`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`
`Table of Contents
`I.
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`Exhibit 1287 Is Admissible .......................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. The Cross-Examination Transcripts of Teva’s Witnesses Are
`Admissible ................................................................................................... 3
`A. Dr. Tomlinson’s Admissions Are Admissible .................................... 4
`B.
`Dr. Stoner’s Admissions Are Admissible ........................................... 5
`
`Dr. Ferrari’s Admissions Are Admissible .......................................... 6
`C.
`D. Dr. Rapoport’s Admissions Are Admissible .....................................10
`IV. All of Lilly’s Exhibits Are Admissible in Their Entirety .............................12
`V.
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................15
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Teva’s Motion raises meritless challenges to evidence undermining its
`
`theories in this proceeding. For example, Teva incorrectly attempts to exclude
`
`Dr. Tan’s
`
`thesis (Ex. 1287/1287A) despite
`
`the “low bar” for document
`
`authentication, relying exclusively and improperly on printed-publication case law.
`
`The Board should also decline Teva’s attempt to exclude more than 20 admissions
`
`in its own experts’ cross-examination transcripts under FRE 403. Finally, there is no
`
`basis to exclude any of Lilly’s evidence regardless of whether it was directly cited
`
`in Lilly’s briefing. Teva’s Motion to Exclude should be denied.
`
`II. Exhibit 1287 Is Admissible
`Teva incorrectly seeks to exclude Exhibit 1287/1287A, the doctoral thesis of
`
`Dr. Keith Tan, under FRE 901. Mot., 1-7. Lilly has more than met the standard for
`
`authentication under FRE 901, which is a “low bar” that is satisfied by “evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fox
`
`Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, IPR2017-00472, Paper 64 at 64 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2018).
`
`Here, Teva does not dispute that Exhibit 1287 is Dr. Tan’s doctoral thesis,
`
`conceding that it is what it purports to be. See Paper 43 at 2 (referencing Ex. 1287
`
`as a “dissertation by Dr. Tan”); Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., IPR2016-
`
`00868, Paper 63 at 53 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (“the appearance, contents, [and]
`
`substance . . . of the item, taken together with all the circumstances,” may
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`authenticate). Additionally, because Exhibit 1287 is a Cambridge thesis authored in
`
`1994, obtained from Cambridge Library, it is a self-authenticating ancient document.
`
`FRE 901(b)(8). Thus, there is no basis to exclude Exhibit 1287 under FRE 901.
`
`Every case cited in Teva’s challenge to Exhibit 1287 analyzes public
`
`accessibility for prior art purposes. Mot., 1-7. Challenging public availability,
`
`however, is not properly raised in a motion to exclude. Chi. Mercantile Exch., Inc.
`
`v. 5th Mkt., Inc., CBM2014-00114, Paper 35 at 52 (Aug. 18, 2015). Regardless, Teva
`
`fails to establish why public availability is necessary for authenticating Exhibit 1287.
`
`Lilly does not rely on Exhibit 1287 in its obviousness ground, and Lilly does
`
`not rely on it as prior art. Rather, Lilly cites Exhibit 1287 for purposes that do not
`
`require any showing of public accessibility. For example, Exhibit 1287 rebuts Teva’s
`
`purported personal knowledge that co-authors of the Tan references never
`
`considered antibody humanization (Ex. 2213, ¶¶ 70, 76), as Dr. Tan wrote that there
`
`was “no reason” why humanized anti-CGRP antibodies should not be investigated.
`
`Ex. 1287, 247; Reply, 11. A showing of a public availability is not required to admit
`
`Exhibit 1287 as rebutting Teva’s purported personal—not public—knowledge.
`
`Lilly also cites Exhibit 1287 to rebut Teva’s argument that minor, transient
`
`side effects would have deterred humanization of anti-CGRP antibodies. POR, 22-
`
`25, 38-39. With first-hand knowledge of the blood pressure results in Tan 1995, Dr.
`
`Tan proposed humanizing anti-CGRP antibodies to use as “therapeutic agents” for
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`migraine. Ex. 1287, 209, 222-23, 247. Public availability is not required to admit
`
`Exhibit 1287 for the rebuttal purpose of demonstrating that actual researchers in the
`
`field before November 2005 were urging humanization and therapeutic uses of anti-
`
`CGRP antibodies notwithstanding Teva’s hypothetical, unsupported concerns.
