`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Paper __
`Filed: December 22, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ACRUX DDS PTY LTD., ACRUX LIMITED,
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. and
`VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-001901
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`_______________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`BY PATENT OWNER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01429 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`PARAGRAPHS 9-11 AND 20-30 OF EXHIBIT 2028 SHOULD
`BE EXCLUDED .............................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Mr. Thomas’s Opinions Should Be Excluded as Unreliable
`Because They Ignore Relevant Facts .................................................... 3
`
`B. Mr. Thomas’s Opinions Should Be Excluded as Unreliable
`Because He Did Not Supervise or Direct the PO-Performed
`Analysis and Cannot Attest to its Reliability ........................................ 4
`C. Mr. Thomas’s Opinions Regarding the Nexus of Jublia®’s
`Sales to the ’506 Patent Should Be Excluded as Unreliable
`Because They Ignore Relevant Facts .................................................... 7
`
`III. CERTAIN EXHIBITS ON WHICH MR. THOMAS RELIED AS
`ALLEGED SUPPORT OF HIS OPINIONS SHOULD BE
`EXCLUDED .................................................................................................. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Exhibits 2093 and 2099 Should be Excluded ..................................... 10
`
`Exhibits 2095 and 2098 Should be Excluded ..................................... 13
`
`Exhibits 2093 and 2095 Should be Excluded as Irrelevant ................ 15
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`Cases
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 15
`
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Jordan v. Binns,
`712 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Mylan Pharms Inc. v. Yeda R&D Co. Ltd.,
`No. IPR2015-00643, Paper 90 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2016) ...................................... 12
`
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.,
`719 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64(c), Acrux DDS PTY Ltd., Acrux
`
`Limited, and Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”) hereby
`
`submit this motion to exclude paragraphs 9-11 and 20-30 of the Declaration of
`
`Vincent A. Thomas, CPA, CVA, CFF, ABV (Exhibit 2028) and certain supporting
`
`evidence (Exhibits 2093, 2095, 2098, and 2099), filed by Kaken Pharmaceutical
`
`Co., Ltd. and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (collectively, “PO”) in
`
`support of the Patent Owner Response (“POR”).
`
`II.
`
`PARAGRAPHS 9-11 AND 20-30 OF EXHIBIT 2028 SHOULD BE
`EXCLUDED
`
`PO relied on Mr. Thomas’s declaration testimony in support of its assertion
`
`that Jublia® is a commercial success. POR, at 63-64. Petitioners timely objected
`
`to Exhibit 2028 as, inter alia, conclusory and unsupported by sufficient facts or
`
`data under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Paper 28, at 7.
`
`Mr. Thomas relies on two alleged bases as support for his opinions that
`
`Jublia® is a commercial success. First, Mr. Thomas relies on alleged gross sales
`
`and gross sales market share of Jublia® to support his opinion. However, he was
`
`not provided with relevant facts regarding those sales, including, inter alia, any of
`
`the costs associated with those gross sales such as marketing and advertising costs,
`
`or the actual realized selling price of Jublia®. Second, Mr. Thomas asserts that
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`Jublia® “shifted the market for onychomycosis treatment from oral to topical
`
`therapy, with only 19% of patients using topical treatments in 2013 to over 50% in
`
`2015, Jublia®’s first full year on sale.” Exhibit 2028, ¶ 9. However, Mr. Thomas
`
`did not consider relevant factors that drove Jublia®’s total prescription numbers.
`
`See Section III.A., below.
`
`Further, in rendering his opinions relating to the gross dollar sales and the
`
`market share and penetration of Jublia®, Mr. Thomas did not collect or supervise
`
`the collection of the underlying data, but, instead, relied on information provided
`
`by PO’s counsel. Mr. Thomas has no idea how that data was collected or whether
`
`it is complete or even accurate and PO has provided no evidence to Petitioners that
`
`such information was supplied to him. Thus, his opinions are of no probative
`
`value. See Section III.B., below.
