Paper No. __
`Filed: June 23, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: June 23, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Patent Owner, Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”), hereby moves pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) to exclude certain evidence relied upon by Petitioner,
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI LLC (“CFAD”) in its Reply (Paper 54).
`
`CFAD’s Reply relies on hearsay, irrelevant evidence, and mischaracterizations of
`
`Celgene’s expert’s and inventor’s statements. The objected-to portions should be
`
`excluded.
`
`II. MATERIAL FACTS
`
`On May 27, 2016, CFAD filed its Reply. Five business days later, Celgene
`
`served and filed its objections to the evidence cited in CFAD’s Reply under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). See Paper 57 (“Objections”); Ex. 2069. CFAD did not serve
`
`any supplemental evidence, despite having had the opportunity to do so.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. CFAD improperly relies on hearsay
`
`Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter
`
`asserted, and is inadmissible unless an exception applies. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c),
`
`802. CFAD’s Reply relies on several exhibits for impermissible hearsay purposes,
`
`and no exception applies. CFAD’s use of these exhibits should be excluded.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1012 (“FDA Meeting Part 1”) at 137 and 250
`(Objections ¶15)
`
`CFAD relies on Ex. 1012 at 137 and 250 to allege that statements were made
`
`in Ex. 1012 “in which the link between teratology and genetic testing was made
`
`explicit.” Reply at 23. This is hearsay. CFAD is offering the out-of-court
`
`statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted. And there is no evidence
`
`concerning what the cited portions of Ex. 1012 mean to a POSA, despite CFAD
`
`having had the opportunity to submit a Reply expert declaration, but choosing not
`
`to do so. Thus, Celgene moves to exclude Ex. 1012 at 137 and 250 under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 801-802.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1017 (“Mundt”) at 611-612 (Objections ¶17)
`
`CFAD relies on Ex. 1017 at 611-612 to argue that: (1) alleged “advantages
`
`of the use of IVR over traditional interactions with physicians include ‘around the
`
`clock’ accessibility and that ‘[m]any individuals will disclose sensitive information
`
`to a computer that they would be reluctant to discuss with another person’”; and
`
`(2) “Mundt teaches that IVR can be used in a variety of settings.” Reply at 24.
`
`This is hearsay. CFAD is offering the out-of-court statements to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted. And there is no evidence concerning what the cited portions of
`
`Ex. 1017 mean to a POSA, despite CFAD having had the opportunity to submit a
`
`Reply expert declaration, but choosing not to do so. Thus, Celgene moves to
`
`exclude Ex. 1017 at 611-612 under Fed. R. Evid. 801-802.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`B. CFAD improperly relies on irrelevant evidence
`
`Evidence is relevant if: (1) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
`
`probable than it would be without the evidence; and (2) the fact is of consequence
`
`in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. CFAD’s Reply cites several exhibits
`
`that are irrelevant for the purposes for which they are being offered.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 168:5-11, 166:3-7, 306:4-10 (Objections ¶1)
`
`CFAD relies on Exhibit 1086 at 168:5-11, 166:3-7, and 306:4-10 for the
`
`proposition that “Dr. Frau testified that her own proposed POSA would not be able
`
`to design the claimed methods of the ’720 patent.” Reply at 3-4. This is false.
`
`The cited testimony does not concern the ’720 patent, let alone whether any
`
`POSA would be able to design the inventions claimed in the ’720 patent. Rather,
`
`both the questions and answers explicitly relate only to U.S. Patent No. 6,045,501
`
`(the “’501 patent”). Thus, Celgene moves to exclude Exhibit 1086 at 168:5-11,
`
`166:3-7, and 306:4-10 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402 because it is not relevant to
`
`any material issue of fact in dispute regarding the ’720 patent, which is the only
`
`patent at issue in this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1084 (Objections ¶4)
`
`Exhibit 1084 is a titled, “2013 Rho Chi Lecture: Writing the Headlines of
`
`Tomorrow,” which is authored by Celgene’s expert, Dr. Joseph T. DiPiro,
`
`PharmD. CFAD relies on Ex. 1084 in an attempt to counter Dr. DiPiro’s opinion
`
`that “someone with Dr. Fudin’s POSA’s qualifications would have very little, if
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`any, experience with restricted distribution systems, such as those claimed in the
`
`’720 patent. They would certainly not be able to design or implement such
`
`systems.” See Reply at 5; Ex. 2060 ¶ 17. But Ex. 1084 was published in 2013—
`
`13 years after the filing date of the ’720 patent—and is not prior art to the ’720
`
`patent. Further, CFAD did not adduce any testimony showing that Dr. DiPiro’s
`
`statements in Ex. 1084 would have been true for a pharmacist at any time relevant
`
`to the ’720 patent’s filing date.
`
`Thus, Celgene moves to exclude Ex. 1084 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402
`
`because it is not relevant to any material issue of fact in dispute. It does not
`
`provide any evidence of the level of skill or knowledge of a POSA at the time of
`
`the invention. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts. v. Cardinal Indus., 145 F.3d
`
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding post-filing-date publication “not relevant to
`
`. . . obviousness” because it did not reflect information known in the prior art).
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 2061 at 190:15-18 and 192:10-14 (Objections ¶3)
`
`Exhibit 2061 is the deposition transcript of CFAD’s expert, Dr. Jeffrey
`
`Fudin. CFAD relies on Ex. 2061 at 190:15-18 and 192:10-14 to argue that
`
`“Dr. Fudin testified that his proposed POSA would be a clinician who ‘could’
`
`design successful methods for risk management in delivering medication by
`
`drawing upon the support of a ‘multi-disciplinary team.’” Reply at 4. CFAD
`
`argues that this testimony supports Dr. Fudin’s POSA being the correct POSA.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Federal Circuit law requires that the POSA be able to develop the claimed
`
`invention. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Whether Dr. Fudin’s POSA could design an unspecified “risk management
`
`program that was successful” is irrelevant to whether his POSA could design the
`
`’720 patent’s inventions at issue in this IPR. Dr. Fudin testified that his POSA
`
`would not have been capable of designing or implementing the ’720 patent’s
`
`inventions. See Ex. 2061 at 193:12-194:10, 201:1-10, 246:17-247:2, 328:19-329:9.
`
`Thus, Celgene moves to exclude Ex. 2061 at 190:15-18 and 192:10-14 under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 401-402 because it is not relevant to any material issue of fact in dispute.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 1083 and Exhibit 2061 at 515:1-516:16
`(Objections ¶¶9-10)
`
`Exhibit 1083 is titled, “Managing the teratogenic risk of thalidomide and
`
`lenalidomide: an industry perspective.” Exhibit 1083 was authored by three
`
`individuals, including Celgene’s fact declarant, John Freeman. CFAD relies on
`
`Ex. 1083 to argue that a POSA would have been motivated to arrive at the
`
`inventions claimed in the ’720 patent because “later research showed that the
`
`S.T.E.P.S. program was not 100 percent successful in preventing fetal exposure.”
`
`Reply at 10 n.4. CFAD specifically focuses on Ex. 1083’s disclosure of “four
`
`confirmed fetal exposures” to thalidomide. Id. Exhibit 2061 at 515:1-516:16
`
`discusses Ex. 1083, and CFAD relies on it for the same purpose. See id.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`CFAD ignores, however, that Ex. 1083 was published in 2011—11 years
`
`after the filing date of the ’720 patent—and is not prior art to the ’720 patent.
`
`Exhibit 1083, therefore, would not have been available to a POSA at any time
`
`relevant to the ’720 patent’s invention. Ex. 1083 and Ex. 2061 at 515:1-516:16 are
`
`irrelevant for this reason alone. See Chiuminatta, 145 F.3d at 1313 (finding post-
`
`filing date publication “not relevant to . . . obviousness” because it did not reflect
`
`information known in the prior art).
`
`Ex. 1083 and Ex. 2061 at 515:1-516:16 are also irrelevant because CFAD
`
`ignores that Ex. 1083 actually states that: “By April 2010, about 300,000 patients
`
`worldwide had been exposed to the Celgene thalidomide, with four confirmed fetal
`
`exposures in female patients.” Ex. 1083 at 5 (emphasis added). Of course, the
`
`’501 patent is a United States patent and is only enforceable in the United States.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 2061 at 576:15-22. CFAD has not presented any evidence regarding
`
`the particulars of the restricted distribution programs (if any) used in connection
`
`with thalidomide outside of the United States, or if any such systems mirrored the
`
`claims of the ’501 patent. See id. at 576:23-578:8. Exhibit 1083 and Ex. 2061 at
`
`515:1-516:16 are irrelevant for this additional reason.
`
`In short, any fetal exposures to thalidomide that occurred worldwide, outside
`
`of S.T.E.P.S., are irrelevant to the success of S.T.E.P.S. (which is an embodiment
`
`of the ’501 patent) in the United States. Accordingly, Celgene moves to exclude
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Ex. 1083 and Ex. 2061 at 515:1-516:16 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402 because they
`
`are not relevant to a material issue of fact in dispute.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 75:22-77:2, 81:12-83:5, 129:11-133:7,
`152:12-154:21, and 185:12-187:8, and Exhibits 1087-1091
`(Objections ¶¶5-6)
`
`CFAD relies on the above-referenced exhibits to argue that “Dr. Frau’s
`
`testimony . . . is not credible on its face” because “Dr. Frau frequently paused for
`
`two to three minutes before answering CFAD’s counsel’s questions.” Reply at 6
`
`n.2. As the videos and transcript reflect, Dr. Frau carefully considered both
`
`CFAD’s and Celgene’s questions, asked for clarification of those questions when
`
`needed, and reviewed her declaration to provide accurate answers while under
`
`oath. That does not provide a basis to find that her testimony lacks credibility.
`
`Further, the fact that CFAD cites Dr. Frau’s testimony as purported support for its
`
`arguments undermines CFAD’s credibility argument. Celgene therefore moves to
`
`exclude Ex. 1086 at 75:22-77:2, 81:12-83:5, 129:11-133:7, 152:12-154:21, and
`
`185:12-187:8, and Exhibits 1087-1091 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402 because they
`
`are not relevant to a material issue of fact in dispute.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit 1012 (“FDA Meeting Part 1”) (Objections ¶13)
`
`CFAD relies on Ex. 1012 to argue that: (1) there was allegedly a motivation
`
`to arrive at the inventions claimed in the ’720 patent (Reply at 11-12); and
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`(2) statements were made “in which the link between teratology and genetic testing
`
`was made explicit” (id. at 23).
`
`CFAD has not established that Ex. 1012 qualifies as prior art to the ’720
`
`patent. To do so, CFAD must make “a satisfactory showing that [the reference]
`
`has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons
`
`interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable
`
`diligence, can locate it.” A.R.M., Inc. v. Cottingham Agencies Ltd., IPR2014-
`
`00671, Paper 10 at 7 (Oct. 3, 2014). CFAD has not even attempted to do so. Thus,
`
`Celgene moves to exclude CFAD’s reliance on Ex. 1012 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-
`
`402 because it is not relevant to a material issue of fact in dispute, because CFAD
`
`has not shown that Ex. 1012 qualifies as prior art.1
`
`
`1 CFAD may wrongly argue in opposition that Celgene’s objection lacks merit
`
`because Celgene relied on Ex. 1012 in IPR2015-01092. Celgene merely pointed
`
`out that Ex. 1012 (Ex. 2094 in that proceeding) contributes to the evidence of
`
`skepticism regarding the results achieved by the ’501 patent’s inventions.
`
`Evidence of secondary considerations, including skepticism, need not come from
`
`prior art. See Burlington Indus. v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, (Fed. Cir. 1987);
`
`Genetics Inst. LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1307
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`C. CFAD mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s testimony (Exhibit 1075)
`
`
`
`CFAD mischaracterizes certain testimony of Celgene’s expert, Dr. Lourdes
`
`Frau, M.D., FAAP, FISPE. CFAD’s use of this testimony should be excluded
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403. The objected-to testimony should also be excluded unless
`
`the Board considers the testimony with its surrounding context and/or relevant
`
`redirect testimony, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 168:5-11 and 166:3-7 (Objections ¶2)
`
`CFAD cites Ex. 1086 at 168:5-11 and 166:3-7 for the proposition that
`
`“Dr. Frau testified that her own proposed POSA would not be able to design the
`
`claimed methods of the ’720 patent.” Reply at 3-4. CFAD mischaracterizes and/or
`
`ignores Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this issue. As explained above, this testimony
`
`does not relate to the ’720 patent.
`
`Rather, the testimony relates to the ’501 patent, and Dr. Frau explained that
`
`her “POSA[] would not have the information that the inventors had,” but that if her
`
`“POSA would have the information, then they would have been able to” design the
`
`inventions claimed in the ’501 patent. Ex. 1086 at 333:6-25. Dr. Frau further
`
`testified that her POSA would have been capable of designing the inventions
`
`claimed in the ’501 patent because they had the skills to do so. Id. at 334:3-335:8.
`
`Accordingly, Celgene moves to exclude Ex. 1086 at 168:5-11 and 166:3-7
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403, as the relevance of this testimony, devoid of Dr. Frau’s
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`full testimony on this issue, is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair
`
`prejudice or misleading the trier of fact. The testimony should also be excluded
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 106 unless the Board also considers Dr. Frau’s testimony at
`
`Ex. 1086 at 333:6-25 and 334:3-335:8.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 307:3-4 (Objections ¶7)
`
`CFAD cites Ex. 1086 at 307:3-4 to argue that Dr. Frau’s testimony is not
`
`credible because she allegedly “openly expressed confusion about important
`
`aspects of her analysis, at one point testifying that her ‘interpretation of prior art
`
`may not be accurate.’” Reply at 6 n.2. CFAD mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s
`
`testimony to imply that she misinterpreted the prior art.
`
`The question that led to Dr. Frau’s testimony was whether she “agree[d] that
`
`the ’501 patent is prior art to the ’720 patent.” Ex. 1086 at 306:11-12. Dr. Frau’s
`
`full answer was: “I am not a lawyer, so my interpretation of prior art may not be
`
`accurate. It may not even be the same that you have. So . . . [i]n my interpretation
`
`of your statement prior art and what I think is prior art, even though I’m not a
`
`lawyer, I’m going to say it may have been so – but I’m not a lawyer, so my
`
`interpretation of prior art and yours may be different.” Id. at 307:3-11. As is clear
`
`from the testimony, Dr. Frau never testified that she misinterpreted any prior art.
`
`Further, to the extent that CFAD is implying that Dr. Frau does not know
`
`what the legal term “prior art” means, that is directly contradicted by the very next
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`question that CFAD’s counsel asked: “Q. What is your interpretation of the term
`
`‘prior art’? A. Prior art are the articles that would have been used or was available
`
`at the time of invention to be used by the POSA.” Id. at 307:15-19.
`
`Celgene therefore moves to exclude Ex. 1086 at 307:3-4 under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403, as the relevance of the cited testimony, devoid of the actual context—or even
`
`the full sentence—is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or
`
`misleading the trier of fact. The testimony should also be excluded under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 106 unless the Board also considers Dr. Frau’s testimony at Ex. 1086 at
`
`306:11-12, 307:3-11, and 307:15-19.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 204:10-18 (Objections ¶8)
`
`CFAD cites Ex. 1086 at 204:10-18 to contend that “Dr. Frau appeared
`
`confused regarding what standard should apply to claim construction in an IPR.”
`
`Reply at 8. CFAD mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this issue.
`
`Indeed, in the very next question, Dr. Frau explained that she was confused
`
`by CFAD’s counsel question, and clearly agreed with the proper claim
`
`construction standard: “Q. My last question was just about what you have written
`
`in your report in paragraph 70, which is that terms are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable constructions as would be understood by a POSA . . . And you do agree
`
`with that statement? A. Yes, yes I do. But I wasn’t sure if that was the follow-up
`
`to your previous question. So I wasn’t totally sure whether you were trying to say,
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`well, that refers to the previous question. So I had to say no, I wasn’t totally sure
`
`which way you were going. So if you were only addressing that one statement, I
`
`agree.” Ex. 1086 at 204:19-205:9.
`
`Thus, Celgene moves to exclude Ex. 1086 at 204:10-18 under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403, as the relevance of this testimony, devoid of the actual context—including
`
`Dr. Frau’s confusion with counsel’s question and her full testimony on this issue—
`
`is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the trier
`
`of fact. The testimony should also be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 106 unless the
`
`Board also considers Dr. Frau’s testimony at Ex. 1086 at 204:19-205:9.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 86:4-14 (Objections ¶16)
`
`CFAD cites Ex. 1086 at 86:4-14 for the proposition that Dr. Frau
`
`“performed her analysis under the mistaken assumption that an explicit motivation
`
`must be disclosed in a reference.” Reply at 16-17. CFAD mischaracterizes
`
`Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this issue.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Frau explained that, in this situation, she testified that “a
`
`POSA h[as] to be able to cite a particular reference” because “there was not
`
`identified any problem to be solved.” Ex. 1086 at 332:7-24. Dr. Frau further
`
`agreed that a POSA’s knowledge—setting aside whether there are any specific
`
`references—can be relied upon to identify a problem to be solved, even though no
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`such problem existed here. See id. at 332:25-333:5. Dr. Frau therefore applied the
`
`correct legal standard in her analysis.
`
`Celgene therefore moves to exclude Ex. 1086 at 86:4-14 under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403, as the relevance of this testimony, devoid of Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this
`
`issue, is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the
`
`trier of fact. The testimony should also be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 106 unless
`
`the Board also considers Dr. Frau’s testimony at Ex. 1086 at 332:7-333:5.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 129:11-133:7 (Objections ¶11)
`
`CFAD cites Ex. 1086 at 129:11-133:7, alleging “Dr. Frau refused to answer
`
`the question of whether the goal of S.T.E.P.S. was to prevent birth defects through
`
`avoiding fetal exposure.” Reply at 10 n.4. CFAD mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s
`
`testimony on this issue. Dr. Frau did not refuse, and did in fact answer, the
`
`identified questions, including “And that was done through avoiding fetal exposure
`
`to thalidomide; correct?” by stating “It was accomplished through more than that,
`
`so not just that.” Ex. 1086 at 130:4-11. CFAD’s argument is directly contradicted
`
`by Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this issue. Accordingly, Celgene moves to exclude
`
`CFAD’s statement regarding Ex. 1086 at 129:1-133:7 under Fed. R. Evid. 403, as
`
`the relevance of the statement, as mischaracterized by CFAD, is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the trier of fact.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`D. CFAD mischaracterizes Mr. Williams’ statement
`in Ex. 1012 at 119 (Objections ¶14)
`
`Bruce Williams is an inventor on the ’720 patent. CFAD relies on Ex. 1012
`
`at 119 to argue that “Mr. Williams recognized at a meeting of the FDA
`
`Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee in 1997 . . . that
`
`compliance issues with the S.T.E.P.S. program presented an opportunity to
`
`enhance the program,” and thus that “Celgene’s argument that the only motivation
`
`to improve upon the prior art was contained in confidential Celgene documents is
`
`artificial.” Reply at 10-12. CFAD mischaracterizes and/or ignores Mr. Williams’
`
`full testimony on this issue.
`
`Specifically, Mr. Williams stated:
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`
`Ex. 1012 at 118-119. Thus, Mr. Williams clearly explained that the survey
`
`responses collected by Sloane Epidemiology Unit (“SEU”) “will be confidential,”
`
`and that that confidential information would provide Celgene with the opportunity
`
`to go back and take corrective action. Moreover, by definition, the substance of
`
`the confidential information that Celgene (including the inventors) had in their
`
`possession, and how they used that confidential information to arrive at the
`
`inventions claimed in the ’720 patent, was not public and is therefore irrelevant to
`
`any motivation or actions of a POSA.
`
`Celgene moves to exclude Ex. 1012 at 119 under Fed. R. Evid. 403, as the
`
`relevance of this testimony, devoid of the actual context—including Mr. Williams’
`
`full testimony on this issue—is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair
`
`prejudice or misleading the trier of fact. The testimony should also be excluded
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 106 unless the Board also considers Ex. 1012 at 118-119.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Date: June 23, 2016
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
` F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
` Andrew S. Chalson (pro hac vice)
` Eric C. Stops (Reg. No. 51,163)
` Frank C. Calvosa (Reg. No. 69,064)
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
` SULLIVAN, LLP
` 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
` New York, NY 10010
` Tel: (212) 849-7000
` Fax: (212) 849-7100
` nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
` ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
` andrewchalson@quinnemanuel.com
` frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`J. Patrick Elsevier (Reg. No. 44,668)
`JONES DAY
`12265 El Camino Real
`Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 314-1200
`Fax: (858) 314-1150
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`jpelsevier@jonesday.com
`
`Gasper J. LaRosa
`JONES DAY
`222 E 41st Street
`New York, NY 10017
`Tel: (212) 326-3939
`Fax: (212) 755-7306
`gjlarosa@jonesday.com
`
`Attorneys for Celgene Corporation
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that PATENT
`
`OWNER MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE and Ex. 2069 were served on
`
`June 23, 2016 by filing these documents through the Patent Review Processing
`
`System, as well as e-mailing copies to sabdullah@skiermontderby.com,
`
`sspires@skiermontderby.com, pkota@skiermontderby.com, and
`
`
` 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
`Celgene Corporation
`
`
`
`pskiermont@skiermontderby.com.
`
`
`Date: June 23, 2016
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
