throbber
Case No. IPR2018-01403
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01403
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`____________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF REBECCA CONAGHAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Biogen Exhibit 2098
`Mylan v. Biogen
`IPR 2018-01403
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01403
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Personal Background and Introduction ........................................................... 1
`I.
`II. My Role in the Phase II Trial .......................................................................... 2
`III. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`

`

`I, Rebecca Conaghan, have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01403
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`
`
`
`provide the following testimony:
`
`I.
`
`Personal Background and Introduction
`I am a Regulatory Affairs Manager for Biogen Idec Ltd. in Maidenhead,
`1.
`
`United Kingdom. I have worked for Biogen for approximately 15 years as a
`
`permanent employee or a contractor in various clinical trial and regulatory roles. I
`
`attended school at the King’s College of London, where I obtained my Msc in
`
`Human and Applied Physiology, and the University of St. Andrews, where I
`
`obtained by BSc Honors in Physiology.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has instituted
`
`an Inter Partes Review, IPR2018-01403, involving Biogen’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,399,514 (“the ’514 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I also understand that Mylan has submitted the following exhibits in
`
`that proceeding:
`
`• Ex. 1007: L. Kappos et al., Efficacy of a Novel Oral Single-
`Agent Fumarate, BG0012, in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting
`Multiple Sclerosis: Results of a Phase 2 Study, 253 (Supp. 2) J.
`Neurol. II27, O108 (2006)
`
`• Ex. 1046: L. Kappos et al., Efficacy of a Novel Oral Single-
`Agent Fumarate, BG0012, in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting
`Multiple Sclerosis: Results of a Phase II Study, 253 (16th
`Meeting of the European Neurological Society, May 20, 2006)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01403
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`
`• Ex. 1016: NewsRoom document, Oral Compound BG-12
`Achieves Primary Endpoint in Phase II Study of Relapsing-
`Remitting Multiple Sclerosis; Treatment with BG-12 Led to
`Statistically Significant Reductions in MRI Measures (May 30,
`2006)
`
`I provide this declaration based on my personal knowledge and my role
`
`4.
`
`in the Phase II trial of BG-12 for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS).
`
`II. My Role in the Phase II Trial
`I was Biogen’s Clinical Trial Manager of its Phase II trial of BG-12 in
`5.
`
`patients with MS. I worked as part of the team to set up all aspects of the clinical
`
`trial, including chairing weekly meetings of the Study Management Team (SMT),
`
`which were attended by Biogen’s Medical Director for the MS BG-12 program, Dr.
`
`Gilmore O’Neill, the lead statistician, Minhua Yang, and others. At the weekly SMT
`
`meetings, members would update Dr. O’Neill and members of the SMT on the status
`
`of the various activities involved in executing a clinical trial. I was also involved in
`
`numerous other activities, including setting up the labs and selecting and managing
`
`the external vendors including the contract research organization (CRO). In my role
`
`as Clinical Trial Manager, I worked closely with Dr. O’Neill, Minhua Yang, and
`
`others on the SMT. I also interacted with the individuals and groups outside Biogen,
`
`including Clinical Investigators, who came together to execute the Phase II clinical
`
`trial.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I was present from the very beginning of the BG-12 MS program, when
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01403
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`
`
`
`Dr. O’Neill presented his clinical trial concept at a meeting of the Clinical Trial
`
`Review Board (CTRB). See Ex. 2088. As shown in the meeting minutes, Dr.
`
`O’Neill presented four dosing regimens, the first and second of which included the
`
`dose of 480 mg/day of DMF, which is the dose approved for Biogen’s MS treatment
`
`Tecfidera®. Id. The decision was made to go forward with his third proposed dosing
`
`option—120 mg/day, 360 mg/day, and 720 mg/day. Once the protocol was
`
`finalized, we quickly got to work undertaking the numerous activities required for a
`
`Phase II trial, including setting up our initial Clinical Investigators meeting in
`
`Versailles, France. See Ex. 2089.
`
`7.
`
`As with all clinical trials, there were of course many individuals
`
`involved in the clinical trial, both inside and outside Biogen. All of us who worked
`
`on the Phase II project, both inside and outside Biogen, did so under the direction
`
`and supervision of Dr. O’Neill and the members of Biogen’s SMT who were acting
`
`at his direction. For example, each trial site had a designated Principal Investigator
`
`or Investigators who were responsible for overseeing the site, executing the
`
`approved study protocol, and receiving monitors who regularly visited the site to
`
`ensure the protocol was being adhered to. Dr. Ludwig Kappos was designated
`
`“Coordinating Investigator.” A Scientific Advisory Committee was also formed to
`
`provide scientific and medical advice for the study and oversee its progress.
`3
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`

