`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`and PFIZER, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`37 CFR §42.64(c)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`The petitioners (Mylan) seeks exclusion of patent owner (Sanofi) exhibits
`
`2001-2023, 2100-2107, 2111-2153, 2158-2201, 2203-2212, 2214-2218, and 2225,
`
`and of the redirect testimony in Mylan exhibit 1054. Page number references are to
`
`Sanofi’s opposition unless otherwise indicated.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A. EX2001-EX2011, EX2016-EX2023
`
`At 1-2, Sanofi states these exhibits “are not cited in connection with any
`
`disputed issues raised in the post-institution briefing[ so] the Board will have no
`
`further reason to refer to them.” Sanofi thus concedes the papers have no relevance
`
`to any issue at trial. The institution issues to which Sanofi says the exhibits relate
`
`are not appealable so the exhibits are no longer relevant for any legitimate purpose.
`
`35 U.S.C. 314(d). The papers should be excluded under FRE402-403 as irrelevant
`
`and likely to cause confusion. If not, their admissibility should be limited to the
`
`purpose for which they were submitted. FRE105.
`
`B.
`
`EX2012, EX2117, EX2147-EX2152, EX2162, EX2167,
`EX2168, EX2206, EX2207, EX2211, EX2215-EX2218 –
`animations
`
`At 2 and 13, Sanofi does not contest that these exhibits are hearsay, but says
`
`that its expert relied on the exhibits. While an expert may rely on hearsay in
`
`forming an opinion (FRE703), that fact does not make the evidence admissible in
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`trial. In any case, if these exhibits are not excluded they should be limited to the
`
`purpose for which they were submitted (showing basis for expert testimony) and
`
`should not be used for any other purpose. FRE105.
`
`C. EX1054 (redirect), EX2107 – Slocum testimony
`
`At 3 and 6-12, Sanofi contends that Dr. Slocum’s lack of experience and
`
`flawed methodology are inconsequential. Sanofi misstates Mylan’s challenge and
`
`fails to rebut the key problems with the testimony. Mylan’s Daubert challenge
`
`does not pose the subjective question of whether Dr. Slocum could be an expert on
`
`the involved technology; 1 instead, Mylan shows that Dr. Slocum objectively failed
`
`to act as an expert in this case regardless of whatever potential he might possess.
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) (requiring “that
`
`an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task
`
`at hand”).
`
`Sanofi also tries to turn its opposition into an unauthorized briefing
`
`opportunity to attack Mylan’s expert, Karl Leinsing, an undisputed expert with
`
`
`
`1 Hence, whether another tribunal found Dr. Slocum qualified is irrelevant
`
`without showing that Dr. Slocum gave the same testimony with the same bases.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`personal experience in the field at all relevant times. This improper briefing
`
`violates the rules requiring objections and motions to exclude, prejudices Mylan by
`
`impinging on Mylan’s limited reply briefing opportunity, and is simply wrong.
`
`Sanofi’s improper attacks on Mr. Leinsing should be disregarded entirely.
`
`Sanofi argues (at 6-7) argues that Dr. Slocum need not have been an expert
`
`in the involved technology at the relevant time. Sanofi misses the point. Absence
`
`of relevant experience should be considered in weighing credibility.2 FRE702
`
`(listing experience as a relevant consideration). A purported expert who lacks such
`
`experience (or knowledge, skill, training, or education directly related to the
`
`involved technology) must demonstrate that “the testimony is based on sufficient
`
`facts or data; ... is the product of reliable principles and methods; and [has been]
`
`reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Id. Sanofi says
`
`Dr. Slocum considered the prior art, other literature on design considerations, and
`
`discussions with Dr. Goland (an endocrinologist) and Mr. Veasey (an unproduced
`
`
`
`2 A ceramics appraiser need not be a Ming Dynasty potter to appraise a Ming
`
`vase, but cannot simply uncritically accept the seller’s word on the vase’s value
`
`and provenance.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`inventor). Dr. Slocum himself, however, explained that he lacked any knowledge
`
`and so started with Mr. Veasey, whose data he accepted without question because
`
`he had no relevant knowledge or experience as recently as three weeks ago
`
`(EX1115, 553:20-555:12), yet Sanofi hid Mr. Veasey from cross examination on
`
`the basis he provided. Sanofi argues in a footnote that Mylan could have cross
`
`examined Mr. Veasey on an irrelevant authentication declaration or sought
`
`additional discovery (a transparent burden shift), but fails to explain why it should
`
`be absolved of its obligation to show the bases of its expert’s testimony. Cross
`
`examining the expert is not sufficient if the expert does not know and can only
`
`revert to an absent inventor.
`
`Dr. Slocum also relied on post-critical date publications regarding the
`
`importance of injection force, and on an off-record discussion with Dr. Goland
`
`about her dubious opinion that injection force is paramount with patients, a
`
`position she could not support even with her own patient experience.
`
`D. EX2116, EX2117, EX2121, EX2123, EX2126, EX2128,
`EX2136, EX2137, EX2142-EX2144, EX2175, EX2184,
`EX2185, EX2201 – exhibits related to SoloStar Pen,
`injection force, ease of use, design award
`
`At 13-14, Sanofi argues that these exhibits should be retained despite not
`
`relating to any claimed feature. Yet case law holds that secondary considerations
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`cannot be based on unclaimed features. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`
`No. 2018-2024, slip op. 6 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2019). In this case, Sanofi has not
`
`even proposed a claim construction requiring the purported advantages. Sanofi
`
`suggests that the Board wait until it has decided the merits issue, but there is no
`
`claim construction issue to be decided because Sanofi has never proffered the
`
`construction necessary to make these exhibits relevant. Sanofi understandably
`
`would like claims that benefit from, but are not limited to, these features, but that is
`
`not how patent claims work. Sanofi has not otherwise contested the inadmissibility
`
`of these exhibits, which should be excluded as irrelevant and misleading. FRE402-
`
`403. If not, the exhibits should be limited to the purpose for which they were
`
`submitted (showing the benefits of unclaimed features). FRE105.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`Sanofi exhibits 2001-2012, 2017-2024, 2027-2029, 1054, 2100-2102, 2104-
`
`2107, 2109, 2113-2115, 2117-2120, 2122, 2124, 2125, 2145-2153, 2158-2162,
`
`2166-2174, 2176-2183, 2186-2200, 2203-2212, 2214-2218, and 2225, and the
`
`redirect testimony in Mylan exhibit 1054 should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: 23 December 2019
`
`/Richard Torczon/
`Richard Torczon, Reg. No. 34,448
`Counsel for Mylan
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that this paper was served today on the electronic service addresses
`
`of Sanofi as follows:
`
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`
`Anish R. Desai
`
`Sundip K. Kundu
`
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`sundip.kundu@weil.com
`
`Kathryn M. Kantha
`
`kathryn.kantha@weil.com
`
`William S. Ansley
`
`Matthew D. Sieger
`
`Adrian C. Percer
`
`Brian C. Chang
`
`Robert T. Vlasis
`
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`
`matthew.sieger@weil.com
`
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`
`brian.chang@weil.com
`
`robert.vlasis@weil.com
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`Sanofi.IPR.Service@weil.com
`
`John S. Goetz, Joshua A. Griswold,
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`Matthew S. Colvin, Kenneth W. Darby
`
`and W. Karl Renner
`
`and on joinder counsel as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`Jovial Wong
`
`Charles B. Klein
`
`Dan H. Hoang
`
`jwong@winston.com
`
`cklein@winston.com
`
`dhoang@winston.com
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`PfizerIPRs@winston.com
`
`Dated: 23 December 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Richard Torczon/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`