`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VIII, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01836 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,932,268)
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Patent Owner The Trustees of the
`
`University of Pennsylvania hereby moves to exclude Exhibits 1024, 1025, and
`
`1046-1052, submitted by Petitioner Coalition for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC.
`
`II. Argument
`
`A. Exhibits 1024 and 1025 (website printouts)
`Exhibits 1024 and 1025 appear to be website printouts. In its Exhibit List,
`
`Petitioner describes Exhibit 1024 as “Prices and coupons for 30 capsules of
`
`Juxtapid 5mg, 10mg, 20mg, 30mg, 40mg and 60mg (brand), GOODRX.COM,
`
`http://www.goodrx.com/juxtapid (last visited July 16, 2015),” and Exhibit 1025 as
`
`“Dan Mangan, ‘Fast Money’ faux pas: Firm draws FDA warning, DOJ subpoena,
`
`CNBC.COM (Jan. 13, 2014), http://www.cnbc.com/id/101327742 (last visited July
`
`22, 2015).” Paper 1 at v. Petitioner cites these exhibits on page 4 of the Petition,
`
`to support its allegation regarding the purported price of JUXTAPID. Paper 1 at 4.
`
`On March 21, 2016, Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibits 1024 and
`
`1025 as lacking authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 901.
`
`Paper 9 at ¶¶ 9, 10; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Patent Owner further objected to
`
`Exhibit 1025 under FRE 801/802 as hearsay (subject to no exception); under FRE
`
`402/403 as not relevant to any issue in this proceeding; and under FRE 106 as
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`incomplete. Paper 9 at ¶10. Petitioner did not respond to these objections with
`
`supplemental evidence or otherwise.
`
`FRE 901 states: “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying
`
`an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a
`
`finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Petitioner fails to carry its
`
`burden. Based on the description in Petitioner’s Exhibit List, it appears that
`
`Petitioner would contend that Exhibits 1024 and 1025 are webpage printouts. But
`
`the Petition makes no attempt to establish the province of these exhibits, and the
`
`face of Exhibit 1024 lacks any indication whatsoever of a website address from
`
`which the document was purportedly obtained.
`
`“When offering a printout of a webpage into evidence to prove the website’s
`
`contents, the proponent of the evidence must authenticate the information from the
`
`website itself, not merely the printout.” See, e.g., Standard Innovation Corp. v.
`
`LeLo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00148, Paper 42 at 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2015),
`
`rehearing denied, IPR2014-00148, Paper 44 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2015); Victaulic
`
`Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 236 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended (Nov. 20, 2007)
`
`(citing United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 638 (7th Cir. 2000)). The Board
`
`has required that “[t]o authenticate printouts from a website, the party proffering
`
`the evidence must produce some statement or affidavit from someone with
`
`knowledge of the website . . . for example a web master or someone else with
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`personal knowledge would be sufficient.” EMC Corp. v. Personalweb Techs.,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2013-00084, Paper 64 at 45-46 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2014) (quoting
`
`St. Luke’s Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson, 2006 WL 1320242, at *2
`
`(M.D. Fla. May 12, 2006)), a’ffd, 612 Fed. Appx. 611 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Here, Petitioner has failed to provide any witness testimony whatsoever
`
`regarding the websites from where it allegedly obtained Exhibits 1024 and 1025,
`
`let alone any testimony from a witness with personal knowledge that the printouts
`
`themselves are authentic. Because Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence to
`
`support a finding that the documents are what Petitioner claims they are, Exhibits
`
`1024 and 1025 are inadmissible and should be excluded.
`
` Exhibit 1025 should be excluded for three additional reasons. First, it
`
`should be excluded under FRE 801/802 as hearsay (subject to no exception).
`
`Exhibit 1025 contains out-of-court statements that are offered for the truth of the
`
`matters therein (i.e., the purported price of JUXTAPID, see Petition, Paper 1 at 4).
`
`Petitioner has not and cannot identify any hearsay exception applicable to this
`
`document. Second, Exhibit 1025 should be excluded under FRE 106 as
`
`incomplete. Specifically, article content appears to be missing. For example, the
`
`first full paragraph of the article starts mid-sentence. Third, Exhibit 1025 should
`
`be excluded under FRE 402/403 as not relevant to any issue in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner does not argue that the purported price of JUXTAPID, which is a
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`commercial embodiment of the challenged patent claims, has any relevance to
`
`whether the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`Exhibits 1046-1051 (Product Labels)
`
`B.
`Exhibits 1046-1051 purport to be product labels for various pharmaceuticals.
`
`In its Exhibit List, Petitioner describes the documents as follows:
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`FDA Label for Crestor
`
`FDA Label for Vytorin
`
`FDA Label for Zocor
`
`FDA Label for Caduet
`
`FDA Label for Lipitor
`
`FDA Label for Zetia
`
`
`Paper 30 at vii-viii. The labels contain yellow highlighting that was presumably
`
`added by Petitioner. See, e.g., Ex. 1046 at 9. Petitioner cites these exhibits in
`
`support of its contention that “at least six drugs were FDA approved for the
`
`treatment of HoFH at the time of the invention, including Crestor, Vytorin, Zocor,
`
`Caduet, Lipitor and Zetia.” Paper 30 at 20; Paper 33 at 21.1
`
`1 Although Petitioner also cites Exhibits 1050-1055 in the Supplemental
`
`Declaration of Randall M. Zusman, M.D. (“Supplemental Zusman Declaration”,
`
`Ex. 1045), Petitioners failed to cite the relevant paragraphs of the Supplemental
`
`Zusman Declaration in Petitioner’s Reply or Opposition to the Motion to Amend.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
` On September 14, 2016, Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibits 1046-
`
`1051 under FRE 901 as not authenticated, and under FRE 402/403 to the extent
`
`they are relied on as prior art. Paper 34 at ¶¶ 5-10. Petitioner responded with
`
`supplemental evidence—specifically, a Declaration of Christopher Casieri (who is
`
`backup counsel in this proceeding)—purporting to demonstrate that the labels are
`
`“publically available” from the Food and Drug Administration’s website. Ex.