`
`Finally, Mr. Thomas offers the conclusory opinion that the sales of Jublia®
`
`have a nexus to the ’506 patent and are not driven by marketing or advertising.
`
`Exhibit 2028, ¶¶ 23-30. However, Mr. Thomas admitted that, in forming that
`
`opinion, he was neither informed about, nor did he consider, the effect of PO’s
`
`blocking patents. Nor did Mr. Thomas consider – or even request – Jublia®’s
`
`marketing and advertising costs. His opinion that “the marketing spend for Jublia®
`
`is consistent with other companies’ advertising costs on comparable branded
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`topical onychomycosis treatments…” is unreliable, because he made no effort to
`
`ascertain what those costs were. Id., ¶ 25, see also, ¶ 29. See Section III.C.,
`
`below. For all these reasons, paragraphs 9-11 and 20-30 of Exhibit 2028 should be
`
`excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 as unreliable.
`
`A. Mr. Thomas’s Opinions Should Be Excluded as Unreliable
`Because They Ignore Relevant Facts
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that “the most probative evidence of
`
`commercial success is not overall sales, but whether those sales represent ‘a
`
`substantial quantity in th[e] market.’” Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Labs.,
`
`Ltd., 719 F.3d 1346, 1356, n5 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, a properly framed
`
`commercial success analysis requires evaluation of Jublia®’s sales in context. Mr.
`
`Thomas’s opinions regarding Jublia®’s commercial success based on IMS-reported
`
`gross sales of Jublia® without consideration of the relevant facts related to those
`
`sales should be excluded as they fail to place those alleged sales in context.
`
`First, Mr. Thomas admitted that he never reviewed (or even requested) the
`
`gross-to-net or net-to-profit information for Jublia® in connection with rendering
`
`his opinions. Exhibit 1507, 39:4-14. Failing to consider the costs incurred to
`
`realize the alleged gross sales ignores critical information needed to assess
`
`commercial success. Exhibit 1511, ¶¶ 25-26. Second, Mr. Thomas admitted that
`
`he was unaware of either the retail or average selling price of Jublia® during any
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`time period and merely assumed that the data on which he relied reflected retail
`
`prices. Exhibit 1507, 36:11-37:16. Thus, Mr. Thomas admits that he is unsure of
`
`whether PO ever actually realized the level of sales he claims and he ignores
`
`relevant facts pointing to the opposite conclusion – that PO realized far less
`
`revenue based on the sales of Jublia®. See, e.g., Exhibit 1511, ¶¶ 25-26, 31-32.
`
`Mr. Thomas’s failure to consider these relevant factors renders his conclusory
`
`opinions regarding Jublia®’s gross sales unreliable and they should be excluded
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`Similarly, Mr. Thomas offers the opinion that Jublia® is a commercial
`
`success based on various measures of market share and market penetration
`
`calculated from total prescriptions of Jublia® in the Valeant-defined market.
`
`Exhibit 2028, ¶¶ 9, 11, 22, 24. These opinions ignore the relevant facts relating to,
`
`at least, Jublia®’s total prescription levels being driven by inappropriate sales
`
`practices employed by Philidor Rx Services. Exhibit 1511, ¶¶ 12-17, 53. Mr.
`
`Thomas failed to investigate these practices or give any consideration to their
`
`impact on his opinion. Thus, Mr. Thomas’s commercial success opinions based on
`
`these alternative market share and market penetration measures are also unreliable
`
`and should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`B. Mr. Thomas’s Opinions Should Be Excluded as Unreliable
`Because He Did Not Supervise or Direct the PO-Performed
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`Analysis and Cannot Attest to its Reliability
`
`Mr. Thomas’s opinions regarding the alleged commercial success of Jublia®
`
`should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702, because he failed to provide sufficient
`
`facts or data forming the bases for his opinions. PO’s counsel provided Mr.