`
`Nevertheless, even if it were necessary to establish Exhibit 1287 as a printed
`
`publication, Michael Carney’s declaration
`
`(Ex. 1307) establishes public
`
`accessibility. Dr. Tan’s thesis was authored and submitted to the Cambridge Library
`
`in 1994, stamped by the Library, and would have been cataloged and shelved about
`
`one month later. Ex. 1307, ¶¶ 14-15. Teva disputes that the Library used electronic
`
`MARC records (Mot., 4), but Mr. Carney established that the Library actually
`
`indexed Exhibit 1287 in its electronic MARC records by 2002, at the latest. Ex. 1307,
`
`¶¶ 16-17. Teva’s remaining criticisms of Mr. Carney’s declaration, including his
`
`direct outreach to the Library, ignore that both the 1994 shelving date and the 2002
`
`MARC record date occurred years before Teva’s earliest filing date.
`
`Thus, the Board should admit Exhibit 1287 as authenticated under FRE 901,
`
`and credit the Tan Thesis as a printed publication to the extent necessary.
`
`III. The Cross-Examination Transcripts of Teva’s Witnesses Are Admissible
`Seeking to insulate its witnesses from their damaging cross-examination
`
`testimony, Teva asserts that numerous portions of its own experts’ transcripts should
`
`be excluded under FRE 403 based on form and scope objections. Teva has conducted
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`no balancing of its conclusory allegations of prejudice against the probative value of
`
`its experts’ admissions, as required by FRE 403. As set forth below, the full context
`
`of the challenged testimony demonstrates its highly probative value and confirms it
`
`should be admitted for the Board’s consideration. SK Hynix Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-00562, Paper 36 at 49 (PTAB July 5, 2018) (“the Board, sitting as a non-
`
`jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well positioned to determine and assign
`
`appropriate weight to evidence presented,” rather than excluding).
`
`A. Dr. Tomlinson’s Admissions Are Admissible
`Ex. 1301, 115:9-116:21, 154:24-156:21. Teva uses Dr. Tomlinson’s opinions
`
`to support nexus, but seeks to exclude his testimony pertaining to the scope of the
`
`claims and an Ajovy® regulatory document (Ex. 1320) Teva relies upon to support
`
`nexus. Ex. 1301, 115:9-116:21, 154:24-156:21; Ex. 2225, ¶ 102; Mot., 8. Having
`
`affirmatively relied on Dr. Tomlinson’s understanding of the scope of the claims and
`
`his interpretations of Exhibit 1320, Teva cannot fairly exclude his cross-examination
`
`on these same topics as speculative, irrelevant, or outside the scope of direct.
`
`Ex. 1301, 73:22-75:20. Teva relied on Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony disparaging
`
`Tan’s disclosure of a 16% response in the rat saphenous model because it was
`
`purportedly not statistically significant. POR, 16. During cross-examination,
`
`however, Dr. Tomlinson conceded that he forms conclusions and publishes data
`
`analyses based on non-statistically significant results in his own academic work. Ex.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`1301, 73:22-75:20. Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony is therefore not “unrelated” to this
`
`proceeding, as Teva incorrectly contends, because it goes directly to his credibility.
`
`Mot., 8; Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) (expert
`
`witnesses must “employ[] in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that
`
`characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field”).
`
`B. Dr. Stoner’s Admissions Are Admissible
`Ex. 1302, 45:20-46:19, 81:9-82:2, 179:14-180:19. Teva relied on Dr. Stoner
`
`to attempt to establish a nexus between the challenged claims and a license
`
`agreement. POR, 45. During cross-examination, however, Dr. Stoner’s admissions
`
`directly contradicted any nexus, as he conceded that the license covers 188 patents,
`
`within 8 different patent families, spread across 65 countries. Ex. 1302, 45:20-46:19.
`
`He further acknowledged that the agreement’s royalty obligations would require
`
`continued payments even if all challenged patents are invalidated. Id., 179:14-
`
`180:19. Dr. Stoner testified that he did not perform any apportionment of the
`
`agreement to the claims, further undermining nexus. Id., 81:9-82:2.
