`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________________
`
`
`NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG AND LTS LOHMANN THERAPIE-SYSTEME AG,
`Patent Owners
`
`_________________________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: 2014-00550
`U.S. Patent No. 6,335,031
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED BY PATENT OWNERS
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`1 of 22
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`(“Noven”) objects to the admissibility of the following exhibits filed by Patent
`
`Owners Novartis AG and LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG (“Patent
`
`Owners”).
`
`In this paper, a reference to “F.R.E.” means the Federal Rules of Evidence, a
`
`reference to “C.F.R.” means the Code of Federal Regulations, and “’031 patent”
`
`means U.S. Patent No. 6,335,031. All objections under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay) apply
`
`to the extent that Patent Owners rely on the exhibits identified in connection with
`
`that objection for the truth of the matters asserted therein.
`
`Noven’s objections are as follows:
`
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2012 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 702
`
`(improper expert testimony) and F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion) as the
`
`testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods, and the principles and methods have not been reliably
`
`applied to the facts of the case.
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2012 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) and F.R.E. 702
`
`(improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time) for failing to identify with particularity the underlying facts and data
`
`on which the opinion is based, as Exhibit 2012 ¶¶ 1 n 1, 14-16, 18-22, 24-25, 27-
`
`2
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`2 of 22
`
`
`
`28, 30-32, 34, 37, 50, 52, 56, 58, 60, 74, 105-106, 112, 120-123, 132, 139, 149,
`
`156, 160-168, and 175 fail to cite any support at all, or include statements that do
`
`not cite any support.
`
`Noven also objects to Exhibit 2012 under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert
`
`testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and
`
`F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), as Exhibit 2012 ¶¶ 33, 38-48, 53, 57, 61, 77,
`
`79-85, 88-96, 111-18, 121, 129-30, 133-37, 140-43, 150-51, 154, 157, 162, 163-
`
`67, and 174 include expert opinion based on documents that are inadmissible based
`
`on the manner that the documents are used by the declarant, under at least F.R.E.
`
`802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time,
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert
`
`testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), and not the type of document
`
`upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2012 ¶¶ 27, 159, 166, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.65(b), as Exhibit 2012 relies on technical test(s) or data from such test(s)
`
`without an accompanying affidavit.
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2012 ¶¶ 27, 159, 166, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.61(c), as Exhibit 2012 refers to data in the ’031 patent (Exhibit 1001, 2011)
`
`specification, without an accompanying affidavit.
`
`3
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`3 of 22
`
`
`
`Noven further objects to Exhibit 2012 ¶¶ 162-67 under F.R.E. 602 (lack of
`
`personal knowledge), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of
`
`an expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of
`
`time), as the declarant is testifying regarding factual matters for which he does not
`
`have personal knowledge, and further as Patent Owners are relying on Exhibit
`
`2053, a trial transcript from a trial to which Noven was not a party, which is a not
`
`admissible under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay) and F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony),
`
`and which is not the type of document upon which an expert in the field would
`
`reasonably reply (F.R.E. 703).
`
`Noven further objects to Exhibit 2012 ¶¶ 162-67 under F.R.E. 602 (lack of
`
`personal knowledge), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of
`
`an expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of
`
`time), as the declarant is testifying regarding factual matters for which he does not
`
`have personal knowledge, and further as Patent Owners are relying on Exhibit
`
`2015, a compilation of Patent Owners’ internal documents which are not
`
`admissible under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication), F.R.E.
`
`402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative), and F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and which are not the
`
`type of document upon which an expert in the field would reasonably rely (F.R.E.
`
`703).
`
`4
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`4 of 22
`
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2012 ¶ A1 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63 for improperly
`
`citing to evidence.
`
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2013 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2014 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2014 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2015 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative) because it is not relevant to any issue in this
`
`IPR proceeding at least because the purported date of at least portions of the
`
`document is after the filing date of the ’031 patent. Noven also objects to Exhibit
`
`2015 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as
`
`5
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`5 of 22
`
`
`
`the document is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger
`
`document, and under F.R.E. 403 and F.R.E. 901 as an improper compilation.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2015,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2016
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2016 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication) and
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2016 under F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative), at least because the documents are not cited in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2016,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2017 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`6
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`6 of 22
`
`
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2017 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2018
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2018 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2019 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2019 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete to the extent it is part of a larger communication.
`
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2020 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2020 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`7
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`7 of 22
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2021 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2021 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2022 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2022 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document, and under
`
`F.R.E. 403 and F.R.E. 901 as an improper compilation.
`
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2023 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication) for
`
`at least the reason that Exhibit 2023 is missing information (e.g., cover and/or title
`
`pages) identifying the source and publication of the document. Noven objects to
`
`Exhibit 2023 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403
`
`(unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or cumulative) because it is not relevant
`
`8
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`8 of 22
`
`
`
`to any issue in this IPR proceeding at least because the purported date of the
`
`document is after the filing date of the ’031 patent. Noven also objects to Exhibit
`
`2023 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as
`
`the document is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger
`
`document.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2023,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2024
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2024 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2025 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`9 of 22
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2026 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2026 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2027
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2027 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2029
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2029 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2029 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness)
`
`and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document is incomplete and includes
`
`only a select portion of a larger document, and under F.R.E. 403 and F.R.E. 901 as
`
`an improper compilation.
`
`10
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`10 of 22
`
`
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2029,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion).
`
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2030 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2031 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Noven also
`
`objects to Exhibit 2031 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (unduly
`
`prejudicial, confusing, misleading or cumulative), at least because the documents
`
`are not cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2031,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2032
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2032 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`11
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`11 of 22
`
`
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2032 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger set of documents as
`
`evidenced by the breaks in the Bates number sequence, and under F.R.E. 403 and
`
`F.R.E. 901 as an improper compilation, as a self-selected collection of Patent
`
`Owners’ internal documents.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2032,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2033
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2033 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication) for
`
`at least the reason that Exhibit 2033 is missing information (e.g., cover and/or title
`
`pages) identifying the source and publication of the document. Noven objects to
`
`Exhibit 2033 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403
`
`(unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to
`
`Exhibit 2033 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`misleading) as the document is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a
`
`larger document.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`12 of 22
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2034
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2034 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2034 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2035
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2035 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication) for
`
`at least the reason that Exhibit 2035 is is missing information (e.g., cover and/or
`
`title pages) identifying the source and publication of the document. Noven objects
`
`to Exhibit 2035 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403
`
`(unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to
`
`Exhibit 2035 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`misleading) as the document is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a
`
`larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2036
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2036 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication) and
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Noven objects to Exhibit 2036 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance)
`
`and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or cumulative), at least
`
`13
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`13 of 22
`
`
`
`because the documents are not cited in Patent Owner’s Response. Noven also
`
`objects to Exhibit 2036 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, misleading) as the document is incomplete and includes only a select
`
`portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2037
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2037 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2038
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2038 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2038 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2039
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2039 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2039 under
`
`14
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`14 of 22
`
`
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2040
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2040 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2040 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`Noven further objects to Exhibit 2040 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63 as
`
`improperly identified on Patent Owners’ Exhibit List 3.
`
`
`Exhibit 2041
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2041 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2041 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2042
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2042 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`15
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`15 of 22
`
`
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2042 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2043
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2043 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2044
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2044 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication), for
`
`at least the reason that Exhibit 2044 is missing information (e.g., cover and/or title
`
`pages) identifying the source and publication of the document, and F.R.E. 802
`
`(hearsay). Noven also objects to Exhibit 2044 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and
`
`F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or cumulative), because it is
`
`not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding at least because the purported date
`
`of the document is after the filing date of the ’031 patent and because the exhibit is
`
`not cited in Patent Owner’s Response. Noven also objects to Exhibit 2044 under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document
`
`is incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`16 of 22
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2045
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2045 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2046
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2046 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2047
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2047 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or
`
`cumulative) because it is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding at least
`
`because the purported date of the document is after the filing date of the ’031
`
`patent and because the exhibit is not cited in Patent Owner’s Response. Noven
`
`also objects to Exhibit 2047 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication), at least
`
`because there is no factual foundation for where the information came from and
`
`who accessed it.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2047,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`17
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`17 of 22
`
`
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2048
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2048 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative) because it is not relevant to any issue in this
`
`IPR proceeding at least because the purported date of the document is after the
`
`filing date of the ’031 patent. Noven also objects to Exhibit 2048 under F.R.E. 106
`
`(completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document is
`
`incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2048,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2049
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2049 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative) because it is not relevant to any issue in this
`
`IPR proceeding at least because the purported date of the document is after the
`
`18
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`18 of 22
`
`
`
`filing date of the ’031 patent. Noven also objects to Exhibit 2049 under F.R.E. 106
`
`(completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document is
`
`incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2049,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2050
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2050 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication) for
`
`at least the reason that Exhibit 2050 is missing information (e.g., cover and/or title
`
`pages) identifying the source and publication of the document. Noven also objects
`
`to Exhibit 2050 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403
`
`(unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading or cumulative).
`
`
`Exhibit 2051
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2051 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative).
`
`19
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`19 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`Noven also objects to Exhibit 2051 as improperly produced under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63, as the produced exhibit appears to have markings that do not appear in the
`
`original document.
`
`
`Exhibit 2052
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2052 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative) because it is not relevant to any issue in this
`
`IPR proceeding at least because the purported date of the document is after the
`
`filing date of the ’031 patent. Noven also objects to Exhibit 2052 under F.R.E. 106
`
`(completeness) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, misleading) as the document is
`
`incomplete and includes only a select portion of a larger document.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2052,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`Exhibit 2053
`
`
`Noven objects to Exhibit 2053 under F.R.E. 901 (lacking authentication),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (unduly prejudicial,
`
`confusing, misleading or cumulative), as it purports to be testimony but is not in
`
`20
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`20 of 22
`
`
`
`affidavit form and is self-serving hearsay by Patent Owners’ employee. Noven
`
`also objects to Exhibit 2053 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness) and F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, misleading) as the document is incomplete and includes only a select
`
`portion of a larger document. Noven also objects to Exhibit 2053 under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.53(a) as an incomplete transcript from a proceeding that did not include
`
`Noven.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owners’ expert witness relies on Exhibit 2053,
`
`Noven objects to this exhibit under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony) and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of expert opinion) as unreliable and not of a type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Steven J. Lee/
`Steven J. Lee (Reg. No. 31,272)
`Michael K. Levy (Reg. No. 40,699)
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`Fax: 212-425-5288
`Counsel for Petitioner Noven
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`21
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`21 of 22
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` certify that a copy of Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence Submitted by
`
`Patent Owners was served on January 27, 2015 to counsel for Patent Owners at the
`
`following email address: ExelonPatchIPR@fchs.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Christopher J. Coulson/
`Christopher J. Coulson (Reg. No. 61,771)
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`Fax: 212-425-5288
`Counsel for Petitioner Noven Pharmaceuticals,
`Inc.
`
`22
`
`Noven Exhibit 1050
`Noven v. Novartis and LTS Lohmann
`IPR2014-00550
`22 of 22
`
`
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