`
`Thomas with certain information relating to:—
`
`—<nnnieie 2093); inn—
`
`—(Exhibit 2095). Exhibit 2099, prepared by Mr. Thomas,
`
`utilizes only the information from Exhibit 2093 (Exhibit 1507, 30: 14-20) to
`
`ieennine—
`
`-and to support his opinion that Jublia® expanded the total market and
`
`shifted it from oral treatment-dominated, led by Jublia®. See Exhibit 2028, 111] 9-
`
`11, 22, 24. Exhibit 2098, also prepared by Mr. Thomas, utilizes only the
`
`information in Exhibit 2095 (Exhibit 1507, 31 :18—22) to—
`
`— end in ennnen in opinion
`
`that Jublia® has overtaken the market since launch. Id.
`
`'Jt
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`When asked during his deposition who prepared Exhibits 2093 and 2095,
`
`Mr. Thomas stated that he understood they were from PO, and admitted he had no
`
`input into what specific information was included in the exhibits or how it was
`
`selected. Exhibit 1507, 27:6-18; 33:11-34:5. See also, Exhibit 1662, ¶¶ 5-6. He
`
`admitted he did not perform an independent analysis of whether the market defined
`
`in those exhibits was proper as he “relied on Valeant’s definition of the market.”
`
`Id., 30:9-12; see also, id., 33:11-34:5.
`
`Mr. Thomas testified that, with respect to the gross sales information set
`
`forth in Exhibit 2095, the underlying information used to prepare the exhibit “was
`
`not available to [him] until after [he] issued his report” and, in fact, he only saw the
`
`alleged underlying data the day before his deposition. Exhibit 1507, 32:1-15. He
`
`did not perform any separate analysis of that information and no information has
`
`been provided to Petitioners as to how the data was selected or what steps were
`
`taken to insure that it is accurate and complete.2 With respect to the total
`
`
`2 PO’s supplemental evidence does not cure these issues, because neither offered
`
`declarant explains the methodology used to select the information from the
`
`corresponding database for inclusion to either Exhibit 2093 or 2095 (i.e., why the
`
`specific products were selected, why others were excluded, etc.). Exhibits 1661
`
`and 1664.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`prescription numbers reflected in Exhibit 2093, Mr. Thomas is—
`
`— u,
`
`47: 1-19, 52: 18-53: 12. He testified that he believes that, “to be consistent,” all of
`
`the products should have been normalized, however, he has no idea whether they
`
`have been, and admits that if they have been, the information was not provided.
`
`Exhibit 1507, 482—9, 48:16—19, 6523-665.
`
`Thus, given that he accepted the analysis provided to him with no
`
`information on the methodology used to select and compile it and without
`
`investigating whether it was complete or accurate, Mr. Thomas did not know if the
`
`facts he was given were reliable and the opinions he offers fall short of the
`
`requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702.3 Thus, paragraphs 9-11 and 22-24 of Exhibit
`
`2028 should be excluded.
`
`C. Mr. Thomas’s Opinions Regarding the Nexus of Jublia®’s Sales to
`the ’506 Patent Should Be Excluded as Unreliable Because They
`Ignore Relevant Facts
`
`3
`
`Even when presented with Exhibit 2094’s slightly different definition of the
`
`market, Mr. Thomas stated that he had rejected it in favor of the Exhibit 2093
`
`Valeant-defined market and offered no analysis or reasoning regarding why he had
`
`done so other than “rely[ing] on what Valeant had done to access [sic]
`
`the
`
`marketplace...” Exhibit 1507, 68:2-69:6, at 68:11-12.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`In offering his conclusory opinion that Jublia®’s sales have a nexus to the
`
`’506 patent, Mr. Thomas admitted that he failed to consider how other factors - i.e.,
`
`factors necessarily considered in a properly conducted analysis - may have
`
`contributed to, or were responsible for, Jublia®’s alleged commercial success
`
`including, at least:
`
` Whether PO’s patents claiming efinaconazole as a novel
`compound, as the active ingredient in fungicide compositions, and
`for use in methods of treating mycoses blocked competitors from
`developing and commercializing efinaconazole for any use, much
`less as a topical therapy competitive with Jublia®. Exhibit 1507,
`63:11-64:6 (Mr. Thomas testified that he does not know whether
`there are any other patents covering methods of treating mycosis
`with an effective amount of efinaconazole and did not review any
`other patents in offering his opinions on nexus). See also, Ex.
`1007 (claims 4, 8 and 12), Ex. 1505.
` Jublia®’s actual marketing costs at any time period. Exhibit 1507,
`53:16-56:1 (Mr. Thomas testified that, in connection with offering
`his opinions, he: (1) had not seen, nor requested, Jublia®’s actual
`marketing spend;4 (2) did not know whether Valeant employed
`
`
`4 In addition, when Petitioner requested Jublia®’s actual marketing spend to assess
`
`Mr. Thomas’s claims, PO refused to provide it. See Exhibit 1666, at 1. For this
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`salespeople who detailed Jublia®; and, (3) had not reviewed any
`information regarding Jublia®’s marketing
`publicly-available
`costs).5
`By failing to account for these factors, Mr. Thomas has no basis to assert
`
`that any alleged commercial success is attributable to the ’506 patent’s claims
`
`and his opinion regarding nexus should be excluded. In re Huang, 100 F.3d
`
`135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (sales must be “a direct result of the unique
`
`characteristics of the claimed invention…”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`
`463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“if the feature that creates the
`
`commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent”).
`
`additional reason, PO should be barred from relying on Mr. Thomas’s conclusory
`
`opinion that Jublia®’s sales were not the result of excessive marketing.
`
`5 Moreover, rather than requesting Jublia®’s actual marketing costs, Mr.
`
`Thomas admitted that he was “relying on [Petitioners’] allegation that [the
`
`spend for Jublia® is] more than $100 million.” Id., 55:8-14, at 13-14. See also,
`
`id., 72:19-73:13; Exhibit 2028, ¶¶ 25-27, 29. Petitioners’ assertion clearly was
`
`an estimate of the minimum marketing spend for Jublia® and Mr. Thomas’s
`
`failure to investigate the actual marketing spend – especially given the high-
`
`visibility Super Bowl ads and celebrity endorsements – was inexcusable.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR201 7-00190
`
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`III. CERTAIN EXHIBITS ON WHICH MR. THOMAS RELIED AS
`
`ALLEGED SUPPORT OF HIS OPINIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`
`PO filed Exhibits 2093, 2095, 2098 and 2099 with their POR. Petitioners
`
`timely objected to each of these exhibits as, inter alia, incomplete as providing
`
`partial information preventing Petitioners from testing the sufficiency of the
`
`information provided, hearsay, as lacking authentication, and Exhibits 2093 and
`
`2095 as irrelevant. Paper 28, at 12-13. In response to those objections, PO offered
`
`several “evidentiary declarations” as well as the underlying data allegedly relied
`
`upon to compile Exhibit 2095 (Exhibit 1663 (Antifungal Sales Data (2014-2017)).
`
`Exhibits 1661; 1662; 1664. PO’s supplemental evidence failed to cure the
`
`evidentiary deficiencies and these exhibits should be excluded, as discussed below
`
`in detail.
`
`A.
`
`Exhibits 2093 and 2099 Should be Excluded
`
`Exhibit 2093—
`
`Exhibit 1661, 11 2 (Exhibit 2093 was generated by a Valeant employee); Exhibit
`
`1507, 52:18-53:12—in Exhibit
`
`2093). Exhibit 2099 was prepared by Mr. Thomas’s relying only on the
`
`information contained in Exhibit 2093. Id., 31 : 18—22. Mr. Thomas did not collect
`
`10
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`or supervise the collection of the data used to prepare Exhibit 2093 and did not
`
`investigate the selection criteria, or the completeness or accuracy of the data. None
`
`of this information has been provided by PO.
