`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`United Therapeutics Corporation (“UT”) does not oppose submitting what is
`
`arguably relevant—the district court’s1 claim construction order—but UT does
`
`oppose Petitioner’s motion to flood the record with ancillary material—Exhibits
`
`1053 (Markman hearing transcript) and 1054 (proposed Markman order) (Paper 38
`
`or “Motion”).2 Specifically, UT submits with this paper and with Petitioner’s
`
`consent, Exhibit 2035, the district court’s Markman order for certain terms of the
`
`patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,604,901. But admission of the hearing transcript
`
`and now-superseded order is not in the interests of justice, and Petitioner has failed
`
`to meet its high burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b).
`
`Aside from claim construction rulings made orally during the hearing (which
`
`are now formalized in the order of Exhibit 2035), Petitioner’s other citations to the
`
`hearing transcript amount to attempts to supplement the record with its own further
`
`
`
`1 United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 20-755
`
`(RGA) (D. Del.).
`
`2 Despite the title of Petitioner’s motion, UT treats the filing as a motion to submit
`
`supplemental information.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`attorney argument and engage in a game of gotcha regarding allegedly inconsistent
`
`statements. Moreover, Petitioner cites only a handful of portions of the transcript
`
`despite requesting submission of over 100 pages. The Board should not be
`
`required to scour the transcript for a nugget of relevance. Likewise, UT should not
`
`be ambushed with new attorney arguments imported from another proceeding.
`
`The parties have had extensive opportunity to submit evidence and argument
`
`relating to claim construction, including evidence and argument from the parallel
`
`district court case. Dumping another 100+ pages of transcript from another
`
`proceeding does nothing to aid in resolving the issues at hand here.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Petitioner’s Motion is governed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b). Petitioner must
`
`show that the information could not be submitted earlier and submission is in the
`
`interests of justice. No interest of justice is served by raising new issues (like
`
`indefiniteness) and loading up the record with redundant and unsupported attorney
`
`argument, particularly when UT has no opportunity to respond with argument and
`
`evidence in turn. 5 U.S.C. § 554 (requiring notice and opportunity to respond
`
`meaningfully).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that submission of Exhibits 1053 and 1054
`
`is in the interests of justice. The draft Markman order (Exhibit 1054) has now
`
`been superseded by the actual order (Exhibit 2053), and justice does not benefit
`
`from dumping 100+ pages of attorney argument from another proceeding into the
`
`record on the eve of the oral hearing. Indeed, this supplemental evidence adds a
`
`host of issues not briefed in this proceeding, such as Petitioner’s allegation of
`
`indefiniteness in the parallel proceeding—the very type of material, inconsistent
`
`position that Petitioner claims UT has engaged in.
`
`A. Exhibit 2035 Should Be Admitted in Lieu of Exhibits 1053 and
`1054
`
`Exhibit 1054 is merely a proposed order that was submitted to the Court after
`
`the Markman hearing. In view of the signed Markman order submitted herewith as
`
`Exhibit 2035, there is no reason to admit Exhibit 1054 as supplemental information
`
`– it is merely an unsigned proposed order that has no relevance or provenance in
`
`this proceeding. The parties agree that Exhibit 2035 can be submitted.
