UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AYLA PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v .
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,533,053 to Gamache et al.
`Issue Date: January 3, 2017
`Title: High Concentration Olopatadine Ophthalmic Composition
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2020-00295
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`144723214v1
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AYLA PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v .
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,533,053 to Gamache et al.
`Issue Date: January 3, 2017
`Title: High Concentration Olopatadine Ophthalmic Composition
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2020-00295
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`144723214v1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED BASED ON § 325(D) .......... 1
`A.
`Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds Were Not Considered During
`Prosecution (Becton Factors (a-d)) ..................................................... 1
`Additional Evidence and Facts Presented in the Petition
`Warrant Reconsideration (Becton Factor (f)) ..................................... 3
`The Examiner Erred in Its Evaluation of the Asserted Prior Art
`(Becton Factor (e)) ............................................................................. 4
`THE APPLE FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF
`INSTITUTION UNDER § 314(A) ............................................................... 6
`A.
`Apple Factors 1 & 2 ........................................................................... 7
`B.
`Apple Factor 3 .................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Apple Factors 4 & 5 ........................................................................... 9
`D.
`Apple Factor 6 .................................................................................. 11
`III. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 12
`
`144723214v1
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apotex v. UCB Biopharma,
`IPR2019-00400, Paper 17, 24 (July 15, 2019).............................................. 1, 12
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.
`IPR2020-00019 Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020) .................................. passum
`Apple v. Omni Medsci,
`IPR2020-00029, Paper 7, 55 (April 22, 2020) .......................................... 5, 7, 11
`Artic Cat v. Polaris Indus.,
`IPR2017-00433, Paper 17, 19 (July 5, 2017) ................................................... 12
`Clim-A-Tech v. Ebert,
`IPR2017-01863, Paper 13, 18 ............................................................................ 2
`Ex parte Ditzik,
`2018-000087, 6 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2018) ............................................................. 10
`Ethicon v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 6
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ........................................... 8, 9
`Hyperbranched Medical Tech. v. Confluent Surgical,
`IPR2018-01097, Paper 14, 24 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018) ....................................... 1
`Lowe’s. v. Nichia,
`IPR2017-02011, Paper 13, 18 (Mar. 12, 2018) ................................................. 12
`Meitzner v. Mindick,
`549 F.2d 775 (CCPA 1977) ............................................................................. 11
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Almirall, LLC.
`IPR2019-01095, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 27, 2019) ............................................. 9
`
`144723214v1
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,
`IPR2020-00040, Paper 21 (PTAB May 12, 2020) ................................ 4, 8, 9, 11
`
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs.
`Case IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (Sept. 12, 2018) ................................................. 6
`Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 6
`Petroleum Geo-Servs. v. W. Geco,
`IPR2014-01477, Paper 18, 32 (March 17, 2015) .............................................. 12
`Steadymed LTD. v. United Therapeutics Corp.,
`IPR 2016-00006 ................................................................................................. 9
`TRW Automotive v. Magna Elecs.,
`IPR2014-00261, Paper 19, 12 (June 26, 2014) ................................................... 1
`Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00064, Paper 10 (May 1, 2019) ........................................................... 8
`ZTE v. Bell Northern Research,
`IPR2019-01365, Paper 13 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2020) .............................................. 5
`
`144723214v1
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED BASED ON § 325(D)
`A.
`Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds Were Not Considered During
`Prosecution (Becton Factors (a-d))
`There is no dispute that the Examiner never put forth any prior art rejection
`
`during the prosecution of the ’053 patent, including the grounds advanced in the
`
`Petition and supporting declarations. The crux of Novartis’ argument under §
`
`325(d) is: (1) the Examiner “considered” Argentum’s IPR petition to the ’154
`
`patent because it was disclosed in an IDS during prosecution of the ’053 patent,
`
`and (2) the Examiner issued a Schneider-based rejection during the prosecution of
`
`the related ’154 patent. POPR at 31. These arguments fail for several reasons.
