`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 94
`Entered: December 9, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`_______________
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Amneal”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–15, and 19–22 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,740 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’740 patent”). The Board
`instituted trial for the challenged claims on the ground, asserted by Amneal,
`of obviousness over WO 02/080932 A1 (Ex. 1002, “Ashley ’932”), which
`incorporates by reference provisional patent application serial No.
`60/281,854 (Ex. 1003, “Ashley ’854”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,348,748
`(Ex. 1005, “Sheth”). Decision to Institute (Paper 8, “Dec.”) 13–14.
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`(“Supernus”) filed a Patent Owner Response in redacted (Paper 40, “Resp.”)
`and unredacted (Paper 39) forms. Amneal filed a Reply (Paper 57,
`“Reply”). Supernus did not file a Motion to Amend.
`Amneal filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Supernus’s evidence
`(Paper 70, “Pet. Motion to Exclude”). Supernus filed an Opposition in
`redacted (Paper 82) and unredacted (Paper 83) forms, and Amneal filed a
`Reply (Paper 86).
`Amneal relies upon declarations from Dr. Glenn A. Van Buskirk in
`support of its Petition (Ex. 1022) and its Reply (Ex. 1066). Supernus relies
`upon a declaration from Dr. Edward M. Rudnic in support of its Response
`(Ex. 2016), as well as deposition testimony from Dr. Van Buskirk
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`(Exs. 2015, 2193).1 Amneal relies upon deposition testimony from
`Dr. Rudnic in its Reply (Ex. 1052). Supernus filed a Motion for
`Observations on Cross-Examination of Amneal’s Reply witnesses (Paper 76,
`“Obs.”), and Amneal filed a Response to the Observations (Paper 78,
`“Obs. Resp.”).
`Oral argument was conducted on August 12, 2014. A transcript is
`entered as Paper 92 (“Tr.”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`Amneal has not proved that claims 1, 2, 5–15, and 19–22 are
`unpatentable.
`Amneal’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is dismissed as moot.
`
`B. The ’740 Patent
`The ’740 patent relates to once-daily, sub-antimicrobial formulations
`of doxycycline. Ex. 1001, 2:21–30. Such formulations can be used to
`inhibit activity of collagen destruction enzymes, which are associated with
`human diseases, such as rosacea, without provoking undesired side effects
`attendant to an antibacterial dose. Id. at 2:64–67. A combination of an
`immediate-release (“IR”) portion, with 30 mg doxycycline, and a delayed-
`release (“DR”) portion, with 10 mg doxycycline, facilitates once-daily
`dosing by providing a steady-state blood level of 0.1 to 1.0 µg/ml or 0.3 to
`0.8 µg/ml. Id. at 3:52–58, 10:2–8. The composition may be a pellet, a
`combination of pellets, a tablet, or a capsule. Id. at 5:41–55. The DR
`
`1 The parties rely on the testimony of other witnesses, but that evidence is
`not listed here because it is not cited in this decision.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`portion may have an enteric polymer, such as hydroxypropyl
`methylcellulose phthalate. Id. at 7:14–21. The IR and/or DR portions may
`incorporate one or more excipients. Id. at 6:7–33. Examples of excipients
`include binders, such as hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC);
`disintegration agents, such as cross-linked polyvinylpyrrolidone; and filling
`agents, such as lactose. Id. at 6:11–22.
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced
`below, with line breaks added for clarity.
`1. An oral pharmaceutical composition of
`doxycycline, which at a once-daily dosage will
`give steady state blood levels of doxycycline of a
`minimum of 0.1 µg/ml and a maximum of 1.0
`µg/ml, the composition consisting of
`(i)
`an
`immediate
`release
`(IR) portion
`comprising 30 mg doxycycline;
`(ii) a delayed release (DR) portion comprising
`10 mg doxycycline; and
`optionally, (iii) one or more pharmaceutically
`acceptable excipients.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007).
`The only term requiring construction for purposes of this decision is
`“delayed release.” Neither party proposed a construction of this term in its
`principal brief. The ’740 patent, too, does not provide an express definition
`of this term. Tr. 42:7–9.
`In response to a request during oral argument, Tr. 48:7–21, the parties
`identified the record evidence they rely on concerning construction of
`“delayed release.” Amneal cited paragraphs 19 and 20 of Dr. Van Buskirk’s
`Second Declaration (Ex. 1066) and paragraph 105 of Dr. Rudnic’s
`Declaration (Ex. 2016). Tr. 70:19–71:20. Supernus cited column 7, lines
`47–53 and Figures 2 and 3 of the ’740 patent (Ex. 1001); paragraph 20 of
`Dr. Van Buskirk’s Second Declaration; paragraph 176 of Dr. Rudnic’s
`Declaration; the definition of “delayed release” on page 7 of Exhibit 2047;
`the definition of “delayed release” on page 30 of Exhibit 2058; the definition
`of “enteric coated” on page 32 of Exhibit 2058; and passages from the
`transcript of Dr. Van Buskirk’s second deposition at page 11, line 7, to page
`13, line 6 and at page 16, line 14, to page 17, line 2 (Ex. 2193). Tr. 80:11–
`81:20. Supernus also cited a passage from the transcript of Dr. Van
`Buskirk’s first deposition in argument that indirectly addresses construction
`of “delayed release.” Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2015, 170:3–171:2).
`Review of the evidence cited by the parties indicates their agreement,
`as well as that of their experts, that Exhibit 2058 correctly defines “delayed
`release” as “release of a drug at a time other than immediately following oral
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`administration.” Ex. 2058, 30;2 see Ex. 1066 ¶ 20 (citing Ex. 2058, 30);
`Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 179 n.43, 181. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the
`broadest reasonable construction of “delayed release” requires further that
`there be no substantial release in the stomach.
`Supernus argues that the delayed release formulations are described in
`the ’740 patent as allowing “no substantial release of doxycycline in the
`acidic stomach environment of approximately below pH 4.5.” Resp. 18–19
`(citing Ex. 1001, 7:47–53); see also Obs. ¶ 1 (citing Ex. 2193 , 11:7–13:6,
`16:14–17:2) (cross-examination testimony of Dr. Van Buskirk agreeing that
`the above-quoted passage forms part of the disclosure in the ’740 patent that
`Dr. Van Buskirk regards as defining “delayed release.”). The cited passage
`of the ’740 patent is reproduced below:
`With the enteric coated pellets, there is no
`substantial release of doxycycline in the acidic
`stomach environment of approximately below pH
`4.5. The doxycycline becomes available when the
`pH-sensitive layer dissolves at the greater pH of
`the small intestine; after a certain delayed time; or
`after the unit passes through the stomach. The
`preferred delay time is in the range of two to six
`hours.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:47–53.
`Amneal argues that “delayed release” should be construed broadly
`enough to include drug release after only a time lag and without respect to
`whether release occurs in the stomach. Obs. Resp. ¶ 1; Tr. 11:5–11. In
`
`2 Exhibit 2058 is a “Guidance for Industry” document issued by the Food
`and Drug Administration in 1997 that concerns scale-up and post-approval
`changes for modified release solid oral dosage forms. Ex. 2058, 1.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`particular, Amneal argues that the term “delayed release” encompasses
`release that begins in the stomach. Id. at 11:7. Amneal cites paragraph 20
`of Dr. Van Buskirk’s Second Declaration in support of this argument, as
`well as paragraph 105 of Dr. Rudnic’s Declaration. Tr. 70:19–71:20 (citing
`Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 19–20, Ex. 2016 ¶ 105). In paragraph 20 of his Second
`Declaration, Dr. Van Buskirk cites the definition in Exhibit 2058 with favor.
`Ex. 1066 ¶ 20. In paragraph 105 of his Declaration, Dr. Rudnic states that
`Ashley ’854 defines a “delayed release agent” as one which “prevents the
`active ingredient . . . from being made available to the host until some time
`after initial administration.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 105 (citing Ex. 1003, 11:4–6).
`Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and cited evidence, we
`agree with Amneal that the broadest reasonable construction of “delayed
`release,” in light of the specification of the ’740 patent, is not limited to
`formulations requiring that there be no substantial release in the stomach.
`The portion of the ’740 patent specification upon which Supernus relies to
`support its narrower construction addresses properties of “enteric coated
`pellets,” not a delayed-release component. Ex. 1001, 7:47. The ’740 patent
`discloses formats other than enteric coated pellets, such as an “uncoated
`matrix tablet,” as being delayed-release components. Id. at 5:29–31
`(“delayed-release portion can be . . . uncoated matrix tablet.”).
