`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`
`HOLOGIC, INC., and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`TITLE: SYSTEM, ARRAY AND NON-POROUS SOLID SUPPORT
`COMPRISING FIXED OR IMMOBILIZED NUCLEIC ACIDS
`Issue Date: June 20, 2006
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`ENZO’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Cases
`
`Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., Case CBM2016-00076,
`Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) ...................................................................... 5
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Rules
`
`FRE 602 .................................................................................................................1, 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “Enzo”) moves
`
`to exclude certain paragraphs of and the Attachment to Petitioner’s Exhibit 1037—
`
`a declaration submitted by Petitioner’s back-up counsel (hereinafter also referred
`
`to as “declarant”) in support of Petitioner’s reply—under Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”) 602 because the declarant lacks the requisite personal knowledge of the
`
`matters in those paragraphs and the Attachment. In that declaration, Petitioner’s
`
`back-up counsel attempted to authenticate a laboratory protocol—mentioned but
`
`not described or detailed in the 2001 Diehl reference itself—that is supposedly
`
`currently available on a website. Petitioner’s back-up counsel testified, among
`
`other things, that the laboratory protocol described in a website printout that she
`
`made on April 5, 2017 (attached as Attachment A to her declaration), is
`
`purportedly the same protocol identified in the 2001 Diehl reference. (Ex. 1037 ¶¶
`
`3, 5, Attachment A; see also Ex. 1032.) But Petitioner’s back-up counsel fails to
`
`provide any testimony that would establish she has personal knowledge of the
`
`laboratory protocol or that it is the same protocol cited in the 2001 Diehl article.
`
`Based upon that lack of personal knowledge, paragraphs 3 and 5 and Attachment A
`
`of her declaration should be excluded under FRE 602.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Enzo confirms that the bases for this
`
`motion to exclude were timely raised in Enzo’s objections to evidence filed on
`
`April 12, 2017. (Paper 39.)
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner relies on the 2001 Diehl reference to argue that one of its primary
`
`anticipation references—the 1981 Fish reference—inherently discloses a nucleic
`
`acid strand in “hybridizable form” attached to a PLL coated support. (Petition, 25-
`
`27.) But Diehl does not disclose or detail the laboratory protocol used to prepare
`
`PLL coated slides in the purported hybridization experiments discussed in the
`
`reference. (Ex. 1021, 1) In comparing the disclosure in Fish to the laboratory
`
`protocol allegedly used in the Diehl reference, Petitioner and its expert, Dr.
`
`Norman Nelson, rely upon Exhibit 1032, a purported website printout of a
`
`laboratory protocol. (Petition, 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56, 57 (citing Ex. 1032; Ex.
`
`1033)); Petitioner Reply, 7 n. 1 (“See Ex. 1037 addressing Enzo’s concern about
`
`Ex.1032.”).) Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Nelson, alleges that the printout marked as
`
`Exhibit 1032 is the laboratory protocol cited in the 2001 Diehl reference and lists
`
`the
`
`web
`
`address
`
`where
`
`it
`
`was
`
`purportedly
`
`accessed
`
`as
`
`http://cmgm.stanford.edu/pbrown/protocols/1_slides.html. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 56 (citing
`
`Ex. 1021, 1).) However, Diehl cites a different web address for the laboratory
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`protocol, which
`
`is
`
`no
`
`longer
`
`in
`
`use.
`
`
`
`(Ex.
`
`1021,
`
`1
`
`(citing
`
`http://cmgm.stanford.edu/pbrown/MGuide).)
`
`Petitioner filed Exhibit 1037—a declaration submitted by Petitioner’s back-
`
`up counsel in support of Petitioner’s reply—addressing the purported laboratory
`
`protocol in Exhibit 1032. In Exhibit 1037, the declarant testified that a new
`
`website printout, Attachment A
`
`to her declaration, was accessed at
`
`http://cmgm.stanford.edu/pbrown/MGuide (a different web address from that
`
`allegedly accessed by Dr. Nelson and submitted as Exhibit 1032) on April 5, 2017.
`
`(Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 3, 5.) The declarant further testified that the web printout included as
`
`Attachment A is purportedly the same protocol cited in the 2001 Diehl reference.
`
`(Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 3, 5.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Paragraphs 3 and 5 and Attachment A of Exhibit 1037 should be excluded
`
`because the declarant lacks any personal knowledge that the laboratory protocol
`
`that she purportedly accessed in April 2017 is the same protocol cited in the 2001
`
`Diehl article. Under FRE 602, “a witness may testify to a matter only if evidence
`
`is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of
`
`the witness’s own testimony.” Petitioner has proffered no evidence to support a
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`finding that the declarant has ever had personal knowledge concerning the
`
`laboratory protocol cited in the Diehl reference sixteen years ago.
