Filed: August 12, 2015 On behalf of Patent Owner Illumina, Inc. by: Kerry S. Taylor. (admitted pro hac vice)

Transcription

1 Filed: August 12, 2015 On behalf of Patent Owner Illumina, Inc. by: Kerry S. Taylor Adrian C. Percer William R. Zimmerman (admitted pro hac vice) Edward R. Reines Michael L. Fuller (admitted pro hac vice) Jonathan E. Bachand Nathanael R. Luman Derek C. Walter KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & (admitted pro hac vice) BEAR, LLP Main Street, 14 th Floor WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP Irvine, CA Redwood Shores Parkway Tel.: (949) Redwood Shores, CA Fax: (949) Tel.: (650) Fax: (650) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. Petitioner, v. ILLUMINA, INC. Patent Owner. IPR U.S. Patent 7,955,794 B2 PATENT OWNER S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER S REPLY WITNESS DR. CHARLES CANTOR

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. The Cantor declaration contains new arguments not contained in the Petition... 1 The opinions in Dr. Cantor s declaration are not based on reliable methods... 3 The 946 publication and the 810 application are not prior art... 4 The 810 application does not disclose more than 100 different single-stranded probes having identical universal priming sites of Claim 1(b)(i)... 6 The 810 application does not disclose all elements as arranged in Claim Petitioner has not shown the 810 application provides an enabling disclosure The 810 application does not anticipate Claim Dr. Cantor s testimony supports the patentability of the challenged claims Assignor Estoppel should apply to this IPR Petitioner uses varying levels of skill in the art to make its arguments i

3 The Cantor declaration contains new arguments not contained in the Petition 1. Dr. Cantor testified that Petitioners attorneys prevented him from reviewing the 946 publication. Ex at 198:3-199:16. They did so despite the fact that the Petition heavily focused on the 946 publication as the primary reference, claiming Dr. Fu was its primary inventor. Paper 1 at 1, Dr. Cantor s testimony highlights that Petitioners abandoned their original strategy, likely given Dr. Fu s various admissions that contradicted the Petition s assertions. See, e.g., Paper 31 at 1, 3-4, 15, 18-19, 22-25, 28-34, Instead, Petitioners on Reply singularly focus on the 810 application, which names only Dr. Fan as an inventor. Ex at 98:4-102:5, 117:8-119:6; Paper 44 at 1-22, Dr. Cantor repeatedly testified that his analysis was made independently from the Petition and that he made no attempt to conform his invalidity arguments with the arguments made in the Petition. Ex at 105:18-22, 101:19-102:5, 103:3-12, 106:1-107:6, 108:15-20, 109:19-110:9. Petitioner specifically instructed Dr. Cantor to avoid reviewing the testimony made by Petitioner s earlier experts. Id. at 203:7-18. This is relevant because both Dr. Cantor s declaration and Petitioner s Reply rely upon new theories and evidence not asserted in the original Petition. For example, Dr. Cantor asserts invalidity on the following new grounds: Claim 1(a) relies on newly cited Ex at 27 and Figs. 2b and 4; Claim 1(b) relies on newly cited Ex at 25-26, 28-29, 32-33, 35, Table 1, and Figs. 2b 1

4 and 4; Claim 1(c) relies on newly cited Ex at 5, 7, 24, and Figs. 2b and 4; Claim 1(g) relies on newly cited Figs. 2b and 4. Compare Paper 1 at with Ex , 30-32, 38-39, 43, 46, 49, 51-52, 54, 56-57, 63. Dr. Cantor also asserts new invalidity grounds for Claim 2 (cf. Paper 1 at 19 vs. Ex ), Claims 5-8 (cf. Paper 1 at vs. Ex ), and Claim 21 (cf. Paper 1 at 25 vs. Ex ). Dr. Cantor and the Reply contradict Dr. Fu s testimony and ignore the 946 publication, which was the basis for the Board s institution decision Paper 14 at 8, 12. Petitioner had Dr. Cantor purposefully disregard the Petition, the existing expert testimony, and the 946 publication in an attempt to remedy the inadequacies of the Petition, Ward and Fu Declarations. This latestage shift to new legal theories based on Dr. Cantor s declaration is a clear attempt by Petitioner to use their Reply to bolster their defective Petition. 3. Dr. Cantor testified that he offered no opinion on the priority date for the 794 patent. Ex at 276:19-277:2; Ex This is also true of Ariosa s Petition and the opinions of its original experts, Drs. Fu and Ward. Paper 1 at 47; Paper 31 at 7-9. This is relevant because Petitioner for the first time on Reply raised new and unsupported attorney arguments about the priority of the 794 patent, which were necessary to include in the Petition itself and, therefore, are improper and untimely. Paper 44 at 23-24; Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). As explained in Paper 31 at 6-19, the 2