`Consequently, properties of enteric coated pellets do not address the full
`scope of “delayed release” as that term is used in the ’740 patent. We will
`not read the limitations of an embodiment, even a preferred embodiment,
`into the construction of a claim term that is plainly used elsewhere in the
`specification more broadly. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
`2004).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`As Supernus concedes, Tr. 42:7–9, the ’740 patent does not provide
`an express definition of “delayed release.” We turn, therefore, to other
`evidence of how the term is understood and used by persons of ordinary skill
`in the art. We find, upon consideration of this evidence, that the term
`“delayed release” is used, more-or-less uniformly, to refer to formats that
`allow for release of a drug only after some delay following oral
`administration. See, e.g., Ex. 2058, 30 (quoted supra); Ex. 2047, 7 (defining
`“delayed release” as “release of a drug (or drugs) at a time other than
`promptly after administration”);3 Ex. 2016 ¶ 105 (citing definition of
`“delayed release” in Ashley ’854, quoted supra, with approval). Those
`definitions are consistent with one another, both parties and their experts cite
`them with favor, and we discern nothing in the use of the term “delayed
`release” in the ’740 patent specification that is inconsistent with those
`definitions or more limiting than them. For these reasons, we determine that
`the broadest reasonable construction of “delayed release,” consistent with
`the ’740 patent, is “release of a drug at a time other than immediately
`following oral administration.” See Ex. 2058, 30; Ex. 2047, 7; Ex. 1003,
`11:4–6.
`
`
`3 Exhibit 2047 is a report, of which Dr. Van Buskirk was a co-author,
`entitled “Workshop II Report: Scaleup of Oral Extended Release Dosage
`Forms” and published in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and
`Technology in 1994. Ex. 2047, 2–3.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`B. Obviousness of claims 1, 2, 5–15, and 19–22 over Ashley ’932 and
`Sheth
`Amneal contends that claims 1, 2, 5–15, and 19–22 are unpatentable
`for obviousness over Ashley ’932, as it incorporates Ashley ’854, and Sheth.
`Pet. 19–30; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 169–348.
`1. Overview of Ashley ’932
`Ashley ’932 discloses administering a tetracycline compound, e.g.,
`doxycycline or minocycline, in sub-antibacterial doses to treat acne,
`including acne rosacea. Ex. 1002, 5:17–20, 7:3, 7:24–25. Doxycycline is
`administered in a sub-antibacterial total daily dose of about 30 to 60
`milligrams, to give steady-state blood levels of about 0.1–0.8 µg/ml,
`preferably 0.4–0.7 µg/ml. Id. at 9:17–20, 10:25–11:2. The composition
`may take, e.g., tablet, capsule, or pill form, id. at 14:14–17, and may include
`excipients, such as lactose. Id. at 14:30–31. Ashley ’932 discloses that
`doxycycline may be administered by sustained release, such as 40 mg by
`sustained release over a 24-hour period, and cites Ashley ’854 for further
`description of the sustained release formulation. Id. at 15:23–16:2. Ashley
`’932 incorporates by reference Ashley ’854 in its entirety. Id. at 15:30.4
`Ashley ’854 discloses administering controlled-release compositions
`of doxycycline to achieve a sub-antibacterial serum level of 0.4 to 0.8 µg/ml.
`Ex. 1003, 5:15–22. The composition includes a controlled-release agent,
`
`
`4 Ashley ’932 does not identify Ashley ’854 by serial number. Rather, it
`identifies Ashley ’854 by title, filing date, and assignee. Ex. 1002, 15:28–
`29. The parties dispute whether the incorporation-by-reference was
`effective. Resp. 53–55; Reply 12–13. For purposes of this decision, we
`assume, without deciding, that the incorporation was effective.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`which is an instantaneous-release agent, a sustained-release agent, a delayed-
`release agent, or combinations of these. Id. at 5:24–26. A delayed-release
`agent is defined as one that “prevents the active ingredient . . . from being
`made available to the host until some time after initial administration.” Id. at
`11:4–6.
`
`2. Overview of Sheth
`Sheth discloses a once-daily formulation of minocycline that provides
`an antibacterial total daily dose. Ex. 1005, 6:27–32. The formulation
`includes an initial loading component of quick-release pellets and a
`secondary loading component of slow-release pellets. Id. at 3:48–52. The
`quick-release pellets in the initial loading component optionally may be
`coated with a polymer that does not interfere with immediate release of drug
`from the initial loading component. Id. at 10:2–7. Hydroxypropyl
`methylcellulose (HPMC), when adapted to dissolve completely in the typical
`stomach pH of below 3.9, is a suitable coating for the initial loading
`component. Id. at 3:16, 10:13, 10:21–22, 10:43–45.