`
`Teva seeks to exclude this damaging testimony as “vague” or calling for a
`
`“legal analysis.” Mot., 8-9. But as the transcript shows, the facts illustrating the
`
`breadth of the license agreement and Dr. Stoner’s failure to perform any
`
`apportionment stand on their own. Moreover, Teva cannot rely on Dr. Stoner’s
`
`contract interpretations as admissible when helpful to its case, but inadmissible as a
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`“legal analysis” when unhelpful. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen
`
`AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 83 at 66-67 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2018) (denying motion to
`
`exclude, concluding that “Patent Owner essentially asks us to apply a double
`
`standard here, however, what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander”).
`
`C. Dr. Ferrari’s Admissions Are Admissible
`Ex. 1303, 25:11-17. Teva relies on Dr. Ferrari’s testimony that a minor,
`
`transient increase in blood pressure observed in Tan 1995 would have deterred
`
`humanization of an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody. POR, 5-6, 23-25. During cross-
`
`examination, however, Dr. Ferrari admitted that transient blood pressure increases
`
`observed with the prior-art antimigraine drug sumatriptan (Imitrex®)—which
`
`inhibits CGRP—were “not a major concern.” Ex. 1303, 25:11-17; Ex. 1282, 1521
`
`(lower left corner: “transient increases in blood pressure . . . have been observed”).
`
`Teva seeks to exclude Dr. Ferrari’s admission as lacking foundation. Mot., 9. Yet as
`
`the transcript shows, Dr. Ferrari earlier confirmed that he was an investigator in
`
`sumatriptan clinical trials and had published on its clinical effects in migraine, and
`
`thus had sufficient foundation to discuss sumatriptan’s effects. Ex. 1303, 16:25-30:4.
`
`Dr. Ferrari’s admission that he dismisses, in his own practice, transient blood
`
`pressure increases described in the FDA-approved Imitrex® label as “not a major
`
`concern” therefore should not be excluded on the ground of foundation. Moreover,
`
`given that he takes the exact opposite position about transient effects in this
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`proceeding regarding anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies, Dr. Ferrari’s admissions
`
`directly bear on his credibility. Kumho Tire, 119 S. Ct. at 1176.
`
`Ex. 1303, 70:13-75:11. Teva objects to additional Dr. Ferrari testimony about
`
`his work outside this litigation, in which he explained that numerous CGRP pathway
`
`antagonists—BIBN, telcagepant, and “a few more”—were “sufficiently safe” to take
`
`into clinical trials. Ex. 1303, 70:13-75:11; Mot., 10. Teva’s arguments about
`
`vagueness are baseless, particularly given Dr. Ferrari’s clarifying explanation that
`
`“we all felt comfortable . . . to go ahead for clinical trial[s]” with those other CGRP
`
`pathway antagonists, undermining his purported safety concerns in this proceeding.
`
`Ex. 1303, 72:10-24.
`
`Ex. 1303, 38:22-39:10. Although the challenged claims recite only
`
`antibodies—not any particular uses—Dr. Ferrari testified during cross-examination
`
`that the claims do not encompass certain uses of anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies.
`
`Ex. 1303, 38:22-39:10. Teva objects to this testimony as vague and calling for a legal
`
`conclusion. Mot., 9. The question, however, clearly asked for Dr. Ferrari’s personal
`
`view of what Teva’s patent covers, not any legal conclusion. Dr. Ferrari’s
`
`unsupported testimony that the claims require particular uses demonstrates that he
`
`did not apply a correct understanding of the claims in his testimony, undermining its
`
`reliability in this proceeding.
`
`Ex. 1303, 54:12-23. Teva relies on Dr. Ferrari’s discussion of purported side
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`effects observed in animal studies as deterring humanization due to a lack of
`
`established safety. POR, 21-22. During cross-examination, however, Dr. Ferrari
`
`admitted that such animal studies can “never” establish that a drug is safe. Ex. 1303,
`
`54:12-23. These admissions are thus squarely within the scope of Dr. Ferrari’s direct
`
`testimony. Given that Teva’s own patent discloses only animal studies, Dr. Ferrari’s
`
`admissions show that he is improperly holding the prior art to a different, higher
`
`standard than Teva’s own patent.
`
`Ex. 1303, 49:1-20. Dr. Ferrari explained during cross-examination that it was
`
`“well-known that you would significantly reduce the risk of immunological side
`
`effects to an antibody” by humanizing, and that references to an antibody for
`
`therapeutic uses as of 2005 would suggest a humanized antibody. Ex. 1303, 49:1-20.