`
`1057. Petitioner’s original proofs and supplemental evidence are insufficient to
`
`authenticate the labels, let alone establish their dates of public availability.
`
`As to authentication, Petitioner provides no evidence sufficient to support a
`
`finding that these exhibits are in fact FDA labels.
`
`As to relevance, Petitioner relies on Exhibits 1046-51 solely to prove the
`
`state of the art as of March 7, 2005 (the priority date of the ’268 Patent for
`
`purposes of this proceeding), but fails to establish that the labels were publicly
`
`available as of that date. Paper 30 at 20; Paper 33 at 21. In its Reply, Petitioner
`
`did not point Patent Owner to any characteristics of Exhibits 1046-1051 that
`
`establish the labels’ purported dates of public availability. Some of the Exhibits
`
`appear to bear a date, but it is unclear what the significance of that date may be
`
`(i.e., a draft date, a publication date, etc.). See Exhibit 1046 at 1 of 20 (“8-12-03”
`
`at top of page); see also Exhibit 1049; Exhibit 1050. Others bear no date. See
`
`Exhibit 1047 at 22 of 42 (“[i]ssued XXXXXXX”); Exhibit 1051 at 15 of 17
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`(“[i]ssued MMM YYYY”). One exhibit bears a date with a strikeout. See Exhibit
`
`1048 at 16 (“[i]ssued June 2001”). Thus, the documents themselves fail to
`
`establish that they were accessible to the public prior to the relevant priority date.
`
`And even to the extent the labels bear a date, these dates are inadequate on their
`
`face to demonstrate availability to the public. See, e.g., Kinetic Technologies, Inc.
`
`v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00690, Paper 43 at 18-20 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19,
`
`2015); see also Ex Parte Rembrandt Gaming Techs. LP, 2014 WL 6847163, at *3,
`
`Control No. 90/012,379 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014) (holding a copyright date does not
`
`show the requisite public availability, but merely establishes the date the document
`
`was created or printed).
`
`Petitioner’s supplemental evidence, the Declaration of Christopher Casieri,
`
`fails to remedy the shortcomings of the labels themselves. As to authentication,
`
`the Casieri Declaration asserts that each exhibit is “a true and correct copy” of the
`
`product label. Ex. 1057. But the Declaration provides only that bald statement,
`
`without any facts whatsoever from which Patent Owner or the Board can evaluate
`
`the assertion.2 As to the date of the documents, Mr. Casieri provided a link to the
`
`
`2 Petitioner also renumbered Exhibits 1046-1051 as new Exhibits 1060-1065, in
`
`order to remove yellow highlighting on the exhibits that did not appear on the
`
`original documents.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`FDA’s website and stated that each label is “publically available” on the FDA’s
`
`website. Id. That assertion misses the mark, because it fails to establish the date of
`
`the label vis-à-vis the relevant priority date, which is the key information needed to
`
`establish these documents as part of the state of the art.
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 1046-1051 should be excluded because they lack
`
`authentication and because they have not been established as part of the state of the
`
`art (Petitioner’s sole attempted use of these documents), they are irrelevant to any
`
`issue in this proceeding.
`
`C. Exhibit 1052 (Kimball Deposition Transcript)
`Exhibit 1052 is the Deposition Transcript of S. David Kimball, Ph.D., dated
`
`July 11, 2016. Petitioner cites Exhibit 1052 in its Reply (Paper 30) at pages 3-5,
`
`and 10-11.3
`
`Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibit 1052 as an improper duplicate of
`
`Exhibit 2304, the Transcript of the Deposition of S. David Kimball, Ph.D. dated
`
`July 11, 2016, including Dr. Kimball’s signed errata sheet. Paper 34 at ¶ 11.
`
`
`3 Although Petitioner also cites Exhibit 1052 in the Supplemental Zusman
`
`Declaration, Petitioners failed to cite the relevant paragraphs of the Supplemental
`
`Zusman Declaration in Petitioner’s Reply or Opposition to the Motion to Amend.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`This duplicate exhibit violates the rule that “[a] document already in the
`
`record of the proceeding must not be filed again,” 37 C.F.R. §42.6(d), and should
`
`be excluded.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1024, 1025, and 1046-1052.
`
`
`Dated: October 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/William G. James/
`William G. James
`Registration No. 55,931
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`901 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`P: 202.346.4000
`F: 202.346.4444
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that I caused the PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE to be served electronically via e-mail on
`
`October 28, 2016 on the following:
`
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Christopher Casieri
`McNeely, Hare & War LLP
`12 Roszel Road, Suite C104
`Princeton, NJ 08540
`(609) 731-3668
`chris@miplaw.com
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Coalition
`for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC
`
`Dated:
`
`October 28, 2016
`
`
`
`/Russell W. Warnick/
`Russell W. Warnick
`
`
`
`
`
`
`