UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS V LLC;
`HAYMAN CREDES MASTER FUND, L.P.;
`HAYMAN ORANGE FUND SPC – PORTFOLIO A;
`HAYMAN CAPITAL MASTER FUND, L.P.;
`HAYMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.;
`HAYMAN OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT, INC.;
`HAYMAN INVESTMENTS, LLC;
`NXN PARTNERS, LLC;
`IP NAVIGATION GROUP, LLC;
`J KYLE BASS; and ERICH SPANGENBERG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________________________________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01993
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`____________________________________________
`
`BIOGEN’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS V LLC;
`HAYMAN CREDES MASTER FUND, L.P.;
`HAYMAN ORANGE FUND SPC – PORTFOLIO A;
`HAYMAN CAPITAL MASTER FUND, L.P.;
`HAYMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.;
`HAYMAN OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT, INC.;
`HAYMAN INVESTMENTS, LLC;
`NXN PARTNERS, LLC;
`IP NAVIGATION GROUP, LLC;
`J KYLE BASS; and ERICH SPANGENBERG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________________________________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01993
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`____________________________________________
`
`BIOGEN’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`As authorized by the March 22, 2016 Scheduling Order (Paper No. 21) and
`
`modified by the August 2, 2016 Notice of Joint Stipulation to Modify Due Dates 2-
`
`4 (Paper 44), Patent Owner Biogen MA Inc. respectfully submits the following
`
`motion for observations regarding the cross-examination of Petitioner’s reply
`
`expert, Dr. Samuel J. Pleasure, and requests that the Board enter this motion.
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 at 48767-68 (August 14,
`
`2012).
`
`
`Observation 1.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 27, line 16 through page 28, line 18, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he did not know the substance of Biogen’s Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 38) nor was he asked to substantively consider it in preparing his
`
`declaration. This testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Pleasure’s declaration
`
`contains arguments or evidence outside the scope of a proper reply in violation of
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), as raised in Exhibit 3001. This testimony is relevant because
`
`it shows that Dr. Pleasure’s declaration was not intended to reply to Biogen’s
`
`evidence and arguments relating to non-obviousness in its Patent Owner response.
`
`(Ex. 3001.)
`
`
`Observation 2.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 18, line 6 through page 22, line 7, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he could not recall reviewing the declarations of Drs. Brundage,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`Rudick, Thisted, O’Neill, or Dawson; he did not know the substance of their
`
`opinions; he had no specific knowledge of the declaration and opinions of Dr.
`
`Wynn; and he did not review the deposition testimony of Drs. Wynn, Rudick, or
`
`O’Neill. This testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Pleasure’s declaration contains
`
`arguments or evidence outside the scope of a proper reply in violation of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b), as raised in Exhibit 3001. This testimony is relevant because it shows
`
`that Dr. Pleasure’s declaration does not reply to any of Biogen’s expert
`
`declarations. (Ex. 3001.)
`
`
`Observation 3.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 26, line 7 through page 27, line 1, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he had no specific knowledge of the substance of the Petition (Paper
`
`1), did not know whether he agreed or disagreed with it, and did not rely on it as a
`
`basis for the opinions in his declaration. This testimony is relevant to whether Dr.
`
`Pleasure’s declaration contains arguments or evidence outside the scope of a
`
`proper reply in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), as raised in Exhibit 3001. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr. Pleasure has no specific knowledge
`
`of the Petition’s theories of unpatentability and supports Biogen’s position that Dr.
`
`Pleasure’s declaration contains new obviousness positions that were not raised in
`
`the Petition. (Ex. 3001.)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`Observation 4.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 22, line 18 through page 26, line 6, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he had no specific knowledge of the substance of Dr. Linberg’s
`
`declaration (Ex. 1005) and did not review Dr. Linberg’s deposition testimony (Ex.
`
`2071), stating that instead he “was trying to come at this with [his] own thinking.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Pleasure’s declaration contains
`
`arguments or evidence outside the scope of a proper reply in violation of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b), as raised in Exhibit 3001. This testimony is relevant because it shows
`
`that Dr. Pleasure has no specific knowledge of Dr. Linberg’s original theories of
`
`obviousness (Ex. 1005; Ex. 2071) and supports Biogen’s position that Dr.
