`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC and AMNEAL
`PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`
`v.
`
`ALMIRALL, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2019-00207
`Patent 9,517,219
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2009/108147
`(“Garrett II”)
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2010/105052
`(“Hani”)
`
`Redline Comparison of Petitions in IPR2018-00608 and
`IPR2019-00207
`
`Redline Comparison of Michniak-Kohn Declarations in
`IPR2018-00608 and IPR2019-00207
`
`Redline Comparison of Gilmore Declarations in IPR2018-00608
`and IPR2019-00207
`
`Petitioner’s Notice of Paragraph IV Certification to Patent Owner
`(February 22, 2019) (truncated)
`
`Declaration of Elizabeth B. Hagan in Support of Patent Owner
`Almirall, LLC’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2011/014627
`(“Ahluwalia”)
`
`Dina Anderson, Finding a Place for Topical Anti-inflammatory
`Acne Therapy, Practical Dermatology 17 (July 2009)
`(“Anderson”)
`
`Christin N. Collier et al., The prevalence of acne in adults 20 years
`and older, 58 J. Am. Acad. Dermtol. 56 (2008) (“Collier”)
`
`Loren Cordain et al., Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western
`Civilization, 138 Arch Dermatol. 2584 (2002) (“Cordain”)
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`Barry Coutinho, Dapsone (Aczone) 5% Gel for the Treatment of
`Acne, Am. Family Physician (2010) (“Coutinho”)
`
`James Q. Del Rosso, Newer Topical Therapies for the Treatment
`of Acne Vulgaris, 80 Cutis 400 (2007) (“Del Rosso 2007”)
`
`Gabriella Fabbrocini et al., Resveratrol-Containing Gel for the
`Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: A Single-Blind, Vehicle-Controlled,
`Pilot Study, 12 Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 133 (2011) (“Fabbrocini”)
`
`Zoe D. Draelos et al., Two randomized studies demonstrate the
`efficacy and safety of dapsone gel, 5% for the treatment of acne
`vulgaris, 46 J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 439.e1 (2007) (“Draelos”)
`
`A. B. Fleischer et al., Dapsone Gel 5% in Combination with
`Adapalene Gel 0.1%, Benozoyl Peroxide Gel 4% or Moisturizer
`for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: A 12-Week, Randomized,
`Double-Blind Study, 9 J. Drugs Dermatol. 33 (2010) (‘Fleischer”)
`
`Michael Ghods et al., The Role of Dapsone Gel in the Acne
`Armamentarium, The Dermatologist (June 10, 2010) (“Ghods”)
`
`William D. James, Acne, 352 New Eng. J. Medicine 463 (2005)
`(“James 2005”)
`
`Kirk A. James et al., Emerging Drugs for Acne, 14 Expert
`Opinions on Emerging Drugs 649 (2009) (“James 2009”)
`
`Leon H. Kircik, Harnessing the Anti-inflammatory Effects of
`Topical Dapsone for Management of Acne, 9 J. Drugs Dermatol.
`667 (2010) (“Kircik 2010”)
`
`Leon Kircik and Adam Friedman, Optimizing Acne Therapy With
`Unique Vehicles, 9 J. Drugs Dermatol. S53 (2010) (“Kircik
`2010a”)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`Leon H. Kircik, Synergy and Its Clinical Relevance in Topical
`Acne Therapy, 4 J. Clin. Aethet. Dermatol. 30 (2011) (“Kircik
`2011”)
`
`Leon H. Kircik, Microsphere Technology: Hype or Help?, 4 J.
