`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALICAPS CO. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2017-00203
`Patent No. 6,649,180
`
`PETITIONER MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`(“Mylan”) submits the following objections to evidence served by Patent Owner
`
`Qualicaps Co. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) with its Patent Owner Response. These
`
`objections are timely filed within five (5) business days from service of the
`
`evidence.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to present further objection to these or additional
`
`Exhibits submitted by Patent Owner, as allowed by the applicable rules or
`
`authority.
`
`The following table identifies Petitioner’s objections to the respective
`
`exhibits.
`
` The alleged evidence presented in the respective exhibits are
`
`inadmissible for at least the reasons presented in the right-hand column of the table
`
`below.
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication. To the extent Patent Owner relies
`
`upon a copyright date as evidence of publication, a copyright date
`
`is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`FRE 401 and 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s Response or
`
`Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It therefore has no
`
`relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`Exhibit 2016
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. The Patent Owner does not cite
`
`this exhibit at any point in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication. To the extent Patent Owner relies
`
`upon a copyright date as evidence of publication, a copyright date
`
`is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it
`
`is.
`
`Exhibit 2018
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`FRE 401 and 402:Tthe exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2024
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 2025
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. Neither Patent Owner’s
`
`Response or Dr. McConville’s declaration cites this exhibit. It
`
`therefore has no relevance to the instituted ground.
`
`Exhibit 2028
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`
`
`Additionally, Because Patent Owner has failed to establish
`
`a nexus between claims of the patent and the alleged objective
`
`indicia asserted in the Patent Owner Response, any introduction
`
`of this exhibit for purposes of supporting an objective indicia
`
`argument would be unfairly prejudicial and would lack any
`
`probative value.
`
`FRE 602: Paragraphs 17-109 of the exhibit include assertions for
`
`which evidence has not been introduced sufficient to show that he
`
`witness has personal knowledge of the matters asserted
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 17-109 of the exhibit include
`
`opinions that are not admissible under FRE 701, 702, or 703, or
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioner objects to each paragraph citing to
`
`an exhibit that is objected to herein under FRE 703 as such
`
`paragraphs lack a sufficient foundation.
`
`FRE 801/802: Paragraphs 17-109 of the exhibit includes
`
`statements that are inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the
`
`truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: The exhibit contains improper hearsay within hearsay.
`
`FRE 1006: The exhibit provides an improper summary of the
`
`evidence.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65: The exhibit includes expert testimony that
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data and improper
`
`discussion of patent law.
`
`Exhibit 2029
`
`Petitioner object to the deposition testimony cited in the Patent
`
`Owner’s response for the reasons made on the record during the
`
`deposition.
`
`Exhibit 2030
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 2031
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 2032
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 2033
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 2034
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 2035
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent Owner claims it
`
`is.
`
`Exhibit 2036
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2037
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2038
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2039
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2040
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2041
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2042
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2043
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. This exhibit also contains no
`
`publication date. Without a publication date, Patent Owner
`
`cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that this exhibit is a
`
`prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 802: The exhibit is inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove
`
`the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Neither Patent Owner’s Response or Dr.
`
`McConville’s declarations establish that this exhibit includes the
`
`type of facts or data that would normally be reasonably relied on
`
`by experts in the particular field. Thus, this exhibit and any
`
`paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this exhibit are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value substantially
`
`outweighs any prejudicial effect.
`
`Exhibit 2044
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. The Patent Owner does not cite
`
`this exhibit at any point in its Patent Owner Response. This
`
`exhibit also contains no publication date. Without a publication
`
`date, Patent Owner cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`
`that this exhibit is a prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 802: This exhibit contains hearsay. Because this exhibit is
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`not cited in the Patent Owner Response, it is unclear how this
`
`exhibit is intended to be used. As such, Petitioner objects to any
`
`use of this exhibit as hearsay.
`
`FRE 703: This exhibit is cited only in an expert declaration.
`
`The expert declaration, however, does not establish that this
`
`exhibit includes the type of facts or data that would normally be
`
`reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Thus, this
`
`exhibit and any paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this
`
`exhibit are inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner
`
`has also failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value
`
`substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect. Indeed, the
`
`omission of any citation to this exhibit in the Patent Owner’s
`
`response suggests that this exhibit has little if any probative
`
`value. As such, this exhibit is inadmissible as evidence to be
`
`presented to the Board under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2045
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. The Patent Owner does not cite
`
`this exhibit at any point in its Patent Owner Response. This
`
`exhibit also contains no publication date. Without a publication
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`date, Patent Owner cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`
`that this exhibit is a prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 802: This exhibit contains hearsay. Because this exhibit is
`
`not cited in the Patent Owner Response, it is unclear how this
`
`exhibit is intended to be used. As such, Petitioner objects to any
`
`use of this exhibit as hearsay.