`The pellets of the secondary loading component are coated with a
`mixture of at least two polymers, one that is pH-sensitive and one that is not
`pH-sensitive. Id. at 4:67–5:5. The pH-insensitive polymer may be HPMC.
`Id. at 14:12–14, 15:34–37. The pH-insensitive polymer dissolves rapidly in
`water. Id. at 5:1–2, 12:58–59. Upon oral administration of the dose form,
`the pH-insensitive polymer erodes and provides a slow release of
`minocycline in the stomach, id. at 7:17, 10:59–60, 15:48–50, of preferably 5
`to 20 or 20 to 50 percent of the minocycline it carries. Id. at 8:53–62.
`Dissolution of the pH-sensitive polymer on the secondary loading portion is
`inhibited but not precluded in the low pH of the stomach. Id. at 10:65–67.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`The pH-sensitive coating dissolves rapidly once the pellet passes to the
`duodenum, where the pH is typically in the range of 4.0 to 7.5, thereby
`causing rapid release of the rest of the minocycline in the secondary loading
`portion. Id. at 10:60–65. The secondary loading portion thus provides
`partly a release of minocycline in the stomach and partly a delayed release of
`minocycline in the duodenum. Id. at 7:15–21, 7:33–35.
`Sheth discloses that the ratio of initial loading component to coated
`secondary loading component may vary from 51:49 to 80:20, with a
`preferred range of 55:45 to 70:30. Id. at 6:10–13, 6:15–20, 18:24–26.
`3. Analysis
`Amneal argues that Ashley ’932 discloses all limitations of claim 1,
`except for the particular ratio of 30 mg doxycycline in the immediate-release
`portion and 10 mg doxycycline in the delayed-release portion. Pet. 19–25.
`Amneal argues that Sheth discloses formulations of minocycline having a
`range of IR:DR ratios from which one of ordinary skill would have at once
`envisaged a ratio of 75:25 or would at least have determined it by routine
`experimentation. Id. at 25–27; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 182–184, 187. Although
`Amneal acknowledges that Sheth concerns antibacterial-strength
`minocycline formulations, Amneal argues that one of ordinary skill,
`developing sub-antibacterial doxycycline formulations, would have looked
`to Sheth’s teachings, because the two drugs are members of the tetracycline
`family and have comparable structure, function, and utility, and because
`minocycline was recognized as suitable for sub-antibacterial dosing.
`Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1017, 1240–43; Ex. 1022 ¶ 185). Amneal argues that
`it would have been obvious to employ a 75:25 IR:DR ratio in Ashley ’932’s
`formulation in light of Sheth’s disclosure. Pet. 27–28.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`Supernus argues, among other things, that Sheth does not disclose any
`IR:DR formulations because Sheth fails to disclose a “delayed release”
`format. Resp. 16–18. Supernus argues that the release provided by Sheth’s
`secondary loading portion is more of a “modified sustained release” that
`begins slowly but promptly in the stomach, followed by rapid release in the
`intestine. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 173–82). Dr. Rudnic opined, at
`least partly on the basis of the disclosure in Sheth that the pH-insensitive
`polymer dissolves rapidly in water, that drug release would begin from the
`secondary loading portion “promptly” after oral administration. Ex. 2016 ¶
`175 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005, 5:1–2). Supernus argues that Sheth’s
`secondary loading portion thus does not fall within the scope of “delayed
`release,” because part of the release occurs in the stomach promptly after
`administration. Resp. 18.
`Amneal argues, in reply, that even Dr. Rudnic agrees that there would
`be a “lag” in the initial release of drug from the secondary loading portion.
`Reply 7. Amneal cites the following exchange from the transcript of
`Dr. Rudnic’s deposition:
`Q. Would you agree with me that as a result of
`the water soluble polymer there would be a delay
`in the release of the drug?
`
`. . .
`
`A. Again, you’re over simplifying the question.
`I think there would be some lag between when the
`polymer hydrated and the drug diffused through,
`but you wouldn’t consider that a delay. It’s not
`designed to delay.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1052, 247:20–248:5).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`We credit Dr. Rudnic’s declaration testimony that inclusion of a
`water-soluble polymer in the coating of Sheth’s secondary loading portion
`results in release of drug promptly after administration. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 175.
`Amneal does not cite credible evidence to refute Dr. Rudnic’s testimony.
`Although Dr. Rudnic conceded that there must be some lag while the
`polymer hydrates, we further credit his testimony that this lag, essentially the
`time required to wet the material, would not be considered a “delay.” See
`Ex. 1052, 248:3–5. We agree with Dr. Rudnic that dissolution, however
`rapid, necessarily requires some finite amount of time to allow interaction of
`the solvent and the solute. See Ex. 1005, 5:1–2. Amneal does not explain
`why we should not credit all of Dr. Rudnic’s testimony on this point.
`Because we credit Dr. Rudnic’s testimony, we agree with Supernus
`that Sheth’s secondary loading portion is not a “delayed release” portion. A
`“delayed release” format, when that term is construed to mean “release of a
`drug at a time other than immediately following oral administration,”
`specifically excludes formats that result in release of drug starting
`immediately after oral administration. To conclude otherwise would read
`the phrase “delayed release” out of the claim. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
`1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (all limitations of a claim must be considered
`when considering patentability over prior art). Amneal has not explained
`how there is any appreciable delay in the onset of drug release from the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`secondary loading portion once water in the patient’s saliva or gastric fluid
`has begun to solubilize the pH-insensitive polymer in the coating.5
`For this reason, we determine that Amneal has failed to show that
`Sheth discloses a “delayed release” portion.
`Amneal’s argument that Sheth discloses the claimed IR:DR ratio (or
`makes the claimed ratio reachable through routine experimentation) thus
`becomes untenable. Dr. Van Buskirk’s evidence concerning ratios in Sheth
`is premised on an assumption that Sheth’s secondary loading portion is a
`delayed release portion. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 ¶ 59 (“Additionally, the
`secondary loading coated pellets (the DR component) described in the ’748
`patent . . .”). That assumption is unwarranted, for the reasons given above.
`Consequently, Sheth’s disclosure of ratios involving the secondary loading
`portion does not constitute disclosure of ratios involving a delayed release
`portion. Put another way, Amneal has failed to persuade us that the prior art
`it cites for disclosure of IR:DR ratios actually discloses such ratios. Without
`evidence that the claimed IR:DR ratio was known or could have been
`reached through routine experimentation, Amneal’s challenge fails.
`For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Amneal has not
`proved the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 5–15, and 19–22 by a
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`5 Amneal’s argument that Sheth uses the words “delayed release” to describe
`the secondary loading portion, Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:34–36), is
`unpersuasive for similar reasons. Sheth uses those words to describe the
`effect of the polymer in the coating blend that favors release in the intestine.
`It does not account for the effects of the other coating polymer, which favors
`release immediately after oral administration. See Ex. 1005, 7:14–41;
`Resp. 19–20.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`Amneal moves to exclude Supernus Exhibits 2028, 2029, 2032–2034,
`2039, 2049, 2050, 2147, 2149–2154, and 2156. Pet. Motion to Exclude 1.
`We dismiss Amneal’s motion as moot, because we do not rely on any
`of the objected-to evidence in our final decision.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Amneal has not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
`claims 1, 2, 5–15, and 19–22 of the ’740 patent are unpatentable for
`obviousness over Ashley ’932 and Sheth.
`
`V. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 5–15, and 19–22 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,206,740 B2 are not determined to be unpatentable;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Amneal’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is
`dismissed as moot; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that because this is a final decision, parties to
`the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the
`notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Eldora L. Ellison
`Ralph Powers
`Jonathan Tuminaro
`David Holman
`H. Keeto Sabharwal
`Paul Ainsworth
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`eellison-PTAB@skgf.com
`tpowers-PTAB@skgf.com
`jtuminar-PTAB@skgf.com
`dholman-PTAB@skgf.com
`keetos-PTAB@skgf.com
`painsworth@skgf.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Sunit Talapatra
`Andrew S. Baluch
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`smaebius@foley.com
`stalapatra@foley.com
`WASH-Abaluch-PTAB@foley.com
`
`Gregory Morris
`Evan Diamond
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`geraldflattmann@paulhastings.com
`evandiamond@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`16
`
`