Nasri Hage
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Dear Aydin, 
`
`Hartmann, Anthony <anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com>
`Friday, August 18, 2017 1:09 PM
`Aydin Harston; E. Anthony Figg; LITIGATION PARALEGALS
`KakenIPR; Livingstone, John; toan.vo@bausch.com; Yoshida, Naoki
`RE: ACRUX DDS PTY LTD. & ACRUX LIMITED v. KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
`Case IPR2017-00190
`
`Further to our email, we consulted with our client about Petitioner’s request for additional discovery regarding 
`“marketing spend” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2).  We do not agree to your request for additional discovery. 
`
`Regards, 
`Tony 
`
`Anthony A. Hartmann
`Of Counsel
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001-4413
`+1 202 408 4275 | fax +1 202 408 4400 | anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com | www.finnegan.com
`
`From: Hartmann, Anthony
`Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 2:28 PM
`To: 'Aydin Harston'; E. Anthony Figg; LITIGATION PARALEGALS
`Cc: KakenIPR; Livingstone, John; toan.vo@bausch.com; Yoshida, Naoki
`Subject: RE: ACRUX DDS PTY LTD. & ACRUX LIMITED v. KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. Case IPR2017-00190
`
`Dear Aydin, 
`
`“US_ _ _ 20170531(2).xlsx” and “012617 Jublia 4mEq Commercial Market Comparison.xlsx” are Exhibit 2095 and Exhibit 
`2093, respectively.  Accordingly, Patent Owner has provided the information upon which Exhibit 2098 and Exhibit 2099 
`are “based on.”  All information that Mr. Thomas has relied on has been produced to Petitioners.  Patent Owner believes 
`that it has complied with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1).  
`
`As to your request for additional discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) regarding “marketing spend,” we will consider 
`your request with our client. 
`
`Regards, 
`Tony 
`
`Anthony A. Hartmann
`Of Counsel
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001-4413
`+1 202 408 4275 | fax +1 202 408 4400 | anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com | www.finnegan.com
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`ACRUX DDS PTY LTD. et al.
`EXHIBIT 1666
`IPR Petition for
`U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506
`
`

`

`From: Aydin Harston [mailto:aharston@rothwellfigg.com]
`Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 1:16 PM
`To: Hartmann, Anthony; E. Anthony Figg; LITIGATION PARALEGALS
`Cc: KakenIPR; Livingstone, John; toan.vo@bausch.com; Yoshida, Naoki
`Subject: ACRUX DDS PTY LTD. & ACRUX LIMITED v. KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. Case IPR2017-00190
`
`Dear Tony, 
`
`  I write to request that PO provide “US_ _ _ 20170531(2).xlsx” and “012617 Jublia 4mEq Commercial Market 
`Comparison.xlsx,” in addition to any other document or information underlying the preparation of Exhibits 2093‐2095 
`and 2098‐2099, to Petitioners immediately.  PO’s commercial success expert, Mr. Vincent A. Thomas, has relied upon 
`Exhibits 2098 and 2099 in his analysis.  According to Mr. Thomas’ Declaration, these exhibits are “based on” the 
`underlying documents which were not provided with the POR.  See EX. 2028, n.3‐4 (Exhibit 2098 is “based on US_ _ _ 
`20170531(2).xlsx” and Exhibit 2099 is “based on 012617 Jublia 4mEq Commercial Market Comparison.xlsx.)  In light of 
`the fact that the witness himself states the exhibits he relied upon in order to form his opinions are “based on” some 
`other withheld information, Petitioners request the specified spread sheets be provided immediately, as well as any 
`other as yet withheld document or information either used in the preparation of Exhibits 2093‐2095 and 2098‐2099 or 
`relied upon by Mr. Thomas in forming his opinions (either directly or indirectly).  37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(i).   
`
`  In addition, given Mr. Thomas’ testimony that “the marketing spend for Jublia is consistent with other companies’ 
`advertising costs on comparable branded topical onychomycosis treatments such as Lamisil (more than $100 million in 
`advertising to date) and Penlac (more than 10 million annually)” (EX. 2028, ¶25), Petitioners request PO provide a 
`document or documents sufficient to show the quarterly total of the marketing spend attributable to Jublia from the 4th 
`quarter of 2013 (just prior to Jublia’s launch) through the 2nd quarter of 2017.  37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(ii). 
`
`  As it is Petitioners’ position that this information qualifies as routine discovery and/or information that is inconsistent 
`with the positions taken by the declarant under the Board rules, it should have been provided with the POR.  If PO 
`refuses to provide the information, please let us know your availability for a meet‐and‐confer to discuss these issues.  In 
`the absence of an agreement, Petitioners intend to contact the Board to request authorization to file a motion to obtain 
`the information.     
`
`Thank you, 
`
`Aydin H. Harston, Ph.D. 
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck PC 
`607 14th Street, NW; Suite 800 
`Washington, DC 20005 
`ph: 202-783-6040 
`fax: 202-783-6031 
`www.rfem.com 
`
`The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and
`may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of
`this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck P.C. immediately at (202) 783-6040 or
`email us at aharston@rfem.com, and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
`
`This e-mail message is intended only for individual(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise
`exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you believe you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by return e-mail and delete it from
`your mailbox. Thank you.
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`