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 10066 requires, among other things, that the
`
`underlying evidence used to create a summary exhibit must be made available to
`
`
`6 Petitioners objected to these documents as incomplete under Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`
`Paper 28, at 12-13. The POR’s supporting exhibits were vague regarding what had
`
`been provided as well as the information’s sources. See, e.g., Exhibit 2028, n.3-4
`
`(citing Exhibits 2098 and 2099 as “based on” specific files without further
`
`identification); Exhibits 2093 and 2095 (listing neither source or filename).
`
`Petitioners requested the listed files “in addition to any other document or
`
`information underlying the preparation of Exhibits 2093-2095 and 2098-2099.”
`
`Exhibit 1666, at 2. In response, PO stated the listed files had been provided as
`
`Exhibits 2093 and 2095 and insisted it had provided all the information upon
`
`which Exhibits 2098 and 2099 were based. Id., at 1. PO’s supplemental evidence
`
`identified the sources of Exhibits 2093 and 2095 as Symphony Health and IMS
`
`Health, respectively. Exhibits 1661 and 1664. Petitioners’ e-mail requests for any
`
`underlying information related to these exhibits (as well as the objection under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 106) put PO on notice of the deficiencies in this evidence. Indeed,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`the other party and that the summarized data be accurate and nonprejudicial.
`
`Mylan Pharms Inc. v. Yeda R&D Co. Ltd., No. IPR2015-00643, Paper 90, at 38
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2016). See also, Fed. R. Evid. 1006. Here, despite Petitioners’
`
`requests and objections to evidence (see Exhibit 1666; Paper 28, at 12-13), PO did
`
`not provide the underlying information used to create Exhibit 2093, which, in turn,
`
`Mr. Thomas used as his sole source for the preparation of Exhibit 2099. Exhibit
`
`1507, 31:18-22. Given Petitioners’ inability to review the accuracy of these
`
`summary documents without the underlying information, Exhibits 2093 and 2099
`
`should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
`
`Exhibit 2093 should also be excluded as lacking authentication and as
`
`hearsay. PO provided an evidentiary declaration attempting to address these
`
`objections, however, it falls far short. Specifically, with respect to authentication,
`
`no testimony is offered relating to how, when, or why the specific information was
`
`selected
`
` for inclusion to the exhibit. Exhibit 1661, ¶ 2. Further,
`
`aside from a robotic recitation of the requirements of a business record, the
`
`declarant provides no information regarding how or when those requirements were
`
`
`PO indicated as much when it provided the underlying information allegedly
`
`summarized in Exhibit 2095 as supplemental evidence. See Exhibits 1663 and
`
`1664.
`
`
`
`12
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`met, if ever. Id., ¶¶ 2-4. Indeed, PO cannot qualify this exhibit as a business
`
`record, because it was allegedly compiled from the underlying data source for the
`
`purposes of litigation, i.e., for Mr. Thomas’s use in this IPR. See, e.g., Exhibits
`
`1507, 68:15-17 (testifying that he was provided Exhibit 2093 “in response to [his]
`
`request” for data over a longer time period than that set forth in Exhibit 2094). “It
`
`is well-established though that documents prepared in anticipation of litigation are
`
`not admissible under FRE 803(6) [and] raise serious trustworthiness concerns
`
`because there is a strong incentive to deceive…” Jordan v. Binns, 712 F.3d 1123,
`
`1135 (7th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases). Thus, Exhibit 2093 should be excluded as
`
`lacking authentication and also as hearsay, because Mr. Thomas relies on the truth
`
`of the matters in the exhibit to formulate his opinions and PO has not established
`
`that the exhibit qualifies as a business record.
