throbber
Paper No. ____
`Date Filed: December 12, 2016
`
`Filed On Behalf Of: Novartis AG
`
`By:
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`NKallas@fchs.com
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`(212) 218-2100
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., AND
`ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-000841
`U.S. Patent 5,665,772
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 TO
`EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS WITH THEIR REPLY
`
`
`1 Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. was joined as a party to this proceeding via a
`Motion for Joinder in IPR2016-01023; Roxane Laboratories, Inc. was joined as a
`party via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2016-01102.
`
`
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Novartis AG (“Novartis”)
`
`objects to the admissibility of the following exhibits filed with Petitioners’ Par
`
`Pharmaceutical, Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Roxane Laboratories,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioners”) Reply on the grounds set forth below.
`
`In this paper, a reference to “F.R.E.” means the Federal Rules of Evidence, a
`
`reference to “C.F.R.” means the Code of Federal Regulations, and “’772 Patent”
`
`means U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772. All objections under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay) apply
`
`to the extent Petitioners rely on the exhibits identified in connection with that
`
`objection for the truth of the matters asserted therein.
`
`Novartis’s objections are as follows:
`
`Exhibits 1034, 1036 – 1043, 1047 – 1057, 1062 – 1063, 1065 – 1070, 1074, 1077
`
`– 1083, 1085 – 1086, 1088, 1092 – 1093, 1097 – 1100, 1102 – 1106, 1108 – 1110,
`
`1113, 1117, and 1120 – 1121
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibits 1034, 1036 – 1043, 1047 – 1057, 1062 – 1063,
`
`1065 – 1070, 1074, 1077 – 1083, 1085 – 1086, 1088, 1092 – 1093, 1097 – 1100,
`
`1102 – 1106, 1108 – 1110, 1113, 1117, and 1120 – 1121 under F.R.E. 802
`
`(hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1047 – 1050, 1055 – 1057, 1065 – 1069,
`
`1074, 1077 – 1083, 1085 – 1086, 1088, 1092 – 1093, 1097 – 1100, 1102 – 1106,
`
`1108 – 1110, and 1120 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.104(b)(2) and
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`(b)(5), and 42.105, as these documents were not published until after the October
`
`9, 1992 priority date of the ’772 Patent and these documents are not the types of
`
`documents upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
`
`would rely.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1036 – 1043, 1047 – 1057, 1062 – 1063,
`
`1065 – 1070, 1074, 1077 – 1083, 1085 – 1086, 1088, 1092 – 1093, 1097 – 1100,
`
`1102 – 1106, 1108 – 1110, 1113, 1117, and 1120 – 1121 under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, and 42.24(c)(1) as these documents are not cited in
`
`Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on these
`
`Exhibits to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing these Exhibits, or
`
`indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss these
`
`Exhibits) will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1038 – 1040, 1043, 1047, 1049 – 1050,
`
`1055 – 1057, 1062, 1065 – 1066, 1070, 1092, 1104, 1109 – 1110, 1113, and 1121
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5) and 42.23 as Petitioners have failed to identify
`
`which aspects of the documents are relied upon.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1034,2 1036, 1037, 1062 – 1063, 1065 –
`
`1070, 1102 – 1106, 1113, 1117, 1120, and 1121 as improper and untimely as they
`
`should have been included in the evidence served with Petitioners’ Petitions as
`
`required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b) and
`
`42.105.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1121 as improperly labeled and produced
`
`under 37 C.F.R § 42.63 and F.R.E. 1003 (duplicates), as the copy provided appears
`
`to have alterations that do not appear in the original document and certain portions
`
`of the document are not legible.
`
`Exhibit 1044, 1046, and 1061
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibits 1044, 1046, and 1061 under F.R.E. 802
`
`(hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1044, 1046 and 1061 under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105, as these
`
`documents were not published until after the October 9, 1992 priority date of the
`
`’772 Patent, these documents are not the types of documents upon which a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely, and these documents
`
`
`2 Novartis maintains the objections to Exhibit 1034 that it raised during the
`
`November 14, 2016 Deposition of Alexander M. Klibanov.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`are not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely
`
`on these Exhibits (either directly by citing these Exhibits, or indirectly by citing
`
`paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss these Exhibits) to establish
`
`unpatentability will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Exhibits 1045 and 1091
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibits 1045 and 1091 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further
`
`objects to Exhibits 1045 and 1091 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23,
`
`42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105, as these documents were not
`
`published until after the October 9, 1992 priority date of the ’772 Patent, these
`
`documents are not the types of documents upon which a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of invention would rely, and these documents are not cited in
`
`Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on these
`
`Exhibits to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing these Exhibits, or
`
`indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss these
`
`Exhibits) will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1045 and 1091 under F.R.E. 901
`
`(authentication). No information about the source of Exhibit 1045 has been
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`provided. The web address listed on Petitioners’ exhibit list in connection with
`
`Exhibit 1091 links to a page that is different from this document, and no further
`
`information about the source of this document has been provided.
