`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`Cyanotech Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`IPR2013-00401
`Case:
`Patent No.: 5,527,533
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
`TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.64
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(2), Patent Owner provides this memorandum
`
`
`
`
`
`and supplemental evidence in response to Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`dated March 28, 2014.
`
`A. Objections to Foundation
`
`Petitioner’s object to Patent Owner exhibits (“POX”) 2016-2020, 2022,
`
`2024, 2025 and 2027 because “they have not been authenticated as required by
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 901.” A party authenticates a document by
`
`presenting evidence sufficient to support a finding that the document is what the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`party claims it to be. See FRE 901(a). The party must show that it has a rational
`
`basis for its claim, which it may show through circumstantial evidence. United
`
`States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831, 854 (8th Cir. Minn. 1998); see also, Anwar v.
`
`Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.,742 F.Supp.2d 367, 372 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (rejecting
`
`plaintiff’s argument that copies of agreements had not been properly authenticated
`
`where affiant stated that she had “review[ed]” the same). Documents that bear the
`
`parties company logo, among other identifiers, are indicative of authenticity. See,
`
`e.g., In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 293 (3d Cir. 1983);
`
`FTC v. Hughes, 710 F. Supp. 1520, 1522 (N.D. Tex. 1989). The fact that
`
`documents are located in the adverse party’s production (and thus its possession) is
`
`enough to authenticate them. See, e.g., United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334,
`
`1342 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1022 (1985).
`
`The following discussion and supplemental evidence eliminates any alleged
`
`doubts as to the authenticity of POX 2016-2020, 2022, 2024, 2025 and 2027-2031.
`
`POX 2016
`
`POX 2016 is a webpage published by the Macular Degeneration Association
`
`providing general information about macular degeneration that remains available
`
`on the internet. (http://macularhope.org/about-md/, last visited April 11,
`
`2014.) This webpage describes what macular degeneration is and whom it
`
`typically affects.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`POX 2017
`
`POX 2017 is an informational article about age-related macular degeneration
`
`published by Bayer that remains available on the
`
`internet. (http://press.healthcare.bayer.com/html/pdf/presse/en/electronic_press_ki
`
`ts/vegf_trap-eye/AMD_Backgrounder_final.pdf, last visited April 11, 2014.) This
`
`article describes what ARMD is, who it typically affects, and how it can be
`
`treated.
`
`POX 2018
`
`
`
`POX 2018 is a press release dated January 24, 2013, from Nutrex-Hawaii,
`
`Inc. (“Nutrex”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petitioner, Cyanotech Corporation,
`
`published in the Digital Journal. When asked about POX 2018, Brent Bailey, the
`
`Chief Executive Office of both Nutrex and Cyanotech, testified that he had no
`
`reason to think that the press release (POX 2018) was not from Nutrex-Hawaii.
`
`(Bailey March 26, 2014 Depo. Tr. at 175:4-177:10.) The press release ends with
`
`the following statement: “About Nutrex-Hawaii Founded with the goal of
`
`harnessing the benefits of microalgae to alleviate malnutrition and promote health,
`
`Nutrex-Hawaii is a global leader in microalgae products. Learn more at Nutrex-
`
`Hawaii.com”. The press release also states that Asthaxanthin is sold online at
`
`Nutrex-Hawaii.com and that members of the press can receive a free version of a
`
`book “by emailing traci(at)nutrex-hawaii(dot)com.” There are numerous indicia
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`confirming that this document was a press-release from Nutrex-Hawaii, a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Petitioner Cyanotech.
`
`POX 2019
`
`POX 2019 is the transcript of an interview of Dr. Gerald Cysewski (Chief
`
`Scientific Officer at Cyanotech) by Dr. Mercola. Dr. Cysewski testified that he
`
`was not sure on the exact date but that he definitively recalled Dr. Mercola
`
`interviewing him about the health benefits of natural asthaxanthin. (Cysewski
`
`March 7, 2014 Depo. Tr. at 43:11-44:7.) Dr. Cysweski testified that the time spent
`
`at the interview, including travel expenses, was spent as part of his job as Chief
`
`Scientific Officer at Cyanotech. (Cysewski March 7, 2014 Depo. Tr. 44:8-45:6.)
