`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Abraxis Biosciences, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`APOTEX INC. AND APOTEX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,138,229; 7,820,788; and 7,923,536
`________________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER VELLTURO, Ph.D.
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 1 of 20
`
`

`

`
`Filed on behalf of: Abraxis Biosciences, LLC
`
`I, Christopher Vellturo, Ph.D., hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I submit this declaration on behalf of Abraxis Bioscience, LLC (“Abraxis”
`
`
`
`or “Patent Owner”), Patent Owner of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,820,788 (“the ’788 patent”),
`
`7,923,536 (“the ’536 patent”), and 8,138,229 (“the ’229 patent”) (collectively, “the
`
`Abraxis Patents”) to provide my opinions on certain matters in connection with the
`
`petitions for inter partes reviews filed by Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.,
`
`(“Apotex” or “Petitioner”) in case nos. IPR2018-00151, IPR2018-00152, and
`
`IPR2018-00153 (collectively, the “Apotex IPR Petitions”).
`
`II. BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS
`I am the founder and president of Quantitative Economic Solutions, LLC
`2.
`
`(“QES”), a microeconomic consulting firm. I received a Doctor of Philosophy
`
`degree (Ph.D.) in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
`
`Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1989. My fields of specialization include industrial
`
`organization and econometrics.
`
`3.
`
`I have evaluated pharmaceutical patent issues in the context of commercial
`
`success and injunctive relief considerations on numerous occasions. I also have
`
`extensive experience in the valuation of intellectual property and in the assessment
`
`of economic injury/damages sustained as a result of copyright, trademark, and/or
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 2 of 20
`
`

`

`patent infringement. Industries that I have studied in this context include:
`
`pharmaceutical products, over-the-counter medications and instruments, medical
`
`devices, consumer products, computer hardware and software, and
`
`semiconductors. I have been qualified and have testified as an expert in many
`
`Federal Courts throughout the United States as an economist generally, as an
`
`expert in statistics/surveys, and as an expert in the economics of the
`
`pharmaceutical industry specifically.
`
`4.
`
`QES is being compensated for my time spent on this matter at an hourly rate
`
`of $850, which is my customary rate. Payment is not contingent on the outcome of
`
`this matter. QES is also compensated for the time spent on this matter by persons
`
`working at my direction. Those rates are lower than my hourly rate.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae, including a list of publications I have
`
`authored, is attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`III. BASIS OF OPINIONS
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the Apotex IPR Petitions, portions
`6.
`
`of the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses in IPR2017-01101; 01103; and
`
`01104 (“Actavis IPRs”), the Institution Decisions in the Actavis IPRs, portions of
`
`the Abraxis Patents, portions of the references cited in the Petitions in the Actavis
`
`IPRs, as well as the other documents identified below.
`
`7.
`
`The opinions expressed herein are also based on my knowledge, skill,
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 3 of 20
`
`

`

`experience, training, and education.
`
`IV. STATEMENTS
`I have been asked to consider whether the Kadima reference (EX1004)
`8.
`
`would have provided economic motivation to a skilled artisan “to reduce
`
`Capxol™’s albumin-paclitaxel ratio in order to obtain a more cost-effective and
`
`commercially viable formulation.” (’229 Pet. 46; ’788 Pet. 45; ’536 Pet. 45)1
`
`Based on my review of Kadima, Desai (EX1006), and my knowledge in the field
`
`of economics with respect to the pharmaceutical industry as of 1998, it is my
`
`opinion that Kadima did not provide any such motivation to reduce the weight ratio
`
`based on the cost of albumin.
`
`9.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[a]s Kadima explains, ‘[a]lbumin is a cost-limiting
`
`component for use in drug stabilization,’ because ‘[a]lbumin is an expensive
`
`ingredient.’” (’229 Pet. 46; ’788 Pet. 45; ’536 Pet. 45.) Petitioner relies on
`
`Kadima’s table, reproduced as Table 1 below, to provide “examples of cost
`
`
`1’229 Pet. refers to Apotex’s Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2018-
`
`00151. ’788 Pet. refers to Apotex’s Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2018-
`
`00152. ’536 Pet. refers to Apotex’s Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2018-
`
`00153.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 4 of 20
`
`

