UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., and
`SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`IPR2020-000401
`Patent 7,326,708
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. were joined as
`parties to this proceeding via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2020-01060; and Sun
`Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. was joined as a party to this proceeding via Motion
`for Joinder in IPR2020-01072.
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., and
`SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`IPR2020-000401
`Patent 7,326,708
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. were joined as
`parties to this proceeding via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2020-01060; and Sun
`Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. was joined as a party to this proceeding via Motion
`for Joinder in IPR2020-01072.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s (“Mylan’s”) Reply argued (for the
`
`first time) that the anticipation inquiry should focus on “methanol-based
`
`experiments” rather than other potential ways of making phosphoric acid salts of
`
`sitagliptin. Reply 1–2, 5–10.2 Mylan then argued that the methanol-based
`
`experiments in Dr. Chyall’s first declaration (Exhibit 2225) “[p]roduce[d] 1:1
`
`[s]itagliptin DHP [e]very [t]ime,” which according to Mylan means that the
`
`claimed 1:1 sitagliptin DHP salt is inherently anticipated. E.g., Reply 5. In its
`
`Sur-Reply, Patent Owner Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”) explained why
`
`this argument is both incorrect and untimely. Sur-Reply 6–11.
`
`In addition to the argument’s substantive deficiencies, the evidence on which
`
`Mylan relies to support it is inadmissible. Dr. Chyall is not a witness in this
`
`proceeding, and Exhibit 2225 is not direct testimony under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53. Yet
`
`Mylan relies on Dr. Chyall’s declaration for the truth of the matters asserted and as
`
`though he were an expert in this case. Exhibit 2225 is thus inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 802.
`
`
`2 As in prior briefs, Merck refers collectively to Petitioners, including the various
`
`remaining Joinder Petitioners, as “Mylan.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Independently, Exhibit 2225 also is inadmissible as expert testimony
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`because it is not reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579
`
`(1993), and FRE 702. The relevant question for inherent anticipation is whether
`
`non-1:1 sitagliptin phosphate salts exist. Sur-Reply 5. Dr. Chyall’s salt screen,
`
`which tested various quantities of sitagliptin freebase and phosphoric acid in
`
`methanol (and only methanol) is not a scientifically valid way of answering—and
`
`did not even purport to answer—that question.
`
`Two additional exhibits are inadmissible to the extent that they rely on Dr.
`
`Chyall’s work in ways that violate the rules of evidence. Exhibit 1030, Dr.
`
`Chyall’s lab notebook, is hearsay and has not been properly authenticated. And
`
`Exhibit 1035, the reply declaration of Mylan’s expert Dr. Chorghade, is
`
`(1) inadmissible hearsay to the extent it recapitulates Dr. Chyall’s statements, and
`
`(2) improper expert testimony under FRE 702 when it relies on Dr. Chyall’s
`
`litigation testimony, as that is not the kind of material on which an expert in his
`
`field ordinarily would rely. Mylan cannot back-door Dr. Chyall’s conclusions
`
`through these other exhibits.
`
`Accordingly, and for the reasons below, Merck hereby moves to exclude
`
`Exhibit 2225 to the extent Mylan relies on it; to exclude Exhibit 1030 in its
`
`entirety; and to exclude Exhibit 1035 to the extent it addresses Exhibit 1030 or
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2225. Merck timely filed objections to these exhibits on November 24,
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`2020, Paper 68.
`
`II. EXHIBIT 2225 IS INADMISSIBLE FOR THE TRUTH OF THE
`MATTERS IT ASSERTS AND AS EXPERT TESTIMONY
`
`A. Mylan’s Use of Exhibit 2225 Is Hearsay
`
`Exhibit 2225 is a declaration prepared by Dr. Chyall for a proceeding in
`
`Israel. Merck, not Mylan, submitted it in this proceeding. But Merck did not cite
`
`it for the truth of Dr. Chyall’s testimony. Rather, Merck’s expert Dr. Adam
`
`Matzger performed his own experimental work; he made and characterized non-1:1
`
`phosphate salts of sitagliptin, the existence of which rebuts Mylan’s inherent
`
`anticipation case. See POR 15–18; EX2103 ¶¶ 123–76. Dr. Matzger merely cited
`
`Exhibit 2225 because he considered it when designing his experiments—
`
`specifically, as a model of, and motivation for, Dr. Matzger’s experimental
`
`conditions. EX2103 ¶¶ 126, 131.
