`Filed: June 30, 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 RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has submitted a sprawling motion to exclude that
`
`encompasses, inter alia, Patent Owner’s own exhibits and certain evidence that
`
`Patent Owner merely argues is unpersuasive (rather than objectionable on
`
`evidentiary grounds). Petitioner respectfully submits that Patent Owner’s motion is
`
`meritless in its entirety and may be summarily dismissed. Petitioner nevertheless
`
`hereby responds to each of Patent Owner’s arguments in turn.
`
`I.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EXHIBIT 1017 (“MUNDT”) BECAUSE IT IS
`ADMISSIBLE UNDER FED. R. EVID. 703, BECAUSE IT IS NOT
`HEARSAY, AND BECAUSE PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS
`ARE MOOT
`
`Exhibit 1017 (“Mundt”) is a publication cited in the Petition in part to
`
`corroborate its expert’s testimony and was credited by the Board in its Decision
`
`instituting IPR. (See Paper 22 at 13, 23.) It was also cited in the declarations of
`
`both of Celgene’s experts. (See Frau Decl. (Ex. 2059) at 45 (“Mundt discloses the
`
`use of IVR in telephone surveys for research and treatment of compulsive
`
`disorders”); DiPiro Decl. (Ex. 2060) at 23-24, 39.).)
`
`Exhibit 1017 is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 as material
`
`relied upon by Patent Owner’s expert witnesses in forming their opinions. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 703; see, e.g., Nestle, IPR2015-00249, Paper 76, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS
`
`4337, at *18–20 (finding material relied upon by expert “admissible under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 703” “even if [it] is hearsay”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`The foregoing is dispositive of Patent Owner’s objections. Petitioner further
`
`notes, however, that the Board may also reject Patent Owner’s objections on the
`
`basis that the statements are not hearsay because they are not offered for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Patent Owner’s motion confusingly
`
`treats Petitioner’s “argu[ment]” and statements from Exhibit 1017 together as one
`
`and the same (see Paper 63 at 2), but this is not so. Petitioner cites Exhibit 1017 as
`
`demonstrative evidence that a POSA would have known to use IVR in a variety of
`
`settings. (See Paper 55 at 24.) The fact that Mundt expressly contemplates the use
`
`of IVR for different applications corroborates Petitioner’s expert’s testimony.
`
`Exhibit 1017 contradicts Patent Owner’s argument to the contrary, even regardless
`
`of whether the various statements in Exhibit 1017 are in fact true Petitioner thus
`
`offers Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2064 for a non-hearsay purpose. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801(c).
`
`Finally, Petitioner further notes that the Board may dismiss Patent Owner’s
`
`objections as moot. The Board has already correctly held “the evidence of record
`
`demonstrates that one skilled in the art had reason to use interactive voice response
`
`systems to conduct patient surveys.” (Paper 22 at 23.) The Board thus need not
`
`reach Patent Owner’s objections concerning Exhibit 1017 in order to confirm the
`
`determination already made by the Board in its institution decision. See, e.g.,
`
`Samsung, IPR2014-00408, Paper No. 48, 2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 12520, at *34
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`(same; further stating “We agree that the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal, is
`
`well-positioned to assign appropriate weight to the evidence without the need for
`
`formal exclusion.”). The Board may accordingly dismiss Patent Owner’s
`
`objections as moot.
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EXHIBIT 1012 (“FDA MEETING PART 1”) BECAUSE IS
`ADMISSIBLE UNDER FED. R. EVID. 703, BECAUSE IT IS A
`PUBLIC RECORD, BECAUSE IT IS NOT HEARSAY, AND
`BECAUSE IT IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RESIDUAL HEARSAY
`EXCEPTION,
`
`Exhibit 1012 (“FDA Meeting Part 1”) is an official FDA meeting transcript
`
`cited, relied upon, and considered a credible source by Petitioner’s expert Dr.
`
`Jeffrey Fudin. (See Fudin Decl. (Ex. 1027) at 18-20, 23, and 30 (discussing a
`
`POSA’s knowledge of the Clozaril® and Accutane® programs.)