`

`
`Together, we all worked to execute and carry out the Phase II trial under the guidance
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01403
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`
`and direction of Dr. O’Neill.
`
`8.
`
`During February 2005, I took maternity leave. I returned in June
`
`2006—in a contractor role for 5 months and returned again in April 2009. I have
`
`been working at Biogen since 2009 in a contractor position and then as a permanent
`
`employee. Despite my absence from Biogen during the time when Exhibits 1007,
`
`1046, and 1016 were being prepared, I can affirm that those exhibits all relate to the
`
`Phase II clinical trial led by Dr. O’Neill. The subject matter in Exhibits 1007, 1046,
`
`and 1016 is solely the work of Dr. O’Neill and those who worked on the Phase II
`
`clinical trial under his direction and supervision.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that an issue in this legal proceeding relates to whose work
`
`is described in Exhibits 1007, 1046, and 1016. I can attest that, although multiple
`
`authors are listed on Exhibits 1007 and 1046, the work described in them and in
`
`Exhibit 1016 is the work of Dr. O’Neill, and those who worked on the Phase II BG-
`
`12 MS study at his direction. The Scientific Advisory Committee determined as a
`
`group in September 2004 the individuals who would be listed as authors. See Ex.
`
`2092. Everyone agreed that the entire Scientific Advisory Committee would be
`
`named; Biogen’s study medical director (Dr. O’Neill) and lead statistician would be
`
`named; the members of the MRI Reading Centre would be included due to their role
`
`in data processing; and the top 3 highest enrollers would be included as well. Id. As
`4
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-01403
`
`US. Patent No. 8,399,514
`
`the designated Coordinating Investigator for the study, Dr. Kappos was listed as the
`
`first author, which is the common practice. The multiple authors on Exhibits 1007
`
`and 1046 are a testament to the many people who assisted in executing the Phase II
`
`clinical trial protocol. All those involved in executing Biogen’s Phase II clinical trial
`
`did so under the guidance and direction ofDr, O’Neill.
`
`111. Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein ofmy knowledge are true, and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the
`
`like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of
`
`Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`1 1.
`
`In signing this declaration, I understand that the declaration will be filed
`
`as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. I acknowledge that I may be subject to
`
`cross examination in the case and that cross examination will take place within the
`
`United States. If cross examination is required of me, I will appear for cross
`
`examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross examination.
`
`Ie/Maj/ LOICI
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-01403
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1007
`
`1016
`
`1046
`
`2088
`
`2089
`
`2092
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514, Treatment for Multiple Sclerosis
`(filed Feb. 13, 2012) (issued Mar. 19, 2013)
`L. Kappos et al., Efficacy of a Novel Oral Single-Agent
`Fumarate, BG0012,
`in Patients with Relapsing-
`Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Results of a Phase 2 Study,
`253 (Supp. 2) J. Neurol. II27, O108 (2006)
`NewsRoom document, Oral Compound BG-12 Achieves
`Primary Endpoint in Phase II Study of Relapsing-
`Remitting Multiple Sclerosis; Treatment with BG-12 Led
`to Statistically Significant Reductions in MRI Measures
`(May 30, 2006)
`L. Kappos et al., Efficacy of a Novel Oral Single-Agent
`Fumarate, BG0012, in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting
`Multiple Sclerosis: Results of a Phase II Study, 253 (16th
`Meeting of the European Neurological Society, May 20, 2006)
`Clinical Trial Review Board Agenda Item Meeting Minutes
`(February 19, 2004)
`Email from Rebecca Conaghan and Gilmore O’Neill, M.D.
`(August 16, 2004)
`Email from Gilmore O’Neill, M.D. with Attachment (February
`1, 2006)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket