UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`US ENDODONTICS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GOLD STANDARD INSTRUMENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00632
`Patent 8,727,773 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`US ENDODONTICS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GOLD STANDARD INSTRUMENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00632
`Patent 8,727,773 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`1
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBIT 1005 IS ADMISSIBLE ................................................................... 1
`EXHIBIT 1005 IS ADMISSIBLE ................................................................. ..1
`
`II.
`
`EXHIBIT 1014 IS ADMISSIBLE ................................................................... 3
`EXHIBIT 1014 IS ADMISSIBLE ................................................................. ..3
`
`III. EXHIBIT 1037 IS ADMISSIBLE ................................................................... 5
`III.
`EXHIBIT 1037 IS ADMISSIBLE ................................................................. ..5
`
`IV. THE OBJECTED-TO PORTIONS OF EXHIBITS 1038, 2045,
`IV.
`THE OBJECTED—TO PORTIONS OF EXHIBITS 1038, 2045,
`AND 2046 ARE ADMISSIBLE ..................................................................... 7
`AND 2046 ARE ADMISSIBLE ................................................................... ..7
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ .. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner US Endodontics, LLC opposes Patent Owner’s motion to exclude:
`
`Exhibits 1005, 1014, and 1037; a portion of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 57) that
`
`relies on such exhibits; and Exhibits 1038, 2045 and 2046 at 154:12-155:2, 157:20-
`
`158:15, 161:21-163:5, 66:18-67:14, and 68:3-17. Paper 63. For the reasons
`
`discussed herein, Patent Owner’s motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`I.
`
`EXHIBIT 1005 IS ADMISSIBLE
`
`Exhibit 1005 is a Ph.D. thesis from 2006 authored by Satish B. Alapati and
`
`entitled, “An investigation of phase transformation mechanisms for nickel-titanium
`
`rotary endodontic instruments” (“Alapati”).
`
`As an initial matter, Alapati was introduced during the cross-examination of
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Sinclair, and Patent Owner did not move to exclude
`
`such testimony. See Ex. 1040, 134:19-140:7. Patent Owner argues that since
`
`Alapati “is not prior art, it is not relevant to any ground upon which trial has been
`
`instituted.” See Paper 63, p. 3. Patent Owner is wrong. Petitioner relies on Alapati
`
`as additional evidence that: (i) a skilled artisan would look beyond the endodontic
`
`field for useful nickel titanium (“Ni-Ti”) art; (ii) Ni-Ti will be superelastic when in
`
`the austenite phase, i.e., when the Ni-Ti alloy is in an environment where the
`
`ambient temperature is above the alloy’s austenite finish (Af) (i.e., shape recovery)
`
`temperature; and (iii) equates raising the Af (shape recovery) temperature of a Ni-
`
`Ti alloy to above body temperature with decreasing superelasticity such that the
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Ni-Ti alloy will exhibit permanent deformation when bent. See Paper 2, pp. 3-4,
`
`46; Paper 57, p. 10. See also Ex. 1002, ¶ 66. Such information further rebuts the
`
`arguments from Patent Owner and its expert, Dr. Sinclair, that the combination of
`
`Matsutani and Pelton would not result in “permanent deformation as required.”
`
`Paper 44, p. 52-54. See also Ex. 2026, ¶¶ 49-50, 179. For example, in the portion
`
`cited by Petitioner in its Reply brief, see Paper 57, p. 10, Alapati states:
`
`“Heat treatment of NiTi rotary instruments between 400° and 600°C
`
`increases the austenite-finish (Af) transformation temperature from
`
`approximately 25°C for as-received instruments to 50°C, which
`
`results in the loss of shape memory in the oral environment
`
`(Brantley, 2001).”
