`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORP.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,358,240
`Issue Date: June 7, 2016
`Title: TREPROSTINIL ADMINISTRATION BY INHALATION
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-01621
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S COMBINED
`MOTION
`
`
`
`
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 1
`
`III. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Rubin Complaint and the supporting Rubin Declaration are
`from a dismissed case and are not relevant. .......................................... 2
`
`The Turow Declaration shows no disagreement as to
`inventorship and is not relevant to the claims at issue. ......................... 5
`
`C.
`
`Conclusion ............................................................................................. 8
`
`IV. OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY ................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner cannot show that there is more than a possibility and
`mere allegation that something useful will be discovered. ................... 8
`
`The request seeks protected and privileged information of the
`Patent Owner even though direct information about
`inventorship is already of record and available, creating an
`undue burden on Patent Owner. ............................................................ 9
`
`C.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012–00001 (PTAB Mar. 5,
`2013) .................................................................................................................1, 8
`
`Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F. 3d 435 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .... 1
`
`Trovan, Ltd. v. Sokymat SA, Irori, 299 F.3d 1292 (Fed.Cir.2002) ............................ 6
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`EXHIBITS CITED
`
`Description
`Claims of Abandoned U.S. Application No. 11/748,205
`Inventor Oaths filed in U.S. Application No. 12/591,200 (granted as
`the ’240 patent) and U.S. Application No. 13/469,854 (granted as the
`’507 patent)
`Dismissal of Complaint of Dr. Lewis Rubin and Motion for
`Attorney’s Fees
`Excerpts from Deposition of Dr. Lewis Rubin
`
`Exhibit No.
`2201
`
`2202
`
`2203
`2204
`
`
`
`
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request to submit three exhibits as
`
`supplemental information and to obtain an unredacted copy of one of the three
`
`exhibits. None of the three exhibits is relevant to the issue identified by Petitioner
`
`or to a claim for which the trial has been instituted.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A party filing a motion to submit supplemental information must show that
`
`the supplemental information is “relevant to a claim for which the trial has been
`
`instituted.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.123. Even if this condition is met, the Board may
`
`exercise its discretion and deny the motion. Redline Detection, LLC v. Star
`
`Envirotech, Inc., 811 F. 3d 435, 446 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`A party requesting additional discovery bears the burden of demonstrating it
`
`is “in the interests of justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.51. To determine whether to grant
`
`the motion, the Board considers the five Garmin factors, i.e., whether the request:
`
`(1) is based on more than a mere possibility of finding something useful; (2) seeks
`
`the other party’s litigation positions or the basis for those positions; (3) seeks
`
`information that reasonably can be generated without the discovery request; (4) is
`
`easily understandable; and (5) is overly burdensome to answer. Garmin Int’l, Inc.
`
`v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012–00001, Paper 26, 6–7 (PTAB Mar. 5,
`
`2013).
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`III. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION
`
`Petitioner asserts that the Rubin Complaint, the supporting Rubin
`
`Declaration, and the Turow Declaration are relevant to determining whether
`
`Ghofrani is prior art “by another.” Combined Motion, 1, 5. But none of the
`
`proposed exhibits even mention, much less address, Ghofrani or its authorship.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the proposed exhibits nevertheless are relevant to
`
`determining the “inventive entity” of each of the challenged claims because they
`
`tend to show that Dr. Rubin conceived the challenged claims without involvement
`
`of the other co-inventors, some of who “were willing to be withdrawn from the
`
`patent.” Combined Motion, 1, 5. But, again, none of the proposed exhibits even
`
`mention, much less address, the challenged claims, their specific limitations, or the
`
`inventorship thereof. And at no point were any inventors “willing to be withdrawn
`
`from the patent,” as Watson suggests, and regardless, an inventor’s willingness to
`
`be listed or not as an inventor is not the test of inventorship. The proposed exhibits
`
`simply are not relevant to a claim for which trial was instituted.
`
`A. The Rubin Complaint and the supporting Rubin Declaration are
`from a dismissed case and are not relevant.