`
`Dr. Cysewski testified about the location, purpose, and substance, of the interview.
`
`(Cysewski March 7, 2014 Depo. Tr. at 43:11-50:12.) When asked about specific
`
`answer provided in POX 2019, Dr. Cysewski testified that he made the statements.
`
`(Cysewski March 7, 2014 Depo. Tr. 45:7-50:12.) The interview to which this
`
`transcript corresponds is still available via YouTube at
`
`http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM_R6qlnUZI (the statement for which Patent
`
`Owner’s cite POX 2019 appears at 7:43) and an abbreviated version of the video is
`
`available at http://articles.mercola.com/videos.aspx (the statement for which Patent
`
`Owner’s cite POX 2019 appears at 15:08).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`POX 2020
`
`POX 2020 is a printout from the website of Nutrex-Hawaii dated May 14th,
`
`2011. The first page displays the Nutrex-Hawaii logo and the subsequent pages
`
`include “Nutrex Hawaii News”. United States v. Black, 767 F.2d at 1342.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner produced a document bearing the identical text as POX
`
`2020 bearing a production number ascribed to Petitioner Cyanotech pursuant to
`
`Patent Owner’s Requests for the Production of Document and Things. (Cf. POX
`
`2020 with RA-00234287-293 (the text of both documents, including the date and
`
`authors, Bob Capelli and Dr. Gerald Cysewski, are identical).) RA-00234287-293
`
`is a confidential document and has not been included as an exhibit hereto. Should
`
`Petitioner’s object to the characterizations made about RA-00234287-293, Patent
`
`Owner reserves the right to supplement its response. Additionally, Dr. Cysewski
`
`identified POX 2020 as “a printout of the Nutrex-Hawaii website or a couple pages
`
`from the Nutrex-Hawaii website” and that it was an article posted on the Nutrex
`
`website. (Cysewski March 7, 2014 Depo. Tr. at 51:1-20; 86:4-6.)
`
`
`
`POX 2022
`
`POX 2022 is an article authored by Siri Khalsa in Nutrition News published
`
`in 2006. Mr. Capelli (Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Petitioner
`
`Cyanotech) testified that he recognized POX 2022, that the author of POX 2022
`
`asked him for some literature and he provided it to her, that the author sent him
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`POX 2022 before it published, that at least a portion of the article is taken right
`
`from a document that Capelli sent to the author, and that Cyanotech distributed the
`
`article both electronically and in hard copy for about one or two years after it
`
`published. (Capelli March 5, 2014 Depo. Tr. at 263:18-269:4.)
`
`POX 2024
`
`POX 2024 is a picture taken of a power point slide. The slide includes both
`
`the Nutrex-Hawaii logo on the left-hand side and a picture of a bottle of MD
`
`Formulas EyeAstin product sold by Nutrex displayed on right-hand side of the
`
`slide. Petitioner produced the complete slide presentation that includes POX 2024
`
`bearing a production number ascribed to Petitioner Cyanotech pursuant to Patent
`
`Owner’s Requests for the Production of Document and Things. (Cf. POX 2024
`
`with RA-001079-1128 at 1095.) RA-001079-1128 is a confidential document and
`
`has not been included as an exhibit hereto. Should Petitioner’s object to the
`
`characterizations made about RA-001079-1128, Patent Owner reserves the right to
`
`supplement its response. Nutrex assisted in drafting the slides. (Rule 30(b)6
`
`Deposition of Nutrex Tr. at 26:8-27:23.) Nutrex-Hawaii’s Medical Director, Dr.
`
`Corish and Suzy Cohen gave the presentation at a convention called Expo West in
`
`2011. (Rule 30(b)6 Deposition of Nutrex March 28, 2014 Tr. at. 26:8-27:21.)
`
`POX 2024 is a picture of a slide from the Expo West presentation by Dr. Corish in
`
`2011. (Rule 30(b)6 Deposition of Nutrex March 28, 2014 Tr. at 32:22-33:1.) Mr.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Capelli testified that he believed that POX 2024 was a slide from a presentation
`
`given by Dr. Corish and testified about the slide’s substance. (Capelli March 5,
`
`2014 Depo. Tr. at 157:18-158:17.) Mr. Capelli testified that Dr. Corish presented
`
`on behalf of Nutrex and that he was a paid consultant. (Capelli March 5, 2014
`
`Depo. Tr. at 157.) Mr. Bailey also testified that he attended the Expo West in 2011
`
`and that he specifically recalled one slide that had a Nutrex bottle on it, and that
`
`Dr. Corish presented the slide while discussing ARMD. (Bailey March 26, 2014
`
`Depo. Tr. at 54:21-56:22.)