`
`Similarly, the issued order also obviates the need to admit the hearing
`
`transcript (Exhibit 1053) as evidence of the Court’s Markman rulings, since these
`
`rulings are now formalized in the issued order of Exhibit 2035.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`Petitioner’s motion to admit Exhibits 1053 and 1054 should therefore be
`
`denied in favor of admitting Exhibit 2035 as the most direct evidence of the district
`
`court’s claim construction rulings.3
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Attempted Reliance on Exhibit 1053 Demonstrates
`that its Admission Is Not in the Interests of Justice
`
`Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that submission of the evidence Exhibits
`
`1053 and 1054 is in the interests of justice. Rather, Petitioner seeks to flood the
`
`record with its own attorney argument as “evidence” and manufacture
`
`inconsistencies on the eve of oral hearing. Justice does not condone, much less
`
`require, submission of Exhibits 1053 and 1054 in these circumstances.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner should not be permitted to supplement the record
`with its own attorney argument
`Petitioner’s first argument for admitting Exhibit 1053 is that “the parties
`
`addressed the same issues present here related to the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`3 While UT does not object to Exhibit 2035 being introduced as evidence in this
`
`proceeding, UT doubts that the Court’s “plain and ordinary meaning” constructions
`
`are particularly helpful to the Board here, since the Board must serve as the
`
`ultimate trier of fact and determine what the actual “plain and ordinary meanings”
`
`are sufficiently to resolve the invalidity disputes in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`art for the ’901 patent.” Mot. at 4. However, the transcript portion cited by
`
`Petitioner consists solely of Petitioner’s own counsel arguing “level of skill” to the
`
`district court. It can hardly be in the interests of justice to allow Petitioner to
`
`further supplement the record in this proceeding with its own attorney argument
`
`from another proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner has failed to offer any explanation justifying
`submission of the entire transcript
`Petitioner argues that the parties and the Court discussed multiple claim terms
`
`at issue in this proceeding. Id. In support of this proposition, Petitioner merely
`
`provides a blanket citation to over 100 pages of the transcript (27:4-130:2), with no
`
`further explanation. Petitioner apparently expects the Board to sift through
`
`essentially the entire transcript with the mere possibility of finding some
`
`potentially relevant discussions. Again, this fails to establish that admitting the
`
`transcript is in the interests of justice.
`
`3.
`
`The Markman order supersedes the transcript and draft
`order
`Petitioner points to the three terms the court ruled on during the hearing, while
`
`noting that the court sought additional briefing on the remaining terms. Id. at 4-5.
`
`These oral rulings do not merit admission of Exhibit 1053 as supplemental
`
`information because the court’s claim construction rulings on the three terms are
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`now memorialized in the order of Exhibit 2035 (for whatever relevance they may
`
`have here (see supra, note 3)). The court’s request for additional briefing is simply
`
`irrelevant here.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner should not be permitted to manufacture non-
`existent “inconsistencies” on the eve of the oral hearing
`Petitioner points to alleged “inconsistencies” in UT’s claim construction
`
`positions in the two tribunals. Id. at 5-8. None of Petitioner’s citations support its
`
`characterization or argument. Petitioner further cites to Exhibit 1053 in slides 14,
`
`22, and 25 of its proposed Demonstratives despite it not even being part of the
`
`record. This improper use of a proposed new exhibit in Demonstratives violates
`
`the interest of justice and denies UT the right to meet these arguments with
`
`counterarguments and evidence, e.g., testimony from the experts whose testimony
`
`is being misrepresented. 5 U.S.C. § 554 (requiring notice and an opportunity to
`
`respond meaningfully).
`
`i.
`
`“Pharmaceutical batch”
`
`The court has not yet issued a construction for “pharmaceutical batch” (see
`
`Exhibit 2035). The court’s discussion of the issue (EX1053, 28:3-15) does not
`
`reveal any inconsistency in UT’s positions. Further, Petitioner’s citation to 33:14-
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`44:13 of the transcript (Mot. at 6) is just another instance of trying to import into
`
`the record here its own attorney argument from another proceeding.
`
`Petitioner cites to 44:13-53:18 of the transcript (id.) in an apparent attempt to
`
`tarnish the integrity of UT’s counsel. But this effort is both odious and
`
`substantively incorrect. As evidenced by that portion of the transcript, UT’s
`
`counsel explained the circumstances that led to some misstatements in the Patent
`
`Owner Response filed here, and further explained the steps that have been taken to
`
`rectify the situation (including the filing of Paper 29 in this proceeding).
`
`Lastly, Petitioner cites 54:21-57:8 of the transcript, but this merely involves a
`
`discussion with the district court about the timing of various events in the PTAB
`
`proceeding. Such discussions do not involve any “inconsistency” in UT’s
`
`positions and are simply irrelevant here.
`
`ii.
`
` “contacting the solution comprising treprostinil
`from step (b) with a base to form a salt of
`treprostinil”
`Petitioner cites the same transcript portion (44:13-53:18) again here (Mot. at
`
`7), but, as described above, this discussion merely involves UT’s counsel
`
`explaining the circumstances leading to UT’s agreement to strike certain portions
`
`of the Patent Owner Response per Paper 29. The Board has already heard directly
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`from the parties on this issue, and Petitioner does not point to any “inconsistency”
`
`in UT’s explanation.
`
`To be clear, UT’s position is that even though the claims of the ’901 patent do
`
`not expressly recite intermediate purification steps, this does not mean that such
`
`steps are affirmatively excluded. UT regrettably overstated certain sentences in its
`
`Patent Owner Response in this regard and promptly took action to act with candor
`
`and correct this mistake—agreeing to strike these statements. See Paper 29. The
`
`somewhat confused back-and-forth between the district court and Petitioner’s
`
`counsel during the Markman hearing further illustrates the intricacies of this issue.
`
`See EX1053, 34:6-44:15.
`
`Petitioner lastly cites to 57:9-75:6 of the transcript, which involves further
`
`discussions with the court about this claim term. However, Petitioner fails to point
`
`to a single “inconsistency” or other statement in this portion of the transcript as
`
`being specifically relevant to this proceeding. Thus, Petitioner again fails to
`
`identify any portions of the transcript that satisfy its admission here under the
`
`“interests of justice” standard.
`
`iii.
`
`“stored/storing/storage”
`
`Petitioner cites 99:5-7, 113:9-13, 119:17-19, and 123:6-14 (Mot. at 7-8) in
`
`support of its suggestion that the court allegedly disparaged UT’s proposed
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`construction for this claim term. In the end, however, the court simply adopted
`
`“plain-and-ordinary meaning” for the construction of this term (see Exhibit 2035).
`
`While that approach can be followed in a district court proceeding where the fact-
`
`finder at trial can there consider additional evidence and make a determination,
`
`here, the PTAB is the ultimate fact-finder and will have to sufficiently construe
`
`this term to resolve the parties’ dispute over its meaning/scope in the context of the
`
`prior art. The transcript portions cited by Petitioner therefore have little to no
`
`relevance to the Board’s decision-making required here.
`
`Petitioner cites the transcript at 115:24 for the proposition that UT allegedly
`
`argued the product being “good” for even “one day” is sufficient for storage as
`
`claimed by the ’901 patent. Mot. at 7. But even a cursory review of this portion of
`
`the transcript shows that UT made no such argument. Instead, UT was merely
`
`pointing out that if a product is known to be stable for at least three months, then
`
`this logically leads to an understanding that the product is stable for shorter
`
`periods, such as two months, one month, two days, one day, etc. However, UT’s
`
`statements to the district court never included an argument that a product being
`
`stable for one day equated to “storage” as called for in the claims, as is apparent
`
`from the transcript itself. Petitioner thus significantly distorts the record in arguing
`
`otherwise (as it does in the further cited transcript portions at 117:1-121:8), and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`such bare distortions should not be allowed to support Petitioner’s burden in
`
`meeting the “in the interests of justice” standard.
`
`In sum, even if the submission of supplemental information can be justified
`
`where that information evidences inconsistences in a party’s arguments before two
`
`different tribunals, that is simply not the situation here. The only potential
`
`inconsistencies were the accidental overstatements contained in certain parts of the
`
`Patent Owner Response, and UT has already taken steps to clarify and cure. In any
`
`event, the Markman hearing transcript reveals no new information or inconsistent
`
`positions being taken by UT.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the reasons provided above, Petitioner’s Motion should be denied
`
`and Exhibits 1053 and 1054 should not be admitted as supplemental information,
`
`particularly in view of UT’s submission herewith of the district court’s formal
`
`Markman order as Exhibit 2035.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: June 21, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Opposition to Supplemental Information
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information
`
`was served on counsel of record on June 21, 2021, by filing this document through
`
`the PTAB E2E System as well as delivering a copy via email to the counsel of
`
`record for the Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`zLiquidiaIPR@cooley.com
`
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`
`emilch@cooley.com
`
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 21, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`4852-4065-9439.1
`
`