EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT AEXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT AEXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`IMMUNOGEN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00676
`Patent 8,337,856 B2
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`Petitioner Phigenix, Inc. (“Phigenix”) objects under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) to the admissibility of Exhibits
`
`2041, 2062, 2072, 2073, 2083, 2084, 2103, 2105, 2216, 2131, 2133, 2134, 2147,
`
`2216, 2218, 2220, 2240, 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2247, 2252, 2253, 2254,
`
`2256, 2257, 2258, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2266, 2267, 2268, 2269, 2270, 2271, 2275,
`
`2293, 2298, 2303, 2309, 2319, 2320, 2342, 2344, 2345, 2346 and Exhibits 2127,
`
`2204, 2226-2238, 2318, 2325, 2334-2335, and 2340-2341 and Exhibits 2262-2265
`
`(“the Challenged Exhibits”), served by Patent Owner ImmunoGen, Inc.
`
`(“ImmunoGen”) on January 22, 2013, with its Patent Owner’s Response under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10. Phigenix serves ImmunoGen with these objections to provide
`
`notice to ImmunoGen that Phigenix may move to exclude the Challenged Exhibits
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), or if deemed appropriate request that the Board grant
`
`leave to file a motion to strike inadmissible evidence, unless ImmunoGen cures the
`
`defects of the Challenged Exhibits identified herein.
`
`I.
`
`Identification of Challenged Exhibits and Grounds for Objections
`
`1) Exhibit 2041
`
`Exhibit 2041 purports to be a photocopy of a book chapter entitled
`
`“Hepatoxic Effects of Oncotherapeutic and Immunosuppressive Agents.”
`
`Although the pages of the photocopy appear to be consecutively numbered from
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`the original, IMMUNOGEN 2041, pg. 3 appears to lack any pagination number.
`
`Therefore, Phigenix objects that the foundation of Exhibit 2041 cannot be
`
`discerned, since this page appears to be not from the original. Phigenix objects to
`
`Exhibit 2041 because Exhibit 2041 does not appear to be a “duplicate” as defined
`
`by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . . which accurately
`
`reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2041 is inadmissible
`
`because it is not a “duplicate.” In absence of authentication, Exhibit 2041 is also
`
`inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802 and it is not qualified to be the basis for an
`
`expert opinion under FRE 703.
`
`2) Exhibit 2062
`
`Exhibit 2062 purports to be a photocopy of a chart of “Representative
`
`Clinical Trials of Immunoconjugates as Anti-Solid Tumor Agents.” There is no
`
`indication of the origin or creator of Exhibit 2062. Therefore, Exhibit 2062 lacks
`
`any foundation for being a chart of “Representative Clinical Trials.” Facially, it
`
`appears to be attorney-work product. In particular, Exhibit 2062 relies on Exhibits
`
`2309, 2293 and 2298, which are meeting abstracts not subject to peer review prior
`
`to publication and as such inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition,
`
`Exhibits 2309, 2293 and 2298 are inadmissible because they are not qualified to be
`
`the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Therefore, Phigenix objects that
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`Exhibit 2062 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802 and for failure to produce
`
`underlying information under FRE 1006. In addition, Exhibit 2062 is inadmissible
`
`because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2062 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance
`
`and probative value.
`
`3) Exhibit 2072
`
`Exhibit 2072 purports to be a photocopy of an online news report from
`
`“European Biotechnology News.” This press release has not been authenticated by
`
`an employee or representative of “European Biotechnology News.” Therefore,
`
`Phigenix objects that the foundation of Exhibit 2072 cannot be discerned. Phigenix
`
`objects to Exhibit 2072 because Exhibit 2072 does not appear to be a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . . which
`
`accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2072 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2072 is
`
`inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2072 is inadmissible
`
`because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2072 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance
`
`3
`
`and probative value.
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`4) Exhibit 2073
`
`Exhibit 2073 purports to be a photocopy of an online press release from
`
`“The European Cancer Congress 2013.” This press release has not been
`
`authenticated by an employee or representative of “the European Cancer Congress
`
`2013.” Therefore, Phigenix objects that the foundation of Exhibit 2073 cannot be
`
`discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2073 because Exhibit 2073 does not appear
`
`to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy.