`Clin. Aesthet. Dermatol. 27 (2011) (“Kircik 2011a”)
`
`H.C. Korting & C. Schöllmann, Current topical and systemic
`approaches to treatment of rosacea, 23 J. Eur. Acad. of
`Dermatology and Venereology 876, 876 (2009) (“Korting”)
`
`John Kraft & Anatoli Freiman, Management of acne, 183
`Canadian Med. Assoc. J. E430 (2011) (“Kraft”)
`
`Evgenia Makrantonaki et al., An update on the role of the
`sebaceous gland in the pathogenesis of acne, 3 Dermato-
`Endocrinology 41 (2011) (“Makrantonaki”)
`
`Otto H. Mills et al., Comparing 2.5%, 5%, and 10% Benzoyl
`Peroxide on Inflammatory Acne Vulgaris, 25 Int’l J. Dermatology
`664 (1986) (“Mills”)
`
`Warren W. Piette et al., Hematologic Safety of Dapsone Gel, 5%,
`for Topical Treatment of Acne Vulgaris, 144 Arch. Dermatol. 1564
`(2008) (“Piette”)
`
`Frank C. Powell, Rosacea, 352 New Eng. J. Med. 793 (2005)
`(“Powell”)
`
`Thierry Simonart, Newer Approaches to the Treatment of Acne
`Vulgaris, 13 Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 357 (2012) (“Simonart”).
`
`MaryAnn Steiner, Dapsone Topical Gel for Acne, 12 J Pharm Soc.
`Wisc. 67 (2009) (“Steiner”)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`Description
`
`John S. Strauss, Biology of the Sebaceous Gland and the
`Pathophysiology of Acne Vulgaris, Chapter 13 in Pathophysiology
`of Dermatologic Diseases, Second Edition, N. A. Soter and H.
`Baden eds., McGraw-Hill, New York (1991) (“Strauss 1991”)
`
`John S. Strauss et al., Guidelines of care for acne vulgaris
`management, 56 J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 651 (2007)
`(“Strauss 2007”)
`
`Emil Tanghetti et al., Clinical Evidence for the Role of a Topical
`Anti-Inflammatory Agent in Comedonal Acne: Findings From a
`Randomized Study of Dapsone Gel 5% in Combination With
`Tazarotene Cream 0.1% in Patients With Acne Vulgaris, 10 J.
`Drugs Dermatol. 783 (2011) (“Tanghetti”)
`
`Diane Thiboutot et al., An aqueous gel fixed combination of
`clindamycin phosphate 1.2% and benzoyl peroxide 2.5% for the
`once-daily treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris:
`Assessment of efficacy and safety in 2813 patients, 59 J. Am.
`Acad. Dermatol. 792 (2008) (“Thiboutot 2008”)
`
`Diane Thiboutot et al., New insights into the management of acne:
`An update from the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne
`Group, 60 J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. S1 (2009) (“Thiboutot 2009”)
`
`Anja Thielitz and Harald Gollnick, Topical Retinoids in Acne
`Vulgaris – Update on Efficacy and Safety, 9 Am. J. Clin.
`Dermatol. 369 (2008) (“Thielitz”)
`
`2038
`
`Stephen Titus & Joshua Hodge, Diagnosis and Treatment of Acne,
`86 Am. Family Physician 734 (2012) (“Titus”).
`
`2039
`
`Physicians’ Desk Reference (2011) (excerpt)
`
`2040
`
`Physicians’ Desk Reference (2012) (excerpt)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2041
`
`Description
`
`Epiduo Press Release (Dec. 15, 2011), available at
`https://www.galderma.com/us/news/1-branded-topical-acne-
`product-epiduo-gel-recieves-fda-approval-new-convenient-pump-
`dispenser
`
`2042
`
`Aczone 5% Medical Review(s) (excerpt)
`
`2043
`
`Aczone 5% Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics
`Review(s)
`
`2044
`
`2008 Aczone 5% label
`
`2045
`
`2005 Aczone 5% approval letter
`
`2046
`
`2008 Aczone 5% approval letter
`
`2047
`
`Siripen Puavilai et al., Incidence of Anemia in Leprosy Patients
`Treated with Dapsone, J. Med. Assoc. Thailand 67(7): 404-407
`(1984) (“Puavilai”)
`
`2048
`
`World Health Organization Alert No. 117
`
`2049
`
`Boyd Poulsen, Development Process in Topical Dosage Forms,
`AAPS/FDA Joint Workshop on Topical Product Development:
`Principles and Criteria for the Development and Optimization of
`Topical Therapeutic Products, Arlington, VA (Mar. 26, 1990)
`(“Poulsen”).
