`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: May 18, 2017
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`_______________________
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) submits the following objections to evidence filed by Patent Owner
`
`Novartis AG (“Patent Owner”) on May 11, 2017. Petitioner’s objections apply
`
`equally to Patent Owner’s reliance on this evidence in any subsequently-filed
`
`documents or further proceedings in this matter. These objections are timely,
`
`having been filed and served within five business days of Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (Paper 17) and accompanying exhibits in this proceeding.
`
`Notwithstanding these objections, Petitioner expressly reserves the right to
`
`rely on any evidence submitted by Patent Owner, including on the ground that such
`
`evidence constitutes a party admission.
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 2041 (Kulke Decl.)
`
`Petitioner objects to this document as inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801
`
`and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including those of FRE 803, 804,
`
`805, or 807, and as improper expert testimony under FRE 702, 703, and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65, to the extent it impermissibly acts as a conduit for hearsay, including the
`
`hearsay objected to herein, and does not rely on the kinds of facts or data that
`
`experts in the relevant field would reasonably rely on in forming an opinion on the
`
`subject without providing the underlying facts, data, and other required disclosures.
`
`Petitioner objects to this document for lack of foundation and lack of
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`personal knowledge, as improper expert testimony under FRE 702, 703, and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.65, and as improper lay testimony under FRE 701, to the extent it
`
`offers testimony in areas outside of Dr. Kulke’s area of expertise or fails to
`
`properly provide the underlying facts, data, and other required disclosures,
`
`including but not limited to the portions at paragraphs 229-239. The declarant is
`
`not stated to have expertise with respect to organic or medicinal chemistry or
`
`pharmacology.
`
`Exhibit 2054 (FDA Guidance)
`
`Petitioner objects to this document under FRE 401 and 402, as the document
`
`does not have a tendency to make the facts for which it is offered any more or less
`
`probable than those facts would otherwise be.
`
`Petitioner objects to this document under FRE 403, as any probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this exhibit for the truth
`
`asserted, Petitioner objects to this document as inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805,
`
`or 807.
`
`Exhibit 2097 (Wyeth Press Release)
`
`Petitioner objects to this document under FRE 401 and 402, as the document
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`does not have a tendency to make the facts for which it is offered any more or less
`
`probable than those facts would otherwise be.
`
`Petitioner objects to this document under FRE 403, as any probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this exhibit for the truth
`
`asserted, Petitioner objects to this document as inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805,
`
`or 807.
`
`Petitioner objects to this document as not properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence that the document is
`
`authentic nor that the document is self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibits 2044 (Afinitor® Supp. Approval Letter), 2056 (Hidalgo 2006), 2068
`(2013 PDR), 2073 (2016 PDR), 2081 (Sandostatin (octreotide) Approval
`History), 2089 (Sutent® FDA Suppl. Approval Letter), 2098 (Zanosar®
`(streptozocin) Approval History), 2101 (Eisen), 2102 (Pacey), 2103 (Ratain
`2006)
`
`Petitioner objects to these documents under FRE 401 and 402, as the
`
`documents do not have a tendency to make the facts for which it is offered any
`
`more or less probable than those facts would otherwise be.
`
`Petitioner objects to these documents under FRE 403, as any probative value
`
`is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`wasting time, and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of these exhibits for the
`
`truth asserted, Petitioner objects to these documents as inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 801 and 802 that do not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804,
`
`805, or 807.
`
`Exhibits 2105 (Ratain Dep. Tr. I) and 2106 (Ratain Dep. Tr. II)
`
`Petitioner objects to these documents as inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805,
`
`or 807. Petitioner further objects to these documents as incomplete under FRE 106
`
`as they only include select portions of larger documents that in fairness ought to be
`
`considered in connection with these exhibits.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Daniel G. Brown/
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel G. Brown (Reg. No. 54,005)
`daniel.brown@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`212.906.1200; 212.751.4864 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Par
`Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 9,006,224
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 18th day of May,
`
`2017, a copy of Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence was served
`
`by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel at the following
`
`email addresses:
`
`Nicholas N. Kallas (Reg. No. 31,530)
`Raymond R. Mandra (Reg. No. 34,382)
`Charlotte Jacobsen (pro hac vice)
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Daniel G. Brown/
`
`
`
`
`Daniel G. Brown (Reg. No. 54,005)
`daniel.brown@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`212.906.1200; 212.751.4864 (Fax)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Par
`Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`