`

`differences for various ratios of albumin to paclitaxel—ranging from to $10.70 for
`
`a 0.5:1 ratio to $81:90 for a 10:1 ratio” and that “[b]ased on these significant
`
`differences, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to reduce Capxol™’s
`
`albumin-paclitaxel ratio in order to reduce the cost of producing the formulation.”
`
`(’229 Pet. 46; ’788 Pet. 46; ’536 Pet. 45-46.)
`
`Table 1
`
`Ingredients
`HSA
`Paclitaxel
`HSA
`Paclitaxel
`Molar
`Total
`Cost(1)
`Cost
`(g)
`(mg)
`ratio
`Cost
`$81.90
`$74.90
`$7
`23.4
`30
`1:10
`$44.40
`$37.40
`$7
`11.7
`30
`1:5
`$22.00
`$15.00
`$7
`4.7
`30
`1:2
`$14.50
`$7.49
`$7
`2.34
`30
`1:1
`$10.70
`3.74
`$7
`1.17
`30
`1:0.5
`(1) The fair 1999 market value of HSA is approximately $3.20 per gram.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I understand that, as Patent Owner pointed out in its Preliminary Response in
`
`the Actavis IPRs, and the Board agreed, Kadima does not report weight ratios, only
`
`molar ratios. (IPR2017-01101, paper 7 at 32; IPR2017-01103, paper 7 at 31;
`
`IPR2017-01104, paper 7 at 32.) I further understand that a paclitaxel-to-albumin
`
`molar ratio of 1:10 converts to an albumin-to-paclitaxel weight ratio of 790:1, and
`
`the lowest reported molar ratio of 1:0.5 corresponds to a weight ratio of 39:1.
`
`(IPR2017-01101, paper 7 at 26; IPR2017-01103, paper 7 at 26; IPR2017-01104,
`
`paper 7 at 26.)
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 5 of 20
`
`

`

`11. Based on the fair market value of human serum albumin and the cost of
`
`paclitaxel as of 1999, as reported in Kadima, the cost of albumin was already about
`
`half the cost of paclitaxel at the lowest weight ratio reported by Kadima (i.e., 39:1).
`
`In my opinion, from an economic standpoint, the reduction in the cost of albumin
`
`when going from a formulation with a weight ratio of 13.3:1 to a formulation with
`
`a weight ratio of 9:1 is negligible and would not have been a motivating factor to
`
`reduce the amount of albumin in the formulation. As shown in Table 2 below, the
`
`absolute cost and the percent total cost of albumin becomes increasingly
`
`inconsequential as the weight ratio of albumin to paclitaxel decreases. The
`
`percentage point change of the total cost of ingredients when reducing the weight
`
`ratio from 13.33:1 to 9:1 (i.e., 4%) is negligible.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 6 of 20
`
`

`

`Table 2
`
`Molar
`Ratio
`
`Paclitaxel
`(mg)
`
`HSA (g)
`
`Weight
`Ratio
`
`Paclitaxel
`Cost
`
`HSA
`Cost
`
`Ingredients
`Total Cost
`
`HSA Cost
`as % of
`Ingredients
`Total Cost
`91%
`
`84%
`
`68%
`
`52%
`
`35%
`
`$74.90 $81.90
`
`$37.40 $44.40
`
`$15.00 $22.00
`
`$7.49
`
`$14.50
`
`3.74
`
`$10.70
`
`$1.28
`
`$8.28
`
`15%
`
`23400/30
`= 780:1
`11700/30
`= 390:1
`4700/30
`= 157:1
`2340/30
`= 78:1
`1170/30
`= 39:1
`400/30
`0.4
`=
`(Capxol™)
`13.33:1
`900/100
`0.9
`11%
`$7.86
`$0.86
`$7(1)
`1:0.12 100
`= 9:1
`(Abraxane®)
`(1) The cost of paclitaxel is adjusted to reflect a 9:1 ratio based on 30 mg of
`paclitaxel.
`
`23.4
`
`11.7
`
`4.7
`
`2.34
`
`1.17
`
`$7
`
`$7
`
`$7
`
`$7
`
`$7
`
`$7
`
`1:10
`
`1:5
`
`1:2
`
`1:1
`
`30
`
`30
`
`30
`
`30
`
`1:0.5
`
`30
`
`1:0.17 30
`
`
`
`12. Thus, in my opinion, based on the data set forth above, at the relevant weight
`
`ratios (i.e., 13.3:1 and 9:1), Petitioner’s argument that “‘[a]lbumin is a cost-
`
`limiting component for use in drug stabilization,’ because ‘[a]lbumin is an
`
`expensive ingredient’” (’229 Pet. 46; ’788 Pet. 45; ’536 Pet. 45) is economically
`
`irrelevant. Even the Board recognized that as the amount of albumin is reduced to
`
`9:1, the absolute cost of paclitaxel ($7) is far greater than the cost of albumin
`
`($1.28). Thus, in my opinion, at the relevant weight ratios, albumin was not “a
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 7 of 20
`
`