`
`Exhibit 1012 is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 as material
`
`relied upon by Petitioner’s expert witness. Fed. R. Evid. 703; see, e.g., Nestle,
`
`IPR2015-00249, Paper 76, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 4337, at *18–20 (finding
`
`material relied upon by expert “admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 703” “even if [it] is
`
`hearsay”).
`
`Exhibit 1012 is also admissible under the public records hearsay exception.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). The document is a record of activities at the FDA, and Patent
`
`Owner has not shown that the document lacks trustworthiness (indeed Patent
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Owner itself introduced the document in a related proceeding, IPR2015-01092).
`
`See id.
`
`The foregoing is dispositive of Patent Owner’s objections. Petitioner further
`
`notes, however, that the Board may also reject Patent Owner’s motion on the basis
`
`that it identifies no hearsay statements that are offered for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). First, Patent Owner’s motion does not identify with
`
`specificity any statement in Exhibit 1012 that it is challenging as hearsay. (See
`
`Paper 62 at 2.). But see PTO Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is
`
`not admissible….”). Further, Petitioner does not quote or cite any statement in
`
`Exhibit 1012 at 7 and 137 for its truth; rather, Petitioner cites the transcript as
`
`evidence of the knowledge of a POSA relating to two programs in the prior art.
`
`Petitioner thus offers Patent Owner’s Exhibit 1012 for a non-hearsay purpose. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
`
`Petitioner further submits that even if its citation to Exhibit 1012 somehow
`
`constituted hearsay—which it does not—the evidence would still be admissible
`
`under the residual hearsay exception. Fed. R. Evid. 807. The FDA meeting
`
`transcript (1) is a public record with circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;
`
`(2) is offered as evidence of a material fact, i.e. that a POSA knew about Clozaril®
`
`and Accutane®; (3) is the most probative evidence on this point, as it is conclusive
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`proof that Patent Owner itself discussed those two programs as a matter of public
`
`record; and (4) is in the interests of justice to admit, particularly considering that
`
`Patent Owner itself introduced this evidence in a related proceeding. See IBM
`
`Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2015-00092, Paper 44, 2016 Pat. App.
`
`LEXIS 2069, *86–87 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2016) (applying Fed. R. Evid. 807);
`
`Samsung, IPR2014-00408, Paper No. 48, 2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 12520, at *34
`
`(“We agree that the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal, is well-positioned to
`
`assign appropriate weight to the evidence without the need for formal exclusion.”).
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S RELEVANCE OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS
`1086, 1084, 2061, 1083, AND 1012 GO TO THE WEIGHT AND
`SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, NOT ADMISSIBILITY
`
`Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence in
`
`determining the action more or less probable than it would be without the
`
`evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. A motion to exclude evidence “may not be used to
`
`challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.” PTO Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude, in whole or in part, Exhibits 1086, 1084,
`
`2061, 1083, and 1012 on the basis that the evidence is irrelevant. (Paper 63 at 3–8.)
`
`None of Patent Owner’s objections are plausible on their face. All of Patent
`
`Owner’s objections improperly go to the weight, not admissibility, of the evidence.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
` Exhibit 1084 contains statements by Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Joseph
`
`T. DiPiro, that are relevant because they are inconsistent with and
`
`contradict Dr. DiPiro’s testimony in this proceeding regarding whether a
`
`POSA would have experience with restricted distribution systems. (See
`
`Paper 55 at 5.) Patent Owner’s objection that Dr. DiPiro’s statements
`
`post-date the claimed invention—like Dr. DiPiro’s testimony in this
`
`case—goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
`
` Exhibit 2061 contains statements by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Jeffrey
`
`Fudin, that are relevant because they show that Dr. Fudin’s “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.’” (See Paper 55 at 4.) At deposition, Dr.
`
`Fudin was directly responding to questions from Patent Owner’s counsel
`
`regarding the field of the claimed invention. (See Ex. 2061 at 190:15–18.)
`
`Patent Owner’s contention that this testimony does not relate to the
`
`claimed invention (Paper 63 at 4-5) is meritless.
