`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`MICRO LABS LIMITED AND MICRO LABS USA INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SANTEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. AND ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD.
`Patent Owners.
`
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`U.S. Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNERS' OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS'
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Ex. 2027 Should Not Be Excluded ................................................................... 1
`
`1. Ex. 2027 Is Relevant ..................................................................................... 4
`
`2. Ex. 2027 Is Not Hearsay ............................................................................... 5
`
`3. Ex. 2027 Is an Authentic Public Record ....................................................... 7
`
`4. Ex. 2027 Is Not Incomplete ........................................................................... 9
`
`B. Paragraphs 8-26 of Ex. 2028 Should Not Be Excluded ................................... 9
`
`C. Exs. 2023, 2034, and 2047 Should Not Be Excluded ....................................12
`
`D. Exs. 2038-2041 Should Not Be Excluded ......................................................13
`
`E. Ex. 2044 Should Not Be Excluded .................................................................13
`
`F. Exs. 2056-2060 and Related Testimony Should Not Be Excluded ...............15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owners Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.
`
`(together, "Patent Owners") hereby oppose Petitioners Micro Labs Limited and
`
`Micro Labs USA Inc.'s (together, "Petitioners") Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`(Paper No. 30) ("Motion"). For the reasons below, Petitioners' Motion should be
`
`denied in its entirety.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Ex. 2027 Should Not Be Excluded
`
`Ex. 2027 is a court decision from the Canadian proceeding Alcon Canada
`
`Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2014 FC 699 (Fed. Ct. CA, 2014). In that proceeding,
`
`Petitioners' primary expert, Dr. deLong, testified on behalf of Alcon in support of
`
`the validity of a Canadian counterpart ("the Canadian '287 Patent") with an
`
`identical disclosure to Petitioners' main prior art reference in this case, Klimko (Ex.
`
`1003). Ex. 2027 refers to and quotes Dr. deLong's testimony from the Canadian
`
`proceeding that flatly contradicts his opinions here.
`
`In the present case, Dr. deLong opines that Compound C of Klimko, a 16-
`
`phenoxy PGF2α analog, would have been the lead compound for the development
`
`of tafluprost. See e.g., Ex. 1027, ¶ 64. However, in the Canadian proceeding, Dr.
`
`deLong opined that there "was very little, if any motive, to test any phenoxy
`
`prostaglandin compounds, given the prior art information available." Ex. 2027, ¶
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`434 (emphasis added). Dr. deLong further testified that "[t]he teachings on the use
`
`of any phenoxy were limited and not encouraging (see prior discussion on
`
`Scjternschantz [sic] . . .)." Id., ¶ 432 (emphasis added).
`
`Furthermore, in the present case, Dr. deLong takes issue with the statement
`
`in Klimko that Compound C displays unacceptable hyperemia. Ex. 2025, 63:7-10.
`
`Yet, in the Canadian proceeding, Dr. deLong opined that Compound C "showed
`
`what appears to be an unacceptable degree of hyperemia and was not advanced
`
`for further testing." Ex. 2027, ¶ 314 (emphasis added). Moreover, Dr. deLong's
`
`testimony in the Canadian proceeding describing the previously reported data in
`
`Stjernschantz (Ex. 2017) regarding 16-phenoxy compounds (including Compound
`
`C) is inconsistent with his current position. In the Canadian proceeding, Dr.
`
`deLong testified that "[t]he closest compound exemplified is the 16-phenoxy, for
`
`which the hyperemia testing provided relatively poor results." Ex. 2027, ¶ 315
`
`(emphasis added). He also testified that "the skilled person reading Stjernshantz
`
`would likely not conclude that the 16-phenoxy (or the structurally related
`
`compound fluprostenol) does have an acceptable therapeutic profile (separation
`
`of toward and untoward effects)." Id.
`
`Dr. deLong also opines in this proceeding that Compound C exhibited a
`
`more favorable IOP profile than cloprostenol-IE (Compound A of Klimko) and
`
`fluprostenol-IE (Compound B of Klimko). Ex. 1027, ¶ 64. But again, Dr. deLong
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`said the opposite in the Canadian proceeding: "Dr. deLong agrees that the IOP
`
`reductions for the isopropyl esters of cloprostenol and fluprostenol were
`
`comparable to that of Compound C . . . ." Ex. 2027, ¶ 233 (emphasis added).
