`Date Filed: Jan. 25, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01332
`Patent 8,822,438 B2
`
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Janssen Oncology, Inc.
`
`(“Janssen”) objects under the Federal Rules of Evidence to the admissibility of
`
`Exhibits 1017, 1019, 1023-1028, 1031, 1033, 1036, 1039-1041, 1045-1051, 1053-
`
`1055, 1057, 1064-1066, 1078-1080 and portions of Exhibit 1002, which were
`
`submitted by Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) during the
`
`preliminary phase of this inter partes review.
`
`Janssen’s objections are timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) because they
`
`are being filed and served within ten business days of the institution decision
`
`issued by the Board on January 10, 2017. Paper No. 21. Janssen’s objections
`
`provide notice to Mylan that Janssen may move to exclude these exhibits under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`Exhibits 1017, 1040, 1041, 1045-1051, 1053-1055, 1057, and 1064-1066 are
`Irrelevant
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a petitioner may request cancellation of a patent
`
`claim “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”
`
`In his declaration (Exhibit 1017), petitioner’s declarant Mr. Hofmann states that his
`
`testimony is directed to the “evaluat[ion of] aspects of commercial success, from
`
`an economic perspective, [related] to Zytiga (abiraterone acetate) and the ’438
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`Patent.” 1 Thus, Exhibit 1017, as well as Exhibits 1040, 1041, 1045-1051, 1053-
`
`1055, 1057, and 1064-1066 cited therein, do not pass the test of relevant evidence
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 because they do not pertain to “prior art
`
`consisting of patents or printed publications” as required by the statute governing
`
`inter partes reviews. As such, these exhibits are not admissible under Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence 402.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1019, 1033 and 1064 are Irrelevant
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a petitioner may request cancellation of a patent
`
`claim “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”
`
`Exhibits 1019, 1033, and 1064 post-date the priority date of the patent under
`
`review in this proceeding. As such, Exhibits 1019, 1033, and 1064 do not pass the
`
`test of relevant evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and are thus not
`
`admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
`
`As a separate basis for excluding Exhibit 1033, to the extent that Mylan
`
`relies on Exhibit 1033 to support its positions regarding commercial success under
`
`
`1 Exhibit 1017 (Declaration of Ivan T. Hofmann, CPA/CFF, CLP) at ¶ 4
`
`(describing scope and content of declaration).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`the Graham factors,2 Janssen objects under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 for the
`
`additional reason that evidence related to XTANDI®, or comparisons between
`
`XTANDI® and ZYTIGA®, are not relevant to the commercial success of
`
`ZYTIGA®.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1028, 1040, 1041, 1048, 1049, 1051, 1053, 1055, 1057 and 1066 Lack
`Authentication
`
`
`“To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of
`
`evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`
`the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Board has
`
`held that “[w]hen offering a printout of a webpage into evidence to prove the
`
`website’s contents, the proponent of the evidence must authenticate the information
`
`from the website . . . .” Neste Oil OYJ v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00578, slip op. 4 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2015) (Paper 53). For this reason, the Board has
`
`required that “[t]o authenticate printouts from a website, the party proffering the
`
`evidence must produce some statement or affidavit from someone with knowledge
`
`of the website . . . .” EMC Corp. v. Personalweb Techs., LLC, Case IPR2013-
`
`00084, slip op. 45-46 (PTAB May 15, 2014) (Paper 64).
`
`
`2 See Paper 1 (Petition) at p. 52, and Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Marc B.