`
`Ex. 1005, p. 59-60 of 76 (emphasis added). This contradicts Patent Owner’s and
`
`Dr. Sinclair’s assertions that the combination of Matsutani and Pelton does not
`
`“teach or suggest a heat-treated NiTi file that would exhibit at least 10 degrees of
`
`permanent deformation in the ISO Standard 3630-1 bend test.” Paper 44, pp. 52-
`
`53. See also Ex. 2026, ¶¶ 49-50, 179. Indeed, the quoted passage evidences the
`
`knowledge of a skilled artisan at least as of the earliest effective filing date of the
`
`’773 patent, as it cites to a published article from 2001. Ex. 1005, pp. 59-60, 70 of
`
`76 (citing “Brantley WA (2001). Orthodontic wires. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T,
`
`editors. Orthodontic Materials: Scientific and Clinical Aspects. Stuttgart: Thieme,
`
`pp. 77-103.”) Thus, Alapati is relevant, under FRE 401, because it has a tendency
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`to make it more probable that, on this issue, Patent Owner and its expert are
`
`incorrect, and Petitioner’s position is the correct one.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Alapati is hearsay. See Paper 63, p. 3.
`
`However, even if the Board determines it is hearsay, which Petitioner disputes,
`
`Alapati is still admissible under FRE 703. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Goldberg,
`
`reasonably relied on Alapati in further support of his opinion that one of skill in the
`
`art would have looked to Ni-Ti art beyond the endodontic field when trying to
`
`solve problems within the endodontic field. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 66; Paper 2, p. 46.
`
`Thus, Alapati is admissible under FRE 703 as it served as a basis for Petitioner’s
`
`expert’s opinions.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Exhibit 1005 is admissible and should not be excluded.
`
`II. EXHIBIT 1014 IS ADMISSIBLE
`
`Exhibit 1014 is U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0271529 A1,
`
`Gao et al. (“Gao”), which is assigned to Dentsply International Inc. (“Dentsply”), a
`
`real party-in-interest in this proceeding.
`
`Again, as an initial matter, Gao was introduced during the cross-examination
`
`of Patent Owner’s expert and Patent Owner did not move to exclude such
`
`testimony. See Ex. 1040, 140:8-144:1. Patent Owner argues, as it did for Exhibit
`
`1005, that Gao is not relevant because it is not prior art to the ’773 patent. See
`
`Paper 63, p. 4. In view of the Board’s decision regarding the effective filing date of
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’773 patent, Petitioner does not rely upon Gao as a prior art reference that
`
`renders the claims of the ’773 patent unpatentable. Instead, Petitioner relies on Gao
`
`as further evidence that equates raising the Af (shape recovery) temperature of a
`
`Ni-Ti alloy to above body temperature with decreasing superelasticity such that the
`
`Ni-Ti alloy will exhibit permanent deformation when bent. See Paper 57, p. 10; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 112. Again, this rebuts Patent Owner’s and its expert’s arguments that the
`
`combination of the Matsutani and Pelton prior art references would not meet the
`
`claimed permanent deformation limitation. See Paper 44, pp. 52-54; Ex. 2026, ¶¶
`
`49-50, 179. Specifically, in the portions cited by Petitioner in its Reply brief, see
`
`Paper 57, p. 10, Gao states:
`
`“Due to higher austenite finish temperature, the present invention
`
`instrument would not return to the original complete straight state
`
`after being bent or deflected; in contrast, most standard superelastic
`
`NiTi rotary instruments can return to the original straight form via
`
`reverse
`
`phase
`
`transformation
`
`(martensite-to-austenite)
`
`upon
`
`unloading.”
`
`Ex. 1014, ¶ 25 (emphasis added).
`
`“A method for manufacturing a non-superelastic rotary file
`
`comprising . . . heating the superelastic rotary file to a temperature of
`
`at least about 300° C. for a time period of at least about 5 minutes to
`
`alter the austenite finish temperature thereby forming the non-
`
`superelastic rotary file; wherein
`
`the altered austenite finish
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`temperature of the non-superelastic rotary file is greater than about
`
`25° C.”
`
`Ex. 1014, ¶ 62 (emphasis added). These quoted portions of Gao directly contradict
`
`Patent Owner’s and Dr. Sinclair’s assertions that the combination of Matsutani and
`
`Pelton would not result in a Ni-Ti shank that would meet the permanent
`
`deformation limitation of the claims of the ’773 patent. Moreover, the statements
`
`in Gao, which has been assigned to real party-in-interest Dentsply and were made
`
`by Dentsply representatives, are party admissions. FRE 801(d)(2). Thus, Gao is
`
`relevant, under FRE 401, because it has a tendency to make it more probable that,
`
`on this issue, Patent Owner and its expert are incorrect, and Petitioner’s position is
`
`the correct one.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Exhibit 1014 is admissible and should not be excluded.
`
`III. EXHIBIT 1037 IS ADMISSIBLE
`
`Exhibit 1037 is U.S. Patent No. 6,149,501 to Farzin-Nia (“Farzin-Nia”).
`
`Petitioner relies on Farzin-Nia as further rebuttal to Patent Owner’s and its
`
`expert’s arguments that the combination of the Matsutani and Pelton prior art
`
`references would not meet the claimed permanent deformation limitation. Paper
`
`44, pp. 52-54. See also Ex. 2026, ¶¶ 49-50, 179. In the portion cited in Petitioner’s
`
`Reply brief, see Paper 57, p. 10, Farzin-Nia states:
`
`“Superelastic alloys are in the martensitic phase when they are below
`
`the austenitic transformation temperature Af, i.e., the temperature at
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`which the material is about 100% austenite. These alloys retain their
`
`deformed shape when subjected to stress in the martensitic phase.”
`
`Ex. 1037, 4:12-16.
`
`Once again, Exhibit 1037 was introduced during the cross-examination of
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Sinclair, and Patent Owner did not move to exclude
`
`such testimony. See Ex. 1040, 133:2-134:18. Patent Owner does not argue that
`
`Farzin-Nia is irrelevant. Rather, it argues that Farzin-Nia is hearsay not subject to
`
`any exception. See Paper 63, p. 4. This is incorrect. A patent issued by the U.S.
`
`Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) falls under the hearsay exception for
`
`public records. Under FRE 803(8)(A), Farzin-Nia is a “public record,” i.e., an
`
`issued patent, reflecting an “activit[y]” of the USPTO, i.e., issuing patents. Under
`
`FRE 803(8)(B), neither the source of Farzin-Nia, i.e., the USPTO, nor other
`
`circumstances, indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner has failed to carry its burden of “show[ing] that the
`
`source of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.”
`
`See Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. 03-1431, 2006
`
`WL 1330003, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006) (“With respect to public records,
`
`the presumption is one of trustworthiness, and the burden of establishing
`
`untrustworthiness falls on the opponent of the evidence. A party opposing the
`
`introduction of a public record bears the burden of coming forward with enough
`
`negative factors to persuade a court that a report should not be
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`admitted. The [USPTO] is an agency of the United States, within the Department
`
`of Commerce, and thus falls squarely within the ‘public offices or agencies’
`
`requirement of Rule 803(8).”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Exhibit 1037 is admissible and should not be excluded.
`
`IV. THE OBJECTED-TO PORTIONS OF EXHIBITS 1038, 2045, AND
`2046 ARE ADMISSIBLE
`
`Exhibit 1038 is Deposition Transcript of Neill H. Luebke, D.D.S., M.S.,
`
`dated December 9, 2015 (Public/Redacted Version). Exhibit 2045 is identical to
`
`Exhibit 1038 but for its inclusion of a cover page. Exhibit 2046 is identical to
`
`Exhibits 1038 and 2045 but for its lack of redactions. Patent Owner moves to strike
`
`the following portions of the transcript of Dr. Luebke’s cross-examination: 154:12-
`
`155:2, 157:20-158:15, 161:21-163:5, 66:18-67:14, and 68:3-17. Contrary to Patent
`
`Owner’s objections, this testimony is within the scope of Dr. Luebke’s direct
`
`testimony in this proceeding.
`
`A. Background
`
`Dr. Luebke is the named inventor on the ’773 patent, of which real party-in-
`
`interest Dentsply is the exclusive licensee. In this proceeding, Dr. Luebke
`
`submitted a 29-page declaration concurrently with Patent Owner’s Response. See
`
`Ex. 2027. The declaration contains the following topical headings: “Background of
`
`the ’773 Patent”; “The Invention of the ’773 Patent”; “The Claims of the ’773
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent”; “The Invention of the ’773 Patent Initially Met with Skepticism”; “Efforts
`
`to Commercialize the Invention of the ’773 Patent”; “The Invention of the ’773
`
`Patent is Commercially Successful”; and “Prosecution History of the ’991 Patent.”