`
`Pleasure’s declaration contains new obviousness positions that were not raised in
`
`the Petition. (Ex. 3001.)
`
`
`Observation 5.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 20, line 25 through page 21, line 15, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he did not recall reviewing Dr. Rudick’s declaration or deposition
`
`testimony. In Exhibit 2384, page 22, lines 8 to 17, Dr. Pleasure further testified
`
`that he did not review the prosecution history of the ’514 patent “in its full form.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to the issues of unexpected results and long-felt but
`
`unmet need, as raised in Biogen’s Opposition to the Petition (Paper 38 at pages 43
`
`to 52), Dr. Rudick’s declaration submitted during prosecution (Ex. 2011 at ¶¶ 7 to
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`28), and Dr. Rudick’s declaration submitted with Biogen’s Opposition to the
`
`Petition (Ex. 2044 at ¶¶ 37 to 55). The testimony is relevant because it shows that
`
`Dr. Pleasure was unaware of arguments to which he was supposed to be
`
`responding and supports Biogen’s position that Dr. Pleasure’s declaration does not
`
`reply to Biogen’s evidence of unexpected results. (Ex. 3001; Paper 38 at pages 43-
`
`52.)
`
`
`Observation 6.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 21, lines 18 to 22, Dr. Pleasure testified that he did
`
`not review Dr. Thisted’s declaration. In Exhibit 2384, page 53, lines 21 to 23, Dr.
`
`Pleasure further testified that he is not an expert in biostatistics. In Exhibit 2384,
`
`page 172, line 17 though page 173, line 15, Dr. Pleasure also testified that he has
`
`not conducted any formal statistical analyses of any of the clinical trial results
`
`reported in the DEFINE or CONFIRM phase 3 studies. This testimony is relevant
`
`to the issue of unexpected results, as raised in Biogen’s Opposition to the Petition
`
`(Paper 38 at pages 43 to 52) and Dr. Thisted’s declaration (Ex. 2038). This
`
`testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Dr. Pleasure was unaware of
`
`evidence to which he was supposed to be responding and supports Biogen’s
`
`position that Dr. Pleasure’s declaration does not reply to Biogen’s evidence of
`
`unexpected results. (Ex. 3001; Paper 38 at pages 43-52.)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`Observation 7.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 29, line 7 through page 30, line 2, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he spends only 20% of his time seeing patients and on page 36, lines
`
`10 to 18, he stated that he treats MS patients only part-time, five to six hours per
`
`week. In Exhibit 2384, page 33, line 16 through page 34, line 4 and page 36, lines
`
`10 to 18, Dr. Pleasure further testified that on average, he sees “about five patients
`
`a week who either have MS or [a] closely allied disorder,” resulting in about 200 to
`
`300 patients a year. This testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Pleasure is qualified
`
`to provide an opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill would have known and
`
`concluded as of the 2007 filing date of the ’514 patent, as raised in Biogen’s
`
`Opposition to the Petition (Paper 38), Dr. Rudick’s declaration (Ex. 2044 at ¶ 36),
`
`and Dr. Wynn’s declaration (Ex. 2046 at ¶¶ 21 to 26). This testimony is relevant
`
`because it suggests that Dr. Pleasure is not a person of ordinary skill or an expert
`
`qualified to testify as to the conclusions of one of ordinary skill. (Cf. Ex. 2046 ¶ 7;
`
`Ex. 1050 at 35:6-36:18.)
`
`
`Observation 8.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 97, lines 7 to 14, Dr. Pleasure testified that 2005 “was
`
`a couple of years before [he] was spending as much time seeing MS patients as [he
`
`has] been.” This testimony is relevant to whether Dr. Pleasure is qualified to
`
`provide an opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill would have known and
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`concluded as of the 2007 filing date of the ’514 patent, as raised in Biogen’s
`
`Opposition to the Petition (Paper 38), Dr. Rudick’s declaration (Ex. 2044 at ¶ 36),
`
`and Dr. Wynn’s declaration (Ex. 2046 at ¶¶ 21 to 26). This testimony is relevant
`
`because it suggests that Dr. Pleasure was not a person of ordinary skill or an MS
`
`expert as of the 2007 filing date of the ’514 patent. (Cf. Ex. 2044 ¶ 11.)