`
`In paragraphs 3 and 5 of Exhibit 1037, the declarant testified that the website
`
`printout included as Attachment A is the same protocol cited in the Diehl
`
`reference, an article written in 2001:
`
`- “The
`
`protocol
`
`website
`
`cited
`
`in
`
`Diehl
`
`(http://cmgm.stanford.edu/pbrown/MGuide) is still in use today, and Ex.
`
`1032 can still be accessed by first visiting the website as cited by Diehl,
`
`clicking on Protocols, and then clicking on Slide Preparation under the
`
`Protocols header.” (Ex. 1037 ¶ 3.)
`
`- Attachment A to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of the
`
`protocol cited in Diehl, retrieved from the above-cited website on April
`
`5, 2017.” (Id. ¶ 5.)
`
`However, Exhibit 1037 contains no testimony regarding the declarant’s personal
`
`knowledge of the laboratory protocol cited in the 2001 Diehl reference. Declarant
`
`admitted that she retrieved the laboratory protocol in Attachment A from the
`
`website listed in Diehl on April 5, 2017—sixteen years after the publication of that
`
`article. She provided no testimony regarding the contents of the website during the
`
`relevant timeframe—when Diehl was published in 2001. The declarant did not
`
`provide any testimony that the content found at the web address listed in Diehl has
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not changed over the past sixteen years. In fact, she did not even allege that the
`
`webpage purportedly accessed on April 5, 2017 is identical to the page that was
`
`available at that web address in 2001. The declarant’s testimony regarding the
`
`contents of the website at issue on April 5, 2017 cannot establish that the declarant
`
`has personal knowledge of that website as it existed when it was cited by Diehl in
`
`2001. Cf. Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., Case CBM2016-
`
`00076, Paper 16, at 7-8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) (holding that a May 2016 web
`
`printout of a university library’s thesis catalog, without more, was not probative of
`
`the university’s cataloging practices in 1987).
`
`Nor does the declarant allege that she has any other basis for personal
`
`knowledge of the laboratory protocol cited in the 2001 Diehl article. The declarant
`
`did not testify that she was present for any purported experiments described in the
`
`Diehl reference or that she was involved in those experiments in any way. The
`
`declarant did not state that she worked in the laboratory where the Diehl
`
`experiments were purportedly performed or that she has any other personal
`
`knowledge regarding the protocol used in that laboratory. Thus, the declarant has
`
`provided no testimony to support her conclusion that Attachment A “is a true and
`
`correct copy of the protocol cited in Diehl” in 2001.
`
`In short, Petitioner has provided no facts to support a finding that the
`
`declarant has personal knowledge of the contents of the laboratory protocol
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`
`
`website as of 2001, when it was cited in the Diehl article. Because the declarant
`
`lacks sufficient personal knowledge to testify that the laboratory protocol described
`
`in the April 5, 2017 printout attached as Attachment A is the same protocol cited in
`
`the 2001 Diehl article, paragraphs 3 and 5 and Attachment A of Exhibit 1037
`
`should be excluded under FRE 602.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should grant Enzo’s Motion to
`
`Exclude.
`
`Dated: April 24, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/kkm/
`Kevin K. McNish (Reg. No. 65,047)
`kmcnish@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: 212-351-3400
`Facsimile: 212-351-3401
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Enzo Life Sciences, Inc.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00820
`U.S. Patent No. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on April 24,
`
`2017, a complete copy of the foregoing was served on counsel of record for the
`Petitioner by filing this document through PTAB E2E and by sending this
`document via electronic mail to the following addresses:
`
`For Petitioner Hologic:
`
`M. Paul Barker (Reg. No. 32,013)
`paul.barker@finnegan.com
`
`Arpita Bhattacharyya (Reg. No. 63,681)
`arpita.bhattacharyya@finnegan.com
`
`Thomas L. Irving (Reg. No. 28,619)
`tom.irving@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`Dated: April 24, 2017
`
`
`
`For Petitioner BD:
`
`Jamie T. Wisz (Reg. No. 58,429)
`Jamie.Wisz@WilmerHale.com
`
`Heather Petruzzi (Reg. No. 71,720)
`Heather.Petruzzi@WilmerHale.com
`
`Nancy Lynn Schroeder (Reg. No.
`75,538)
`Nancy.Schroeder@WilmerHale.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/kkm/
`Kevin K. McNish (Reg. No. 65,047)
`kmcnish@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: 212-351-3400
`Facsimile: 212-351-3401
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Enzo Life Sciences, Inc.
`
`
`
`