`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LUPIN LTD. AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`EXHIBIT 2019 IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE ................................... 2
`II.
`III. DR. ENNS’S TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE KNOWLEDGE
`OF A POSA BEFORE THE PRIORITY DATE IS RELEVANT AND
`ADMISSIBLE ................................................................................................. 6
`IV. EXHIBIT 2041 IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE ................................... 8
`V.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`Page i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Dell Inc. v. Elec. & Telecommns. & Research Inst.,
`IPR2013-00635, Paper 39 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2015) ............................................. 3
`Disney Enter., Inc. v. Kappos,
`923 F. Supp. 2d 788 (E.D. Va. 2013) ..................................................................... 3
`Ex parte Erlich,
`22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1463, 1992 WL 93132 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ................... 3
`Gould v. Quigg,
`822 F.2d 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 3
`In re Epstein,
`32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 3
`In re Hogan,
`559 F.2d 595 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ................................................................................ 3
`In re Wilson,
`311 F.2d 266 (C.C.P.A. 1962) ................................................................................ 3
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014) .............................. 2, 5, 6, 9
`Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Norman IP Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2014-00564, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015) ............................................ 5
`Rules
`FRE 401 ........................................................................................................ 2, 6, 8, 9
`FRE 402 .................................................................................................................2, 8
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 ....................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) .......................................................................................... 2, 6, 9
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64 and 42.23 and the Board’s Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper No. 11), Patent Owner Horizon Therapeutics, LLC (“Patent Owner” or
`
`“Horizon”) files this opposition to Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s
`
`(collectively “Petitioner” or “Lupin”) Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper No. 26).
`
`In its motion, Petitioner improperly seeks to exclude relevant evidence from the
`
`record, including testimony of Horizon’s expert concerning the state of the prior
`
`art.1 As explained below, Petitioner’s motion is meritless and would erroneously
`
`remove evidence from the record that rebuts its obviousness argument. Moreover,
`
`Petitioner’s arguments for exclusion of evidence go to the weight of the evidence
`
`rather than its admissibility, which is not appropriate in a motion to exclude.
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at
`
`
`1 Petitioner refers to Exhibit 2019 as a “purported” copy of a 2012 article by
`
`Häberle et al. Petitioner did not object, however, to this exhibit on the basis of
`
`authenticity (Paper No. 12 at 4) or move to exclude it on this basis (Paper No. 26).
`
`Similarly, Petitioner refers to Exhibit 2041 as a “purported” copy of the
`
`Prescribing Information for RAVICTI® but did not move to exclude this exhibit for
`
`lacking authenticity (Paper No. 26). Any implied objections to these exhibits for
`
`lack of authenticity should therefore be rejected.
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`61 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). For these reasons,
`
`Petitioner’s motion is legally defective and should be denied.
`
`II. EXHIBIT 2019 IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2019 (“Häberle”) as irrelevant and unduly
`
`prejudicial because it published after the priority date of the ’966 patent and/or is
`
`cumulative of other evidence. But Häberle is squarely relevant under FRE 401 and
`
`402 because it reflects prior art guidelines for urea cycle disorder (“UCD”)
`
`treatment that conflict with Petitioner’s theory that a person of skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) would have been motivated to perform the methods recited in the
`
`challenged claims. See FRE 401 (evidence being relevant if “it has any tendency
`
`to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”).
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that Häberle is not relevant because it fails to establish
`
`the prior art practices of a POSA is inconsistent with the teachings of the reference
`
`itself. Häberle is titled “Suggested guidelines for the diagnosis and management of
`
`urea cycle disorders,” and provides that “[d]evelopment of these guidelines
`
`spanned the time period, October 2008 until August 2011,” which is immediately
`
`prior to the September 30, 2011, priority date of the ’966 patent. (Ex. 2019 at 2-3
`
`(emphasis added).) Lupin attempts to argue that this clear confirmation that the
`
`guidelines were developed prior to the relevant priority date “does not demonstrate
`
`that these guidelines were part of the state of the art” because “A POSA would not
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`have known about these guidelines until they were published.” (Paper No. 26 at 9).
`
`Such an argument is a nonstarter, as it ignores the testimony of Horizon’s expert,
`
`Dr. Gregory Enns (“Dr. Enns”), a recognized expert in the field of UCD treatment,
`
`that in his opinion, Häberle’s disclosure “reflects the state of the art and
`
`understanding of a POSA as of the priority date” of the ’966 patent, as well as
`
`Häberle’s express statement that the literature it cites as the guidelines’ “evidence
`
`base” was taken from a review completed in early 2011. (Ex. 2006 at ¶ 109, Ex.
`
`2019 at 2-3.)