`
`Teva objects to this testimony for vagueness, but the witness clearly understood the
`
`question and explained what was “well-known” in the art in 2005. Id.; Mot., 9.
`
`Ex. 1303, 102:9-106:19, 160:2-9, 193:3-10. Teva further complains about
`
`vagueness for questions about a “Fab fragment,” the population of migraine patients
`
`who experience migraine without aura, and the “significance” of prior art anti-CGRP
`
`treatments that lacked any cardiovascular side effects. Mot., 10. Teva’s arguments
`
`lack merit. Lilly’s questioning specifically asked about Tan’s Fab fragment. Ex.
`
`1303, 160:2-9. Lilly’s questioning about migraine patient populations specifically
`
`defined the population as the “percentage” who do not experience migraine with
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`aura, for which Dr. Ferrari admitted there was no link between migraine and
`
`ischemic stroke. Id., 193:3-10. Lilly’s questioning about “significance” in terms of
`
`the absence of any cardiovascular side effects with BIBN4096BS also was not
`
`vague. Dr. Ferrari clarified that “BIBN did not result in any change” in
`
`cardiovascular function. Id., 102:9-106:19.
`
`Ex. 1303, 108:25-133:7. Teva relied on Dr. Ferrari’s testimony about
`
`numerous early studies to support its hypothetical safety arguments. POR, 21-22.
`
`From page 108:25 to 133:7 of Dr. Ferrari’s cross-examination transcript, Lilly
`
`concisely cross-examined Dr. Ferrari about many of his cited exhibits—Exhibits
`
`2151, 2152, 2079, 2209, 2139, 2070, 2089, 2058, 2154, 2150—typically obtaining
`
`one-word answers agreeing to deficiencies in his cited exhibits. Dr. Ferrari’s
`
`testimony confirms that these exhibits do not indicate that antagonizing endogenous
`
`CGRP—as an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody would have been expected to do—
`
`would have had any effect on cardiovascular or cerebrovascular safety. Ex. 1303,
`
`108:25-133:7. Moreover, Dr. Ferrari repeatedly agreed that the majority of his cited
`
`exhibits “did not study the effects of a CGRP antagonist at all.” Id., 111:18-20,
`
`123:18-20, 127:13-15, 128:12-14, 129:16-18, 130:19-21, 132:4-6, 133:5-7. Given
`
`Dr. Ferrari’s clear understanding of the questions and his clear, concise answers,
`
`Teva’s form and legal-conclusion objections are misplaced. Mot., 10.
`
`Ex. 1303, 69:10-16. Dr. Ferrari admitted during cross-examination that he
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`generally lacks an adequate understanding of antibodies, failing to grasp the
`
`difference between a polyclonal antibody serum and a monoclonal antibody despite
`
`discussing references concerning both in his declaration. Ex. 1303, 69:10-16; Ex.
`
`2213, ¶ 51. Teva’s objection that the definition of an “antibody serum” as “outside
`
`the scope of this proceeding” is misplaced. Mot., 9-10. Dr. Ferrari’s admissions
`
`about the limits of his knowledge go to the minimal weight that his testimony should
`
`be accorded.
`
`D. Dr. Rapoport’s Admissions Are Admissible
`Ex. 1304, 59:23-71:17. Teva relied on Dr. Rapoport’s discussion of treating
`
`medication overuse headache (“MOH”) as a purported unexpected result. POR, 51;
`
`Ex. 2236, ¶¶ 65-69. During cross-examination, however, Dr. Rapoport
`
`acknowledged that in 2003 he co-authored a paper reporting that a prior art CGRP-
`
`blocking preventative migraine therapy reduced MOH. Ex. 1304, 59:23-71:17
`
`(discussing Ex. 1294, 487 (patients using triptans “stopped overusing acute care
`
`medication during the study”)). Teva now seeks to exclude this testimony because it
`
`relates to a “treatment of a different condition and different therapeutic than those of
`
`concern to this proceeding.” Mot., 10-11. Teva and Dr. Rapoport, however,
`
`affirmatively raised MOH as an unexpected result. POR, 51. Thus, Lilly’s
`
`questioning of Dr. Rapoport, showing that other CGRP-blocking therapies were
`
`previously known to reduce MOH, was fully within the scope of his direct testimony.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`Ex. 1304, 82:17-134:18. Teva relied on Dr. Rapoport’s discussion of industry
`
`acclaim as supporting secondary considerations. POR, 46-48; Ex. 2236, ¶¶ 45-64.