`
`. . which accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2073
`
`is inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2073
`
`is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2073 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703. Exhibit 2073 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks
`
`relevance and probative.
`
`5) Exhibit 2083
`
`Exhibit 2083 purports to be a photocopy of an online promotional material
`
`from “Protein Design Labs.” The photocopy bears the logo of the “Wayback
`
`Machine Internet Archive,” however, it is unauthenticated by any employee or
`
`representative of “Protein Design Labs.” Therefore, Phigenix objects that the
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`foundation of Exhibit 2083 cannot be discerned. There is no foundation for relying
`
`upon Exhibit 2083 as an accurate reflection of activities at “Protein Design Labs”
`
`at that time. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2083 because Exhibit 2083 does not
`
`appear to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not
`
`“a copy. . . which accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003,
`
`Exhibit 2083 is inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that
`
`Exhibit 2083 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2083
`
`is inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion
`
`under FRE 703. Exhibit 2083 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it
`
`lacks relevance and probative.
`
`6) Exhibit 2084
`
`Exhibit 2084 purports to be a photocopy of an online news article from
`
`“Science Career Magazine.” This online news article has not been authenticated
`
`by an employee or representative of “Science Career Magazine.” Therefore,
`
`Phigenix objects that the foundation of Exhibit 2084 cannot be discerned. Phigenix
`
`objects to Exhibit 2084 because Exhibit 2084 does not appear to be a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . . which
`
`accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2084 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2084 is
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2084 is inadmissible
`
`because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2084 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance
`
`and probative value.
`
`7) Exhibit 2103
`
` Exhibit 2103 purports to be the “Declaration of Linda T. Vahdat, M.D.”
`
`Phigenix objects to the entirety of Dr. Vahdat’s testimony in Exhibit 2103 because
`
`Dr. Vahdat relies on hearsay statements. In particular, Dr. Vahdat relies on
`
`statements which are inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802 and also inadmissible
`
`as not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. For example,
`
`in paragraphs 47 or 48 of her declaration, Dr. Vahdat quotes inadmissible hearsay
`
`statements by “Louis M. Weiner” (Exhibit 2116), “Kimberly Blackwell” (Exhibit
`
`2303), “Hans Wildiers” (Exhibit 2072 and 2073) and “Melody Cobleigh” (Exhibit
`
`2254). Dr. Vahdat also relies on Exhibit 2062, which is a chart that is
`
`unauthenticated and relies on inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Phigenix further objects that Dr. Vahdat’s declaration is not based on
`
`sufficient facts or data or the product of reliable principles and methods. At a
`
`minimum, Dr. Vahdat fails to provide her own opinion, but rather relies on quoting
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`statements allegedly made by “Louis M. Weiner,” “Kimberly Blackwell,” “Hans
`
`Wildiers,” and “Melody Cobleigh.” None of these individuals is offered as an
`
`expert in this matter nor are they likely to be available for deposition. It is also
`
`unclear who prepared Exhibit 2062, which appears facially to be attorney-work
`
`product. Accordingly, Dr. Vahdat’s reliance on the purported testimony of other
`
`individuals is fatal to her qualification as an expert under FRE 702.
`
`Phigenix also objects that Dr. Vahdat’s declaration is also duplicative of
`
`statements made within Exhibit 2105 and Exhibit 2134. Dr. Vahdat’s declaration
`
`is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance and probative
`
`value, in addition to wasting time and the needless presentation of cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`8) Exhibit 2105
`
`Exhibit 2105 purports to be the “Declaration of Joyce O’Shaughnessy,
`
`M.D.” Phigenix objects to the entirety of Dr. O’Shaughnessy’s testimony in
`
`Exhibit 2105 because Dr. O’Shaughnessy relies on hearsay statements. In
`
`particular, Dr. O’Shaughnessy relies on statements which are both inadmissible as
`
`hearsay under FRE 802 and also inadmissible as not qualified to be the basis for an
`
`expert opinion under FRE 703. For example, in paragraph 36 of her declaration,
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`Dr. O’Shaughnessy quotes inadmissible hearsay statements by “Hope S. Rugo”
`
`and “Clifford A. Hudis” which are found respectively in Exhibits 2116 and 2119.