`
`2050
`
`FDA Inactive Ingredient Database (September 2012)
`
`2051
`
`FDA Inactive Ingredient Database (December 2012)
`
`2052
`
`European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer
`Safety, Opinion on Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (DEGEE)
`(2010)
`
`2053
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0122435
`(“Osborne III”)
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2054
`
`2005 Aczone 5% label
`
`2055
`
`Declaration of Leon H. Kircik, M.D.
`
`2056
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Leon H. Kircik, M.D.
`
`2057
`
`Declaration of David W. Osborne, Ph.D.
`
`2058
`
`Curriculum Vitae of David W. Osborne, Ph.D.
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`Ryan Gamble et al., Topical Antimicrobial Treatment of Acne
`Vulgaris, 13 Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 3 (2012) (“Gamble”).
`
`M. P. Heffernan et al., A Pilot Study of the Safety and Efficacy of
`Picolinic Acid Gel in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris, 156 British
`J. Dermatol. 548 (2006) (“Heffernan”)
`
`Janusz Marcinkiewicz et al., Topical Taurine Bromamine, a New
`Candidate in the Treatment of Moderate Inflammatory Acne
`Vulgaris - A Pilot Study, 18 Eur. J. Dermatol. 433 (2008)
`(“Marcinkiewicz”)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Elaine S. Gilmore, M.D., Ph.D., dated
`July 25, 2019
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Bozena B. Michniak-Kohn, Ph.D.,
`FAAPS, M.R.Pharm.S., dated July 30, 2019
`
`Rong-Kun Chang et al., Generic Development of Topical
`Dermatological Products: Formulation Development, Process
`Development, and Testing of Topical Dermatological Products, 15
`AAPS J. 41 (2012) (“Chang”)
`
`2065
`
`Supplemental Declaration of David W. Osborne, Ph.D. (served but
`not filed)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2066
`
`Description
`
`Erick H. Turner, How to access and process FDA drug approval
`packages for use in research, BMJ (2013) ("Turner 2013") (served
`but not filed)
`
`2067
`
`Manual of Policies and Procedures - Center for Drug Evaluation
`and Research (served but not filed)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`Patent Owner Almirall, LLC (“Almirall”) opposes the motion filed by
`
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC
`
`(collectively, “Amneal” or “Petitioner”) in Case IPR2019-00207 requesting
`
`additional discovery of Dr. Kevin S. Warner. As the Warner Declaration, which is
`
`part of the public record of prosecution of the ʼ219 patent, provides sufficient
`
`information to assess the results reported therein, his deposition would not provide
`
`useful information. Nor does Petitioner provide any reason, beyond mere
`
`speculation, that his deposition in a litigation concerning infringement by a
`
`different entity—and a different ANDA product—would be relevant to the
`
`mechanics of the experiments reported in the Warner Declaration. Moreover,
`
`Petitioner delayed in seeking this additional discovery from the Board, and its
`
`Reply is now due in one week. Because Petitioner has not shown the discovery it
`
`seeks will provide useful information, and because its requests are overly
`
`burdensome given the expedited nature of inter partes review and the time
`
`remaining in this proceeding, Petitioner’s requests should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The declaration that forms the basis of Petitioner’s request for additional
`
`discovery is not one prepared for purposes of this proceeding. Rather, it is a short
`
`declaration from an inventor, Dr. Warner, submitted during the prosecution of the
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`ʼ219 patent. (“Warner Declaration”; Ex. 1017 at 289–293.) The declaration
`
`reports data and test results from Dr. Warner’s own experiments and experiments
`
`under his supervision. Specifically, the Warner Declaration describes experimental
`
`studies demonstrating that 7.5% w/w dapsone with a high 40% w/w DGME and
`
`Carbopol 980 “showed undesired polymer aggregates,” while no such aggregates
`
`occurred at a lower concentration of DGME, 25% w/w, with the same polymeric
`
`thickener Carbopol 980, or at the high 40% w/w DGME concentration with
`
`Sepineo P 600 (which comprises an acrylamide/sodium acryloyldimethyl taurate
`
`copolymer as claimed). Id. at 290–291, ¶¶ 4–7. It describes further experimental
`
`studies demonstrating that recrystallized dapsone particle size is smaller in a
`
`formulation comprising 7.5% w/w dapsone, 30% w/w DGME, and 4% w/w
`
`Sepineo P 600 than in formulations containing the same concentration of dapsone,
`
`either 25% or 30% w/w DGME, and 1% Sepineo P 600. Id. at 291 ¶ 9, 293. The
`
`examiner relied on the experiments and results described in the Warner
`
`Declaration, and withdrew obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of
`
`that declaration. Ex. 1017 at 466–468.
