throbber
IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`Adam R. Brausa (Reg. No. 60,287)
`Daralyn J. Durie (Pro Hac Vice)
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner Genentech, Inc. by:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`Lauren V. Blakely (Reg. No. 70,247)
`Robert J. Gunther, Jr. (Pro Hac Vice)
`Lisa J. Pirozzolo (Pro Hac Vice)
`Kevin S. Prussia (Pro Hac Vice)
`Andrew J. Danford (Pro Hac Vice)
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE & DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CELLTRION, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01373
`U.S. Patent 6,407,213
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF LUTZ RIECHMANN, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`Pursuant to the Joint Notice of Stipulation to Revise Schedule (Paper 57),
`
`Patent Owner Genentech, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) submits the following
`
`observations on cross-examination of Lutz Riechmann, Ph.D. with respect to his
`
`testimony in support of Petitioner’s reply (Paper 53). The complete transcript of
`
`this cross-examination is submitted herewith as Exhibit 2064.
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 30:9-18 and 31:19-32:7, Dr. Riechmann admitted
`
`that, when applying Queen 1989 (Ex. 1034) or Queen 1990 (Ex. 1050), it is
`
`possible to identify a combination of substitutions that does not fall into the ’213
`
`patent claims. This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ argument that a person of
`
`ordinary skill following the teachings of the asserted references would arrive at a
`
`humanized antibody with substitutions that are recited in the claims of the ’213
`
`patent with a reasonable expectation of success. (Paper 53, Petitioner Reply at 4-8,
`
`13-14; Paper 2, Petition at 6-8, 16-19, 24-57; Ex. 1143, Riechmann Reply Decl.
`
`¶¶6, 12; Ex. 1003, Riechmann Decl. ¶¶27-36, 114-126, 161-337.)
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 29:11-30:8 and 32:12-22, Dr. Riechmann admitted
`
`that none of the 15 substitutions disclosed in the anti-Tac antibody in Queen 1989
`
`(Ex. 1034) are recited in the ’213 patent claims and that Queen 1990 (Ex. 1050)
`
`and Queen 1989 (Ex. 1034) contain the same experimental example. This
`
`testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’ argument that a person of ordinary
`
`skill following the teachings of the asserted references would arrive at a humanized
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`antibody with substitutions that are recited in the claims of the ’213 patent with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success and/or that the prior art teaches humanized
`
`antibodies with the recited substitutions that bind antigen. (Paper 53, Petitioner
`
`Reply at 4-8, 13-14; Paper 2, Petition at 6-8, 16-19, 24-57; Ex. 1143, Riechmann
`
`Reply Decl. ¶¶6, 12; Ex. 1003, Riechmann Decl. ¶¶27-36, 114-126, 161-337.)
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 38:3-10, Dr. Riechmann admitted that Chothia
`
`1985 (Ex. 1063) does not describe a humanized antibody sequence and that the
`
`discussion of 93H in Chothia 1985 is not referring to a substitution in any
`
`particular humanized antibody. This testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’
`
`argument that a person of ordinary skill following the teachings of the asserted
`
`references would arrive at a humanized antibody with substitutions that are recited
`
`in the claims of the ’213 patent with a reasonable expectation of success and/or
`
`that the prior art teaches humanized antibodies with the recited substitutions that
`
`bind antigen. (Paper 53, Petitioner Reply at 4-9, 13-14.) In particular, this
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Riechmann’s testimony in paragraph 25 of his Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1143) in which he asserts that “The Prior Art Taught Substitutions
`
`at 71H, 73H, 78H, and 93H,” “[t]o the extent that the patent identifies 71H, 73H,
`
`78H, and 93H as back mutations . . . the prior art identifies these residues at those
`
`positions,” and included Chothia 1985 (Ex. 1063) in a chart that “summarizes
`
`those substitutions” for residue 93H.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`In Exhibit 2064 at 11:2-9, 38:14-39:11, 43:12-14 and 44:2-6, Dr.
`
`4.
`
`Riechmann testified that the chart in paragraph 25 of his Reply Declaration (Ex.
`
`1143) should list Chothia & Lesk (Ex. 1062) for residue 78H (not Chothia 1985
`
`(Ex. 1063)) and admitted that Chothia & Lesk does not discuss humanized
`
`antibodies or identify actual substitutions in any humanized antibody. This
`
`testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’ argument that a person of ordinary
`
`skill following the teachings of the asserted references would arrive at a humanized
`
`antibody with substitutions that are recited in the claims of the ’213 patent with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success and/or that the prior art teaches humanized
`
`antibodies with the recited substitutions that bind antigen. (Paper 53, Petitioner
`
`Reply at 4-9, 13-14.) In particular, this testimony is relevant to Dr. Riechmann’s
`
`testimony in paragraph 25 of his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1143) in which he asserts
`
`that “The Prior Art Taught Substitutions at 71H, 73H, 78H, and 93H,” “[t]o the
`
`extent that the patent identifies 71H, 73H, 78H, and 93H as back mutations . . . the
`
`prior art identifies these residues at those positions.”
