`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`FLATWING PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC and
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00168
`(Joined with IPR2018-01358)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,549,938
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE1
`February 8, 2019
`
`
`1 Corresponding oppositions to Patent Owner’s motions to exclude filed in related
`proceedings IPR2018-00169 (U.S. Patent No. 9,566,289, joined with IPR2018-
`01359), IPR2018-00170 (U.S. Patent No. 9,566,290, joined with IPR2018-01360),
`and IPR2018-00171 (U.S. Patent No. 9,572,823, joined with IPR2018-001361) are
`substantially the same as this opposition, with citations adjusted to cite correctly
`the record in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... i
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................ ii
`
`Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Discussion .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion Exceeds the Scope of Any Objections. ..................... 1
`
`Dr. Murthy’s Testimony About Obviousness And Routine
`Experimentation In Dose Ranging Studies Is Proper Rebuttal. ...................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Presenting Additional Evidence More Specifically Addressing An
`Issue That Patent Owner Contests Is Proper Rebuttal. ........................ 4
`
`Dr. Murthy’s Testimony About The Prior Art Disclosures Of Dose
`Ranges And About Dose Ranging As Routine Experimentation
`Responds To Testimony From Dr. Lane And Dr. Reider. ..................... 7
`
`Patent Owner Has Had A Full And Fair Opportunity To Respond
`To Dr. Murthy’s Testimony ................................................................. 10
`
`III.
`
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes Petitioner’s Position Regarding
`Samour, Which Does Not Teach Away From 5%. ....................................... 11
`
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 13
`
`Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 15
`
`– i –
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 2
`
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................. 2, 4, 6, 10, 11
`
`Nintendo of America Inc. v. Motion Games, LLC,
`No. IPR2014-00164,
`2015 WL 2395487 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2015) ................................................. 2
`
`Parrot S.A. v. QFO Labs, Inc.,
`No. IPR2016-01550,
`2017 WL 4315224 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 22, 2017) ................................................ 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed.Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................ 2, 4, 5, 9
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion To Exclude, Paper 23 (hereinafter “PO Mot. Excl.”)
`
`asserts an erroneous and contradictory standard. Patent Owner at various points
`
`contends that rebuttal evidence must both (1) be exactly the same as the evidence
`
`offered in support of the petition and (2) must not have been previously known to
`
`the petitioner. Neither is correct. Rebuttal evidence simply expounds upon
`
`evidence from the petition that established a prima facie case, in rebuttal to those
`
`parts of the case to which Patent Owner has chosen to respond. For the reasons
`
`explained below, the entirety of Dr. Murthy’s testimony (Ex. 1048) is proper
`
`rebuttal testimony and no part of it should be excluded.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION EXCEEDS THE SCOPE OF ANY OBJECTIONS.
`
`As a preliminary matter, Patent Owner’s motion is procedurally improper
`
`because it encompasses testimony to which Patent Owner never objected in the
`
`first place. Patent Owner’s motion seeks to exclude all of Dr. Murthy’s rebuttal
`
`testimony by seeking to exclude all of Ex. 1048. (PO Mot Excl. at 2, Paper 23.)
`
`But Patent Owner objected only to certain particular paragraphs in Dr. Murthy’s
`
`rebuttal testimony declaration, specifically ¶¶ 2–5, 10, 12, and 17–19. (Patent
`
`Owner’s Objections To Petitioner’s Evidence at 2, Paper 20 (hereinafter “PO
`
`Obj”.).) Patent Owner never objected to ¶¶ 1, 6–9, 11, 13–16, and 20.