`
`First, Novartis presumes that its mere disclosure, in an IDS, of the Argentum
`
`IPR petition and/or the other prior art references, meant that the Examiner
`
`considered and relied on them. Presumptive awareness, however, is not enough for
`
`a § 325(d) denial. TRW Automotive v. Magna Elecs., IPR2014-00261, Paper 19,
`
`12 (June 26, 2014). “The Board has consistently declined to exercise its discretion
`
`under § 325(d) based on the mere citation of references in an IDS that were not
`
`applied by the Examiner.” Apotex v. UCB Biopharma, IPR2019-00400, Paper 17,
`
`24 (July 15, 2019); Petition, 12 (citing cases). Where, as here, the prior art is
`
`“simply being of record, but not applied in any rejection by the Examiner during
`
`examination … provides little impetus for [the PTAB] to exercise [its] discretion to
`
`deny institution under § 325(d).” Hyperbranched Medical Tech. v. Confluent
`
`144723214v1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Surgical, IPR2018-01097, Paper 14, 24 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018).1
`
`Second, recognizing that the Examiner did not apply any prior art rejection,
`
`Novartis relies on a Schneider-based rejection, made over two years prior, during
`
`the prosecution of the ’154 patent. POPR, 36-38. However, Novartis does not cite
`
`a single decision where the Board denied a petition under § 325(d), because one of
`
`the prior art references was relied upon in a related application. Rather, under such
`
`circumstances, the Board has refused to exercise discretion under § 325(d). See
`
`Petition at 39 (citing cases).
`
`Finally, Novartis concedes that Ground 3 in Ayla Pharma’s Petition is not in
`
`Argentum’s IPR petition (POPR, 31-32). Consequently, the Examiner did not
`
`consider the references, as combined in Ground 3, and as such, there is no overlap
`
`in the arguments between Ground 3 and those presented during examination.
`
`Similarly, the additional evidence and facts (identified below) were not before the
`
`Examiner and do not overlap with those presented during examination. See infra
`
`I.B. Novartis does not present any arguments or evidence to the contrary.
`
`In sum, (i) none of the references were applied in any prior art rejection, and
`
`(ii) there is no overlap between Ayla Pharma’s above-identified arguments and
`
`1 Novartis’s reliance on Clim-A-Tech v. Ebert is misplaced. POPR, 40. Unlike
`
`here, it involved a number of amendments submitted during prosecution that
`
`presented arguments related to a prior art reference. IPR2017-01863, Paper 13, 18.
`
`144723214v1
`
`2
`
`
`
`those presented during prosecution. Thus, Becton factors (a)-(e) favor institution.
`
`B.
`
`Additional Evidence and Facts Presented in the Petition Warrant
`Reconsideration (Becton Factor (f))
`Given Novartis’ reliance on its IDS disclosure, the most noteworthy thing is
`
`what its disclosure omits. This is best shown through a review of the timeline of
`
`events that took place during the prosecution of the ’053 patent.
`
`As shown above, the applicant filed six IDSs. However, what is troubling is that
`
`the Board’s intervening Argentum Institution Decision (dated 07/18/2016) was
`
`never disclosed to the Examiner. EX1015. Novartis does not explain why it
`
`failed to disclose this document in its subsequent sixth IDS (dated 10/14/2016), nor
`
`is there any legitimate reason for withholding this document. Compare EX015, 1
`
`to EX2001, 617-627. Clearly, the Argentum Institution Decision is material to the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims of the ’053 patent, particularly in light of the
`
`“undisputed similarity” to the claims of the ’154 patent. See POPR at 2.
`
`Novartis cannot hide behind the veil of § 325(d) when it failed or
`
`intentionally omitted to disclose the Board’s Argentum Institution Decision. By
`
`doing so, it deprived the Examiner from gaining any meaningful insight from the
`
`Board’s analysis of the prior art and its highly material teachings, as well as the
`
`144723214v1
`
`3
`
`
`
`impact on the patentability of the challenged claims, which Novartis did not
`
`challenge or dispute. In support of its Petition, Ayla Pharma submitted the
`
`Argentum Institution Decision (EX1015) and presented prior art challenges
`
`consistent with the Board’s construction and analysis. See, e.g., Petition, 6, 17, 42.
`
`This additional evidence and fact, which was not before the Examiner, warrants
`
`reconsideration of the prior art and/or arguments.
`
`Moreover, in support of its Petition, Ayla Pharma submitted the expert
`
`declarations of Dr. Laskar (EX1014) and Dr. S. Craig Dyar (EX1042)—none of
`
`which was rebutted or challenged by Novartis. These expert declarations, as well
`
`as the associated exhibits, provide volumes of additional evidence and facts that
`
`was not before the Examiner—and Novartis does not contest otherwise. For
`
`example, Dr. Laskar’s declaration, which Dr. Dyar adopts, explains, among other
`
`things, the significance of the prior art disclosures and why it would be obvious to
`
`a POSITA to combine the references. See, e.g., EX1014, 25-29 & 83-91. Thus,
`
`this evidence further warrants reconsideration of the prior art and arguments. See
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., IPR2020-00040, Paper 21 at
`
`20 (PTAB May 12, 2020). As such, Becton factor (f) strongly favors institution.
