`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KVK-Tech, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Shire LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00293
`Patent 9,173,857
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EXHIBITS 1047, 1049, 1051, & 1054-1056
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.64(c), Patent Owner Shire LLC (“Shire”) submits
`
`this motion to exclude Exhibits 1047, 1049, 1051, and 1054-1056 filed by Petitioner
`
`in support of the Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 31). 1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`With its Reply, Petitioner submitted six documents it says are published on
`
`the FDA’s website: EX1047—Clinical Pharmacology/Biopharmaceutics Review
`
`for NDA No. 22-063 (Mydayis®); EX1049—Chemistry Review for NDA No. 21-
`
`303 (Adderall XR®); EX1051—FDA Summary Review for NDA 22-063
`
`(Mydayis®); Ex. 1054—Dexedrine® Spansule® Sustained Release product label;
`
`EX1055—Dyanavel XR® product label; and EX1056—Adzenys ER® product
`
`1 In response to Patent Owner’s Objections (Paper 32), Petitioner served an
`
`additional document—EX1059 (Physicians’ Desk Reference 2005)—on February
`
`26, 2019. Petitioner alleged EX1059 to be “supplemental evidence.” The following
`
`day at the Deposition of Dr. McCracken, Patent Owner objected to this exhibit as
`
`untimely. Petitioner has not relied on EX1059 in any paper filed in this case. To the
`
`extent Petitioner attempts to rely on this document, however, Patent Owner reserves
`
`the right to move to exclude EX1059 as untimely. Patent Owner also notes that
`
`EX1059 is an entirely new document that does not respond to objection raised by
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`label. As discussed in below, each of these documents is offered by Petitioner to
`
`prove the truth of various statements contained therein. Accordingly, they are
`
`hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). These documents furthermore are not excluded
`
`from the definition of hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d), do not fall into any hearsay
`
`exception under Fed. R. Evid. 803, and are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Moreover, each of the product labels submitted by Petitioner are dated after
`
`the filing date of the challenged patent. The ’100 patent has a priority date of at least
`
`May 12, 2006. But EX1054 is dated 2007, and EX1055 and EX1056 are dated 2017.
`
`Accordingly, these documents are irrelevant to the validity of the ’100 patent and
`
`should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`“A party wishing to challenge the admissibility of evidence must object timely
`
`to the evidence at the point it is offered and then preserve the objection by filing a
`
`motion to exclude the evidence.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48765, 48767
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.64). “A motion to exclude evidence must: (a)
`
`Identify where in the record the objection originally was made; (b) Identify where
`
`in the record the evidence sought to be excluded was relied upon by an opponent;
`
`(c) Address objections to exhibits in numerical order; and (d) Explain each
`
`objection.” Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`“Admissibility of evidence [in an IPR] is generally governed by the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence.” 77 Fed. Reg. 157, at 48758. “Irrelevant evidence is not
`
`admissible” under Rules 401 and 402, when the evidence does not tend “to make a
`
`fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” or the fact is not
`
`of “consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402; see also
`
`Daubert, 509 U.S. at 587 (1993); Magnivision, Inc. v. Bonneau Co., 115 F.3d 956,
`
`961 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Hearsay evidence is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802, when a
`
`statement, other than one made by the declarant, is offered in evidence “to prove the
`
`truth of the matter asserted.” Air Land Forwarders, Inc. v. US, 172 F. 3d 1338, 1342
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`The proponent of the evidence, in this case Petitioner, has the burden of
`
`establishing admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`104(a); Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Identify Where in the Record the Objection Originally was Made
`Patent Owner originally objected to Exhibits 1047, 1049, 1051, and 1054-
`
`1056 on February 14, 2019, which was within five business days of the February 7,
`
`2019 Petitioner Reply. See Paper 32.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`B.
`
`Identify Where in the Record the Evidence Sought to be Excluded
`was Relied Upon by an Opponent
`Petitioner relied on Exhibits 1047, 1049, 1051, and 1054-1056 in its Reply.
`
`See Paper 31, pp. 2 (Ex. 1047), 7-8 (Ex. 1054), 15 (Ex. 1051), 16-17 (Exs. 1054-56),
`
`and 25 (Ex. 1049).
`
`Address Objections to Exhibits in Numerical Order
`C.
`Patent Owner objections to Exhibits 1047, 1049, 1051, and 1054-56 are
`
`addressed below in numerical order.
`
`D.
`
`Explain Each Objection
`1. EX1047 is Inadmissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 802
`EX1047 is inadmissible as hearsay. Petitioner cites EX1047 in support of its
`
`allegation that “[p]rior to 2006, doctors often prescribed a morning dose of Adderall
`
`XR followed by a booster of Adderall IR taken 8-10 hours later.” Paper 31, p. 2.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner quotes the following sentence from EX1047: “[t]he rationale
`
`for the development of SPD465 (Long Acting Adderall XR) is to enable primary
`
`adult and adolescent ADHD patients to benefit from ADHD symptom control
`
`throughout the entire day and extend those benefits into the early evening hours.”
`
`Thus, this statement is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801 because Petitioner is offering
`
`this statement from EX1047 to prove the truthfulness of the statement contained
`
`therein, i.e., the specific rationale for the development of Mydayis. Further, this
`
`statement in EX1047 is not excluded from the definition of hearsay in Fed. R. Evid.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`801(d), nor does it fall into any exception to the rule against hearsay under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 803. For these reasons, EX1047 should be excluded from this proceeding.
`
`2. EX1049 is Inadmissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 802
`EX1049 is inadmissible as hearsay. Petitioner cites EX1049 in support of its
`
`allegation that “[t]he first DR bead in SPD465 (EX. 1001, Example 3) uses the same
`
`Eudragit coating in approximately the same amount as the DR bead in Burnside,
`
`Example 2, which is also the same Eudragit coating used in the DR bead in Adderall
`
`XR. (EX. 1049, p. 11).” Paper 31, p. 25. Petitioner alleges Ex. 1049 is a Chemistry
`
`Review for NDA No. 21-303 (Adderall XR), and page 11 of EX1049 is a table
`
`entitled “Theoretical Milligram/Capsule of components in SLI 381 Capsules, 10 mg,
`
`20 mg, and 30 mg.” Included in that table is an entry for “Eudragit L30D-55.” Thus,
`
`Ex. 1049 is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801 because Petitioner offers it to prove the
`
`truthfulness of statements therein, i.e., that Adderall XR contains Eudragit L30D-55.
`
`Further, this portion of EX1049 is not excluded from the definition of hearsay in
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(d), nor does it fall into any exception to the rule against hearsay
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 803. For these reasons, EX1049 should be excluded from this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3. EX1051 is Inadmissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 802
`EX1051 is inadmissible as hearsay. Petitioner cites EX1051 in support of its
`
`allegation that “Shire told FDA that the nine-year hiatus was for ‘business reasons,’
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`which is incongruous with its present claim of long felt need. (EX1051, pp. 1-2).”
`
`Paper 31, p. 15. The statement in EX1051 quoted by Petitioner is as follows: “[t]he
`
`Applicant notified the Agency in 2007 that they intended to file an amendment to
`
`support approval; however, they later decided not to pursue further development of
`
`SHP465 for business reasons.” EX1051, pp. 1-2. Thus, EX1051 is hearsay under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 because Petitioner offers it to prove the truthfulness of statements
`
`therein, i.e., that the reason for not filing the amendment was for business reasons.
`
`Further, this portion of EX1051 is not excluded from the definition of hearsay in
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(d), nor does it fall into any exception to the rule against hearsay
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 803. For these reasons, EX1051 should be excluded from this
`
`proceeding.