`
`Exhibits 1075 – 1076, 1087, 1089 – 1090, and 1111 – 1112
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibits 1075 – 1076, 1087, 1089 – 1090, and 1111 –
`
`1112 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1075 – 1076, 1087,
`
`1089 – 1090, and 1111 – 1112 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(2) and
`
`(b)(5), and 42.105, as these documents were not published until after the October
`
`9, 1992 priority date of the ’772 Patent and these documents are not the types of
`
`documents upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
`
`would rely.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1075 – 1076, 1089 – 1090, and 1111 –
`
`1112 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5),
`
`and 42.105, as these documents are not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore
`
`any attempt by Petitioners to rely on these Exhibits to establish unpatentability
`
`(either directly by citing these Exhibits, or indirectly by citing paragraphs of their
`
`expert declarations that discuss these Exhibits) will constitute an improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1087, 1089 – 1090, and 1111 – 1112
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5) and 42.23 as Petitioners have failed to identify
`
`which aspects of the documents are relied upon.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1075 – 1076, 1087, 1089 – 1090, and
`
`1111 – 1112 under F.R.E. 901 (authentication). No information about the source
`
`of these documents has been provided.
`
`Exhibit 1058
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1058 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and
`
`42.105, as this document was not published until after the October 9, 1992 priority
`
`date of the ’772 Patent, this document is not the type of document upon which a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely, and this
`
`document is not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by
`
`Petitioners to rely on this Exhibit to establish unpatentability (either directly by
`
`citing this Exhibit, or indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations
`
`that discuss this Exhibit) will constitute an improper incorporation by reference
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1058 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness), as
`
`the document is incomplete because it includes only a select portion of a larger
`
`document that in fairness ought to be considered in connection with Exhibit 1058.
`
`Exhibit 1059
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1059 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects under
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105,
`
`as this document was not published until after the October 9, 1992 priority date of
`
`the ’772 Patent, this document is not the type of document upon which a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely, and this document is
`
`not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on
`
`this Exhibit to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing this Exhibit, or
`
`indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss this Exhibit)
`
`will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1059 under F.R.E. 901 (authentication).
`
`This exhibit appears to have been printed from the Internet; however the web
`
`address listed on Petitioners’ exhibit list in connection with this exhibit does not
`
`link to any active page, and no further information about the source of the
`
`document has been provided.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1060
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1060 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and
`
`42.105, as this document is not dated and this document is not cited in Petitioners’
`
`Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on this Exhibit to establish
`
`unpatentability (either directly by citing this Exhibit, or indirectly by citing
`
`paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss this Exhibit) will constitute an
`
`improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1060 under F.R.E. 901 (authentication).
`
`This exhibit appears to have been printed from the Internet; however the web
`
`address listed on Petitioners’ exhibit list in connection with this exhibit does not
`
`link to any active page, and no further information about the source of the
`
`document has been provided.
