Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 10 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 175
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
`MEDICAL SCHOOL and CARMEL
`LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`L’ORÉAL S.A. and L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S REQUEST
`FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jeffrey L. Moyer (#3309)
`Katharine L. Mowery (#5629)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`moyer@rlf.com
`mowery@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal S.A.
`
`Dennis S. Ellis
`Katherine F. Murray
`Paul Hastings LLP
`515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA, 90071
`(213) 683-6000
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`(202) 551-1990
`
`Blaine M. Hackman
`Paul Hastings LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 318-6000
`
`Dated: August 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 10 Filed 08/04/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 176
`
`Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc.
`
`respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the documents listed below and
`
`attached hereto.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A:
`
`Response to Final Office Action Dated October 19, 2001 Pursuant to 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.F.R. 1.116(A) in U.S. Patent Application No. 09/672,348, Mailed to the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on February 11,
`
`2002.
`
`Exhibit B:
`
`Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by James G. Dobson, Jr., Ph.D. and
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael F. Ethier, Mailed to the USPTO on February 13, 2002.
`
`“Rule 201(b), Federal Rules of Evidence permits a district court to take judicial notice of
`
`facts that are ‘not subject to reasonable dispute in that [they are] . . . capable of accurate and
`
`ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’” In
`
`re NAHC, Inc. Sec. Litig., 306 F.3d 1314, 1331 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)).
`
`“[A] district court must take judicial notice ‘if requested by a party and supplied with the
`
`necessary information.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(d)). “Public records” are proper subjects
`
`of judicial notice. S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd., 181 F.3d
`
`410, 426 (3d Cir. 1999). This includes “publicly-available records filed with the USPTO.”
`
`Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp., No. 11-7303, 2013 WL 487196, at *1 n.4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2013);
`
`see also Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 705 n.5 (3d Cir. 2004) (taking judicial
`
`notice of USPTO notice of allowance); CANVS Corp. v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 587, 590 n.3
`
`(2014) (“The court may take judicial notice of PTAB [Patent and Trial Appeal Board] filings.”).
`
`The Court should take judicial notice of Exhibits A and B because they are public records
`
`from the USPTO with verifiable authenticity. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Exhibit A is offered to
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 10 Filed 08/04/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 177
`
`show that Plaintiffs made statements to the USPTO stating that an adenosine concentration of
`
`0.1%, which is 3.8 x 10-3M, and an adenosine concentration that is one-third this value is higher
`
`a maximum concentration of 10-4 M adenosine. Exhibit B is offered to show that during the
`
`inventors of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/672,348, James G. Dobson, Jr., Ph.D. and Michael
`
`F. Ethier, submitted a declaration to the USPTO stating that an adenosine concentration of one
`
`third of 0.1% (1.27 x 10-3M) is higher than a concentration of adenosine of 10-4 M or lower.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc.
`
`respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit C to the Declaration of
`
`Katherine Murray (“Murray Decl.”), filed concurrently herewith, which is a true and correct
`
`copy of Abella, M. L., Evaluation of Anti‐Wrinkle Efficacy of Adenosine‐Containing Products
`
`Using the FOITS Technique, International Journal of Cosmetic Science 28, 447-51 (2006)
`
`(“Abella”) with verifiable authenticity. Plaintiffs cite Abella in their Complaint (see D.I. 1, ¶¶
`
`26-27 (citing D.I. 1-6 at 5)), which is offered to show that Abella states that “subjects were given
`
`two of three blinded products – (C) cream with 0.1% adenosine, (A) dissolvable film with 1%
`
`adenosine or (B) placebo cream (without adenosine).” (Murray Decl., Ex. C at p. 448.)
`
`For the foregoing reasons, L’Oréal USA respectfully requests that the Court take judicial
`
`notice of Exhibits A and B attached hereto, and Murray Decl., Ex. C, filed concurrently
`
`herewith.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 10 Filed 08/04/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 178
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Frederick L. Cottrell, III
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jeffrey L. Moyer (#3309)
`Katharine L. Mowery (#5629)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`moyer@rlf.com
`mowery@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal S.A.
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Dennis S. Ellis
`Katherine F. Murray
`Paul Hastings LLP
`515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA, 90071
`(213) 683-6000
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`(202) 551-1990
`
`Blaine M. Hackman
`Paul Hastings LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 318-6000
`
`
`Dated: August 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`