`
`Thus, although published on May 29, 2012, Häberle exemplifies the state of
`
`the art with respect to UCD treatment guidelines prior to the ’966 patent priority
`
`date and, therefore, is relevant and admissible. See e.g., Gould v. Quigg, 822 F.2d
`
`1074, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“This court has approved use of later publications as
`
`evidence of the state of the art existing on the filing date of an application”)
`
`(citing In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 605 (C.C.P.A. 1977)); Ex parte
`
`Erlich, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1463, 1992 WL 93132, at *3 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992);
`
`In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 268-69 (C.C.P.A. 1962); Disney Enter., Inc. v. Kappos,
`
`923 F. Supp. 2d 788, 801 (E.D. Va. 2013) (citing In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994)); Dell Inc. v. Elec. & Telecommns. Research Inst., IPR2013-00635,
`
`Paper 39 at 6, n.1 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2015).
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`The specific teachings of Häberle are highly relevant to the issues in dispute
`
`in this IPR because they rebut Petitioner’s assertion that a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to perform the methods of the challenged claims of the ’966 patent.
`
`Häberle discloses a table (“Table 4”) of suggested actions for a POSA to take in
`
`rendering treatment to symptomatic patients based on their ammonia level. (Ex.
`
`2006 at ¶ 109; Paper No. 19 at 27-28; Ex. 2019 at Table 4.) Notably, Table 4 does
`
`not suggest any action when a patient exhibits normal plasma ammonia. (Id.)
`
`Importantly, when the ammonia level rises to “above upper limit of normal,”
`
`Häberle does not recommend increasing the dosage of nitrogen scavenging drugs
`
`but instead recommends stopping protein intake, administering IV glucose, and
`
`continued monitoring of plasma ammonia. (Id.) It is only once the ammonia level
`
`rises to the next stage—well-above the upper limit of normal (e.g., >100
`
`μmol/L)—that Häberle recommends increasing the dosage of nitrogen scavenging
`
`drugs. (Id.) Thus, consistent with Dr. Enns’s testimony on this point, Häberle
`
`disproves Petitioner’s and Dr. Vaux’s theory that a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to increase the dosage of nitrogen scavenging medication for a UCD
`
`patient having a normal fasting plasma ammonia level as required by the claims of
`
`the ’966 patent.
`
`Significantly, while Petitioner unjustifiably attempts to limit Häberle’s
`
`disclosure as relating only to “crisis situations” in its Reply (Paper No. 23 at 7,
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`n.4), Petitioner does not dispute the teachings of Häberle, or assert that its
`
`disclosure is inconsistent with prior art practices. Indeed, Petitioner inconsistently
`
`asserts that much of Häberle’s teachings are cumulative of other undisputedly
`
`relevant prior art references. Petitioner’s assertion that Häberle should be
`
`excluded simply because of its publication date has no merit. Petitioner’s motion
`
`to exclude Exhibit 2019 should therefore be denied.
`
`Petitioner’s motion should also be denied because, although presented as a
`
`motion to exclude, its arguments are directed to the weight of the evidence rather
`
`than its admissibility. The Board has repeatedly held that a motion to exclude is
`
`not an opportunity for a party to supplement its substantive briefing. See, e.g.,
`
`Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 61 (“A motion to exclude must explain
`
`why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay), but may not be
`
`used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact”); see
`
`also Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Norman IP Holdings, LLC, IPR2014-00564, Paper 36 at
`
`33-34 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2015) (“[A] motion to exclude addresses the
`
`admissibility of evidence, and not how much weight to give an argument.”) Here,
`
`Petitioner is attempting to attack the sufficiency of the evidence corroborating Dr.
`
`Enns’s knowledgeable and credible testimony that, prior to the priority date, a
`
`POSA would not have been motivated to increase the dosage of nitrogen
`
`scavenging medication for a UCD patient with normal fasting plasma ammonia
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`levels, as claimed. Thus, Petitioner’s argument to exclude Häberle only goes to the
`
`weight and not admissibility of the reference and should therefore be rejected.
`
`III. DR. ENNS’S TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE KNOWLEDGE OF
`A POSA BEFORE THE PRIORITY DATE IS RELEVANT AND
`ADMISSIBLE
`
`In addition to improperly seeking to exclude Häberle, Petitioner asks that the
`
`Board exclude fifteen paragraphs of testimony of Horizon’s expert, Dr. Enns,
`
`concerning the state of the art and the knowledge of a POSA before the priority
`
`date (Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 31, 35-39, 43-45, 90-91, 104, 109, 118-119) because he cites to
`
`Häberle (among many other references) as additional support for his opinion. The
`
`Board should reject this argument for the same reasons as discussed above with
`
`respect to Häberle. Petitioner also inexplicably includes ¶ 90 of Dr. Enns’
`
`Declaration in this request, despite the fact that it does not cite to Häberle. This
`
`request should be rejected as wholly unsupported.