`
`5.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 50:3-14, 50:20-51:11, 52:1-4, and 66:8-12, Dr.
`
`Riechmann admitted that the only humanized antibody in Kurrle (Ex. 1071) with a
`
`substitution at 71H and 73H is CIV-4 and that Kurrle does not have any binding
`
`data for CIV-4. This testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’ argument that
`
`the “up to 3-fold more” binding affinity limitation of claim 65 would have been
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`obvious. (Paper 53, Petitioner Reply at 15-16.) In particular, this testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Riechmann’s testimony in paragraphs 21-22 of his Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1143) in which he states that “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have a reasonable expectation that BMA-EUCIV4 would bind an antigen to
`
`some degree.”
`
`6.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 56:19-57:5, Dr. Riechmann admitted that the Table
`
`on page 879 of Chothia 1989 (Ex. 1049) does not describe a humanized antibody.
`
`This testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’ argument that a person of
`
`ordinary skill following the teachings of the asserted references would arrive at a
`
`humanized antibody with substitutions that are recited in the claims of the ’213
`
`patent with a reasonable expectation of success and/or that the asserted references
`
`teach humanized antibodies with the recited substitutions that bind antigen. (Paper
`
`53, Petitioner Reply at 4-9, 13-14.) In particular, this testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Riechmann’s testimony in paragraph 25 of his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1143) in
`
`which he asserts that “The Prior Art Taught Substitutions at 71H, 73H, 78H, and
`
`93H,” “[t]o the extent that the patent identifies 71H, 73H, 78H, and 93H as back
`
`mutations . . . the prior art identifies these residues at those positions,” and
`
`included Chothia 1989 (Ex. 1049) in a chart that “summarizes those substitutions”
`
`for residue 71H.
`
`7.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 61:4-62:5, Dr. Riechmann admitted that in Jones
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`(Ex. 1033), which is cited by Tramontano (Ex. 1051), the residue at 71H in the
`
`mouse and human sequence is the same. This testimony is generally relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ argument that a person of ordinary skill following the teachings of the
`
`asserted references would arrive at a humanized antibody with substitutions that
`
`are recited in the claims of the ’213 patent with a reasonable expectation of success
`
`and/or that the asserted references teach humanized antibodies with the recited
`
`substitutions that bind antigen. (Paper 53, Petitioner Reply at 4-9, 13-14.) In
`
`particular, this testimony is relevant to Dr. Riechmann’s testimony in paragraph 25
`
`of his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1143) in which he asserts that “The Prior Art Taught
`
`Substitutions at 71H, 73H, 78H, and 93H,” “[t]o the extent that the patent identifies
`
`71H, 73H, 78H, and 93H as back mutations . . . the prior art identifies these
`
`residues at those positions,” and included Tramontano (Ex. 1051) in a chart that
`
`“summarizes those substitutions” for residue 71H.
`
`8.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 62:6-18, Dr. Riechmann admitted that in
`
`Verhoeyen (Ex. 1068), which is cited by Tramontano (Ex. 1051), there was a
`
`different residue at 71H in the mouse and human sequence and that Verhoeyen did
`
`not make a back mutation at residue at 71H in its humanized antibody. This
`
`testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’ argument that a person of ordinary
`
`skill following the teachings of the asserted references would arrive at a humanized
`
`antibody with substitutions that are recited in the claims of the ’213 patent with a
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`reasonable expectation of success and/or that the asserted references teach
`
`humanized antibodies with the recited substitutions that bind antigen. (Paper 53,
`
`Petitioner Reply at 4-9, 13-14.) In particular, this testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Riechmann’s testimony in paragraph 25 of his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1143) in
`
`which he asserts that “The Prior Art Taught Substitutions at 71H, 73H, 78H, and
`
`93H,” “[t]o the extent that the patent identifies 71H, 73H, 78H, and 93H as back
`
`mutations . . . the prior art identifies these residues at those positions,” and
`
`included Tramontano (Ex. 1051) in a chart that “summarizes those substitutions”
`
`for residue 71H.
