`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CEPHALON, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00098
`Patent No. 8,791,270
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00098
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)(1), Petitioner Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC
`
`(“Fresenius”) asserts the following objections to evidence submitted by Patent
`
`Owner Cephalon, Inc. (“Cephalon”) in its Preliminary Patent Owner Response
`
`(“Prel. Resp.”). Fresenius reserves the right to file a motion to exclude the
`
`evidence to which these objections are directed.
`
`Fresenius objects to Exhibits 2002 and 2013-2014 under FRE 801-802 and
`
`901. These exhibits appear to be printouts from a website, Drugs.com. Cephalon
`
`is proffering these exhibits for the truth of the matter asserted in support of certain
`
`secondary considerations arguments (Prel. Resp. at 10), but has not shown that any
`
`applicable exception to the hearsay rule applies. Cephalon has also not provided
`
`any evidence demonstrating the authenticity of the website printout.
`
`Fresenius objects to Exhibits 2015-2024 under FRE 401-403. Cephalon
`
`offered these exhibits in connection with purported commercial success arguments.
`
`Prel. Resp. at 10-11. These exhibits should be excluded because Cephalon has
`
`failed to establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the alleged
`
`commercial success.
`
`In particular, Cephalon has not provided any evidence or analysis showing
`
`that the alleged commercial success is attributable to the claimed invention as
`
`opposed to elements in the prior art, such as the bendamustine hydrochloride active
`
`pharmaceutical ingredient. See In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00098
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Cir. 2011) (“Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from
`
`something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus
`
`to the merits of the claimed invention.”). Cephalon’s failure to establish such a
`
`nexus renders its alleged commercial success evidence inadmissible. See, e.g.,
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2005);
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (absent
`
`nexus, “[e]vidence of commercial success, or other secondary considerations” is
`
`“irrelevant”).
`
`Fresenius also objects to Exhibits 2027-2029 under FRE 401-403, FRE 801-
`
`802, and 901. Exhibits 2027-2029 are not relevant to any ground upon which trial
`
`was instituted. For example, Cephalon did not cite Exhibits 2027-2029 in its
`
`Preliminary Response to rebut any argument presented by Fresenius. Cephalon
`
`has also not offered any evidence that an applicable exception to the hearsay rule
`
`applies, or that Exhibits 2027-2029 are authentic.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00098
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILEY REIN LLP
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Lawrence Sung, #38,330/
`
`Lawrence Sung, Reg. No. 38,330
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00098
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(A)
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was
`
`served via electronic mail on May 18, 2016 to the following counsel of record for
`
`the Petitioner:
`
`
`Soumitra Deka
`Aaron Stiefel
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Soumitra.deka@kayescholer.com
`Aaron.stiefel@kayescholer.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Lawrence Sung, #38,330/
`
` Lawrence Sung, Reg. No. 38,330