`
`
`Observation 9.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 38, line 13 through page 41, line 10, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he has not designed a clinical trial or served as a principal investigator
`
`for a human clinical trial of an MS drug. In Exhibit 2384, page 52, line 8 though
`
`page 53, line 20, Dr. Pleasure further testified that he is not an expert in clinical
`
`trial design. This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Dr. Pleasure’s
`
`opinions about clinical trials based on Kappos 2006 (Ex. 1003A), ClinicalTrials
`
`NCT00168701 (Ex. 1022), or ICH Guideline E4 (Ex. 1004) should be given little
`
`or no weight.
`
`
`Observation 10.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 44, line 24 through page 45, line 9, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he is not an expert in clinical pharmacology. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it shows that Dr. Pleasure’s analysis of the results in Kappos 2006
`
`(Ex. 1003A) and opinions about the dose-response information obtainable from
`
`Kappos 2006 (Ex. 1003A) should be given little or no weight. (Ex. 1045 ¶ 68; cf.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`Ex. 2042 ¶¶ 31-39.)
`
`
`Observation 11.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 59, line 19 through page 60, line 9 and page 130, line
`
`5 through page 135, line 7, Dr. Pleasure testified that none of his publications
`
`discuss the idea of a “point dose”; he could not identify any other literature that
`
`used that term; and he does not recall where he first heard of the term. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s point-dose theory of obviousness. (Paper 46 at
`
`pages 22 to 24.) This testimony is relevant because it tends to show that
`
`Petitioner’s point-dose theory was not known or available in the prior art and is
`
`unsupported by any evidence.
`
`
`Observation 12.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 45, line 25 through page 46, line 14, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he did not “have an opinion that’s truly informed” about whether the
`
`efficacy of DMF is driven by its Cmax. He also testified that the relationship
`
`between the levels of DMF (e.g., Cmax) and its effects is not totally clear. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s point-dose theory of obviousness, as raised in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Biogen’s Opposition (Paper 46) at pages 22 to 24 and Dr.
`
`Pleasure’s declaration (Ex. 1045) at paragraphs 66 to 78. Specifically, it
`
`contradicts Dr. Pleasure’s assertion that “a drug’s in vivo effect links point dose-
`
`concentration [i.e., the Cmax] to the effect site (here, the immune system)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`concentration.” (Paper 46 at 22-23; Ex. 1045 ¶ 70.)
`
`
`Observation 13.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 139, line 6 through page 141, line 9, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that Kappos 2006 was not designed to determine whether the efficacy of
`
`DMF in treating MS resulted from the point dose (e.g., 240 mg) or the daily dose
`
`(e.g., 720 mg/day) and that the only conclusion one could draw from Kappos 2006
`
`is that 720 mg/day is effective. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s point-dose
`
`theory of obviousness. (Paper 46 at pages 22 to 24.) This testimony is relevant
`
`because it contradicts Dr. Pleasure’s declaration, which states that a point dose of
`
`240 mg was a “key finding” in Kappos; that Kappos was designed to identify point
`
`doses; and that Kappos established an effective point dose of 240 mg. (Ex. 1045 at
`
`¶¶ 69-70.) This testimony is also relevant because it contradicts Petitioner’s point-
`
`dose theory that one of ordinary skill would have concluded that the efficacy of
`
`DMF in treating MS resulted from the point dose (e.g., 240 mg). (Paper 46 at pages
`
`22 to 24.)
`
`
`Observation 14.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 155, lines 3-12, Dr. Pleasure testified that Kappos
`
`2006 does not report any Cmax, AUC, or half-life data. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioner’s point-dose theory. This testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`Pleasure’s point-dose theory regarding Kappos 2006 lacks support in that
`
`document.