`
`9.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 63:1-19, Dr. Riechmann admitted that in
`
`Riechmann 1988 (Ex. 1069), which is cited by Tramontano (Ex. 1051), there was a
`
`different residue at 71H in the rat and human sequence and that Riechmann 1988
`
`did not make a back mutation at residue at 71H in its humanized antibody. This
`
`testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’ argument that a person of ordinary
`
`skill following the teachings of the asserted references would arrive at a humanized
`
`antibody with substitutions that are recited in the claims of the ’213 patent with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success and/or that the asserted references teach
`
`humanized antibodies with the recited substitutions that bind antigen. (Paper 53,
`
`Petitioner Reply at 4-9, 13-14.) In particular, this testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Riechmann’s testimony in paragraph 25 of his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1143) in
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`which he asserts that “The Prior Art Taught Substitutions at 71H, 73H, 78H, and
`
`93H,” “[t]o the extent that the patent identifies 71H, 73H, 78H, and 93H as back
`
`mutations . . . the prior art identifies these residues at those positions,” and
`
`included Tramontano (Ex. 1051) in a chart that “summarizes those substitutions”
`
`for residue 71H.
`
`10.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 69:19-70:4, Dr. Riechmann admitted that, prior to
`
`the ’213 patent, there was no prior art fully humanized antibody where the binding
`
`affinity was greater for the humanized antibody as compared with the original
`
`mouse antibody. This testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’ argument that
`
`the “up to 3-fold more” binding affinity limitation of claim 65 would have been
`
`obvious. (Paper 53, Petitioner Reply at 15-16.) In particular, this testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Riechmann’s testimony in paragraph 20 of his Reply Declaration
`
`(Ex. 1143) in which he states that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have also expected that humanized antibodies that had back mutations in the
`
`framework region identified using the methods in the Queen references and
`
`elsewhere would be more likely to bind antigens with higher affinities . . .”
`
`11.
`
`In Exhibit 2064 at 81:20-84:12, Dr. Riechmann testified that he had
`
`analyzed the sequence of Herceptin and compared it against the claims but that he
`
`was not qualified to answer whether the sequence of Herceptin has everything that
`
`is required to satisfy the limitations of the claims of the ’213 patent. This
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`testimony is generally relevant to Petitioners’ argument that Genentech has not
`
`established that Herceptin is an embodiment of the claims. (Paper 53, Petitioner
`
`Reply at 22-24.) In particular, this testimony is relevant to Dr. Riechmann’s
`
`testimony in paragraph 34 of his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1143) in which he states
`
`that “Herceptin does not use a consensus sequence of ‘all human immunoglobulins
`
`of any particular subclass or subunit structure’ as required by the claims.”
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Reg. No. 36,476
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`1875 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20006
`TEL: 650-858-6000
`FAX: 650-858-6363
`EMAIL: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Date: June 25, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit Name
`
`Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 10098 (Leonard
`Presta)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 10823 (Leonard
`Presta)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 11268 (Paul Carter)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 11643 (Paul Carter)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 10840 (John Brady)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 11162 (John Brady)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Excerpts from Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 11008
`(Ann Rowland)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Excerpts from Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 11297
`(Tim Hotaling)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Excerpts from Genentech, Inc. Laboratory Notebook No. 11568
`(Monique Carver)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Interoffice Memorandum from Paul Carter to
`Leonard Presta and Dennis Henner
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Interoffice Memorandum from Paul Carter to
`Leonard Presta
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Synthetic DNA Requests
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Synthetic DNA Requests
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Exhibit Number
`2001
`
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s
`Exhibit Number
`2014
`
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`Exhibit Name
`
`Genentech, Inc. Protein Engineering of 4D5 Status Report
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Genentech, Inc. Interoffice Memorandum re: RCC Minutes and
`Recommendations
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Declaration of Dr. Leonard G. Presta
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Declaration of Dr. Paul J. Carter
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Declaration of John Ridgway Brady
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`Declaration of Irene Loeffler
`Paul Carter, et al., Humanization of the Anti-p185 Antibody for
`Human Cancer Therapy, 89 PROC. NATL. ACAD. SCI. 4285-
`4289 (1992)
`Leonard Presta, et al., Humanization of an Anti-Vascular
`Endothelial Growth Factor Monoclonal Antibody for the
`Therapy of Solid Tumors and Other Disorders, 57 CANCER
`RESEARCH 4593-4599 (1997)
`Marianne Brüggerman, et al., The Immunogenicity of Chimeric
`Antibodies, 170 J. EXP. MED. 2153-2157 (1989)
`Jatinderpal Kalsi, et al., Structure-function Analysis and the
`Molecular Origins of Anti-DNA Antibodies in Systemic Lupus
`Erythematosus, EXPERT REVIEWS IN MOLECULAR MEDICINE 1-
`28 (1999)
`Scott Gorman, et al., Reshaping a Therapeutic CD4 Antibody,
`88 PROC. NATL. ACAD. SCI. 4181-4185 (1991)
`John Isaacs, et al., Humanised Monoclonal Antibody Therapy
`for Rheumatoid Arthritis, 340 THE LANCET 748-752 (1992)
`Elvin Kabat, et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological
`Interest 1-23 (4th ed. 1987)
`Anna Tramontano, et al., Framework Residue 71 Is a Major
`Determinant of the Position and Conformation of the Second
`Hypervariable Region in the VH Domains of Immunoglobulins,
`215 J. MOL. BIOL. 175-182 (1990)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`Exhibit Name
`
`H.M. Shepard, et al., Herceptin, in THERAPEUTIC ANTIBODIES.
