`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CIPLA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 8,168,620
`Issue Date: May 1, 2012
`Title: COMBINATION OF AZELASTINE AND STEROIDS
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2017-00807
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Reliance On The Malhotra Declaration For Its Truth Should Be Precluded
`Petitioner’s motion made clear that it does not seek to entirely exclude the
`
`Malhotra Declaration, but rather only to preclude Patent Owner and its experts
`
`from relying on it—as they have—for hearsay purposes. See Mot, 7-8. Patent
`
`Owner’s attempts to recharacterize those uses now cannot avoid the hearsay rule.
`
`A. The Malhotra Declaration Is Hearsay As Used By Patent Owner
`And Its Experts
`
`Referring to the Malhotra Declaration as part of what the Examiner was told
`
`during prosecution may have some nonhearsay relevance to this proceeding, and
`
`therefore is not a hearsay use of the document. What is hearsay, however, is Patent
`
`Owner’s repeated attempts to refer to the Malhotra Declaration for its truth—i.e.,
`
`that Dr. Malhotra actually did test Cramer’s Example III and actually did encounter
`
`problems with it. See POR, 9 (“However, attempts to recreate, and testing of,
`
`Cramer Example III revealed that the formulation exhibited: (1) unacceptable
`
`osmolality, which would have caused irritation to patients…. These problems
`
`rendered Cramer Example III unsuitable for use” (citing EX1002, 284-87)). These
`
`representations are necessarily premised on Dr. Malhotra’s out-of-court statements
`
`being true.
`
`While the declaration, as a part of the prosecution history, need not be
`
`excluded from the record altogether, Patent Owner misstates its relevance in this
`
`context when arguing that it was part of the Examiner’s reasoning for allowing the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`claims. Opp., 3-4 (“…and accepted by the Examiner”). There is zero evidence in
`
`the prosecution history that the Examiner relied in any way on the declaration. See
`
`EX1002, 137-47 (Not. of Allowance). Instead, the Examiner relied on three other
`
`declarations relating to other secondary considerations, but, significantly, the
`
`Examiner did not rely the Malhotra Declaration. Id.
`
`Patent Owner also ignores its own arguments in the POR, where the results
`
`of Dr. Malhotra’s alleged efforts were stated as truthful definitive evidence
`
`concerning reasonable expectations of success. See POR, 28 (“[A] POSA
`
`following the prior art guidance of Cramer and Segal would not have arrived at a
`
`formulation that was ‘suitable for nasal administration.’ Multiple formulators,
`
`acting as a POSA in 2002, all failed….”). While the Malhotra Declaration is not
`
`directly cited, the mention of “Multiple formulators, acting as a POSA in 2002”
`
`certainly suggests reliance on the Malhotra Declaration, especially since Dr.
`
`Govindarajan’s report decidedly does not support this allegation. See CIP2030,
`
`¶¶11-15; EX1145, ¶¶34-40.
`
`This same section of the POR later makes the disjunctive statement that
`
`“Example III of Cramer … was not shown to be ‘suitable for nasal administration’
`
`both during original prosecution and again in litigation” (POR, 33 (citing
`
`EX1002, 286) (emphasis added)), which cannot be read as anything other than
`
`relying on the contents of the Malhotra Declaration for its substantive truth.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, the comparison testing of Drs. Govindarajan and Herpin that Patent
`
`Owner asserts found the same results as Dr. Malhotra also require the Malhotra
`
`Declaration to be truthful.1,2 While it may be a nonhearsay purpose for Dr. Herpin
`
`to say that he attempted to reproduce the experiment that Dr. Malhotra said she
`
`carried out, such reliance crosses over into an impermissible hearsay use where
`
`Patent Owner tries to claim that other experts “confirmed” Dr. Malhotra’s results,
`
`as here (see, e.g., CIP2176, ¶38 (citing EX1002, 286-87)). Such alleged
`
`“confirmation” is only relevant if the results in the Malhotra Declaration are taken
`
`as true, which is what makes Patent Owner’s reliance a prohibited hearsay use.
