throbber
Case IPR2016-01096
`Patent No. 6,667,061
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`Attorney Docket No. 9LUYE 7.1R-004
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`
`LUYE PHARMA GROUP LTD., LUYE PHARMA(USA) LTD., SHANDONG
`LUYE PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and NANJING LUYE
`PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LTD and
`ALKERMES CONTROLLED THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owners.
`
`Patent No. 6,667,061 to Ramstack et al.
`Issue Date: December 23, 2003
`Title: PREPARATION OF INJECTABLE
`SUSPENSIONS HAVING IMPROVED INJECTABILITY
`____________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01096
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ SECOND 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
`
`5112610_1.docx
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................ iii
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2 
`
`A.  Exhibits 2073, 2075, And 2077-2079 And Portions of
`Exhibit 2081 Should Be Excluded Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) .............. 2 
`
`B.  Exhibits 2075 and 2077 Should Be
`Excluded Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) ...................................................... 3 
`
`C.  Exhibits 2074 And 2076 Should Be Excluded As Irrelevant ................... 4 
`
`D.  Exhibits 2073, 2078, and 2079
`Should Be Excluded As Irrelevant ........................................................... 5 
`
`III.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 6 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Blackberry Corp. v. Zipit Wireless,
`IPR2014-01506, Paper 50 (Mar. 29, 2016) .......................................................... 3
`
`Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC,
`IPR2014-00312, Paper 58 (July 7, 2015) ............................................................. 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) .............................................................................................. 1, 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) ............................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`FRE 401 ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`FRE 402 ............................................................................................................. 1, 4, 5
`
`FRE 403 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit # Reference
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 (“the Patent”)
`1002
`Declaration of Dr. Patrick P. DeLuca
`1003
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Patrick P. DeLuca
`1004
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1005
`International Publication No. WO 95/13799 (“Ramstack”)
`1006
`U.S. Pharmacopeia Entry re: CMC, viscosity at 274-75, 1840 (1994)
`1007
`EP Pharmacopoeia Entry re: CMC, at 547-48(3d ed. 1997)
`1008
`Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients at 78-81, 135-38, 294-95,
`329-330, 375-78, 420-21, 439-42, 477-80, 481-82 (2nd ed. 1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,010 (“Johnson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,656,299 (“Kino”)
`International Publication No. WO199714408 (“Gustafsson”)
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Herbert A. Lieberman et al. (eds.), Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms:
`Disperse Systems, Vol.2, at 26-35, 40, 43-46, 261, 285-318 (2nd ed.
`rev. expanded 1996)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,495,164 (“the ’164 Patent”)
`Serial No. 10/259,949, Office Action, Apr. 9, 2003
`Serial No. 10/259,949, Applicants’ Resp., May 14, 2003
`Serial No. 09/577,875, Declaration of Mark A. Tracy, May 17, 2002
`Serial No. 10/259,949, Notice of Allowability, July 24, 2003
`Kenneth E. Avis et al. (eds.), 1 (Chs.2, 4, 5) Pharmaceutical Dosage
`Forms:Parenteral Medications 17-25, 115-16, 140-43, 150-51,
`173-75, 190-212 (2nd ed. rev. expanded Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1992)
`Leon Lachman, PhD et al., The Theory and Practice of Industrial
`Pharmacy 642-44, 783-84 (Lea & Febiger 3rd ed. 1986)
`Herbert A. Lieberman et al., Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms:
`Disperse Systems, Vol.1, at 287-313 (2nd ed. rev. expanded 1996)
`Orange Book entries for RISPERDAL®
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Patrick P. DeLuca, June 9, 2017
`Intentionally left blank
`Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (26th ed. 1995)
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1027
`Decapetyl components sheet
`1028
`International Publication No. WO 97/44039 (“Francois”)
`1029
`Intentionally left blank
`1030
`Nutropin Label (December 1999)
`1031
`Deposition Transcript of Cory J. Berkland, Ph.D., May 26, 2017
`1032 M.A. Macket et al., Tolerability of intramuscular injections of
`testosterone ester in oil vehicle, PubMed-NCBI, 10(4) Hum.
`Reprod. 862-5 (April 1995)
`Intentionally left blank
`USP 23 NF 18, Suspensions, The U.S. Pharmacopeia, The Nat’l
`Formulary, Jan. 1, 1995.