`
`Petitioner asserts that it cannot determine the meaning of “undesirable
`
`polymer aggregates” in the context of the Warner Declaration without deposing
`
`Dr. Warner. But read in context, the meaning of “undesirable polymer aggregates”
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`is clear: the Warner Declaration itself informs the reader that 40% DGME and
`
`Carbopol 980—the combination that formed the “undesirable polymer
`
`aggregates”—are incompatible, while 25% DGME and Carbopol 980, in contrast,
`
`are compatible. Warner Declaration, Ex. 1017 at 290–91, ¶ 7. The public,
`
`including ordinarily skilled artisans, moreover, does not have the benefit of such
`
`subjective insights into this matter of the intrinsic record, and Petitioners should
`
`not require it. Insofar as the intrinsic record bears on the question, the validity of
`
`the challenged claims is only properly assessed on the file history as available to,
`
`and as understood by, the hypothetical POSA—not by Petitioner, and not even by
`
`Dr. Warner himself.
`
`Petitioner further requests the deposition transcript and exhibits from Dr.
`
`Warner’s deposition in Almirall, LLC v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., C.A.
`
`No. 17-cv-663 (JFB) (SRF) (D. Del.), without explanation of why it believes that
`
`testimony would be relevant. The Almirall v. Taro case related to Taro’s alleged
`
`infringement of the ʼ219 patent, and concerned Taro’s ANDA product. Taro’s
`
`counsel deposed Dr. Warner in part as Allergan, Inc.’s 30(b)(6) witness. He was
`
`not designated to provide deposition testimony regarding validity, secondary
`
`considerations, objective indicia, unexpected results, or any similar concept, nor
`
`does Petitioner assert that he was.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`The Garmin factors frame the analysis for determining whether additional
`
`discovery is in the interest of justice and should be permitted. See Garmin Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (P.T.A.B. Mar.
`
`5, 2013). Garmin Factors 1 and 5 fail to support either the cross-examination of
`
`Dr. Warner or the production of his deposition testimony and exhibits from the
`
`Taro litigation.
`
`A. Garmin Factor 1: Petitioner failed to show that there is more than
`a possibility or mere allegation that Dr. Warner’s prior testimony
`or new testimony will provide useful information.
`
`Petitioner has failed to articulate anything “more than a possibility and mere
`
`allegation” that the requested additional discovery will uncover anything useful.
`
`The petition does not challenge the results reported in the Warner Declaration.
`
`Rather, Petitioner asserts that the results reported there (1) are not unexpected; (2)
`
`are differences in degree rather than of kind; and (3) are not commensurate with
`
`the claims. Petition at 56–61. Petitioner’s citation to Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is inapt. Mot. at 4 (citing IPR2016-01127,
`
`Paper 28 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2017). There, the Board granted a motion to order
`
`production of raw pK data underlying figures in multiple exhibits. IPR2016-
`
`01127, Paper 28 at 3–4 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2017). The Warner Declaration here,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`on the other hand, already provides the data: a report of a visual observation of
`
`polymer aggregation and incompatibility, and the raw data on particle size.
`
`Warner Declaration, Ex. 1017 at 290–291, 293.
`
`As for the deposition testimony from the Taro litigation, Petitioner raises
`
`nothing more than speculation that the testimony would be useful here. This is not
`
`sufficient to warrant production. See Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Endo Pharms Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2014-00360, Paper 39 at 5 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014) (denying request to
`
`file a motion for additional discovery based only on “mere speculation”). Without
`
`more, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that the sought discovery will
`
`provide anything useful.
`
`B. Garmin Factor 5: Petitioner’s request is overly burdensome
`
`Garmin Factor 5 requires that the additional discovery requested “not be
`
`overly burdensome to answer, given the expedited nature of Inter Partes Review.”