`
`Importantly, Dr. deLong does not dispute that he made the above
`
`contradictory statements, nor does he contest their accuracy. Instead, he resorts to
`
`inaccurate distinctions between his prior and current testimony that only further
`
`call into question his credibility. Ex. 1031, ¶¶ 71-76. For example, Dr. deLong
`
`contends that his testimony in this case is not contradicted by his prior testimony
`
`because "the POSA in the Canadian proceeding would not have been aware of
`
`Kishi, one of the main prior art references in this matter, since it published after the
`
`priority date of the Canadian '287 patent [i.e., August 3, 1993] in March 1994."
`
`Ex. 1031, ¶ 74; Reply (Paper 24) at 7. But a European Kishi counterpart ("the '856
`
`Pub.") (Ex. 1004) with essentially identical disclosure to the Kishi reference
`
`asserted here (Ex. 1005) was published on February 26, 1992, well before the
`
`priority date of the Canadian '287 patent. In fact, Petitioners expressly admit in
`
`their own Petition that the '856 Pub. and Kishi "share nearly-identical disclosures
`
`and are interchangeable for purposes of Petitioners' Grounds 1 and 2 and reliance
`
`on Kishi therein." Petition (Paper 1) at 34 n. 6 (emphasis added).
`
`Dr. deLong further contends that, "[b]y December 1996, the general view in
`
`the field was that the conjunctival hyperemia side effect was cosmetic in nature
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`and reversible." Ex. 1031, ¶ 73; Reply (Paper 24) at 7. Yet, on cross-examination,
`
`Dr. deLong conceded that Ex. 1036 – Petitioners' own exhibit that he had read in
`
`its entirety "many times" (Ex. 2061 at 126:16-127:2) – taught that the field, even as
`
`late as 2014, treated conjunctival hyperemia as a serious and undesirable side
`
`effect. See, e.g., Ex. 2061 at 127:21-130:8 (conjunctival hyperemia "is the most
`
`frequently reported side effect of the PG analogs and is commonly a cause of
`
`treatment discontinuation"); id. at 130:9-131:3 (hyperemia "is a significant
`
`contributor to treatment discontinuation with the PG analogs" that "account[s] for
`
`stopping or changing medication in 63 percent of patients in whom changes were
`
`made due to side effects"); id. at 131:4-131:14 ("the per-patient cost of treating
`
`hyperemia-free patients [is] U.S. dollars 73.67 compared with U.S. dollars 140.02
`
`in those who discontinued treatment due to hyperemia").
`
`No doubt recognizing the fatal nature of Dr. deLong's prior contradictory
`
`testimony to the credibility of their primary expert and their Petition, Petitioners
`
`make a wide array of arguments seeking exclusion of Ex. 2027. None have merit.
`
`1.
`
`Ex. 2027 Is Relevant
`
`Ex. 2027 is plainly relevant to at least Dr. deLong's credibility concerning
`
`key issues in this case. Petitioners argue that Ex. 2027 is somehow irrelevant
`
`"because the analysis and conclusions in the Canadian proceeding, including Dr.
`
`deLong's alleged statements therein, addressed a different issue under foreign law."
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`Motion at 3. That is a red herring. Patent Owners do not rely on any analyses or
`
`conclusions in the Canadian court decision that implicate Canadian law. Rather,
`
`Patent Owners merely refer to Dr. deLong's statements concerning his scientific
`
`understanding of the relevant art and the disclosures of a Klimko counterpart with
`
`identical disclosures to the Klimko reference at issue in this case. Petitioners also
`
`argue that "any probative value from the Canadian opinion is undercut by . . . the
`
`differing technical knowledge applied in August 1993 (the priority date of the
`
`Canadian '287 patent) and December 1996 (the priority date of the '035 patent)."
`
`Motion at 4. Petitioners cite no evidence whatsoever in support of that argument,1
`
`undoubtedly because, as discussed above, Dr. deLong's opinions on this matter are
`
`flatly refuted by the evidence of record and his deposition testimony.
`
`2.