`Intentionally left blank
`Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary (12th ed. 1993)
`(Ch.19) Organic Chemistry (2nd ed. 1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,417,982
`Biochemicals and Reagents for Life Science Research,
`Sigma-Aldrich 1998
`Biochemicals and Reagents for Life Science Research,
`Sigma-Aldrich 1999
`Biochemicals and Reagents for Life Science Research,
`Sigma-Aldrich 2000/2001
`Lupron Label, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Application
`No. NDA 19732/S012
`International Publication No. WO 99/013780
`Deposition Transcript of Robson Storey, Ph.D., May 3, 2016
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`1044
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioners Luye Pharma Group Ltd., Luye
`
`Pharma (USA) Ltd., Shandong Luye Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Nanjing Luye
`
`Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (collectively “Luye” or “Petitioners”) move to exclude
`
`certain exhibits from the record that were filed by Patent Owners on the day of the
`
`deadline for filing Luye’s original motion to exclude on the bases shown in Table 1
`
`and argued further below.
`
`Evidence
`Ex.2073
`Ex.2074
`
`Ex.2075
`
`Ex.2076
`
`Ex.2077
`Ex.2078
`Ex.2079
`Ex.2081
`
`TABLE 1
`
`Objections
`FRE 402, 403
`FRE 402, 403
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)
`
`FRE 402, 403
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)
`FRE 402, 403
`FRE 402, 403
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a)
`
`Cited In
`Ex.2081, at 132:2- 137:6
`Ex.2081, at 158:19-161:8,
`242:19-243:14
`Ex.2081, at 161:9-163:4,
`164:11-16
`Ex.2081, at 163:6-168:7;
`242:19-244:5
`Ex.2081, at 168:8-170:13
`Ex.2081, at 170:14-173:8
`Ex.2081, at 174:18-177:9
`
`
`Petitioners timely objected to the above exhibits under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1) and objected to each exhibit under the respective Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a). (See Paper 53.) Patent Owners
`
`Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd and Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`
`
`5112610_1.docx
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`(collectively “Alkermes” or “Patent Owners”) raised no subsequent questions
`
`regarding Petitioners’ objections and submitted no supplemental evidence or
`
`affidavits to address such objections.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Exhibits 2073, 2075, And 2077-2079 And Portions Of
`Exhibit 2081 Should Be Excluded Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a)
`Exhibits 2073, 2075, and 2077-2079 should be excluded under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(a) and portions of Dr. DeLuca’s testimony related to such exhibits should
`
`also be excluded. “An objection to the admissibility of deposition evidence must be
`
`made during the deposition, [and] [e]vidence to cure the objection must be
`
`provided during the deposition, unless the parties to the deposition stipulate
`
`otherwise on the deposition record.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a). Luye stated its objection
`
`to Exhibits 2073, 2075, and 2077-2079 on the record during Dr. DeLuca’s
`
`deposition. (Ex.2081, at 132:24-133:11, 163:11-13, 170:11-13; 173:5-8; 177:4-5.)
`
`Patent Owners made no attempt to overcome the objection during the deposition
`
`nor did the parties stipulate to any other course of action. Thus, Exhibits 2073,
`
`2075, and 2077-2079 and the portions of Dr. DeLuca’s testimony related to such
`
`exhibits as identified in Table 1 above should be excluded.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`B. Exhibits 2075 And 2077 Should Be
`Excluded Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)
`Exhibits 2075 and 2077 should be excluded pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(b), which provides that “[w]hen a party relies on a document or is required
`
`to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the
`
`document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation
`
`must be filed with the document.” Alkermes submitted Exhibit 2075, a PCT
`
`application in German, and Exhibit 2077, a PCT application in French, on July 24,
`
`2017. (Paper 52.) Luye timely objected to the exhibits as failing to provide an
`
`English translation and affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) on July 31, 2017. (Paper 53.) Alkermes did not
`
`supplement Exhibits 2075 and 2077 with an English translation and affidavit
`
`attesting to the accuracy of the same to cure the deficiency. Accordingly,
`
`Exhibits 2075 and 2077 should be excluded for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(b). See Blackberry Corp. v. Zipit Wireless, IPR2014-01506, Paper 50,
`
`at 23-24 (Mar. 29, 2016) (excluding foreign language exhibits where a translation
`
`and affidavit was not filed); see also Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00312, Paper 58, at 36 (July 7, 2015) (excluding a foreign language
`
`document submitted with computer translation and no affidavit).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`C. Exhibits 2074 And 2076 Should Be Excluded As Irrelevant
`Exhibit 2074 and 2076 should be excluded under FRE 402 as irrelevant.