5 946 publication is not prior art to the 794 patent. Dr. Cantor s testimony is further relevant to Claims 10, 12, 19, and 20, which Petitioner does not assert are anticipated by the 810 application, and for which the 946 publication is not prior art. Paper 31 at 7-9 and 18; Paper 1 at 22-23, 25; Paper 44 at Therefore, Petitioners cannot establish anticipation for any of Claims 10, 12, 19 and 20. The opinions in Dr. Cantor s declaration are not based on reliable methods 4. Dr. Cantor admitted that his normal best practice would have been to review the entire 946 publication before forming an opinion on the validity of Illumina s patent absent the prohibition by Petitioner s counsel. Ex at 198:17-199:6. This is relevant because, as mentioned above, the Petitioner s attorneys prevented Dr. Cantor from reviewing the 946 publication the very document Petitioners asserted in the Petition as the prior art reference in this proceeding. Ex at 198:3-199:16. Thus, Dr. Cantor was not allowed to do a proper validity analysis. 5. As mentioned above, Dr. Cantor testified that he did not read the 946 publication. Ex at 98:4-99:20, 292:14-296:4. This is further relevant because the contents of the 810 application published for 102(e) purposes, if at all, based on its incorporation into the 946 publication. Id. at 98:4-99:20. While Dr. Cantor viewed the 810 application as prior art solely due to its incorporation in the 946 publication (id.; see also Ex ), his understanding of the 810 application was not shaped by the other text of the 946 publication i.e., by an understanding 3

6 of the 946 publication as a single, whole document. See, e.g., Ex at 293:3-21. For example, his view does not account for the significant changes in protocols between the 810 application and the 946 publication. Id. at 292:14-296:4; Ex ; Paper 31 at As such, not only was Dr. Cantor not permitted to follow his own best practice, but Dr. Cantor s understanding of how the 810 application would have been understood by skilled artisans is necessarily incomplete, and thus unhelpful, as his understanding lacked the context of the remainder of the 946 publication the only document in which Ariosa asserts the contents of the 810 application allegedly published under 102(e). The 946 publication and the 810 application are not prior art 6. Dr. Cantor testified he relies on the 810 application being prior art through incorporation by reference into the 946 publication. Ex at 109:2-18. As previously explained, the 810 application does not support several portions of the 946 publication that are cited in the Petition. Paper 31 at 10-18; In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, (Fed. Cir. 2010); Ex Parte Yamaguchi, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1606, 1609 (B.P.A.I. 2008). Because Dr. Cantor was prohibited by counsel from reading the 946 publication itself, he has no reason to disagree. Ex at 110:10-20, 198:3-16. He admits he did not determine whether the disclosures of the 946 publication are supported by the 810 application. Id. at 195:19-198:16. This is important because Dr. Fu testified that the two-oligonucleotide method 4

