`Filed: June 6, 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 IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Celgene Corporation
`
`(“Celgene”) objects as follows to the admissibility of evidence relied upon by
`
`Petitioner in its May 27, 2016 Reply (Paper 55).
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 168:5-11, 166:3-7, and 306:4-10 is objected to under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-402 because it is irrelevant to whether Dr. Lourdes Frau’s POSA
`
`would have been able to design the inventions claimed in U.S. Patent. No.
`
`6,315,720 (the “’720 patent”). The cited testimony does not concern whether any
`
`POSA would be able to design the inventions claimed in the ’720 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 168:5-11 and 166:3-7 is objected to under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403 because its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`fact that it is misleading and unfairly prejudicial. Exhibit 1086 at 168:5-11 and
`
`166:3-7 is also objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 106 because Petitioner only
`
`introduces part of Dr. Frau’s deposition testimony on this issue and, in fairness,
`
`another portion of that deposition testimony ought to be considered at the same
`
`time. Petitioner’s use of Exhibit 1086 at 168:5-11 and 166:3-7 is objected to under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 because it mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this
`
`issue. Specifically, Dr. Frau explained that her POSA would not have been able to
`
`design the inventions claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,045,501 (the “’501 patent”)
`
`because “[s]uch POSAs would not have had the information that the inventors had.
`
`If my POSA would have the information, then they would have been able to - -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`they would have been able to, but they didn’t have what the inventors had.” 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.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 2061 at 190:15-18 and 192:10-14 is objected to under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401-402 because that testimony is not relevant to any material issue of fact in
`
`dispute in this IPR. Whether Dr. Jeffrey Fudin’s POSA could design an
`
`unspecified “risk management program that was successful” is irrelevant to
`
`whether his POSA could design the inventions claimed in the ’720 patent, which is
`
`at issue in this IPR.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 1084 (mistakenly cited as Exhibit 1065 in the Reply (see
`
`Paper 55 at 5)) is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402 because it is not relevant
`
`to any material issue of fact in dispute in this IPR. Exhibit 1084 was published in
`
`2013 (13 years after the filing date of the ’720 patent), and is not prior art to the
`
`’720 patent. Exhibit 1084 provides no evidence of Dr. Joseph DiPiro’s opinion of
`
`a pharmacist’s role at any time relevant to the validity of the ’720 patent.
`
`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 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402 because it is
`
`irrelevant to the issue of Dr. Frau’s credibility. The fact that Dr. Frau carefully
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`considered Petitioner’s counsel’s questions and asked for clarification when the
`
`questions were confusing is irrelevant to Dr. Frau’s credibility.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibits 1087-1091 are objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402
`
`because they are irrelevant to the issue of Dr. Frau’s credibility. The fact that
`
`Dr. Frau carefully considered Petitioner’s counsel’s questions and asked for
`
`clarification when the questions were confusing is irrelevant to Dr. Frau’s
`
`credibility.
`
`7.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 307:3-4 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 403
`
`because its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the fact that it
`
`is misleading and unfairly prejudicial. Exhibit 1086 at 307:3-4 is also objected to
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 106 because Petitioner only introduces part of Dr. Frau’s
`
`answer to a deposition question and, in fairness, both the full answer and the
`
`question that preceded it should be considered at the same time. Petitioner’s use of
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 307:3-4 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 because it
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this issue. Specifically, the question
`
`that led Dr. Frau to testify that “her interpretation of prior art may not be accurate”
`
`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 . . . In my interpretation of your statement prior art and what I think
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`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. 307:3-11.
`
`8.
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 204:10-18 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 403
`
`because its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the fact that it
`
`is misleading and unfairly prejudicial. Exhibit 1086 at 204:10-18 is also objected
`
`to under Fed. R. Evid. 106 because Petitioner only introduces part of Dr. Frau’s
`
`deposition testimony on this issue and, in fairness, another portion of that
`
`deposition testimony ought to be considered at the same time. Petitioner’s use of
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 204:10-18 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 because it
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this issue. Specifically, the very next
`
`question and answer state: “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 do
`
`you 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, 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.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`Exhibit 1083 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402 because it is
`
`not relevant to any material issue of fact in dispute in this IPR. Exhibit 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 is irrelevant to the knowledge of a POSA as of
`
`the ’720 patent’s filing date. Further, Exhibit 1083 states: “By April 2010, about
`
`300,000 patients worldwide had been exposed to Celgene thalidomide, with four
`
`confirmed fetal exposures in female patients.” The four fetal exposures to
`
`thalidomide that occurred worldwide are irrelevant to the success of the S.T.E.P.S.
`
`program (an embodiment of the ’501 patent) in the United States.
`
`10. Exhibit 2061 at 515:1-516:16 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-
`
`402 because it is not relevant to any material issue of fact in dispute in this IPR.
