`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
`___________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby moves pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) and the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence to exclude certain testimony elicited in Patent Owner’s cross-
`
`examination of Dr. Jeffrey Fudin on the basis that it is irrelevant due to the
`
`confusing, misleading, and unfairly prejudicial nature of the questions posed. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401–403; 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a). In particular, Petitioner moves to
`
`exclude the deposition testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Fudin (Ex. 2061) (“Fudin Dep.”) at
`
`199:8–201:11, 328:19–329:2, and Patent Owner’s arguments thereon in its
`
`Response (Paper No. 42) at 15–16. Petitioner’s counsel timely objected to this
`
`testimony at deposition. (See Fudin Dep. at 199:15, 200:7, 200:15, 201:4, 201:11,
`
`328:21.)
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner misleadingly asserts that Dr. Fudin “insisted
`
`that his POSA ‘doesn’t need to design [the claimed] systems.’” (Paper No. 42 at 15
`
`(citing Fudin Dep. at 199:8–200:9).) Patent Owner’s argument, however, relies on
`
`the false pretense that U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720 (“’720 Patent”) claims systems,
`
`when in fact the ’720 Patent instead only claims methods for delivering a drug to a
`
`patient. (See Ex. 1001 at claims; Petitioner’s Reply (Paper No. 55) at 4.) See NTP,
`
`Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the
`
`concept of ‘use’ of a patented method or process is fundamentally different from
`
`the use of a patented system or device”) (emphasis added), citing In re Kollar, 286
`
`F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (recognizing “the distinction between a claim to a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`product, device, or apparatus, all of which are tangible items, and a claim to a
`
`process, which consists of a series of acts or steps….”).
`
`The confusing nature of Patent Owner’s undefined reference to “systems”
`
`was apparent at Dr. Fudin’s deposition, and was even expressly noted by Dr.
`
`Fudin:
`
` 4 Q. Do you think the inquiry here is about how
` 5 to use systems or about how to come up with the
` 6 system in the first place?
` 7 MS. SPIRES: Object to form.
` 8 A. I'm not really sure what this inquiry is
` 9 about.
`10 Q. (By Mr. Chalson) You rendered opinions
`11 about whether or not claims are obvious, and you're
`12 not sure whether the inquiry is about how to use a
`13 system versus how to design a system?
`14 A. I'm not sure --
`15 MS. SPIRES: Object to form.
`16 A. I'm not sure why you're asking me this
`17 series of questions….
`
`(Fudin Dep. at 200:4–17.) Patent Owner’s counsel did not attempt to cure the form
`
`objections raised by Petitioner’s counsel.
`
`
`
`Dr. Fudin testified that his POSA would be a clinician who “could” design
`
`successful methods for risk management in delivering medication by drawing upon
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`the support of a “multi-disciplinary team.” (Fudin Dep. at 190:15–18, 192:10–14;
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 16; see also Paper No. 55 at 4-5.) Dr. Fudin did not testify that his
`
`POSA would be a computer engineer or administrator without clinical experience.
`
`(See Paper No. 55 at 4.) Patent Owner’s questions at Dr. Fudin’s deposition and
`
`corresponding reliance thereon in its Response concerning the ability of Dr.
`
`Fudin’s POSA to design undefined “systems,” are confusing and bear no relevance
`
`to the ability of a POSA to practice the methods that are actually claimed by the
`
`’720 Patent.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401–403, the Board should exclude
`
`the deposition testimony of Dr. Fudin at 199:8–201:11, 328:19–329:2, and Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments thereon in its Response (Paper No. 42) at 15–16. All of this
`
`evidence suffers from the same deficiency of form concerning Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel’s questions regarding “systems” that are not claimed by the ’720 Patent.
`
`None of the resulting testimony makes a fact of consequence to this proceeding
`
`more or less probable. See Fed. R. Evid. 401–402. The irrelevant testimony and
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments thereon are confusing, misleading, and unfairly
`
`prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board grant
`
`Petitioner’s motion to exclude certain cross-examination testimony from Dr. Fudin
`
`and strike the portions of Patent Owner’s Response that make reference to it.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Sarah E. Spires/
`Sarah E. Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`2200 Ross Ave., Ste. 4800W
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Dr. Parvathi Kota (Reg. No. 65,122)
`Paul J. Skiermont (pro hac vice)
`Sadaf R. Abdullah (pro hac vice)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`2200 Ross Ave., Ste. 4800W
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6621
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`4
`
`June 23, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Patent Owner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Motion to Exclude Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) by
`
`electronic means on June 23, 2016, at the following addresses of record:
`
`Francis Cerrito
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Eric C. Stops
`ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Frank C. Calvosa
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony Insogna
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`J. Patrick Elsevier
`jpelsevier@jonesday.com
`
`Gasper J. LaRosa
`gjlarosa@jonesday.com
`
`
`Dated: June 23, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Sarah E. Spires/
`Sarah E. Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`Counsel for Petitioner