`
`Evidence is irrelevant if it does not make any fact of consequence more or less
`
`probable. FRE 401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. FRE 402. Patent Owners
`
`identified to Luye’s declarant, Dr. DeLuca, that Exhibit 2074 is a U.S. patent
`
`claiming priority to Exhibit 2075. (Ex.2081, at 160:23-162:4.) Exhibit 2074 has an
`
`issue date after the date of invention of November 5, 2002. Similarly, Patent
`
`Owners identified to Dr. DeLuca that Exhibit 2076 is a U.S. patent claiming
`
`priority to Exhibit 2077. (Ex.2081, at 168:15-25.) Exhibit 2076 has an issue date
`
`after the date of invention of May 15, 2001. Exhibits 2074 and 2076 allegedly
`
`identify Extralow and Ultralow Blanose CMC, which Patent Owner argues was
`
`commercially available in the U.S. prior to the date of invention through the
`
`foreign language priority documents, Exhibits 2075 and 2077, respectively. As
`
`discussed above, however, Patent Owners have not provided an English translation
`
`and affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the English translation for Exhibits 2075
`
`and 2077. As such, Exhibits 2074 and 2076 do not make it any more or less
`
`probable that the Extralow and Ultralow Blanose CMCs were commercially
`
`available in the U.S. prior to the date of invention. Accordingly, Exhibits 2074
`
`and 2076 should be excluded pursuant to FRE 402 as they are irrelevant because
`
`they are dated after the time of the invention.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`D. Exhibits 2074-2077 Should Be Excluded As Irrelevant
`Exhibits 2074-2077 should be excluded as irrelevant because they are
`
`directed to nonanalogous art. Exhibits 2074 and 2075 are directed to “Dispersions
`
`For Producing Paint For Concrete Roof Tiles, Paint For Concrete Roof Tiles And
`
`Concrete Roof Tiles Coated With Such Paint,” and Exhibits 2076 and 2077 are
`
`directed to the “Supplementation Of Cellulose Nanofibrils With Carboxycellulose
`
`With Low Degree Of Substitution.” Exhibit 2078 is directed to “Microneedle And
`
`Methods Devices Of Drug Delivering Or Fluid Withdrawal,” whereas Exhibit 2079
`
`is directed to “Protein-Based Polymer Tissue Adhesives For Medical Use.” As is
`
`clear, none of the references is related to pharmaceutical compositions, and in
`
`particular, injectable suspensions of microparticles. Thus, Exhibits 2074-2079
`
`should be excluded as irrelevant under FRE 402 as they are nonanalogous art.
`
`E.
`Exhibits 2073, 2078, And 2079 Should Be Excluded As Irrelevant
`Patent Owners rely on Exhibits 2073, 2078, and 2079 to show the
`
`knowledge of a POSA with regard to certain CMCs at the time of invention.
`
`(Ex.2081, at 132:2-137:6, 170:14-173:8, 174:18-177:9.) In order to be relevant,
`
`Exhibits 2073, 2078, and 2079 must make some showing that these products were
`
`commercially available and accessible to a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`None of these Exhibits bears a date at or before the time of the invention. Patent
`
`Owners allege that Exhibit 2073 has a copyright date of 2000, yet there is no date
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`on the exhibit. (Id. 132:20-23.) Exhibits 2078 and 2079 have publication dates of
`
`July 16, 2009, and June 1, 2010, respectively.
`
`Since Patent Owners have failed to show that information relied upon in
`
`Exhibits 2073, 2078, and 2079 would have been within the knowledge of a POSA
`
`at or before the time of invention, Exhibits 2073, 2078, and 2079 do not make any
`
`fact of consequence more or less probable. As such, Exhibits 2073, 2078, and 2079
`
`should be excluded as irrelevant.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated above, Petitioners submit that Exhibits 2073-2079,
`
`and portions of Exhibit 2081 should be excluded from the record and Patent
`
`Owners precluded from using these exhibits (or portions thereof) at any hearing or
`
`in any paper in this proceeding.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated:
`
`August 22, 2017
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`5062864_1.docx
`
`/ Paul H. Kochanski /
`Paul H. Kochanski
`Reg. No. 29,660
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01096 (Patent No. 6,667,061)
`Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONERS’ SECOND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE was served
`
`on August 22, 2017, as follows.
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Scott K. Reed, Esq.
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel: 212.218.2100
`E-mail:
`sreed@fchs.com
`
`
`
`Dated: August 22, 2017
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/ Paul H. Kochanski /
`Paul H. Kochanski
`Reg. No. 29,660
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5112610_1.docx
`
`

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