`
`The Rubin Complaint is not even evidence—it contains merely hearsay
`
`allegations that were in fact dismissed by the Maryland court and are subject to a
`
`motion for attorneys’ fees. Ex. 2203. The Rubin Declaration is also a self-serving
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`justification to avoid an award of attorneys’ fees for frivolous litigation. Neither
`
`document presents any evidence that contradicts or relates to the Declarations
`
`discussing the contributions of the respective Ghofrani authors. Neither document
`
`alleges or even suggests that Dr. Rubin conceived or invented every claim
`
`limitation,1 including the critical limitations in every claim relating to the very
`
`specific pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer with very specific features for a sophisticated
`
`synchronization scheme to match pulses to breath.2
`
`If anything, the documents confirm the collaboration between Dr. Rubin and
`
`the inventors as early as 2003, demonstrating that the work Watson relies on in
`
`Ghofrani was the work of the named inventors jointly, and thus not “of another.”
`
`1 For Watson’s relevance claim to succeed, the proposed exhibits must have a
`
`“tendency to make…more probable” that “the invention of the challenged claims
`
`originated with Dr. Rubin without the involvement of the other co-inventors.”
`
`Combined Motion, 5-6. But at most Dr. Rubin alleges the conception of some
`
`limitations, which is expected and not disputed as he is a joint co-inventor.
`
`2 The sole limitation Dr. Rubin even alleges to have conceived in the two proposed
`
`exhibits is “a single event consisting of fewer than 18 breadths [sic.].” Ex. 1171,
`
`¶ 5. Thus, even if his allegations were taken as true, they do not tend to show that
`
`he is the sole inventor of the claims, but merely, as expected, a co-inventor.
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`Ex. 1170 at ¶ 26 (Dr. Rubin recommended Drs. Seeger and Olschewski join him in
`
`the development program due to their expertise in inhalation treatments); id. at
`
`¶ 27 (“It was agreed that Drs. Seeger and Olschewski would work with Dr. Rubin
`
`on the TRIUMPH development program” in Mid-September 2003); id. at ¶ 28 (in
`
`agreements signed on or around September 23-30, 2003, Drs. Rubin and Seeger
`
`assumed titles of co-chair of the development program).3
`
`If the Board permits Petitioner to introduce the proposed exhibits, Patent
`
`Owner will introduce other documents from that case and the district court case
`
`between the parties directly refuting Watson’s speculation including admissions,
`
`elicited by and known to Watson, demonstrating that Dr. Rubin had no
`
`involvement in critical claim limitations and his co-inventors did.4 See e.g., Ex.
`
`3 Indeed, documents already of record refute Watson’s speculation. Ex. 1011, ¶ 4
`
`and ¶ 8 (sworn declaration from Dr. Rubin admitting he is a “co-inventor” of the
`
`claimed subject matter and that he and the co-inventors performed the claimed
`
`methods prior to Sept. 1, 2005); 1058, ¶ 4 (sworn declaration from Dr. Rubin
`
`admitting co-inventorship and detailing the joint studies and unexpected results
`
`obtained with his co-inventors).
`
`4 Notably, this deposition testimony was elicited by counsel for Watson from the
`
`same law firm that is representing Watson as Petitioner in this inter partes review
`
`
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`2204, 75 (admitting he was not involved in determining the drug concentration in
`
`the formulation, which is a critical claim limitation found in every claim); id. at
`
`80:10-13; 81:18- 23 (admitting he was not involved in and provided no input into
`
`the design for the device that was used); id. at 92:3-6 (admitting he had no
`
`involvement in configuring the visual and audio signals on the device used); and
`
`id. at 117-120 (describing the inventive contributions of co-inventors who were
`
`“instrumental in the selection and development of the delivery device, the
`
`nebulizer ” and “critical in further developing the concept, particularly focusing on
`
`the delivery mechanism, which is a critical element of the patents;” another co-
`
`inventor’s contribution to the patent was focused on the delivery system that is a
`
`component of the patents; and a co-inventor whose contribution to the patent was
`
`the mechanisms of delivery.).
