`
`
`
`
`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
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 TO PATENT OWNER’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE SERVED ON AUGUST 11, 2017
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`(“Mylan”) submits the following objections to supplemental evidence served by
`
`Patent Owner Qualicaps Co. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) on August 11, 2017. 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 2052
`
`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.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Patent Owner’s Response, Dr. McConville’s
`
`declaration, and Dr. Bennett’s declaration do not establish that
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 2053
`
`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.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Patent Owner’s Response, Dr. McConville’s
`
`declaration, and Dr. Bennett’s declaration do not establish that
`
`this exhibit includes the type of facts or data that would normally
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 2054
`
`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.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Patent Owner’s Response, Dr. McConville’s
`
`declaration, and Dr. Bennett’s declaration do 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,
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 2055
`
`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.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Patent Owner’s Response, Dr. McConville’s
`
`declaration, and Dr. Bennett’s declaration do not 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 2056
`
`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.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided sufficient
`
`explanation of what the exhibit is or what it allegedly shows.
`
`FRE 703: Patent Owner’s Response, Dr. McConville’s
`
`declaration, and Dr. Bennett’s declaration do not 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 2057
`
`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.
`
`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: Dr. McConville’s declaration and Dr. Bennett’s
`
`declaration do 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 2058
`
`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.
`
`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: Dr. McConville’s declaration and Dr. Bennett’s
`
`declaration do 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 2059
`
`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.
`
`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: Dr. McConville’s declaration and Dr. Bennett’s
`
`declaration do 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
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`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 2060
`
`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 602: Paragraphs 8-77 of the exhibit include assertions for
`
`which evidence has not been introduced sufficient to show that
`
`the witness has personal knowledge of the matters asserted
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 8-77 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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 801/802: Paragraphs 8-77 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.
`
`
`Dated: August 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: s/Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Registration No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Reg. No. 39,389
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
`LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, NE
`Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`(404) 815 6500
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`D. Clay Holloway
`Reg. No. 58,011
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, NE
`Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`(404) 815 6500
`
`Jonathan D. Olinger (pro hac vice)
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jolinger@killpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, NE
`Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`(404) 815 6500
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 18, 2017 a copy of the
`
`foregoing Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Objections Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64 to Patent Owner’s Supplemental Evidence Served on August 11,
`
`2017 was served by electronic mail by agreement of the parties on the following
`
`counsel of record for Patent Owner.
`
`Jessica L. Parezo (jparezo@cov.com)
`Andrea G. Reister( areister@cov.com)
`Scott E. Kamholz (skamholz@cov.com)
`Michael N. Kennedy (mkennedy@cov.com)
`Megan P. Keane (mkeane@cov.com)
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`MaryAnne Armstrong (maa@bskb.com)
`Lynde F. Herzbach (lynde.herzbach@bskb.com)
`Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
`8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East
`Falls Church, VA 22042
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Registration No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`13
`
`