`

`cost-limiting component” that would have provided motivation to reduce the
`
`amount of albumin used in the formulation.
`
`13.
`
`I also disagree with the Board’s finding in the Actavis IPRs that Table 1
`
`above supports Petitioner’s position “because continued reductions in the albumin
`
`amounts provide continued [greater] savings in pharmaceutical costs.” (IPR2017-
`
`00101, paper 7 at 32; IPR2017-00103, paper 7 at 32; IPR2017-00104, paper 7 at
`
`32. As shown in Table 2, the small savings achieved when going from
`
`formulations with a weight ratio of 39:1 to 13.3:1, and then further down to 9:1,
`
`would not have been a real-world motivating factor to reduce the amount of
`
`albumin. Indeed, the difference between the cost of albumin at a weight ratio of
`
`13.3:1 (approximately $1.28) and 9:1 (approximately $0.86) was only about 40
`
`cents per vial.
`
`14. To provide further economic context, I note that it is notoriously expensive
`
`to successfully research and develop, conduct clinical trials, and obtain regulatory
`
`approval to market cancer drugs. Several studies establish the high costs
`
`associated with developing and gaining regulatory approval for a drug. See, e.g.,
`
`EX2071 and EX2072. Other studies note that drugs used to treat cancer have the
`
`lowest likelihood of approval among major disease areas, leading to greater
`
`expected costs of successfully developing and obtaining approval for cancer drugs
`
`in particular. See, e.g., EX2073 and EX2074.
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 8 of 20
`
`

`

`15. These costs are typically recovered, and further research and development is
`
`funded, in part, through pricing. Based on publically available information, the
`
`expected profit margin on branded cancer drugs is typically upwards of 90%. To
`
`put that into context, the cost to patients for Abraxane® is more than $1000 per
`
`injection. (EX2075.) A 40 cent savings per vial would be approximately 0.04% of
`
`the total cost to the consumer for one vial. That would not have been a real-world
`
`motivation for formulators to reduce the amount of albumin in the formulation. A
`
`POSA would rather sell the Capxol formulation for $0.40 more per vial, since that
`
`amount would be swallowed by the expected profit margin, than risk reformulating
`
`and ending up with a formulation that did not work at all. Saving $0.40/vial (or
`
`less than 1% of the expected price) is useless if the product is never sold.
`
`16. The cost of research and development is one of the key driving factors in
`
`determining whether to develop a new drug or variation of an existing formulation.
`
`In the United States, only about five in 5,000 drugs that enter preclinical testing
`
`progress to human testing. And only one of these five drugs that make it through
`
`clinical trials is approved. (EX2076; see also, EX2077.)
`
`17. For drugs that enter Phase I clinical testing, only about 8% to 20% are
`
`ultimately approved by the FDA, and oncology drugs face even longer odds. See,
`
`e.g., EX2078; EX2079, at 42, 48; EX2080, at 115; EX2081; EX2082; EX2083;
`
`EX2084; EX2085; EX2086, at 117.)
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 9 of 20
`
`

`

`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 10 of 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 11 of 20
`
`

