Paper No. __
`Filed: April 1, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., WOCKHARDT BIO AG, and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-005541
`Patent 7,668,730
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01818 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`Filed: April 1, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., WOCKHARDT BIO AG, and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-005541
`Patent 7,668,730
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01818 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners seek to exclude highly relevant evidence regarding whether a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) exercising reasonable diligence would
`
`have located the Advisory Committee Materials (“ACA”) (Exs. 1003-1006) based
`
`on the Federal Register notice submitted as Ex. 1015 in this inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”). Petitioners’ objections are based on alleged hearsay, irrelevance, and
`
`improper expert testimony. At the outset, Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude (“Mtn.”)
`
`should be denied because it is not based on “objections in the record” since
`
`Petitioners never satisfied the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) by filing
`
`their objections. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). The motion should also be denied
`
`because Petitioners’ objections go to weight rather than admissibility, and for the
`
`specific reasons set forth below.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The objected-to portions of the DiPiro and Bergeron Declarations
`and Exs. 2049-2050 are relevant to public accessibility of the ACA
`
`Petitioners argue that certain portions of the DiPiro (Ex. 2046) and Bergeron
`
`(Ex. 2047) Declarations, as well as Exs. 2049-2050 “are irrelevant to the issue of
`
`public accessibility of the ACA” because: (1) the Federal Register’s notice
`
`function allegedly establishes public accessibility as a matter of law and
`
`(2) Dr. DiPiro’s opinions are allegedly directed to “uninterested” POSAs. See
`
`Mtn. 3-8.
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`
`Petitioners’ objections, however, failed to provide this particularity, i.e., the
`
`objections did not explain why the exhibits were allegedly irrelevant to public
`
`accessibility. Instead, Petitioners asserted only a boilerplate relevance objection:
`
`JAZZ EXHIBIT 2046 are objected to under Fed. R. Ev. 401–402
`
`because they are irrelevant to the question of whether, more than one
`
`year before December 17, 2002, PAR1004–PAR1006 were
`
`disseminated or otherwise made available to the public to the extent
`
`that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or
`
`art, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate it [sic].
`
`Paper 53 at 1; id. at 2-3 (same for Exs. 2047, 2049, 2050). Thus, Petitioners failed
`
`to “identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow
`
`correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). These
`
`objections should be denied for this reason alone. See B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. MAG
`
`Aerospace Indus., LLC, IPR2014-01510, Paper 106 at 6-7 (Mar. 18, 2016).
`
`1.
`
`Petitioners erroneously equate the Federal Register’s
`notice function with the standard for public accessibility
`
`Petitioners object to Jazz’s evidence showing that a POSA exercising
`
`reasonable diligence would not have located the ACA through the half-page entry
`
`in the Federal Register—out of the 67,700 pages of the 2001 version of the Federal
`
`Register—as irrelevant by arguing that “[u]nder Federal law, every person in the
`
`United States, which of course includes POSAs, is deemed to have been given
`
`sufficient notice for items published in the Federal Register.” Mtn. 3-6 (emphasis
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`added). Petitioners’ argument about the legal effect of the Federal Register is
`
`incorrect, and conflates a legal interest with a scientific or technical one.
`
`Specifically, the “notice” the Federal Register provides is a legal construct to
`
`prevent individuals from later claiming ignorance of the law if their legally
`
`protected interests are adversely affected. Indeed, as the cases Petitioners cite
`
`explain, “[t]he purpose of notice is to ‘inform [the recipient] that the matter [in
`
`which his protected interests are at stake] is pending.’” Moreau v. F.E.R.C., 982
`
`F.2d 556, 569 (D.D.C. 1993) (emphasis added); see also N. Ala. Express, Inc. v.
