throbber
trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00545 Paper No. 68
`IPR2015-00546 Paper No. 69
`IPR2015-00547 Paper No. 69
`IPR2015-00548 Paper No. 68
`IPR2015-00551 Paper No. 69
` IPR2015-00554 Paper No. 67
`May 18, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, PAR
`PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., AND WOCKHARDT BIO AG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2015-00545 (Patent 8,589,182 B1)
`IPR2015-00546 (Patent 7,765,106 B2)
`IPR2015-00547 (Patent 7,765,107 B2)
`IPR2015-00548 (Patent 7,895,059 B2)
`IPR2015-00551 (Patent 8,547,988 B1)
` IPR2015-00554 (Patent 7,668,730 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: April 19, 2016
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE: JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, BRIAN P.
`MURPHY, and JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, April
`19, 2016, commencing at 9:02 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RICHARD J. BERMAN, ESQUIRE
`JANINE CARLAN, ESQUIRE
`BRADFORD C. FRESE, ESQUIRE
`Arent Fox, LLP
`1717 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`F. DOMINIC CERRITO, ESQUIRE
`EVANGELINE SHIH, ESQUIRE
`FRANK C. CALVOSA, ESQUIRE
`ERIC STOPS, ESQUIRE
`GABE BRIER, ESQUIRE
`Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MURPHY: Good morning, everyone. Nice to
`see a full house today. All right. We are here to hear oral
`arguments in a series of related cases. We have IPR2015-545,
`546, 547, 548, 551 and 554. The cases involve Par
`Pharmaceutical, Amneal Pharmaceuticals and Wockhardt versus
`Jazz. We also have additional related cases that have been joined.
`All right. We have six patents at issue, six cases, but
`there are significant overlapping issues. The Board appreciates
`counsel trying to simplify that for us. So we understand you'll be
`arguing from IPR2015-00548, Mr. Berman; is that right?
`MR. BERMAN: If that's the '059 patent, Your Honor,
`that's right.
`MR. CERRITO: It is, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MURPHY: So please introduce yourselves,
`beginning with counsel for petitioner.
`MR. BERMAN: Thank you. Richard Berman on
`behalf of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. With me is Janine Carlan and
`Bradford Frese, along with a representative of Par
`Pharmaceutical, Ms. Gina Gencarelli. For Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, there's Steve Maddox and Matthew Ruedy
`and representatives from Amneal, Kenneth Cappel and Vikhyat
`Kaushal.
`JUDGE MURPHY: Welcome everyone.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`MR. CERRITO: Good morning, Your Honors. Francis
`Cerrito from Quinn Emanuel on behalf of Jazz. With me today is
`Frank Calvosa, Eric Stops, Evangeline Shih and Gabe Brier. We
`also have a corporate representative from Jazz, Jana Gold, with
`us.
`
`JUDGE MURPHY: Welcome everyone. And thanks
`for arriving a little bit early. We are a little bit earlier than usual,
`but we do appreciate it because we have longer arguments today.
`So according to our hearing order, each side has
`90 minutes. Mr. Berman, are petitioners going to split the
`argument in any way or are you going to be presenting? How do
`you want to work that?
`MR. BERMAN: I will be presenting all of it, Your
`Honor. And I'll be using 30 minutes for my initial presentation
`and 60 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE MURPHY: Okay. So we have you on the
`clock here, Mr. Berman. If you run over, that's fine. You'll just
`reduce your rebuttal time. Mr. Cerrito, you'll have 90 minutes, no
`rebuttal time.
`I remind everyone that petitioners bear the ultimate
`burden of proof based on the preponderance of the evidence of
`their assertions upon patentability. I also remind the parties that
`this is a public hearing. We will have a transcript. We have a
`reporter up front. So please be mindful of that in terms of citing
`exhibits in the demonstratives. And if you are quoting from the
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`patent or other evidence, just take your time so we can get it all
`down and keep a clear record.
`If there are no questions, Mr. Berman, please begin.
`MR. BERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
`morning, Your Honors. Your Honors, here the patentees told the
`public about their restricted drug distribution system for Xyrem
`then tried to patent it a year and a half later, but you can't do that
`under U.S. law. The documents disclosed to the public,
`Exhibits 1003 through 1006, known collectively as the Advisory
`Committee Art or the ACA, render the six patents at issue here
`obvious.