`

`101 Arch Street
`Suite 1010
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`t: 617.995.7676
`f: 617.995.7677
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER A. VELLTURO
`President
`
`Over the course of his career, Dr. Vellturo has performed a wide variety of economic and econometric analyses
`
`and provided expert testimony in the context of mergers and acquisitions, antitrust litigation, intellectual
`
`property litigation and numerous other matters spanning a broad array of industries. Dr. Vellturo has testified
`
`on economics-related matters in numerous U.S. District Courts, as well as at the Canadian Competition Bureau,
`
`and the American Arbitration Association. He has appeared before the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal
`
`Trade Commission, various states’ Attorneys General offices, the Federal Reserve Bank Board of Governors,
`
`and numerous other regulatory agencies on merger-related issues and other antitrust matters. Dr. Vellturo has
`
`also made appearances at hearings before the European Commission, and other antitrust enforcement agencies
`
`around the world. To date, he has performed economic analyses in over one hundred merger matters, in excess
`
`of seventy antitrust actions and well over one hundred intellectual property actions.
`
`Dr. Vellturo has taught graduate-level economics at Boston University’s School of Management.
`
`Prior to forming Quantitative Economic Solutions, LLC (QES), Dr. Vellturo was a Principal at Analysis
`
`Group/Economics (AG/E) and a Senior Vice President and member of the Board of Directors at National
`
`Economic Research Associates (NERA).
`
`Dr. Vellturo has published on a variety of topics, including merger and acquisition-related efficiencies, price
`
`discrimination, differentiated product analysis and market definition. His research has appeared in leading
`
`academic journals, including Antitrust, the Antitrust Law Journal, and the Journal of Economics and Management
`
`Strategy. Dr. Vellturo is a recipient of the Bradley Fellowship in Public Economics and has served as a referee
`
`for American Economic Review and Rand Journal of Economics.
`
`A Ph.D. graduate in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Vellturo also holds a
`
`Sc.B. in Applied Mathematics and Economics from Brown University, where he graduated magna cum laude and
`
`Phi Beta Kappa.
`
`
`
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 12 of 20
`
`

`

`Christopher A. Vellturo, page 2
`
`EDUCATION
`
`1989
`
`
`
`Ph.D. in Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`Primary Fields: Econometrics, Industrial Organization
`Secondary Fields: Public Finance, Game Theory, Law and Economics
`
`
`1983
`
`
`
`Sc.B. in Applied Mathematics and Economics (magna cum laude), Brown University
`
`PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`2008-Present Boston University, School of Management
`Instructor – Department of Finance & Economics
`
`2000-2002
`
`
`2002-Present Quantitative Economic Solutions, LLC
`President/Manager – Direct research on microeconomic issues in litigation and non-
`litigation matters. Areas of particular focus include: antitrust, regulation, and damages
`assessment in intellectual property and contract matters.
`
`Analysis Group/Economics
`Principal - Direct research and provide expert testimony on a variety of
`microeconomic issues with particular emphasis on antitrust, intellectual property, and
`mergers and acquisitions. Expert reports and testimony presented in U.S. District
`Court. Presented antitrust economic analyses to Federal Trade Commission, U.S.
`Department of Justice, Federal Reserve Bank Board of Governors and the European
`Commission.
`
`
`1996-2000
`
`
`
`
`
`1991-1996
`
`
`1989-1991
`
`National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
`Senior Vice President (1999-2000)
`Vice President (1996-1999)
`
`Cambridge Economics, Inc.
`Director - Directed research and provided expert testimony on a variety of
`microeconomic issues with particular emphasis on antitrust, intellectual property, and
`mergers and acquisitions. Prior expert testimony provided in U.S. District Court and
`before the American Arbitration Association. Presented antitrust economic analyses
`to U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission (Antitrust Division), state
`Attorneys General offices, and the Federal Reserve Bank Board of Governors.
`
`National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
`Senior Consultant - Directed and performed research relating to issues of antitrust,
`intellectual property, mergers and regulation.
`
`
`
`
`Department of Economics, M.I.T.
`Teaching Assistant - Undergraduate econometrics.
`
`
`1987
`
`
`
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 13 of 20
`
`

