Paper No. ____
`Date Filed: March 2, 2017
`
`
`
`Filed On Behalf Of:
`Novartis AG
`
`By:
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`NKallas@fchs.com
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`(212) 218-2100
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`
`Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 TO
`EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`WITH ITS PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`Date Filed: March 2, 2017
`
`
`
`Filed On Behalf Of:
`Novartis AG
`
`By:
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`NKallas@fchs.com
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`(212) 218-2100
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`
`Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 TO
`EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`WITH ITS PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Novartis AG (“Novartis”)
`
`objects to the admissibility of the following exhibits filed prior to institution of the
`
`trial by Petitioner Par Pharmaceutical Inc. (“Par”) on the grounds set forth below.
`
`In this paper, a reference to “F.R.E.” means the Federal Rules of Evidence, a
`
`reference to “C.F.R.” means the Code of Federal Regulations, and “the ’224
`
`Patent” means U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224. All objections under F.R.E. 802
`
`(hearsay) apply to the extent Par relies on the exhibits identified in connection with
`
`that objection for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Novartis’s objections to
`
`Par’s exhibits are without prejudice to Novartis’s reliance on or discussion of those
`
`exhibits in Novartis’s papers in this proceeding.
`
`Novartis’s objections are as follows:
`
`Exhibits 1002, 1004, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1024,
`
`1025, 1026, 1030, 1032, 1040, 1050, 1053, 1055, 1060, 1062, 1063, 1064
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibits 1002, 1004, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1016, 1019,
`
`1020, 1021, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1030, 1032, 1040, 1050, 1053, 1055, 1060,
`
`1062, 1063, and 1064 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and
`
`F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1030 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance),
`
`F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), because it is not relevant to any issue in
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this IPR proceeding, and is not the type of document upon which a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1060 under F.R.E. 901(authentication).
`
`No information about the source of Exhibit 1060 has been provided.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1064 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.23, 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105, as this document was not published
`
`until after the November 21, 2005 priority date of the ’224 Patent and this
`
`document is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1002, 1004, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1016,
`
`1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1030, 1032, 1040, 1050, 1053, 1055,
`
`1060, 1062, 1063, and 1064 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.23, and 42.24(c)(1)
`
`as these documents are not cited in the Petition, and therefore any attempt by Par to
`
`rely on these Exhibits to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing these
`
`Exhibits, or indirectly by citing paragraphs of Par’s expert declaration that discuss
`
`these Exhibits) will constitute an improper incorporation by reference under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1002, 1004, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1016,
`
`1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1030, 1032, 1040, 1050, 1053, 1055,
`
`1060, 1062, 1063, and 1064 under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b) and 42.105 as these documents are not cited in the Petition,
`
`and therefore any attempt by Par to later rely on these Exhibits to establish
`
`unpatentability is improper and untimely.
`
`Exhibits 1001
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1001 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay) and 37 C.F.R §
`
`42.61(c) (hearsay).
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1003 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 702
`
`(improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion), and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65 as Dr. Ratain’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
`
`not help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,
`
`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. In particular, the challenged claims concern the
`
`treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20,
`
`25), and Dr. Ratain admitted that he is not an expert in PNETs. See Ex. 2024,
`
`Ratain Trial Tr. I at 995.
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1003 under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.65 and 42.104(b)(5), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time) for failing to identify with
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`particularity the underlying facts and data on which the opinion is based; Exhibit
`
`1003 ¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
`
`53, 59, 62, 65, 69, 78, 79, 82, 83, 94, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 108, 112, 114, 117,
`
`119, 125, 126, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145,
`
`147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166,
`
`167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, and 177 fail to cite any support at all,
`
`include statements that do not cite any support, or include statements that are not
`
`supported by the cite(s) provided; and Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 54, 59, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74,
`
`75, 76, 78, 79, 87, 90, 92, 112, 133, 135, and 139 cite to entire articles, book
`
`chapters or other references without identifying which aspects of those references
`
`are relied upon.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
`
`13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
`
`44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 58, 61, 64, 68, 93, 95, 109, 124, 128, 144, 145,
`
`147, 148, 154, 155, 158 and 175 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time), as these paragraphs are not cited in Par’s Petition.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 54, 59, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,
`
`75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98,
`
`99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119,
`
`120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137,
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156,
`
`157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171 ,172, 173, 174,
`
`175, 176, and 177 under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases
`
`for expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of
`
`time); these paragraphs include expert opinion based on documents that are
`
`inadmissible under at least F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E.
`
`403 (confusing, waste of time, needlessly presenting cumulative evidence), F.R.E.