`
`United States, 585 F.2d 783, 786 (5th Cir. 1978) (explaining that the
`
`Administrative Procedures Act requires “[r]easonable notice to interested persons
`
`that their legally protected interests may be adversely affected by administrative
`
`action”) (emphasis added); id. at 787 n.2 (noting that the Federal Register provides
`
`“legally sufficient notice to all interested persons”) (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, the notice that the Federal Register provides is specifically directed to
`
`interested persons whose legally protected interests are at jeopardy of being
`
`adversely affected. See id. at 790 (requiring republication of inadequate notice in
`
`the Federal Register to inform competitors of a company granted increased
`
`operating capacity); Moreau, 982 F.2d at 569 (finding notice was given to
`
`individuals whose property interests were affected by a gas pipeline); S. Terminal
`
`Corp. v. E.P.A., 504 F.2d 646, 654, 657 (1st Cir. 1974) (finding that “interested
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`persons”—persons whose legal interests were affected by an air quality
`
`transportation plan—had notice of a technical document in the Federal Register).
`
`Petitioners try to conflate the Federal Register’s “deemed” notice to
`
`individuals with a “legally protected interest,” with a “person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art interested in the subject matter of the patents in suit and exercising
`
`reasonable diligence” actually locating prior art. See Bruckelmeyer v. Ground
`
`Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). There is
`
`simply no caselaw holding that the POSA’s “interest[] in the subject matter of the
`
`patents in suit” is a “legally protected interest” that has the potential to be
`
`adversely affected. There is also no caselaw that equates “deemed” notice of a rule
`
`with the ability to actually locate that rule, when exercising reasonable diligence.2
`
`On the other hand, this Board has previously held that statements in the very same
`
`Federal Register notice at issue in this IPR do not show that the ACA “actually
`
`
`
`
`2 For example, just because a person might be on constructive notice of an
`
`obscure mining law published in the Federal Register, does not mean that person,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, would be able to actually locate the mining law.
`
`The public accessibility caselaw requires that a POSA exercising reasonable
`
`diligence be able to actually locate the prior art in question.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`w[ere] made available to the extent that interested, ordinarily skilled persons,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, could have located” them before the critical date.
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs III LLC, v. Jazz Pharms., Inc., IPR2015-01018,
`
`Paper 17 at 14-15 (Oct. 15, 2015).
`
`In sum, Petitioners have not asserted, let alone proven, that a POSA’s legally
`
`protected interests could have been affected by the June 6, 2001 Advisory
`
`Committee Meeting at issue in this IPR. There is no evidence that a POSA
`
`exercising reasonable diligence would have located the ACA through the Federal
`
`Register; instead, the evidence of record—which Petitioners seek to exclude—
`
`definitively proves otherwise. Thus, Petitioners’ motion to exclude the objected to
`
`portions of the DiPiro and Bergeron Declarations, as well as Exs. 2049 and 2050,
`
`as “irrelevant as a matter of law” (Mtn. 4), lacks merit and should be denied. The
`
`evidence is relevant because it makes the fact that a POSA exercising reasonable
`
`diligence would not have located the ACA through the Federal Register more
`
`probable. See Fed. R. Evid. 401.
`
`2.
`
`Paragraphs 54-56 of the DiPiro Declaration are directed to
`the actions of POSAs interested in the subject matter of the
`patents in suit
`
`Petitioners argue that Paragraphs 54-56 of the DiPiro Declaration should be
`
`excluded as irrelevant because Dr. DiPiro purportedly “alleges that a POSA, as
`
`defined by Dr. Valuck, has ‘no focus on drug distribution, safety, and abuse or
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`regulatory affairs.’” Mtn. 7. This is false. Dr. DiPiro clearly testified: “A
`
`Pharmacist POSA, as defined by Dr. Valuck, is not a researcher with a specific
`
`focus on drug distribution, safety, and abuse or regulatory affairs.” Ex. 2046, ¶55
`
`(emphasis added). He also explained this at his deposition. Ex. 1055 at 248:1-4.
`
`There is good reason why Petitioners intentionally omitted the “a researcher
`
`with a specific focus” portion of Dr. DiPiro’s opinion to make their “uninterested”
`
`POSA argument. Petitioners’ counsel attempted, but failed, to have Dr. DiPiro
`
`agree at his deposition that a POSA would not have a “specific interest” in “drug
`
`distribution” and “safety and abuse issues.” See Ex. 1055 at 248:8-249:5. Dr.
`
`DiPiro repeatedly answered “I’m not agreeing.” See id. Instead, Dr. DiPiro
`
`explained that a POSA “would be expected to have an interest in drug distribution
`
`systems, be interested in safety, be interested in [abuse] and regulatory affairs.”
`
`See id. at 249:6-250:17. He also explained the difference between his statement
`
`regarding a “researcher with a specific focus” and a POSA with a “specific
`
`interest.” See id. The POSA is not a “researcher with a specific focus.” In fact,
`
`Dr. Valuck did not mention any “researcher with a specific focus on drug
`
`distribution, safety, and abuse or regulatory affairs” as part of his POSA when he
`
`explained it to Petitioners’ counsel during re-direct testimony at his deposition.
`
`See Ex. 2045 at 237:17-238:1.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`
`Thus, Petitioners’ argument that “[t]he DiPiro Declaration only relates to
`
`what persons uninterested in the subject matter of the ’059 patent would have
`
`done” lacks credibility. Dr. DiPiro was addressing the correct POSA and his
`
`opinions are relevant. The opinions make the fact that a POSA exercising
`
`reasonable diligence would not have located the ACA through the Federal Register
`
`more probable. See Fed. R. Evid. 401.
`
`Finally, Petitioners’ one-sentence argument that Paragraphs 54-56 should be
`
`excluded under Rule 403 (Mtn. 7-8), also lacks merit. Dr. DiPiro’s opinions
`
`directly contradict Dr. Valuck’s unsupported assertions regarding the Federal
`
`Register. Further, the Board will not be confused by them, as evidenced by
`
`Petitioners’ failure to give even a single example of how confusion would arise.
`
`B.
`
`The Van Buskirk Deposition is admissible under Rule 807,
`and it is not improper expert testimony, nor is it irrelevant
`
`Exhibit 2054 is an excerpt of a deposition in the co-pending district court
`
`litigation addressing the patents-at-issue in this IPR. The witness testifying,
`
`Dr. Glenn Van Buskirk, was hired as an expert by the generic pharmaceutical
`
`company, Roxane Laboratories Inc., in an effort to invalidate Jazz’s patents. Thus,
`
`Roxane and Petitioners share a common goal. During his deposition, however,
`
`Dr. Van Buskirk provided testimony that directly contradicts Petitioners’ argument
`
`in this IPR that a POSA would have located the ACA through the Federal Register.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`Petitioners are now making every effort they can to exclude it—asserting that it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, improper expert testimony, and irrelevant. Petitioners have
`
`not met their burden to exclude Ex. 2054.
`
`1.
`
`The Van Buskirk Deposition is admissible under Rule 807
`
`Petitioners argue that Exhibit 2054 is inadmissible hearsay because “neither
`
`of the exceptions in Rule 801(d) apply.” Mtn. 8-9. Petitioners ignore, however,
`
`that the Van Buskirk Deposition is admissible under the residual exception to
`
`hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 807. Rule 807 has four requirements: (1) the statement has
`
`equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is offered as
`
`evidence of a material fact; (3) it is more probative on the point for which it is
`
`offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable
`
`efforts; and (4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence and the interests of justice. The Van Buskirk Deposition meets these
`
`requirements.
`
`First, because the Van Buskirk Deposition is sworn testimony taken during a
`
`legal proceeding, it has the requisite guarantees of trustworthiness. See Pozen Inc.