`
`– 1 –
`
`
`
`
`
`Here Patent Owner objected to only ten (10) specifically identified
`
`paragraphs out of twenty (20) paragraphs in the declaration, but now seeks to
`
`exclude all twenty, including those to which it never objected. This is not a
`
`situation where a party is calling on the Board to “attempt to sort proper from
`
`improper portions of the reply.” See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Nothing here requires or supports
`
`wholesale exclusion of the entire declaration. E.g., Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`
`805 F.3d 1064, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Nothing in the Guide requires wholesale
`
`exclusion in such circumstances.”). Unlike a situation where the Board may
`
`decline to consider certain paragraphs specifically cited, e.g., Acceleration Bay,
`
`LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The Board did
`
`not abuse its discretion in declining to consider the cited paragraphs in Dr. Karger’s
`
`reply declaration.”), it would be contrary to regulation and an abuse of discretion to
`
`exclude testimony to which Patent Owner did not make any objection on the
`
`record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) (“The motion must identify the objections in the
`
`record in order and must explain the objections.”); see also, Nintendo of America
`
`Inc. v. Motion Games, LLC, No. IPR2014-00164, 2015 WL 2395487, *15 (P.T.A.B.
`
`May 15, 2015) (“Patent Owner's Motion
`
`to Exclude also
`
`is deficient
`
`procedurally.”).
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner has cited nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`– 2 –
`
`
`
`
`
`indicating that Dr. Murthy’s testimony would be inadmissible. 37 C.F.R. 42.62(a)
`
`(“Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall
`
`apply to a proceeding.”). To the extent Patent Owner contends some part of that
`
`testimony exceeds the proper scope of a reply while not contending that other parts
`
`do so, that should go to the weight, not the admissibility, of those parts of the
`
`declaration. Even if the specific paragraphs of Dr. Murthy’s testimony to which
`
`Patent Owner did object were not proper rebuttal responding to Patent Owner’s
`
`evidence (and it is, as explained in Part II, infra, at 3–11), it would still be well
`
`within the Board’s capability to consider only the other paragraphs from his
`
`declaration, to which Patent Owner never objected. Parrot S.A. v. QFO Labs, Inc.,
`
`No. IPR2016-01550, 2017 WL 4315224, *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 22, 2017) (“[T]o the
`
`extent Patent Owner also intended to argue that these materials exceed the scope of
`
`the Patent Owner Response, the Panel is capable of addressing this issue without
`
`briefing.”). Accordingly, there is no need to exclude any parts of his testimony, in
`
`the absence of citation of a governing Federal Rule of Evidence so requiring.
`
`II. DR. MURTHY’S TESTIMONY ABOUT OBVIOUSNESS AND ROUTINE
`EXPERIMENTATION IN DOSE RANGING STUDIES IS PROPER REBUTTAL.
`
`Substantively, Dr. Murthy’s
`
`testimony about
`
`the prior art ranges
`
`encompassing the 5% dosage limitation and explaining that that dose ranging
`
`studies are the routine experimentation leading to the 5% dosage limitation is
`
`entirely proper as rebuttal testimony, and Patent Owner’s contention to the contrary
`
`– 3 –
`
`
`
`
`
`is incorrect.
`
`A.
`
`Presenting Additional Evidence More Specifically Addressing An
`Issue That Patent Owner Contests Is Proper Rebuttal.
`
`Patent Owner’s motion does not apply the correct standard to rebuttal case
`
`evidence. Patent Owner’s theory is that those exact opinions did not appear in that
`
`form in the initial declaration in support of the petition and that the testimony
`
`theoretically, hypothetically could have been included earlier. If rebuttal testimony
`
`were limited to exactly the same opinions expressed in support of the prima facie
`
`case established on institution, there would be no point to having a rebuttal case.
`
`Moreover, a rebuttal case is not limited to newly discovered evidence, but instead
`
`is expected to include additional evidence rebutting Patent Owner’s attacks on the
`
`prime facie case that Petitioner made on institution. Belden, 805 F.3d at 1079
`
`(“Evidence admitted in rebuttal to respond to the patent owner's criticisms will
`
`commonly confirm the prima facie case. That does not make it necessary to the
`
`prima facie case.”)