`
`Exhibit 1064
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1064 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibits 1071, 1094, and 1116
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibits 1071, 1094, and 1116 under F.R.E. 802
`
`(hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Novartis further objects under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5),
`
`and 42.105, as these documents were not published until after the October 9, 1992
`
`priority date of the ’772 Patent, these documents are not the types of documents
`
`upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely,
`
`and these documents are not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1071 and 1094 under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105, as these
`
`documents were not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by
`
`Petitioners to rely on these Exhibits to establish unpatentability (either directly by
`
`citing these Exhibits, or indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations
`
`that discuss these Exhibits) will constitute an improper incorporation by reference
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Exhibit 1072
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1072 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and
`
`42.105, as this document is not dated and this document was not cited in
`
`Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on this Exhibit
`
`to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing this Exhibit, or indirectly by
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss this Exhibit) will
`
`constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Exhibit 1073
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1073 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and
`
`42.105, as this document is not dated and this document was not cited in
`
`Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on this Exhibit
`
`to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing this Exhibit, or indirectly by
`
`citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss this Exhibit) will
`
`constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Exhibit 1084
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1084 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects under
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105,
`
`as this document is not dated until after the October 9, 1992 priority date of the
`
`’772 Patent, this document is not the type of document upon which a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely, and this document was
`
`not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on
`
`this Exhibit to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing this Exhibit, or
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss this Exhibit)
`
`will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Exhibits 1095 and 1096
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibits 1095 and 1096 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay),
`
`F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further
`
`objects under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5),
`
`and 42.105, as these documents are not dated and were not retrieved from the
`
`Internet until after the October 9, 1992 priority date of the ’772 Patent, these
`
`documents are not the types of documents upon which a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of invention would rely, and these documents were not cited in
`
`Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on these
`
`Exhibits to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing these Exhibits, or
`
`indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss these
`
`Exhibits) will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1096 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`and 42.23 as Petitioners have failed to identify which aspects of the document are
`
`11
`
`relied upon.
`
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1101
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1101under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and
`
`42.105, as this document was not published until after the October 9, 1992 priority
`
`date of the ’772 Patent, this document is not the type of document upon which a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely, this
`
`document was not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by
`
`Petitioners to rely on this Exhibit to establish unpatentability (either directly by
`
`citing this Exhibit, or indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations
`
`that discuss this Exhibit) will constitute an improper incorporation by reference
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), and Petitioners have failed to identify which aspects
`
`of the document are relied upon.
`
`Exhibit 1107
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1107 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects under
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105,
`
`as this document is dated after and was not retrieved until after the October 9, 1992
`
`priority date of the ’772 Patent, this document is not the type of document upon
`
`which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely, this
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`document was not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by
`
`Petitioners to rely on this Exhibit to establish unpatentability (either directly by
`
`citing this Exhibit, or indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations
`
`that discuss this Exhibit) will constitute an improper incorporation by reference
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), and Petitioners have failed to identify which aspects
`
`of the document are relied upon.
`
`Exhibit 1118
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1118 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 702
`
`(improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion), and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65 as the testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, is not the product
`
`of reliable principles and methods, and the principles and methods have not been
`
`reliably applied to the facts of the case.
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1118 under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.65 and 42.104(b)(5), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time) for failing to identify with
`
`particularity the underlying facts and data on which the opinion is based; Exhibit
`
`1118 ¶¶ 7-8, 10-17, 19-21, 23-24, 26-29, 31-35, 38-39, 42-45, 50-51, 53-54, 57-58,
`
`61-63, 66-68, 70-71, 76-77, 79-82, 86-87, 89-96, 99, 101-108, and 110-111 fail to
`
`cite any support at all, include statements that do not cite any support, or include
`
`statements that are not supported by the cite(s) provided; Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 5, 9-12,
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`15, 17-18, 20-23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33-34, 39, 41, 44, 47, 50-51, 55-57, 63, 65, 73, 78,
`
`107, and 110 cite to prior expert testimony without identifying any underlying
`
`support; and Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 8-9, 33, and 42 cite to entire articles, book chapters or
`
`other references without identifying which aspects of those references are relied
`
`upon.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 1-12, 14, 16, 24, 30-31, 36, 45-46,
`
`59-63, 79-81, and 111 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste
`
`of time) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5),
`
`and 42.105 as these paragraphs are not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore
`
`any attempt by Petitioners to rely on these paragraphs or the arguments therein to
`
`establish unpatentability will constitute an improper incorporation by reference
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 9, 17-18, 26, 33, 42, 82, 96-99,
`
`and 110 under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases for
`
`expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time);
`
`these paragraphs include expert opinion based on documents that are inadmissible
`
`under at least F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an
`
`expert opinion), as not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding and not the type
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention would rely.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 5-7, 10-11, 16-20, 63, 78, 107, and
`
`111 under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert
`
`opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). The
`
`declarant is not stated to have expertise with respect to pharmacology,
`
`immunosuppression, or transplant rejection.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 77 and 91 under F.R.E. 106
`
`(completeness) because these paragraphs cite and quote only portions of testimony
`
`from Ex. 1114, and omit portions of answers or follow up questions that in fairness
`
`ought to be considered in connection with Exhibit 1114 , including for ¶ 77, Dep.