`
`v. Par Pharm., Inc., 696 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Second, the Van
`
`Buskirk Deposition is offered as evidence of a material fact because it relates to the
`
`issue of whether a POSA would have located the ACA based on the Federal
`
`Register. See United States v. Fountain, 2 F.3d 656, 667 n. 6 (6th Cir. 1993) (“A
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`fact or proposition is ‘material’ if it is properly provable in a case in the sense that
`
`it is disputed or, at least, is ‘in issue.’”). Third, the Van Buskirk Deposition is
`
`more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that can
`
`be obtained through reasonable efforts. While taking positions against Jazz,
`
`Dr. Van Buskirk is the only expert, not specifically involved in this IPR, who
`
`testified about what information would be conveyed to a POSA based on the
`
`Federal Register. Fourth, the Van Buskirk Deposition will best serve the purposes
`
`of the rules and the interests of justice for the reasons set forth above.
`
`Petitioners were well aware of Jazz’s intent to rely on the Van Buskirk
`
`Deposition, but made no efforts to challenge it. Petitioners could have asked Jazz
`
`to secure Dr. Van Buskirk’s deposition in this IPR. They did not. Petitioners also
`
`could have easily requested from Roxane, or Dr. Van Buskirk directly, a
`
`declaration countering what is set forth in the Van Buskirk Deposition. Again,
`
`they did not. Instead, Petitioners made no efforts to challenge the merits of the
`
`Van Buskirk Deposition. Accordingly, even if it is hearsay, the Van Buskirk
`
`Deposition is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 807.
`
`Finally, even if the Van Buskirk Deposition does not qualify for the residual
`
`exception, Jazz cured Petitioners’ objection by timely serving Ex. 2059. Exhibit
`
`2059 is a declaration from Dr. DiPiro in which he relies on Dr. Van Buskirk’s
`
`testimony as evidence consistent with his testimony that a POSA would not have
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`been motivated to look to the Federal Register and, therefore, would not have
`
`located the ACA. Ex. 2059, ¶¶3-4. An expert is permitted to rely on hearsay, and
`
`Ex. 2059 cures Petitioners’ hearsay objection. While Petitioners complain that
`
`“Jazz has never made Exhibit 2059 part of record in this proceeding, and has
`
`neither identified how it cured Petitioners’ objections nor how Jazz was relying on
`
`the supplemental evidence,” Jazz was not required to do so. See Sealed Air Corp.
`
`v. Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc., IPR2013-00554, Paper 18 at 2-3 (Apr. 1,
`
`2014) (explaining that previously-served supplemental evidence should not be
`
`made of record until an opposition to a motion to exclude is filed). Thus,
`
`Petitioners’ complaint is baseless.
`
`2.
`
`The Van Buskirk Deposition is proper expert testimony
`
`Petitioners also argue that the Van Buskirk Deposition is “improperly relied
`
`upon as expert opinion testimony” because “Jazz has not qualified . . . Dr. Van
`
`Buskirk[] as an expert in this proceeding.” Mtn. 9. Petitioners do not explain why
`
`Dr. Van Buskirk would not have the competency to testify concerning the
`
`pharmacist POSA. Instead, Petitioners ignore that Dr. Van Buskirk testified that
`
`he has the degree required for a pharmacist POSA—a B.S. in Pharmacy—and is
`
`also a registered pharmacist. Compare Ex. 2054 at 115:10- 22 with Ex. 1007, ¶ 20.
`
`Further, even if Dr. Van Buskirk does not qualify as a POSA, that would not
`
`cure Petitioners’ faulty argument. He has relevant experience in what Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`have asserted is the field of invention—pharmacy. See Mytee Prods. v. Harris
`
`Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (upholding admission
`
`of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the
`
`invention,” despite admission that he was not a POSA). Moreover, there need not
`
`be a perfect match between the expert’s qualifications and the patent at issue. See
`
`SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners have not met their burden of showing that the
`
`Van Buskirk Deposition is improper expert testimony.
`
`3.
`
`The Van Buskirk Deposition is relevant
`
`In a last-ditch effort, Petitioners repeat the same relevancy argument that is
`
`based upon the Federal Register’s “notice” function. As discussed above,
`
`however, Petitioners’ argument is legally incorrect and should be rejected.
`
`C. The Przybylski Declaration is not hearsay, nor is it irrelevant
`
`Exhibit 2057 is a declaration from Jazz’s paralegal Lyndsey Przybylski.
`
`On November 5 and 6, 2015, Ms. Przybylski spoke with three employees,
`
`including Ms. Adams-Buckley, at the Health Sciences Library at the University of
`
`Colorado Denver (the “Library”). Ex. 2057 ¶3. During these conversations, the
`
`three employees confirmed that the only paper copy of the Federal Register in the
`
`Library is from 1968. Id. Ms. Adams-Buckley also confirmed this through e-mail.
`
`Id., Ex. 1. Exhibit 2057, and the e-mail sent by Ms. Adams-Buckley, directly
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`contradict Dr. Valuck’s testimony regarding how he allegedly views materials in
`
`the Federal Register. Realizing the damage this does to their case, Petitioners now
`
`attempt to exclude Ex. 2057 as hearsay and irrelevant. Petitioners have not met
`
`their burden.
`
`1.
`
`The Przybylski Declaration is not hearsay
`
`Petitioners assert that Ex. 2057 “solely contains out-of-court statements by
`
`others to prove the truth of the matter asserted .” Mtn. 11. Not so. Jazz offered
`
`Exhibit 2057 as direct testimony in this IPR. The PTAB has repeatedly held that
`
`declarations offered in IPRs are not “out-of-court statements.” See Phigenix, Inc v.
`
`Immunogen, Inc., IPR2014-00676, Paper 39 at 28 (Oct. 27, 2015); Toyota Motor
`
`Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2013-00417, 2015 WL 124522, at *5 (Jan.
`
`7, 2015). Notably, Petitioners had the opportunity to depose Ms. Przybylski and
`
`challenge her statements and the exhibit she cited, but chose not to do so. That is
`
`Petitioners’ failing, not Jazz’s. Ms. Przybylski’s statements are not hearsay, and
`
`Petitioners’ efforts to exclude them as such should be rejected.
`
`But even if Ex. 2057 is hearsay—it is not—it qualifies for the residual
`
`exception to hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 807. It is offered as evidence of a
`
`material fact—whether Dr. Valuck’s testimony regarding his practice of reading
`
`the Federal Register is accurate—that has guarantees of trustworthiness, as it was
`
`submitted as a declaration in this IPR. It is also more probative on the point for
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`which it is offered than other evidence in this proceeding, and admitting it will best
`
`serve the purposes of the rules and the interests of justice.
`
`Moreover, Jazz files concurrently herewith Ex. 2058, which it timely served
`
`as supplemental evidence, to cure the objection. Exhibit 2058 is a declaration from
`
`Ms. Adams-Buckley, wherein she attests to the same facts regarding paper copies
`
`of the Federal Register at the Library that are set forth in the Przybylski
`
`Declaration. See Ex. 2058. Petitioners complain that “Jazz has never made
`
`Exhibit 2058 part of record in this proceeding, and has neither identified how it
`
`cured Petitioners’ objections nor how Jazz was relying on the supplemental
`
`evidence.” Mtn. 11. Jazz was not required to do so. See Sealed Air, IPR2013-
`
`00554, Paper 18 at 2-3. In any event, Ex. 2058’s content makes clear that it was
`
`served to cure Petitioners’ objection to the Przybylski Declaration.3 Accordingly,
`
`Petitioners’ motion to exclude Ex. 2057 as hearsay should be denied.
`
`2.
`
`The Przybylski Declaration is relevant
`
`Exhibit 2057 (and Exhibit 2058) prove that the Library does not have any
`
`paper copies of the Federal Register, except a 1968 version. Petitioners argue that
`
`this is irrelevant because the evidence provides information “regarding the contents
`
`
`
`
`3 Petitioners may argue that Ex. 2058 is hearsay. They would be incorrect. See
`
`See Phigenix, IPR2014-00676, Paper 39 at 28; Toyota, 2015 WL 124522, at *5.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`of the [Library] as of November 2015,” and Dr. Valuck’s testimony regarding
`
`reading paper copies of the Federal Register allegedly applied only to 2001, not
`
`2015. Mtn. 11-12. This is incorrect, as demonstrated by Dr. Valuck’s testimony
`
`shown below.
`
`As an initial matter, however, Petitioners’ objections made no mention of the
`
`alleged date discrepancy they now allege. Instead, Petitioners asserted only a
`
`boilerplate relevance objection: “JAZZ EXHIBIT 2057 is objected to under Fed.
`
`R. Ev. 401–402 because it is irrelevant to any issue at dispute in this proceeding.”
`
`Paper 53 at 6. Thus, Petitioners’ objection failed to provide Jazz “with sufficient
`
`particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1). The objection should be denied for this reason alone. See B/E
`
`Aerospace, IPR2014-01510, Paper 106 at 6-7.
`
`In any event, Petitioners’ relevance objection is baseless. The disputed
`
`testimony-at-issue is:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`[I]s the Federal Register online or paper?
`
`The – can you be more specific? You mean today or . . . at the
`
`time of this particular notice or at a specific point in time?
`
`Q. Sure. Let’s start with 2001 at the time of this notice in
`
`
`
`PAR1015.
`
`
`
`A. My – at that time, I was using a paper-based subscription sort of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`format, if you will, of the Federal Register. Our health sciences
`
`library has copies of the Federal Register that – that come
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`
`
`
`
`
`there. So they’re available to us on campus that way. And that
`
`happens to be how I typically would see the Federal Register.
`
`Ex. 2045 at 341:19-342:6 (emphasis added). As is clear from the exchange, Jazz’s
`
`counsel asked Dr. Valuck to explain how he views the Federal Register, starting
`
`with 2001. Dr. Valuck provided his answer using the past tense, starting with
`
`2001. Dr. Valuck then proceeded to testify in the present tense. He testified that
`
`the Library has paper copies of the Federal Register and that they are available.
`
`Thus, Petitioners’ irrelevancy argument is without merit. Dr. Valuck’s testimony
`
`was not limited to 2001.
`
`Tellingly, Petitioners did not attempt to rebut Ex. 2057 in their reply.
`
`Petitioners could have easily obtained a counter-declaration from the Library
`
`showing that the Library did in fact possess paper copies of the Federal Register in
`
`2001 if that were true. Petitioners either chose not to do so or could not do so.
`
`Petitioners’ irrelevancy objection should be rejected.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny Petitioners’ Motion to
`
`Exclude.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude IPR2015-00554
`
`
`Patent 7,668,730
`
`
`Date: April 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
` F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
` Eric C. Stops (Reg. No. 51,163)
` Evangeline Shih (Reg. No. 50,170)
` Frank C. Calvosa (Reg. No. 69,064)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`General Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`ericstops@quinnmemanuel.com
`evangelineshih@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`John V. Biernacki
`Reg. No. 40,511
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114
`General Tel: (216) 586-3939
`Direct Tel: (216) 586-7747
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`
`Attorneys for Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., WOCKHARDT BIO AG, and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-005544
`Patent 7,668,730
`________________
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Case IPR2015-01818 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE and Exs. 2058-2059 were served on April 1, 2016 by
`
`filing these documents through the Patent Review Processing System, as well as e-
`
`mailing copies to bradford.frese@arentfox.com, richard.berman@arentfox.com,
`
`janine.carlan@arentfox.com, and PCGallagher@duanemorris.com.
`
`Date: April 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
` F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
` SULLIVAN, LLP
` 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
` New York, NY 10010
` General Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Lead Counsel for
`Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
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