`
`From page 82:17 to 134:18 of Dr. Rapoport’s cross-examination transcript, Lilly
`
`concisely cross-examined Dr. Rapoport about many of his cited exhibits—Exhibits
`
`2163, 2172, 2167, 2180, 2173, and 2183—obtaining admissions that this evidence
`
`lacks nexus because it addresses many drugs outside the scope of the challenged
`
`claims, such as small molecule drugs and a first-to-market anti-migraine antibody
`
`(Aimovig®) that targets the CGRP receptor. Teva now seeks to exclude this
`
`testimony based on form objections and as outside the scope of Dr. Rapoport’s direct
`
`testimony. Mot., 11. Teva’s arguments should be dismissed, as Lilly’s clear
`
`questioning used Dr. Rapoport’s own cited exhibits to cross-examine him about his
`
`direct testimony concerning secondary considerations, where he admitted that any
`
`alleged praise is not directed to the claimed subject matter but rather to CGRP
`
`antagonism generally, which was already known in the art.
`
`Ex. 1304, 90:10-15, 91:6-10, 142:1-8. Teva complains about vagueness for
`
`questions about the prior art class of triptan drugs and blocking the CGRP pathway.
`
`Mot., 11. Teva’s arguments are meritless. Dr. Rapoport’s admission that a POSA
`
`would have known that triptans inhibit the release of CGRP followed directly from
`
`one of his own publications cited in his declaration (Ex. 2169), in which he wrote
`
`“triptans . . . can inhibit the release [of] CGRP,” citing prior art publications. Ex.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`1304, 89:20-90:15, 82:17-89:19; Ex. 2169, 914. Dr. Rapoport’s testimony about
`
`blocking the CGRP pathway was similarly based on his own publication, in which
`
`he wrote: “it was considered that blocking CGRP or its receptor might . . . prevent
`
`migraine.” Ex. 1304, 90:19-91:10, 142:1-8; Ex. 2169, 915.
`
`Dr. Rapoport’s testimony that blocking the CGRP pathway was the only
`
`antibody characteristic he considered in forming his opinions about long-felt need
`
`also was not premised on any mischaracterization of previous testimony, as Teva
`
`argues. Ex. 1304, 142:1-8; Mot., 11. Rather, the transcript clearly shows the joint
`
`efforts of Lilly’s counsel and Dr. Rapoport to ensure that his testimony was clear.
`
`Ex. 1304, 141:25-142:8 (ensuring a “clear statement on the record”).
`
`Ex. 1304, 143:6-23, 145:23-146:3. While the challenged claims recite only
`
`antibodies—not any particular uses—Dr. Rapoport
`
`testified during cross-
`
`examination that a method of treating headache was “implicit” in the claims. Ex.
`
`1304, 143:6-23. Dr. Rapoport later conceded that the claimed antibodies could be
`
`used for purposes other than therapeutic treatments. Id., 145:23-146:3. Teva objects
`
`to this testimony as vague and calling for a legal conclusion. Mot., 11-12. The
`
`questions, however, clearly asked for Dr. Rapoport’s personal view of what Teva’s
`
`patent covers, not any legal conclusions.
`
`IV. All of Lilly’s Exhibits Are Admissible in Their Entirety
`Teva seeks to exclude certain exhibits and portions of Lilly’s experts’
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`testimony on relevance grounds, claiming that “[i]f these exhibits were relevant to
`
`this proceeding, Lilly should have cited them in the Petition or Reply.” Mot., 12-13.
`
`Relevance under FRE 401, however, is a “very low threshold.” Google Inc. v.
`
`Performance Price Holdings, LLC, CBM2016-00049, Paper 37 at 35 (PTAB Sept.
`
`13, 2017). As the Board has previously concluded, “there is no requirement that
`
`Petitioner must cite evidence in its Reply or Opposition to be relevant.” Activision
`
`Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, IPR2015-01953, Paper 107 at 75 (PTAB
`
`Mar. 23, 2017). Thus, Teva’s request for exclusion should be denied.