`Today I will be focusing on the following topics: The
`public availability of the ACA, claim construction and
`obviousness.
`First the public availability issue. Jazz argues the
`petitioners have failed to prove the materials provided to the
`advisory committee, Exhibits 1003 through 1006, were publicly
`available prior to the critical date of December 17, 2001. Now, it
`is true that petitioners do not have eyewitness testimony that
`these briefing materials were posted on the FDA's website by the
`June 6, 2001, Xyrem advisory committee meeting. But it's well
`settled that that's not necessary. Here the totality of the evidence,
`which is the standard, easily shows that it's more likely than not
`that the briefing materials were posted in advance of the meeting.
`So let's go through this evidence.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`JUDGE MURPHY: Mr. Berman, let me stop you there
`for a moment. Are you in agreement, then, that there's no direct
`evidence of the links as of the date of the Internet archive exhibits
`that have been submitted?
`MR. BERMAN: I don't know which -- there are several
`links at issue here. It is undisputed that Exhibit 1003 had active
`links and was publicly available prior to the critical date. The
`dispute is surrounding Exhibits 1004 through 1006. So that's the
`evidence I'm going to focus on.
`JUDGE MURPHY: Okay.
`MR. BERMAN: So first you have the Federal Register
`Notice, Exhibit 1015, the FDA said in this Federal Register
`Notice that it was going to post the briefing materials on its
`website 24 hours before the meeting. And following the links in
`the Federal Register Notice you end up on this page,
`Exhibit 1019. And there's a couple of items I wanted to point out
`on this exhibit.
`First, it is undisputed that this document, the FDA's
`website with the links, was publicly available no later than July 1,
`2001. That's less than a month after the advisory committee
`meeting and five months prior to the critical date. Second, it's
`undisputed that clicking on these links sends you to the briefing
`materials through this very day. But Jazz argues just because the
`links send you to the briefing materials today doesn't mean they
`sent you there prior to the critical date. The links could have
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`been dead or sent you to something else. But there is no evidence
`that the links were dead or that they sent you to something else.
`JUDGE BONILLA: Is there any evidence that you
`could have come up with to show that back in the day they would
`have, in fact, worked?
`MR. BERMAN: Well, that gets to the Internet archive
`evidence a bit. We do have certain Internet archive evidence that
`shows certain of these materials that I'm going to go through were
`absolutely available no later than the certain capture date. The
`exhibits in dispute, 1004 through 1006, unfortunately, due to the
`luck of the draw with regard to the web crawler, as Mr. Butler
`says in his declarations, due to the luck of the draw, there were
`not captures of those materials prior to the critical date. And
`those are the materials I'm going to focus on, the corroborating
`evidence, the substantial corroborating evidence that they were
`posted by the critical date.
`JUDGE BONILLA: Was that a product of the
`Wayback Machine or is there something to the fact that you
`couldn't come up with that evidence?
`MR. BERMAN: Well, that's really the only feasible
`way of determining what happened 15 years ago, Your Honor.
`So like I said, we do not have eyewitness testimony that says
`these were put up. We do have substantial corroborating
`evidence that I want to go through.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`JUDGE MURPHY: Mr. Berman, before you do that,
`on Exhibit 1019, the different links, can you relate those to
`Exhibits 1004 through 1006?
`MR. BERMAN: Sure. So this briefing information
`link is Exhibit 1005. The Xyrem prescription and distribution
`process video script, these links and the video links, that's
`Exhibit 1006. And the safety review is the FDA review, and that
`is 1004. So those are the links that I'll be discussing.
`JUDGE MURPHY: Thank you.
`MR. BERMAN: So going back to the substantial
`corroborating evidence, there is substantial corroborating
`evidence that the FDA did post these materials just like they said
`they were going to do. First and foremost, we have the FACA,
`the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Now, it's undisputed that
`the Exhibit 1015 says that the advisory committee meeting is
`being held under the FACA. And under the FACA, materials that
`are provided to an advisory committee like this one must be made
`available to the public. And the FDA's guidance regarding the
`FACA explicitly requires that these materials be made available
`to the public, quote, before or at the time of the advisory
`committee meeting. So when the FDA said in the Federal
`Register Notice it was going to post the Xyrem briefing materials
`before the advisory committee meeting, it was following its
`standard protocol.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`Jazz presents no evidence that the FDA failed to comply
`with the FACA or failed to follow its own rules in its guidance.
