Paper No. ____
`Filed: March 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and MYLAN INC.,
`LUPIN LTD., and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
` SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(C)
`
`
`1IPR2015-01871 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Dr. Laskar’s Opinions and Testimony Regarding any Issue of Organic
`or Medicinal Chemistry Should Be Excluded Under FRE 702....................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to and Challenged Dr. Laskar’s
`Qualifications During Cross Examination ............................................ 2
`
`B. Dr. Laskar Is Not Qualified to Offer Opinions on Organic or
`Medicinal Chemistry, or Challenge Those Opinions of Senju’s
`Qualified Expert .................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Portions of the Reply Declaration of Dr. Laskar, and Eight New
`Accompanying Exhibits Should be Excluded Under FRE 402 and 403 ......... 8
`
`A.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to the Laskar Reply Declaration and
`Accompanying Exhibits, Upon Which Petitioner Relied in Its
`Reply...................................................................................................... 8
`
`B. Dr. Laskar’s Reply Declaration and Supporting Exhibits
`Exceed the Proper Scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.23(b) and Thus Lack Relevance under FRE 402 and Are
`Prejudicial Under FRE 403 ................................................................... 9
`
`III. Allegedly Supporting Exhibits 1075, 1098, and 1076 Should Be
`Excluded Under FRE 402 and 403 ................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to Exhibits 1075, 1098, and 1076 .................10
`
`Exhibits 1075, 1098, and 1076 Allegedly Support an Argument
`that Exceeds the Proper Scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and Should Be Excluded Under FRE 402 and
`Are Prejudicial Under FRE 403 ..........................................................11
`
`IV. Dr. Laskar’s Testimony on Redirect After Consultation with
`Petitioner’s Counsel Should Be Excluded .....................................................11
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(c) and 42.61(a), and the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence, Patent Owner Senju first moves to exclude the Reply Declaration of
`
`Paul Laskar, Ph.D. (EX1104), specifically at least paragraphs 8, 10-13, and 17-19,
`
`and the testimony of Dr. Laskar (EX2114 and EX2272), because Dr. Laskar
`
`completely lacks expertise in organic or medicinal chemistry and, thus, Dr. Laskar
`
`is not qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education necessary to
`
`form an opinion under FRE 702. Second, Senju moves to exclude paragraphs 4-34
`
`of Ex. 1104, and allegedly supporting EX1089, 1092, 1093, 1105, 1106, 1091,
`
`1094 and 1148, because these exhibits lack relevance under FRE 402, as they
`
`exceed the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), and
`
`because they are prejudicial under FRE 403 to Senju, as Senju is unable to respond
`
`to them. Third, Senju moves to exclude EX1075, EX1098 and EX1076 for lack of
`
`relevance under FRE 402, because these exhibits were used in connection with a
`
`new argument in Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 51), which exceeds the proper scope of
`
`a Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and their use is prejudicial to Senju under FRE
`
`403. Senju further moves to exclude Dr. Laskar’s testimony at his first cross
`
`examination on redirect, Ex. 2114, 258:14-263:1, because that testimony was
`
`unreliable, having been elicited after consultation with Petitioner’s counsel during
`
`a break, and in light of Dr. Laskar’s repeated refusal to provide responsive,
`
`accurate answers on cross-examination during his cross examination.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`I. Dr. Laskar’s Opinions and Testimony Regarding any Issue of Organic or
`Medicinal Chemistry Should Be Excluded Under FRE 702
`A.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to and Challenged Dr. Laskar’s
`Qualifications During Cross Examination
`
`Senju timely objected to Ex. 1104, specifically paragraphs 8, 10-13, and 17-
`
`19, under FRE 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 in objections filed and served March 25,
`
`2016. (Paper 54.) Further, during Dr. Laskar’s cross-examination on his
`
`Declaration (Ex. 2114, 25:21-32:17; 257:14-18) and on his Reply Declaration
`
`(EX2272, 14:10-25:7), Senju extensively challenged and objected to Dr. Laskar’s
`
`lack of qualifications necessary to form an opinion under FRE 702.
`
`B. Dr. Laskar Is Not Qualified to Offer Opinions on Organic or
`Medicinal Chemistry, or Challenge Those Opinions of Senju’s
`Qualified Expert
`
`In his declarations in support of the petition and the reply, Dr. Laskar offers
`
`opinions on, among other things, organic and medicinal chemistry issues to argue
`
`that the instituted claims are allegedly obvious and to challenge the declarative
`
`evidence on secondary considerations submitted by Patent Owner. Dr. Laskar,
`
`however, completely lacks expertise in organic and medicinal chemistry—the
`
`central technology of this proceeding. Accordingly, and as discussed below, Dr.
`
`Laskar’s opinions should be excluded.
`
`Dr. Laskar was cross-examined twice during this proceeding, and each time,
`
`Patent Owner explored his complete lack of relevant expertise. At the outset, Dr.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`Laskar held himself out to be an expert in “the field of formulations and drug
`
`delivery, specifically pharmaceutical formulations for ophthalmic administration
`
`including topical aqueous liquid preparations.” (EX2114, 24:3-14.) But Dr.
`
`Laskar has never practiced medicine (EX2114, 28:4-23) and is no longer “an active
`
`registered pharmacist” (EX2272, 14:22-15:2). In fact, Dr. Laskar has not
`
`dispensed a drug since the mid-1970s, has never dispensed any bromfenac product,
`
`and does not recall ever dispensing an ophthalmic product containing tyloxapol.
`
`(EX2272, 14:13-15:22.) Since 1982, he has formulated drug products, but he has
`
`never formulated products with bromfenac and has never formulated any NSAID
`
`product containing tyloxapol. (EX2272, 22:1-13.) Nor has Dr. Lasker conducted
`
`any research on bromfenac products. (EX2114, 28:25-29:5.)
`
`Dr. Laskar’s formal education is in general science, pharmacy, and
`
`pharmaceutical sciences, not in chemistry. (EX2272, 22:17-23-15.) He has never
`
`held a faculty position in any chemistry department and never held any faculty
`
`position at all beyond associate professor. (EX2272, 20:10-16.) Dr. Laskar has
`
`only ever submitted two patent applications, and neither is relevant to the ’290 or
`
`’431 patents. (EX2114, 26:3-27:1; EX2272, 16:1-18:7.) He has only authored
`
`eight peer reviewed publications in his entire career, the last one in 1993 related to
`
`sunscreen products, and the most recent one before that in 1977. (EX2272, 18:13-
`
`19:15.) None of his publications relates to antioxidants, a topic on which he opines
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`extensively in his Reply Declaration. (EX2272, 19:11-15, 20:6-9.) Dr. Laskar is
`
`not a member of the American Chemical Society and has never published anything
`
`in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. (EX2272, 24:1-8.) To date, he
`
`has only ever given four presentations—none on the use of antioxidants—and the
`
`most recent was 24 years ago. (EX2272, 20:20-21:9.) After an extensive review
`
`of his credentials during his cross examination on his Reply Declaration, Dr.
`
`Laskar readily admitted that he was not an expert in medicinal or organic
`
`chemistry, including antioxidant chemistry. (EX2272, 20:17-21:5.) As a result,
`
`with respect the central issues Dr. Laskar and Petitioners have raised in this
`
`proceeding, Dr. Laskar has no experience whatsoever, and therefore he is
`
`unqualified to provide expert testimony in this proceeding.
`
`Dr. Laskar not only is unqualified to offer his own opinions but also is
`
`unqualified to challenge the opinions of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Davies. For
`
`example, Dr. Laskar contends that the compound tyloxapol is an “alkylphenol,”
`
`like those disclosed in the Doi patent (EX2025). (EX1104 at ¶ 17.) A phenol,
`
`however, is by definition a compound having one or more hydroxy (-OH) groups
`
`attached to a phenyl ring. Tyloxapol is therefore by definition not an alkylphenol
`
`and is not taught by Doi, contrary to Dr. Laskar’s opinions.
`
`In addition, Dr. Laskar agrees that polysorbate 80 is an oxidizing agent
`
`because it degrades to produce peroxides and hydroperoxides, citing Dr. Davies’
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`declaration, but then contends that tyloxapol somehow is an antioxidant. (EX1104
`
`at ¶¶ 8,10-11, n.6.) Contrary to Dr. Laskar’s opinion, the portion of Dr. Davies’
`
`declaration to which Dr. Laskar cites establishes with literature support (see
`
`EX2097) that both polysorbate 80 and tyloxapol degrade to produce peroxides and
`
`hydroperoxides because they both contain polyoxyethylene chains. (EX2105 at ¶¶
`
`71-74.) Dr. Laskar admits that tyloxapol is an “ethoxylated” surfactant which
`
`contains a polyoxyethylene chain. (EX1104 at ¶ 2.) Given his agreement that
`
`polysorbate 80 is an antioxidant rather than an oxidizing agent, and the fact
`
`polysorbate 80 and tyloxapol share the same ethoxylated chain in common, Dr.
`
`Laskar cannot credibly contend that tyloxapol somehow is an antioxidant rather
`
`than an oxidizing agent. Dr. Laskar’s reliance on Dr. Davies’ opinion regarding
`
`polysorbate 80’s polyoxyethylene chain, coupled with his unsupported rejection of
`
`Dr. Davies’ opinion regarding tyloxapol’s polyoxyethylene chain, demonstrates
`
`Dr. Laskar’s complete lack of expertise in this area and the unreliability of his
`
`opinions.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Laskar’s reliance on a series of wholly irrelevant references
`
`that teach the use of tyloxapol in biological systems to prevent biologic injury (see
`
`EX1092, EX1093, EX1094, EX1105, EX1148) further establishes that Dr. Laskar
`
`is unqualified to offer opinions regarding organic or medicinal chemistry. As Dr.
`
`Davies explained in the parallel district court litigation regarding the ’431 and ’290
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`patents, bromfenac is subject to oxidation in aqueous ophthalmic solutions in the
`
`presence of oxygen (O2). (EX2267.) EX1092 and EX1093 cited by Dr. Laskar
`
`study the ability of tyloxapol to prevent biologic injury from “partially reduced O2
`
`species,” which Dr. Laskar agrees are not oxygen. (EX2267 at ¶ 29; EX2272,
`
`130:4-8.) “Partially reduced O2 species” are simply not present in bromfenac
`
`ophthalmic solutions. (Id.) Dr. Davies further explained that EX1094 similarly
`
`studies the use of tyloxapol in biological systems to “inhibi[t] activation of the
`
`transcription factor nuclear factor-kappa B . . .,” as well as tyloxapol’s ability to
`
`serve as an antioxidant for hydroxyl radicals, generated in the presence of ferrous
`
`ions, and hypochlorous acid, generated from ‘leukocyte myeloperoxidase.” (Id.)
`
`Hydroxyl radicals and hypochlorous acid are also not oxygen and are similarly not
`
`present in bromfenac ophthalmic solutions. (Id.) These references cited by Dr.
`
`Laskar are therefore not relevant to bromfenac’s oxidative degradation, and
`
`nothing in these references establishes that tyloxapol would behave as an
`
`antioxidant for O2 in an aqueous solution of bromfenac. (Id.) Indeed, if tyloxapol
`
`did inhibit O2, its administration as a therapeutic agent by aerosol treatment to the
`
`lungs as in EX1093 (see 3:2-5) would be potentially fatal in vivo. In sum, it is not
`
`surprising that Dr. Laskar’s opinions in his reply declaration (EX1104) are
`
`inconsistent with the opinions offered by Dr. Davies, an undisputed expert in
`
`organic and medicinal chemistry.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`To qualify as an expert, a witness must have “knowledge, skill, experience,
`
`training, or education” relevant to the evidence or facts at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`In addition, an expert must be more than simply “qualified” in any discipline. The
`
`expert must be qualified in the subject matter about which he or she proposes to
`
`testify. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (expert who may have been qualified to testify as to patent office
`
`procedures not qualified to testify on patent validity because of a lack of
`
`experience and training in the pertinent art). The Federal Circuit has stated that
`
`“[a]dmitting testimony from a [witness], with no skill in the pertinent art, serves
`
`only to cause mischief and confuse the factfinder.” Sundance, 550 F.3d at 1362.
`
`Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) and
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702, courts and the Board are charged with a “gatekeeping role,” the
`
`objective of which is to ensure that expert testimony admitted into evidence is both
`
`reliable and relevant. Because Dr. Laskar, by his own admission, has no training or
`
`experience in organic or medicinal chemistry, which is the very subject matter Dr.
`
`Laskar and Petitioners have placed at issue in this proceeding, Dr. Laskar’s
`
`opinions fail to comply with Fed. R. Evid. 702. Dr. Laskar plainly lacks both the
`
`knowledge and experience required to express the opinions he provides in EX1003
`
`and EX1104.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`Dr. Laskar’s purported expertise in the fields of formulation and drug
`
`delivery does not qualify him as an expert in the specific chemical technology at
`
`issue. See Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 395 F. App’x 709,
`
`715 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“General experience in a related field may not suffice when
`
`experience and skill in specific product design are necessary to resolve patent
`
`issues.”). And because he is unqualified, Dr. Laskar’s opinions expressed in
`
`EX1104, specifically at least paragraphs 8, 10-13, and 17-19, 2114, and EX2272
`
`regarding organic or medicinal chemistry are unreliable and cannot assist the trier
`
`of fact as Fed. R. Evid. 702 requires. Accordingly, the Board should exclude his
`
`testimony from evidence. Likewise, Dr. Laskar’s opinions expressed in his
`
`opening declaration (EX1003) involving organic and medicinal chemistry should
`
`be afforded no weight given Dr. Laskar’s admitted lack of expertise in these fields.
`
`II. Portions of the Reply Declaration of Dr. Laskar, and Eight New
`Accompanying Exhibits Should be Excluded Under FRE 402 and 403
`A.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to the Laskar Reply Declaration and
`Accompanying Exhibits, Upon Which Petitioner Relied in Its
`Reply
`
`In objections filed and served March 25, 2016, Senju objected to EX1104,
`
`specifically ¶¶ 4-34, and allegedly supporting EX1089, 1092, 1093, 1105, 1106,
`
`1091, 1094 and 1148, under FRE 402 and 403 as being directed to improper new
`
`testimony from Dr. Laskar that tyloxapol allegedly is an antioxidant. (Paper 54.)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`B. Dr. Laskar’s Reply Declaration and Supporting Exhibits Exceed
`the Proper Scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`and Thus Lack Relevance under FRE 402 and Are Prejudicial
`Under FRE 403
`
`In its Reply (Paper 51), Petitioner relies upon the Laskar Reply Declaration
`
`(EX1104) for an entirely new argument for why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`allegedly would have reason to modify Ogawa in view of Sallmann, relying on
`
`eight new references. (Reply, Paper 51 at 11.) In EX1104, Dr. Laskar posits, for
`
`the first time, that:
`
`Knowing that polysorbate 80 was the cause of oxidative degradation, the
`skilled artisan would have replaced the polysorbate 80 with another non-
`ionic surfactant that did not share polysorbate 80’s liability. The skilled
`artisan would have known that tyloxapol, like polysorbate 80, is not only a
`non-ionic surfactant commonly used in ophthalmic formulations but, unlike
`polysorbate 80, it also has antioxidant properties.
`
`(EX1104, ¶ 7 (emphasis added).) In Dr. Laskar’s opening declaration (EX1003),
`
`his first deposition, and the Petition, however, not once did Dr. Laskar or Petitioner
`
`argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would replace polysorbate 80 with
`
`tyloxapol because tyloxapol allegedly is an antioxidant. This is an entirely new
`
`argument, to which Patent Owner has had no opportunity to respond. In
`
`connection with this new argument, Dr. Laskar cites eight new references and
`
`discusses each reference in detail, blatantly mischaracterizing each reference. (See
`
`EX1089, EX1106, EX1091, EX1094, EX1080, EX1105, EX1148, EX1092,
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`EX1093.) In fact, Dr. Laskar devotes 30 paragraphs of his 39-paragraph reply
`
`declaration to this entirely new argument. (EX1104, ¶¶ 4-34.)
`
`These portions of EX1104 and the exhibits listed above should be excluded
`
`because they lack relevance under FRE 402, as they exceed the proper scope of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Arguments in support of a reply
`
`“may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner
`
`response.” Id. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “new evidence necessary
`
`to make out a prima facie case for [] unpatentability” and “new evidence that could
`
`have been presented in a prior filing” are improper. 77 Fed. Reg. 48767. “[A]
`
`reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered
`
`and may be returned.” Id. Moreover, these portions of EX1104 and the exhibits
`
`listed above should be excluded under FRE 403 because they were first presented
`
`at the Reply stage and Patent Owner is prejudiced by being unable to respond to
`
`the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`III. Allegedly Supporting Exhibits 1075, 1098, and 1076 Should Be Excluded
`Under FRE 402 and 403
`A.
`In objections timely filed and served March 25, 2016, Senju objected to
`
`Senju Timely Objected to Exhibits 1075, 1098, and 1076
`
`
`
`EX1075, EX1098 and EX1076, under FRE 402 and 403, which Petitioner cites in
`
`connection with a new argument alleging motivation to combine. (Paper 54.)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 1075, 1098, and 1076 Allegedly Support an Argument
`that Exceeds the Proper Scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and Should Be Excluded Under FRE 402 and
`Are Prejudicial Under FRE 403
`
`In its Reply, Petitioner argues for the first time that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art allegedly would expect that switching polysorbate 80 with tyloxapol
`
`would improve preservative efficacy because polysorbate 80 allegedly was known
`
`to neutralize BAC. (Paper 51 at 16.) Petitioner sets forth three new references in
`
`connection this new argument. (See EX1075, EX1098, EX1076.) Patent Owner
`
`has had no opportunity to respond to this entirely new argument relating to alleged
`
`motivation to combine. As a result, these Exhibits should be excluded because
`
`they lack relevance under FRE 402, and they exceed the proper scope of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and under FRE 403, as they were
`
`first presented at the Reply stage, and Patent Owner is prejudiced because it is not
`
`able to respond to the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`IV. Dr. Laskar’s Testimony on Redirect After Consultation with Petitioner’s
`Counsel Should Be Excluded
`
`
`
`During cross examination, Dr. Laskar was generally non-responsive and
`
`gave inconsistent testimony on even the most basic questions, requiring Patent
`
`Owner to repeatedly impeach him with his prior sworn testimony. In some cases,
`
`Dr. Laskar provided non-responsive comments that failed to actually answer the
`
`question that was presented to him the first, second or even third time. (See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`EX2114, 48:19-50:4; 98:4-22; 101:13-102:10; 103:12-24; 104-2-20; 115:24-
`
`116:17; 134:11-135:9; 136:16-137:19; 220:14-25.) In other cases, he did not
`
`answer questions presented to him about disclosures in references, but rather
`
`admitted only that the “wording” referenced by Patent Owner’s counsel appeared
`
`in the reference. (See, e.g., id., 53:1-13 (“I see that wording.”); 54:9-55:15 (“That’s
`
`what’s stated there.”); 136:2:15.) In still other cases, Dr. Laskar gave testimony
`
`inconsistent with his prior sworn testimony, and Patent Owner’s counsel repeatedly
`
`was forced to impeach Dr. Laskar with that prior testimony to get an accurate
`
`response. (See, e.g., id., 85:17-88:1; 172:7-173:4, 187:2-188:23; 253:18-254:17.)
`
`
`
`On redirect, the opposite was true. When barely prompted by Petitioner’s
`
`counsel, Dr. Laskar gave lengthy answers in a contrived attempt support his
`
`statements in his Declaration. (Id., 258:14-263:1.) Yet on recross, Dr. Laskar
`
`readily admitted that prior to redirect and during a break, he and Petitioner’s
`
`counsel discussed “the areas in which [Petitioner’s counsel] would ask questions.”
`
`(Id. at 264:16-20). Patent Owner timely objected to this improper tactic and
`
`moved to strike the entirety of Dr. Laskar’s redirect testimony. (Id., 264:21-23.)
`
`
`
`In light of Dr. Laskar’s repeated refusals on cross examination to provide
`
`responsive, accurate answers, and in light of the discussions between Dr. Laskar
`
`and Petitioner’s counsel prior to redirect, Dr. Laskar’s testimony elicited on
`
`redirect should be excluded as unreliable. In sum, in light of Dr. Laskar’s evasive
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`tactics during his cross examination, Dr. Laskar’s redirect testimony should be
`
`excluded as prejudicial, under FRE 403.
`
`V. Conclusion
`For the reasons stated herein, Patent Owner respectfully requests that
`
`EX1104, paragraphs 4-34, the testimony of Dr. Laskar (EX2114 and EX2272), and
`
`EX1089, 1092, 1093, 1105, 1106, 1091, 1094 and 1148, and EX1075, EX1098 and
`
`EX1076 be excluded from these proceedings.
`
`By: /Bryan C. Diner/
`Bryan C. Diner, Lead Counsel
`Registration No. 32,409
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Date: March 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`
`
`OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(C) was
`
`served on March 31, 2016, via email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner
`
`at the following:
`
`Jitendra Malik, Ph.D
`Jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Bryan Skelton, Ph.D.
`Bryan.skelton@alston.com
`
`Lance Soderstrom
`Lance.soderstrom@alson.com
`
`Hitetada James Abe
`James.abe@alston.com
`
`Joseph M. Janusz
`Joe.janusz@alston.com
`
`Deborah Yellin
`dyellin@crowell.com
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`jlindsay@crowell.com
`
`Shannon Lentz
`slentz@crowell.com
`
`
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`Dated: March 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`14