`
`FRE 703: This exhibit is cited only in an expert declaration.
`
`The expert declaration, however, does not establish that this
`
`exhibit includes the type of facts or data that would normally be
`
`reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Thus, this
`
`exhibit and any paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this
`
`exhibit are inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner
`
`has also failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value
`
`substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect. Indeed, the
`
`omission of any citation to this exhibit in the Patent Owner’s
`
`response suggests that this exhibit has little if any probative
`
`value. As such, this exhibit is inadmissible as evidence to be
`
`presented to the Board under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2046
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`upon which trial was instituted. The Patent Owner does not cite
`
`this exhibit at any point in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`FRE 802: This exhibit contains hearsay. Because this exhibit is
`
`not cited in the Patent Owner Response, it is unclear how this
`
`exhibit is intended to be used. As such, Petitioner objects to any
`
`use of this exhibit as hearsay.
`
`FRE 703: This exhibit is cited only in an expert declaration.
`
`The expert declaration, however, does not establish that this
`
`exhibit includes the type of facts or data that would normally be
`
`reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Thus, this
`
`exhibit and any paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this
`
`exhibit are inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner
`
`has also failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value
`
`substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect. Indeed, the
`
`omission of any citation to this exhibit in the Patent Owner’s
`
`response suggests that this exhibit has little if any probative
`
`value. As such, this exhibit is inadmissible as evidence to be
`
`presented to the Board under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2047
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`upon which trial was instituted. The Patent Owner does not cite
`
`this exhibit at any point in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`FRE 802: This exhibit contains hearsay. Because this exhibit is
`
`not cited in the Patent Owner Response, it is unclear how this
`
`exhibit is intended to be used. As such, Petitioner objects to any
`
`use of this exhibit as hearsay.
`
`FRE 703: Patent Owner has also failed to establish that this
`
`exhibit’s probative value substantially outweighs any prejudicial
`
`effect. Indeed, the omission of any citation to this exhibit in the
`
`Patent Owner’s response suggests that this exhibit has little if any
`
`probative value. As such, this exhibit is inadmissible as evidence
`
`to be presented to the Board under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2048
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. The Patent Owner does not cite
`
`this exhibit at any point in its Patent Owner Response. This
`
`exhibit also contains no publication date. Without a publication
`
`date, Patent Owner cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`
`that this exhibit is a prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 802: This exhibit contains hearsay. Because this exhibit is
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`not cited in the Patent Owner Response, it is unclear how this
`
`exhibit is intended to be used. As such, Petitioner objects to any
`
`use of this exhibit as hearsay.
`
`FRE 703: This exhibit is cited only in an expert declaration.
`
`The expert declaration, however, does not establish that this
`
`exhibit includes the type of facts or data that would normally be
`
`reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field. Thus, this
`
`exhibit and any paragraph in the expert declaration citing to this
`
`exhibit are inadmissible under FRE 703. Further, Patent Owner
`
`has also failed to establish that this exhibit’s probative value
`
`substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect. Indeed, the
`
`omission of any citation to this exhibit in the Patent Owner’s
`
`response suggests that this exhibit has little if any probative
`
`value. As such, this exhibit is inadmissible as evidence to be
`
`presented to the Board under FRE 703.
`
`Exhibit 2049
`
`FRE 401 and 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground
`
`upon which trial was instituted. The Patent Owner does not cite
`
`this exhibit at any point in its Patent Owner Response. This
`
`exhibit also contains no publication date. Without a publication
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`date, Patent Owner cannot demonstrate a reasonable likelihood
`
`that this exhibit is a prior-art, printed publication.
`
`FRE 802: This exhibit contains hearsay. Because this exhibit is
`
`not cited in the Patent Owner Response, it is unclear how this
`
`exhibit is intended to be used. As such, Petitioner objects to any
`
`use of this exhibit as hearsay.
`
`FRE 703: This exhibit is cited only in an expert declaration.
`
`The expert declaration, however, does not establish that this
`
`exhibit includes the type of facts or da
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