7 disclosed in 16 of the 946 publication and extensively relied on in the Petition is not supported by the 810 application. Ex at 149:9-12, 158:10-160:5, 165:1-21, 167:8-169:5, 171:24-172:1, 173:11-174:3; Paper 1 at (relying on 16 of 946 publication for steps (b), (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Claim 1); Paper 31 at 30; see also Ex at 291:4-297:22. Therefore, Dr. Fu s testimony that the 946 publication is not supported by the 810 application remains unrebutted by Dr. Cantor. Given the differences between the documents, Petitioner cannot assert that a legal trick allows the disclosure of the 946 publication to transform into the distinct and inconsistent disclosure of the 810 application. Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int l Trade Comm n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Paper 31 at 11. As a result, neither the 946 publication nor the disclosure relied upon from the 810 application is prior art to any claim of the 794 patent. Paper 31 at Dr. Cantor testified that Dr. Fu is not a listed inventor of the 810 application (Ex at 117:8-119:6), and that Dr. Fan is the only listed inventor of the 810 application. Id. Moreover, Dr. Cantor testified that the feature that Dr. Fu identified as his (washing) was not an inventive contribution. Ex at 296:22-298:13; Ex at 144: This is relevant because the application for the 946 publication was not before the invention by the applicant for patent so it does not qualify as prior art under 102(e). Paper 31 at Further, the 810 application is only prior art under 102(e) if it is by another. Petitioner argues 5

8 that the 810 application is by another because it was also by Dr. Fu, who is not a listed inventor of the 794 patent. Paper 44 at 23. However, the 810 application lists only Dr. Fan as an inventor, and Dr. Cantor s testimony illustrates why the listed inventorship was not erroneous Dr. Fu s asserted contribution to the 810 application was not sufficiently inventive to make him an inventor. Since neither the 946 publication nor the 810 application qualify as prior under 102(e), the 794 patent is not anticipated by either reference. Paper 31 at The 810 application does not disclose more than 100 different singlestranded probes having identical universal priming sites of Claim 1(b)(i) 8. Dr. Cantor admitted that the 810 application shows no explicit use of a hundred or more targets or probes in a probe set as recited in Claim 1(b), and that his anticipation argument was premised on inherency; that the probe set with more than 100 probes is an inherent feature of the phrase 50 to 100 genes at a time recited in the R33 phase part of the 810 application. Ex at 162:22-163:13; Ex at 40, 49. However, Dr. Ward admitted that the 50 to 100 genes at a time language in the R33 phase of the 810 application could be performed without a probe set having more than a hundred probes. Ex at 116:25-117:14, 103:10-104:13; Paper 31 at 36, As discussed in 9-11 below, Dr. Cantor made similar admissions. Thus, by Ariosa s experts own admissions, there is no express anticipation, and there also cannot be anticipation by inherency. 9. Dr. Cantor testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art practicing the 6

9 810 application could use a multiplicity of upstream and downstream primers. Ex at 255:2-256:15, 258:9-259:5. For example, Dr. Cantor testified that one could use different universal primers for different alleles. Id. at 244:10-245:12. Dr. Ward testified similarly. Ex at 53: This testimony shows that the 810 application does not necessarily and inevitably disclose the use of identical universal priming sites, as required by Claim 1(b)(i). Therefore, the 810 application cannot anticipate the challenged claims. See also Paper 31 at 27-28, 39-40; In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (anticipation by inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities ). 10. The 810 application teaches that the examination of 50 to 100 genes will focus on alternative splicing events that have already been linked to a disease(s). Ex at 36. Dr. Cantor testified that if you understood the alternative splicing and recognized that only a single isoform was important to whatever test you re developing, then you d only test for that isoform. Ex at 277:3-15. Dr. Cantor s testimony contradicts Petitioner s reading of the R33 phase as requiring testing of multiple isoforms per gene that artificially inflates the number of probes to examine 50 to 100 genes to a number that is greater than 100. Paper 44 at 8-9. Dr. Cantor s testimony agrees with the testimony provided by Dr. Ward and Dr. Kramer, who both testified that examination of 50 to 100 genes does not require more than 100 probes. Ex at 116:25-117:14; Ex ; Ex at 7