`
`Ex. 2027 Is Not Hearsay
`
`Petitioners are wrong that Ex. 2027 and/or Dr. deLong's statements
`
`contained in Ex. 2027 constitute inadmissible hearsay. Patent Owners are not
`
`offering Dr. deLong's statements for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, the
`
`statements are being offered to impeach Dr. deLong. "Because impeachment
`
`evidence is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it is not hearsay."
`
`
`1 To the extent Petitioners attempt to improperly cite to evidence for the first time
`
`in their Reply, Patent Owners respectfully submit that the Board should not
`
`consider such untimely new arguments and evidence.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`Limbeya v. Holder, 764 F.3d 894, 898 (8th Cir. 2014).
`
`Furthermore, under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A), Dr. deLong's prior
`
`statements in the Canadian court proceeding – even if offered for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted – are not hearsay. In his declaration here, Dr. deLong specifically
`
`testified about his statements in Ex. 2027 and had every opportunity to dispute
`
`whether he made those statements or the truth of those statements. However, as
`
`discussed above, rather than deny the statements, Dr. deLong merely tried to
`
`reconcile those prior statements through further inaccurate statements. Thus, Dr.
`
`deLong's statements in Ex. 2027 are not hearsay, because (1) Dr. deLong is a
`
`witness in this proceeding "subject to cross-examination," (2) Dr. deLong has
`
`specifically "testifie[d]" about his prior statements in Ex. 2027, (3) Dr. deLong's
`
`prior statements are "inconsistent with [his] testimony" in this proceeding, and (4)
`
`Dr. deLong's prior statements were "given under penalty of perjury at a trial,
`
`hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition." Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A).
`
`Still further, even if Dr. deLong had not tacitly admitted that he made the
`
`prior statements quoted in Ex. 2027, the Canadian court's findings attributing the
`
`statements to Dr. deLong are admissible under the residual exception to hearsay.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807. First, the statements unquestionably have "equivalent
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." The statements were made by a
`
`Canadian court in a decision that can be readily obtained on the Canada Federal
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`Court website and in standard legal databases such as WestLaw. And again,
`
`despite having ample opportunity, neither Petitioners nor Dr. deLong dispute that
`
`Dr. deLong made the statements depicted in Ex. 2027, nor do they contest their
`
`accuracy. Second, the decision is being "offered as evidence of a material fact,"
`
`namely, Dr. deLong's lack of credibility as to key issues in this case. Third, the
`
`decision is more probative of Dr. deLong's prior statements in the Canadian
`
`proceeding than any other reasonably obtainable evidence; Dr. deLong's affidavit
`
`from the Canadian case was designated confidential and is unavailable to the
`
`public. Lastly, admitting the evidence "will best serve the purposes of these rules
`
`and the interests of justice" because it will assist the Board in assessing the
`
`credibility of Dr. deLong; to hold otherwise would permit Dr. deLong to present
`
`his indisputably inconsistent statements on critical issues here with impunity.
`
`For the reasons above, Petitioners' argument that Ex. 2027 is inadmissible as
`
`double-hearsay is likewise baseless. Fed. R. Evid. 805.
`
`3.
`
`Ex. 2027 Is an Authentic Public Record
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2027 is a decision published in a court reporter, issued by a public
`
`authority, i.e., the Federal Court of Canada. Ex. 2027 is therefore a "publication
`
`purporting to be issued by a public authority" and is self-authenticating under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 902(5). Further, Ex. 2027 properly qualifies as authentic under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(b)(4). "The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances"
`
`demonstrate that Ex. 2027 is what it purports to be. Indeed, a simple search for the
`
`decision on the Canadian Federal Court website via its reporter citation (2014 FC
`
`699) leads directly to the document. Moreover, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(2), Patent Owners timely served Petitioners with a copy of the Canada
`
`Federal Court webpage showing a link to Ex. 2027, as well as a version of the
`
`same Canadian court decision obtained from the WestLaw database.2 Such
`
`evidence further demonstrates the authenticity of Ex. 2027. In addition, Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(b)(7) provides that a public record may be authenticated by "[e]vidence
`
`that: (A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law;
`
`or (B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this
`
`kind are kept." Under Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Board may take judicial notice of the
`
`fact that Ex. 2027 is a public record filed in, and accessible from, the Canada
`
`Federal Court. In particular, the Board (and the public) can access Ex. 2027 at the
`
`Canada Federal Court website; the status of Ex. 2027 as a public record "is not
`
`subject to reasonable dispute because it: . . . can be accurately and readily
`
`determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 201.