`
`Instead, the standard is that the reply may not raise a new issue, such as a
`
`new ground of invalidity, or some element of the prima facie case that was entirely
`
`absent in the materials supporting the Petition. The Trial Practice Guide explains:
`
`A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the
`corresponding opposition. § 42.23. While replies can help crystalize
`issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly
`
`– 4 –
`
`
`
`
`
`presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. The
`Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the
`reply. Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a
`reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case
`for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed
`substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a
`prior filing.
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Dr. Murthy’s rebuttal declaration does not raise a new ground of patentability. It
`
`further discusses exactly the same art and grounds previously cited and discussed.
`
`The Petition and evidence cited in it were sufficient to make a prima facie case as
`
`to every element of the claim, including the 5% limitation. (See, Petition For Inter
`
`Partes Review Of U.S. Patent No. 9,549,938 Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 And 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.100 Et. Seq. at 44–45, 60–65, Paper 1 (hereinafter “Pet.”).) Dr.
`
`Murthy also addressed every element of the claim, including the 5% limitation, in
`
`his opening testimony. (Murthy Decl. ¶¶ 119–124, 175–180, Ex. 1005.) The
`
`sufficiency of Petitioner’s prima facie case is reflected in the Board’s decision to
`
`institute, which addressed all claim elements including the 5% limitation.
`
`(Decision to Institute at 13–14, Paper 9 (hereinafter “Inst. Dec.”).)
`
`Patent Owner’s response ignored, abandoned, and acquiesced as to all other
`
`claim elements (and all claims lacking that element) and addressed only the 5%
`
`– 5 –
`
`
`
`
`
`limitation. In its rebuttal case in reply, Petitioner properly elaborated on its initial
`
`prima facie showing as to the 5% limitation. It further showed, in more detail, how
`
`all of the prior art taken as a whole including the ranges of active ingredient
`
`disclosed therein, would have lead a POSA to have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success for the claimed subject matter as a whole including the 5% dose limitation.
`
`The rebuttal case also further elaborated on how routine experimentation in the
`
`form of a dose ranging study would further have given a POSA a reasonable
`
`expectation of success as to the claimed subject matter as a whole, including the
`
`5% dose limitation.
`
`Patent Owner argues regarding ¶¶ 2–5, 10, and 12 (Murthy Decl., Ex. 1048)
`
`that Dr. Murthy “did not offer any of those opinions” in his initial declaration in
`
`support of the Petition. (PO Mot. Excl. at 3, Paper 23.) If Dr. Murthy had already
`
`offered those exact opinions in his opening testimony, there would have been no
`
`point to filing a new declaration repeating exactly the same thing previously said.
`
`The point of a rebuttal is not to repeat what was said before. Instead, it further
`
`expounds on the prima facie case (which was set forth in the Pet. as confirmed by
`
`the Inst. Dec.) with additional evidence rebutting to Patent Owner’s response.
`
`Belden, 805 F.3d at 1079 (“Evidence admitted in rebuttal to respond to the patent
`
`owner's criticisms will commonly confirm the prima facie case.”).
`
`Patent Owner also argues that ¶¶ 2–5, 10, and 12 (Murthy Decl., Ex. 1048)
`
`– 6 –
`
`
`
`
`
`do not respond to the parts of Dr. Lane’s testimony about an asserted “teaching
`
`away” and do not respond to the parts of Dr. Reider’s testimony about boron-
`
`containing compound. (PO Mot. Excl. at 3–4, Paper 23) Even if that were true, it
`
`does not matter whether Dr. Murthy’s testimony responded to the specific narrow
`
`issues Patent Owner identifies. The testimony is clearly responsive to testimony
`
`from Dr. Lane (and Dr. Reider), as identified in Dr. Murthy’s declaration and
`
`further identified in subpart B next below.
