`
`
`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 No. IPR2018-016761
`U.S. Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSES TO PETITIONERS’ OBSERVATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Pfizer Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2019-00978, has been joined as petitioner
`in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The testimony cited by Petitioner does not concern Dr. Slocum’s pen injector
`
`experience in 2003. Regardless, whether Dr. Slocum had pen injector experience in
`
`2003 is irrelevant. Rowe Price Investment Servs., Inc. v. Secure Access, LLC, Case
`
`CBM2015-00027, slip op. at 21–22 (PTAB June 13, 2016) (Paper 31). Dr. Slocum
`
`was knowledgeable about pen injectors as of 2019, when he submitted his
`
`declaration. EX2107, ¶¶ 25-61. Furthermore, both Dr. Slocum and Mr. Leinsing
`
`agree that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) does not require pen
`
`injector experience; and, in the corresponding district court litigation where both
`
`experts applied the same definitions for the level of ordinary skill as in this IPR, the
`
`district court accepted Dr. Slocum as qualified expert. EX1011 ¶106, EX2107 ¶102.
`
`2. Petitioners mischaracterize Dr. Slocum’s testimony. Dr. Slocum did not testify
`
`that Steenfeldt-Jensen includes an express suggestion to provide a threaded driver
`
`tube. Furthermore, Petitioners cite only a portion of Dr. Slocum’s testimony
`
`explaining Steenfeldt-Jensen at column 7, lines 44-47. Dr. Slocum also testified that
`
`a POSA would understand that having a nut element rotated by a driver tube would
`
`not be a good idea. See EX1115, 526:13-25. This testimony is relevant to whether a
`
`POSA would have been motivated to modify Steenfeldt-Jensen in view of itself.
`
`3. Petitioners’ description of the cited testimony is incorrect. The cited testimony
`
`does not address what Steenfeldt-Jensen proposes or whether a POSA would have
`
`been able to accomplish a modification. Regardless, Dr. Slocum did not testify that
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Steenfeldt-Jensen expressly proposes an embodiment where the driver tube has an
`
`internal thread instead of a slot, and wall 4 has a slot instead of a thread.
`
`4. Petitioners cite only a portion of Dr. Slocum’s testimony comparing the first and
`
`fifth embodiments. Dr. Slocum also testified that the drive mechanisms and force
`
`chains for the dose dialing operation are very different, in part because friction is
`
`desirable in the drive mechanism of the first embodiment but not in the fifth
`
`embodiment. See EX1115, 475:5-476:20. This testimony is relevant to whether
`
`Steenfeldt-Jensen at column 7, lines 44-47, applies to the fifth embodiment, because
`
`it shows that the first and fifth embodiments significantly differ.
`
`5. Petitioners mischaracterize the cited testimony. Dr. Slocum testified that claim 6
`
`of Steenfeldt-Jensen describes a threaded driving member—not a threaded driver
`
`tube. Moreover, the cited testimony is not relevant, because neither the Petition nor
`
`the Reply point to or otherwise rely on Steenfeldt-Jensen’s claim 6 for any
`
`obviousness grounds. Furthermore, Dr. Slocum also testified that claim 6 does not
`
`disclose a pen injector having a dose dial sleeve with a threaded engagement to a
`
`housing, a sleeve releasably connected to a dose dial sleeve, or a clutch. See EX1115,
`
`597:6-598:14. This testimony is relevant to whether the pen injector disclosed by
`
`Steenfeldt-Jensen’s claim 6 renders the challenged claims obvious, because each of
`
`the challenged claims requires at least (i) a dose indicator/dose dial sleeve with a
`
`threaded engagement to a housing and (ii) a releasably connected sleeve/clutch.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`6. Petitioners mischaracterize the cited testimony. The cited testimony only reflects
`
`that Dr. Slocum obtained the dimensions of the FlexPen and the coefficient of
`
`friction from Mr. Veasey to use in his spreadsheet. See further EX1114, 462:4-
`
`463:12. The record does not show that Mr. Veasey’s measurements are unreliable.
`
`Petitioners further mischaracterize the relevance of this testimony. Dr. Slocum does
`
`not lack relevant knowledge of the field. Dr. Slocum researched the prior art patents,
`
`conversed with those in the industry, and he canvassed the literature on pre-critical
`
`date pen injectors, design considerations, and design standards to put himself in the
`
`shoes of a POSA working on pen injectors in early 2003. See, e.g., EX2107 ¶¶ 25-
`
`61. Only then did he personally design a computational model that informed his
`
`opinions. Mr. Leinsing also created a computational model, but he deleted it and did
`
`not submit it in the district court proceeding or this proceeding. EX2227, 341:17-22.