`
`
`2 Patent Owners have filed those two documents with this Opposition as Exs. 2052
`
`and 2051, respectively.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`4.
`
`Ex. 2027 Is Not Incomplete
`
`
`
`Ex. 2027 is not incomplete. It is the entire decision as published by the
`
`Federal Court of Canada. Petitioners provide no support for their position that Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 106 somehow requires that Patent Owners provide Dr. deLong's
`
`"complete opinions as filed in those proceedings." Motion at 6. Importantly, Dr.
`
`deLong is Petitioners' expert in this proceeding, and has had every opportunity to
`
`provide testimony on any pertinent aspects of his opinions in the Canadian
`
`proceeding that are allegedly missing from Ex. 2027.3
`
`B.
`
`Paragraphs 8-26 of Ex. 2028 Should Not Be Excluded
`
`
`
`Petitioners are wrong that Dr. Macdonald is "ill-qualified" to opine on
`
`secondary considerations. Motion at 7. Dr. Macdonald is unquestionably an
`
`expert in prostaglandin analogs and their use in treatment of glaucoma. As
`
`detailed in his declaration, Dr. Macdonald served as a medicinal chemistry
`
`consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies and his expertise is generally
`
`applicable to lipid signaling systems, which include prostaglandins and
`
`prostaglandin receptors. Ex. 2001, ¶ 6. Indeed, Dr. Macdonald served as a
`
`technical consultant for Allergan (a leader in the eye care field) for nearly 30 years
`
`
`3 Although Dr. deLong's affidavit from the Canadian proceeding was designated
`
`confidential and is not publicly available, his prior validity opinions with respect to
`
`publicly available references are unquestionably not confidential.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`and provided his expertise in medicinal chemistry and molecular pharmacology in
`
`connection with the discovery and evaluation of novel compounds, including
`
`prostaglandin analogs for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Id.,
`
`¶ 8. Notably, despite now taking issue with Dr. Macdonald's qualifications,
`
`Petitioners chose not to depose Dr. Macdonald in this proceeding. It speaks
`
`volumes that, on the one hand, Petitioners argue that Dr. Macdonald is "ill-
`
`qualified," but on the other hand, did not even bother to depose Dr. Macdonald
`
`about his qualifications, or to test his substantive opinions in cross-examination.
`
`
`
`Petitioners also argue in conclusory fashion that Dr. Macdonald's secondary
`
`considerations opinions should be excluded because he "has no industry experience
`
`or formal education in the areas of marketing or business" and is not a "practicing
`
`ophthalmologist." Motion at 7-8. Petitioners' entirely conclusory argument should
`
`be rejected. Dr. Macdonald is eminently qualified to provide opinions on
`
`unexpected results (Ex. 2028, ¶¶ 15-24). Petitioners provide no substantive
`
`arguments to the contrary. Moreover, Dr. Macdonald's consideration of long-felt
`
`but unmet need and failure of others (Ex. 2028, ¶¶ 25-26) properly relies on the
`
`expert testimony of Dr. Fechtner, a practicing ophthalmologist. In fact, Petitioners'
`
`expert, Dr. deLong, likewise relies on the testimony of Petitioners' other expert, Dr.
`
`Rose. See Ex. 1031, ¶ 91. With respect to commercial success, Petitioners
`
`nowhere object to Patent Owners' Ex. 2030 that plainly spells out the financial data
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`underlying Dr. Macdonald's commercial success opinions. That data is
`
`indisputably admissible. The Board can properly weigh Dr. Macdonald's opinions
`
`regarding the data in Ex. 2030. See LG Chem. Ltd. v. Celgard, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00692, Paper 76, at 41-42 (P.T.A.B. Oct 5, 2015) (refusing to exclude commercial
`
`success opinions over qualification objections).