`
`POX 2025
`
`POX 2025 is a posting dated March 23, 2013 titled “Asthaxanthin –The
`
`World’s Most Powerful Antioxidant”. Dr. Cysewski testified that Dr. Susan Smith
`
`Jones is a paid consultant to Nutrex-Hawaii. Dr. Jones maintains a webpage
`
`related to natural health supplements, and this page remains available to the public
`
`on her website (http://susansmithjones.com/book-page/skinny-astaxanthin-
`
`%E2%80%94-king-antioxidants). (Moerck Decl. at ¶ 12.)
`
`POX 2027
`
`POX 2027 is an article about asthaxanthin and eye health authored by Dr.
`
`Mercola titled “Asthaxanthin: The Most Powerful Nutrient Ever Discovered for
`
`Eye Health,” dated November 23, 2010, and displayed on the website
`
`Mercola.com. Petitioner produced the article at POX 2027 pursuant to Patent
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Owner’s Request for the Production of Documents and Things. (Cf. POX 2027
`
`with RA-220282-288 (internal email from Bob Capelli’s Cyanotech email address,
`
`dated November 23, 2011, attaching and forwarding the full article entitled “The
`
`Most Powerful Nutrient Ever Discovered for Eye Health” with the byline “Posted
`
`By Dr. Mercola/November 23, 2010/85,580 views”).) RA-220282-288 is a
`
`confidential document and has not been included as an exhibit hereto. Should
`
`Petitioner’s object to the characterizations made about RA-220282-288, Patent
`
`Owner reserves the right to supplement its response. Dr. Mercola maintains a
`
`website directed to osteopathic medicine, and this article remains available on that
`
`website (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/23/astaxanthin-
`
`the-eye-antioxidant-550-times-more-powerful-than-vitamin-e.aspx). (Moerck
`
`Decl. at ¶ 11.) There is no real dispute that this document is what Patent Owner
`
`purports it to be.
`
`B. Hearsay Objections
`
`Petitioner’s also object to POX 2018-2020, 2022, 2024, 2025, and 2027 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and FRE 802-807. But the exhibits are not
`
`hearsay pursuant to FRE 801(d)(2). The exhibits and statements made therein
`
`satisfy either FRE 801(d)(2)(A) as Petitioner’s own statements or FRE(d)(2)(B) as
`
`statements of which the Petitioner has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth
`
`or both. See Chandler Dawson v. Chandler Dawson and Lyle Bowman, 710 F3d
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2013); Schering Corp. v. Pfizer Inc. et al., 189 F.3d
`
`218, 238-240 (2nd. Cir. Aug. 17, 1999). Publications offered for the limited
`
`purpose of showing industry practice are not hearsay. See Link v. Mercedes-Benz
`
`of North America, Inc., 788 F.2d 918 (3d Cir. 1986).
`
`POX 2018
`
`POX 2018 is a Nutrex press release issued by Nutrex and reflects
`
`Petitioner’s own statement; accordingly, it constitutes an admission by party-
`
`opponent and is not hearsay. FRE 801(d)(2)(A).
`
`POX 2019
`
`POX 2019, the transcript of Dr. Mercola’s interview of Dr. Cysewski,
`
`represents statements made by Cyanotech’s Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Cysewski
`
`in his role as the Chief Scientific Officer at Cyanotech (Cysewski March 7, 2014
`
`Depo. Tr. at 43:11-50:12) and thus reflect Petitioner’s own statement; accordingly,
`
`it constitutes an admission by a party-opponent and is not hearsay. FRE
`
`801(d)(2)(D).
`
`POX 2020
`
`POX 2020 is an article included on the Nutrex-Hawaii website with the
`
`Nutrex-Hawaii logo and/or “Nutrex-Hawaii-News” identified on each page and
`
`thus reflects Petitioner’s own statements or statements in which it manifested an
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`adoption and belief. FRE 801(d)(2)(A), FRE 801(d)(2)(B). (Cysewski March 7,
`
`2014 Depo. Tr. at 51:1-20; 86:4-6.)
`
`POX 2022
`
`POX 2022 is an article authored by Siri Khalsa in Nutrition News published
`
`in 2006. Petitioners showed that it manifested an adoption and belief in the
`
`substance of POX 2022 and/or adopted the statements therein as its own by
`
`distributing the same for about two years after it published in both hard copy and
`
`electronic form. (Capelli March 5, 2014 Depo. Tr. at 263:18-269:4.) Additionally,
`
`Mr. Capelli testified that he provided the author of the article with at least a portion
`
`of its substance. Id. Thus, this information is not hearsay under FRE 801(d)(2)(B).
`
`This article is offered as evidence of industry acclaim and praise that is the
`
`perception of those in the relevant arts. Thus, it is not being offered for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted. For this reason as well, this article is not hearsay.
`
`POX 2024
`
`Petitioners contend that the statement made in this slide presented by Dr.
`
`Corish noting “Macular degeneration (Univ. of Illinois patent)” and other
`
`statements from the slide about macular degeneration are inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Petitioner’s manifested an adoption and belief in the substance of POX 2024
`
`and/or adopted the statements therein as its own because its Medical Director, a
`
`paid consultant to Nutrex-Hawaii, gave the presentation on behalf of Nutrex-
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Hawaii with a bottle of Nutrex-Hawaii’s product prominently displayed on the
`
`slide along with the Nutrex-Hawaii logo. Accordingly, this slide is not hearsay
`
`under FRE 801(d)(2)(D) and/or FRE 801(d)(2)(B).
`
`POX 2025
`
`Petitioners contend that the statement in this article identifying Dr. Corish as
`
`an expert in the Asthaxanthin area is inadmissible hearsay. Statements concerning
`
`the reputation of someone to those of skill in the art are not hearsay, but merely
`
`reflect the perception other persons in the art have about the subject individual.
`
`POX 2027
`
`Petitioners contend that Dr. Mercola’s statements about Dr. Tso’s discovery
`
`and contributions are inadmissible hearsay. But these statements are not hearsay as
`
`the statements are not being relied upon for their truth, but to show the perception
`
`of those of skill in the field. Whether the statements made therein are true is
`
`immaterial. This is evidence of industry acclaim, which is routinely received by
`
`Courts addressing the obviousness of an invention.
`
`The exhibits are not hearsay for the additional reason that they show the
`
`state of mind of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owners do not offer
`
`the statements to prove that they are in fact true statements; instead, Patent Owners
`
`simply seek to show that people in the industry made the statements at issue.
`
`Petitioner’s also assert that POX 2016 and POX 2017 are inadmissible hearsay.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Both POX 2016 and 2017 originate from the internet that constitute the type
`
`reasonable relied on by an expert.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Objections to POX 2028-2031 and 2003
`
`POX 2028-2031 (replaced with POX 2033-2036)
`
`Petitioner’s object to the admissibility of POX 2028-2031 based on FRE
`
`402-403, 801, 802-807, and 901. POX 2028-2031 correspond to license
`
`agreements between the Patent Owners and four different third parties.1 Petitioner
`
`recently deposed two individuals concerning a number of these (and similar)
`
`licenses and confirmed that Valensa has numerous licenses with third parties that
`
`cover the Tso patent at issue.
`
`With respect to the relevance objections under FRE 402 and 403,
`
`Petitioner’s argue that these documents “do not establish a sufficient nexus
`
`between the subject matter of any of these documents and the challenged claims.”
`
`(Petitioner’s Objections at 2.) Petitioner provides no evidence to corroborate this
`
`statement. Each of these licenses expressly includes a license to the Tso patent.
`
`(Moerck Decl. at ¶¶ 7-10.) It is black letter law that licenses to a patent constitute
`
`objective evidence, or secondary considerations, of non-obviousness. It is black
`
`
`1 Patent Owner inadvertently submitted only the first page of these license
`agreements when it filed its Response. Patent Owner hereby submits POX 2033
`through POX 2036, which are the complete license agreements, to replace POX
`2028 through POX 2031, respectively. Petitioner has been in possession of the
`complete licenses agreements since before Patent Owner filed its initial response.
