UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`ETON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,478,453
`
`PGR2020-00064
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`1 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`ETON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,478,453
`
`PGR2020-00064
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`1 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`BASIS FOR REHEARING ............................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Demonstrates The POSITA Would Have Had A
`
`Reasonable Expectation Of Success In Achieving The Claimed
`
`Aluminum Levels ................................................................................. 1
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Meets The Particularity Requirement .............................. 8
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`2 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page
`
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2017) ............................................ 1
`
`Google Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`Case IPR2017-00447, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. June 8, 2017), aff’d, 948
`F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................. 10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`ii
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`3 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner requests rehearing of the Board’s
`
`decision denying post grant review entered November 18, 2020 (Paper 12,
`
`hereinafter “Decision”).
`
`II. BASIS FOR REHEARING
`
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each such
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or reply.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(d). The Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion results from an erroneous interpretation of law,
`
`a factual finding that is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision
`
`represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing the relevant evidence. Blue Coat
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 2 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2017).
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Demonstrates The POSITA Would Have Had A
`Reasonable Expectation Of Success In Achieving The Claimed
`Aluminum Levels
`
`
`
`The claimed aluminum levels were not new. As the Petition1 demonstrates,
`
`numerous batches of the Sandoz product manufactured by Allergy Labs prior to the
`
`
`1 The term “Petition” also includes the Rabinow Declaration, Johnson Declaration
`
`and the prior art cited therein.
`
`1
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`4 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`alleged invention contained aluminum within the claimed ranges shortly after
`
`manufacture (i.e., at product release) without Allergy even taking affirmative steps
`
`to control aluminum levels; namely, 17 ppb, 61 ppb, 37 ppb, 18 ppb, 50 ppb, 54 ppb,
`
`46 ppb, 47 ppb, 48 ppb, and 43 ppb. (Pet., p. 41; Ex. 1022, Ex. B (pp. 103-112), and
`
`Ex. C (pp. 113-123).)2 Post-release, aluminum was known to leach into the Sandoz
`
`product from the glass vials in which the Sandoz product was stored, and could rise
`
`to several hundred ppb by the product’s two-year expiration date (Ex. 1022, ¶ 15)3,
`
`which was at the lower end of the “[c]ontains no more than 5,000 [ppb] of
`
`aluminum” disclosed on the Sandoz Label. The POSITA motivated to reduce
`
`aluminum would have reasonably expected that an optimized Sandoz Label product
`
`would achieve and maintain low aluminum levels (as claimed) for long periods of
`
`time by simply removing the known sources of aluminum contamination.
`
`
`
`As the Petition explains, the POSITA would have known that the potential
`
`sources of aluminum contamination in the Sandoz Label product included (1) the
`
`drug product starting ingredients, (2) the manufacturing process, and/or (3)
`
`
`2 The Sandoz product attributes are included within the knowledge of the POSITA.
`
`(Paper 9, Pet. Reply, p. 2, n.4; Pet., p. 41.)
`
`3 The Decision “accepts the disclosures for the matter asserted in the Johnson
`
`declaration (Ex. 1022).” (Paper 12, p. 21, n.11.)
`
`2
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`5 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`aluminum leaching from glass vials in which the Sandoz Label product was stored.
`
`By eliminating these known sources of aluminum, the POSITA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation that the Sandoz Label product could be optimized to
`
`substantially eliminate aluminum to the claimed levels over its projected shelf-life.
`
`(Pet., pp. 37-38, 40-43.)4 The POSITA would have optimized the Sandoz Label
`
`product in this manner by following these simple and straightforward steps: (1) using
`
`starting ingredients substantially free of aluminum, (2) ensuring that the
`
`manufacturing process did not contaminate the drug product with aluminum, and (3)
`
`storing the optimized Sandoz Label product in a container that substantially prevents
`
`aluminum from leaching into the drug product post-manufacture, such as the Schott
`
`coated glass vials. (Id., pp. 38-39, 40-43, 46.)5 Respectfully, the Decision overlooks
`
`
`4 The challenged claims require a “stable” composition. The specification explains
`
`that a “stable” composition is one that has the claimed aluminum levels when
`
`administered in a clinical setting, which can occur, three months post-manufacture
`
`(Pet., p. 25), and likely sooner.
