
`otherwise demonstrate anything should be excluded .................................... 10
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`Novartis continually flouts the substantive and procedural rules established
`
`by statute, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Board’s Practice Guide. After
`
`filing a six-page sur-reply to identify allegedly new arguments included in
`
`Petitioners’ reply, Novartis spends an additional six pages in this motion making
`
`new arguments on the merits. (Paper 35 (“Mot.”) 9-15.) The Board should deny
`
`Novartis’s procedurally and substantively deficient motion to exclude, which is
`
`largely a de facto second sur-reply.
`
`Novartis moves to exclude three categories of evidence. First, Novartis
`
`moves to exclude both of Dr. Ratain’s declarations under FRE 702. (Mot. 2-6.)
`
`Novartis merely rehashes its previous arguments attacking Dr. Ratain’s testimony.
`
`(POR 4-7.) Novartis again attempts to narrowly define the scope of relevant
`
`testimony, but Dr. Ratain’s expertise and testimony is helpful to the factfinder in
`
`analyzing the subject matter of the challenged claims. Second, Novartis seeks to
`
`exclude paragraphs and exhibits not explicitly cited in a brief as incorporating
`
`arguments by reference. Yet Novartis does not identify a single argument
`
`impermissibly incorporated in Petitioners’ briefs because none were. Many of
`
`these paragraphs are transitions or summaries in Dr. Ratain’s declarations. Finally,
`
`Novartis includes a vague and generic request to exclude evidence that does not
`
`appear in instituted grounds but is used to establish prima facie obviousness.
`
`Novartis does not identify any such evidence in its motion, failing to meet the basic
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.22. For all these reasons, Novartis fails to establish
`
`that any evidence should be excluded.
`
`I.
`
`The Board should deny Novartis’s motion to exclude as a thinly veiled
`second sur-reply
`The Board should deny Novartis’ motion rather than reward Novartis’s
`
`repeated efforts to engage in self-help to garner additional briefing on the merits,
`
`encouraging future parties to do the same. To be clear, Novartis’s arguments
`
`regarding its own expert’s testimony seek to bolster its as-filed Response,
`
`impermissibly taking another shot at the merits of the petition. Liberty Mut. Ins. v.
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins., No. CBM2012-00002, Paper No. 66 at 62 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23,
`
`2014). Novartis has essentially granted itself leave to file a motion for
`
`observations for its own expert testimony to present arguments for a second sur-
`
`reply.
`
`A motion to exclude is not a motion for observations on the testimony of a
`
`party’s own expert or an opportunity to present additional substantive arguments.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62(a), 42.64(c). To present such substantive argument,
`
`Novartis required Board permission—permission Novartis lacks. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,767-68 (Aug. 14, 2012.) (opposing party must seek permission to file
`
`motion for observations); see also, e.g., Torrent Pharm. Ltd. v. Novartis AG, No.
`
`IPR2014-00784, Paper No. 112 at 49 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 24, 2015). Indeed,
`
`Novartis’s counsel cannot claim that it is unaware of the requirement to seek Board
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`permission before making such substantive arguments, particularly here, where
`
`Novartis already sought permission to file a limited sur-reply. Paper 26; Paper 28;
`
`see also Berk-Tek v. Belden, No. IPR2013-00057, Paper No. 46 at 43-44 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 18, 2014) (granting permission to address issue in motion to exclude), aff’d,
`
`805 F.3d 1064, 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. L.P. v.
`
`Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Belden).
`
`Moreover, FRE 106, invoked by Novartis, does not authorize Novartis to
`
`make such substantive arguments. FRE 106 provides that “[i]f a party introduces
`
`all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the
`
`introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded
`
`statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.” (Emphasis
`
`added.) The full transcripts of Dr. Kulke’s testimony are already in the record (Ex.
`
`1070; Ex. 1095), and no “other part” of the transcripts needs to be “introduced.”
`
`Further, FRE 106 “provides a basis for including, rather than excluding, evidence.”
`
`Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Sec. Prods. Inc., No. IPR2016-00892, Paper No. 35 at
`
`68-69 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 28, 2017). As such, Novartis’s substantive arguments
`
`presented under the guise of FRE 106 should be disregarded.