`So there is no basis to conclude the FDA did not do exactly what
`it said it was going to do and post the Xyrem briefing materials in
`accordance with the FACA, the law, and its own rules, its
`guidance.
`So what other corroborating evidence do we have?
`Again, first and foremost, we have Jazz's predecessor, Orphan
`Medical, the patentees here telling FDA, telling FDA that its
`briefing material, Exhibit 1005, was available for public
`disclosure without redaction. And according to FDA's guidance,
`that's Exhibit 1057 at page 4, that's exactly the way you are
`supposed to label materials that are going to be made available
`before an advisory committee meeting.
`We also have the redactions in the FDA's safety review,
`Exhibit 1004. Again, according to FDA's guidance, that's exactly
`the way FDA's documents should be posted. And then back to
`Exhibit 1019, we have this disclaimer followed by a lot of
`verbiage here. This exact language of a disclaimer is mandated in
`the FDA guidance. That's Exhibit 1057 at page 6. So all of this
`evidence corroborates that the FDA posted these materials just
`like it said it was going to do.
`Finally, there's the meeting transcript, Exhibit 1003,
`which as I said, is undisputed prior art. The meeting transcript
`contains several references to the briefing materials, and I want to
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`go through those. Here is Exhibit 1003 at page 12. Dr. Katz
`from the FDA says, As you know from the briefing documents,
`and goes on to talk about them.
`JUDGE MURPHY: Mr. Berman, in Exhibit 1003, are
`there any more particular references to the individual documents
`themselves or is it more in the nature of briefing materials
`generally?
`MR. BERMAN: It's more in the nature of briefing
`materials generally. And if I could finish going through them,
`you'll see the specifics of how they describe them.
`Next is page 284 from a Dr. Chervin. And what's
`important with Dr. Chervin is he was actually phoning into the
`meeting. So he was not present on the day. And Dr. Chervin
`says, I read in some of the material that was distributed prior to
`the meeting, and he goes on to talk about the materials.
`Then there's page 330, Dr. Leaderman. Dr. Leaderman
`says, Let me refer you to a table. It is actually the last page in
`your blue FDA briefing package book.
`And finally, we have from Dr. Falkowski, he has says,
`If you look at the third page from the back of the materials the
`FDA provided, and then he goes on to talk about certain items in
`those materials.
`JUDGE BONILLA: Is there anything in Exhibit 1003
`that indicates that that briefing material are the three things that
`we are talking about?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`MR. BERMAN: So here is the issue with that. There is
`absolutely no evidence of there being any other briefing materials
`other than what's on Exhibit 1019. There is no evidence
`whatsoever. So when they are talking about briefing materials
`and in Exhibit 1019 there are the briefing materials, that's the
`universe of documents. There is no evidence whatsoever of there
`being any other documents or any other versions of those
`documents. So that is the universe. So when they are talking
`about briefing materials in Exhibit 1003, that is the only briefing
`materials there is to talk about.
`JUDGE BONILLA: Is it possible it's referring to
`briefing information only, which would be Exhibit 1005 and not
`the others?
`MR. BERMAN: The FDA materials, 1005?
`JUDGE BONILLA: Right. When it talks about the
`briefing material and then you look on Exhibit 1019, there's
`briefing information. Is it possible it's only referring to the
`briefing information, Exhibit 1005, and not necessarily 1006 and
`1004?
`
`MR. BERMAN: Actually, if anything, Your Honor,
`they are talking about the FDA briefing information, if anything.
`Certainly that's exactly what --
`JUDGE MURPHY: Well, the FDA briefing
`information, that's the preliminary clinical safety report which
`you are saying is Exhibit 1004, right?
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`MR. BERMAN: Correct. It's one of those materials.
`There are -- as you see in Exhibit 1019, there are several links to
`several different materials that the FDA provided. The one that
`we are talking about is the safety review because that one
`specifically discusses the Xyrem restricted drug distribution
`system. However, all of these materials were part of the FDA
`briefing information.
`So we have further corroborating evidence in our reply
`on pages 4 through 7, and I'll simply refer the Board to that. So
`here the totality of the evidence easily shows that it is more likely
`than not that the briefing materials were posted in advance of the
`meeting just like the FDA said they were going to do.
`Now, it's worth pointing out which links Jazz does not
`assert are broken or sent you to something else. So I think this
`will help address some of the comments that you had, Your
`Honors. So first this is Exhibit 1020, and this predates the critical
`date. And this printout contains a list of all of the materials the
`FDA posted for the Xyrem advisory committee meeting. Here
`are the links to the transcript which are pages 1 through 381 of
`Exhibit 1003. Jazz does not argue that these links didn't work.
`All of these links, they didn't argue that they don't work.
`Further, this is the next page of the exhibit, I refer you
`up here, the slides, these are Orphan Medical's slides that they
`presented at the meeting. They are pages 381 through 400 of
`Exhibit 1003. So Jazz doesn't argue that these links didn't work
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`or sent you to something else. And finally, we have the briefing
`information link itself. This is the link to Exhibit 1019. And Jazz
`doesn't say that this doesn't work or sent you to something else.
`JUDGE MURPHY: So that link at the top page of
`Exhibit 1020, you are saying that's a link to Exhibit 1019?
`MR. BERMAN: Correct. That's undisputed.
`JUDGE MURPHY: And then you have to go to the
`links in 1019 to get to the individual documents?
`MR. BERMAN: Correct. But it's undisputed that once
`you were directed to the links, you could easily scroll through.
`That's not what's in dispute here.
`So the totality of the evidence shows that the ACA was
`available prior to the critical date. The ACA was also locatable
`by persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter
`in the patents. For analyzing locatability, being a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, what we have been calling a POSA, is
`only half the standard. There's an additional requirement that the
`person be interested in the subject matter of the patents. And
`further, the interested POSA must merely be capable of locating
`the prior art. There is no requirement, despite Jazz's protestations
`otherwise, that a POSA had actually located the prior art. An
`example citation for that is IPR2014-00059, paper 9 at 34 to 35.
`We cite that in our petition.
`Jazz's first argument that a POSA would not have
`bothered looking for the ACA ignores this additional requirement
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`of interest in the subject matter. Simply put, a POSA interested
`in restricted drug distribution systems would have been motivated
`to look for materials relevant to restricted drug distribution
`systems. As petitioners' declarant, Dr. Valuck, put it, a POSA
`here wants to keep track of what FDA and other agencies in the
`world of drug distribution are doing. So an interested POSA here
`could have found the relevant materials like the Federal Register
`Notice and the ACA.
`Jazz's second argument against locatability is that a
`POSA would have never known the ACA existed because a
`POSA would not have actually found the Federal Register Notice
`of the advisory committee meeting. But Jazz is wrong both
`legally and factually. Legally the notices published in the Federal
`Register are deemed to provide adequate notice to interested
`persons. These include persons having a legal interest as well as
`those having a scientific or technical interest. So by law, persons
`interested in the subject matter of the patents had adequate notice
`of the advisory committee meeting and therefore, were capable of
`locating the ACA, which again, is the test for locatability.
`But even putting that law aside, there is no credible
`basis for Jazz to assert that a POSA would not have been able to
`find the Federal Register Notice here. As indicated in the
`meeting minutes, Exhibit 1003, and I'm on page 3 here, 15
`members of the public spoke at the Xyrem advisory committee
`meeting. They are listed here. So in fact, interested persons were
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`not only capable of finding the notice, they did find the notice.
`So there's no credible basis to conclude that a POSA was
`incapable of finding the notice. The totality of the evidence
`shows that the ACA was available and locatable prior to the
`critical date.
`So I would like to turn now to claim construction.
`There are three terms that Jazz unduly seeks to narrow. First I
`want to just discuss the generating periodic report step. To put
`the claim in context here, this is the '059 patent and here is the
`generating step. Generating with the computer processor periodic
`reports via the exclusive computer database to evaluate potential
`diversion patterns. So viewed in context, the generating periodic
`reports step is used to evaluate potential diversion patterns.
`Several types of reports are described in the patents.
