`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: November 27, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ACRUX DDS PTY LTD., ACRUX LIMITED, and
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. and
`VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-001901
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01429 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BASES FOR STRIKING EXHIBITS AND ARGUMENTS ......................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Significant Portions of Exhibits 1509-1511 Should Be Struck ............ 4
`
`B. Additional New Exhibits Should Be Struck.......................................... 9
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s New Argument Should Be Struck ...................................10
`
`III. RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................................13
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`In an end-run around the Office’s Rules, Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37;
`
`“Reply”) includes three new declarations, totaling nearly 50,000 additional words,
`
`and 162 further exhibits, amounting to over 5,000 new pages of information. The
`
`Reply does little to assist the Board in sifting through this data dump, because it
`
`improperly cites vast chunks of the declarations to support broad generalities rather
`
`than identifying specific arguments with particularity. In fact, large portions of the
`
`new declarations, and most of the new exhibits, are never cited at all in the Reply.
`
`Not only is Petitioner’s data dump prohibited by the Rules, it creates a
`
`misleading, bloated record that severely hinders the Board’s and Patent Owner’s
`
`ability to evaluate (or even discern) the arguments and evidence Petitioner intends
`
`to use in this proceeding. Petitioner relies on this evidence overload to raise a new
`
`legal theory that should have been in the Petition. If left in the record, the Federal
`
`Circuit will assume that the evidence was properly considered, when it had not,
`
`prejudicing Patent Owner.
`
`II. BASES FOR STRIKING EXHIBITS AND ARGUMENTS
`
`
`
`After the Board instituted trial, Patent Owner’s Response demonstrated
`
`various fatal flaws in the Petition. These included objective, real-world evidence of
`
`non-obviousness and Petitioner’s improper reliance on an expert lacking
`
`familiarity with methods of treating onychomycosis. In an attempt to overcome
`
`1
`
`
`
`these deficiencies, Petitioner improperly overwhelmed the record with new expert
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`declarations, numerous new exhibits, and a new legal theory to which Patent
`
`Owner will not have any opportunity to respond.
`
`
`
`To get this new material in the record, Petitioner’s Reply circumvents the
`
`word limit by pushing most of its evidence and argument into declarations that are
`
`not cited with particularity. Rather, Petitioner incorporates by reference into the
`
`Reply large sections of its declarations without explaining their specific relevance.
`
`Such incorporation of large and non-specific sections of declarations is a
`
`particularly egregious and Board-recognized violation of the rules. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3); see Elec. Arts Inc. v. Terminal Reality, Inc., IPR2016-00929,
`
`IPR2016-00930, No. 50, at 37 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2017) (finding that the petitioner’s
`
`citation of two expert declarations by citation to “Ex. 1003, 250-51; Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 4-
`
`22, 32,” did not provide a persuasive argument in its Reply regardless of the
`
`additional detail in the cited declarations).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s misuse of its new declarations does not stop there. Petitioner
`
`also uses the declarations as the sole vehicle for introducing most of its other new
`
`exhibits in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be
`
`incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). This
`
`indirect incorporation of exhibits is clearly contrary to the requirement to identify
`
`“specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge” and explain their
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`relevance with particularity in the Reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). The Board may
`
`exclude or give no weight to such vaguely cited evidence. Id.
`
`
`
`Moreover, a Reply may only respond to arguments raised in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response and not include new evidence that could have been presented earlier.
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”), 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (“[A]
`
`reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered
`
`and may be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper
`
`portions of the reply.”). Yet Petitioner raises a new legal theory and introduces a
`
`new supporting declaration to buttress the inadequacies of its original Petition.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s failure to comply with the rules damages the efficiency and
`
`integrity of this proceeding, prejudicing both the Board and Patent Owner. Both
`
`must now approach the final stages of this proceeding without any clear sense of
`
`how Petitioner intends to use its vast array of new evidence. In fact, during the
`
`Parties’ November 16 conference with the Board (“the Call”), Petitioner tacitly
`
`admitted as much, suggesting the Board should fill in the missing citations by
`
`lining up section headings between the Reply and corresponding, large sections of
`
`the declarations. Petitioner also suggested that the Board should determine the
`
`relevance of over a hundred vaguely or indirectly cited exhibits by reading all of
`
`them. That burden, however, rests with the Petitioner—not the Board or Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Further, Petitioner’s suggestion that the Board should review this extensive
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`
`
`collection of uncited evidence to reach their own conclusion in the Final Written
`
`Decision could lead to a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
`
`The APA requires that the patent owner be provided notice of the challenges
`
`against it and that the patent owner has sufficient opportunity to provide comment
`
`as to these challenges. 5 U.S.C. §§ 554(b)(3), (c). As the Federal Circuit explained,
`
`“[a] patent owner . . . is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to
`
`meet the grounds of rejection based on due-process and APA guarantees.”