`
`II. The Board should deny Novartis’s motion to exclude Dr. Ratain’s
`Declarations
`In its Response, Novartis sought to require that the relevant subject matter of
`
`the ’224 patent be narrowly drawn specifically to exclude the strong testimony
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`from Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Ratain. (POR 4-7.) To that end, Novartis presented
`
`testimony from its expert, Dr. Kulke, that a POSA would have “experience
`
`conducting preclinical, clinical, and/or laboratory research relating to NETs,
`
`including PNETs.” (Ex. 2041, ¶ 22.) Novartis now seeks to elevate the level of
`
`skill even beyond what its expert opined because Dr. Ratain demonstrated that he
`
`had “experience conducting preclinical, clinical, and/or laboratory research relating
`
`to NETs, including PNETs.” (See Reply 2-4.) Novartis’s arguments should be
`
`rejected for at least three reasons: (1) no evidence supports Novartis’s new
`
`requirements for a POSA first articulated in its motion to exclude; (2) Dr. Ratain
`
`has the experience Dr. Kulke testified qualifies as a “specialist” in NETs; and
`
`(3) even if Dr. Ratain would not qualify as a POSA (although he does), Dr.
`
`Ratain’s expertise provides useful insight into the perspective of a POSA that is
`
`helpful to the factfinder.
`
`Novartis argues that “[s]pecialized expertise with PNET treatment thus is a
`
`necessary element of any expert’s qualifications in this proceeding.” (Mot. 3.)
`
`Novartis fails to cite anything for such a proposition. (Id.) This is unsurprising as
`
`Novartis’s expert only opined that a POSA would have “experience . . . relating to
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`NETs, including PNETs.” 2 (Ex. 2041, ¶ 22 (emphasis added).) Dr. Kulke never
`
`offered the opinion that a POSA would have “specialized expertise with PNET
`
`treatment.” In fact, Dr. Kulke testified that “PNETs are treated in North America
`
`by medical oncologists” and admitted that even specialists outside of medical
`
`oncology could possess the level of skill for a POSA. (Ex. 1070, 43:20-46:16.)
`
`Dr. Kulke further acknowledged that not all doctors who treat NETs have research
`
`experience in NETs nor are all NETs treated by doctors specializing in NETs. (Id.
`
`47:6-25.) Dr. Kulke’s standard for the level of experience “relating to NETs,
`
`including PNETS” is far broader than Novartis now seeks to impose. The record
`
`does not support Novartis’s new standard for the qualifications of a POSA
`
`articulated for the first time in its motion to exclude.
`
`Even if Novartis’s new standard is applied, Dr. Ratain meets Dr. Kulke’s
`
`standard for “specializing” in NETs. Dr. Kulke testified that doctors “specializing”
`
`in NETs would have “some experience in treating patients with these tumors and
`
`an interest in treating patients with these tumors.” (Ex. 1070, 46:17-47:5.) He
`
`
`2 Dr. Kulke’s opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art appear to be a
`
`moving target. In the related district court litigation, Dr. Kulke opined that a
`
`POSA did not necessarily have specific experience relating to NETs. (See Ex.
`
`1119, ¶ 8.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`further acknowledged that “expertise could include many aspects of NET
`
`knowledge and experience,” including analysis of clinical data on the treatment of
`
`NETs. (Id. 51:8-18.) Dr. Kulke also acknowledged that experience related to
`
`carcinoids could be relevant to PNETs. (Id. 52:13-16.) Dr. Ratain testified that he
`
`has enrolled NET patients on clinical trials3 and has extensive experience in the
`
`treatment of solid tumors, a category of tumors that includes NETs and PNETs,
`
`and cell signaling pathways, such as mTOR, which are similarly related to treating
`
`NETs and PNETs. (See Ex. 1119, ¶¶ 9-12.) Dr. Ratain has further published on
`
`the treatment of NETs, analyzing clinical trial data to reflect on treatment efficacy
`
`and clinical trial design. (Id. ¶ 12.) Such experiences certainly qualify as
`
`possessing “some experience in treating patients with these tumors and an interest
`
`in treating patients with these tumors.” (See Ex. 1070, 46:17-47:5 (emphasis
`
`added).)