`
`Petitioner’s rebuttal evidence in support of its reply did exactly what a
`
`rebuttal case is supposed to do. It responded to Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`regarding the 5% limitation, with additional evidence in further support of its
`
`initial, well-supported prima facie case. Parts B and C below explain in more detail
`
`how Dr. Murthy’s testimony was proper rebuttal evidence and responded to
`
`testimony from Dr. Lane and Dr. Reider.
`
`B. Dr. Murthy’s Testimony About The Prior Art Disclosures Of
`Dose Ranges And About Dose Ranging As Routine Experimenta-
`tion Responds To Testimony From Dr. Lane And Dr. Reider.
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Murthy’s Testimony About The Range Of Values That A
`POSA Would Have Considered Typical In View Of The Prior
`Art Responds To Dr. Lane And Dr. Reider.
`
`Dr. Murthy’s testimony that a POSA would generally “not have been
`
`surprised” by the 5% limitation that is “well within the ranges” of the prior art
`
`(Murthy Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1048) is proper rebuttal testimony. It is responsive to
`
`– 7 –
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony he identified (Murthy Decl. ¶¶ 3–13, Ex. 1048) from Dr. Lane about the
`
`disclosure of ranges in the prior art and the reasonable expectation of success for
`
`any particular value within the disclosed ranges. (E.g., Lane Decl. ¶¶ 54, 58, 60,
`
`62, 63, 64, Ex. 2013.) It is also responsive to testimony from Dr. Reider about
`
`ranges disclosed in the prior art and whether a POSA could have arrived at the
`
`claimed amount through routine experimentation. (E.g., Reider Decl. ¶¶ 49, 50, 54,
`
`57, & 68–71, Ex. 2014.)
`
`Dr. Murthy’s testimony about the ranges that Austin disclosed (Murthy Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 3–5, Ex. 1048) responds Dr. Lane’s testimony about the ranges disclosed in
`
`Austin, and cites to the paragraphs to which it responds. (Lane Decl. ¶¶ 58, 68,
`
`Ex. 2014.) It is also responsive to Dr. Reider’s testimony about the ranges in
`
`Austin and the reasonable expectation of success for a percentage dose within that
`
`range through routine experimentation. (Reider Decl. ¶¶ 49 & 68–69, Ex. 2013.)
`
`Dr. Murthy’s testimony about Brehove (Murthy Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 1048)
`
`responds to Dr. Lane’s testimony about the ranges in Brehove. (Lane Decl. ¶¶ 54,
`
`58, 60, 63, 64, Ex. 2014.) Dr. Murthy specifically references those paragraphs
`
`from Dr. Lane’s testimony in the next paragraph of his rebuttal testimony. (Murthy
`
`Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 1048.) It is also responsive to Dr. Reider’s testimony about the
`
`ranges in Brehove and the reasonable expectation of success for a percentage dose
`
`within that range through routine experimentation. (Reider Decl. ¶¶ 50 & 68–69,
`
`– 8 –
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2013.)
`
`Dr. Murthy’s testimony about ranges in Freeman (Murthy Decl. ¶ 12,
`
`Ex. 1048) responds to Dr. Lane’s testimony about the ranges in Freeman (Lane
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 62, 68, Ex. 2014), and cites to those paragraphs. It is also responsive to
`
`Dr. Reider’s testimony about Freeman and the reasonable expectation of success
`
`for a percentage dose within that range through routine experimentation. (Reider
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 54 & 68–69, Ex. 2013.)
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Murthy’s Testimony That The Routine Experimentation For
`The 5% Dosage Is A Dose Ranging Study Is Proper Rebuttal.
`
`Patent Owner also objected that Dr. Murthy’s testimony concerning dose-
`
`ranging studies “was known to FlatWing at the time it filed its petition.” (PO Mot.