`
`NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Where Patent Owner must guess at what arguments may be reached from
`
`thousands of pages of vaguely cited evidence, Patent Owner has not been afforded
`
`such notice and opportunity to respond.
`
`
`
`Clarifying the record by striking Petitioner’s evidence would remove the
`
`prejudice and burden on the Board and Patent Owner, and it would ensure the
`
`Board only considers evidence that had been appropriately evaluated before
`
`rendering a final decision.
`
`A.
`
`Significant Portions of Exhibits 1509-1511 Should Be Struck
`
`
`
`As a means to bypass the limits imposed on the Reply, Petitioner suggests
`
`that it may bootstrap additional arguments and evidence that it discusses nowhere
`
`but in its three new declarations without specifically explaining their use in the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Reply. Petitioner thereby strategically preserves for appeal vast amounts of
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`evidence for which it has not explained the intended use in the Reply.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1510 is a declaration by a new expert (Dr. Weinberg) that attempts to fill
`
`the void created by Petitioner’s original declarant, Dr. Walters, who is not one of
`
`skill in the art. Dr. Walter’s admitted expertise is in formulations (Ex. 2050 at
`
`14:5-15:15 and 47:1-19), but this is not a formulation patent. The Weinberg
`
`declaration (styled as a Rebuttal but actually used to compensate for the
`
`inadequacies Dr. Walters’ original testimony) runs to over 9,000 words and
`
`addresses arguments that Petitioner could not squeeze into the Reply.
`
`
`
`The Weinberg declaration most clearly demonstrates Petitioner’s end-run
`
`tactics. Only 4 out of the 77 paragraphs in the declaration are cited with any
`
`particularity. Reply at pp. 17 (citing ¶ 28), 19 (citing ¶ 64), 20 (citing ¶ 72), 20
`
`(citing ¶ 73). The remaining cited paragraphs are found in only four other
`
`sentences of the Reply that reference vast sections of Ex. 1510. See Reply at pp. 11
`
`(citing § VI.B), 14 (citing § VI.D), 20 (citing § X), 24 (citing § X). Incredibly,
`
`Petitioner seeks to incorporate thousands of words of arguments from the
`
`declaration into these few sentences of the Reply, expecting the Board and Patent
`
`Owner to guess at their applicability.
`
`
`
`For example, page 20 of the Reply cites “Ex. 1510, § X,” which spans
`
`twelve paragraphs, for the modest statement that Jublia®’s efficacy is allegedly
`
`5
`
`
`
`incremental over Penlac’s. But Section X of Ex. 1510 is broadly directed to
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`“Secondary Considerations” and describes opinions well beyond Penlac’s efficacy.
`
`Thus, it is not at all clear whether and how Petitioner relies on additional
`
`arguments and evidence from § X of Ex. 1510 on page 20 of the Reply.
`
`
`
`More egregious, the Reply does not even cite 53 of the 77 paragraphs in
`
`Ex. 1510. Petitioner asks the Board to read those paragraphs back into its Reply
`
`without any guidance as to their particular relevance or applicability. Apparently,
`
`Petitioner expects the Board and Patent Owner to bear that burden.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s data dump continues in Exs. 1509 and 1511. Ex. 1509 is Dr.
`
`Walters’ second declaration with almost 19,000 words. Yet only 5 of 134
`
`paragraphs are specifically cited in Ex. 1509. Otherwise, the Reply cites almost
`
`exclusively to large sections of Ex. 1509 without any specificity. See Reply at pp. 5
`
`(citing §§ VIII-X), 8 (citing §VII; § XIII), 9 (citing §§ IV.C., XII-XIII; § IX), 10
`
`(citing § IV.B), 11 (citing §§ IV.B-C; § IV.C; § XIII), 12 (citing §§ V, VI; § V), 13
`
`(citing § V; §§ VIII-X), 15 (citing § IX; §§ V, IX), 15-16 (citing § IX), 17 (citing §
`
`XIII), 24 (citing § VII). Even then, approximately one-third (45 of 134
`
`paragraphs) of the Exhibit are never cited at all.