`
`Garmin, Case IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2013). This
`
`analysis takes into account financial burden, human resources burden, and “burden
`
`on meeting the time schedule.” Id.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply is due November 1, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply is due
`
`December 13, and oral argument is scheduled for February 7. See Paper 14 at 9;
`
`Paper 19 at 1. On August 15, 2019—less than a week after filing the Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`Response—Patent Owner notified Petitioner that both of its declarants who had
`
`prepared declarations for this proceeding, Dr. Kircik and Dr. Osborne, would be
`
`available for deposition, and provided firm dates for Dr. Kircik’s limited
`
`availability during the relevant period. Ex. 1036 at 7–8. As soon as Patent Owner
`
`had determined the dates of Dr. Osborne’s availability during that time, it provided
`
`those, as well. Id. at 7. Patent Owner prompted and reminded Petitioner to
`
`respond for both declarants. Id. at 5, 6–7. Petitioner did not raise the subject of
`
`any other discovery during these exchanges.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner delayed and faulted on an
`
`“obligation” to provide Dr. Warner for deposition is incorrect. Dr. Warner did not
`
`prepare affidavit testimony for this proceeding. Accordingly, his cross-
`
`examination is not routine discovery. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii). Nor is his
`
`deposition testimony in the Taro litigation somehow routine discovery.1 Despite
`
`devoting multiple pages of its Petition to the Warner Declaration and its
`
`description of unexpected results, clearly anticipating Patent Owner’s response
`
`regarding the Warner Declaration, Petitioner failed to inform Patent Owner that it
`
`believed itself entitled to depose Dr. Warner until a month had passed. Id. at 4.
`
`
`
`1 The testimony is not inconsistent with a position advanced by Patent Owner in
`the present proceeding, nor does Petitioner assert that it is. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.51(b)(1)(iii).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`This delay by Petitioner is unexplained, given its obvious anticipation of Patent
`
`Owner’s argument and the table of contents of Patent Owner’s Response showing
`
`an entire section devoted to objective indicia of non-obviousness. See Patent
`
`Owner Response, Paper 20 at ii, 60–64. Deposition notices for cross-examination
`
`must be filed at least ten business days before a deposition is to occur in an inter
`
`partes review, and the depositions are ordinarily more than a week before the filing
`
`date of the paper in which the cross-examination testimony will be used.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d). Petitioner’s Reply is due one week from today. Were the
`
`Board to grant Petitioner’s request, it would be impossible to schedule a
`
`deposition2 in the time remaining before Petitioner’s Reply is due. As the party
`
`seeking the deposition, it is Petitioner who delayed in seeking permission from the
`
`Board for this additional discovery.
`
`And certainly, the delay to the near end of this proceeding is no better
`
`explained in view of Case IPR2018-00608 of related U.S. Patent No. 9,161,926.
`
`Petitioner deliberately staggered the filings of its petition regarding the ʼ926 patent
`
`and this Petition nine months apart in spite of the fact that they were nearly
`
`identical in text. After being unsuccessful following the first-effort ʼ926 inter
`
`partes review trial, Petitioner now suggests it is necessary to cross-examine Dr.
`
`
`2 Dr. Warner is not an employee of Almirall or of the previous owner of the ʼ219
`patent, Allergan.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`Warner, who submitted the identical declaration during the prosecution of the ‘926
`
`patent. In the context of these particular circumstances, Petitioner’s motion is even
`
`more untimely.
`
`Given the expedited nature of inter partes review, Petitioner’s delay in
`
`seeking this discovery places undue burden on the time schedule. Its request
`
`should further be denied on this basis.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Almirall respectfully requests that the Board deny
`
`Amneal’s request for additional discovery of Dr. Warner in its entirety.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`By: /James S. Trainor/
`James S. Trainor (Reg. No. 52,297)
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Almirall, LLC
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00207
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
`
`ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) was
`
`served by electronic mail on the following counsel of record for petitioner:
`
`Dennies Varughese (dvarughe-PTAB@skgf.com)
`Adam C. LaRock (alarock-PTAB@skgf.com)
`Tyler C. Liu (tliu-PTAB@skgf.com)
`PTAB@skgf.com
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`By: /James S. Trainor/
`James S. Trainor (Reg. No. 52,297)
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Almirall, LLC
`
`9
`
`
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