`
`
`3 Novartis alleges that Dr. Ratain “has not cited any evidence” of his experience in
`
`treating patients having NETs or PNETs. (Mot. 4 & n.1.) Dr. Ratain’s sworn
`
`testimony regarding his professional experience is evidence. Black’s Law
`
`Dictionary, available at thelawdictionary.org (stating definition of “legal evidence”
`
`is “testimony that is allowed to be presented during a trial”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`Finally, Novartis’s argument should be rejected because Novartis applies the
`
`wrong standard for excluding testimony under the considerations of Daubert or
`
`FRE 702. Initially, “[t]he policy considerations for excluding expert testimony,
`
`such as those . . . established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), are less compelling in bench proceedings such
`
`as inter partes reviews than in jury trials.” Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v.
`
`Steuben Foods, Inc., No. IPR2015-00249, Paper No. 76 at 23 (P.T.A.B. June 2,
`
`2016). The experienced Board does not require any gatekeeping to protect it from
`
`being confused or misled by Dr. Ratain’s testimony. E.g., Seaboard Lumber Co. v.
`
`United States, 308 F.3d 1283, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Board is capable of
`
`assessing Dr. Ratain’s (and Dr. Kulke’s) testimony and the relied upon art to
`
`discern whether the proffered opinions are supported and reasonable. Novartis’s
`
`reliance on Daubert does not support excluding Dr. Ratain’s declarations.
`
`Novartis’s citation to FRE 702 also does not support excluding Dr. Ratain’s
`
`declarations. Dr. Ratain has “sufficient technical expertise for the [] court to allow
`
`him to testify.” S.E.B. S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). “[T]he relevant inquiry regarding whether an expert should be
`
`allowed to provide testimony . . . is not whether she is a POSA, but instead
`
`whether the expert’s ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, [and] education . . . is
`
`likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.” Teva Neuroscience,
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`Inc. v. Watson Pharma, Inc., Nos. 10-5078, 11-3076, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`66862, at *12 (D.N.J. May 10, 2013), citing S.E.B., 594 F.3d at 1371; Mytee
`
`Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(allowing testimony from expert who did not qualify as a POSA because he “had
`
`experience relevant to the field of the invention”). “In determining who is
`
`‘qualified in the pertinent art’ under FRE 702, [the court] need not find a complete
`
`overlap between the witness’s technical qualifications and the problems
`
`confronting the inventors or the field of endeavor for a witness to qualify as an
`
`expert.” Captioncall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., No. IPR2015-00636, Paper No. 97 at 9
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 7, 2016). The “pertinent art,” as defined by the ’224 patent
`
`specification, includes “the use of mTOR inhibitors in neuroendocrine tumor
`
`treatment.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:4-5.) Indeed, the ’224 patent specification discusses
`
`mTOR inhibitors and their use as anticancer agents, generally, in discussing the
`
`background of the alleged invention. (Id. 1:6-2:40.) Further, Novartis initially
`
`characterized the alleged invention as simply relating “specifically to a new use of
`
`mTOR inhibitors,” in each of the seven provisional applications filed in the ’224
`
`patent family. (E.g., Ex. 1002 at 382, 409, 432, 453, 480, 508, 535.) Thus, as the
`
`’224 inventors acknowledged, the field of the invention relates to the use of mTOR
`
`inhibitors as anticancer agents.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`Here, Dr. Ratain has significant relevant expertise in the development of
`
`drugs for the treatment of solid tumors and in the use of mTOR inhibitors as
`
`anticancer agents. (E.g., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 2-11; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1119, ¶¶ 7-12.) This
`
`expertise is certainly “relevant to the field of the invention,” i.e., the use of mTOR
`
`inhibitors as anticancer agents for the treatment of NETs, including PNETs, and
`
`Dr. Ratain is thus qualified in the “pertinent art.” Husky Injection Molding Sys.