`
`5 The Schott coated glass vials (aka Schott Type I Plus® vials) were known to
`
`substantially eliminate glass leachables including aluminum. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 56-60;
`
`Ex. 1014 at 7-8 (explaining that the Schott coated glass vials include an inner surface
`
`coated with “an ultrathin film of silicon dioxide [that] forms a highly efficient
`
`3
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`6 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`the dispositive impact of this critical knowledge possessed by the POSITA, which is
`
`unrebutted and demonstrate more than a reasonable expectation of success.6
`
`
`diffusion barrier that practically eliminates glass leachables”); Ex. 1048 at 21, 12:20-
`
`39 (the Schott coated glass vials substantially prevent aluminum leachables in an
`
`Ibuprofen Lysine solution) see also Tables 16-18 (aluminum below 9 ppb in
`
`solutions stored in the Schott coated glass vials after 9 months storage).)
`
`6 Citing to Bohrer (Ex. 1012), which published in 2003, the Decision criticizes the
`
`Petition for failing to explain why a POSITA would have optimized cystine levels
`
`to “reduce aluminum concentrations.” (Paper 12, p. 16.) That criticism,
`
`respectfully, is misplaced. The short answer is that, by the time of the alleged
`
`invention, the POSITA would not have been concerned about cystine levels for
`
`purposes of controlling aluminum levels. (Paper 9, Pet. Reply, pp. 4-5, n.8.) Bohrer
`
`addresses the role of cystine and cysteine (and other amino acids) in causing
`
`aluminum to leach from uncoated glass vials. By the time of the alleged invention
`
`in January 2019, however, the POSITA would have packaged the Sandoz Label
`
`product in Schott coated glass vials, which were known to substantially prevent
`
`aluminum from leaching into the drug product (a teaching overlooked by the
`
`Decision). (Pet., pp. 41-42, 45-46.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`7 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Decision’s conclusion that the Petitioner allegedly failed to demonstrate
`
`a reasonable expectation of success is predicated on the Board’s finding that the
`
`Sandoz Label’s disclosure of “[c]ontains no more than 5,000 ppb” aluminum
`
`purportedly does not overlap with the 1-250 ppb range set forth in claim 1 of the
`
`’453 patent. (See Paper 12, pp. 21-22 (“[b]ecause we do not find that the product
`
`described in the Sandoz Label discloses a range for aluminum from 0 ppb to 5,000
`
`ppb, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s position that there is a reasonable
`
`expectation that routine optimization would lead to aluminum concentrations as
`
`recited in claim 1 of the ’453 patent based on optimizing overlapping ranges.”)
`
`(emphasis added).) The Decision’s conclusion, however, (1) misapprehends the
`
`Petitioner’s reasonable expectation of success assertions (which do not depend
`
`exclusively on or require overlapping ranges but instead also assert that the claimed
`
`ranges are the expected result of eliminating the art-recognized sources of aluminum
`
`contamination) and (2) overlooks the unrebutted evidence that demonstrates that the
`
`ranges do in fact overlap.
`
`With respect to Petitioner’s first point, regardless of how the Sandoz Label is
`
`interpreted, the Petition nevertheless demonstrates a reasonable expectation of
`
`success. As the Decision acknowledges, the POSITA would have been motivated
`
`to “lower aluminum contamination in total parenteral nutritional solutions . . . to
`
`avoid aluminum toxicity.” (Paper 12, p. 18.) And, as the Petition explains, the
`
`5
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`8 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITA motivated to reduce aluminum contamination would have optimized the
`
`Sandoz Label product by simply eliminating
`
`the sources of aluminum
`
`contamination. (Pet., pp. 37-38, 40-42, 45-46.) By eliminating the sources of
`
`aluminum, the POSITA—quite logically, and as explained in the Petition—would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of substantially eliminating aluminum from the
`
`product during its projected shelf-life, regardless of how the “no more than 5,000
`
`[ppb]” on the Sandoz Label were interpreted.7
`
`Turning to Petitioner’s second point, the Board, respectfully, abused its
`
`discretion in finding that the Sandoz Label’s disclosure of “contains no more than
`
`5,000 [ppb] of aluminum” does not overlap with (or encompass) the 1-250 ppb
`
`aluminum range recited in claim 1 of the ’453 patent. In reaching this conclusion,
`
`the Decision opted to accept the PO’s assertion that the POSITA would have
`
`understood the not more than 5,000 ppb disclosure to be at the “upper end of the
`
`
`7 Although the Petition also asserts prima facie obviousness based upon overlapping
`
`ranges (Pet., pp. 44-45), neither the motivation for preventing aluminum nor the
`
`reasonable expectation of success are predicated on overlapping ranges. As the
`
`Decision implicitly recognizes, the Petition establishes that the POSITA would have
`
`been motivated to reduce aluminum, regardless of how the Sandoz Label is
`
`interpreted.