`
` Exhibits 1083 and 2061 contain relevant admissions by Patent Owner’s
`
`fact declarant, John Freeman, that the S.T.E.P.S. program was not 100%
`
`successful in achieving the claimed invention’s express goal to “prevent
`
`fetal exposure,” contradicting Patent Owner’s suggestions to the contrary
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`regarding the “unexpected results” of the claimed invention. (See Paper
`
`55 at 10 n.4.) Patent Owner’s objection that its own argument was not
`
`directed to the express goal of the claimed invention (Paper 63 at 6)
`
`would seem to render Patent Owner’s argument irrelevant, not
`
`Petitioner’s. And Patent Owner’s objection that this evidence concerns
`
`worldwide results goes to the weight of the evidence, not its
`
`admissibility.
`
` Exhibits 1086 and 1087-1091 contain transcripts and video of the
`
`testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Frau, that are relevant because
`
`they cast doubt on the credibility of Dr. Frau’s testimony. (Paper 55 at 6
`
`n.2.) Patent Owner’s attempt to characterize the evidence in its favor
`
`goes to the evidence’s weight, not its admissibility. The Board has
`
`already authorized Petitioner to submit “in each proceeding, 30 minutes
`
`of video excerpts from the deposition of Dr. Frau.” (Ex. 1092 (Email
`
`from Andrew Kellog, USPTO, to Frank Calvosa and Sadaf Abdullah,
`
`dated May 25, 2016.).) The Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal, is
`
`perfectly capable of considering and “assign[ing] appropriate weight to
`
`the evidence[.]” Samsung, IPR2014-00408, Paper No. 48, 2015 Pat. App.
`
`LEXIS 12520, at *34.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
` Exhibit 1012 is a 1997 FDA meeting transcript submitted by Petitioner
`
`that contains relevant admissions by Celgene employees concerning the
`
`the awareness in the field of the Clozaril® and Accutane® programs.
`
`Patent Owner’s objection that Exhibit 1012 may-or-may-not qualify as
`
`“prior art” again goes to the evidence’s weight, not its admissibility.
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS THAT PETITIONER
`“MISCHARACTERIZES” DR. FRAU’S TESTIMONY IN EXHIBIT
`1086 GO TO THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE,
`NOT ADMISSIBILITY, AND ARE MOOT
`
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s characterizations of the testimony of
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Frau, while conceding that its motion is moot if “the
`
`Board considers the testimony with its surrounding context[.]” (Paper 63 at 9-13.)
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that Patent Owner’s objections once again go
`
`to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012); Samsung, IPR2014-00408, Paper No. 48,
`
`2015 Pat. App. LEXIS 12520, at *34 (“[T]he Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal,
`
`is well-positioned to assign appropriate weight to the evidence without the need for
`
`formal exclusion.”). In any event, however, Petitioner has already submitted the
`
`entirety of Dr. Frau’s deposition testimony. (See Ex. 1086.) Petitioner does not
`
`object to the Board’s consideration thereof, which Petitioner submits supports its
`
`own arguments. Patent Owner’s objections are therefore all moot.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`V.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS THAT PETITIONER
`“MISCHARACTERIZES” MR. WILLIAMS’ STATEMENT IN
`EXHIBIT 1012 GO TO THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF
`EVIDENCE, NOT ADMISSIBILITY
`
`Patent Owner’s motion submits arguments in response to Petitioner’s Reply
`
`that appear to be, in effect, a surreply regarding the what Patent Owner refers to as
`
`the “testimony” of Mr. Williams. (See Paper 63 at 14 (citing Paper 55 at 10-12).)
`
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude one page of Exhibit of 1012 because it is “devoid of
`
`the context” of the two pages right before that page. (See Paper 63 at 15.) This
`
`argument is defies logic. Petitioner introduced the entirety of Exhibit 1012 –
`
`including Mr. Williams’s “full testimony” and the two pages in question. Patent
`
`Owner’s objections are mere arguments of persuasion that go to the weight of the
`
`evidence, not its admissibility. See Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48767 (Aug. 14, 2012); Samsung, IPR2014-00408, Paper No. 48, 2015 Pat. App.
`
`LEXIS 12520, at *34.
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`to Exclude Evidence in its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`June 30, 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
`
`Response to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence by electronic means on
`
`June 30, 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 30, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Sarah E. Spires/
`Sarah E. Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`Counsel for Petitioner