`
`Ltd. v. Plastics Eng’g & Tech. Srvs., Inc., No. IPR2016-00431, Paper No. 11 at 23
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 24, 2016), citing Mytee Prods., 439 F. App’x at 886-87 and
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008).
`
`III. The Board should deny Novartis’s motion to exclude paragraphs and
`exhibits not cited in the Reply
`Novartis seeks to exclude portions of expert testimony and exhibits cited by
`
`Petitioners’ experts that are not directly cited in Petitioners’ Petition or Reply,
`
`contending that “[i]t is apparent” that Petitioners improperly incorporated
`
`arguments by reference or failed to fully explain the cited evidence. (Mot. 6-8.)
`
`Novartis does not even attempt to allege any specific instance where the
`
`Petition or Reply improperly incorporated arguments, but merely states it must be
`
`so because the Petition and Reply brief’s word counts are close to the limit. (Mot.
`
`7.) Novartis cannot be allowed to abuse the process by filing a deficient motion in
`
`an attempt to require Petitioners to spend pages and pages justifying every citation
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`in its briefs. Furthermore, there is no requirement to directly cite every exhibit used
`
`by expert witnesses to form their considered opinions or to cite each paragraph of
`
`an expert declaration, even those included for context such as the overall summary
`
`and conclusion (e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22-30, 93, 109, 124; Ex. 1119 ¶¶ 17-25), topic
`
`summaries and transitions (e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 1-19, 50-52, 68; Ex. 1119 ¶¶ 26, 48,
`
`53), and so forth.
`
`In addition, Novartis does not contend that any of the complained-of
`
`material is not admissible. Incorporation by reference is not grounds for excluding
`
`the evidence, but as demonstrated by the two institution decisions Novartis cites, it
`
`goes to the evidence’s weight. (Mot. 7-8 (citing, e.g., Hamilton Beach Brands v.
`
`Courtesy Prods., No. IPR2014-01260, Paper No. 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015)
`
`(refusing to give any weight to bare citations without any explanation)).)
`
`IV. Novartis’s catch-all fails to identify any objections or evidence or
`otherwise demonstrate anything should be excluded
`Without pointing to any specific exhibits, Novartis seeks to exclude “any
`
`evidence” that does not appear in the instituted grounds. The Board should deny
`
`Novartis’s flagrantly deficient motion because Novartis failed to meet any
`
`requirements for a motion to exclude: it failed to point to and explain any timely
`
`raised objections “identify[ing] the grounds for the objection with sufficient
`
`particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence” because
`
`there are none (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), (c)); it failed to include any explanation,
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`much less the required detailed explanation, of any particular evidence and
`
`material facts at issue or the relief requested (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20, 42.22); and it
`
`failed to demonstrate that any of the unidentified evidence was not properly
`
`submitted in reply to Novartis’s own arguments.
`
`V. Conclusion
`For the above reasons, the Board should deny Novartis’s motion to exclude.
`
`Dated: October 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Daniel G. Brown/
`By:
`Daniel G. Brown (Reg. No. 54,005)
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`212-906-1200; 212-751-4864 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`/Kevin Laurence/
`By:
`Kevin Laurence (Reg. No. 38,219)
`Laurence & Phillips IP Law LLP
`1940 Duke Street, Suite 200
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`703-448-8787
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Argentum Pharmaceutical LLC
`
`/Keith A. Zullow/
`By:
`Keith A. Zullow (Reg. No. 37,975)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`212-813-8846; 646-558-4226 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`West-Ward Pharmaceuticals
`International Limited
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 10th day of October,
`
`2017, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION
`
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served by electronic
`
`mail on Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel at the following email address:
`
`Nicholas N. Kallas (Reg. No. 31,530)
`Charlotte Jacobsen (pro hac vice)
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`
`Peter J. Waibel (Reg. No. 43,228)
`Gregory D. Ferraro (Reg. No. 36,134)
`NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION
`One Health Plaza, Bldg. 430
`East Hanover, NJ 07936-1080
`Tel. 862-778-7838
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Daniel G. Brown/
`
`Daniel G. Brown (Reg. No. 54,005)
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`212-906-1200; 212-751-4864 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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