`
`6
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`9 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`aluminum concentration that is expected in the [Sandoz Label] product” but leaves
`
`unanswered what the POSITA would have understood the lower end to be, instead
`
`noting that “zero” purportedly is not a reasonable starting point, because the “Sandoz
`
`product even right after manufacture contains measurable aluminum.” (Paper 12, p.
`
`21.) The Board’s analysis suffers from two fundamental misapprehensions of the
`
`record. First, it conflates the Sandoz product with the Sandoz Label. As Petitioner’s
`
`expert (Dr. Rabinow) testified, the POSITA would have interpreted the Sandoz
`
`Label to disclose an aluminum concentration “falling somewhere within the range
`
`of 0 ppb to 5,000 ppb” (i.e., 5,000 ppb aluminum or less) and that the claim 1 range
`
`of from about 1-250 ppb aluminum is within the lower end of the not more than
`
`5,000 ppb range disclosed by the Sandoz Label (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 32, 98; Pet., p. 27, 44-
`
`45.) That testimony is unrebutted.8 Second, not only do the aluminum levels in the
`
`
`8 PO’s expert merely testified that a pharmacist “calculating the potential aluminum
`
`exposure . . . would use the 5,000 [ppb] aluminum concentration to do so.” (Ex.
`
`2001, ¶¶ 21-23.) But that does not address let alone rebut Dr. Rabinow’s testimony
`
`that the POSITA (who has qualifications beyond those of a pharmacist) would have
`
`understood from the Sandoz Label that the aluminum content was somewhere within
`
`the range extending from 0 to 5,000 ppb, depending on the age of the product. (Paper
`
`9, Pet. Reply, p. 2, n.3.)
`
`7
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`10 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`Sandoz product manufactured by Allergy Labs overlap with the claimed aluminum
`
`ranges, but also they corroborate the reasonableness of Dr. Rabinow’s interpretation
`
`of the Sandoz Label. On the current record, the aluminum levels shortly after
`
`manufacture (i.e., at product release) were as low as 17 ppb and ranged up to several
`
`hundred ppb after two years of storage (Ex. 1022, ¶ 15), which certainly overlaps
`
`with the 1-250 ppb range set forth in claim 1 of the ’453 patent, as well as with the
`
`other, more narrowly claimed ranges. In short, the aluminum range disclosed by the
`
`Sandoz Label and the actual aluminum levels in the Sandoz product manufactured
`
`by Allergy Labs overlap with the ranges claimed in the ’453 patent.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Meets The Particularity Requirement
`
`Respectfully, the Board abused its discretion in finding a lack of particularity.
`
`Focusing on asserted Ground 1, the Decision concludes that the Petition is allegedly
`
`unclear about “what aspects” of the cited prior art Petitioner relies upon, which
`
`allegedly leaves the PO (and the Board) “to guess how the references are applied to
`
`each particular ground.” (Paper 12, p. 14.) The Decision, however, misapprehends
`
`the asserted Grounds (which are based upon the Sandoz Label in combination with
`
`the knowledge of the POSITA) and overlooks the particularity with which the
`
`Petition identifies and explains how the POSITA would have applied that knowledge
`
`to optimize the Sandoz Label product. The Petition provides a detailed roadmap;
`
`8
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`11 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`there is no guess work required as demonstrated by the POPR, which unconvincingly
`
`attacks several of the rationales set forth in the Petition.
