`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CYANOTECH CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401[1]
`
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`____________
`
`
`Submitted: June 9, 2014
`
`
`[1] Consolidated with Case IPR2013-00404
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of the Precise Relief Requested .................................................... 1
`
`Basis for Exclusion of Licensing Exhibits (Exs. 2033-2036) ....................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Statement of Material Facts ................................................................. 1
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Futurebiotics License (Ex. 2033) .............................................. 2
`
`Life Extension License (Ex. 2034) ........................................... 3
`
`iii. Now License (Ex. 2035) ........................................................... 5
`
`iv.
`
`Swanson Amendment to License (Ex. 2036) ........................... 6
`
`B.
`
`Statement of the Reasons for the Requested Relief ............................ 8
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Controlling Law ........................................................................ 8
`
`The Valensa Licensing Exhibits (Exs. 2033-2036) Are
`Irrelevant and Highly Confusing and/or Misleading ................ 8
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Page
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387 (Fed.
` Cir. 1988) .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC., IPR2013-00082, slip. op.
` (PTAB May 15, 2014, Paper 83) .................................................................... 8, 10
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Nikon Corp.,No. 04-01337, 2009 WL 577274 (D. Del.
` Mar. 4, 2009) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................... 9
`
`In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ....................................................... 8, 9
`
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ......................................................... 8
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., IPR2012-00005, slip. op. (PTAB Feb.
` 11, 2014, Paper 68) ............................................................................................... 8
`
`SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349
` (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................................10
`
`
`Rules & Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ............................................................................................. 1, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`FRE 402 .............................................................................................................. 1, 8
`
`FRE 403 .............................................................................................................. 1, 8
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Statement of the Precise Relief Requested
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Cyanotech Corporation (“Petitioner”)
`
`hereby moves to exclude Exhibits 2033-2036, submitted by the Board of Trustees
`
`of the University of Illinois (“Patent Owner”) in support of its Response (“Resp.”)
`
`(Paper No. 32).
`
`Petitioner objects to the licensing agreements submitted as Patent Owner's
`
`Exhibits 2033-2036 because they have been offered in an attempt to prove that
`
`others objectively valued the challenged claims. Petitioner served timely
`
`objections to evidence for the licensing agreements originally submitted as
`
`Exhibits 2028-2031 on March 21, 2014 with Paper No. 32. On April 11, 2014,
`
`Patent Owner submitted a response to Petitioner’s Exhibits (Paper No. 34) and
`
`Exhibits 2033-2036 as replacement exhibits for Exhibits 2028-2031. Petitioner
`
`now moves to exclude the replacement exhibits because they are irrelevant
`
`(Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 402), and also highly confusing, misleading
`
`and would lead to an unnecessary waste of time to address (FRE 403).
`
`II. Basis for Exclusion of Licensing Exhibits (Ex. 2033-2036)
`
`A.
`
`Statement of Material Facts
`
`Patent Owner has offered four licensing agreements (Ex. 2033-2036) in
`
`support of its argument that the challenged claims are not obvious because of the
`
`“strong licensing history” of the patent in issue. (Resp. at 49). Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`originally licensed U.S. Patent No. 5,527,533 (“the Tso Patent”) to LaHaye
`
`Laboratories, Inc. (“LaHaye”). In 2002, U.S. Nutraceuticals, LLC d/b/a Valensa
`
`International (“Valensa”) purchased the assets of LaHaye, including LaHaye’s
`
`rights in the Tso Patent. (Id.) The four licensing agreements at issue were
`
`between Valensa and Futurebiotics, LLC (“Futurebiotics”) (Ex. 2033), Quality
`
`Supplements and Vitamins, Inc. d/b/a Life Extension (“Life Extension”) (Ex.
`
`2034), NOW Health Group, Inc. (“NOW”) (Ex. 2035), and Swanson Health
`
`Products, Inc. (“Swanson”) (Ex. 2036). Patent Owner has not proffered any
`
`evidence establishing a nexus between the licenses and the challenged claims.
`
`(See Resp. at 49.)
`
`i.