`
`
`
`Petitioners' remaining criticisms of Dr. Macdonald's testimony concerning
`
`long-felt but unmet need and commercial success – under the guise of failing to
`
`provide sufficient facts or data – are also unavailing. For starters, although
`
`Petitioners argue for the exclusion of paragraphs 8-26 of Ex. 2028, Petitioners do
`
`not identify any deficiencies with respect to Dr. Macdonald's opinions in
`
`paragraphs 9-11 (identifying commercial embodiments), 15-24 (unexpected
`
`results), and 26 (failure of others). Regarding ¶ 25 (long-felt need), Dr.
`
`Macdonald's statement that "Tafluprost exhibits a unique receptor profile" is
`
`expressly supported by Ex. 2031 and Dr. Fechtner's opinions in Ex. 2029, ¶¶ 6-10,
`
`neither of which Petitioners have moved to exclude. Likewise, Dr. Macdonald's
`
`opinions concerning ¶¶ 12-14 (commercial success) are supported by Exs. 2030
`
`and 2045-2046, which Petitioners have not moved to exclude. Moreover, if
`
`anything, Petitioners' objections (including objections to relevance) are directed to
`
`weight, not admissibility, and do not form a basis for exclusion. See Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 at 48,767 (a motion to exclude "may not
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.").
`
`C.
`
`Exs. 2023, 2034, and 2047 Should Not Be Excluded
`
`
`
`Based solely on the publication dates of Ex. 2023, 2034, and 2047,
`
`Petitioners argue that they should be excluded because they are purportedly not
`
`evidence of the level of knowledge of the POSITA in December 1996. Petitioners'
`
`argument lacks merit. Ex. 2023 is a patent in which Dr. deLong is a named
`
`inventor. Other exhibits in the record pre-dating December 1996 establish that it
`
`was known as of December 26, 1996 that prostaglandins bind to multiple receptors
`
`in varying degrees, triggering undesirable side effects. See Exs. 2009, 2010.
`
`Patent Owners merely cite to Ex. 2023 to demonstrate that Dr. deLong
`
`acknowledged this undisputed understanding.
`
`Further, the mere fact that Ex. 2034 was published in 1998 does not support
`
`exclusion. Patent Owners argue that as of December 26, 1996, a POSITA would
`
`have favored development of compounds that do not increase IOP over compounds
`
`that do. Ex. 2034 discloses that early prostaglandin compounds (prior to
`
`December 26, 1996) had an unacceptable increase in IOP, and demonstrates that an
`
`initial increase in IOP was undesirable, even as of 1998.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2047 is a January 1997 article that confirms the understanding of a
`
`POSITA as of December 1996 (one month earlier) that fluorine bound to carbon
`
`was a poor hydrogen bond acceptor. See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`/abs/10.1002/chem.19970030115 ("First Published: January 1997"). For example,
`
`the first two sentences of Ex. 2047 refer to a 1983 study that noted that a hydroxyl
`
`group was a much better hydrogen bond acceptor than fluorine bound to carbon.
`
`Ex. 2047, 1. Likewise, the same paragraph refers to a 1994 study that found that "a
`
`C-F group competes unfavorably with a . . . C-OH . . . to form a hydrogen bond
`
`[i.e., as a hydrogen bond acceptor]." Id.
`
`D.
`
`Exs. 2038-2041 Should Not Be Excluded
`
`
`
`Petitioners contend that Exs. 2038-2041 are irrelevant because they post-
`
`date December 26, 1996, and therefore cannot be evidence of any long-felt but
`
`unmet need. Not so. Exs. 2038-2041 show that the prostaglandin analogs that
`
`were ultimately approved by FDA provided once-daily dosing, rather than twice-
`
`daily dosing of the unoprostone drug that was available in December 1996. The
`
`documents also show that, years later, Patent Owners' tafluprost product,
`
`Zioptan®, continues to fulfill a need in the market (i.e., reduced risk of hyperemia)
`
`compared to other prostaglandin analogs.
`
`E.
`
`Ex. 2044 Should Not Be Excluded
`
`
`
`Ex. 2044 is a publicly available English-language medication guide cited by
`
`Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency ("PMDA"). In response to
`
`Patent Owners' objections, Patent Owners timely served Petitioners with certified
`
`translations of the PMDA webpage with a link to Ex. 2044, the Japanese-language
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`version of Ex. 2044, and the package insert for Tapros, the latter two accessible
`
`from the PMDA website. Patent Owners have filed the documents as Exs. 2053,
`
`2054, and 2055, respectively.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2044 qualifies as self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(5) as a
`
`"publication purporting to be issued by a public authority." See Ex. 2053.