`
`Mylan’s extensive use of Exhibit 2225, in contrast, is plainly as hearsay.
`
`See, e.g., Reply 1, 4, 6–7, 10, 12. Dr. Chyall is not a witness in this proceeding.
`
`No party adduced his testimony as direct testimony under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53, and
`
`Merck had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Yet Mylan quotes Exhibit 2225
`
`for what it supposedly “establishes,” “shows,” and “demonstrates,” and even the
`
`“conclusions reached in” it—in other words, for the truth of what it says—over and
`
`over. Id. Mylan relies on Dr. Chyall’s description of twelve experiments in
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2225 that, he says, resulted in a 1:1 sitagliptin DHP salt. See Reply at 1, 4,
`
`10, 12. Mylan also relies on Dr. Chyall’s conclusion that “there is only one
`
`possible molecular ratio, a 1:1 ratio.” Reply 1, 6. Each of these uses relies on the
`
`truth of Dr. Chyall’s statements. Exhibit 2225 is probative of Mylan’s arguments
`
`only if Dr. Chyall’s description of his experiments and observations are true or his
`
`conclusions are accepted as correct.
`
`Mylan’s use of Dr. Chyall’s declaration is especially inappropriate because
`
`Mylan insisted that it would not rely on his testimony. Dr. Chyall originally was
`
`an expert witness in one of the joined proceedings; Joinder-Petitioner Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a declaration from Dr. Chyall. That declaration
`
`parroted the conclusions of Mylan’s expert, Dr. Chorghade; it did not disclose the
`
`experiments or conclusions in Exhibit 2225. IPR2021-01045, Exhibit 1002. But
`
`even so, Merck raised the question of whether it would have the opportunity to
`
`depose him. In response, Mylan emphasized that Dr. Chyall was not Mylan’s
`
`expert. In the words of Mylan’s counsel, “To the extent Merck wants to depose
`
`Dr. Chyall, enter into a stipulation regarding Dr. Chyall, or do anything else
`
`with connection with Dr. Chyall, I remind you that Mylan’s expert in
`
`IPR2020-00040 is Dr. Chorghade not Dr. Chyall.” EX2285. After Dr.
`
`Chorghade’s deposition, Teva withdrew its reliance on Dr. Chyall’s testimony, and
`
`Mylan confirmed to the Board that “Mylan is not intending to rely on Dr. Len
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Chy[a]ll.” EX1018, 9–10; id. at 13 (“As Mr. Fisher notes, our expert is Dr.
`
`Torgotti [phonetic for ‘Chorghade’].”); see Paper 44 (Teva/Watson Joinder
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`Decision) at 5 (“Petitioner also cites the declaration of Dr. Leonard Chyall (Ex.
`
`1002), but has indicated that it will withdraw Dr. Chyall’s declaration, and will
`
`rely instead on the testimony of Mylan’s declarant, Dr. Mukund Chorghade, in the
`
`Mylan IPR if permitted.”).3
`
`That was then. In Mylan’s Reply, Dr. Chyall reappears—as an expert
`
`witness, rendering conclusions on which Mylan relies—in Exhibit 2225.
`
`It is hornbook law that statements in a declaration submitted in a different
`
`proceeding, relied on for their truth, are hearsay unless they fall into an exclusion
`
`or exception, which Exhibit 2225 does not. FRE 801(c); Rose v. Frazer, Int. No.
`
`104,733, Paper 73 at 2–3 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2002); see FRE 801, 802, 803, 804. It
`
`is therefore inadmissible for the truth of the matters it asserts. The Board should
`
`exclude it to the extent Mylan relies on it for that purpose, and should not rely on
`
`the portions of Exhibit 2225 that Mylan cites. See, e.g., Mexichem Amanco
`
`
`3 Since that time, Merck settled with Teva, so the proceeding in which Dr. Chyall
`
`originally submitted a declaration has now been terminated. IPR2020-01045,
`
`Paper 22.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell Int’l, IPR2013-00576, Paper 36 at 3 (P.T.A.B.
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`Sept. 5, 2014).
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 2225 Is Inadmissible as Expert Testimony
`
`Even if Exhibit 2225 did not pose insurmountable hearsay problems, the
`
`Board should exclude Dr. Chyall’s conclusions because they are not helpful or
`
`reliable expert testimony under FRE 702. To be reliable and admissible under
`
`FRE 702, expert testimony must not only be “based on data, a methodology, or
`
`studies” that are “[]adequate to support the conclusions reached,” Amorgianos v.
`
`Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 266 (2d Cir. 2002), but they must “have
`
`a valid scientific connection to the disputed facts of the case.” Allison v. McGhan
`
`Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1312 (11th Cir. 1999). Daubert and FRE 702 require
`
`“a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to
`
`admissibility” and emphasize that “scientific validity for one purpose is not
`
`necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at
`
`591–92.
`
`Dr. Chyall’s opinions do not come close to meeting that standard. They
`
`were not even intended to address the proposition for which Mylan advances them,
`
`nor to address the relevant standard for inherent anticipation. Mylan asserts
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`(incorrectly4) that WO498 teaches an “earlier known process” for making
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`sitagliptin DHP, and proffers Dr. Chyall’s opinions for the proposition that “when
`
`the earlier known process is reproduced, ‘there is only one possible molecular
`
`ratio, a 1:1 ratio . . . of . . . sitagliptin dihydrogen phosphate.’” Reply 1 (quoting
`
`EX2225 at ¶ 52). But Dr. Chyall’s declaration never suggests that there was an
`
`“earlier known process” for making phosphate salts of sitagliptin. EX2225. Nor
`
`does the declaration address what phosphate salts the POSA might make by
`
`following the teachings of WO498, because it never even mentions WO498. Id. In
`
`fact, as Merck has previously explained, Dr. Chyall’s experiments differed from
`
`WO498’s Example 7 in many respects: starting material, acid base, molar ratio of
`
`acid to sitagliptin, dropwise instead of all-at-once addition of the acid,
`
`concentration of the reactants, use of an aqueous solvent system, use of slurry
`
`crystallization, reaction time, and isolation of reaction products. See Sur-Reply 7–
`
`8. Dr. Chyall’s experiments simply are not a “[r]eproduction of WO498.” Reply
`
`5. And because they are not, Exhibit 2225 does not contain reliable, helpful, or
`
`admissible expert testimony for the proposition that reproducing WO498, or any
`
`“earlier known process,” always leads to a 1:1 sitagliptin DHP salt. See In re Paoli
`
`R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 743 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that FRE 702
`
`
`4 See Sur-Reply 6–9.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`requires “good grounds to extrapolate” from the scientific conclusion of an expert
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`to “knowledge for purposes of the case”).
`
`Mylan may respond that, divorced from WO498, Dr. Chyall did address
`
`whether it is “possible” that non-1:1 phosphoric acid salts of sitagliptin exist.
`
`EX2225 ¶ 52. Dr. Chyall’s opinion is unreliable, and is thus inadmissible under
`
`FRE 702, on that point as well. Dr. Chyall did a limited salt screen. He combined
`
`sitagliptin and phosphoric acid in various different proportions and at different
`
`temperatures, to see what different phosphate salts might form. EX2225 ¶¶ 13, 24.
`
`But as Mylan itself emphasizes (trying to make lemonade from lemons), Dr.
`
`Chyall did all of these experiments using a methanol-based solution. Id. ¶ 24; see
`
`Reply 1 (“EX2225 contains 12 methanol-based experiments”). Nowhere did Dr.
`
`Chyall opine that his screen was exhaustive or that his use of methanol (and only
`
`methanol) was representative. He simply said that his experiments “represent
`
`common and reasonable attempts” to make other salt forms—a standard that was
`
`apparently applicable to whatever issues were presented in Israeli proceeding, but
`
`bears no connection to U.S. inherent anticipation law. EX2225 ¶ 52; see, e.g., U.S.
`
`Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, 843 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Conducting a series of experiments that all use methanol is not a reliable
`
`way to determine the relevant inherency question here: whether a 1:1 sitagliptin
`
`DHP “always result[s]” when crystallizing a salt from a solution of sitagliptin and
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`phosphoric acid. U.S. Water Servs., 843 F.3d at 1350–51. Dr. Chyall never
`
`suggested that his methanol-based experiments answer this question. On the
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`contrary, it is undisputed that the solvent matters. Mylan emphasizes as much,
`
`stating that “methanol and isopropanol are not equivalent solvents” and arguing
`
`that “[h]ad [Dr. Matzger] used methanol,” the other parameters he explored would
`
`have yielded a 1:1 salt. Reply 10. Mylan does not dispute that using an
`
`isopropanol solution, Dr. Matzger in fact made non-1:1 phosphoric acid salts of
`
`sitagliptin. Sur-Reply 5; see Reply 8–10. Given these undisputed facts, Mylan
`
`cannot contend that Dr. Chyall’s opinions in Exhibit 2225 are reliable and
`
`admissible evidence to somehow address whether non-1:1 sitagliptin phosphate
`
`salts exist. Dr. Chyall’s work simply did not determine that.
`
`For all these reasons, even if it were proper, non-hearsay testimony, Dr.
`
`Chyall’s declaration is not helpful or reliable expert testimony. Exhibit 2225 fails
`
`to satisfy the requirements of FRE 702 and should be excluded.
`
`III. EXHIBIT 1030 IS INADMISSIBLE
`
`Exhibit 1030 is a lab notebook purporting to belong to Dr. Chyall. Mylan
`
`does not cite it in Reply. As will be discussed further below, its expert, Dr.
`
`Chorghade, uses it to perform a supposed “[i]ndependent [r]eview” of “the
`
`methanol experiments in EX2225.” EX1035 ¶ 63.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`To begin with, Exhibit 1030 is inadmissible because it is neither sufficiently
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040,
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`1055–56 (Fed. Cir. 2001), nor compliant with the heightened requirements for
`
`substantiating technical data under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65. If Mylan had submitted
`
`direct testimony from Dr. Chyall, he could have authenticated his laboratory
`
`notebook and explained his experiments as the rules require. But in using his
`
`Israeli declaration as an end-run around the usual rules on expert testimony, Mylan
`
`left his laboratory notebook without the requisite support. As an initial matter, Dr.
`
`Chyall’s declaration is not testimony at all—merely an inadmissible collection of
`
`hearsay statements—and cannot be the required “affidavit” under § 42.65, nor can
`
`it be relied upon for the truth of what Exhibit 1030 is. See supra § II.A. But even
`
`if it were treated as testimony, it makes no attempt to comply with the
`
`requirements of § 42.65. For example, while it sets forth experimental procedures
`
`for making samples, EX2225 ¶¶ 33–45, it then simply announces conclusions
`
`about XPRD, NMR, and DSC analyses without explanation as to “[h]ow the test
`
`was performed and the data was generated.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(b)(3); EX2225
`
`¶¶ 29, 46–47. Dr. Chorghade also cannot authenticate Exhibit 1030 or provide any
`
`of the required information about the experiments it contains because he has no
`
`firsthand personal knowledge to attest to its contents. EX2283, 15:18–17:3. And
`
`while Mylan served a declaration from Noam Blei, counsel for Teva in the Israeli
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`
`
`proceeding, as supplemental evidence purportedly to authenticate Exhibit 1030, it
`
`does nothing to solve these problems because Mr. Blei lacks personal knowledge
`
`about the technical tests and data in the notebooks, and his declaration does not
`
`come close to complying with the requirements of § 42.65.
`
`Additionally, the Board should exclude Exhibit 1030 because it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802. Mylan seeks to use the statements
`
`in Exhibit 1030 to prove the truth of the matter asserted—i.e., that Dr. Chyall
`
`performed certain experiments and what the results of those experiments were. See
`
`EX1035 at 35–37. Exhibit 1030 is only probative if its statements are true, and
`
`Merck was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Chyall. Exhibit 1030
`
`also does not fall under any exceptions to the hearsay rule in FRE 803.
`
`Exhibit 1030 is therefore inadmissible and should be excluded in its entirety.
`
`IV. EXHIBIT 1035 IS INADMISSIBLE TO THE EXTENT IT CITES OR
`RELIES ON EXHIBITS 1030 AND 2225
`
`Exhibit 1035 is a Reply Declaration by Mylan’s expert Dr. Chorghade.
`
`Unlike Merck’s expert Dr. Matzger, Dr. Chorghade performed no experiments of
`
`his own. Instead, large portions of Dr. Chorghade’s Reply Declaration rely on
`
`and/or parrot the inadmissible experiments and conclusions of Dr. Chyall in
`
`Exhibits 2225 and 1030. See EX1035 at 1–29, 35–38. To the extent Dr.
`
`Chorghade relies on Dr. Chyall’s work, his Reply Declaration also is inadmissible.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`
`
`To begin with, Dr. Chorghade’s reliance on Dr. Chyall’s declaration and
`
`notebook is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802. As discussed above,
`
`Exhibits 2225 and 1030 are inadmissible hearsay, which Mylan relies on for the
`
`truth of the matters asserted. Mylan cannot cure their evidentiary deficiencies by
`
`using Dr. Chorghade as a conduit for inadmissible hearsay evidence. See Williams
`
`v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 80 (2012). Dr. Chorghade has no personal knowledge
`
`about the experiments that Dr. Chyall conducted and cannot testify to their
`
`accuracy. EX2283, 15:18–17:3. The experiments were conducted a decade ago,
`
`without his involvement; he simply read the inadmissible exhibits and then relayed
`
`their contents. EX1035 ¶¶ 8, 16–19, 21–26, 44, 64–67. That testimony is just the
`
`sort of back-door attempt to introduce evidence that the hearsay rules prohibit.
`
`Dr. Chorghade’s status as an expert also does not change this analysis. An
`
`expert witness may rely on inadmissible facts or data if—but only if—“experts in
`
`the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming
`
`an opinion on the subject.” FRE 703. Dr. Chyall’s declaration does not meet that
`
`standard. Much of Dr. Chorghade’s declaration consists simply of repeating the
`
`contents of Dr. Chyall’s declaration, not rendering independent opinions. EX1035
`
`¶¶ 8, 16–19, 21–26, 44, 64–67. Moreover, while Dr. Chorghade states that he “has
`
`spent decades reviewing other people’s experimental data and manuscripts,”
`
`EX1035 ¶ 15, FRE 703 demands more than just familiarity with a general class of
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`documents. Dr. Chorghade admitted that in his work in the pharmaceutical
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`industry, he has never relied on litigation-related opinions. EX2283, 18:18–21.
`
`Neither Mylan nor Dr. Chorghade has established that chemistry experts “would
`
`reasonably rely on” the litigation-driven declaration of another scientist for any
`
`purpose. None of Dr. Chorghade’s use of Exhibit 2225 is admissible.
`
`As to Dr. Chorghade’s use of Exhibit 1030, Dr. Chorghade is explicit that it
`
`adds “no substantive additional details” to Exhibit 2225. EX1035 ¶ 66. Dr.
`
`Chorghade announces a purportedly independent conclusion, but in an entirely
`
`conclusory manner that again simply re-states—and indeed quotes—Dr. Chyall’s
`
`conclusion. EX1035 ¶ 67 (quoting EX2225 ¶¶ 24, 52). Once again, Mylan cannot
`
`evade the hearsay rule simply by having its expert discuss hearsay materials from
`
`another proceeding about which neither he nor any other witness in this proceeding
`
`has personal knowledge. See Williams, 567 U.S. at 80.
`
`Independently, Dr. Chorghade’s declaration should be excluded under FRE
`
`702 to the extent it relies on Exhibits 2225 and Exhibit 1030. All of the FRE 702
`
`arguments discussed above in connection with Exhibit 2225 apply with equal force
`
`to the substantively identical opinions in Exhibit 1035. Whatever exhibit is used to
`
`introduce them, Dr. Chyall’s experiments do not have any “valid scientific
`
`connection to the disputed facts of the case.” Allison, 184 F.3d at 1312. In
`
`addition, Dr. Chorghade has failed to provide any support or reliable methodology
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`that could possibly have led him to the conclusion that one of the exhibits Dr.
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`Chyall performed “is a reproduction of Example 7 of WO498,” when Dr. Chyall
`
`said nothing of the sort and there are significant differences between the
`
`experiments. EX1035 ¶ 67; supra § II.B; Sur-Reply 6–9.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`Exhibits 2225 and 1030, and the portions of Exhibit 1035 that discuss them,
`
`contain litigation-driven experiments performed, and opinions expressed for a
`
`different proceeding, raising different issues, applying different legal standards,
`
`and in a different country. Dr. Chyall, who performed those experiments and
`
`rendered those opinions, has not provided testimony here—and Mylan even
`
`affirmatively disclaimed reliance on him as an expert. Mylan’s attempt to rely on
`
`hearsay statements he presented in that other proceeding, in support of a theory
`
`presented belatedly for the first time in Reply, flouts not only the rules of this
`
`Board but also the Federal Rules of Evidence, and it deprived Merck of the right to
`
`cross-examine him in this proceeding. And Mylan’s efforts to launder Dr. Chyall’s
`
`work through its own expert, Dr. Chorghade, are likewise contrary to the rules.
`
`The Board should exclude the portions of Exhibit 2225 on which only
`
`Mylan relies, and should limit its consideration of Exhibit 2225 to the non-hearsay
`
`uses in Merck’s submissions. It should exclude Exhibit 1030 in its entirety. And it
`
`should exclude Exhibit 1035 to the extent it cites Exhibits 2225 and 1030.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 20, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stanley E. Fisher/
`Stanley E. Fisher (Reg. No. 55,820)
`Bruce R. Genderson (Pro Hac Vice)
`David M. Krinsky (Reg. No. 72,339)
`Elise M. Baumgarten (Pro Hac Vice)
`Alexander S. Zolan (Pro Hac Vice)
`Shaun P. Mahaffy (Reg. No. 75,534)
`Anthony H. Sheh (Reg. No. 70,576)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: (202) 434-5000
`F: (202) 434-5029
`sfisher@wc.com
`bgenderson@wc.com
`dkrinsky@wc.com
`ebaumgarten@wc.com
`azolan@wc.com
`smahaffy@wc.com
`asheh@wc.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00040 | Patent 7,326,708
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that a true
`
`and correct copy of the foregoing was served on January 20, 2021, by delivering a
`
`copy via electronic mail on the following attorneys of record:
`
`Jitendra Malik
`Alissa M. Pacchioli
`Christopher W. West
`Heike S. Radeke
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSEMAN LLP
`550 South Tryon, Street Suite 2900
`Charlotte, NC 28202-4213
`(704) 444-2000
`jitty.malik@kattenlaw.com
`alissa.pacchioli@kattenlaw.com
`christopher.west@katten.com
`heike.radeke@katten.com
`
`Jovial Wong
`Charles B. Klein
`Claire A. Fundakowski
`Zachary B. Cohen
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1901 L. Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 282-5000
`Sunipr@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Russell W. Faegenburg
`Tedd W. Van Buskirk
`Michael H. Teschner
`LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
`KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
`20 Commerce Drive
`Cranford, New Jersey 07016
`(908) 518-6367
`Rfaegenburg.ipr@ldlkm.com
`Tvanbuskirk@lernerdavid.com
`litigation@lernerdavid.com
`MTeschner.ipr@ldlkm.com
`
`
`
`/Stanley E. Fisher/
`Stanley E. Fisher
`Reg. No. 55,820
`
`
`
`17
`
`
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