`
`Exhibit 2099 should be excluded as hearsay within hearsay, because Exhibit
`
`2093 (the underlying source document) was used for the truth, the reliability of the
`
`underlying source document was not tested by Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Thomas
`
`prepared Exhibit 2099 based solely on the information set forth in Exhibit 2093
`
`(i.e., he did not prepare it using information he knew or gathered himself). Exhibit
`
`1507, 31:18-22.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 2095 and 2098 Should be Excluded
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`mummi—
`
`— should be excluded,
`
`because it lacks authentication and is hearsay. Again, PO’s supplemental evidence
`
`which sought to address these objections is inadequate. Although the alleged
`
`underlying data was later provided by P0, the declarant offers no testimony as to
`
`how, when, or why the specific information was selected from that document for
`
`inclusion to Exhibit 2095 (see Exhibit 1663,—
`
`Exhibit 2095). Exhibit 1664, ll 2. The Kaken declarant also does not provide
`
`information regarding how or when the listed requirements of the business record
`
`exception to hearsay were met, if ever. Id., 111] 2-4. As discussed above with
`
`respect to Exhibit 2093 (Section 111A), this exhibit is ineligible for the business
`
`record exception. See Exhibit 1664, 1] 2 (“Exhibit 2095 was specifically compiled
`
`from [IMS Health] datafor this proceeding”) (italicized emphasis added).
`
`Exhibit 2098, like Exhibit 2099, should be excluded as hearsay within
`
`hearsay, because Exhibit 2095 (the underlying source document) was used for the
`
`truth, the reliability of the underlying source document was not tested by Mr.
`
`Thomas (he did not have access to the underlying data used to prepare Exhibit
`
`2095 until after he signed his declaration, and, did not undertake a separate
`
`l4
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`analysis of the information (Exhibit 1507, 32:1-15, 32:22-33:5)), and Mr. Thomas
`
`prepared Exhibit 2098 based solely on the information set forth in Exhibit 2095
`
`(i.e., he did not prepare it using information he knew or gathered himself). Thus,
`
`Exhibit 2098 should be excluded.
`
`C. Exhibits 2093 and 2095 Should Further be Excluded as Irrelevant
`Because of Mr. Thomas’s failure to establish a nexus between the alleged
`
`commercial success of Jublia® and any unique features of the ’506 patent (see
`
`above, at Section II.C.), any offered evidence of commercial success is irrelevant.
`
`In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012). For this
`
`additional reason, Exhibits 2093 and 2095 are irrelevant and inadmissible and
`
`should be excluded.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth above in detail, Petitioners respectfully request their
`
`motion to exclude paragraphs 9-11 and 20-30 of Exhibit 2028 and Exhibits 2093,
`
`2095, 2098 and 2099 be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 22, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/E. Anthony Figg/
`By:
`E. Anthony Figg, Reg. No. 27,195
` Counsel for Acrux DDS Pty Ltd
`and Acrux Limited
`
`
`
`
`/ Shannon M. Lentz/
`By:
`Shannon M. Lentz, Reg. No. 65,382
` Counsel for
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC
`15
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONERS’
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was served electronically via email on December
`22, 2017, in its entirety on the following:
`
`
`John D. Livingstone
`john.livingstone@finnegan.com
`KakenIPR@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`271 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1400
`Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
`
`Naoki Yoshida
`naoki.yoshida@finnegan.com
`Anthony Hartmann
`anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com
`Barbara R. Rudolph, Ph.D.
`barbara.rudolph@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`Toan P. Vo
`toan.vo@bausch.com
`Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC
`1400 N. Goodman Street
`Rochester, NY 14609
`
`Teresa Stanek Rea
`TRea@Crowell.com
`Shannon M. Lentz
`SLentz@Crowell.com
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`1001 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20004-2595
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`
`
`
`Tyler C. Liu
`TLiu@agpharm.com
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`
`
`
`/ E. Anthony Figg /_______________
`E. Anthony Figg, Reg. No. 27,195
`Aydin H. Harston, Reg. No. 65,249
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th St., N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040 | Fax: 202-783-6031
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Counsel for Acrux DDS Pty Ltd
`and Acrux Limited
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