`
`Likewise, in paragraph 40 of her declaration, Dr. O’Shaughnessy quotes an
`
`inadmissible hearsay statement by “Louis M. Weiner” which is found in Exhibit
`
`2123.
`
`Phigenix further objects that Dr. O’Shaughnessy’s declaration is not based
`
`on sufficient facts or data or the product of reliable principles and methods. At a
`
`minimum, Dr. O’Shaughnessy fails to provide her own opinion, but rather relies on
`
`quoting statements allegedly made by “Louis M. Weiner,” “Edith Perez,” “Hal
`
`Burstein,” “Hope Rugo,” and “Clifford A. Hudis.” None of these individuals is
`
`offered as an expert in this matter nor are they likely to be available for deposition.
`
`Accordingly, Dr. O’Shaughnessy’s reliance on the purported testimony of other
`
`individuals is fatal to her qualification as an expert under FRE 702.
`
`Phigenix also objects that Dr. O’Shaughnessy’s declaration is also
`
`duplicative of statements made within Exhibit 2103 and Exhibit 2134. Dr.
`
`O’Shaughnessy’s declaration is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it
`
`lacks relevance and probative value, in addition to wasting time and the needless
`
`presentation of cumulative evidence.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`
`
`9) Exhibit 2116
`
`Exhibit 2116 purports to be a photocopy of an online news report from “The
`
`New York Times.” This online news report has not been authenticated by an
`
`employee or representative of “The New York Times.” Although the article states
`
`that a “version” appeared in print, there is no independent confirmation that the
`
`online article is identical to that in the printed publication. Therefore, Phigenix
`
`objects that the foundation of Exhibit 2116 cannot be discerned. Phigenix objects
`
`to Exhibit 2116 because Exhibit 2116 does not appear to be a “duplicate” as
`
`defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . . which accurately
`
`reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2116 is inadmissible
`
`because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2116 is inadmissible
`
`as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2116 is inadmissible because it is
`
`not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Exhibit 2116 is
`
`also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance and probative
`
`9
`
`value.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`10)
`
`Exhibit 2123
`
`Exhibit 2123 purports to be a photocopy of a news report from “Oncology
`
`Times.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2123 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE
`
`802. In addition, Exhibit 2123 is inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the
`
`basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Exhibit 2123 is also inadmissible
`
`under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance and probative value.
`
`11)
`
`Exhibit 2131
`
`Exhibit 2131 purports to be the “Declaration of John C. Jarosz.” Phigenix
`
`objects to the entirety of Mr. Jarosz’s testimony in Exhibit 2131 because Mr.
`
`Jarosz relies on hearsay statements. In particular, Mr. Jarosz relies on statements
`
`which are both inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802 and also inadmissible as
`
`not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. For example,
`
`Exhibit 2147 is unauthenticated and the purported report states that “the
`
`information herein . . . is not guaranteed by us and does not purport to be a
`
`complete statement or summary of the available data.” Exhibit 2271 is
`
`unauthenticated and states that “UBS does and seeks to do business with
`
`companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware
`
`that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`report.” Exhibit 2275 purports to be a photocopy of an unpublished draft academic
`
`paper entitled “Measuring the Informative and Persuasive Roles of Detailing on
`
`Prescribing Decisions.” The first page of Exhibit 2275 notes “First Draft: May 5,
`
`2008” and “This Draft: April 27, 2010.” This is an unpublished draft paper which
`
`has not been subject to a peer review process by an academic journal prior to
`
`publication in such a journal. Exhibits 2240, 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2256, 2319
`
`and 2320 purport to be a photocopies of various charts of “Data from IMS Health.”
`
`There is no indication of the origin or creator of these charts; no foundation is
`
`provided for the reliance on data supposedly provided by “IMS Health”; and no
`
`original data supposedly provided by IMS Health has been produced.
`
`Furthermore, Exhibits 2220, 2247, 2266, 2269 and 2345 are unauthenticated by
`
`any employee of the relevant entities and, therefore, the foundation of these
`
`exhibits cannot be discerned.
