`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMITOMO DAINIPPON PHARMA CO., LTD
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01053
`U.S. Patent 9,815,827
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{80268632:1}
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01053
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a) and the Board’s Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 8), Petitioner requests oral argument in IPR2020-001053 on U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,815,827 (“the ‘827 patent”).
`
`The parties conferred and agreed it would be appropriate for each side to be
`
`allocated a total of 1 hour at the Oral Hearing.
`
`Petitioner requests (without waiving consideration of any issue not listed
`
`here) that the following issues be argued:
`
`For Grounds 1 and 2
`
`1. Whether the “manic depressive claims” have written description support
`
`in the ‘927 Provisional;
`
`2. Whether Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 15) failed to address written
`
`description support in the ‘927 Provisional of a method with all the
`
`limitations of “the specific regimens recited in representative claim 8 and
`
`the other manic depressive claims.” See, Paper 2 (Petition) pp. 27-28,
`
`Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) pp. 16-17;
`
`3. Whether the single mention of “manic depressive psychoses” in the
`
`Background Section of the ‘927 Provisional is merely a passing reference
`
`in a complex field. See Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) p. 14.
`
`
`
`
`
`{80268632:1}
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01053
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`
`For Ground 3
`
`4. Whether claims 1-75 of the ‘827 Patent are obvious over Saji Patent
`
`(EX-1009) in light of the prior art;
`
`5. Whether Patent Owner failed to establish a nexus between alleged
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness and anything novel in the claims of
`
`the ‘827 Patent. See Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) pp. 27-29;
`
`6. The difference between lack of weight gain “on average” and in
`
`“a patient”. See Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) p. 31;
`
`7. Whether Patent Owner conceded that the prior art knew that “SM-13496”
`
`was lurasidone. See Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) pp. 26-27;
`
`For Grounds 1, 2 and 3
`
`8. Whether Dr. Stahl’s opinion regarding what Wong (EX-2032) taught to
`
`be “necessary” (EX-2131 (Stahl) § 177) undermines Dr. Stahl’s
`
`credibility as an expert witness. See Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply) p. 30;
`
`9. Any Motions to Exclude or Motions to Strike.
`
`
`
`
`
`{80268632:1}
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01053
`United States Patent No. 9,815,827
`
`Finally, Petitioner notes that Petitioner has not yet seen Patent Owner’s Sur-
`
`Reply because it is not due until July 8, 2021. Therefore, at the Oral Argument
`
`Petitioner may want to discuss matters included in Petitioner’s Sur-Reply.
`
`Dated: July 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Louis H. Weinstein
`
`Louis H. Weinstein
`
`Reg. No. 45,205
`Counsel for Petitioner Slayback
`
`
`Pharma LLC
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`I, Louis H. Weinstein, certify that I caused to be served true and correct
`
`copies of public versions of Petitioner’s Request for Oral Argument by e-mail,
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chad Shear
`
`shear@fr.com
`
`Dorothy Whelan whelan@fr.com
`
`Michael Kane
`
`kane@fr.com
`
`IPR46094-0002IP1 IPR46094-0002IP1@fr.com
`
`Dated: July 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Louis H. Weinstein
`
` Louis H. Weinstein
`
` Reg. No. 45,205
`
`{80268632:1}
`
`
`4
`
`