`
`Garnick, M.D.) at ¶ 96.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`In this proceeding, Mylan relies on printouts from websites that it has
`
`introduced into the record as Exhibits 1028, 1040, 1041, 1048, 1049, 1051, 1053,
`
`1055, 1057, and 1066. Mylan, however, has not brought forth sufficient evidence
`
`to support a finding that these exhibits are what Mylan claims, or that any of these
`
`exhibits is self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902; therefore,
`
`Janssen objects to the admissibility of each of these exhibits under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 901(a). Furthermore, in addition to being unauthenticated printouts of
`
`websites, Exhibits 1028, 1040, 1041, 1051, 1055, and 1066 are also incomplete
`
`and Janssen additionally objects to these exhibits under Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`106.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1017 [B-1], 1019, and 1064 Lack Authentication
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1017 [B-1], 1019, and 1064 at least
`
`
`
`because they have not been authenticated as required by Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`901. Petitioner has failed to provide evidence regarding the origin of these
`
`documents and to establish whether the documents are true and correct copies. For
`
`example, Exhibit 1017, Attachment B-1, which appears to be a summary table of
`
`the sales for select oncology drugs in 2013 and 2014, lacks proper authentication
`
`and foundation at least because the circumstances surrounding the preparation of
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`the attachment has not been explained, and the accuracy of the information found
`
`therein has not been established.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1025 and 1054 are Incomplete
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1025 and 1054 under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 106 because these exhibits appear to be excerpts of larger documents or
`
`books.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1033, 1040, 1041, 1045, 1049-1051, 1055, 1064, and 1066 are More
`Prejudicial than Probative
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1033, 1040, 1041, 1045, 1049-1051, 1055,
`
`
`
`1064, and 1066 at least because they are not relevant to this proceeding as required
`
`by Federal Rule of Evidence 402, or, alternatively, because any probative value of
`
`these documents is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Specifically, these exhibits are not relevant to
`
`this proceeding and are of little probative value because they are not “prior art
`
`consisting of patents or printed publications” as required by 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) but
`
`contain highly prejudicial statements related to what was known in the art after the
`
`invention of U.S. Patent No. 8,822,438 (the “’438 patent”) was made that confuse
`
`the issues raised in the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`Exhibits 1040, 1041, 1049, 1051 and 1055 are Hearsay
`
`Patent Owners object to Exhibits 1040, 1041, 1049, 1051 and 1055 under
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence 801 and 802. These exhibits contain out-of-court
`
`statements by non-parties that the petitioner apparently seeks to use to prove the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, and petitioner does not provide any basis for the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board to conclude that they fall within any hearsay exception.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1023-1028, 1031, 1033, 1036, 1039-1041, 1045, 1046, 1048-1051, 1053-
`1055, 1057, 1064-1066, and 1078-1080 Are Irrelevant
`
`Patent Owner objects to the use of Exhibits 1023-1028, 1031, 1033, 1036,
`
`
`
`1039-1041, 1045, 1046, 1048-1051, 1053-1055, 1057, 1064-1066, and 1078-1080
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. In particular, these exhibits
`
`are not substantively relied on, or even cited, in the Petition. Accordingly, the
`
`aforementioned exhibits do not appear to make any fact of consequence in
`
`determining the action more or less probable than it would be without them and are
`
`thus irrelevant and not admissible.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 30 of Exhibit 1002 Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`In addition, Patent Owner objects to the use of paragraph 30 of Exhibit 1002
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. In particular, paragraph 30 is
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`not substantively relied on, or even cited, in the Petition. Accordingly, the
`
`aforementioned paragraph of Exhibit 1002 does not appear to make any fact of
`
`consequence in determining the action more or less probable than it would be
`
`without it and is thus irrelevant and not admissible. Further, permitting reference
`
`to or reliance on this paragraph from the declaration of Dr. Garnick in other
`
`submissions of petitioner would also be impermissible, misleading, irrelevant, and
`
`unfairly prejudicial to Patent Owner. To the extent petitioner attempts to rely on or
`
`submit this aforementioned portion of Exhibit 1002 in the future as evidence in
`
`support of new substantive positions, doing so would be untimely, in violation of
`
`the applicable rules governing this proceeding, and unfairly prejudicial to Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: January 25, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Dianne B. Elderkin /
`Dianne B. Elderkin (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 28,598
`Barbara L. Mullin (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 38,250
`Ruben H. Munoz (Back-up Counsel)
`Reg. No. 66,998
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER
`& FELD LLP
`Two Commerce Square
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2001 Market Street, Suite 4100
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel.: (215) 965-1340
`Fax: (215) 965-1210
`
`David T. Pritikin (pro hac vice)
`Bindu Donovan (pro hac vice)
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel.: (212) 839-5300
`Fax: (212) 839-5599
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01332
`U.S. Patent 8,822,438
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) was served on counsel of record on January 25, 2017 by filing this
`
`document through the End-to-End System, as well as delivering a copy via
`
`electronic mail to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`Brandon M. White – bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`Bryan D. Beel – bbeel@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Dianne B. Elderkin/
`Dianne B. Elderkin
`Registration No. 28,598
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`9
`
`
`
`Date: January 25, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`