`
`Phigenix further objects that Mr. Jarosz’s declaration is not based on
`
`sufficient facts or data or the product of reliable principles and methods, since it
`
`calls for speculation and is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Mr.
`
`Jarosz’s declaration is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks
`
`relevance and probative value, in addition to wasting time and the needless
`
`presentation of cumulative evidence.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`12)
`
`Exhibit 2133
`
`Exhibit 2133 purports to be a photocopy of an online news article from
`
`“Huffington Post.” This online news article has not been authenticated by an
`
`employee or representative of “Huffington Post.” It also appears that the article
`
`may be a reproduction of a news report from an Associated Press writer and,
`
`therefore, not subject to editorial control by “Huffington Post.” The article has
`
`also not been authenticated by an employee or representative of Associated Press.
`
`Therefore, Phigenix objects that the foundation of Exhibit 2133 cannot be
`
`discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2133 because Exhibit 2133 does not appear
`
`to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy.
`
`. . which accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2133
`
`is inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2133
`
`is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2133 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703. Exhibit 2133 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks
`
`relevance and probative value.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`13)
`
`Exhibit 2134
`
`Exhibit 2134 purports to be the “Declaration of Geoffrey A. Pietersz, Ph.D.”
`
`Phigenix objects to the entirety of Dr. Pietersz’s testimony in Exhibit 2134 because
`
`Dr. Pietersz relies on unauthenticated documents and hearsay statements. In
`
`particular, Dr. Pietersz relies on statements which are both inadmissible as hearsay
`
`under FRE 802 and also inadmissible as not qualified to be the basis for an expert
`
`opinion under FRE 703. For example, Exhibit 2041 purports to be a photocopy of a
`
`book chapter entitled “Hepatoxic Effects of Oncotherapeutic and
`
`Immunosuppressive Agents.” Although the pages of the photocopy appear to be
`
`consecutively numbered from the original, IMMUNOGEN 2041, pg. 3 appears to
`
`lack any pagination number, and is not part of the original. In absence of
`
`authentication, Exhibit 2041 is also inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802 and it
`
`is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Exhibit 2083
`
`purports to be a photocopy of an online promotional material from “Protein Design
`
`Labs.” The photocopy bears the logo of the “Wayback Machine Internet Archive,”
`
`however, it is unauthenticated by any employee or representative of “Protein
`
`Design Labs.” Therefore, Phigenix objects that the foundation of Exhibit 2083
`
`cannot be discerned. Exhibit 2083 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802 and it
`
`is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`Phigenix further objects that Dr. Pietersz’s declaration is not based on
`
`sufficient facts or data or the product of reliable principles and methods, since it
`
`calls for speculation and is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. As
`
`such Pietersz’s declaration is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 it lacks
`
`relevance and probative value.
`
`14)
`
`Exhibit 2147
`
`Exhibit 2147 purports to be a photocopy of an investment report produced
`
`by “Cowen and Company.” Phigenix objects that the report is unauthenticated by
`
`any employee of “Cowen and Company” and, therefore, the foundation of the
`
`report cannot be discerned. Moreover, the purported report states that “the
`
`information herein . . . is not guaranteed by us and does not purport to be a
`
`complete statement or summary of the available data.” Phigenix objects to Exhibit
`
`2147 because Exhibit 2147 does not appear to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE
`
`1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . . which accurately reproduces the
`
`original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2147 is inadmissible because it is not a
`
`“duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2147 is inadmissible as hearsay under
`
`FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2147 is inadmissible because it is not qualified to be
`
`the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Exhibit 2147 is also inadmissible
`
`under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance and probative value.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`15)
`
`Exhibit 2216
`
`Exhibit 2216 purports to be a photocopy of an online press release produced
`
`by “Mylan Inc.” Phigenix objects that the report is unauthenticated by any
`
`employee of “Mylan Inc.” Therefore, the foundation of the report cannot be
`
`discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2216 because Exhibit 2216 does not appear
`
`to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy.
`
`. . which accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2216
`
`is inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2216
`
`is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2216 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703. Exhibit 2216 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks
`
`relevance and probative value.
`
`16)
`
`Exhibit 2218
`
`Exhibit 2218 purports to be a photocopy of an online press release produced
`
`by “GlaxoSmithKline.” Phigenix objects that the report is unauthenticated by any
`
`employee of “GlaxoSmithKline,” and, therefore, the foundation of the report
`
`cannot be discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2218 because Exhibit 2218 does
`
`not appear to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`not “a copy. . . which accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003,
`
`Exhibit 2218 is inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that
`
`Exhibit 2218 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2218
`
`is inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion
`
`under FRE 703. Exhibit 2218 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it
`
`lacks relevance and probative value.
`
`17)
`
`Exhibit 2220
`
`Exhibit 2220 purports to be a photocopy of an online press release produced
`
`by “Bristol-Myers Squibb.” Phigenix objects that the press release is
`
`unauthenticated by any employee of “Bristol-Myers Squibb,” and, therefore, the
`
`foundation of the press release cannot be discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit
`
`2220 because Exhibit 2220 does not appear to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE
`
`1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . . which accurately reproduces the
`
`original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2220 is inadmissible because it is not a
`
`“duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2220 is inadmissible as hearsay under
`
`FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2220 is inadmissible because it is not qualified to be
`
`the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Exhibit 2220 is also inadmissible
`
`under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance and probative value.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`18)
`
`Exhibit 2240
`
`Exhibit 2240 purports to be a photocopy of a chart of “Data from IMS
`
`Health.” There is no indication of the origin or creator of Exhibit 2240. No
`
`foundation is provided for the reliance on data supposedly provided by “IMS
`
`Health.” No original data supposedly provided by IMS Health has been produced.
`
`Facially, it appears to be attorney-work product. Phigenix objects that Exhibit
`
`2240 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2240 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703 and for failure to produce underlying information under FRE 1006.
`
`Exhibit 2240 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance
`
`and probative value.
`
`19)
`
`Exhibit 2241
`
`Exhibit 2241 purports to be a photocopy of a chart of “Data from IMS
`
`Health.” There is no indication of the origin or creator of Exhibit 2241. No
`
`foundation is provided for the reliance on data supposedly provided by “IMS
`
`Health.” No original data supposedly provided by IMS Health has been produced.
`
`Facially, it appears to be attorney-work product. Phigenix objects that Exhibit
`
`2241 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2241 is
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703 and for failure to produce underlying information under FRE 1006.
`
`Exhibit 2241 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance
`
`and probative value.
`
`20)
`
`Exhibit 2242
`
`Exhibit 2242 purports to be a photocopy of a chart of “Data from IMS
`
`Health.” There is no indication of the origin or creator of Exhibit 2242. No
`
`foundation is provided for the reliance on data supposedly provided by “IMS
`
`Health.” No original data supposedly provided by IMS Health has been produced.
`
`Facially, it appears to be attorney-work product. Phigenix objects that Exhibit
`
`2242 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2242 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703 and for failure to produce underlying information under FRE 1006.
`
`Exhibit 2242 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance
`
`and probative value.
`
`21)
`
`Exhibit 2243
`
`Exhibit 2243 purports to be a photocopy of a chart of “Data from IMS
`
`Health.” There is no indication of the origin or creator of Exhibit 2243. No
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`foundation is provided for the reliance on data supposedly provided by “IMS
`
`Health.” No original data supposedly provided by IMS Health has been produced.
`
`Facially, it appears to be attorney-work product. Phigenix objects that Exhibit
`
`2243 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2243 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703 and for failure to produce underlying information under FRE 1006.
`
`Exhibit 2243 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance
`
`and probative value.
`
`22)
`
`Exhibit 2244
`
`Exhibit 2244 purports to be a photocopy of a chart of “Data from IMS
`
`Health.” There is no indication of the origin or creator of Exhibit 2244. No
`
`foundation is provided for the reliance on data supposedly provided by “IMS
`
`Health.” No original data supposedly provided by IMS Health has been produced.
`
`Facially, it appears to be attorney-work product. Phigenix objects that Exhibit
`
`2244 is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2244 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703 and for failure to produce underlying information under FRE 1006.