`
`Dr. Enns’s testimony concerning the motivation of a POSA to perform the
`
`claimed methods prior to the September 30, 2011 priority date is clearly relevant
`
`and admissible under FRE 401. Petitioner’s argument for exclusion of Dr. Enns’s
`
`testimony should also be rejected as improper because it attacks the sufficiency of
`
`the evidence to support Patent Owner’s rebuttal position and not the admissibility.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c); see also Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 61.
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`At issue in this IPR is whether a POSA would have been motivated to
`
`administer an increased dosage of medication based on a normal fasting plasma
`
`ammonia level. Dr. Enns testified that a POSA would not have been motivated to
`
`increase the dosage of nitrogen scavenging drug for a patient having a normal
`
`fasting plasma ammonia level as of the priority date. (Ex. 2006 at ¶¶ 108, 111.)
`
`Dr. Enns’s testimony is derived from his expertise in UCD treatment, including
`
`years of experience treating UCD patients prior to the 2011 priority date. (Ex.
`
`2006 at ¶¶ 6, 10-11.) Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Dr. Enns does not rely on
`
`Häberle or any other reference to “prove” the state of the prior art. But unlike
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Vaux, who has not independently corroborated his
`
`obviousness theory, Dr. Enns cites to the prior art, including Table 4 of Häberle, as
`
`additional support for his opinions. (Ex. 2006 at ¶ 109, citing Ex. 2019 at Table 4.)
`
`Tellingly, Table 4 contradicts the testimony of Dr. Vaux. Petitioner’s argument to
`
`exclude portions of Dr. Enns’s testimony is an overreaching attempt to remove
`
`relevant evidence that conflicts with Petitioner’s obviousness position.
`
`Additionally, as discussed above with respect to Häberle, Petitioner’s
`
`argument to exclude Dr. Enns’s testimony goes to the sufficiency of the evidence
`
`to support Patent Owner’s position and not the admissibility of Dr. Enns’s
`
`testimony, and should be denied.
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`IV. EXHIBIT 2041 IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE
`Exhibit 2041 is relevant under FRE 401 and admissible pursuant to FRE
`
`402. Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2041 on the basis that it is not prior art to the
`
`claimed inventions. However, Petitioner’s argument fails because Patent Owner
`
`only cites to Exhibit 2041 as additional evidence of undisputed facts regarding the
`
`state of the prior art that are already established by Petitioner’s own prior art
`
`reference, the ’859 Publication.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner relies on Exhibit 2041 to argue that
`
`a POSA would not have been motivated to combine Simell (Ex. 1005) with the
`
`’859 Publication (Ex. 1007) is incorrect. Exhibit 2041 is the FDA-approved
`
`Prescribing Information for Horizon’s RAVICTI® (glycerol phenylbutyrate oral
`
`liquid) product, updated as of September 2016. Despite the 2016 date on this
`
`updated label, it is undisputed that prior to September 2011, the same drug in
`
`RAVICTI®, glycerol phenylbutyrate, was known in the art as an oral medication to
`
`be used for chronic management of UCD. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007 at [0015]-[0016],
`
`[0020]-[0021].) In fact, both parties cite the ’859 Publication for that proposition.
`
`(See Paper No. 3 at 6; Paper No. 19 at 43.) Horizon cites to Exhibit 2041, the
`
`FDA-approved prescribing information, for additional support of the undisputed
`
`fact that glycerol phenylbutyrate is an oral medication used for chronic treatment
`
`of UCD patients. (Paper No. 19 at 43.) Such information is clearly relevant even
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`if it does not qualify as prior art. See FRE 401. Notably, Petitioner does not
`
`dispute the disclosure of Exhibit 2041. Thus, Petitioner’s motion to exclude Ex.
`
`2041 on grounds of prejudice and relevance has no merit and should be denied.
`
`As with Exhibit 2019, Petitioner’s concerns about Exhibit 2041 are
`
`arguments more properly aimed at the weight to be afforded to that reference and
`
`its sufficiency to support Patent Owner’s argument rather than its admissibility.
`
`Thus, Petitioner’s Motion to exclude Exhibit 2041 should also be denied. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c); Liberty Mut., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 61.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For at least the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Exhibits 2019 and 2041 and the portions of Dr. Enns’ Declaration relying on or
`
`citing to Exhibit 2019 should be denied.
`
`
`
`Date: 2018 June 8
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / M.C. Phillips /
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Registration No. 43,403
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on June 8, 2018, copies of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE and all
`
`documents filed with it were served via electronic mail, as agreed to by counsel,
`
`upon the following counsel for the Petitioners:
`
`Elizabeth J. Holland: eholland@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman: chardman@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`
`/ M.C. Phillips /
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Registration No. 43,403
`
`IPR2017-01160
`
`