`
`As for Patent Owner’s experts, their declarations mimic the content of the
`
`POR, and similarly rely on the Malhotra Declaration for its truth. See CIP2147,
`
`1 Patent Owner’s assertion that Dr. Govindarajan arrived at the same results as Dr.
`
`Malhotra is completely incorrect. See CIP2030, ¶¶11-15; EX1145, ¶¶34-40
`
`(discussing physical stability recreations). Nevertheless, for purposes of the
`
`hearsay analysis, what is relevant is Patent Owner’s considerations and how those
`
`are advanced for a hearsay purpose, as the Malhotra Declaration is here.
`
`2 Patent Owner’s claim that “Dr. Govindarajan sought to recreate the experiment
`
`described in the Malhotra Declaration” (Opp., 4.) is also wrong, as Dr.
`
`Govindarajan sought to and did reproduce Cramer’s Example 3, not Dr. Malhotra’s
`
`experiments. See CIP2030, ¶¶7-10.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`¶27 (Carr); CIP2176, ¶¶ 23, 31, 36, 38, 40-43 (Smyth (public)). Their attempt to
`
`use the Malhotra Declaration to allegedly show a lack of expectation of success
`
`(see, e.g., CIP2176, ¶36) can only be relying on the declaration for its truth.
`
`B. Hearsay Uses Of The Malhotra Declaration Can And Should Be
`Precluded
`Patent Owner claims that REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841
`
`F.3d 954 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is dispositive, and compels denial of Petitioner’s motion
`
`to exclude. Opp., 6. Patent Owner is wrong. The relevance of REG Synthetic
`
`Fuels, and the reason Petitioner cited this case in its motion, was to show that
`
`evidence can be “admitted” into the proceeding for one purpose (i.e., a nonhearsay
`
`use), even while other uses (i.e., hearsay) remain prohibited. 841 F.3d at 963-65.
`
`Thus, it is not that the Malhotra Declaration should be stricken from the
`
`proceeding altogether, but rather that the parties’ and the Board’s reliance on it
`
`should be restricted to nonhearsay purposes.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner And Its Experts’ Reliance Does Not Fit Within A
`Hearsay Exception
`
`The exceptions to the hearsay rule Patent Owner identifies are not applicable
`
`to their and their expert’s reliance on the Malhotra Declaration. Specifically, FRE
`
`803(15) states that “unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the
`
`truth of the statement or the purport of the document,” which directly implicates
`
`that fact that Dr. Govindarajan’s testing efforts directly contract those of Dr.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Malhotra, as explained above. See supra, FN 1. Patent Owner has not cited any
`
`authority to show how FRE 803(15) is even applicable to a declaration submitted
`
`during prosecution.
`
`As for the alleged FRE 807 exception, Patent Owner pays lip service to the
`
`“including the declarant’s name and address” portion of the residual exception,
`
`without actually addressing the “so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it”
`
`portion of the same rule. Here, Patent Owner is conveniently forgetting that a
`
`cross-examination deposition was requested and denied by Patent Owner. See
`
`Mot., 5-6. As such, Patent Owner’s reliance on the Malhotra Declaration does not
`
`fit within the residual exception—otherwise, virtually any sworn declaration would
`
`be admissible without cross-examination, which is certainly not the Board’s
`
`practice. US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-
`
`00019 (Paper 54), at *38-42 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) (refusing to admit a
`
`declaration under FRE 807 (residual exception)).
`
`II. Conclusion
`For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board preclude
`
`Patent Owner from relying on the factual assertions in Dr. Malhotra’s declaration
`
`contained in Exhibit 1002 at pages 284-287 as if true.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 30, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Michael Houston/
`Michael Houston
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registration No. 58,486
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: 312-832-4500
`Facsimile: 312-832-4700
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served on April 30, 2018, on
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner via electronic mail to the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 30, 2018
`
`dvarughe-PTAB@skgf.com
`dsterlin-PTAB@skgf.com
`alarock-PTAB@skgf.com
`ueverett-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Michael Houston/
`Michael Houston
`Registration No. 58,486
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`