`
`
`Observation 15.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 151, line 10 through page 152, line 7, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he is not aware of anyone else concluding that Kappos 2006
`
`determined that the efficacy of DMF in treating MS resulted from the point dose
`
`(e.g., 240 mg). This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s point-dose theory of
`
`obviousness. (Paper 46 at pages 22 to 24.) This testimony is relevant because it
`
`supports Biogen’s position that no one but Dr. Pleasure, including no one of
`
`ordinary skill in 2007, would have concluded from Kappos 2006 that the efficacy
`
`of DMF in treating MS resulted from the point dose (e.g., 240 mg) of DMF.
`
`
`Observation 16.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 137, line 9 through page 139, line 5, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he would have thought that identifying the effective dosage in the
`
`Results section of Kappos 2006 as 240 mg of DMF administered three times a day
`
`was “dispensable.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s point-dose theory of
`
`obviousness (Paper 46 at pages 22 to 24) and Dr. Pleasure’s declaration (Ex. 1045
`
`at ¶¶ 66 to 78). This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Pleasure’s
`
`assertion that “the finding of a point dose of 240 mg DMF was the key finding of
`
`Kappos 2006.” (Ex. 1045 ¶ 70, emphasis added.)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`Observation 17.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 170, line 3 through page 171, line 17, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that the 2008 Lancet publication (Ex. 2058), reporting the results of the
`
`Kappos 2006 phase 2 clinical trial, would not have been available to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in February 2007. This testimony is relevant because in his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1045) in paragraph 73, Dr. Pleasure relied on Exhibit 2058 to
`
`support his obviousness opinion.
`
`
`Observation 18.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 159, line 18 through page 165, line 2, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that without testing, one of ordinary skill would not know whether 120 mg
`
`of DMF administered six times a day; 180 mg of DMF administered once or twice
`
`a day; 240 mg of DMF administered once a day; or 360 mg of DMF administered
`
`once, twice, or three times a day would be more effective in treating MS than
`
`240 mg two times a day, let alone efficacious at all. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioner’s point-dose theory of obviousness. (Paper 46 at pages 22 to 24.) This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that even under Petitioner’s theory, there
`
`were many unknowns and no identified, predictable solutions at the time of the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`Observation 19.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 167, line 7 through page 169, line 6, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that a research paper from 2016 (Ex. 2387) reflected that as of 2016,
`
`scientists were continuing to investigate the molecular target or targets of DMF in
`
`treating MS. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Pleasure’s opinion that the point-
`
`dose (e.g., 240 mg) of DMF is responsible for its efficacy as purportedly taught by
`
`Kappos 2006. This testimony is also relevant because it shows that even today,
`
`scientists have not determined the mechanism of action responsible for the efficacy
`
`of DMF in treating MS.
`
`
`Observation 20.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 91, line 10 through page 96, line 17, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that interferon beta-1a (Avonex® and Rebif®), interferon beta-1b
`
`(Betaseron®), glatiramer acetate (Copaxone®), and natalizumab (Tysabri®) have
`
`different chemical structures than DMF, which is a small molecule. In Exhibit
`
`2384, page 91, line 10 through page 96, line 17, Dr. Pleasure further testified that
`
`Avonex®, Rebif®, Betaseron®, Copaxone®, and Tysabri® are administered at
`
`different dosages and via different routes of administration than Tecfidera®. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill would try a
`
`dose of about 480 mg/day of DMF because such person would “be aware of
`
`examples in the MS field, e.g., Copaxone®, wherein less frequent dosing of the
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`drug provided essentially equally effective therapeutic results, while lowering the
`
`frequency of side effects.” (Paper 46 at pages 20 to 21.) This testimony is relevant
`
`because it shows that Avonex®, Rebif®, Betaseron®, Copaxone®, and Tysabri®
`
`cannot be directly compared to Tecfidera® as they have different chemical
`
`structures, doses, and routes of administration.