10 289:25-291:9; Paper 31 at Thus, the 810 application s disclosure of examining 50 to 100 genes does not inherently disclose more than 100 probes. 11. Petitioner relies on the disclosure of examining 50 to 100 genes at a time from the R33 phase of the 810 application to allegedly disclose a single reaction using more than 100 different single-stranded probes as required by Claim 1. Paper 1 at 16; Ex at 35. Dr. Cantor testified that it s imminently feasible that the examination of 50 to 100 genes from the 810 application could have been done at the same time by performing small batches and then pooling the product of the small batches onto a larger array. Ex at 159:10-160:1, 234:3-235:5. Drs. Ward and Kramer agree. Ex at 103:10-104:13; Ex Therefore, the 50 to 100 genes at a time phrase does not necessarily and inevitably disclose a multiplex method for analyzing a sample using a probe set with more than 100 probes, as required by Claim 1. See also Paper 31 at The 810 application does not disclose all elements as arranged in Claim Dr. Cantor testified that a probe from the one-probe protocols of the 810 application would not work in the two-probe protocols (Ex at 268:13-269:13), and vice-versa. Id. at 270:10-271:5. He further testified that the oneprobe approach is simpler than the two-probe approach, which is simpler than a three-probe approach. Id. at 147:7-10. This undermines Petitioner s argument that the various protocols disclosed in the invention disclosure and grant application 8

11 portions of the 810 application constitute a single experimental procedure. Paper 44 at Rather, the protocols in the 810 application are mutually exclusive because of the difference in complexity between the protocols and because the various components of the protocols are not interchangeable. Therefore, Petitioner s anticipation position inappropriately combines distinct protocols to try to meet the different steps recited in Claim 1. Paper 31 at Dr. Cantor testified that the two-probe protocol does not require mismatch controls. Ex at 186:12-187:13; Ex at 28. The 810 application describes mismatch controls as a crucial requirement for the one-probe protocol (Ex at 23-25), but the two-probe protocol contains an additional ligation step and may not require mismatch controls. Id. at 28. Dr. Cantor s testimony again contradicts Petitioner s argument that the 810 application discloses a common experimental approach applicable to all protocols. Paper 44 at It further confirms that the singe-probe and two-probe protocols are mutually exclusive and cannot be combined to form a single anticipatory disclosure. 14. Dr. Cantor testified that he thought that the 16 embodiment of the 946 publication and the embodiments of the 810 application were substantively related. Ex at 292:4-293:2. In contrast, Dr. Fu found these to be two incompatible methods. Ex at 158:21-160:2, 165:1-21, 167:8-169:5, 169:15-19, 173:11-20; Paper 31 at 34. This illustrates that Dr. Cantor s loose use of the 9

12 term substantively related does not meet the standard for inherent anticipation. 15. Dr. Cantor testified that Figures 2c and 2d of the 810 application do not necessarily include a wash step. Ex at 215:10-217:14. This is relevant because it contradicts Petitioner s assertion that washing is a common step that is equally applicable to all disclosed embodiments based on its theory that the 810 application discloses a single common experimental approach. Paper 44 at 11. Dr. Ward confirmed this for Figure 2d. Ex at 149:5-13. Therefore, a wash step is not inherently present in all embodiments of the 810 application. 16. Dr. Cantor testified that Figures 2c and 2d of the invention disclosure section do not necessarily include the first solid support recited in Claim 1(a). Ex at 209:15-210:1, 214:21-215:9, 272:2-17. Dr. Cantor further testified that the genomic DNA analysis in Figure 2c is not germane to the validity of the 794 patent. Id. at 114:19-116:4. This testimony contradicts Petitioner s assertion that all protocols have a solid support, which is used for washing purposes, and extensive washing applies to the protocols in Figures 2c and 2d. Paper 44 at Dr. Cantor declared that the purpose of the ligation step in Figs. 2a-d of Part II of the invention disclosure of the 810 application is to address nonspecific annealing of probes. Ex As stated in Part I of the 810 application, the purpose of washing there is to remove nonspecifically annealed probes. Ex at 6. The fact that ligation and washing are described as serving the same purpose 10