`You have figures 13A through C which describe reports run at
`certain intervals such as weekly, monthly or quarterly. And
`Figure 4B describes risk diversion reports run in response to a
`patient's request for an early refill of the drug. Any of these
`reports, the reports described in Figures 13A through C or the
`reports described in Figure 4B, any of those reports can
`potentially identify diversion patterns, which is the context of the
`claim.
`
`But Jazz argues otherwise. Based primarily on extrinsic
`evidence, a dictionary definition of the word "periodic" Jazz
`seeks to narrow the generating periodic reports step to the types
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`of reports described in Figures 13A through C but not the types of
`reports described in Figure 4B. But Jazz's extrinsic evidence
`cannot trump the applicant's own statement that Figure 4B
`describes periodic reports to evaluate potential diversions of the
`drug. And that's in Exhibit 1047, the appeal brief in the '730
`patent.
`
`JUDGE MURPHY: How does that address -- their
`point, as I understand it, is these reports have to be on some
`regular basis, weekly, monthly, whatever it might be. So where
`in the intrinsic evidence -- let's set aside the extrinsic evidence for
`the moment. Where in the intrinsic evidence in the spec with the
`description of 4B, for example, does the patent indicate
`something other than a regular, periodic, preset generated report?
`MR. BERMAN: Well, there's no definite -- periodic is
`not defined. It doesn't even appear in the patent, in the spec. It's
`not defined. So you have to go by what is the point of this claim.
`The point of this claim is to evaluate potential diversion patterns.
`That is evaluated by generating periodic reports, reports either on
`an ad hoc basis, periodically every now and again, intermittently.
`Those are all valid definitions of what periodic means. We've
`submitted three definitions in our reply that say just that. Or --
`and it also means generated at regular frequencies. It means both.
`Periodic means both. It means intermittent and it also means
`generated regularly.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`So there is no indication at all of two very important
`things, one, that periodic, when the applicants use the term
`"periodic," they intended to exclude intermittent from the
`universe; and second, there is absolutely no evidence, in fact,
`there's contra evidence that applicants intended to exclude
`Figure 4B, the types of risk diversion reports, that are generated
`there from the scope of the claims. There is no evidence of that.
`JUDGE BONILLA: Are the reports in 4B, are they
`intermittent as opposed to regular?
`MR. BERMAN: They could be intermittent in that they
`are generated in response to an early refill request. So you can
`look at them as saying, well, that's on an ad hoc basis. Every time
`there's an early refill request, there is a report generated about it.
`But you can also look at that and say that that is periodic because
`every time there is an early refill request, you are generating a
`report. So that happens every time. So since it happens every
`time, it happens regularly. So there's, again, no basis to conclude
`at all in any of the intrinsic evidence that the applicants intended
`to exclude Figure 4B and the types of reports there. And in fact,
`again, getting back to the claim, those types of reports in
`Figure 4B evaluate potential diversion patterns, exactly what the
`claim requires.
`Jazz also seeks to narrow the information identifying
`patients and medical doctors' terms, which I'll discuss together.
`Now, neither the petitioners nor the Board identified those terms
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`as requiring construction. Instead, in accordance with PTAB
`rules, the terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary
`meaning and given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`light of the specification.
`Jazz, however, seeks to narrow these terms based on
`one embodiment, Figure 9. But there is, again, no evidence
`whatsoever in the intrinsic evidence that the applicants intended
`to limit the scope of the claims to Figure 9. There is no evidence
`whatsoever. Therefore, the Board should not further limit these
`claim terms.
`Finally, I would like to turn to obviousness. Jazz has
`already conceded most of the limitations in the claims are
`obvious over the ACA. Only a few limitations are in dispute.
`Let's start with the generating periodic reports step. Now, Jazz
`admits that the ACA discloses the types of reports described in
`Figure 4B. So if the Board declines to narrow the scope of the
`claims to the reports, only the reports described in Figures 13A
`through C, as it should, Jazz concedes on this point.
`But even if the Board accepts Jazz's faulty construction
`and limits the scope of the claims unduly to Figures 13A through
`C, this limitation is still obvious over the ACA. First, Jazz's
`declarant, Dr. Bergeron, conceded that querying the central data
`repository was one way to obtain data for the reports in the ACA.
`Dr. Bergeron also conceded that the ACA discloses identifying
`potential diversion patterns, again, the scope of the claim, prior to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`filling a prescription. Not just after an investigation has begun.