`
`More specifically, the asserted Grounds are based upon the combination of
`
`the Sandoz Label product and the knowledge possessed by the POSITA. (Pet., p.
`
`6.) The Petition identifies with particularity the knowledge possessed by POSITA
`
`with citations to the prior art and explains in detail how the POSITA would have
`
`applied that knowledge to optimize the Sandoz Label product as claimed. For
`
`example, the Petition cites to Yaman, Waterman and Butler (among other prior art
`
`references) to corroborate the knowledge possessed by the POSITA. (See Pet., pp.
`
`27-40 (Sections VIII.B and VIII.C provide a detailed summary of the “Knowledge
`
`of the POSITA”).) As the Petition explains, the POSITA would have readily
`
`understood that removing head space and dissolved oxygen were well-known
`
`techniques for preventing oxidative degradation of oxygen sensitive species such as
`
`L-cysteine. (Id., pp. 29-30, 38-41, 46-49.) The Decision’s criticism that the Petition
`
`fails to expressly identify Yaman, Waterman and Butler in the Grounds
`
`misapprehends the asserted Grounds and conflates these references (which merely
`
`corroborate the knowledge of the POSITA) with the “Knowledge of a POSITA” on
`
`which the asserted Grounds are based. As controlling Federal Circuit precedent
`
`demonstrates, the knowledge of a POSITA may be properly combined with the prior
`
`art (in this case, the Sandoz Label product) to establish obviousness. See e.g.,
`
`9
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`12 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`Google Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Case IPR2017-00447, Paper 7 at 18
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 8, 2017), aff’d, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Hua
`
`reference, although not included in asserted ground, properly relied on as evidence
`
`of the knowledge of the POSITA in finding claims obvious). The particularity
`
`requirement does not require that the asserted Grounds expressly include the prior
`
`art references that are relied upon to corroborate the POSITA’s knowledge. Id.
`
`Stated differently, the knowledge of a POSITA must be substantiated with evidence,
`
`which Petitioner has done by citing Yaman, Waterman and Butler (and other prior
`
`art). The failure to substantiate the knowledge of a POSITA would result in a lack
`
`of particularity, not the other way around, as the Decision erroneously suggests.
`
`Respectfully, the Board thus abused its discretion in concluding that the Petition
`
`lacks particularity.
`
`
`
`The Decision also mistakenly asserts that the Petitioner’s citation to Yaman,
`
`Waterman and Butler demonstrates reliance on “more than just the knowledge of the
`
`ordinary artisan.” (Paper 12, pp.15-16.) Once again, the Decision misapprehends
`
`the asserted Grounds. As noted above, the Petition relies on these references to
`
`corroborate the knowledge of the POSITA set forth in the asserted Grounds. The
`
`knowledge possessed by the POSITA is not independent of but is instead
`
`corroborated by Yaman, Waterman, Butler, and the other prior art discussed in the
`
`Petition.
`
`10
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`13 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Decision also incorrectly concludes that the failure to expressly cite
`
`Yaman, Waterman, and Butler in the asserted Grounds is an attempt to circumvent
`
`the requirement of articulating a rationale for combining these references with the
`
`Sandoz Label with a reasonable expectation of success. (Paper 12, p. 16.) But this
`
`holding also misapprehends the asserted Grounds and overlooks the rationales for
`
`optimizing the Sandoz Label product set forth in the Petition. The asserted Grounds
`
`rely on the knowledge possessed by the POSITA, which is corroborated by Yaman,
`
`Waterman and Butler (as well as other prior art) and the Petition articulates with
`
`particularity how and why the POSITA would have applied that knowledge to
`
`optimize the Sandoz Label product to arrive at the challenged claims. As the Petition
`
`explains, the POSITA would have known that oxygen sensitive drugs such as L-
`
`cysteine are stabilized by removing head space and dissolved oxygen from the drug
`
`product, and that achieving the claimed head space and dissolved oxygen levels was
`
`well within the capabilities of the POSITA. (Pet., pp. 29-30, 38-40, 42-43, 46-47.)