`
`Exhibit 2244 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance
`
`and probative value.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`23)
`
`Exhibit 2245
`
`Exhibit 2245 purports to be a photocopy of an online news article from
`
`“FiercePharma.” This press release has not been authenticated by an employee or
`
`representative of “FiercePharma.” Therefore, Phigenix objects that the foundation
`
`of Exhibit 2245 cannot be discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2245 because
`
`Exhibit 2245 does not appear to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e)
`
`insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . . which accurately reproduces the original.”
`
`Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2245 is inadmissible because it is not a
`
`“duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2245 is inadmissible as hearsay under
`
`FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2245 is inadmissible because it is not qualified to be
`
`the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Exhibit 2245 is also inadmissible
`
`under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance and probative value.
`
`24)
`
`Exhibit 2247
`
`Exhibit 2247 purports to be a photocopy of a report issued by the “IMS
`
`Institute for Healthcare Informatics.” Phigenix objects that the report is
`
`unauthenticated by any representative or employee of the “IMS Institute for
`
`Healthcare Informatics.” There is no indication of the origin or creator of Exhibit
`
`2247. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2247 because Exhibit 2247 does not appear to
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . .
`
`which accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2247 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2247 is
`
`inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2247 is inadmissible
`
`because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2247 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 it lacks relevance and
`
`probative value.
`
`25)
`
`Exhibit 2252
`
`Exhibit 2252 purports to be a photocopy of an online news article from
`
`“FierceBiotech.” This press release has not been authenticated by an employee or
`
`representative of “FierceBiotech.” Therefore, Phigenix objects that the foundation
`
`of Exhibit 2252 cannot be discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2252 because
`
`Exhibit 2252 does not appear to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e)
`
`insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy. . . which accurately reproduces the original.”
`
`Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2252 is inadmissible because it is not a
`
`“duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2252 is inadmissible as hearsay under
`
`FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2252 is inadmissible because it is not qualified to be
`
`the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Exhibit 2252 is also inadmissible
`
`under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance and probative value.
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`
`26)
`
` Exhibit 2253
`
`Exhibit 2253 purports to be a photocopy of an online news article from
`
`“FiercePharma.” This press release has not been authenticated by an employee or
`
`representative of “FiercePharma.” Therefore, Phigenix objects that the foundation
`
`of Exhibit 2253 cannot be discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2253 because
`
`Exhibit 2253 does not appear to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e)
`
`insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy . . . which accurately reproduces the original.”
`
`Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2253 is inadmissible because it is not a
`
`“duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2253 is inadmissible as hearsay under
`
`FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2253 is inadmissible because it is not qualified to be
`
`the basis for an expert opinion under FRE 703. Exhibit 2253 is also inadmissible
`
`under FRE 401/402 because it lacks relevance and probative value.
`
`27)
`
`Exhibit 2254
`
`Exhibit 2254 purports to be a photocopy of an online news article from
`
`“Huffington Post.” This online news article has not been authenticated by an
`
`employee or representative of “Huffington Post.” It also appears that the article
`
`may be a reproduction of a news report from an Associated Press writer and,
`
`therefore, not subject to editorial control by “Huffington Post.” The article has
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`PHIGENIX, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`CASE IPR2014-00676
`
`also not been authenticated by an employee or representative of Associated Press.
`
`Therefore, Phigenix objects that the foundation of Exhibit 2254 cannot be
`
`discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit 2254 because Exhibit 2254 does not appear
`
`to be a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy.
`
`. . which accurately reproduces the original.” Thus, under FRE 1003, Exhibit 2254
`
`is inadmissible because it is not a “duplicate.” Phigenix objects that Exhibit 2254
`
`is inadmissible as hearsay under FRE 802. In addition, Exhibit 2254 is
`
`inadmissible because it is not qualified to be the basis for an expert opinion under
`
`FRE 703. Exhibit 2254 is also inadmissible under FRE 401/402 because it lacks
`
`relevance and probative value.
`
`28)
`
` Exhibit 2255
`
`Exhibit 2255 purports to be a photocopy of an online news article from
`
`“Science Daily.” This online news article has not been authenticated by an
`
`employee or representative of “Science Daily.” Therefore, Phigenix objects that
`
`the foundation of Exhibit 2255 cannot be discerned. Phigenix objects to Exhibit
`
`2255 because Exhibit 2255 does not a
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
