`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CIPLA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 8,168,620
`Issue Date: May 1, 2012
`Title: COMBINATION OF AZELASTINE AND STEROIDS
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2017-00807
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioner Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC
`
`(“Petitioner”) moves to preclude Patent Owner, Cipla Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) or its
`
`experts from relying on the factual assertions made by Dr. Geena Malhotra in her
`
`declaration (see EX1002, 284-87) that was submitted during the prosecution of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,168,620 (“the ’620 patent”) as inadmissible hearsay under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 802.
`
`The prosecution history file for the ’620 patent was submitted by Petitioner
`
`as Exhibit 1002. This exhibit contained the declaration of Dr. Geena Malhotra
`
`submitted by Patent Owner during the prosecution of the ’620 patent. EX1002,
`
`284-87. The Petition cited to Exhibit 1002 to illustrate, for example, the reasons
`
`given by the Examiner for allowing the claims, and to discuss various allegations
`
`made by Patent Owner during prosecution. See, e.g., Pet. at 6-7, 40-41, 55, 59.
`
`These were non-hearsay uses of Exhibit 1002.
`
`However, in its Preliminary Response (and again in its formal Response),
`
`Patent Owner and its experts attempted to rely on the Malhotra declaration
`
`submitted during prosecution for the truth of the statements made by Ms. Malhotra
`
`therein reporting certain experiments she allegedly conducted. See, e.g., POPR,
`
`10, 14, 25, 41; EX2001 ¶¶27-28; EX2007 ¶¶25, 31, 37, 42, 44, 47. That is, beyond
`
`reporting what arguments were made to the Examiner during prosecution as
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner has done for a non-hearsay purpose, Patent Owner and its experts
`
`attempted to affirmatively rely on the Malhotra declaration for the truth of the
`
`matters asserted therein, thereby going beyond non-hearsay uses of Exhibit 1002.
`
`REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F. 3d 954, 963-965 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (recognizing distinction between admissibility of out-of-court statements for
`
`non-hearsay purposes, versus inadmissibility for hearsay purposes); Minemyer v.
`
`B-Roc Representatives, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 2d 691, 709-710 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (noting
`
`that the hearsay rule is not a bar to admissibility as to a relevant, non-hearsay
`
`purpose).
`
`Shortly after trial was instituted in this proceeding, Petitioner objected to
`
`Patent Owner’s attempt to rely on Exhibit 1002 in this manner. Paper No. 16, Pet.
`
`Obj. at 2. Patent Owner failed to address or cure Petitioner’s objection. As
`
`explained below, Patent Owner should be precluded from relying on the testimony
`
`by Dr. Malhotra in Exhibit 1002, as this hearsay use of Exhibit 1002 is precluded
`
`by FRE 802 (the hearsay rule) and improperly circumvents the right to cross-
`
`examination in violation of the Board’s rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii).
`
`Patent Owner’s attempted reliance on this declaration evidence without making
`
`Ms. Malhotra available for cross-examination also violates at least the spirit if not
`
`the letter of 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(c).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Attempted Reliance on Dr. Malhotra’s
`Declaration Testimony Renders Such Testimony Hearsay and
`Subjection to Exclusion under FRE 802.
`
`During prosecution, Patent Owner submitted a declaration by Dr. Malhotra,
`
`who allegedly tested Cramer’s Example III formulation and, based on that alleged
`
`testing, found it to be “unsuitable for nasal administration.” EX1002, 284-287. In
`
`this proceeding, Patent Owner goes beyond simply reciting the events that
`
`occurred during prosecution, and now attempts to rely on Dr. Malhotra’s
`
`declaration to argue that Dr. Malhotra’s testing of Cramer affirmatively establishes
`
`a lack of reasonable expectation of success to combine azelastine and fluticasone
`
`into a combination formulation. See POPR, 10, 14, 25, 41; EX2001 ¶¶27-28;
`
`EX2007 ¶¶25, 31, 37, 42, 44, 47; see also POR, 9, 28, 32-36, EX2147 ¶¶27-28;
`
`EX2176 ¶¶23, 31, 36, 38, 40-43.
`
`In attempting to rely on Dr. Malhotra’s out-of-court statements for their
`
`truthfulness, i.e., trying to show a lack of expectation of success by assuming Dr.
`
`Malhotra’s statements/tests to in fact be true, Dr. Malhotra’s declaration testimony
`
`falls squarely within the hearsay definition under FRE 801(c), and therefore is
`
`subject to exclusion for hearsay purposes, per FRE 802. US Endodontics, LLC v.
`
`Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-00019 (Paper 54), at *38-42 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 28, 2016) (refusing to admit a declaration under FRE 807 (residual exception)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`that was submitted during ex parte prosecution and noting that “a declaration from
`
`[declarant] in this proceeding would have been more probative than the declaration
`
`[from the ex parte proceeding] because a declaration in this proceeding would have
`
`subjected [declarant] to cross-examination by Petitioner as a matter of routine
`
`discovery under the rules governing this proceeding”).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Timely Objected to Patent Owner’s Attempted Hearsay
`Use of Dr. Malhotra’s Declaration Testimony
`
`On September 5, 2017, Petitioner timely objected to Patent Owner’s attempt
`
`to rely on Exhibit 1002 in a hearsay manner. See Paper 16, Pet. Obj. at 2.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner’s objections called out Exhibit 1002, and recited numerous
`
`places where Patent Owner was attempting to rely on the exhibit in a hearsay
`
`manner, in violation of FRE 802. Id. Petitioner’s objections further pointed out
`
`that Petitioner has not had the opportunity to subject the declarant to cross
`
`examination. Id.