`
`The Petition also articulates why the POSITA, armed with this knowledge, would
`
`have applied these techniques to optimize the Sandoz Label product to prevent
`
`oxidation of L-cysteine, a known oxygen sensitive drug, and why the POSITA would
`
`have reasonably expected that these art-recognized techniques for removing oxygen
`
`would substantially prevent oxidative degradation of L-cysteine to its known
`
`impurities, L-cystine and pyruvic acid. (Id.)
`
`11
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`14 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`Importantly, the Petition does not leave the PO (nor the Board) to guess about
`
`how the POSITA would have applied their knowledge to optimize the Sandoz Label
`
`product. As noted above, the Petition explains that the POSITA would have applied
`
`the known techniques of removing headspace and dissolved oxygen to prevent
`
`oxidation of L-cysteine in the Sandoz Product. (Id.) Similarly, the Petition explains
`
`that the POSITA would have applied the knowledge that aluminum contamination
`
`can be prevented by avoiding the known sources of contamination; namely, starting
`
`materials contaminated with aluminum, a manufacturing process that contaminates
`
`the drug product with aluminum, and a container that leaches aluminum into the drug
`
`product. (Id., pp. 37-38, 40-42, 45-46.) The Petition also explains why the POSITA
`
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success of achieving the claimed
`
`aluminum levels during the projected shelf-life by simply using starting ingredients
`
`substantially free of aluminum, a manufacturing process that does not contaminate
`
`the drug product with aluminum, and packaging the optimized Sandoz Label product
`
`in the Schott coated glass vials, which were known to prevent aluminum from
`
`leaching into the drug product. (Id.)
`
`In short, there is no ambiguity in the Petition, and the PO is on notice of how
`
`the Petition applies the knowledge possessed by the POSITA to optimize the Sandoz
`
`Label product to arrive at the claimed invention. The PO has a full and fair
`
`opportunity to explain why the POSITA either lacks the knowledge alleged in the
`
`12
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`15 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition or would not have applied that knowledge in the manner set forth in the
`
`Petition to optimize the Sandoz Label product as claimed with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success.9
`
` Finally, the Decision mistakenly concludes that the Petition “does not
`
`sufficiently explain[] why one of ordinary skill in the art would want to look at
`
`cystine levels” or maintain cystine “within the claimed range.” (Paper 12, p. 17.)
`
`As explained in the Petition, cystine levels reflect the extent to which L-cysteine has
`
`oxidatively degraded to L-cystine, which can form undesirable particulate matter.
`
`(Pet., pp. 38, 42, 46-47.) Minimizing L-cystine is the reasonably expected result of
`
`preventing oxidative degradation of L-cysteine. The Decision overlooks this
`
`evidence. This is not a situation where Petitioner merely disagrees with the Board’s
`
`
`9 The Decision cites Butler’s statement that a nitrogen purge is “a poor method to
`
`preserve solutions containing redox-sensitive species.” (Paper 12, pp. 16-17.) The
`
`PO is certainly free to argue that Butler, when considered in the relevant context,
`
`would have allegedly discouraged the POSITA from applying a nitrogen purge to
`
`the Sandoz Label product. However, Dr. Rabinow’s testimony that the POSITA
`
`would have applied art recognized techniques such as a nitrogen or argon purge to
`
`remove oxygen stands unrebutted. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 49; see also Paper 9, Pet. Reply at
`
`p. 3, n.6.)
`
`13
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`16 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`conclusion. Petitioner explained all of this, and more, in its Petition and is merely
`
`pointing out what the Board overlooked and misapprehended.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing and institution of
`
`trial.
`
`December 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ralph J. Gabric
`
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No 34,167)
`
`HAYNES and BOONE LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel.: (312) 216-1620
`ralph.gabric.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`14
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`17 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.105 and 42.6, I certify I caused a true and correct
`
`copy of the forgoing document on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`
`
`Date of service December 18, 2020
`
`Person served Dorothy P. Whelan
`PGR48751-0005PSa@fr.com
`
`Alana Mannige
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ralph J. Gabric
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No 34,167)
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel.: (312) 216-1620
`ralph.gabric.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`Eton Ex. 1125
`18 of 18
`Eton Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences - PGR2020-00086
`
`
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