`
`As previously explained to the Board, see Ex. 1038, 34:21-36:22, in the
`
`related district court proceeding, Dr. Luebke served as a technical expert for
`
`Plaintiff Dentsply, and testified at length on validity issues. Patent Owner has
`
`relied on Dr. Luebke’s testimony from the district court case to support its
`
`arguments in this proceeding relating to several prior art references at issue,
`
`including the Kuhn and McSpadden references (Exs. 1019 and 1022). See, e.g.,
`
`Paper 9, pp. 30-31 (citing Ex. 2001, pp. 65-66 regarding the Kuhn reference);
`
`Paper 44, p. 40 (citing Ex. 2001, pp. 163-165 regarding the McSpadden reference).
`
`It would be unfair to allow Patent Owner to rely on Dr. Luebke’s district court
`
`testimony regarding the prior art at issue in this proceeding, and at the same time to
`
`foreclose Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Luebke’s admissions in this proceeding
`
`regarding the same.
`
`B.
`
`The Objected-To Cross-Examination Testimony Should Not Be
`Stricken
`
`Patent Owner moves to strike Exhibit 1038, 154:12-155:2, in which Dr.
`
`Luebke testified regarding the meaning of “shape memory” as recited in Matsutani:
`
`Q Now, in Column 4, going back to Matsutani, that's Exhibit 1023,
`
`Matsutani says that subjecting a portion of this superelastic
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`endodontic file to heat treatment results in a shape memory portion to
`
`allow the dentist to be able to precurve the file. Correct?
`
`A That's what it says.
`
`MR. DAHLGREN: Objection. Scope.
`
`Q That means when the dentist bends the file, it will stay in its bent
`
`curved shape after the bending force is removed. Correct?
`
`MR. DAHLGREN: Objection. Scope.
`
`A I presume that's what they're saying.
`
`This cross-examination testimony is squarely within the scope of Dr. Luebke’s
`
`direct testimony regarding the meaning of “shape memory”:
`
`“The post heat-treating process changes the shape memory
`
`characteristic of the NiTi file so that the file bends easily and can
`
`retain its bent shape, even at body temperature. This is an important
`
`and useful characteristic for practitioners because it allows the file
`
`to follow the natural curvature of the root and not create a ledge.”
`
`Ex. 2027, ¶ 32 (emphasis added). Further, the referenced portion of Matsutani
`
`discusses what the “shape memory” trait “allow[s] the dentist to be able to” do,
`
`which is also within the scope of the testimony from Dr. Luebke (who himself was
`
`an endodontist) regarding shape memory being “an important and useful
`
`characteristic for practitioners.” Id. The cross-examination testimony regarding
`
`Matsutani, Ex. 1023, also shows that Dr. Luebke was not the first to recognize the
`
`effects of heat-treating nickel-titanium files, and undermines his statements that the
`
`’773 patent met with skepticism.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also moves to strike Exhibit 1038, 157:20-158:15, in which
`
`Dr. Luebke testified regarding file characteristics that resulted from Matsutani’s
`
`disclosed heat-treatment:
`
`Q Going back to the Matsutani reference, which is Exhibit 1023.
`
`Matsutani states that the precurving of the shape memory portion
`
`enables the tip of the shape memory portion to follow the root canal
`
`with high fidelity at the time of inserting the tip into the root canal and
`
`performing treatment of the root canal. Do you see that?
`
`A I do.
`
`MR. DAHLGREN: Objection. Scope.
`
`Q Matsutani, at Lines 58 to 62, specifically discloses that the heat-
`
`treated portion retains its shape when bent and has a high flexibility.
`
`Correct?
`
`MR. DAHLGREN: Objection. Scope.
`
`A At 58?
`
`Q Yes. Column 4, Lines 58 to 62.
`
`A It says, high flexibility and high fatigue resistance characteristic.
`
`This cross-examination testimony is squarely within the scope of Dr. Luebke’s
`
`direct testimony in Exhibit 2027, ¶ 32 (“shape memory”), discussed above, as well
`
`as his direct testimony in Exhibit 2027, ¶¶ 12 (challenges faced by endodontists of
`
`navigating root canals), 17 (desirability of nickel-titanium due to its flexibility and
`
`strength), 19 (tendency of superelastic nickel-titanium files to fracture during use),
`
`22 (same), 29 (results of Dr. Luebke’s alleged laboratory testing showing that heat
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`treatment made files more flexible and more resilient), 30 (Dr. Luebke’s “eureka
`
`moment”), 37 (alleged skepticism that the ’773 patent met with for resulting in
`
`files that were softer and flexible), and 39 (same). The cross-examination
`
`testimony regarding Matsutani also shows that Dr. Luebke was not the first to
`
`recognize the effects of heat-treating nickel-titanium files, and undermines his
`
`statements that the ’773 patent met with skepticism.
`
`Patent Owner also moves to strike Exhibit 1038, 161:21-163:5, in which Dr.
`
`Luebke testified that the bending test described in Matsutani is substantially similar
`
`to the test described in ISO Standard 3630-1. This cross-examination testimony is
`
`squarely within the scope of Dr. Luebke’s direct testimony regarding his alleged
`
`experience in conducting bend tests on files, including bend tests he allegedly
`
`performed in accordance with ISO Standard 3630-1. Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 27, 28, 32, 50,
`
`51, 54, 55. The cross-examination testimony also shows that Dr. Luebke was not
`
`the first to perform the claimed bend testing to measure permanent deformation of
`
`heat-treated nickel-titanium files.
`
`Patent Owner also moves to strike Exhibit 1038, 66:18-67:14, in which Dr.
`
`Luebke testified regarding the state of the prior art and the endodontic file market,
`
`as well as ISO Standard 3630-1:
`
`Q The ProFile files that are disclosed in Kuhn were available in sizes
`
`that were described in ISO Standard 3630-1. Correct?
`
`MR. DAHLGREN: Objection. Scope.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`A In the -- in the current -- let me -- let me step back one. The 1992
`
`ISO standard did not have taper. So the answer is, yes, they were to
`
`the current ISO standard that was -- that was being -- everybody saw.
`
`So the answer to that is yes.
`
`Q The current standard that everybody saw at the time that you filed
`
`your 2004 application was the ISO standard that was in effect in 1992.
`
`Correct? That was the first edition?
`
`MR. DAHLGREN: Objection. Form.
`
`A No. We already went through that. The two thousand -- in 2001, the
`
`standards changed. So Kuhn's files would have fallen under that ISO
`
`standard.
`
`Patent Owner moves to strike this entire testimony based on separate objections to
`
`scope and form. However, during the cross-examination, Patent Owner did not
`
`object to the first question based on form, or to the second question based on
`
`scope. Thus, Patent Owner waived any objection to the first question as to form,
`
`and any objection to the second question as to scope. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8)
`
`(“Any objection to the content, form, or manner of taking the deposition . . . is
`
`waived unless made on the record during the deposition . . . .”).
`
`The first cross-examination question above is squarely within the scope of
`
`Dr. Luebke’s direct testimony regarding the state of the prior art and the
`
`endodontic file market, see Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 17-20, including testimony regarding the
`
`sizes of files the industry offered:
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`“The industry recognized the problem and attempted to address the
`
`fracture of superelastic NiTi files. The problem was attributed to a
`
`lack of strength in the files. Some manufacturers increased the
`
`diameter of the core of the files, but this failed to solve the problem.
`
`Others tried to solve the fracture problem by increasing the taper of
`
`the file from the standard 2 percent taper up to 4 percent, then 6
`
`percent, then 8 percent and even up to 10 percent taper, resulting in
`
`thicker files, but this also failed to solve the fracture problem. The
`
`larger files and increased taper created stiffer files and created an
`
`additional problem because the files removed more tooth structure,
`
`which then could compromise the tooth.”
`
`Ex. 2027, ¶ 22. Dr. Luebke’s cross-examination testimony also shows that he was
`
`not the first to provide nickel-titanium endodontic files in sizes in accordance with
`
`ISO Standard 3630-1.
`
`With respect to the second cross-examination question above, Patent Owner
`
`chose to object not to the scope of the question, but rather, to the form. However,
`
`Patent Owner’s motion fails to provide any explanation for its objection to the
`
`form of the question, and therefore, its motion to strike the second question and
`
`responsive testimony should be denied. Further, regarding scope, the question is
`
`squarely within the scope of Dr. Luebke’s direct testimony regarding his alleged
`
`experience in conducting bend tests on files, including bend tests he allegedly
`
`performed in accordance with ISO Standard 3630-1. Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 27, 28, 32, 50,
`
`51, 54, 55.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also moves to strike Exhibit 1038, 68:3-17, in which Dr.
`
`Luebke testified regarding the state of the prior art and the endodontic file market:
`
`Q I'll ask the question again. The ProFile files that are disclosed in
`
`Kuhn, which is Exhibit 1019 in this proceeding, were available in
`
`sizes disclosed in ISO Standard 3630-1. Correct?
`
`A Yes.
`
`Q The ProFile files were at the time being sold by, is it Maillefer?
`
`A Maillefer in Switzerland? Yes.
`
`Q Dentsply, your licensee, eventually acquired Maillefer. Is that
`
`correct?
`
`A I don't know the details, but that's correct.
`
`Q The Kuhn reference that we've been discussing, I'm handing you a
`
`copy of. That's Exhibit 1019.
`
`Patent Owner failed to raise any objections to this questioning by Petitioner,
`
`thereby waiving any objection that it now belatedly attempts to lodge. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8). For this reason, Patent Owner’s motion to strike these
`
`questions and responsive testimony should be denied. Further, the questioning
`
`above is squarely within the scope of Dr. Luebke’s direct testimony regarding the
`
`state of the prior art and the endodontic file market, see Ex. 2027, ¶¶ 17-20,
`
`including testimony regarding the sizes of files the industry offered, see id. at ¶ 22,
`
`as well as his direct testimony regarding Maillefer, see id. at fn. 2 (“Maillefer
`
`Instruments Holding Sarl (‘Maillefer’) was a wholly owned Dentsply International
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc. entity at this time.”). Such cross-examination testimony from Dr. Luebke
`
`further shows that he was not the first to provide nickel-titanium endodontic files
`
`in sizes in accordance with ISO Standard 3630-1.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the objected-to portions of Exhibits 1038, 2045, and 2046 are
`
`admissible and should not be excluded.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Exhibits 1005, 1014, and 1037, the portion of
`
`Petitioner Reply (Paper 57) that relies on such exhibits, and Exhibits 1038, 2045
`
`and 2046 at 154:12-155:2, 157:20-158:15, 161:21-163:5, 66:18-67:14, and 68:3-
`
`17, are admissible, and should not be excluded.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: March 16, 2016
`
`/Jeffrey S. Ginsberg/
`Jeffrey S. Ginsberg (Reg. No. 36,148)
`Lead counsel for Petitioner US Endodontics, LLC
`
`Abhishek Bapna (Reg. No. 64,049)
`Back-up counsel for Petitioner US Endodontics, LLC
`
`Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
`1133 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-6710
`Tel.: (212) 336-2000
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on March 16,
`
`2016, the foregoing PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served via electronic mail on the following
`
`counsel of record for the Patent Owner:
`
`Joseph A. Hynds
`(jhynds@rothwellfigg.com)
`R. Elizabeth Brenner-Leifer
`(ebrenner@rothwellfigg.com)
`Steven Lieberman
`(slieberman@rothwellfigg.com)
`Jason M. Nolan
`(jnolan@rothwellfigg.com)
`Derek F. Dahlgren
`(ddahlgren@rothwellfigg.com)
`C. Nichole Gifford
`(ngifford@rothwellfigg.com)
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Ste. 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`/Abhishek Bapna/
`Abhishek Bapna (Reg. No. 64,049)
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
