`
`
`
`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 OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner objects to the admissibility of
`
`the documents identified below submitted by Petitioner, Coalition for Affordable
`
`Drugs VIII, LLC, during the preliminary proceedings, for the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1002 (Declaration of Randall M. Zusman)
`
`is objected to as unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert
`
`v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dr. Zusman
`
`does not possess the requisite credentials or expertise to render opinions in
`
`this case. This Exhibit is further objected to as unreliable under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 702/703 because its bases are not of the type reasonably
`
`relied upon by experts in the field in forming an opinion. This Exhibit is
`
`further objected to as unreliable under Federal Rules of Evidence 702/703 to
`
`the extent that it relies on documents dated after the priority date of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,932,268 (“the ’268 Patent”) for any prior art teaching.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1003 (Declaration of Michael Mayersohn)
`
`is objected to as unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert
`
`v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dr. Mayersohn
`
`does not possess the requisite credentials or expertise to render opinions in
`
`this case. This Exhibit is further objected to as unreliable under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 702/703 because its bases are not of the type reasonably
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relied upon by experts in the field in forming an opinion. This Exhibit is
`
`further objected to as unreliable under Federal Rules of Evidence 702/703 to
`
`the extent that it relies on documents dated after the priority date of the ’268
`
`Patent for any prior art teaching.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1004 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 702/703 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) to the extent it is offered as improper expert
`
`testimony. The form of this Exhibit violates 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1005 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 702/703 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) to the extent it is offered as improper expert
`
`testimony. The form of this Exhibit violates 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1007 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is cumulative over Exhibit 1001.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1013 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 to the extent that it is relied upon as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102. This Exhibit is further objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding.
`
`7.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1014 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 to the extent that it is relied upon as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102. This Exhibit is further objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to because it has not
`
`been properly authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`8.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1023 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 to the extent that it is relied upon as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102. This Exhibit is further objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to because it has not
`
`been properly authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`9.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1024 is objected to because it has not been
`
`properly authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1025 is objected to under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 106 as incomplete. This Exhibit is further objected to under
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is also objected to as hearsay
`
`(subject to no exception) under Federal Rules of Evidence 801/802. This
`
`Exhibit is further objected to because it has not been properly authenticated
`
`as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`11. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1026 is objected to under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 106 as incomplete.
`
`12. The form of Petitioner’s Exhibit 1028 violates 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63.
`
`13. The form of Petitioner’s Exhibit 1030 violates 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63.
`
`14. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1034 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 702/703 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) to the extent it is offered as improper expert
`
`testimony. This Exhibit is further objected to because it has not been
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`properly authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901. The
`
`form of this Exhibit violates 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`15. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1035 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to because it has not
`
`been properly authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`16. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1036 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to because it has not
`
`been properly authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`17. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1037 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to because it has not
`
`been properly authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`18. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1038 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 to the extent that it is relied upon as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102. This Exhibit is further objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`captioned proceeding. This Exhibit is further objected to because it has not
`
`been properly authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`These objections have been timely made within ten business days from the
`
`institution of trial in this case, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1).
`
`
`
`Date: March 21, 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: 202.346.4046
`F: 202.346.4444
`wjames@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64 was served electronically via e-mail on March 21, 2016 on the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`/April E. Weisbruch/
`April E. Weisbruch
`
`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:
`
`March 21, 2016