`
`Teva also improperly seeks to employ a double standard, omitting that its own
`
`briefing did not cite many exhibits Teva filed or paragraphs of its own declarations,
`
`including Exhibits 2055-2057, 2066-2067, 2070-2071, 2073, 2075, 2077-2078,
`
`2082, 2086, 2088-2089, 2091-2101, 2104-2110, 2112-2122, 2124-2126, 2128-2130,
`
`2138-2139, 2142-2143, 2145, 2148-2149, 2154-2156, 2158-2160, 2169, 2175-2178,
`
`2181, 2184-2185, 2188, 2190, 2194, 2196, 2199-2203, 2205-2209, 2215-2216,
`
`2218, 2220, 2221, 2244-2254, 2256, 2258-2259; Exhibit 2213, ¶¶ 1-3, 13-20;
`
`Exhibit 2225, ¶¶ 1-3, 12-19, 31-36, 42; Exhibit 2231, ¶¶ 1-3, 14-20, 43-48, 73, 75,
`
`76; Exhibit 2236, ¶¶ 1-3, 12-20, 25, 69, 70; and Exhibit 2242, ¶¶ 5-14.
`
`Exs. 1247, 1281, 1293, 1296, 1311, 1313, 1314, 1316, and 1317. Dr. Charles
`
`properly relied on these exhibits to support his opinions that a POSA would not have
`
`been concerned about the safety of an anti-CGRP antibody with a longer half-life
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`and to rebut Dr. Rapoport’s secondary consideration arguments. Ex. 1326, ¶¶ 11-13,
`
`15, 17, 92, 93. Similarly, Dr. Balthasar relied on Exhibit 1247 as evidence that a
`
`POSA would have expected longer distribution times and/or higher doses of full-
`
`length antibodies to improve distribution to the site of action. Ex. 1325, ¶¶ 24-29.
`
`Exclusion should be denied. Nevro Corp. v. Boston Sci. Neuromodulation Corp.,
`
`IPR2017-01812, Paper 79 at 24 (PTAB Feb. 1, 2019) (denying exclusion of exhibits
`
`experts relied upon “in performing, or supporting, their analyses”).
`
`Exs. 1087, 1110, 1261, 1262, 1264, 1265, 1267-1279, and 1286. Lilly
`
`properly used these exhibits to cross-examine Teva’s experts on the substance of
`
`their opinions in this case. Exclusion should be denied. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Queen’s Univ. at Kingston, IPR2015-00583, Paper 54 at 58 (PTAB July 27, 2016)
`
`(holding admissible exhibits uncited in briefing but discussed during expert
`
`deposition).
`
`Exs. 1010, ¶¶ 26-27, 34, 60-67, 89, 150; 1011, ¶¶ 62-63; 1325, ¶¶ 1-14, 27-
`
`28; 1326, ¶¶ 7, 11-13, 15, 44, 64, 92-93. The identified portions of Lilly’s experts’
`
`declarations summarize the experts’ qualifications and provide background on the
`
`state of art, and thus are relevant to this case. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 60-67 (Dr. Charles
`
`explaining that anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies were known treatment options for
`
`CGRP-mediated human diseases); Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 62-63 (Dr. Vasserot discussing
`
`background on human antibodies); Ex. 1325, ¶¶ 1-14 (Dr. Balthasar detailing his
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`prior experience and qualifications as an expert). Because the exhibits cited in the
`
`identified portions of Exhibits 1325 and 1326 are admissible, Teva’s request to
`
`exclude those paragraphs should be denied.
`
`V. Conclusion
`Lilly respectfully requests that Teva’s motion to exclude be denied.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: November 1, 2019
`
`By: / William B. Raich /
`William B. Raich (Reg. No. 54,386)
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01425
`Patent No. 9,890,210
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served electronically via
`
`email on November 1, 2019, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Deborah A. Sterling
`Robert C. Millonig
`Gaby L. Longsworth
`Jeremiah B. Frueauf
`Olga A. Partington
`Dennies Varughese
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`dsterling-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`bobm-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`glongs-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`jfrueauf-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`opartington-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`dvarughe-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`
`
`Patent Owner has consented to service by email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / William Esper /
`William Esper
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 1, 2019
`
`
`
`
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