`
`4. EX1054 is Inadmissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 802
`EX1054 is inadmissible as hearsay. Petitioner cites EX1054 in support of its
`
`allegation that “Moreover, while Dexedrine IR (dextroamphetamine) has a Tmax of
`
`3 hours and efficacy 3-6 hours, Dexedrine SR has a Tmax of 8 hours and efficacy
`
`for at least 9-12 hours.” Paper 31, 7 (citing Ex. 1054). The statement in EX1054
`
`relied on by Petitioner is as follows: “[f]ollowing administration of one 15-mg
`
`sustained-release capsule, maximal dextroamphetamine plasma concentrations were
`
`obtained approximately 8 hours after dosing.” EX1054, p. 2.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`Petitioner also cites EX1054 in support of its allegation that “‘[N]o food
`
`effect’ is inherent in all amphetamine ADHD formulations, regardless of formulation
`
`type (e.g., sustained or pulsed release) or characteristics.” Paper 31, pp. 16-17 (citing
`
`EX1054, p. 2). The statement relied on by Petitioner in EX1054 is as follows: “[i]n
`
`12 healthy subjects, the rate and extent of dextroamphetamine absorption were
`
`similar following administration of the sustained-release capsule formulation in the
`
`fed (58 to 75 gm fat) and fasted state.”
`
`Thus, these portions of EX1054 are hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801 because
`
`Petitioner offers EX1054 to prove the truthfulness of statements therein, i.e., that
`
`Dexedrine SR has a Tmax of 8 hours and has no food effect. Further, these portions
`
`of EX1054 are not excluded from the definition of hearsay in Fed. R. Evid. 801(d),
`
`nor do they fall into any exception to the rule against hearsay under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`803.
`
`Further, EX1054 is inadmissible as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402. As
`
`discussed above, Petitioner cites to EX1054 twice in its Reply: (1) as evidence of
`
`the Tmax of Dexedrine in support of Petitioner’s reasonable expectation of success
`
`argument (Paper 31, pp. 7-8); and (2) as evidence that Dexedrine does not exhibit a
`
`food effect in support of its inherency obviousness argument (Paper 31, pp. 16-17).
`
`Both arguments, however, turn on the knowledge of a POSA at the time of the
`
`invention of the ’100 patent, i.e., at least as early as May 12, 2006. Specifically,
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`whether a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at
`
`the invention of the ’100 patent depends on what the POSA knew in 2006. Similarly,
`
`the Federal Circuit has held that in the case of inherency in obviousness, what is
`
`important is what was known or expected to a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`See, e.g., Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A., 865 F.3d 1348,
`
`1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We have previously stated that the use of inherency in
`
`the context of obviousness must be carefully circumscribed because ‘[t]hat which
`
`may be inherent is not necessarily known’ and that which is unknown cannot be
`
`obvious.”) (“What is important regarding properties that may be inherent, but
`
`unknown, is whether they are unexpected.”) (citations omitted).
`
`Here, EX1054 is dated March 2007 (EX1054, p. 11), but there is no evidence
`
`as to when EX1054 became publicly available. Even if it is assumed that EX1054
`
`was publicly available in 2007, that date is still after the filing date of the ’100 patent.
`
`Thus, that a POSA might have known in 2007 that Dexedrine had a Tmax of 8 hours
`
`or had no food effect is irrelevant as to whether a POSA would have (1) had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, or (2) have
`
`expected or known the claimed composition would not have produced a food effect,
`
`in 2006 at the time the ’100 patent was filed.
`
`For these reasons, EX1054 should be excluded from this proceeding.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`5. EX1055 is Inadmissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 802
`EX1055 is inadmissible as hearsay. Like Ex. 1054, Petitioner cites EX1055 in
`
`support of its allegation that “‘[N]o food effect’ is inherent in all amphetamine
`
`ADHD formulations, regardless of formulation type (e.g., sustained or pulsed
`
`release) or characteristics.” Paper 31, pp. 16-17 (citing Ex. 1055, p. 10). The
`
`statement relied on by Petitioner in EX1055 discusses bioavailability of the drug
`
`Dyanavel XR in the fed and fasted states before concluding that “[t]hese changes are
`
`not considered clinically significant.” Thus, this portion of EX1055 is hearsay under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 because Petitioner offers EX1054 to prove the truthfulness of
`
`statements therein, i.e., that Dyanavel XR has no food effect. Further, this portion of
`
`EX1055 is not excluded from the definition of hearsay in Fed. R. Evid. 801(d), nor
`
`does it fall into any exception to the rule against hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 803.