`
`Petitioner’s objections were timely, having been served within ten business
`
`days of institution. 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1). In response to Petitioner’s September
`
`5, 2017 objections, Patent Owner made no attempt to submit supplemental
`
`evidence or to otherwise address Petitioner’s objection.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Refused To Make Dr. Malhotra Available for
`Deposition
`
`Beyond just failing to respond to Petitioner’s objections, Patent Owner went
`
`further and expressly refused to make Dr. Malhotra available for cross-
`
`examination. On December 27, 2017, Petitioner affirmatively requested that
`
`Patent Owner make Dr. Malhotra available for cross-examination, among other
`
`witnesses. EX1172 (Email from Mike Houston to Adam LaRock). Patent Owner
`
`responded on January 4, 2018 that it did not intend to make Dr. Malhotra available.
`
`EX1173 (Email from Adam LaRock to Mike Houston). Thus, despite attempting
`
`to secure a deposition of Dr. Malhotra, a named inventor on the ’620 patent,
`
`Petitioner was rebuffed and therefore has had no opportunity to cross-examine Dr.
`
`Malhotra in this IPR (or any other proceeding).
`
`Patent Owner’s failure to offer Dr. Malhotra for deposition deprived
`
`Petitioner of an opportunity to obtain testimony from Dr. Malhotra on issues raised
`
`in her declaration. One example is that Petitioner was not given the opportunity to
`
`explore with Dr. Malhotra how her recreation of Cramer’s Example III had an
`
`“undesirable” osmolality. See EX1002, 287(C). Nor has Petitioner been given an
`
`opportunity to ask Dr. Malhotra how her recreation of Example III was
`
`representative of the routine modifications a POSA would have undertaken or why
`
`she did not attempt to modify: (i) the HPMC used by assessing multiple
`
`commercial grades of HPMC; (ii) the amount of HPMC used, (iii) the amount of
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`sodium chloride used; or (iv) the type of spray device employed to generate a
`
`successful formulation.
`
`Patent Owner’s deliberate strategy of relying on Dr. Malhotra’s prior
`
`prosecution declaration, while refusing to make her available for deposition,
`
`deprived Petitioner of an opportunity to explore Dr. Malhotra’s bases for her
`
`testimony, and/or to confront her with evidence and issues not raised during
`
`prosecution.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner’s Attempted Reliance on Dr. Malhotra’s Testimony
`Should Be Precluded
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a), the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE apply in
`
`Inter Partes Review proceedings. Here, the contents of Dr. Malhotra’s declaration
`
`are out-of-court statements that Patent Owner is now attempting to rely on for their
`
`truth, establishing the declaration as hearsay under FRE 801(c). Dr. Malhotra was
`
`never made available for deposition in this IPR (or in any other proceeding to
`
`which Petitioner was a party), thus subjecting the declaration to exclusion under
`
`FRE 802. Accordingly, Patent Owner should be precluded from relying on Dr.
`
`Malhotra’s declaration testimony because doing so violates FRE 802 as well as the
`
`applicable regulations governing this proceeding, which require that affidavit
`
`testimony be subject to cross examination under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii).
`
`Accord 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(c) (explaining that data in a patent specification or
`
`drawing upon which a party intends to rely to prove the truth of the data must be
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`supported by an affidavit from an individual having first-hand knowledge of how
`
`the data was generated, which in turn requires that affiant be made available for
`
`cross-examination per § 42.51(b)(1)(ii)).
`
`Petitioner appreciates that because the prosecution history of the ’620 patent
`
`could be relevant to this proceeding for non-hearsay purposes, it may not be
`
`appropriate to “exclude” the Malhotra declaration in Exhibit 1002 from the record
`
`altogether. As an alternative, where a party relies on prior testimony without
`
`making that witness available for deposition as required by the Board’s rules, the
`
`Board has repeatedly held that the testimony is entitled to no weight. See
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC v. Biogen MA Inc., IPR 2015-01993, Paper
`
`34 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016) (explaining that in order for a declaration
`
`submitted during patent prosecution to “be given any weight” in an IPR, the
`
`declarant/affiant must be made available for cross-examination in the manner
`
`specified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii)); Altaire Pharm., Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck,
`
`Inc., PGR2015-00011, Paper 29 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2016) (warning that no
`
`weight will be given to a declaration if the declarant is not made available for
`
`cross-examination).
`
`By relying on Dr. Malhotra’s factual assertions without making her available
`
`for cross-examination, Patent Owner has violated the Board’s rules. Therefore, the
`
`testimony of Dr. Malhotra on pages 284-287 of Exhibit 1002 should be “excluded”
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`as to the hearsay purposes for which Patent Owner attempts to rely upon the
`
`declaration. Instead, the declaration should be given no weight as to the factual
`
`statements therein, and Patent Owner and its experts should likewise be precluded
`
`from relying on the Malhotra declaration for the truth of the statements made
`
`therein.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`preclude Patent Owner from relying on the factual assertions in Dr. Malhotra’s
`
`declaration contained in Exhibit 1002 at pages 284-287.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 10, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Michael Houston/
`Michael Houston
`Registration No. 58,486
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: 312-832-4500
`Facsimile: 312-832-4700
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE was served on April
`
`10, 2018, on Counsel for Patent Owner via electronic mail to the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 10, 2018
`
`dvarughe-PTAB@skgf.com
`dsterlin-PTAB@skgf.com
`alarock-PTAB@skgf.com
`ueverett-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Michael Houston/
`Michael Houston
`Registration No. 58,486
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`