`
`7. Petitioners again mischaracterize the cited testimony. Dr. Slocum testified that
`
`Mr. Veasey measured a coefficient of friction of 0.15 in the commercially available
`
`product but recommended using 0.1 for “super lubricious” plastics in a pen injector.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioners cite only a portion of Dr. Slocum’s testimony discussing
`
`the measurements obtained from Mr. Veasey. Dr. Slocum also testified that 0.1 is
`
`very good for plastics. See EX1114, 463:1-12.
`
`8. Petitioners mischaracterize the relevance of the cited testimony. The numbers Dr.
`
`Slocum used in his spreadsheet are not flawed, and there is no evidence in the record
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`showing that the numbers are flawed. Instead, these numbers came from undisputed
`
`measurements of a publicly-available product. See EX1114, 462:4-463:12.
`
`9. The testimony cited by Petitioners is taken out of context. Dr. Slocum was asked
`
`about a single sentence in a document specifying a coefficient of friction range of
`
`0.05 to 0.1 for certain sliding contact bearings. Dr. Slocum was not asked whether
`
`the bearings discussed in the single sentence were suitable for pen injectors. Nor was
`
`he asked about the portion of the document explaining that coefficients of friction
`
`between 0.05 and 0.1 are for active lubrication environments (e.g., those requiring
`
`motorized lubrication pumps). Nor was Dr. Slocum asked about a portion of the
`
`document describing a typical coefficient of friction for sliding contact plastic
`
`bearings as being 0.2. Regardless, Dr. Slocum testified that, in his personal
`
`experience, 0.1 is a “very good” coefficient of friction for a plastic. EX1114, 463:5-
`
`12. Indeed, this is a better coefficient of friction than what was seen in the
`
`commercialized Steenfeld-Jensen product – compare 0.1 with 0.15 in the
`
`commercialized product. Furthermore, Dr. Slocum also testified that using a lower
`
`coefficient of friction (e.g., .08) does not resolve the problems with the proposed
`
`modification. See EX1114, 463:9-21.
`
`10. In the cited testimony, Dr. Slocum explains that taking into account the points of
`
`reduced friction would only change the 51% calculation by a few percentage points.
`
`See EX1115, 562:20-25.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`11. Petitioners mischaracterize Dr. Slocum’s testimony. He testified that the 844
`
`Patent figures show only one embodiment, not that the 844 Patent specification has
`
`only one embodiment. See EX1115, 576:21-577:16. Petitioners also omit the
`
`portions of Dr. Slocum’s testimony that describe the state of the art for internally-
`
`threaded piston rods. Dr. Slocum testified that leadscrew drive mechanisms were
`
`well understood and centuries old (see EX1115, 497:2-498:21), and that the
`
`examples of internally threaded piston rods he identified are drug delivery devices
`
`and relevant to pen injectors (see EX1115, 498:22-501:3).
`
`12. Dr. Slocum testified that he did not rely on any pre-2003 documents showing
`
`injection force was the sole motivating factor in injector-pen design. This testimony,
`
`however, does not show that Dr. Slocum’s opinions regarding design considerations
`
`are based only on post-2003 statements. See, e.g., EX2107, ¶¶ 25-61. Moreover,
`
`Mr. Leinsing conceded that injection force was an important design consideration.
`
`EX2163, 80:17-81:5.
`
`13. Petitioners mischaracterize Dr. Slocum’s testimony. Dr. Slocum testified that the
`
`Next Generation FlexPen (NGFP) was released with low injection force as compared
`
`to the FlexPen. Ex. 1115, 592:9-21. Dr. Slocum did not testify that the NGFP had a
`
`comparable injection force with the SoloSTAR product. Indeed, the SoloSTAR
`
`product had a significantly lower injection force as compared to the NGFP. See
`
`EX2100.003, .006.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: December 27, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser/
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`Reg. No. 55,721
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Phone: 212-310-8000
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on December 27, 2019, the foregoing
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSES TO PETITIONERS’ OBSERVATIONS
`
`was served via electronic mail, upon the following:
`
`
`Richard Torczon
`Wesley Derryberry
`Tasha Thomas
`Lora Green
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`1700 K Street NW, 5th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`wderryberry@wsgr.com
`tthomas@wsgr.com
`lgreen@wsgr.com
`
`Douglas H. Carsten
`Jeffrey W. Guise
`Arthur Dykhuis
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`jguise@wsgr.com
`adykhuis@wsgr.com
`
`Lorelei Westin
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`lwestin@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nicole W. Stafford
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`900 South Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas, IV Fifth Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`nstafford@wsgr.com
`
`Elham F. Steiner (Pro Hac Vice)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego CA 92130
`esteiner@wsgr.com
`
`Jad Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`Jovial Wong
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`jwong@winston.com
`
`
`
`/Emily Davis/
`Emily Davis
`IP Paralegal
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`emily.davis@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`