`
`702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), as not
`
`relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding and not the type of document upon
`
`which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`Novartis also objects to 1003 ¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41,
`
`42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time), as they are not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`
`proceeding.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 53, 54, 57, 65, 66, 71, 75, 76, 77,
`
`78, 82, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 108, 112, 117, 125,
`
`129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151,
`
`152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170,
`
`171, 172, 173, 174, 175, and 177 under F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony),
`
`F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(confusing, waste of time). The declarant is not stated to have expertise with
`
`respect to pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, structural biology,
`
`immunosuppression or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
`
`
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
`
`48, 49 under F.R.E. 602 (lack of personal knowledge), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert
`
`testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases of an expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and
`
`F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), as the declarant is testifying regarding
`
`factual matters for which he does not have personal knowledge.
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1005 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1006 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1009 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1011 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Novartis also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1011 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste
`
`of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and F.R.E. 703 (bases of an
`
`expert opinion), because it is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and
`
`is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention would rely.
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1012 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1013 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1014 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1015
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1015 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1017
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1017 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1018 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1023
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1023 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1027
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1027 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1028
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1028 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1029
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1029 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Novartis also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1029 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste
`
`of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and F.R.E. 703 (bases of an
`
`expert opinion), because it is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and
`
`is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention would rely.
`
`Exhibit 1031
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1031 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1033
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1033 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1034
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1034 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1035
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1035 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Novartis also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1035 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and F.R.E. 703 (bases of an
`
`expert opinion), because it is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and
`
`is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention would rely.
`
`Exhibit 1036
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1036 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Novartis also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1036 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste
`
`of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and F.R.E. 703 (bases of an
`
`expert opinion), because it is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and
`
`is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention would rely.
`
`Exhibit 1037
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1037 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1038
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1038 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Novartis also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1038 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste
`
`of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and F.R.E. 703 (bases of an
`
`expert opinion), because it is not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention would rely.
`
`Exhibit 1039
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1039 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1041
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1041 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1042
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1042 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1043
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1043 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1044
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1042 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1045
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1045 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1046
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1046 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1047
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1047 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1048
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1048 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1049
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1049 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1051
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1051 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1052
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1052 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1054
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1054 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(5)
`
`(failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Exhibit 1056
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1056 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1057
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1057 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Exhibit 1058
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1058 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Novartis also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1058 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste
`
`of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and F.R.E. 703 (bases of an
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`expert opinion), as the document was not published until after the November 21,
`
`2005 priority date of the ’224 Patent, it is not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`
`proceeding, and is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`Exhibit 1059
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1059 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay). Novartis also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1059 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste
`
`of time), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), and F.R.E. 703 (bases of an
`
`expert opinion), as the document was not published until after the November 21,
`
`2005 priority date of the ’224 Patent, it is not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`
`proceeding, and is not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`Exhibit 1061
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1061 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 702
`
`(improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases for expert opinion), and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65 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.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1061 ¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
`
`13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 92 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E.
`
`403 (confusing, waste of time), as these paragraphs are not cited in Par’s Petition.
`
`
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1061 ¶¶ 45, 51, 52, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64,
`
`66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 85, 86, 87, and 88 under F.R.E. 602 (lack
`
`of personal knowledge), F.R.E. 702 (improper expert testimony), F.R.E. 703 (bases
`
`of an expert opinion), F.R.E. 402 (relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of
`
`time), as the declarant is testifying regarding factual matters for which he does not
`
`have personal knowledge.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Novartis also objects under F.R.E. 402, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b) to any evidence that does not appear in instituted Grounds 1, 2, 3, or 4
`
`and that Par relies upon to establish any element of their prima facie case against
`
`claims 1-3 of the ’224 Patent (other than evidence used for the limited purposes of
`
`describing the state of the art or reinforcing the meaning of a prior art reference
`
`that appears in Grounds 1, 2, 3, or 4). See In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 972-73
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (Board abused its discretion by relying on portion of prior art
`
`reference that was first identified by petitioner in its reply; that portion of the
`
`reference did not merely describe the state of the art, but instead was the sole prior
`
`art disclosure of disputed claim elements relied upon by the Board); Genzyme
`
`Therapeutic Prods. Limited Partnership v. Biomarin Pharms. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360,
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (parties should move to exclude a reference not cited in
`
`instituted grounds).
`
`
`
`Dated: March 2, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Nicholas N. Kallas/
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`Registration No. 31,530
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel. 212-218-2100
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64 To Evidence Submitted By Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. With Its
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review was served on March 2, 2017 by causing it to be
`
`sent by email to counsel for Petitioner at the following email addresses:
`
`Daniel G. Brown (daniel.brown@lw.com)
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (jonathan.strang@lw.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 2, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Nicholas N. Kallas/
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`Registration No. 31,530
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel. 212-218-2100
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