`

`Christopher A. Vellturo, page 3
`
`1985-1989
`
`1983-1985
`
`Dean Ann F. Friedlaender, M.I.T.
`Research Associate - Participated in research relating to transportation pricing and
`capital allocation responses to regulatory changes.
`
`
`National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
`Research Associate - Conducted research on a wide variety of issues including antitrust,
`railroad rate setting, optimal landfill pricing, and PCB and asbestos abatement
`strategies.
`
`
`
`AWARDS AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
`
`1987-1989
`
`Recipient, Bradley Fellowship in Public Economics
`
`1986
`
`1983
`
`1983
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Present
`
`Present
`
`Present
`
`M.I.T. Departmental Fellowship
`
`Phi Beta Kappa, Brown University
`
`Sigma Xi, Brown University
`
`Journal Referee for American Economic Review and Rand Journal of Economics
`
`Member, American Economic Association
`
`Member, American Bar Association
`
`
`
`TESTIFYING HISTORY (PAST FIVE YEARS)
`
`▪
`
`In re: Biogen ‘755 Patent Litigation
`United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
`Civil Action No. 10-cv-02734(CCC) (JBC)
`
`▪ Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH, Bayer Pharma AG, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Aurobindo Pharma
`Limited, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Invagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`Micro Labs Ltd., Micro Labs USA Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.,
`Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited, and Torrent Pharma Inc.
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 15-902-RGA
`Consolidated
`
`▪ AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca AB v. Breath Ltd./AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex,
`Inc. and Apotex Corp./AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca AB v. Sandoz, Inc./AstraZeneca LP and
`AstraZeneca AB v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.
`U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Consolidated Civil Action No. 08 CV 1512
`(RMB)(AMD)
`
`▪
`
`Immunex Corporation; Amgen Manufacturing, Limited; and Hoffman La-Roche Inc.; v. Sandoz Inc.; Sandoz
`International GMBH; and Sandoz GMBH
`United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01118
`
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 14 of 20
`
`

`

`Christopher A. Vellturo, page 4
`
`▪ Neopharm LTD., Promedico LTD., and Neopharm (Isreal) 1996 LTD., v. Wyeth=Ayerst International, LLC
`F/K/A, Wyeth Ayerst International Inc.
`United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:14-cv-08192-SHS
`
`▪ DexCom, Inc. v. AgaMatrix, Inc.
`United States District Court for the Central District of California, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-05947-
`SJO-AS
`
`▪ Development Specialists, Inc., Solely in its capacity as assignee for the benefit of creditors of Idun Pharmaceuticsl,
`Inc., v. AbbVie Inc.
`
`▪ Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corporation v. ZOLL Medical
`Corporation,
`U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action Nos. 1:10-cv-11041-NMG, 1:12-cv-
`12255-NMG
`
`▪ Knowles Electronics, LLC v. AAC Technologies Holdings Inc. and American Audio Component, Inc.
`U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-3527
`
` ▪
`
` BASF Agro B.V., Arnheim (NL), Wadenswil Branch, and Bayer S.A.S., v. Makhteshim Agan of North
`America, Inc., and Control Solutions, Inc.
`United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-
`00267-WO-LPA
`
`▪ Safe Gaming System, Inc. v. Atlantic Lottery Corporation, Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation, and
`Tech Link International Entertainment Limited.
`Court File No. T-1043-12
`
`▪ Dyson, Inc. v. Euro-Pro Sales Co.
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 14-CV-779
`
`▪ Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company, and Brookshire Brothers, Inc.
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Civil No. 2:15-cv-01202-JRG
`
`
`• Wockhardt Bio AG, Petitioner, v. Janssen Oncology, Inc., Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01582 U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438 B2
`
`▪ BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. and Merck & CIE v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 14-7203 (MAS)(TJB)
`
`• Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Petitioner, v. Janssen Oncology, Inc., Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01332 U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438 B2
`
` ViaTech Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 1:14-1226-RGA
`
` ▪
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 15 of 20
`
`