`
`Excl. at 4, Paper 23.) There is no rule precluding the use as rebuttal, in support of a
`
`Reply, evidence that was previously known to the Petitioner. A reply is not like a
`
`motion for reconsideration, where a party may be limited to evidence which it
`
`could not with reasonable diligence have introduced earlier. Instead, a rebuttal
`
`case in support of a reply (before oral argument and before a final written decision)
`
`is an opportunity for Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s argument. Whether
`
`the evidence was previously known is irrelevant. New evidence may sometimes
`
`indicate a new issue (as noted in the Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,767), but here it does not. It could sometimes indicate an attempt to meet an
`
`element that was entirely missing from Petitioner’s prima facie case (as also noted
`
`– 9 –
`
`
`
`
`
`in the Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.Reg. 48,756, 48,767), but, again, here it does
`
`not. Instead, it properly rebutted and replied to Patent Owner’s response.
`
`Dr. Murthy’s testimony describing the routine experimentation of a dose
`
`ranging study (Murthy Decl. ¶¶ 17–19, Ex. 1048) responds to Dr. Lane’s simplistic
`
`assumption that more is always better, regardless of how much is needed, as
`
`explained in the next paragraph of Dr. Murthy’s testimony. (Murthy Decl. ¶ 15, Ex.
`
`1048.) Dr. Lane had opined that a “higher concentration” necessarily means
`
`“markedly superior performance.” (Lane Decl. ¶ 71, Ex. 2014.) In rebuttal, Dr.
`
`Murthy properly explained that more is not always better, that the minimum
`
`effective amount is preferred, and that a dose ranging study is routine
`
`experimentation, well-known to a POSA, used to determine an appropriate dose,
`
`and that here a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success for the
`
`subject matter claimed, including the 5% limitation. Dr. Murthy’s testimony about
`
`the routine experimentation in a dose ranging study (Murthy Decl. ¶¶ 17–19,
`
`Ex. 1048) is also responsive to Dr. Reider’s testimony that a POSA “would not
`
`have arrived at the claims amount of tavaborole through routine experimentation.”
`
`(Reider Decl. ¶¶ 68–71, Ex. 2013.)
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Has Had A Full And Fair Opportunity To Respond
`To Dr. Murthy’s Testimony
`
`Patent Owner here, similar to the Patent Owner in Belden, has also had a
`
`“fair opportunity to respond” to the grounds raised in the Petition, including the
`
`– 10 –
`
`
`
`
`
`support for those grounds in Dr. Murthy’s rebuttal declaration. Belden, 805 F.3d at
`
`1079–1081. Here, as in Belden, Patent Owner cross-examined the declarant on his
`
`rebuttal testimony. Moreover, while in Belden the Patent Owner was limited to
`
`filing observations on cross-examination, here the Patent Owner was allowed even
`
`greater latitude and permitted to file a full Surreply brief. (Patent Owner’s
`
`Surreply, Paper 24 (hereinafter “PO Surreply”).) When requesting leave to file PO
`
`Surreply, the Patent Owner agreed that it would file no new evidence, and
`
`expressed no need or desire to do so. PO Surreply does not address the routine
`
`experimentation of dose ranging studies and the overlapping ranges in the prior art
`
`showing that a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success for the
`
`claimed subject matter, including the 5% dosing limitation. Patent Owner’s own
`
`choice to forego its opportunity to address these issues in PO Surreply it requested
`
`is no basis for it now to seek to exclude that evidence. On the contrary, it shows
`
`that Patent Owner has not been prejudiced and despite being afforded a fair
`
`opportunity to respond did not do so.
`
`The only reasonable inference is that Patent Owner chose not to respond
`
`because it had no meaningful response to make.
`
`III. PATENT OWNER MISCHARACTERIZES PETITIONER’S POSITION REGARDING
`SAMOUR, WHICH DOES NOT TEACH AWAY FROM 5%.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner has not “pivoted away”
`
`(PO Mot. Excl. at 3, Paper 23) from Samour. Petitioner’s reply also explained that
`
`– 11 –
`
`
`
`
`
`there was no “teaching away” in Samour. (E.g., Reply at 22–23, Paper 19.) In
`
`addition to explaining that Samour was not a “teaching away,” Petitioner also
`
`introduced additional rebuttal, including the testimony from Dr. Murthy about the
`
`active dose ranges in the prior art and the routine experimentation of a dose finding
`
`study further providing a reasonable expectation of success for the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole, including the 5% limitation.