`HANDBOOK OF EXPERIMENTAL PHARMACOLOGY 183-219 (Y.
`Chernajovsky & A. Nissim, eds. 2008)
`Excerpt from Roche Finance Report 2016
`Modified Default Standing Protective Order and Patent
`Owner’s Certification of Agreement to Terms
`Modified Default Standing Protective Order – Redline
`Declaration of Robert J. Gunther, Jr. in support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Declaration of Daralyn J. Durie in support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Declaration of Lisa J. Pirozzolo in support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Declaration of Kevin S. Prussia in support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Declaration of Andrew J. Danford in support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272
`Immunoglobulin Variants (filed June 14, 1991).
`Reserved
`Deposition Transcript of Lutz Riechmann, Celltrion, Inc. v.
`Genentech, Inc. (PTAB), Feb. 14, 2018
`Deposition Transcript of Robert Leonard, Celltrion, Inc. v.
`Genentech, Inc. (PTAB), Feb. 16, 2018
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Ian A. Wilson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,375,193
`U.S. Patent No. 7,560,111
`Leonard Presta, et al., Humanization of an Antibody Directed
`Against IgE, 151 J. IMMUNOLOGY 2623-2632 (1993)
`A. Bondi, van de Waals Volumes and Radii, 68 J. PHYSICAL
`CHEMISTRY 441-451 (1964)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Exhibit Number
`2028
`
`
`2029
`2030
`
`2031
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`2039
`
`2040
`
`2041
`2042
`2043
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`2047
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s
`Exhibit Number
`2052
`
`2053
`
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`2057
`2058
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`Exhibit Name
`
`Reserved
`Ole Brekke, et al., Therapeutic Antibodies for Human Diseases
`at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, 2 NATURE REVIEWS |
`DRUG DISCOVERY 52- 62 (2003)
`Thomas A. Waldmann, Monoclonal Antibodies in Diagnosis
`and Therapy, 252 SCIENCE 1657-1662 (1991)
`Greg Winter, et al., Antibody-Based Therapy: Humanized
`Antibodies, 14 TIPS 139-143 (1993)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Gert Riethmüller, et al., Monoclonal Antibodies in the
`Detection and Therapy of Micrometastic Epthelial Cancers, 4
`CURRENT OP. IMMUNOLOGY 647-655 (1992)
`Gert Riethmüller, et al., Monoclonal Antibodies in Cancer
`Therapy, 5 CURRENT OP. IMMUNOLOGY 732-739 (1993)
`Mark D. Pegram, et al., Phase II Study of Receptor-Enhanced
`Chemosensitivity Using Recombinant Humanized Anti-
`pl85HER2/neu Monoclonal Antibody Plus Cisplatin in Patients
`with HER2/neu-Overexpressing Metastatic Breast Cancer
`Refractory to Chemotherapy Treatment, 16 J. CLINICAL
`ONCOLOGY 2659-2671 (1998)
`Redline of IPR2016-01694 Expert Declaration of Dr. Eduardo
`A. Padlan in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 6,407,213 and IPR2017-01373 Expert Declaration
`of Lutz Riechmann, Ph.D., in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of Patent No. 6,407,213
`Corrected Exhibit P of Expert Declaration of Lutz Riechmann,
`Ph.D., in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent
`No. 6,407,213
`Deposition Transcript of Lutz Riechmann, Celltrion, Inc. v.
`Genentech, Inc. (PTAB), June 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on June 25, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of
`the following materials:
`
` 
`
` Patent Owner’s Observations on the Cross-Examination of Lutz
`Riechman, Ph.D.
` Patent Owner’s Updated Exhibit List
` Exhibit 2064
`
`
`to be served via electronic mail on the following attorneys of record:
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`chardman@goodwinlaw.com
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`
`Robert V. Cerwinski
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`rcerwinski@goodwinlaw.com
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`
`Elizabeth Holland
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`eholland@goodwinlaw.com
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`
`Sarah J. Fischer
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`sfischer@goodwinlaw.com
`100 Northern Avenue, Boston, MA 02110
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`/Lauren V. Blakely/
`Lauren V. Blakely
`Reg. No. 70,247
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 600-5039
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket