`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 IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`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 55).
`
`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 58 (“Objections”); Ex. 2070. 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 IPR2015-01103
`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 23-24.
`
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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. 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 (mistakenly cited as Ex. 1065) in an attempt to
`
`counter Dr. DiPiro’s opinion that “someone with Dr. Fudin’s POSA’s
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`qualifications would have very little, if 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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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. 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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 IPR2015-01103
`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 MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Ex. 2070 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