`
`
`
`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, for the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1042 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 (including the highlighting contained
`
`within the document) is further objected to because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1043 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 (including the highlighting contained
`
`within the document) is further objected to because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1044 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 because it is not relevant to any issue in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1045 (Supplemental Declaration of Randall
`
`M. Zusman, M.D.) 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 for any prior art teaching.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1046 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 (including the highlighting contained within the
`
`document) is further objected to because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`6.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1047 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 (including the highlighting contained within the
`
`document) is further objected to because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`7.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1048 is objected to under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402/403 to the extent that it is relied upon as prior art under 35
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 102. This exhibit (including the highlighting contained within the
`
`document) is further objected to because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`8.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1049 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 (including the highlighting contained within the
`
`document) is further objected to because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`9.
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit 1050 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 (including the highlighting contained within the
`
`document) is further objected to because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`10. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1051 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 (including the highlighting contained within the
`
`document) is further objected to because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 901.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1052 is objected to because it violates 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.6 (d). This exhibit (Transcript of the Deposition of S. David
`
`Kimball, Ph.D. dated July 11, 2016) was previously filed by the Patent
`
`Owner as Exhibit 2304.
`
`Date: September 14, 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`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 September 14, 2016 on the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`
`
`/Russell W. Warnick/
`Russell W. Warnick
`
`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:
`
`September 14, 2016