`
`C.
`
`The Examiner Erred in Its Evaluation of the Asserted Prior Art
`(Becton Factor (e))
`Novartis accuses Ayla Pharma of failing to “acknowledge the extent to
`
`which the asserted art and arguments were evaluated during examination”. POPR
`
`144723214v1
`
`4
`
`
`
`at 39. However, the record is silent since the Examiner did not make any specific
`
`analysis of the prior art or issue any rejections based on the art during the
`
`prosecution of the ’053 patent. In similar circumstances, the Board does not
`
`require the petitioner to speculate from such a silent record. ZTE v. Bell Northern
`
`Research, IPR2019-01365, Paper 13 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2020).
`
`Regardless, the Examiner’s statement that the claims of the ’053 patent are
`
`allowable (EX2001, 634) is simply incorrect, particularly in light of the
`
`“undisputed similarity” with the claims of the ’154 patent. POPR, 2. Given the
`
`Board’s sound conclusion and analysis on the significance of the prior art in the
`
`Argentum Institution Decision, “reasonable minds cannot disagree that the Office
`
`erred in a manner material to patentability in its treatment of the art by failing to
`
`reject the claims of the [’053 patent] over the references cited in Petitioner’s
`
`challenges.” Apple v. Omni Medsci, IPR2020-00029, Paper 7, 55 (April 22, 2020).
`
`As detailed in the Argentum Institution Decision, the prior art reads directly
`
`on the undisputedly similar limitations of the related ’154 patent. Novartis does
`
`not dispute that they also read on the challenged claims of the ’053 patent. Thus,
`
`unlike Alarm.com v. Vivint, Inc., which Novartis relies on (POPR, 40), reasonable
`
`minds cannot disagree that, here, the Examiner misapprehended or overlooked the
`
`specific teachings of the relevant prior art and their impact on the patentability of
`
`the challenged claims. As such, Becton factor (e) also favors institution.
`
`144723214v1
`
`5
`
`
`
`II.
`
`THE APPLE FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF
`INSTITUTION UNDER § 314(A)
`Novartis cannot dispute some simple facts. There is no parallel district
`
`court litigation involving Ayla and Novartis involving any patent. The ’053
`
`patent was never involved in any litigation before any district court. To the extent
`
`the district court even adjudicated the validity of the ’154 patent, it only considered
`
`the validity of Claims 8–9 and 21–24 of the ’154 patent. EX1030, ¶ 8. Further,
`
`Novartis does not dispute Ayla’s position that the claims of the ’053 patent are
`
`broader than the claims of the ’154 patent (POPR at 52), this difference will make
`
`any invalidity challenge against the ’053 patent easier than the ’154 patent. POPR
`
`at 52.2 Given these facts, where the PTAB reaches a different conclusion as it
`
`relates to the validity of the ’053 patent, there would be no conflict with the district
`
`court’s decision on the ’154 patent. Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., 853 F.3d
`
`1289 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1428–29 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Novartis’s § 314(a) arguments primarily rely on precedential decisions
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., and (to a lesser extent) NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex
`
`Techs. For the reasons discussed below, all of the Apple factors weigh in favor of
`
`institution and Novartis advances no other argument warranting a § 314(a) denial.
`
`2 Ayla notes that the district court decision was not appealed to the Federal Circuit.
`
`Thus, it is technically nonbinding on the PTAB as it relates to the ’053 patent.
`
`144723214v1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Apple Factors 1 & 2
`A.
`Apple Factors 1 & 2 are premised on the existence of a concurrent district
`
`court litigation addressing the same patent. Apple at 6-9. There is no litigation
`
`between Ayla and Novartis involving the ’053 patent; the ’053 patent has never
`
`been litigated before any district court. Any other litigation involving other drug
`
`manufacturers involving the ’154 patent did not involve Ayla because Ayla was
`
`not in existence then.3 POPR at 23. Thus, Apple factors 1 and 2 favor institution.
`
`Apple Factor 3
`B.
`Apple factor 3 deals with any prior investment by the Court and the parties
`
`“at the time of the institution”. Apple, 9. As explained in Apple, this factor looks
`
`at the district courts and the parties’ efforts “related to the patent at issue in this
`
`petition.” Id. at 9-10. Neither the Court, nor any party, has invested any resources
`
`related to the ’053 patent, i.e., “the patent at issue in the petition.” To the extent
`
`Novartis “expended substantial time and resources throughout the litigation
`
`defending the validity of the ’154 patent” against other drug manufacturers, Ayla
`
`“should not, however, be foreclosed from petitioning the Board to hear its
`
`challenge based on choices of the other drug manufacturers.” Mylan, IPR2020-
`
`3 Novartis also pretends that it does not know of Ayla’s intent. POPR at 23. Ayla
`
`sought to license the patent rights for the U.S. and abroad in order to avoid
`
`needless litigation expenses, but Novartis ignored Ayla’s repeated efforts.
`
`144723214v1
`
`7
`
`
`
`00040 at 29. But more importantly, Novartis does not claim that it has expended
`
`anything with respect to the ’053 patent, i.e., “the patent at issue in the petition”.
`
`According to Novartis, Ayla “spent only minimal resources preparing its
`
`petition, which is effectively a copy of Cipla’s” and Ayla’s expert (Dr. Dyar)
`
`copied Cipla’s declaration.4 POPR at 44. This fact actually supports institution
`
`and limits the import of § 314(a). Ayla is well aware that the PTAB has discussed
`
`the unfairness of subjecting a Patent Owner to serial petitions because of the
`
`potential for a second petitioner to modify and cure deficiencies in the previous
`
`petition. Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`
`Paper 19 at 11 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential).
`
`In Cipla’s ’053 Petition, Novartis never filed a POPR and the parties settled
`
`before the Board provided its Institution Decision. Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting
`
`Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00064, Paper 10 (May 1, 2019) (precedential) (Valve factor
`
`3). In an effort to eliminate any argument from Novartis that Ayla had materially
`
`changed Cipla’s ’053 Petition to Novartis’s detriment, Ayla effectively copied
`
`Cipla’s ’053 Petition and the accompany declaration. POPR 44-45. By this action,
`
`Novartis found itself in the exact spot it found itself in in Cipla’s ’053 IPR neither
`
`suffering any prejudice nor receiving any advantage. Ayla, for its part, would be
`
`insulated from the Gen. Plastic/Valve § 314(a) challenge and that seems to be the
`
`4Ayla notes that Cipla was not a party to the district court action. EX1030.
`
`144723214v1
`
`8
`
`
`
`case since Novartis wisely chose not the raise such an argument. Indeed, Ayla’s
`
`actions mimic those seen where a joinder petitioner files a so-called “me too”
`
`petition thereby eliminating § 314(a) concerns. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.
`
`Almirall, LLC. IPR2019-01095, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 27, 2019).
`
`Put simply, it is Ayla’s choice to use the PTAB route as opposed to the
`
`district court route. General Plastic at 16-17 (“an objective of the AIA . . . is to
`
`provide an effective and efficient alternative to district court litigation”). Ayla
`
`“cannot be faulted for wanting to chart its own course in defense of its interests by
`
`petitioning for review of the []patent in a faster forum with a different evidentiary
`
`burden.” Mylan, IPR2020-00040 at 30.
`
`Apple Factors 4 & 5
`C.
`Patent Owner’s position seems to be that, since the two sets of claims at
`
`issue in the two forums are not patentability distinct, the district court’s decision on
`
`the validity of certain claims of the ’154 patent effectively insulates the ’053 patent
`
`from a validity challenge. In a somewhat analogous situation (although some
`
`differences do exist), the PTAB has refused to transpose a validity judgment from
`
`one patent to a related patent because the claims of the two patents are not
`
`“patentability distinct”. Steadymed LTD. v. United Therapeutics Corp., IPR 2016-
`
`00006, Paper 84 at 2 (PTAB Apr. 6, 2017).
`
`Even though Novartis denies it is doing so, Novartis is trying to invoke the
`
`144723214v1
`
`9
`
`
`
`specter of issue preclusion/collateral estoppel using the district court’s (not even
`
`the Federal Circuit’s) validity determination for a handful of claims of the ’154
`
`patent to all claims of the non-asserted ’053 patent against other pharmaceutical
`
`defendants. POPR, 56.5 Ex parte Ditzik, 2018-000087, 6 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2018)
`
`(informative) (laying out the relevant factors of issue preclusion). As but one
`
`example, even if it were proper to use a validity determination for certain claims of
`
`the ’154 patent in a matter involving parties other than Petitioner and apply it to all
`
`claims of the ’053 patent, Novartis has not explained how “seeking to prove
`
`invalidity [that] failed to meet the higher standard of proof in district court, [says
`
`anything] about whether the same evidence could meet a lower standard in the
`
`PTO.” Ditzik at 9; Mylan, IPR2020-00040 at fn. 19 (explaining different burdens
`
`between the two forums).
`
`Moreover, Novartis’ reliance on the district court’s factual findings is
`
`unavailing because it fails to recognize that, to the extent such findings conflicts
`
`with the Board’s Argentum Institution Decision, the weight of such evidence is
`
`best resolved after institution and not at the institution stage, especially where Ayla
`
`provided unrebutted expert testimony while Novartis does not even address the
`
`merits of Ayla’s petition as it relates to the ’053 patent, choosing instead to focus
`
`its attention on the ’154 patent. Regardless, in its Petition and accompanying
`
`5 Issue preclusion requires the parties to be the same.
`
`144723214v1
`
`10
`
`
`
`declaration, Ayla addressed the district court’s decision, including devoting
`
`considerable space explaining that even though Yanni taught suspensions (as
`
`opposed to solutions) that this fact should not preclude a finding the claims would
`
`have been obvious. Petition, 25-28 & 62-63; POPR, 50. Ayla recognized that the
`
`district court had focused on this issue in connection with the ’154 patent which
`
`was one of the reasons Ayla provided a detailed treatment in its Petition. In this
`
`way, the evidence and arguments provided by Ayla are very different than
`
`anything that was presented before the district court. To the extent Novartis’
`
`counsel disagrees, Ayla notes that Novartis did not provide an expert declaration
`
`refuting Ayla’s expert. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977)
`
`(“[a]rgument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record”).
`
`Finally, to the extent Novartis relies on NHK, E-One I and E-One II (POPR
`
`at 54-55), in every case the same patent and parties were before the PTAB and the
`
`district court concurrently. Apple, n. 26 (citing Nalox-1 distinguishing NHK)
`
`because Petitioner was not a party to the parallel district court litigation). Also, the
`
`FWD in those cases was expected well after trial. Mylan, IPR2020-00040
`
`(describing this fact as “one of the pivotal considerations in NHK”). None of those
`
`facts exist here. Thus, factors 4 and 5 favor institution.
`
`D.
`
`Apple Factor 6
`
`144723214v1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Here, with an unopposed expert, Ayla’s arguments are “particularly strong
`
`on the preliminary record.” Fintiv, 14, 15 n.29; Apotex, IPR2019-00400 at 18-19
`
`(noting the absence of countervailing expert testimony). Further, the goal of the
`
`AIA favors institution because Novartis’ position—once a patent is unsuccessfully
`
`challenged before the district court, all other related patents are effectively
`
`insulated from an IPR—would promote gamesmanship and encourage keeping
`
`patent families open to strategically issue related patents when disputes arise.
`
`Novartis cites no authority for this position, relying instead on authority where the
`
`same patent, same parties were before the PTAB at the same time.
`
`Finally, as to any alleged secondary considerations from the District Court
`
`litigation relating to the ’153 patent, which Novartis relies on (POPR, 56-60), it is
`
`premature to address at this stage. Lowe’s. v. Nichia, IPR2017-02011, Paper 13,
`
`18 (Mar. 12, 2018). The evidence of secondary considerations, as it relates to the
`
`’053 patent, has not been fully developed in this record, including with the support
`
`of competent expert testimony. Under analogous cases, the PTAB has refused to
`
`give much weight to the alleged secondary considerations. Artic Cat v. Polaris
`
`Indus., IPR2017-00433, Paper 17, 19 (July 5, 2017); Petroleum Geo-Servs. v. W.
`
`Geco, IPR2014-01477, Paper 18, 32 (March 17, 2015). Factor 6 favors institution.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Ayla Pharma respectfully requests that the Board institute the Petition.
`
`144723214v1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Date: June 8, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`
`By: /s/ Jitendra Malik
`Jitendra Malik, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 55,823
`
`144723214v1
`
`13
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.105, the undersigned
`
`certifies that on June 8, 2020, a complete copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply
`
`to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response were served via email on the Patent
`
`Owner counsel as per below:
`
`atrask@wc.com
`
`scott.chapple@novartis.com
`
`peter.waibel@novartis.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`
`By: /s/ Jitendra Malik
`Jitendra Malik, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 55,823
`
`144723214v1
`
`14
`
`
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