`
`
`
`For example, the Reply at page 9 cites “Ex. 1509, §§ IV.C., XII-XIII,”
`
`which is three different sections of Dr. Walter’s declaration spanning eighteen
`
`pages with widely-ranging headings, respectively entitled “Dr. Elewski’s Attacks
`
`6
`
`
`
`on the Hay Reference are Baseless,” “Efinaconazole was Already a Known Potent
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`Topical Antifungal Compound by 1999,” and “POSAs were Motivated to Treat
`
`Onychomycosis Topically with Potent Antifungal Agents such as Efinaconazole.”
`
`Petitioner allegedly cites this enormous portion of Ex. 1509 to support the assertion
`
`that JP ’639 combined with other art would have motivated a POSA to use
`
`efinaconazole for its known properties. Reply at p. 9. The generality of Petitioner’s
`
`argument, and the non-particularity of the corresponding citation to Ex. 1509, does
`
`little to direct the Board to exactly what “known properties” or other factors the
`
`Petitioner believes motivated the proposed combination.
`
`
`
`In another example, page 13 of the Reply cites “Ex. 1509, §§ VIII-X,”
`
`spanning fifteen pages, to support the generalization that efinaconazole’s
`
`properties are uniquely suited for topical treatment. But the Reply does not explain
`
`what properties those are and why they would have been expected to be beneficial
`
`for topical treatment, or how to even find Petitioner’s arguments about those points
`
`buried in Dr. Walters’ declaration. The Board is expected instead to wade through
`
`fifteen pages of the declaration to try and guess at the details themselves.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1511, a declaration of Mr. John Staines, continues this pattern. It is over
`
`22,000 words long and again 31 of its 77 paragraphs are never cited in the Reply.
`
`When Petitioner does cite Ex. 1511, it once again does so in sweeping sections that
`
`provide little assistance to the Board in lining up the declaration with the
`
`7
`
`
`
`arguments in the Reply. See Reply at pp. 21-22 (citing ¶¶ 20-54), 22 (citing ¶¶ 26-
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`47; ¶¶ 12-17, 53), 23 (citing ¶¶ 61-71). For example, page 22 of the Reply
`
`summarily concludes that the economic analysis provided by Patent Owner’s
`
`expert, Mr. Thomas, is “flawed” and “when appropriately adjusted, leads to the
`
`opposite conclusion.” To support this incredibly vague statement, the Reply cites
`
`paragraphs 20-54 of Ex. 1511. Petitioner leaves it to the Board and Patent Owner
`
`to figure out how to link up more than fifty pages of detailed analysis in the
`
`declaration with a conclusory statement in the Reply.
`
`
`
`Similarly, page 22 of the Reply asserts that “[c]onsidering appropriately-
`
`adjusted publicly-available net sales information, Jublia® is not a commercial
`
`success.” To support this bald conclusion, the Reply broadly cites paragraphs 26-
`
`47 of Ex. 1511, but provides virtually no explanation of this “publicly-available net
`
`sales information” or how it would be appropriately adjust that information. So to
`
`gain any insight, Petitioner expects the Board to root around for an explanation in
`
`the twenty-plus cited paragraphs of the declaration.
`
`
`
`In short, the non-specific citations to large chunks of Exs. 1509-1511 do
`
`little to clarify Petitioner’s conclusory assertions in the Reply. Worse yet, that
`
`information would stay in the record and, on appeal, the Federal Circuit would
`
`assume it had been considered, further prejudicing Patent Owner. See In re
`
`NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d at 971.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Incredibly, Petitioner suggested during the recent Call that Patent Owner’s
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`
`
`Response justifies the submission of new expert testimony that is not explained
`
`with particularity in the Reply.2 Yet Petitioner did not request additional space for
`
`its Reply. Instead, it offered a data dump and a post-hoc rationale to justify
`
`violating the practice rules. Petitioner should not be allowed to flood the record
`
`with uncited information that could obfuscate the evidence actually relied upon by
`
`the parties and useful for the Board in reaching a final written decision.
