`
`Filed: October 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`ACTAVIS LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`Case IPR2017-01104
`U.S. Patent No. 8,138,229
`_______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SERVED WITH
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Abraxis Bioscience, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby submits the following objections to exhibits served with Actavis
`
`LLC’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”). These objections are timely
`
`filed and served within ten business days of the PTAB’s October 10, 2017
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 7).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent Owner’s objections apply the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence. Patent Owner’s objections and the basis for each objection are
`
`as follows:
`
`I.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1002
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002, “Declaration of Cory J. Berkland,
`
`Ph.D.” Specifically, Patent Owner objects to the following paragraphs and
`
`associated headings in Exhibit 1002 pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, Fed. R. Evid.
`
`703 (insufficient qualification or support for expert testimony), Fed. R. Evid. 602
`
`(lack of personal knowledge, speculation) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (expert testimony
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data): ¶¶ 4, 16–29, 37, 39, 40, 55–59, 71–
`
`81, 83–90, 95, 97, 99, 100, 102, 104–113, 115, 118, 122–137, 139–176, 179–182,
`
`184–185, 187–189 and 193–221. Patent Owner further objects to ¶ 91 pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 (relevance) and Fed. R. Evid. 403 (excluding relevant evidence
`
`for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`II. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS 1008–1013, 1015, 1016, 1019–1025 and
`1027
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1009–1010, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402
`
`(relevance) and Fed. R. Evid. 403 (excluding relevant evidence for prejudice,
`
`confusion, waste of time, or other reasons). Petitioner does not assert these
`
`documents as prior-art references that anticipate or combine to render obvious the
`
`challenged patent claims, and as such are not listed as specific grounds for
`
`challenging the patent claims. Because these documents are used improperly by
`
`Petitioner’s expert to attempt to fill in absent claim elements where the asserted art
`
`itself is silent, the prejudice they would cause outweighs any purported probative
`
`value.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibits 1009–1010, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(a)(3) (improper incorporation by reference). “Arguments must not be
`
`incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3). Petitioner does not cite to or discuss the content of Exhibits 1009–
`
`1010 in its Petition. However, Petitioner’s expert cites to and discusses these
`
`exhibits in his declaration in support of Petitioner’s argument that Desai would
`
`have motivated a skilled artisan as of December 2002 to formulate paclitaxel and
`
`albumin as particles with a size less than 200 nm (Exhibit 1002 ¶ 142, n.1).
`
`Accordingly, Exhibits 1009–1010 are improperly incorporated by reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibits 1009–1013, 1015, 1016, 1019–1025
`
`and 1027, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402 (relevance) and Fed. R. Evid. 403
`
`(excluding relevant evidence for prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other
`
`reasons) to the extent Petitioner may intend to rely on these exhibits as prior art to
`
`the challenged patent claims. Each of these documents are either dated after the
`
`priority date of the challenged patent claims, or lack sufficient information to
`
`determine whether any publication occurred before or after the challenged patent
`
`claims.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to the dates in Exhibits 1009, 1010, and 1016
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 802 (hearsay) as evidence of when those exhibits were
`
`allegedly published or would have been publicly available or accessible to an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1011–1013 pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 402 (relevance), Fed. R. Evid. 403 (excluding relevant evidence for
`
`prejudice, confusion, waste of time, or other reasons) and Fed. R. Evid. 802
`
`(hearsay). These documents are not relevant because they consist of judgments
`
`and proceedings on other patents that occurred after the priority date of the ’229
`
`patent and that are not commensurate in scope with the ’229 patent. Patent Owner
`
`further objects to the extent that these documents and statements within these
`
`documents are being offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1008, 1016, 1019-1025 and 1027
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 106, 1002 and 1006. These documents appear to be
`
`incomplete excerpts of larger documents.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`/ J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. /
`J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 44,668)
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`Cary Miller, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 54,708)
`Lisamarie LoGiudice, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 71,047)
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121-3134
`Tel: (858) 314-1200
`Fax: (844) 345-3178
`jpelsevier@jonesday.com
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`cmiller@jonesday.com
`llogiudice@jonesday.com
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`Andrew S. Chalson (pro hac vice)
`Frank C. Calvosa (Reg. No. 69,064)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`General Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Direct Tel: (212) 849-7450
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`andrewchalson@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Holder
`Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on the date indicated below a copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SERVED WITH
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) was served electronically by filing these documents through the PTAB
`
`E2E System, as well as by e-mailing copies to the following counsel of record for
`
`Petitioner Actavis LLC:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Samuel S. Park, Reg. No. 59,656
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`AbraxaneIPR@winston.com
`
`
`Dated: October 24, 2017
`
`Backup Counsel
`George C. Lombardi
`Charles B. Klein
`Kevin E. Warner
`Eimeric Reig-Plessis
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`AbraxaneIPR@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D./
`J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 44,668)
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121-3134
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: 858-314-1150
`
`Counsel for Patent Holder
`Abraxis Bioscience, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`