`
`It is undisputed that Samour repeatedly discloses a 5% dose, in multiple
`
`examples. Patent Owner’s argument that this dose “simply serves as a comparative
`
`benchmark” (e.g., PO Resp. at 29, Paper 13) seeks to avoid the issue without
`
`addressing it. If Samour uses 5% as a “benchmark,” that is simply further evidence
`
`that it is within the range for which a POSA would have a reasonable expectation
`
`of success through routine experimentation in a dose ranging study. Patent Owner
`
`points to Example 9 as showing the amount of penetration in a single application,
`
`but nowhere does Patent Owner show that the penetration rate at 5% in Example 9
`
`would in any way be insufficient for a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Moreover, the single application of Example 9 in Samour is not the way such
`
`products are typically administered. Example 10 shows that multiple applications
`
`at 5% achieved a steady state in just 3 days. (Ex. 1010, col. 25, ℓℓ. 20–55.) A
`
`POSA would know that multiple administrations of such products is typical, as
`
`shown in Example 10 of Samour, and as reflected in the product labelling for the
`
`– 12 –
`
`
`
`
`
`commercial embodiment of tavaborole (Ex. 1042 at 2 (“Apply KERYDIN to
`
`affected toenails once daily for 48 weeks.”)).
`
`Samour specifically teaches dose ranges encompassing 5%. (Ex., 1010, col.
`
`11, ℓ.39, to col. 12, ℓ.38.) Moreover, it teaches that the exact amount depends on
`
`factors including the structure and potency of the active ingredient. Accordingly, it
`
`encourages routine experimentation to determine amount of active ingredient.
`
`Routine experimentation to determine the amount of active ingredient is a dose
`
`ranging study, and Samour teaches that such routine experimentation should
`
`encompass ranges including 5%.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully moves that Exhibit 1048 not be excluded,
`
`in whole or in part.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Philip D. Segrest Jr./
`Philip D. Segrest Jr. (Reg. No. 39,021)
`philip.segrest@huschblackwell.com
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Eric J. Rakestraw (Reg. No. 68,740)
`Eric.Rakestraw@HuschBlackwell.com
`PTAB-ERakestraw@HuschBlackwell.com
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`Edward D. Manzo (Reg. No. 28,139)
`Edward.Manzo@HuschBlackwell.com
`Additional Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
`
`– 13 –
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel. 312-655-1500
`Fax. 312-644-1501
`
`– 14 –
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was
`
`served via
`
`electronic mail on
`
`the
`
`following
`
`attorneys of
`
`record:
`
`
`
`Aaron P. Maurer,
`amaurer@wc.com
`David I. Berl,
`dberl@wc.com
`tselby@wc.com
`asheh@wc.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Anacor Pharms., Inc.
`
`
`
`On this the 8th day of February 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven Parmelee,
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`Michael Rosato,
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`Jad Mills
`jmills@wsgr.com
`Counsel for Petitioner Mylan
`Pharms., Inc.
`
`
`/Philip D. Segrest Jr./
`Philip D. Segrest Jr. (Reg. No. 39,021)
`philip.segrest@huschblackwell.com
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Eric J. Rakestraw (Reg. No. 68,740)
`Eric.Rakestraw@HuschBlackwell.com
`PTAB-ERakestraw@HuschBlackwell.com
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`Edward D. Manzo (Reg. No. 28,139)
`Edward.Manzo@HuschBlackwell.com
`Additional Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel. 312-655-1500
`Fax. 312-644-1501
`
`
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