`

`Christopher A. Vellturo, page 5
`
`▪ Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. and Arthrocare Corp; Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. and
`Arthocare Corp.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Civil Action Nos. 2:15-
`cv-1047-RSP and 2:15-cv-1756-RSP
`
`▪ Crane Security Technologies, Inc., and Visual Physics, LLC., v. Rolling Optics AB
`U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, C.A. No. 14-cv-12428-LTS
`
` ▪
`
` Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC, v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case No.
`IPR2016-00204
`
`▪ Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited and Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC Petitioners, v Janssen Oncology, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`Case No. IPR2016-00286 U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438 B2
`
` Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC, ONO Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Tasuku Honjo
`v. Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action Numbers 14-1131-GMS; 14-560-
`GMS; 15-572-GMS
`
` ▪
`
` ▪
`
` Koninklijke Phillips N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corporation v. ZOLL LifeCor
`Corporation.
`U.S. District Court, District of Western Pennsylvania, Consolidated Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-
`01369-NBF
`
`▪ Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, lnc.
`U.S. District Court, district of Delaware, Case No. 12 Civ. 106
`
`▪ Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, Becton Dickinson Diagnostics, Inc., and Geneohm
`Sciences, Inc.
`U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Consolidated Civil Action No. 12-275-LPS
`
`▪ Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, v. Hospira, Inc.
`U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Consolidated Civil Action No. 14-915-RGA
`
`▪ Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Pharmasset LLC and Gilead Sciences Limited v. AbbVie Inc., and AbbVie
`Ireland Unlimited Company
`U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Consolidated Civil Action No. 13-2034-GMS
`
`▪ MSC. Software Corporation v. Altair Engineering, Incorporated et al.
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, Case No. 2:07-cv-12807
`
`▪ UCB, Inc., UCB Pharma GMBH, Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. and Harris FRC Corporation v.
`Accord Healthcare, Inc., et al.
`U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-1206-LPS
`
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 16 of 20
`
`

`

`Christopher A. Vellturo, page 6
`
`▪ SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited
`U.S. District Court, District of North Carolina, Civil Action No. 5:10-cv-00025-FL (E.D.N.C.)
`
`▪
`
`In Re: Certain Consolidated Zoledronic Acid Cases
`U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Consolidated Civil Action No. 12-03967 (SDW)
`(SCM) [Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 12-cv-04393, 13-cv-01028, 13-cv-02379, 13-cv-
`4669, 13-cv-5125, 13-cv-6835, 13-v-7914, and 14-cv-1841]
`
`▪ Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing L.P. v. FedEx Corporation, Federal Express Corporation, FedEx
`Corporate Services, INC., and FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc.
`U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Case No. 2:15-cv-02329-JPM-tmp
`
`▪
`
`Janssen Pharmaceuticals, INC ., et al v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, et al.,
`U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-04507-CCC-MF
`
`▪ Unimed Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Besins Healthcare Inc, and Besins Healthcare Luxembourg, Sarl v. Perrigo
`Company and Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals LTD
`U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Consolidated Civil Action No. 13-236 (RGA)
`
`▪ L’Oreal S.A. and L’Oreal USA, Inc.v. Merck and Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and MSD
`Consumer Care, Inc.
`U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 12-99-GMS.
`
`▪ Aetna Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-15346-BAF-RSW
`
`▪ Medac Phamra, Inc. and medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate mbH v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Leo
`Pharma A/S and Leo Pharma Inc.,
`U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01498-JBS-KMW
`
`▪ Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, INC. v.
`Watson Laboratories, INC.
`U. S. District Court, District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 12-1726 (LPS)(CBJ)
`
`▪ Pfizer Inc., Wyeth LLC, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. and PF Prism C.V. v. Apotex Inc., et al.
`U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 12-808-SLR
`
` ▪
`
` Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al.
`U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 12-CV-00630-LHK
`
`▪ Stragent, LLC and Seesaw Foundation v. Intel Corporation. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
`Texas, Tyler Division, Case No. 6:11-CV-421
`
` Aetna, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, a Michigan nonprofit healthcare corporation.
`U.S. District Court, District of Michigan, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-15346-DPH-MKM
`
` ▪
`
`
`
`
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 17 of 20
`
`

