`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NUVASIVE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WARSAW ORTHOPEDICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00208
`Patent 8,251,997
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER OBJECTIONS TO UNAUTHORIZED SUBMISSION
`
`AND EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00208
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-112IP1
`
`Introduction
`
`On January 14, 2014, Patent Owner submitted new exhibits WARSAW2057
`
`though WARSAW2062 in the present inter partes review proceeding, and stated in
`
`a “Notice of Supplemental Evidence” paper (submitted also on January 14, 2014)
`
`that the exhibits were being submitted in response to Petitioner’s December 30,
`
`2013 objections—purportedly as “supplemental evidence pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(2).” Contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c), no authorized paper was submitted
`
`with the new exhibits that “cited” to them. In addition, no explanation
`
`accompanying the exhibit submission provided what, if any, portions of the
`
`exhibits are relevant, and to what issues in the proceedings the exhibits are
`
`relevant.
`
`Furthermore, at least new WARSAW2060 is not a single document but
`
`rather a compilation of two different documents including prior witness testimony
`
`taken during different days of a trial. None of WARSAW2057-2062 was
`
`previously made of record in this proceeding (for example, not referenced in the
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response or the Patent Owner’s Response).
`
`To the extent any of WARSAW2057-2060 is somehow a different version of
`
`documents previously made of record in this proceeding, there is no explanation as
`
`to whether prior exhibits were being withdrawn and no explanation addressing this
`
`Board’s rule that exhibits are not to be resubmitted (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d)).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00208
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-112IP1
`Regarding WARSAW2061-2062 in particular, Warsaw has represented that these
`
`two documents are intended to replace withdrawn Exhibits WARSAW2046-2047,
`
`which were improperly submitted in violation of a protective order from the
`
`District Court of the Southern District of California. These newly submitted
`
`Exhibits WARSAW2061-2062, however, are different from the withdrawn
`
`Exhibits WARSAW2046-2047 and thus reflect an attempt to add evidence in
`
`violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c).
`
`Objection to Unauthorized Submission of Exhibits
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner objects to the improper submission of all of the
`
`newly submitted exhibits—namely, WARSAW2057 through WARSAW2062—
`
`into the record of the present proceeding without authorization by the Board and
`
`without citation in a document explaining the relevance of the exhibits (as required
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c). These new exhibits were not referenced in the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response previously submitted in December 2013 or the earlier
`
`Preliminary Response. In addition, no authorization was sought or obtained to
`
`make this submission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120.
`
`Also, Petitioner submits that while 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) provides for the
`
`“service” of supplemental evidence in response to a timely made objection under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the rules of the Board, including 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2),
`
`do not authorize the submission of the supplemental exhibits into the evidence of
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00208
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-112IP1
`record in the proceeding separate and independent from any proper submission in
`
`the proceeding. The unauthorized submission of exhibits is further improper here
`
`given that Warsaw has not referenced these exhibits in any properly submitted
`
`paper or explained the relevance of the submitted exhibits. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(c).
`
`Objections to Evidence under 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1)
`
`In addition, Petitioner further objects, under 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1), to
`
`exhibits WARSAW2061-2062 under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 (relevance), 403
`
`(Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons), 802 (hearsay) and 901
`
`(authentication). In addition, Petitioner notes that WARSAW2059 is insufficient
`
`to overcome the previous evidentiary objections for WARSAW2050-2052 (as
`
`provided in Petitioner’s December 30, 2013 objections).
`
`These objections are being timely served within five business days of Patent
`
`Owner’s service of the exhibits, in accordance with Bd. R. 42.64(b)(1).
`
`
`
`
`Date: Jan. 22, 2014
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2508
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /Stephen R. Schaefer, Reg. No. 37,927/
`Stephen R. Schaefer
`Reg. No. 37,927
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00208
`Attorney Docket No: 13958-112IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on January 22, 2014, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner Objections
`to Unauthorized Submission and Evidence was provided via email to the Patent
`Owner by serving the correspondence email addresses of record as follows:
`
`Thomas H. Martin
`Wesley C. Meinerding
`Email: tmartin@martinferraro.com
`Email: docketing@martinferraro.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`