`
`B. Additional New Exhibits Should Be Struck
`
`
`
`Beyond the three new declarations, Petitioner also filed a further 162 new
`
`exhibits (for a total of 165) but cited just 10 of these in the Reply. On its face, this
`
`conduct violates 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). And to the extent Petitioner attempts to
`
`rely on citations of these Exhibits in its new declarations, such incorporation by
`
`reference is likewise improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`
`
`Indeed, rather than explaining the relevance of these exhibits in the Reply,
`
`Petitioner again reverts to Exs. 1509-1511 to do the heavy lifting. Petitioner simply
`
`ignored the rules governing the integrity of this proceeding and dumped
`
`voluminous evidence that it cited only indirectly. The Board should therefore reject
`
`
`2 Patent Owner cited to its own declarations with much more specificity in its
`Patent Owner Response. Indeed, Petitioner never objected to Patent Owner’s
`citations until challenged on its improper Reply. Any such objection has been
`waived.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s tactics and preserve Patent Owner’s notice of and a fair opportunity to
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`meet the grounds of rejection only as outlined expressly in the Reply. NuVasive,
`
`841 F.3d at 971.
`
`
`
`On the Call, Petitioner argued that this is a complicated IPR requiring a
`
`“thorough and comprehensive” response. But there are no exceptions to the rule for
`
`“complicated IPRs.” Whether these exhibits are otherwise relevant is beside the
`
`point. Petitioner has not provided context for the exhibits in its Reply. The Board
`
`should not fill in the missing material for Petitioner or guess about its relevance.
`
`Indeed, of the new exhibits, the Reply does not even incorporate by reference
`
`twenty of them, because it fails to even cite sections of the three declarations that
`
`do reference those twenty exhibits. Thus, Petitioner chose not to rely on these
`
`exhibits in any manner. The remaining exhibits are cited only in the declarations
`
`(with the exception of the ten mentioned previously).
`
`
`
`The Board should strike Petitioner’s improper inclusion of these new
`
`exhibits. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3), 42.104(b)(5). Otherwise, the Federal Circuit will
`
`assume the Board has considered every last one of the more than 5,000 pages of
`
`additional evidence that Petitioner never bothered to explain at all in its Reply.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s New Argument Should Be Struck
`
`
`
`The Reply also errs by introducing a new argument based on Exs. 1007 and
`
`1505 that could have been properly raised in its Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b);
`
`10
`
`
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`Cir. 2016) (“Unlike district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to
`
`revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered
`
`material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to
`
`make their case in their petition to institute.”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues in its Reply that earlier Kaken patents (Exs. 1007 and
`
`1505) are genus patents covering the use efinaconazole in treating mycosis.
`
`Petitioner concludes for the first time in the Reply that it would be obvious to use
`
`efinaconazole in treating a species of mycosis—onychomycosis— based on the
`
`generic disclosure of treating any type of mycosis in Exs. 1007 and 1505.
`
`Petitioner concludes that these earlier patents allegedly undermine evidence of
`
`commercial success for Jublia®, the marketed topical efinaconazole product for
`
`treating onychomycosis (see Reply at p. 9).
`
`
`
`The Petition did not suggest, and the Board did not institute a trial on, any
`
`grounds of rejection using this legal theory. Indeed, Petitioner previously argued
`
`that the disclosure of data on treating other mycosis, plus a suggestion to treat
`
`onychomycosis, was not sufficient to support Patent Owner’s priority claim. See
`
`Pet. at pp. 16-17. And, despite arguing lack of secondary considerations in its
`
`Petition, Petitioner only now argues in the Reply that Exs. 1007 and 1505 are
`
`11
`
`
`
`blocking patents that prevent a finding of commercial success. Reply at pp. 3, 6,
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`12, 19.
`
`
`
`To be clear, Petitioner knew about these exhibits when it filed its Petition,
`
`because it cited at least one of them at the time. Pet. at pp. 10-11 (citing Ex. 1007).
`
`But Petitioner strategically chose not to rely on these patents in its obviousness
`
`analyses or in its secondary consideration theories in the Petition, likely because it
`
`conflicted with another of Petitioner’s arguments regarding Patent Owner’s
`
`claimed priority date. Pet. at pp. 16-17. Now that Petitioner is relying less on its
`
`priority argument, Petitioner flips to a new, inconsistent position. Reply at p. 9.
`
`Having waited for Patent Owner to exhaust its opportunity to attack Petitioner’s
`
`positions, it cannot now pivot to make contradictory arguments for the first time in
`
`the Reply.
`
`
`
`Portions of the Reply related to those arguments should therefore be
`
`stricken. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367-68
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (generic citation of exhibits in Petition not adequate to justify later
`
`reliance on other portions of exhibits to support new legal theories in Petitioner
`
`Reply). Patent Owner was not provided adequate notice of these arguments and has
`
`not had any opportunity to reply to them.