13 explains why the Part II protocols (Figs. 2a-d) do not include a wash step, nor incorporate the wash step of Part I. Ex at 176:24-179:5, 102: Since the protocols of Figs. 2a-d do not include a wash step, Petitioner s reliance on these protocols for anticipation of Claims 1 and 9 is misplaced. Paper 31 at Dr. Cantor agreed that the R33 phase was going to be directed to either the one-probe or two-probe approach (Ex at 175:10-13 (emphasis added)) but not the three-probe approach. Id. at 175:14-176:15. This is consistent with Dr. Ward s testimony. Ex at 42:15-19, 51:20-52:2. This is relevant because it demonstrates that the R33 phase does not inevitably disclose a one- or two-probe protocol. The 810 application cannot anticipate Claim 1. Paper 31 at Petitioner has not shown the 810 application provides an enabling disclosure 19. Dr. Cantor testified that the 810 provisional does not detail assay design and that it requires the experts to provide assay design details and provide access to proprietary products that skilled artisans did not make. Ex at 173:10-15; id. at 238:8-14 in view of 235:6-238:7 and 257:7-258:8. Dr. Fu similarly testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to carry out the protocols disclosed in the 810 application without undo experimentation. Ex at 77:2-79:11. According to Petitioner s experts, an expert would be required to figure out the details necessary to make and use the assays disclosed in the 810 application. Petitioner has not carried its burden to show enablement of the 810 application. 11

14 20. Dr. Cantor testified that the the details of the R33 phase are vague and prophetic... Ex at 252:17-253:16. He also testified that to scale to the level of a hundred targets is going to be pretty difficult. Id. at 278:9-19. Dr. Fu similarly testified to the difficulty of performing the R33 phase in view of the insufficient teachings in the 810 application. Ex at 77:2-78:15, 85:9-14, 86:17-87:6. Accordingly, both Drs. Cantor and Fu undermine Petitioner s position that the scaled-up R33 phase would be enabled. The 810 application does not anticipate Claim Dr. Cantor agreed that the 810 application never discloses using the threeprobe approach in the R33 phase of the grant application portion of the 810 application. Ex at 175:14-178:12. This is consistent with the testimony of all other experts in the case. Ex at 42:15-19, 51:25-52:13; Ex at 82:15-85:7; Ex at 210:14-211:16; Ex , 40. This is dispositive for Claim 9 because Petitioner s argument that Claim 9 is anticipated relies on the 810 application combining the three-probe protocol of Fig. 2d from the invention disclosure portion with the 50 to 100 genes at a time language of the R33 phase in the grant application. Paper 1 at 21-22; Paper 44 at Dr. Cantor s testimony highlights that Petitioner s anticipation argument is fundamentally flawed. Since the 810 application does not make the combination on which Petitioner s case depends for Claim 9, it does not anticipate Claim 9. 12

15 22. Dr. Cantor testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art, guided by the disclosure of the 810 application, would not have been able to increase the scale of the three-probe protocol of the 810 application to determine if a sample contains more than 100 targets. Ex at 148:22-150:3, 278:9-19. This undermines Petitioner s reliance on the three-probe protocol from the 810 application to allege anticipation of Claim 9. Paper 1 at Because Ariosa failed to prove the 810 application provides an enabling disclosure for the threeprobe protocol at the scale of Claim 9, it cannot anticipate Claim Dr. Cantor testified that probes having different A/T vs. G/C content cannot be used under the same conditions, reducing the likelihood that methods requiring these divergent probes could be scaled up and multiplexed to more than 100 probes. Ex at 164:3-165:18, 168:14-169:9; Ex The 810 application states that the middle probe in the three-probe embodiment of Fig. 2d will use middle probes with highly different G/C vs. A/T content i.e., [t]he third oligo can be as short as an 8-mer or 9-mer, so that a library of all possible third oligos can be pre-generated. Ex at 7 (emphasis added). Since Dr. Cantor testified that the point of the R33 phase is to scale up the process (Ex , 34, 38), his testimony above undercuts Petitioner s assertions that a skilled artisan would think to use the three-probe embodiment in the R33 phase, especially where the 810 application does not do so. This illustrates one potential reason why the 13