`
`Further, EX1055 is inadmissible as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402. As
`
`discussed above, Petitioner cites to EX1055 as evidence that Dyanavel XR does not
`
`exhibit a food effect, which is in support of its inherency obviousness argument
`
`(Paper 31, pp. 16-17). As discussed with regards to EX1054, however, this argument
`
`turns on the knowledge of a POSA at the time of the invention of the ’100 patent,
`
`i.e., at least as early as May 12, 2006. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has held that
`
`in the case of inherency in obviousness, what is important is what was known or
`
`expected to a POSA at the time of the invention. See Honeywell supra. Here, Ex.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`1055 is dated January 2017 (EX1055, p. 1 (“Revised 1/2017”)), but there is no
`
`evidence as to when EX1055 became publicly available. Even if it is assumed that
`
`EX1055 was publicly available in 2017, that date is still well after the filing date of
`
`the ’100 patent. Thus, that a POSA might have known in 2017 that Dyanavel XR did
`
`not exhibit a food effect is irrelevant as to whether a POSA would have expected or
`
`known the claimed composition would not have produced a food effect in 2006 at
`
`the time the ’100 patent was filed.
`
`For these reasons, EX1055 should be excluded from this proceeding.
`
`6. EX1056 is Inadmissible Under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 802
`EX1056 is inadmissible as hearsay. Like EX1054 and EX1055, Petitioner
`
`cites EX1056 in support of its allegation that “‘[N]o food effect’ is inherent in all
`
`amphetamine ADHD formulations, regardless of formulation type (e.g., sustained or
`
`pulsed release) or characteristics.” Paper 31, pp. 16-17 (citing EX1056, p. 18). The
`
`statement relied on by Petitioner in EX1056 discusses bioavailability of the drug
`
`Adzenys ER with and without food before concluding that “[t]his change is not
`
`considered clinically significant.” Thus, this portion of EX1056 is hearsay under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 because Petitioner offers EX1056 to prove the truthfulness of
`
`statements therein, i.e., that Adzenys ER has no food effect. Further, this portion of
`
`EX1056 is not excluded from the definition of hearsay in Fed. R. Evid. 801(d), nor
`
`does it fall into any exception to the rule against hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 803.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`Further, EX1056 is inadmissible as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402. As
`
`discussed above, Petitioner cites to EX1056 as evidence that Adzenys ER does not
`
`exhibit a food effect, which is in support of its inherency obviousness argument
`
`(Paper 31, pp. 16-17). As discussed above with regards to EX1054, however, this
`
`argument turns on the knowledge of a POSA at the time of the invention of the ’100
`
`patent, i.e., at least as early as May 12, 2006. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has
`
`held that in the case of inherency in obviousness, what is important is what was
`
`known or expected to a POSA at the time of the invention. See Honeywell supra.
`
`Here, EX1056 is dated September 2017 (EX1056, p. 1 (“Revised 9/2017”)), but
`
`there is no evidence as to when EX1056 became publicly available. Even if it is
`
`assumed that EX1056 was publicly available in 2017, that date is still well after the
`
`filing date of the ’100 patent. Thus, that a POSA might have known in 2017 that
`
`Adzenys ER did not exhibit a food effect is irrelevant as to whether a POSA would
`
`have expected or known the claimed composition would not have produced a food
`
`effect in 2006 at the time the ’100 patent was filed.
`
`For these reasons, EX1056 should be excluded from this proceeding.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that its Motion
`
`to Exclude Exhibits 1047, 1049, 1051, & 1054-56 be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph R. Robinson/
`
`Joseph R. Robinson, PTO Reg. No. 33,448
`
` Robert Schaffer, PTO Reg. No. 31,194
` Dustin B. Weeks, PTO Reg. No. 67,466
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00293
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Exclude Exhibits 1047, 1049, 1051, & 1054-56 has been served on
`
`attorneys for Petitioner via electronic mail on March 7, 2019 on attorneys for
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Steven Roth
`sroth@lmiplaw.com
`
`Thomas Vetter
`tvetter@lmiplaw.com
`
` David Galluzzo
`
`djg@lmiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dustin B. Weeks/
`
` Dustin B. Weeks, PTO Reg. No. 67,466
`
`