`
`12
`
`
`
`III. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, Patent Owner moves to strike evidence and
`
`argument from the Reply as improper under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3), 42.23(b),
`
`42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(5):
`
`First, portions of Petitioner’s new expert declarations should be struck:
`
`• Exhibit 1510: Ex. 1510 should be struck in its entirety because it only
`
`cures deficiencies in the Petition and presents arguments and evidence
`
`that should have been introduced with that Petition. In the alternative,
`
`paragraphs 1-27, 29-33, 37-38, 46-62, and 76-77 should be struck as
`
`Petitioner elected not to rely on these paragraphs in the Reply.
`
`Paragraphs 34-36, 39-45, 53, 65-71, and 74-75 should also be struck
`
`as the Reply only cites them in bulk form without particularity and
`
`improperly incorporates these arguments by reference.
`
`• Exhibit 1509: Paragraphs 1-27, 30-31, 107-114, and 127-134 should
`
`be struck because Petitioner never relied on them in the Reply.
`
`Paragraphs 32-33, 35-47, 49-106, and 116-126 should also be struck
`
`because the Reply only cites them in bulk form without particularity
`
`and improperly incorporates these arguments by reference.
`
`• Exhibit 1511: Paragraphs 1-11, 18-19, 55-60, and 72-77 should be
`
`struck as Petitioner never relied on these paragraphs in the Reply.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Paragraphs 12-17, 20, 23-48, 54, and 61-71 should also be struck
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`because the Reply only cites them in bulk form without particularity
`
`and improperly incorporates these arguments by reference.
`
`Second, Exs. 1512 and 1514-1660 should be struck:
`
`• Exs. 1514, 1518-1520, 1522-1549, 1551-1561, 1566-1569, 1571-
`
`1605, 1608-1623, 1636, and 1638-1651 should be struck as Petitioner
`
`never relied on these exhibits in the Reply. Petitioner only cited them
`
`in parts of Exs. 1509-1511 that were, in turn, cited in the Reply only
`
`in bulk form. In addition, the Reply provides no specificity as what
`
`evidence from these exhibits is incorporated, through the expert
`
`declarations, into the Reply. See Reply at pp. 5, 8-17, 19-24.
`
`• Exs. 1515-1517, 1550, 1562-1565, 1570, and 1652-1657 should be
`
`struck as Petitioner never relied on these exhibits in the Reply.
`
`Petitioner only cited them in Ex. 1511. Although these exhibits are in
`
`paragraphs of Ex. 1511 that Patent Owner is not moving to strike, the
`
`Reply improperly provides no specificity as to what evidence is
`
`incorporated from the exhibits, through Ex. 1511, into the Reply. See
`
`Reply at pp. 21-23.
`
`• Exs. 1512, 1521, 1606-1607, 1624-1634, and 1658-1660 should be
`
`struck as Petitioner never relied on these exhibits in the Reply. These
`
`14
`
`
`
`exhibits are not cited in any paragraph of Petitioner’s new
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`declarations, Exs. 1509-1511.
`
`• Exs. 1635 and 1637 should be struck because they are not cited in any
`
`document, including the Reply and Exs. 1509-1511.
`
`
`
`Third, portions of the Reply that present new legal theories in violation of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b) should be struck. Reply at p. 3, ¶ 3; id. at p. 6, third bullet point;
`
`id. at p. 9, ¶ 2, second sentence; id. at p. 12, ll. 1-3; id. at p. 19, ¶ 1; Ex. 1509 at ¶
`
`29; and Ex. 1505.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Reply and the evidence submitted therewith represent a
`
`flagrant effort to avoid the practice rules clearly limiting the scope of the Reply
`
`and, as described above, Petitioner’s evidence should be struck.
`
`Date: November 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
` / John D. Livingstone /
`John D. Livingstone, Reg. No. 59, 613
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2017-00190
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Strike was served electronically via email on November 27, 2017, in its
`
`entirety on the following:
`
`E. Anthony Figg
`Aydin H. Harston
`Lisa N. Phillips
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`efigg@rothwellfigg.com
`aharston@rothwellfigg.com
`lphillips@rothwellfigg.com
`litigationparalegals@rothwellfigg.com
`
`Teresa Stanek Rea
`Shannon M. Lentz
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20004-2595
`trea@crowell.com
`slentz@crowell.com
`
`Tyler C. Liu
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`tliu@agpharm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / John D. Livingstone /
`John D. Livingstone
`Reg. No. 59,613
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