`
`Tr. 52:23-57:5; and for ¶ 91, Dep. Tr. 47:15-48:22.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 8, 29, 56, 62, 74, 83, and 82
`
`under F.R.E. 106 (completeness) because these paragraphs quote only portions of
`
`testimony from Exhibits 2092 and/or Exhibits 2093, and omit portions of
`
`testimony set forth in the cited paragraphs of the declarations of Dr. Klibanov
`
`and/or Dr. Roush that in fairness ought to be considered in connection with
`
`Exhibits 2092 and 2093.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶ 38 under F.R.E. 106
`
`(completeness) because it cites only portions of testimony from Ex. 1115, and
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`omits related questions that in fairness ought to be considered in connection with
`
`Exhibit 1115, including Dep. Tr. 7-14.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 9, 26, 29, 33, 38, 42, 43, 53, 56,
`
`and 97-99 as improper and untimely as these paragraphs cite exhibits (Ex. 1034,
`
`1117,1121, 2075, and 2111) and make arguments in support of Petitioners’ prima
`
`facie lead compound case based on those exhibits that should have been included
`
`in the evidence served with Petitioners’ Petitions as required by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b) and 42.105.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 8-11, 13-17, 20, 23, 25- 27, 29,
`
`32, 33, 38, 42, 43, 53, 62, 78, 79, 82, 86, 87, 89-99, 101-105, 107, 108, and 110 as
`
`improper and untimely as these paragraphs make arguments in support of
`
`Petitioners’ prima facie lead compound case that should have been included in the
`
`evidence served with Petitioners’ Petitions as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b) and 42.105.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 8, 9, 25, 26 and 33 under F.R.E. 702
`
`(improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). The declarant is not stated
`
`to have personal knowledge of, or expertise with respect to, the work done by the
`
`’772 patent inventors, the National Cancer Institute or any entity involved in the
`
`“Development of rapamycin.”
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1119
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1119 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 702
`
`(improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion), and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65 as the testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, is not the product
`
`of reliable principles and methods, and the principles and methods have not been
`
`reliably applied to the facts of the case.
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1119 under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.65 and 42.104(b)(5), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time) for failing to identify with
`
`particularity the underlying facts and data on which the opinion is based; Exhibit
`
`1119 ¶¶ 29-30, 32, 35-41, 43-49, 52-55, 57, 59, 61, 63-66, 68-69, 72-79, 82-90, 92-
`
`95, 97, 99-101, 103-107, and 109-112 fail to cite any support at all, include
`
`statements that do not cite any support, or include statements that are not supported
`
`by the cite(s) provided; and Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 37, 40, 46, 49-50, 56, 58, 61-62, 75,
`
`86-87, 91, 100, 102, 107, and 111 cite to entire articles, book chapters or other
`
`references without identifying which aspects of those references are relied upon.
`
`Patent Owners also object to Exhibit 1119 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance),
`
`F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion); Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 41, 46, 49-50, 52, 54, 58,
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`60, 67-68, 70-71, 74-76, 85-92, 94, 96-107, and 111 include expert opinion based
`
`on documents that are not prior art.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 1-31, 37-42, and 44 under F.R.E.
`
`402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105 as these
`
`paragraphs are not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by
`
`Petitioners to rely on these paragraphs or the arguments therein to establish
`
`unpatentability will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 32, 34, 36-41, 43, 46-47, 49-50, 52,
`
`54, 56-58, 60-61, 67-68, 70-71, 74-76, 85-94, 96-107, and 111 under F.R.E. 702
`
`(improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time); these paragraphs include
`
`expert opinion based on documents that are inadmissible under at least F.R.E. 802
`
`(hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), F.R.E.
