`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Exhibits 1024 And 1025 Should Be Excluded.
`
`For the reasons set forth in Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (“Motion”
`
`(Paper 40) at 1-4), the website printouts that comprise Exhibits 1024 and 1025
`
`should be excluded at least on the basis of Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 901
`
`as lacking authenticity.
`
`Petitioner argues that the Marx Declaration (Exhibit 1034) authenticates
`
`Exhibits 1024 and 1025. Pet. Opp. (Paper 46) at 1. As Petitioner explains,
`
`however, the Marx Declaration attests to the respective hyperlinks where Exhibits
`
`1024 and 1025 purportedly can be found. But Petitioner offers these exhibits to
`
`show the purported price of Juxtapid, and nothing in the Marx Declaration speaks
`
`to whether the documents accurately report this information.
`
`Patent Owner also objected to Exhibit 1025 as hearsay. See Motion at 1; 3.
`
`Petitioner does not directly respond to this evidentiary challenge, but instead
`
`argues only that Patent Owner has not contested the prices in the exhibits. This
`
`misses the point. As an evidentiary matter, Petitioner bears the burden of
`
`responding to Patent Owner’s timely-made hearsay objection by showing that its
`
`proffered exhibit is subject to a hearsay exception. Petitioner has not done so.
`
`Finally, Petitioner has failed to respond to Patent Owner’s additional
`
`arguments that Exhibit 1025 should be excluded under FRE 106 and 402/403.
`
`Motion at 3-4.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 1024 and 1025 should be excluded because they lack
`
`authentication under FRE 901. Further, Exhibit 1025 should also be excluded
`
`under FRE 106, 402/403, and 801/802.
`
`II. Exhibits 1046-1051 (Product Labels) Should Be Excluded.
`
`For the reasons set forth in the Motion, Exhibits 1046-1051, which purport
`
`to be product labels for various pharmaceuticals, should be excluded under FRE
`
`901 as not authenticated and under FRE 402/403 to the extent they are relied on as
`
`prior art. Motion at 4-7.
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s objections to the product labels, Petitioner
`
`relies upon the Declaration of Christopher Casieri (“Casieri Declaration” (Ex.
`
`1057)). The Casieri Declaration simply asserts that the documents comprising
`
`Exhibits 1046-1051 may be downloaded from an FDA website, but fails to include
`
`any facts purporting to show that the documents are what Petitioner contends they
`
`are—labels for products that “were FDA approved for the treatment of HoFH at
`
`the time of the invention.” Petitioner Reply (Paper 30), at 20.
`
`In response to Patent Owner’s relevance objection, Petitioner argues that the
`
`dates of availability of statins and ezetimibe are not contested facts (Opp. at 3), but
`
`this argument again misses the mark. Petitioner has used these labels to assert that
`
`“at least six drugs were FDA approved for the treatment of HoFH at the time of the
`
`invention.” Motion at 4 (citing Paper 30 at 20; Paper 33 at 21)). Thus, the issue is
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`not whether statins and ezetimibe were generally commercially available prior to
`
`2005, but instead whether Exhibits 1046-1051 themselves tend to show that the
`
`products mentioned therein were available as of 2005. Accordingly, whether these
`
`labels are what Petitioner purports them to be, as of the dates Petitioner purports
`
`them to have been publicly available, is precisely the issue here, and Petitioner has
`
`not proffered evidence on these points.
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 1046-1051 should be excluded because they lack
`
`authentication under FRE 901. Further, because they have not been established as
`
`part of the state of the art, they should be excluded under FRE 402/403 as
`
`irrelevant to any issue in this proceeding.
`
`III. Exhibit 1052 (Kimball Deposition Transcript) Should Be Excluded.
`
`For the reasons set forth in the Motion, Exhibit 1052 should be excluded
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §42.6(d) as an improper duplicate of Exhibit 2304. Motion at 7-8.
`
`Exhibit 2304, filed first by Patent Owner, also includes Dr. Kimball’s signed errata
`
`sheet, and is thus the more complete of the two documents. Motion at 7. To the
`
`extent Petitioner cites Exhibit 1052 in its Reply, its citations can be updated to
`
`reflect Exhibit 2304 in place of Exhibit 1052 if necessary.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1024, 1025, and 1046-1052.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 18, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that I caused the PATENT OWNER’S
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE to be
`
`served electronically via e-mail on November 18, 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:
`
`November 18, 2016