`
`Futurebiotics License (Ex. 2033)
`
`The Futurebiotics license (Ex. 2033) (Resp. at 49) is identified as a “Product
`
`Use and Trademark License,” not a patent license agreement. It grants
`
`“trademark rights and patent rights,” “Product related trade secrets and know-how”
`
`and rights to manufacture and sell the “Product,” which is defined as the
`
`“Zanthin™ brand of natural astaxanthin oleoresin derived from Haematococcus
`
`pluvialis.” (Ex. 2033 at 1 and Exhibit A). The Grant of License (Section I) is
`
`limited to trademarks rights and manufacturing rights for “products that embody or
`
`contain the Product of Exhibit A” and makes no mention of any of the challenged
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`claims or any use of the licensed product to “treat” any of the damage, injury,
`
`diseases or conditions covered by the Tso Patent.
`
`The only mention of the Tso patent in the Futurebiotics license is in Exhibit
`
`A, which states that the Licensed Rights are the use of ZanthinTM brand "oleoresin
`
`derived from Haematococcus pluvialis" in "Licensee's eye healthcare products",
`
`which is a manufacturing formulation right, outside the scope of the challenged
`
`claims, and definitely not a method of treating.
`
`The Futurebiotics license does not include any royalty payments aside from
`
`an upfront $1,000 licensing fee. Such a nominal fee is hardly proof of industry
`
`recognition of the value of the licensed subject matter, i.e., a trademark and a
`
`product, let alone industry recognition of the value of the patent claims at issue in
`
`this proceeding. Patent Owner contends that Valensa “receive[d] financial
`
`compensation, in the form of sales of astaxanthin products, from its licensee’s use
`
`of the licensed patent rights,” (Declaration of Dr. Rudi Moerck, Paper No. 35
`
`(“Moerck Dec.”) at 3) but offers no evidence that such sales would not have
`
`occurred absent the license with Futurebiotics nor any evidence to show that these
`
`unquantified sales were generated by the value of the claims at issue rather than the
`
`trademark rights, manufacturing formulation rights, and other intellectual property
`
`covered by the license, or simply a favorable price of the products sold.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`Life Extension License (Ex. 2034)
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Like Ex. 2033, the license to Life Extension (Ex. 2034), a natural
`
`supplement retailer, (Resp. at 49) is also identified as a “Product Use and
`
`Trademark License” and not a patent license agreement. The license grants
`
`“trademark rights and patent rights,” “Product-related trade secrets and know-how”
`
`and rights to manufacture and sell “Product I,” which is defined as the “Zanthin™
`
`brand of astaxanthin.” (Ex. 2034 at 1 and Exhibit A). Although the license
`
`mentions that Product I is “sold for the management of eye health issues related to
`
`the claims of the [Tso patent],” it does not identify those “eye health issues;” does
`
`not identify any retinal diseases or conditions; does not identify any actual
`
`treatment use; and does not identify any actual claims. As discussed below, the
`
`Life Extension agreement also includes other patents, products and uses.
`
`The Life Extension license specifically grants rights under U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,319,524 and 6,669,968 relating to saw palmetto, an entirely different product
`
`with entirely different uses from those covered by the Tso Patent. The license
`
`also grants “trademark rights and patent rights,” “Product-related trade secrets and
`
`know-how” and rights to manufacturing the Product II,” i.e., “USPlus® brand of
`
`Saw Palmetto extract” for use in “Licensee’s prostrate [sic] health products.” (Ex.
`
`2034 at 1 and Exhibit B). This license, like the others at issue, provides no means
`
`for ascertaining the value, if any, attributed to the patent claims at issue as opposed
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`to the licensed rights to the multiple trademarks and multiple other patents and
`
`products covered by its terms. Ex. 2034 grants advertising rights “when such
`
`products are sold for the management of eye health issues related to the claims of
`
`US 5,527,533…” (emphasis added), but a license of advertising rights “related to”
`
`patent claims is not a license of patent claims.
`
`The Life Extension license also does not include any royalty payments to
`
`Valensa. The absence of any licensing fee suggests the absence of industry
`
`recognition of value for the licensed trademarks, products and patents, of which the
`
`Tso Patent claims were but a small part. Patent Owner contends that Valensa
`
`“receive[d] financial compensation, in the form of sales of astaxanthin products,
`
`from its licensee’s use of the licensed patent rights” (Moerck Dec. at 3), but offers
`
`no evidence that such sales, if any (none are established), would not have occurred
`
`absent the license with Life Extension, let alone that such sales were driven by the
`
`patent claims at issue rather than the price or quality of the products sold, including
`
`the saw palmetto product and/or its associated intellectual property.
`
`iii. NOW License (Ex. 2035)
`
`Like Exs. 2033 and 2034, the NOW license (Ex. 2035) also mentions the
`
`Tso patent, (Resp. at 49), but once again, the license is identified as a “Product Use
`
`and License Agreement,” not a patent license agreement and only grants
`
`“trademark rights,” “Product related trade secrets and know-how” and rights to
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`manufacture and sell the “Product,” which is defined as the “Zanthin™ brand of
`
`astaxanthin.” (Ex. 2035 at 1 and Exhibit A). The only mention of the Tso
`
`patent occurs in Exhibit A and the license makes no mention of the challenged
`
`claims or any treatment use.
`
`The NOW license does not include any royalty payments to Valensa,
`
`strongly suggesting the absence of industry recognition of value for the licensed
`
`trademark, product and patent, even combined in a “package deal.” Patent Owner
`
`again contends that Valensa “receive[d] financial compensation, in the form of
`
`sales of astaxanthin products, from its licensee’s use of the licensed patent rights”
`
`(Moerck Dec. at 3), but offers no evidence that such unqualified sales would not
`
`have occurred absent the sublicense with NOW, or that other factors, such as
`
`commercial terms or the other licensed IP, did not drive those sales.
`
`iv.
`
`Swanson Amendment to License (Ex. 2036)
`
`Patent Owner did not produce the actual Valensa license to natural
`
`supplement retailer, Swanson (Resp. at 49). Ex. 2036 is only an amendment to a
`
`“Product Use and Trademark License.” The actual license was not submitted as
`
`evidence. (Ex. 2036 at 1). The amendment is identified as an “Amendment to [a]
`
`Product Use and Trademark License” and not a patent license agreement. The
`
`amendment only grants trademark rights and rights pertaining to “labeling and
`
`advertizing [sic]” for the use and sale of “Product I,” which appears to be “Zanthin
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`brand” astaxanthin.” (Ex. 2036 at 1). The only mention of the Tso patent occurs
`
`on the first page of Ex. 2036 and the amendment does not specify the challenged
`
`claims or any treatment use of astaxanthin.
`
`The Swanson Amendment also grants rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,319,524
`
`and 6,669,968 relating to the US Plus brand of saw palmetto for prostrate [sic]
`
`health products, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/043,773 relating to
`
`ChiaGold brand of omega-3 based products, and U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`2009/0226548 relating to Cran-Gyn DDS for urinary tract health ailments. The
`
`amendment also grants trademark rights and rights pertaining to “labeling and
`
`advertizing [sic]” of the aforementioned products and maladies. (Ex. 2036 at 1
`
`and Appended Exhibit D). It is impossible to ascribe any value of this
`
`amendment to the Tso Patent claims at issue considering that the amendment
`
`grants rights to multiple trademarks for multiple products “related to” patent rights
`
`and does not include, let alone segregate, any royalty payments for any of these
`
`rights.
`
`Indeed, the amendment does not include any royalty payments to Valensa at
`
`all. The absence of a licensing fee suggests the absence of industry recognition of
`
`value for the licensed trademarks, products and patents/patent applications.
`
`Patent Owner again contends that Valensa “receive[d] financial compensation, in
`
`the form of sales of astaxanthin products, from its licensee’s use of the licensed
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`patent rights” (Moerck Dec. at 3), but offers no support that such sales, if any,
`
`would not have occurred absent the amendment with Swanson or how those sales
`
`were in any way driven by the patent claims at issue as opposed to the various
`
`other products and rights covered by the amendment or such other mundane
`
`commercial realities as price, delivery terms, product availability and the like.
`
`B.
`
`Statement of the Reasons for the Requested Relief
`
`i.