`

`▪
`
`In Re: American Express Antisteering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II)
`U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Master File No.: 11-MD-02221
`(NGG)(RER)
`
`Christopher A. Vellturo, page 7
`
` ▪
`
` ▪
`
` ▪
`
` ▪
`
` ▪
`
` ▪
`
` ▪
`
` Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC and Pfizer Health AB v. Impax Laboratories, Inc./Mylan,
`Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceiticals, Inc./Sandoz Inc.
`U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action Nos. 08-CV-2137 (DMC)(JAD)/10-CV-
`3246 (DMC)(JAD)/20-CV-3250 (DMC)(JAD) (consolidated)
`
`In the Matter of Certain Communication Equipment Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same,
`Including Power over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers and Other Devices Used in
`LANs and Cameras
`International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-817
`
`▪
`
` ▪
`
` Abaxis, Inc. v. Cepheid
`U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. C 10-2840-
`LHK
`
`▪ GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, et al. v. Hikma Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et al.
`U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No. 3:12-cv-01965-FLW-DEA
`
` Altana Pharma AG and Wyeth v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. and Sun Pharmaceuticals
`Industries, Ltd., et al.
`U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Consolidated Civil Action Nos. 04-2355 (JLL)
`(MAH)/05-1966 (JLL) (MAH)/05-3290 (JLL) (MAH)/06-3672 (JLL) (MAH)
`
` VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, et al.
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, Case No. 6:10-cv-417
`
` Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., and Essex
`Chemie AG
`International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration, No.: 17953/VRO
`
` Markem-Imaje Corporation (Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant) v. Zipher Ltd. and Videojet Technologies,
`Inc. (Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs)
`U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire, Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-00112-PB
`
`In Re: Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation
`U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 1:08-MDL-1935
`
`▪
`
` Life Technologies Corp. and Applied Biosystems, LLC (Claimants) and AB Sciex PTE Ltd. and DH
`Technologies Development PTE Ltd.
`JAMS Arbitration, JAMS Case No. 1400013323
`
` Genzyme Corporation v. Seikagaku Corporation, Zimmer Holdings, Inc., Zimmer, Inc., and Zimmer U.S.,
`Inc.
`U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, C.A. No.: 1:11-cv-10636-DPW
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151; IPR2018-00152; IPR2018-00153
`Page 18 of 20
`
`

`

`Christopher A. Vellturo, page 8
`
`PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
`
`“Lunch at Texas Law with Panel of Damages Experts.” Presented at the University of Texas School
`of Law’s Patent Damages Conference, Austin, Texas, June 9, 2016.
`
`“Mock Trial: Carnival Comics, Inc. v. DigiCom, LLP, et al.” Presented at the 61st Annual Spring
`Meeting of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Washington, DC, April 11, 2013.
`
`“Understanding How the Patent Cliff Will Re-Define the Endgame.” Presented at the 12th Annual
`Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycles Conference, New York, NY, October 4, 2011.
`
`“Differentiated Products” in Issues in Competition Law and Policy, Volume I, ed. D. Wayne Collins,
`Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association, 2008.
`
`“When Fraud on the Patent Office Violates Section 2: A Mock Trial.” Presented at the 52nd Annual
`Spring Meeting of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Washington, DC, April 1, 2004.
`
`“What Drives Consolidation?” Presented at the 28th Semiannual Members Meeting MIT/CRE,
`Cambridge, MA, May 14, 1998.
`
`“Proving Unilateral Effects and Efficiencies in Merger Cases: A Demonstration.” Presented at the
`46th Annual Spring Meeting of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Washington, DC, April 1, 1998.
`
`“Creating An Effective Diversion: Evaluating Mergers With Differentiated Products,” Antitrust,
`Spring 1997.
`
`“Economic Battles in the Antitrust Wars: Network Industries and Their Relevance to Antitrust in
`the Computer Industry.” Presented at the Washington State Bar Association’s Thirteenth Annual
`Antitrust, Consumer Protection and Unfair Business Practices Conference, November 8, 1996.
`
`“Differentiated Products: New Tools for New Methods.” Presented at NERA’s Seventeenth
`Annual Antitrust & Trade Regulation Seminar, Santa Fe, NM, July 5, 1996.
`
`“Market Definition Under Price Discrimination” (with J. A. Hausman and G. K. Leonard), Antitrust
`Law Journal, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Winter 1996).
`
`“Learning-by-Doing in the Context of Antitrust Analysis” (with J. Hausman), April 1995.
`
`“An Economic Analysis of ATM Surcharging,” prepared for Southeast Switch Inc., October 5, 1995.
`
`“Cost Effects of Mergers and Deregulation in the U.S. Rail Industry” (with Berndt, et al.), Productivity
`Issues in Services at the Micro Level, ed. Zvi Griliches and Jacques Mairesse, Kluwer Academic
`Publishers, 1993.
`
`“Cost Effects of Mergers and Deregulation in the U.S. Rail Industry” (with Berndt, et al.), Journal of
`Productivity Analysis, 4, 127-144, 1993.
`
`
`Abraxis EX2067
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`IPR2018-00151