`
`Further, "[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other
`
`distinctive characteristics" of Ex. 2044, "together will all the circumstances," see
`
`Exs. 2044 and 2053-2055, demonstrate that the document is what it purports to be
`
`and qualifies as authenticated under Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). Indeed, Ex. 2044
`
`identifies the URL from which the document can be readily downloaded. Ex. 2044
`
`is also properly authenticated under Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(7)(A) as a document that
`
`"was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law."
`
`
`
`Ex. 2044 is admissible under exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Ex.
`
`2044 is a "director[y] or other compilation[] that [is] generally relied on by the
`
`public or by persons in particular occupations," so it falls under the hearsay
`
`exception set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 803(17). Ex. 2044 is also admissible under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). It "sets out" the PMDA's "activities," i.e., recording and
`
`making available label information for approved drugs in Japan, as well as the
`
`PMDA's "factual findings from a legally authorized investigation" (which are
`
`admissible in civil cases, e.g., IPRs). Petitioners do not argue that Ex. 2044 lacks
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`trustworthiness.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`F.
`
`Exs. 2056-2060 and Related Testimony Should Not Be Excluded
`
`
`
`Petitioners are wrong that Exs. 2056-2060 and the associated cross-
`
`examination testimony of Dr. deLong and Dr. Rose are beyond the scope of proper
`
`cross-examination. These exhibits were presented at deposition as impeachment
`
`evidence and to specifically address arguments raised in Dr. deLong's and Dr.
`
`Rose's respective Supplemental Declarations (Exs. 1031 and 1032). Such cross-
`
`examination is expressly permitted under Fed. R. Evid. 611(b).
`
`Petitioners also argue without any supporting rationale that Exs. 2056 and
`
`2057 are irrelevant because they were published after December 1996. However,
`
`the relevance of these exhibits does not depend on their publication date. Dr.
`
`DeLong himself relies on a similar document (Ex. 1052). Rather, Exs. 2056 and
`
`2057 contradict Dr. deLong's opinion on the relative lipophilicity – an inherent
`
`property – of tafluprost and latanoprost, respectively. Dr. deLong's analysis was
`
`flawed because he compared his calculation for latanoprost against Dr.
`
`Macdonald's calculation using a different method for tafluprost. Exs. 2056 and
`
`2057 provide lipophilicity predictions using the same algorithms.
`
`Exs. 2056 and 2057 are not incomplete. Some text of the exhibits unrelated
`
`to the issues discussed in the deposition was inadvertently cut off. Patent Owners
`
`have since filed replacement documents as Exs. 2063 and 2064, respectively.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Arlene L. Chow /
`Arlene L. Chow
`Registration No. 47,489
`Eric J. Lobenfeld
`(pro hac vice)
`Ernest Yakob
`Registration No. 45,893
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`875 Third Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 918-3000
`Fax: (212) 918-3100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owners
`Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
`and Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owners'
`
`Opposition to Petitioners' Motion to Exclude was served on August 9, 2018, by
`
`filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End System
`
`as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of
`
`record for the Petitioners:
`
`Cedric C.Y. Tan, Reg. No. 56,082
`H. Keeto Sabharwal (pro hac vice)
`Yun Wei, Reg. No. 70,744
`Alton L. Hare, Reg. No. 68, 638
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel.: (202) 663-8000
`Fax.: (202) 663-8007
`Email: cedric.tan@pillsburylaw.com
`Email: keeto.sabharwal@pillsburylaw.com
`Email: sophie.wei@pillsburylaw.com
`Email: alton.hare@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Sean M. Weinman, Reg. No. 69,515
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard, 14th Floor
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel.: (703) 770-7511
`Fax.: (703) 770-4856
`Email: sean.weinman@pillsburylaw.com
`
`MicroLabsIPR@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`US Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Arlene L. Chow /
`Arlene L. Chow
`Registration No. 47,489
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`875 Third Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 918-3000
`Fax: (212) 918-3100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owners
`Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
`and Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
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
