Arnold B. Calmann (abc@saiber.com)
`Katherine A. Escanlar (kae@saiber.com)
`SAIBER LLC
`One Gateway Center, 10th Floor, Suite 1000
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`Telephone: (973) 622-3333
`
`Douglas H. Carsten (dcarsten@wsgr.com)
`Elham Firouzi Steiner (esteiner@wsgr.com)
`Nathaniel R. Scharn (nscharn@wsgr.com)
`Alina L. Litoshyk (alitoshyk@wsgr.com)
`James P.H. Stephens (jstephens@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: (858) 350-2300
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Mylan N.V., Mylan GmbH,
`Mylan Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SANOFI-
`AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, and
`SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE,
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`MYLAN N.V., MYLAN GMBH, MYLAN INC.,
`and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rules 3.3 and 3.6, Defendants Mylan N.V., Mylan GmbH,
`
`Mylan Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, the “Mylan Defendants” or
`
`“Defendants”) hereby submit their Invalidity Contentions (“Invalidity Contentions”) to Plaintiffs
`
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie
`
`(collectively, “Sanofi” or “Plaintiffs”).
`
`1
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2008.001
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`6.
`
`Exemplary Combinations
`
`The subsections above and the attached claim chart identify exemplary combinations of
`
`the prior art that render the asserted claims obvious. For example, the claim chart identifies prior
`
`art that satisfies each claim limitation. To the extent Plaintiffs contend that any limitation is
`
`missing from any given reference, that limitation would be obvious in view of any of the other
`
`references that disclose that limitation as described in the claim chart. As examples, Defendants
`
`further identify the following combinations as rendering the asserted claims obvious, for the
`
`reasons described above in the example combinations, below, and in view of the exemplary
`
`disclosures in the attached claim chart:
`
` Judson, alone or in combination with Steenfeldt-Jensen, Atterbury, Møller,
`
`Burroughs, Bendek, Chanoch and/or Horstman;
`
` Steenfeldt-Jensen, alone or in combination with Judson and/or Burroughs;
`
` Burroughs, alone or in combination with Judson, Steenfeldt-Jensen, Harris ’895,
`
`and/or Horstman;
`
` Giambattista ’794, alone or in combination with Judson, Steenfeldt-Jensen,
`
`Giambattista ’095, Burroughs, and/or Chanoch; or
`
` Any of the combinations identified for the ’069, ’486, ’844, or ’008 patents.
`
`The disclosure of all limitations of the asserted claims are described in Exhibit C,
`
`attached. There are ample reasons to combine the above references in any of the described
`
`combinations.
`
`For example, the above combinations simply combine prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results. The operation of threads, pistons, splines, clutches,
`
`and the like are well known and understood in the art. Further, the claims do not recite any
`
`limitations entirely unknown in the art, or any elements that provide unpredictable results. For
`
`example, regarding clickers, it was known that two relatively rigid materials impacting each
`
`other will produce sound, and there are ample disclosures of teeth and splines causing audible
`
`feedback when a user turns a dial. As another example, regarding helical threads, it was known
`
`202
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2008.002
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Defendants also note that secondary considerations are not part of the prima facie case of
`
`obviousness. Rather, a patentee may try and rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by coming
`
`forward with purported evidence of such secondary considerations. Defendants therefore have
`
`no burden at this stage to come forward with evidence rebutting such considerations. Defendants
`
`reserve the right to further rebut any claims of secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`raised by Plaintiffs, if any, as discovery proceeds in this case.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 25, 2018
`
`SAIBER LLC
`
`By: s/ Arnold B. Calman____________
`Arnold B. Calmann (ACalmann@saiber.com)
`Katherine Escanlar (KEscanlar@saiber.com)
`One Gateway Center, Suite 1000
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`Telephone: (973) 622-3333
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI
`Douglas H. Carsten (dcarsten@wsgr.com)
`Elham Firouzi Steiner (esteiner@wsgr.com)
`Nathaniel R. Scharn (nscharn@wsgr.com)
`Alina L. Litoshyk (alitoshyk@wsgr.com)
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130-3002
`Phone: (858) 350-2300
`Fax: (858) 350-2399
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Mylan N.V.,
`Mylan GmbH, Mylan Inc., and Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`493
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2008.003
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`