`So again, talking about periodic, if every time you are looking
`and generating a report prior to filling a prescription, that could
`be as periodic as anything. So even if the Board accepts Jazz's
`erroneous claim construction, the generating periodic report step
`is still obvious over the ACA.
`Finally, I want to address the prescription request
`limitation. And here is an example in the '059 patent of this
`claim. It says the prescription request containing information
`identifying patients, the prescription drug and various credentials
`of any and all medical doctors.
`So first just to put this into context, we are talking about
`a prescription form here and the obviousness of putting such
`basic information as the patient's name, Social Security number,
`date of birth, sex and address on that form, that's what we are
`talking about here.
`Jazz concedes that the prescription requests contain
`some information identifying the patient and the prescriber. Jazz
`also concedes that all of the information that Jazz asserts is
`required under the claims is disclosed in several places in the
`ACA. But they argue, since not all of this information is on the
`form itself, the claims are not obvious.
`But even if Jazz is correct, and they are not, but even if
`they are, Jazz does not explain why a POSA, a person of ordinary
`creativity under KSR, would not have found it obvious to put
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`information from several forms onto one form. And to reiterate,
`we are talking about putting basic information onto a form.
`For the other claim terms, petitioners rest on their briefs
`and I'll reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE BONILLA: So your position is that patent
`owner concedes that all of the information is on forms of some
`kind in the art but that they are not all in the same form? That's
`their position?
`MR. BERMAN: Their position is that all of the
`information is disclosed as being available in the ACA --
`JUDGE BONILLA: Just not in one place?
`MR. BERMAN: -- through various means. It's just not
`all sitting on that form.
`JUDGE MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Berman.
`MR. CERRITO: Good morning, Your Honors, may it
`please the Court. Let me pick up on that very last point we just
`heard. All the information is available elsewhere in different
`forms. If you look at the ACA, what it tells you to do in certain
`instances is have discussions with doctors. Pick up the telephone
`and talk about to them. Why? Because they were worried. They
`were concerned that doctors may fake their numbers, might fake
`the prescriptions, as we see with the way things are going on
`now. Unfortunately, some prescriptions are going out the back
`door. So there was an interaction that took place through phone
`calls, through other surveys, DEA inquiries. They didn't all exist
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`in one place on a prescription form. So Mr. Berman, I think,
`overstates his case by a long shot.
`I'm going to break a little bit with my intended script
`here only because I have heard so many things this morning that
`are simply not accurate. You know, the first and foremost, I'm
`concerned that -- and I'm not concerned the Board is going to
`miss this, but the burden of proof here is on petitioners. Not on
`Jazz. Jazz doesn't need to show anything. And we've been
`blamed repeatedly that we didn't show this, we didn't show that.
`We don't have to show anything. What we did point out is the
`evidence that has been presented to this Board is not good
`enough.
`And let's take a step back for one second. Just because
`you throw a lot of things at the wall hoping something will stick
`doesn't make any of them any good. It's a lot of incomplete
`conjecture, speculation about what would have, what must have
`existed. Just because you say a lot of things doesn't make the
`totality of circumstances --
`JUDGE MURPHY: Isn't their position that there are
`various pieces of circumstantial evidence that all point in the
`same direction, and if it points in the same direction, we should
`infer the conclusion from that evidence?
`MR. CERRITO: It points in a speculation direction.
`That's the problem. So to use a bad analogy, if I have a little pile
`of garbage, it's not somehow better than a big pile of garbage.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00545
`Patent 8,589,182 B1
`
`
`JUDGE BONILLA: But you can understand the
`position as saying we have this piece of circumstantial evidence,
`and this and this and this, and there is nothing to the contrary?
`MR. CERRITO: I'm sorry?
`JUDGE BONILLA: They have multiple pieces of
`circumstantial evidence to say that it was publicly accessible and
`there's nothing to the contrary.
`MR. CERRITO: No, Your Honor, I don't agree with
`that. What I agree with is that they have a bunch of innuendos,
`speculation about what must have occurred. Let's start from the
`point that this Board has already held, something about the
`Federal Register in The Coalition For Affordable Drugs versus
`Jazz. The Federal Register at issue here, this very issue, this
`same Federal Register Notice does not show that the ACA
`actually was

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket