UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`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
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