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`letter law that licenses to a patent constitute objective evidence, or secondary
`
`considerations, of non-obviousness. See Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713
`
`F.2d 1530, 1538-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983)( “It is jurisprudentially inappropriate to
`
`disregard any relevant evidence on any issue in any case, patent cases included.
`
`Thus evidence rising out of the so-called “secondary considerations” must always
`
`when present be considered en route to a determination of obviousness.”) For this
`
`reason, Courts routinely accept licenses to patents being subjected to an
`
`obviousness challenge. Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013);
`
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`
`Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1374-1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010); Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976
`
`F.2d 1559, 1574-75 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Dr. Moerck has submitted a declaration
`
`confirming that they are true and accurate copies of licenses with four different
`
`third-parties in which Valensa licensed the Tso patent. (Moerck Decl. at ¶ 3.)
`
`These documents are highly relevant, and any alleged risk of prejudice, confusion,
`
`or waste of time does not “substantially outweigh” the probative value of the
`
`license agreements.
`
`With respect to the hearsay objections under Rules 801 and 802-807, these
`
`licenses are not hearsay, but are verbal acts representing an offer and an acceptance
`
`to form a binding agreement and contract. See, e.g., Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`152 Bronx, L.P., No. H-11-3406, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42798, *27-28 (S.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 26, 2014); Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, 12 F.3d 527, 540 (5th
`
`Cir. 1994). In addition, these licenses are clear business records, subject to Rule
`
`803(6). (Moerck Decl. at ¶¶ 4-6.)
`
`Finally, with respect to authentication, as previously discussed, Dr.
`
`Moerck’s declaration testimony confirms that POX 2033 through POX 2036
`
`(corresponding to POX 2028 through POX 2031) are true and accurate copies of
`
`licenses to the Tso patent. (Moerck Decl. at ¶ 3.)
`
`POX 2003
`
`Petitioner’s state that POX 2003 is “an incomplete copy of a deposition
`
`transcript” and that the “complete transcript and exhibits should have been
`
`submitted.” (Petitioner’s Objections at 2.) To be sure, POX 2003 is an excerpt of
`
`the deposition transcript for Patent Owner’s deposition of Petitioner’s expert
`
`declarant, Dr. Schwiegert. POX 2003 does not include the portion of the transcript
`
`corresponding to Petitioner’s redirect examination of Dr. Schweigert. Petitioner’s
`
`examination suffered from many infirmities, including leading questions, questions
`
`exceeding the scope of cross-examination, questions exceeding the scope of the
`
`original declaration, and questions that resulted in the introduction of new opinions
`
`and evidence that was not included in the declaration and was disclosed to Patent
`
`Owner for the first time at the deposition. See, e.g., FRE 611(b), 611(c). Patent
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Owner only offered an excerpt of the transcript into evidence in order to avoid
`
`introducing evidence it does not believe to be admissible or properly in front of the
`
`Board. In the event that the Board believes an entire transcript is required;
`
`however, without waiving its objections to the testimony elicited from Dr.
`
`Schweigert by Petitioner, Patent Owner can provide a complete copy of the
`
`deposition transcript.
`
`Dated: April 11, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Mark D. Schuman
`Mark D. Schuman (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 31,197
`CARLSON CASPERS
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 436-9600
`Facsimile: (612) 436-9650
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner The Board of
`Trustees of the University of Illinois
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on April 11,
`
`
`
`2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Response to
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.64 was served via
`
`electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 37,515
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`901 North Glebe Road, 11th Floor
`Arlington, VA 22203-1808
`Telephone: (703) 816-4043
`Email: jar@nixonvan.com
`
`George E. Darby (Back-up Counsel)
`PARADISE PATENT SERVICES, INC.
`95 – 1045 Alakaina St.
`Mililani, HI 96789
`Telephone: (808) 626-1300
`Email: cyan@teleport-asia.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Cyanotech Corporation, including
`its subsidiary, Nutrex Hawaii, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Mark D. Schuman
`Mark D. Schuman (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 31,197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`