`
`B.
`
`The Turow Declaration shows no disagreement as to inventorship
`and is not relevant to the claims at issue.
`
`Petitioner argues that the Turow Declaration has a tendency to make the
`
`“fact” of the inventors’ contributions to the claims of the ’240 patent “less
`
`probable.” Combined Motion, 6. Petitioner’s argument, however, contradicts a
`
`
`where Watson is suggesting that Dr. Rubin developed the invention without input
`
`from his co-inventors.
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`basic tenet of patent law: inventorship is determined on a claim by claim basis.
`
`Trovan, Ltd. v. Sokymat SA, Irori, 299 F.3d 1292, 1302 (Fed.Cir.2002). The
`
`Turow Declaration refers only to the claims of a ’205 “metered-dose inhaler”
`
`application, which differ markedly from the claims at issue, which all require a
`
`pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer. The Declaration and its exhibits are thus not relevant
`
`to a claim for which trial has been instituted. Even if any discussion in the Turow
`
`Declaration could be incorrectly deemed to be relevant to the separate application
`
`leading to the ’240 patent, it is clear that the inventors never disavowed
`
`contributions or invention.
`
`The Turow Declaration was submitted in U.S. Application No. 11/748,205
`
`(“the ’205 application”), an abandoned parent of the ’240 patent. Ex. 1173, 1. It
`
`was submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.47(a) to request acceptance of the inventors’
`
`oaths in this application with non-signing inventors. Ex. 1173. The declaration
`
`itself states that the inventors’ request for withdrawal “does not indicate that any
`
`of…[the inventors]…denies being an inventor” but rather was based on the desire
`
`of one or more co-inventors for “additional compensation.” Ex. 1173, 6. Indeed,
`
`rather than disavow any inventive contribution, the inventors were arguing that
`
`they should get additional compensation for their development of the metered-dose
`
`inhaler (MDI) approach. Ex. 1172, 24-25. Thus, the Turow Declaration does not
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`raise a dispute as to the correct inventive entity even of the ’205 application, much
`
`less to the claims of the ’240 patent or any of the Ghofrani subject matter.
`
`In the ’240 patent and the provisional parent application to both the ’240
`
`patent and ’205 application, all the named inventors submitted oaths confirming
`
`that they were co-inventors as to that claimed subject matter. Ex. 2202.
`
`Petitioner’s implication that the Turow Declaration could erase the effect of these
`
`oaths and call into question “the proper co-inventors of the subject matter claimed
`
`in the [challenged patent]” (Combined Motion, 5) is incorrect. The claims of the
`
`’205 application markedly differ from the claims of the ’240 patent. The ’205
`
`application requires the use of a “metered dose inhaler”, MDI, as the relevant
`
`device. It is this device that is in dispute in the Turow Declaration exhibits. Ex.
`
`1001; 2201; see also Ex. 1172, 24 (where Dr. Seeger explicitly references the
`
`“metered dose inhaler approach”). In contrast, the ’240 patent does not require a
`
`MDI, but a pulsed ultrasonic nebulizer with specific features and function. A
`
`simple comparison of the ’205 application claims 1-54 and the ’240 patent claims
`
`1-9 reveals numerous other distinct claim limitations, as well. Ex. 1001; Ex. 2201.
`
`Given the differences between the claims of the ’205 application and the ’240
`
`patent (id.), it cannot be assumed that questions as to inventorship of the MDI of
`
`the ’205 application are relevant to inventorship of the ’240 patent, which does not
`
`claim an MDI.
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`C. Conclusion
`Petitioner has failed to show the relevance of any of the three proposed
`
`exhibits to a claim for which trial was instituted. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion
`
`should be denied.
`
`IV. OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`Petitioner requests additional discovery in the form of an unredacted copy of
`
`the Turow Declaration, contending that this is “in the interests of justice.”
`
`Combined Motion, 7. Notably, Petitioner’s motion is contingent on demonstrating
`
`that the Turow Declaration is relevant, which it has not. See supra III.B.
`
`Furthermore, the request does not meet at least four critical Garmin factors. Even
`
`if the Garmin factors had been satisfied, the redactions based on attorney-client
`
`and common interest privilege are not discoverable.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner cannot show that there is more than a possibility and
`mere allegation that something useful will be discovered.
`
`As noted above, the Turow Declaration does not mention Ghofrani, its non-
`
`inventor co-authors, or the relevant subject matter in Ghofrani or the challenged
`
`claims. Indeed, the dispute referenced in the Turow Declaration was strictly
`
`related to an MDI approach and was not related to inventorship, but rather
`
`compensation. Ex. 1173, 6; supra III.B. The Turow Declaration does not relate to
`
`the claims of the ’240 patent. Ex. 1173, 1; supra III.B. Accordingly, the notion
`
`that redacted material in the Turow Declaration should have any bearing on facts
`8
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`relating to the ’240 patent claims is no more than a strained possibility and
`
`allegation, lacking basis in any analysis presented by Petitioner or evidence
`
`available in the Turow Declaration.
`
`B.
`
`The request seeks protected and privileged information of the
`Patent Owner even though direct information about inventorship
`is already of record and available, creating an undue burden on
`Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the unredacted Turow Declaration will not reveal
`
`anything relating to Patent Owner’s positions in this or “any other litigation.”
`
`Combined Motion, 9 (emphasis in original). However, the Turow Declaration
`
`explicitly relates to a contractual disagreement and the desire of certain inventors
`
`to obtain more compensation, resulting in their refusal to sign inventor oaths in the
`
`’205 application, which was abandoned. Accordingly, the circumstances of the
`
`Turow Declaration explicitly relate to an underlying legal dispute, and additional
`
`discovery in the form of the unredacted version would have the effect of seeking
`
`Patent Owner’s litigation positions and the underlying basis for these positions.
`
`Even if this is not of the type contemplated by the second Garmin factor, the
`
`redacted information discusses and refers to attorney-client privileged
`
`communications with patent counsel, common interest privilege, and confidential
`
`business information about a technology not even related to the claims here at issue.
`
`The burden on Patent Owner to disclose privileged and protected information
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`about an unrelated technology concerning different patent claims is not justified by
`
`the strained speculation of finding something useful, particularly in light of
`
`voluminous evidence of the inventors’ roles and contributions found and known to
`
`Watson in a heavily developed district court record and sworn file history
`
`declarations.
`
`C. Conclusion
`Petitioner has shown no more than a possibility and mere allegation of
`
`uncovering something useful, additional discovery seeks privileged information,
`
`seeks information that reasonably can be generated without the request, and is
`
`burdensome to Patent Owner where it is not even related to the claims (or even
`
`technology) here at issue. The request for additional discovery is not in the
`
`interests of justice and should be denied.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Patent Owner urges denial of Petitioner’s Combined Motion and
`
`expungement of the Rubin complaint, Rubin Declaration, and Turow Declaration
`
`from the record of this proceeding.
`
`Date: March 23, 2018
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`
`George E. Quillin
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`Registration No. 32,792
`
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`3000 K Street, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`
`Shaun R. Snader
`Registration No. 59,987
`
`United Therapeutics Corporation
`1735 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Second Floor
`Washington, DC 20009
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`
`
`
`PO Opposition to Combined Motion
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner
`
`Response and Exhibits 2201-2204 are being served on March 23, 2018, by filing
`
`these documents through the PTAB E2E System as well as delivering copies via
`
`email to the following counsel for the Petitioner:
`
`
`
`Michael K. Nutter (Reg. No. 44,979)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Dr.
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Email: mnutter@winston.com
`
`Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. No. 53,932)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-3817
`Email: asommer@winston.com
`
`Kurt A. Mathas
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Dr.
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Email: kmathas@winston.com
`
`4834-5831-2799
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`
`George E. Quillin
`Registration No. 32,792
`
`Shaun R. Snader
`Registration No. 59,987
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`