`
`Controlling Law
`
`Under FRE 402, made applicable to the current proceedings by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.62, evidence must be relevant to be admissible. Moreover, even relevant
`
`evidence may be excluded if it is more confusing, and/or misleading than relevant
`
`and would lead to an unnecessary waste of time to address. FRE 403; see also 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`ii. The Valensa Licensing Exhibits (Ex. 2033-2036) Are
`Irrelevant and Highly Confusing and/or Misleading
`
`The Board has recognized that “there must be a nexus between the merits of
`
`the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations.” (Nichia Corp.
`
`v. Emcore Corp., IPR2012-00005, slip. op. 44 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2014, Paper 68),
`
`quoting In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Additionally “the
`
`burden of showing that there is a nexus lies with the patent owner.” (Nichia Corp.,
`
`IPR2012-00005, slip. op. 44, quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1482 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994); Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1988)). See also (EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC.,
`
`IPR2013-00082, slip. op. 55 (PTAB May 15, 2014, Paper 83), quoting GPAC, 57
`
`F.3d at 1580) (“[a] party relying on licensing activities as evidence of
`
`non-obviousness must demonstrate a nexus between those activities and the subject
`
`matter of the claims at issue.”) Patent Owner has failed to show that there is any
`
`nexus between the Tso Patent claims at issue and the “licensing history” it has
`
`proffered.
`
`The same point is made in In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1293-94
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) and Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Nikon Corp., No. 04-01337, 2009 WL
`
`577274, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2009) (Ex. 1080) (excluding multiple licenses that
`
`covered “multiple patents and a range of licensee activity” after finding they
`
`“lacked a sufficient nexus to the asserted patent claim.”). Here, neither Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32) nor its response to Petitioner’s objections to
`
`evidence (Paper No. 34) properly address the nexus requirement and the proffered
`
`evidence is certainly not probative on its face. The licensed rights contained in
`
`Ex. 2033-2036 are primarily for trademark rights, trade secrets and know-how, and
`
`the manufacturing formulation of Zanthin ™ brand Astaxanthin. Additionally,
`
`Exs. 2034 and 2036 address multiple trademarks, patents and products. The
`
`subject matter of the claims at issue, a method of treating specific diseases or
`
`injuries of the retina, is never mentioned in any of the four licenses.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Patent Owner also failed to provide any reasonable basis or explanation for
`
`the estimated “value” of the licenses in its response. The declaration submitted
`
`by Valensa’s CEO with Patent Owner’s response to Petitioner’s Objections argues
`
`that Valensa received “financial compensation, in the form of sales of astaxanthin
`
`products, from its licensee’s use of the licensed patent rights.” (Moerck Dec. at 3).
`
`However, no nexus was established between those unquantified sales and the
`
`claims of the patent at issue. Moreover, the licenses also included trademark
`
`rights and rights to manufactured products so that it is unclear even what was
`
`meant by “licensed patent rights”. Additionally, two of those licenses included
`
`manufacturing rights that were not even related to astaxanthin, including products
`
`involving saw palmetto for prostate health issues, chia seeds for omega-3 based
`
`products, and other products for urinary tract health. Given the presence of
`
`multiple rights and product uses, it is impossible to glean the value, if any, that any
`
`licensee placed on the patent rights in question.
`
`The Board has stated that “without a showing of nexus, ‘the mere existence
`
`of … licenses is insufficient to overcome the conclusion of obviousness’ when
`
`there is a strong ground of unpatentability based on obviousness.” (EMC Corp.,
`
`IPR2013-00082, slip. Op. 55 (quoting SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm.
`
`Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Here, the proffered licenses do not
`
`even address the medical treatment of specified eye diseases covered by the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`challenged patent claims. Instead, the licenses include trademark rights, trade
`
`secrets, know-how rights, and manufacturing rights to various products, including,
`
`but not limited to, astaxanthin. Petitioner respectfully moves the Board to
`
`exclude Exhibits 2033-2036 from the evidence in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Joseph A. Rhoa/
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Reg. No. 37,515
`George E. Darby
`Reg. No. 44,053
`Counsel for Petitioner Cyanotech
`Corporation
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`“CYAN” = CYANOTECH
`U.S. Pat. 5,527,533 (the “’533 patent”)
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1001
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1002
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1003
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1004
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1005
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1006
`
`
`
`
`
`Grangaud, René, “Astaxanthin Research, New
`Vitamin A Factor”, 69 pp. (Éditions Desoer,
`Liège, 1951), English translation, with
`Translator’s Certificate.
`
`Grangaud, René, “Recherches sur
`l’Astaxanthine, Nouveau Facteur, Vitaminique
`A”, 69 pp. (Éditions Desoer, Liège, 1951), in
`French.
`
`Massonet, Reneé, “Research into the
`Biochemistry of Astaxanthin”, 146 pp.
`(F.Fontana, Algiers, 1960), English translation,
`with Translator’s Certificate.
`
`Massonet, Reneé, “Recherches sur la
`Biochemie de l’Astaxanthine,”, 146 pp.
`(F.Fontana, Algiers, 1960, in French.
`
`Office Actions and Responses (including
`Declarations) in App. No. 08/330,194
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Bibliographic citations and abstracts of the
`Grangaud and Massonet References, including
`exemplary searches in Chemical Abstracts print
`media (1947 to 1965) and online databases
`(available pre-Critical Date)
`
`Massonet, R., Conquy, T., and Grangaud,
`R.R. “The Study of Astaxanthin
`Transformation into Vitamin A in the Albino
`Rat: in vitro Experiments”, Ann. Nutrit.
`Alimentation, Vol. 19 pp. pages C655-C658
`(1965)), English translation, with Translator’s
`Certificate for Exs. 1008, 1010, 1012, 1014,
`1016, and 1018.
`
`Massonet, R., Conquy, T., and Grangaud,
`R.R. “Étude de la transformation de
`l'astaxanthine en vitamine A chez le Rat albinos:
`Expériences ‘in vitro’”, Ann. Nutrit.
`Alimentation, Vol. 19 pp. pages C655-C658
`(1965)), in French.
`
`Grangaud, René; Massonet, Renée; Conquy
`Thérèse; and Ridolfo, Jacqueline,
`“Transformation of Astaxanthin to Vitamin A
`in the Albino Rat: Neoformation in vivo and
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1007
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1008
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1009
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1010
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`in vitro”, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des
`Seances de l'Academie des Sciences, Vol. 252,
`pp. 1854-1856 (1961b), English translation.
`
`Grangaud, René; Massonet, Renée; Conquy
`Thérèse; and Ridolfo, Jacqueline,
`“Transformation de l'astaxanthine en vitamine
`A chez le Rat albinos: néoformation in vivo et
`in vitro”, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des
`Seances de l'Academie des Sciences, Vol. 252,
`pp. 1854-1856 (1961b), in French.
`
`Massonet, R., Conquy, T., and Grangaud, R.,
`“Transformation of astaxanthin to vitamin A by
`ocular tissue of the rat in vitro”, Comptes
`Rendus Hebdomadaires des seances de la
`Societe de biologie et de ses filiales, Vol. 155,
`pp. 747-750 (1961a), English translation.
`
`Massonet, R., Conquy, T., and Grangaud, R.,
`“Transformation in vitro de l'astaxanthine en
`vitamine A par le tissu oculaire du Rat”,
`Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des seances
`de la Societe de biologie et de ses filiales, Vol.
`155, pp. 747-750 (1961a) , in French.
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1011
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1012
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Grangaud, R., and Massonet, R.,
`“Antixerophthalmic effect of the esters of
`astaxanthin”, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires
`des seances de la Societe de biologie et de ses
`filiales, Vol. 148, pp. 1392-1394 (1954),
`English translation.
`
`Grangaud, R., and Massonet, R., “Activité
`antixérophtalmique des esters de l'astaxanthine”,
`Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des seances
`de la Societe de biologie et de ses filiales, Vol.
`148, pp. 1392-1394 (1954), in French.
`
`Grangaud, René, and Massonet, Renée,
`“Antixerophthalmic Activity of the Carotenoid
`Pigment of the Aristeomorpha foliacea
`(Penæidæ)”, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires
`des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences, Vol.
`230, pp. 1319-1321 (March 27, 1950), English
`translation.
`
`Grangaud, René, and Massonet, Renée,
`“Activité antixérophtalmique du pigment
`caroténoïde d'Aristeomorpha foliacea
`(Penæidæ)”, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires
`des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences, Vol.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1016
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1017
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`230, pp. 1319-1321 (March 27, 1950) , in
`French.
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1018
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1019
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1020
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1021
`
`
`
`Grangaud, René, and Massonet, Renée, “The
`Action of Shrimp Oil (Penaeus foliaceus) on
`the Vitamin A Deficient White Rat”, Comptes
`Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de
`l'Academie des Sciences, Vol. 227, pp. 568-570
`(1948), English translation.
`
`Grangaud, René, and Massonet, Renée, “Action
`de l'huile de Crevette (Penaeus foliaceus) sur le
`Rat blanc carence en vitamine A”, Comptes
`Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de
`l'Academie des Sciences, Vol. 227, pp.
`568-570 (1948), in French.
`
`Kurashige, M. et al., "Inhibition of Oxidative
`Injury of Biological Membranes by
`Astaxanthin", Physiol. Chem. Phys. and Med.
`NMR, 22, pp. 27-38 (1990).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,310,764 (“Treatment of age
`related macular degeneration with
`beta-carotene”), to Baranowitz, et al., issued 10
`May 1994.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Herisset, Armand, “Antioxidant properties of
`carotenoids and their derivatives”. Comptes
`Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de
`l’Académie des Sciences, v.253, pp. 47-49
`(July – December) 1946, English translation,
`with Translator’s Certificate.
`
`Herisset, Armand, “Propriétés antioxygènes des
`carotènoïdes et de leurs derives”. Comptes
`Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de
`l’Académie des Sciences, v.253, pp. 47-49
`(July – December) 1946, in French.
`
`Dowling, J.E. and Wald, G., “Vitamin A
`deficiency and night blindness”. (US)
`PNAS 44:648, (1958).
`
`Dowling, J.E. and Wald, G., “The Biological
`Function of Vitamin A,” (US) PNAS 46(5),
`587–608 (1960).
`
`Dowling, J.E. and Gibbons, I.R., “The effect
`of vitamin A deficiency on the fine structure of
`the retina”, in The Structure of the Eye, Smelser
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1022
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1023
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1024
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1025
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1026
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`C.K., editor. New York, Academic Press, Inc.,
`p. 85-99 (1961).
`
`Hayes, K.C., “Retinal degeneration in monkeys
`induced by deficiencies of vitamin E or A,”
`Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., vol. 13 no. 7,
`499-510 (July, 1974).
`
`Berson, E., “Nutrition And Retinal
`Degenerations: Vitamin A, Taurine, Ornithine,
`and Phytanic Acid,” Retina: Vol.2, Issue 4, pp
`236-255 (Fall 1982)
`
`Reading, V.M., Weale, R.A., Aberration, C.,
`Malinow, M.R., “The Effect of Deficiency of
`Vitamins E And A on the Retina”, Nutrition
`Reviews, Volume 38, Issue 11, pages 386–389
`(Nov. 1980).
`
`Carter-Dawson, L., Kuwabara T., O'Brien P.J.,
`and Bieri JG.: Structural and Biochemical
`Changes in Vitamin A-Deficient Rat Retinas.
`Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 18: 437-446,
`(1979).
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1027
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1029
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1030
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Schiedt et al., “Recent progress on carotenoid
`metabolism in animals”, Pure & Appl Chem,
`Vol. 63, No. 1 pp 89-100 (1991).
`
`Retinal Cross-section and Xanthophyll
`
`Declaration of Florian J. Schweigert
`Declaration of Scott Bennett
`
`Zigler, J.S. and Hess H.H., “Cataracts in the
`Royal College of Surgeons Rat: Evidence for
`Initiation by Lipid Peroxidation Products”, Exp.
`Eye. Res., 41:67-76 (1985).
`
`Goto, H. Wu, G-S., Gritz, D.C., Atalia, L.R.A.,
`and Rao, N.A., “Chemotactic activity of the
`peroxidized retinal membrane lipids in
`experimental autoimmune uveitis”, Current Eye
`Res., Vo. 10, No. 11, 1009-1014 (1991).
`
`U.S. Nutraceuticals LLC dba Valensa
`International, and The Board of Trustees of the
`University of Illinois vs. Cyanotech
`Corporation, and Nutrex Hawaii, Inc. Civ.
`5:12-cv-366-oc-10PRL (M.D.Fla), filed 29
`June 2012.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1031
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1032
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1033
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1034
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1035
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1036
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1037
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Cyanotech Corporation vs. U.S. Nutraceuticals,
`LLC /db/a Valensa International, and
`University of Illinois, Civ. No.
`1:12-cv-00352-JMS-RLP (D.Haw.), filed 20
`June 2012.
`
`Supplementary Declaration of Florian J.
`Schweigert
`
`Definitions from Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
`28th Edition (2006)
`
`Declaration of Barbara Schneider-Kempf
`(Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin), in German
`
`Declaration of Barbara Schneider-Kempf
`(State Library of Berlin), English translation
`
`Declaration of Stéphane Alcandre
`(Bibliothèque Nationale de France), in French
`
`Declaration of Stéphane Alcandre (National
`Library of France), in English
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1038
`
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1039
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1040
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1041
`
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1042
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1043
`
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. C. Kathleen Dorey
`
`Hao et al., “Evidence for two apoptotic
`pathways in light-induced retinal
`degeneration,” Nature Genetics, Vol. 32, pp.
`254-260 (Oct. 2002).
`
`Amarie et al., “Excited state dynamics of the
`astaxanthin radical cation,” Chemical Physics,
`Vol. 373, pp. 8-14 (2010).
`
`Goodwin et al., “Some Observations on
`Astaxanthin Distribution in Marine Crustacea,”
`Biochem. Journal Vol. 45, pp. 268-270 (1949).
`
`Wright et al., “Photoreceptor degeneration:
`genetic and mechanistic dissection of a
`complex trait,” Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol.
`11, pp. 273-284 (Apr. 2010).
`
`Woodruff et al., “Spontaneous activity of opsin
`apoprotein is a cause of Leber congenital
`amaurosis”, Nature Genetics Vol. 35, pp.
`158-164 (Oct. 2003)
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1045
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1046
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1047
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1048
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1049
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1050
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Martinez-Fernandez de la Camara et al.,
`“Phosphodiesterase inhibition induces retinal
`degeneration, oxidative stress and inflammation
`in cone-enriched cultures of porcine retina,”
`Experimental Eye Research, Vol. 111, pp.
`122-133 (June 2013).
`
`Xu et al., “cGMP accumulation causes
`photoreceptor degeneration in CNG channel
`deficiency: evidence of cGMP cytotoxicity
`independently of enhanced CNG channel
`function,” The Journal of Neuroscience, Vol.
`33, pp. 14939-14948 (Sept. 11, 2013).
`
`Tso, “Experiments on visual cells by nature and
`man: in search of treatment for photoreceptor
`degeneration. Friedenwald lecture,”
`Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
`Vo. 30, pp. 2430-2454 (Dec. 1989).
`
`Fernandez et al., “Carotenoid Pigments in the
`Flesh and Carapace of Aristaeomorpha
`Foliacea and Heterocarpus Dorsalis,”
`Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Vol.
`69B, pp. 559-575 (1981).
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1051
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1052
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1053
`
`
`CYAN EXHIBIT 1054
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`Lei et al., “Accumulation and autofluorescence
`of phagocytized rod outer segment material in
`macrophages and microglial cells,” Molecular
`Vision, Vol. 18, pp. 103-113 (2012).
`
`Gupta et al., “Activated microglia in human
`retinitis pigmentosa, late-onset retinal
`degeneration, and age-related macular
`degeneration,” Experimental Eye Research, Vol.
`76, pp. 463-471 (Apr. 2003).
`
`Ferris III et al., “Clinical Classification of
`Age-related Macular Degeneration,”
`Opthamology, Vol. 120, pp. 844-851 (2013).
`
`Sangeetha et al., “Retinol-deficient rats can
`convert a pharmacological dose of astaxanthin
`to retinol: antioxidant potential of asta