16 three-probe protocol was not combined with the R33 phase in the 810 application itself, and Petitioner s basis for asserting anticipation of Claim 9 is unfounded. 24. Dr. Cantor testified that he was unfamiliar with several sections of his declaration because he relied on his attorneys to draft them, and to rehearse his testimony. Ex at 111:5-112:15, 84:13-85:15, 89:7-91:3, 91:21-92:16. The Board should bear this in mind when reviewing Dr. Cantor s testimony. Dr. Cantor s testimony supports the patentability of the challenged claims 25. Dr. Cantor testified that Illumina held strong patents in the general area of multiplexing, that the assays commercialized by Illumina based on the 794 patent were good products, and that Illumina was arguably the most successful company in -- in very high multiplex genotyping. Ex at 39:3-40:8, 52: This reinforces the patentability of Illumina s multiplexing claims. 26. Dr. Cantor testified that the 794 patent was focused on a very complex analysis to examine more than one hundred simultaneous targets that was unachieved during the time frame of his work in 2000, and difficult to develop. Ex at 128:3-14, 124:18-21 (year 2000), 278:9-19. This supports the patentability of the challenged claims. Assignor Estoppel should apply to this IPR 27. Dr. Cantor testified that Illumina s Golden Gate Assay is covered by Claim 1 of the 794 patent. Ex at 60:15-61:3, 63: This is relevant to Dr. 14

17 Oliphant s testimony that he and Dr. Steulpnagel invented the Golden Gate method. Paper 31 at 56-57; Ex at 187:15-188:3. This is further evidence that Drs. Oliphant and Steulpnagel are proper inventors of the 794 patent, and that assignor estoppel should apply in this matter. 28. Dr. Cantor testified that, while his understanding was not complete, he believed that Petitioner s test is covered by the 794 patent. Ex at 65:9-22. This is the very test developed by Drs. Oliphant and Steulpnagel for Petitioner after leaving Illumina. Paper 31 at 58. This further confirms that assignor estoppel should apply to this IPR. Petitioner uses varying levels of skill in the art to make its arguments 29. Dr. Cantor defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as having a bachelor s degree and some laboratory experience. Ex at 228:19-229:10; Ex , n.1. Likewise, Petitioner and its prior experts applied the same level of skill in the art. Paper 44 at 20, n.8; Ex ; Ex This is relevant because Dr. Kramer applied a higher level of skill in the art, requiring such a person to hold a Ph.D., or to hold a master s degree and also work with someone having a Ph.D. Ex at 70: Petitioner depends on quotes from Dr. Kramer, based on the application of Dr. Kramer s level of skill in the art, to make several arguments on Reply. Paper 44 at 19. Therefore, the testimony from Dr. Kramer is inapplicable to the level of skill in the art that Petitioner has proposed. 15

18 Respectfully submitted, Dated: Aug. 12, 2015 By: /Kerry Taylor/ Kerry Taylor, Reg. No. 43,947 William R. Zimmerman (admitted pro hac vice) Michael L. Fuller, Reg. No. 36,516 Jonathan E. Bachand, Reg. No. 67,884 Nathanael R. Luman, Reg. No. 63,160 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP Adrian C. Percer, Reg. No. 46,986 Edward R. Reines, (admitted pro hac vice) Derek C. Walter (admitted pro hac vice) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP Attorneys for Patent Owner Illumina, Inc. 16

19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of ILLUMINA MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS REPLY WITNESS CHARLES CANTOR is being served on Aug. 12, 2015, via pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.6(e) per agreement of the parties, on counsel for Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., at the addresses below: Greg Gardella cpdocketgardella@oblon.com OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA Dianna L. DeVore ddevore@convergentlaw.com CONVERGENT LAW GROUP LLP 475 N. Whisman Road, Suite 400 Mountain View, CA David L. Cavanaugh David.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com WilmerHale 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C William W. Kim William.kim@wilmerhale.com Owen K. Allen Owen.allen@wilmerhale.com WilmerHale 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA Robert J. Gunther Jr. Robert.gunther@wilmerhale.com WilmerHale 7 World Trade Center New York, NY Dated: August 12, 2015 By: /Kerry Taylor/ Kerry Taylor, Reg. No. 43,947 Attorney for Patent Owner Illumina, Inc