`
`702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), as not
`
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding and not the type of document upon
`
`which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 29, 38, 42, 47-49, and 60 under
`
`F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion),
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). The declarant is
`
`not stated to have expertise with respect to medicinal chemistry and/or
`
`immunology and/or transplantation.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶ 61 under F.R.E. 702 (improper
`
`expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance)
`
`and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). The declarant is not stated to have
`
`expertise with respect to Wyeth’s clinical development plans.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 46, 52, 61, 70, 73, and 75 under
`
`F.R.E. 602 (lack of personal knowledge), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony),
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time), as the declarant is testifying regarding factual matters
`
`for which he does not have personal knowledge.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 28, 35-36, 38, and 41-42, under
`
`F.R.E. 106 (completeness) because these paragraphs cite and quote only portions
`
`of testimony from Ex. 1115, and omit a portion of an answer and related questions
`
`and answers that in fairness ought to be considered in connection with Exhibit
`
`1115, including for ¶ 28, Dep. Tr. 18:18-19:18; for ¶ 35, Dep. Tr. 68:20-69:7; for
`
`¶ 36, Dep. Tr. 78:12-82:12, 89:19-92:4; for ¶ 38, Dep. Tr. 120:12-20; for ¶ 41,
`
`Dep. Tr. 130:4-131:21; and for ¶ 42, Dep. Tr. 120:2-20.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶ 67 under F.R.E. 106
`
`(completeness) because this paragraph cites only portions of testimony from Ex.
`
`1071, and omits related trial testimony that in fairness ought to be considered in
`
`connection with Exhibit 1071, including Trial Tr. 565:23-566:15.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶ 99 under F.R.E. 106
`
`(completeness) because this paragraph cites only portions of testimony from Ex.
`
`1094, and omits related trial testimony that in fairness ought to be considered in
`
`connection with Exhibit 1094, including Trial. Tr. 632:24-633:8, 635:14-18.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1119 as improper and untimely; Exhibit
`
`1119 ¶¶ 32-36, 43, 57 and 101-106 are improper and untimely as these paragraphs
`
`make arguments relied on by Petitioners’ in support of Petitioners’ prima facie
`
`reasonable expectation of success case and/or cite exhibits that should have been
`
`included in the evidence served with Petitioners’ Petitions as required by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b) and 42.105.
`
`Exhibit 1122
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1122 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects under
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105,
`
`as this document is not dated until after the October 9, 1992 priority date of the
`
`’772 Patent, this document is not the type of document upon which a person of
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely, and this document was
`
`not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on
`
`this Exhibit to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing this Exhibit, or
`
`indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss this Exhibit)
`
`will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1122 under F.R.E. 901 (authentication). No
`
`information about the source of this document is provided.
`
`Exhibit 1123
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1123 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time). Novartis further objects under
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, 42.24(c)(1), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105,
`
`as this document was not published until after the October 9, 1992 priority date of
`
`the ’772 Patent, this document is not the type of document upon which a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely, and this document was
`
`not cited in Petitioners’ Reply, and therefore any attempt by Petitioners to rely on
`
`this Exhibit to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing this Exhibit, or
`
`indirectly by citing paragraphs of their expert declarations that discuss this Exhibit)
`
`will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R.
`
`21
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3).
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`In addition, Novartis objects to each of Exhibits 1034-1123 to the extent
`
`Petitioners rely on them to establish any claim element or any aspect of the Federal
`
`Circuit’s lead compound analysis, as none of Exhibits 1034-1123 are references
`
`upon which trial was instituted under Ground 1 or Ground 2. Novartis similarly
`
`objects to Petitioners’ reliance on any 2000-series exhibit (or any other Exhibit that
`
`is not a reference in Ground 1 or 2) for the same reasons.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Nicholas N. Kallas/
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`Registration No. 31,530
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel. 212-218-2100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64 To Evidence Submitted By Petitioners With Their Reply was
`
`served on December 12, 2016 by causing it to be sent by email to counsel for
`
`Petitioners at the following email addresses:
`
`Daniel G. Brown (daniel.brown@lw.com)
`
`Robert Steinberg (bob.steinberg@lw.com)
`
`Brenda L. Danek (brenda.danek@lw.com)
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (jonathan.strang@lw.com)
`
`Matthew L. Fedowitz (mfedowitz@merchantgould.com)
`
`B. Jefferson Boggs (jboggs@merchantgould.com)
`
`Daniel R. Evans (devans@merchantgould.com)
`
`Keith A. Zullow (kzullow@goodwinlaw.com)
`
`Marta Delsignore (mdelsignore@goodwinprocter.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`/Nicholas N. Kallas/
`Nicholas N. Kall

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket