throbber
Filed on behalf of: Aventis Pharma S.A.
`
`Date Filed: October 6, 2016
`
`By:
`
`Dominick A. Conde
`dconde@fchs.com
`(212) 218-2100
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AVENTIS PHARMA S.A.
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00712
`U.S. Patent No. 8,927,592
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY MYLAN DURING
`A PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Aventis Pharma S.A. (“Aventis”)
`
`objects to the admissibility of the following exhibits on the grounds set forth
`
`below. All evidence objected to below was submitted by Petitioner Mylan
`
`Laboratories Limited (“Mylan”) with its Petition seeking inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,927,592 (“the ’592 patent”). The Board instituted review of the
`
`’592 patent on September 22, 2016. See Paper 9. Therefore, these objections are
`
`timely.
`
`In this paper, a reference to “F.R.E.” means the Federal Rules of Evidence,
`
`and a reference to “C.F.R.” means the Code of Federal Regulations. All objections
`
`under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay) apply to the extent Mylan relies on the exhibits
`
`identified in connection with that objection for the truth of the matters asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Aventis objects as follows:
`
`Exhibit 1002 Seth Declaration
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1002 under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert
`
`testimony) and F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion) 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.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1002 under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.65(a) and 42.104(b)(5); and F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), 402
`
`(relevance), and 403 (confusing, waste of time) for failing to identify with
`
`particularity the underlying facts and data on which the opinion in based: ¶¶ 15,
`
`43-44, 46-47, 57, 69-73, 91, 97-98, 116, 132, 145, 167, 181, 183, 198, 201, 217-
`
`220, 223-226 fail to cite any support at all, or include statements that do not cite
`
`any support, and ¶¶ 25-27, 48, 60-61, 71, 73, 76, 98 include statements that cite or
`
`refer to entire articles or other references without identifying which aspects of
`
`those references are relied upon.
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1002 ¶¶ 25-26, 28-30, 51-52, 55, 78, 82-93, 95-
`
`97, 99-109, 111, 134, 203-204, 216-219 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time) as these paragraphs are not cited in Mylan’s Petition.
`
`Aventis further objects to Exhibit 1002 ¶¶ 73, 162-169, 171, 173-196, 198,
`
`200-202, 206-212, 220-221 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time) as these paragraphs are cited in Mylan’s Petition only with respect
`
`to grounds for which inter partes review was not authorized.
`
`Aventis also objects to Exhibit 1002 ¶¶ 25-27, 42, 48-50, 52-53, 55, 57, 59-
`
`80, 82-111, 115-123, 126-130, 132-135, 137, 139-143, 145-155, 157-181, 183-186,
`
`188-189, 191-192, 194-199, 201-212, 215-216, 219-223, 225-226 under F.R.E.
`
`702 (improper expert testimony), 703 (bases for expert opinion), 402 (relevance),
`
`2
`
`

`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time) as these paragraphs include expert opinion
`
`based on documents that are inadmissible (Exhibits 1008-1013, 1015-1034) under
`
`at least F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 702 (improper expert testimony), 703 (bases for
`
`expert opinion), 402 (relevance), or 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Aventis also objects to Exhibit 1002 ¶¶ 79-80, 142, 198, 223-224 under
`
`F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), 703 (bases for expert opinion), 402
`
`(relevance), and 403 (confusing, waste of time). The declarant is not stated to have
`
`expertise with respect to solid state forms of drugs, improving solubility of drugs,
`
`or design and economics of clinical trials.
`
`Exhibit 1004 File History
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1004 under F.R.E. 901 (authenticity), 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time), and 106 (completeness) because it is not a certified
`
`copy of the file history, and it includes only a portion of a larger document that in
`
`fairness ought to be considered in connection with Exhibit 1004. For example,
`
`Exhibit 1004 is missing publications that were part of the file history.
`
`Exhibit 1008 Tropic Listing
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1008 under F.R.E. 901 (authenticity), 802
`
`(hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1008 on its
`
`face does not demonstrate that the information within it was publicly available by
`
`October 23, 2008. Exhibit 1026, the Affidavit of Christopher Butler, does not state
`
`3
`
`

`
`that the declarant has any personal knowledge that the information in Exhibit 1008
`
`was publicly available in 2008. Instead, Exhibit 1026 states that the date assigned
`
`by the Internet Archive “applies to the HTML file but not to image files linked
`
`therein. Thus images that appear on a page may not have been archived on the
`
`same date as the HTML file.” Exh. 1026 at 1. Exhibit 1026 does not identify what
`
`content in Exhibit 1008 is part of the HTML file versus images that might have
`
`been archived on a different date. Furthermore, Exhibit 1008 contains
`
`substantially the same disclosure as a listing for the TROPIC study at
`
`clinicaltrials.gov last updated on December 28, 2006 that was previously
`
`considered by the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore
`
`Exhibit 1008 needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative
`
`evidence of the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner.
`
`See Exh. 2100; Exh. 1001 at 2; Exh. 1004 at 1891.
`
`Exhibit 1009 Winquist
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1009 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1009 contains substantially the same
`
`disclosure as the National Horizon Scanning Center (University of Birmingham),
`
`Cabazitaxel (XRP-6258) for Hormone Refractory, Metastatic Prostate Cancer –
`
`Second Line after Docetaxel (April 2009) that was previously considered by the
`
`patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore Exhibit 1009
`
`4
`
`

`
`needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative evidence of
`
`the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner. See Exh.
`
`2078; Exh. 1001 at 3; Exhibit 1004 at 123.
`
`Exhibit 1010 Pivot
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1010 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1010 was previously considered by
`
`the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore Exhibit 1010
`
`needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative evidence of
`
`the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner. See Exh.
`
`1001 at 3; Exh.1004 at 123.
`
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Patent No. 7,241,907
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1011 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1011 was previously considered by
`
`the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore Exhibit 1011
`
`needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative evidence of
`
`the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner. See Exh.
`
`1001 at 1; Exh.1004 at 1889.
`
`Exhibit 1012 Mita
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1012 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1012 was previously considered by
`
`5
`
`

`
`the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore Exhibit 1012
`
`needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative evidence of
`
`the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner. See Exh.
`
`1001 at 1; Exh.1004 at 117.
`
`Exhibit 1013 Tannock
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1013 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1013 was previously considered by
`
`the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore Exhibit 1013
`
`needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative evidence of
`
`the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner. See Exh.
`
`1001 at 1; Exh.1004 at 118.
`
`Exhibit 1015 Booth
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1015 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1015 was previously considered by
`
`the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore Exhibit 1015
`
`needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative evidence of
`
`the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner. See Exh.
`
`1001 at 2; Exh.1004 at 116.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1016 Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1016 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 702 (improper
`
`expert testimony), 703 (bases for expert opinion), 402 (relevance), and 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time) because it is not relevant to any issue in this proceeding,
`
`and it is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention would rely.
`
`Exhibit 1017 Abrams
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1017 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1018 Kelland
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1018 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1019 Verweij
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1019 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1020 Galletti
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1020 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`7
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1021 Attard
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1021 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1021 was previously considered by
`
`the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore Exhibit 1021
`
`needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative evidence of
`
`the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner. See Exh.
`
`1001 at 3; Exh.1004 at 123.
`
`Exhibit 1022 Beardsley
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1022 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit 1022 was previously considered by
`
`the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore Exhibit 1022
`
`needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative evidence of
`
`the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner. See Exh.
`
`1001 at 1; Exh.1004 at 123.
`
`Exhibit 1023 El-Maraghi and Eisenhaur
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1023 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1024 Taxotere Label
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1024 under F.R.E. 901 (authenticity), 802
`
`(hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403 (confusing, waste of time). It is not clear from
`
`the face of Exhibit 1024 when it was first published.
`
`Exhibit 1025 Liu
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1025 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 702 (improper
`
`expert testimony), 703 (bases for expert opinion), 402 (relevance), and 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time) because it is not relevant to any issue in this proceeding,
`
`and it is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention would rely.
`
`Aventis also objects to Exhibit 1025 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63 and F.R.E. 106
`
`as Exhibit 1025 is a piece of a larger document that in fairness ought to be
`
`considered in connection with Exhibit 1025, and Exhibit 1025 does not contain
`
`page 267, which is cited on page 24 of the Petition and ¶ 79 of Exhibit 1002.
`
`Exhibit 1026 Butler Affidavit
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1026 under F.R.E. 901 (authenticity), 802
`
`(hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403 (confusing, waste of time). Exhibit A to
`
`Exhibit 1026 on its face does not demonstrate that the information within it was
`
`publicly available by October 23, 2008. The Affidavit of Christopher Butler does
`
`not state that the declarant has any personal knowledge that the information in
`
`9
`
`

`
`Exhibit A was publicly available in 2008. Instead, the affidavit states that the date
`
`assigned by the Internet Archive “applies to the HTML file but not to image files
`
`linked therein. Thus images that appear on a page may not have been archived on
`
`the same date as the HTML file.” Exh. 1026 at 1. Exhibit 1026 does not identify
`
`what content in Exhibit A thereto is part of the HTML file versus images that
`
`might have been archived on a different date. Furthermore, Exhibit A to Exhibit
`
`1026 contains substantially the same disclosure as a listing for the TROPIC study
`
`at clinicaltrials.gov last updated on December 28, 2006 that was previously
`
`considered by the patent examiner during prosecution of the ’592 patent; therefore
`
`Exhibit 1026 needlessly confuses the issues, wastes time, and presents cumulative
`
`evidence of the materials that were previously considered by the patent examiner.
`
`See Exh. 2100; Exh. 1001 at 2; Exh. 1004 at 1891.
`
`Exhibit 1027 Rosenberg
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1027 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b)(2), and 42.104(b)(5) and F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time) as the document is not cited in the Petition and Mylan
`
`has failed to identify which aspects of the document are relied upon.
`
`Exhibit 1028 Gayther
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1028 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b)(2), and 42.104(b)(5) and F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403
`
`10
`
`

`
`(confusing, waste of time) as the document is not cited in the Petition and Mylan
`
`has failed to identify which aspects of the document are relied upon.
`
`Exhibit 1029 Ratain and Sargent
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1029 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b)(2), and 42.104(b)(5) and F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time) as the document is not cited in the Petition and Mylan
`
`has failed to identify which aspects of the document are relied upon.
`
`Exhibit 1030 Moul
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1030 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1031 Joint Statement on Claim Construction, 3:15-cv-03392
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1031 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time) because the document was published in 2015,
`
`which is after the relevant filing date. It is not relevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Exhibit 1032 Brady Urological Institute
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1032 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63 and F.R.E. 901
`
`(authenticity), 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`It is not clear from the face of Exhibit 1032 when it was first published. The
`
`bottom of first and top of the second page are illegible because the text is cut off.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1033 Hospers
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1033 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b)(2), and 42.104(b)(5) and F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time) as the document is not cited in the Petition and Mylan
`
`has failed to identify which aspects of the document are relied upon.
`
`Exhibit 1034 Zhu
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1034 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b)(2), and 42.104(b)(5) and F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance), and 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time) as the document is not cited in the Petition and Mylan
`
`has failed to identify which aspects of the document are relied upon.
`
`Exhibit 1035 Markman Hearing Transcript, 3:15-cv-03392
`
`Aventis objects to Exhibit 1035 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), 402 (relevance),
`
`and 403 (confusing, waste of time) because the document was published in 2016,
`
`which is after the relevant filing date. It is not relevant to any issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Aventis also objects to Exhibit 1035 under F.R.E. 106 (completeness)
`
`because it includes only a portion of a larger document that in fairness ought to be
`
`considered in connection with Exhibit 1035.
`
`12
`
`

`
`October 6, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dominick A. Conde/
`Dominick A. Conde (Reg. No. 33,856)
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner,
`Aventis Pharma S.A.
`
`13
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), I certify that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 TO EVIDENCE
`
`SUBMITTED BY MYLAN DURING A PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING was
`
`served on October 6, 2016 by causing it to be sent by email to counsel for
`
`Petitioner at the following email addresses:
`
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`October 6, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dominick A. Conde/
`Dominick A. Conde (Reg. No. 33,856)
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`
`14

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