`
`Exhibit 2061 at 515:1-516:16 discusses Exhibit 1083. Exhibit 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 is irrelevant to the knowledge of a POSA as of the ’720
`
`patent’s filing date. Further, Exhibit 1083 states: “By April 2010, about 300,000
`
`patients worldwide had been exposed to Celgene thalidomide, with four confirmed
`
`fetal exposures in female patients.” The four fetal exposures to thalidomide that
`
`occurred worldwide are irrelevant to the success of the S.T.E.P.S. program (an
`
`embodiment of the ’501 patent) in the United States.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`
`Patent Owner Objections
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Petitioner’s use of Exhibit 1086 at 129:1-133:7 is objected to under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 because it mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s testimony.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Frau did not refuse and did 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.”
`
`See Ex. 1086 at 130:4-11.
`
`12. Petitioner’s use of Exhibit 1011 is objected under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b) because Petitioner relies on Exhibit 1011 for the first time in reply to
`
`allege that there was a motivation to come up with the inventions claimed in the
`
`’720 patent. Since proving that there was a motivation to arrive at the claimed
`
`inventions is Petitioner’s burden, this evidence should have been presented in a
`
`prior filing.
`
`13. Exhibit 1012 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-402 because
`
`Petitioner has not established that Exhibit 1012 is prior art to the ’720 patent.
`
`Petitioner’s use of Exhibit 1012 is also objected under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`
`because Petitioner relies on Exhibit 1012 for the first time in reply to allege that
`
`there was a motivation to come up with the inventions claimed in the ’720 patent.
`
`Since proving that there was a motivation to arrive at the claimed inventions is
`
`Petitioner’s burden, this evidence should have been presented in a prior filing.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`
`Patent Owner Objections
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Exhibit 1012 at 119 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because its
`
`minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the fact that it is
`
`misleading and unfairly prejudicial. Exhibit 1012 at 119 is also objected to under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 106 because Petitioner only introduces part of Mr. Williams’
`
`statement and, in fairness, Mr. Williams’ full statement on this issue ought to be
`
`considered at the same time. Petitioner’s use of Exhibit 1012 at 119 is objected to
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 because it mischaracterizes Mr. Williams’ full
`
`statement on this issue and is irrelevant to any information that a POSA would
`
`have at the time of the ’720 patent’s invention. Specifically, Mr. Williams states
`
`that the survey responses collected by Sloane Epidemiology Unit (“SEU”) for the
`
`registry that will provide feedback—that provides Celgene with the opportunity to
`
`go back and take corrective action—will be confidential. See Ex. 1012 at 118-119.
`
`The confidential information that the inventors knew, and how they used that
`
`confidential information to arrive at the inventions claimed in the ’720 patent, is
`
`irrelevant to any motivation or actions of a POSA.
`
`15. Petitioner’s use of Exhibit 1012 at 137 and 250 is objected to under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801-802 because Petitioner is using Exhibit 1012 at 137 and 250 for
`
`impermissible hearsay purposes. There is no evidence in the record concerning
`
`what Exhibit 1012 at 137 and 250 would mean to a POSA, despite Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`having the opportunity to submit an expert declaration with its reply, but choosing
`
`not to do so.
`
`16. Exhibit 1086 at 86:4-14 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 403
`
`because its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the fact that it
`
`is misleading and unfairly prejudicial. Exhibit 1086 at 86:4-14 is also objected to
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 106 because Petitioner only introduces part of Dr. Frau’s
`
`deposition testimony on this issue and, in fairness, another portion of that
`
`deposition testimony ought to be considered at the same time. Petitioner’s use of
`
`Exhibit 1086 at 86:4-14 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 because it
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Frau’s full testimony on this issue. Specifically, Dr. Frau also
`
`testified that, in this situation, she testified that “a POSA h[as] to be able to cite to
`
`a particular reference” because “there was no problem to be solved,” and Dr. Frau
`
`also 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
`
`such problem existed here. See Ex. 1086 at 332:7-333:5.
`
`17. Petitioner’s use of Exhibit 1017 at 611-612 is objected to under Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 801-802 because Petitioner is using the quoted language from Exhibit
`
`1017 at 611-612 for impermissible hearsay purposes. There is no evidence in the
`
`record concerning what the quoted language from Exhibit 1017 at 611-12 would
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`mean to a POSA, despite Petitioner having the opportunity to submit an expert
`
`declaration with its reply, but choosing not to do so.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Objections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`Date: June 6, 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
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY
`
`PETITIONER PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was served on June 6,
`
`2016 by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing System, as
`
`well as e-mailing a copy to sarah.spires@skiermontderby.com,
`
`parvathi.kota@skiermontderby.com, sadaf.abdullah@skiermontderby.com and
`
`paul.skiermont@skiermontderby.com.
`
`Date: June 6, 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 Celgene Corporation