`
`
`Observation 21.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 77, line 4 through page 91, line 2, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that Avonex®, Rebif®, Betaseron®, Copaxone®, and Tysabri® have
`
`different mechanisms of action than Tecfidera®. In Exhibit 2384, page 67 lines 2
`
`to 11 and page 98, line 23 through page 99, line 23, Dr. Pleasure further testified
`
`that the mechanisms of actions of these disease-modifying MS treatments are not
`
`fully understood and that one would probably win a Nobel Prize if one could prove
`
`that commonalities existed among them. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s
`
`argument that one of ordinary skill would try a dose of about 480 mg/day of DMF
`
`because such person would “be aware of examples in the MS field, e.g.,
`
`Copaxone®, wherein less frequent dosing of the drug provided essentially equally
`
`effective therapeutic results, while lowering the frequency of side effects.” (Paper
`
`46 at pages 20 to 21.) This testimony is relevant because it shows that Avonex®,
`
`Rebif®, Betaseron®, Copaxone®, and Tysabri® cannot be directly compared to
`
`Tecfidera® as their mechanisms of action are unknown and likely different.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`Observation 22.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 91, lines 3 to 6, Dr. Pleasure testified that all of the
`
`disease-modifying MS treatments available in the United States in 2005 were
`
`administered by injection. In Exhibit 2384, page 81, line 21 through page 82, line
`
`20, Dr. Pleasure further testified that “most patients do not prefer intramuscular
`
`injections.” This testimony is relevant to the issue of long-felt but unmet need as
`
`raised in Biogen’s Opposition to the Petition. (Paper 38 at pages 49 to 52.) This
`
`testimony is relevant because it supports Biogen’s evidence that the claimed
`
`invention met a long-felt need for a safe and effective oral MS treatment. (Paper 38
`
`at pages 49-52.)
`
`
`Observation 23.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 102, line 16 through page 103, line 7, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that the standard he applied for written description was “whether the
`
`application can reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
`
`inventor had possession, that is, had made the invention as of the application’s
`
`filing date.” This testimony is relevant to the standard of written description
`
`applied by Dr. Pleasure and Petitioner. (Ex. 1045 at ¶¶ 49 to 58; Paper 46 at 5.)
`
`This testimony is relevant because it shows that Dr. Pleasure and Petitioner applied
`
`the wrong legal standard in conducting their written description analysis. (Paper 38
`
`at 7.)
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`Observation 24.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 64, line 25 through page 65, line 12, Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that 80 to 85% of patients have relapsing forms of MS and that it is
`
`controversial whether progressive MS is a different disease. This testimony is
`
`relevant to the issue of enablement. (Paper 38 at 14-15; Paper 46 at 12.) This
`
`testimony is relevant because it supports a conclusion that the provisional
`
`application enables the full scope of the ’514 patent claims.
`
`
`Observation 25.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2384, page 119, lines 15-23 Dr. Pleasure testified that paragraph
`
`116 of the provisional application describes a range of doses including 480
`
`mg/day. This testimony is relevant to the issue of written description. (Paper 38 at
`
`7-14; Paper 46 at 5-11.) This testimony is relevant because it supports a conclusion
`
`that the provisional application provides written-description support for 480
`
`mg/day of DMF as a therapeutically effective amount to treat MS. This testimony
`
`is relevant despite Petitioner’s attempt to cure Dr. Pleasure’s admission on re-
`
`direct with a leading question in Exhibit 2384 at page 173, line 25 to page 174,
`
`14
`
`line 24.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 2, 2016
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Michael J. Flibbert /
`
`
`Michael J. Flibbert, Reg. No. 33,234
`Maureen D. Queler, Reg. No. 61,879
`Erin M. Sommers, Reg. No. 60,974
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner in
`IPR2015-01993
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing BIOGEN’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION was served
`
`electronically via e-mail on November 2, 2016, in its entirety on the following:
`
`James T. Carmichael
`Carol A. Spiegel
`Carmichael IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 13th Floor
`Tysons Corner, VA 22182
`jim@carmichaelip.com
`carol@carmichaelip.com
`
`Petitioner has agreed to electronic service.
`
`By: / Maureen D. Queler /
`Maureen D. Queler
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 2, 2016
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
