`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`Petitioners Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) hereby
`
`object pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”) to the admissibility of certain exhibits served by Patent Owner Horizon
`
`Therapeutics, Inc. on July 24, 2017 in connection with its Preliminary Response to
`
`Lupin’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966 (“the ’966
`
`patent”). The exhibits objected to, and grounds for Lupin’s objections, are listed
`
`below. Lupin also objects to Patent Owner’s reliance on or citations to any
`
`objected evidence in its papers.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2001 (IPR2016-00829 Enns Declaration)
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2001 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2001 is an expert declaration
`
`submitted by Patent Owner in a different proceeding on a different patent, i.e.,
`
`IPR2016-00829. Therefore, Exhibit 2001 should be excluded under FRE 402 and
`
`403. Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2001 under FRE 802 because it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`Exhibit 2006 (IPR2017-01160 Enns Declaration)
`
`B.
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2006, the declaration of Dr. Gregory M. Enns,
`
`under FRE 402 to the extent that it includes or relies on irrelevant or inadmissible
`
`information and under FRE 403 to the extent that it includes or relies on
`
`information that probative value of which is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence as set forth herein. Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 901
`
`on the basis that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been properly
`
`authenticated or lack foundation, as set forth herein.
`
`C. Exhibit 2012 (’157 Publication)
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2012 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2012 was published in 2012
`
`and, therefore, bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known by Sept. 30, 2011, the priority date used for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Therefore, Exhibit 2012 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2012 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`D. Exhibit 2019 (Haberle)
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2019 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2019 is dated after Sept. 30,
`
`2011, and therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the priority date used for the purposes of this proceeding.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 2019 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403. Lupin
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2019 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, not within a hearsay exception.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 2026 (ABMGG Webpage regarding Specialties of
`Genetics)
`
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2026 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2026 is dated after Sept. 30,
`
`2011, and therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the priority date used for the purposes of this proceeding.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 2026 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403. Lupin
`
`further objects to Exhibit 2026 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, not within a hearsay exception. Lupin also objects to Exhibit 2026 under
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`
`FRE 901 on the basis that it has not been properly authenticated and lacks
`
`foundation.
`
`F.
`
`Exhibit 2027 (About Us Webpage for Urea Cycle Disorders
`Consortium)
`
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2027 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2027 does not have a
`
`discernible publication date and Patent Owner has not established that it is prior
`
`art. Absent such a showing, it bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have known by the priority date used for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Therefore, Exhibit 2027 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2027 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception. Lupin also objects to Exhibit
`
`2027 under FRE 901 on the basis that it has not been properly authenticated and
`
`lacks foundation.
`
`G. Exhibit 2029 (Enns Article on Hyperammonemia)
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2029 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2029 is dated after September
`
`30, 2011, and therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`
`the art would have known by the priority date used for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Therefore, Exhibit 2026 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2026 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception.
`
`H. Exhibit 2033 (Brusilow Web Article on Urea Cycle Enzymes)
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2033 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2033 does not have a
`
`discernible publication date and Patent Owner has not established that it is prior
`
`art. Absent such a showing, it bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have known by the priority date used for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Therefore, Exhibit 2033 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2033 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception. Lupin also objects to Exhibit
`
`2033 under FRE 901, 1002 and 1003 on the basis that it has not been properly
`
`authenticated and lacks foundation.
`
`Exhibit 2034 (Transcript of Vaux Deposition in IPR2016-00829)
`
`I.
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2034 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2034 is the transcript of the
`
`deposition of Dr. Vaux which took place in a different proceeding on a different
`
`patent, i.e., IPR2016-00829. Therefore, Exhibit 2034 should be excluded under
`
`FRE 402 and 403. Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2034 under FRE 802 because it
`
`is inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception. Lupin also objects to
`
`Exhibit 2034 under FRE 901 on the basis that it has not been properly
`
`authenticated and lacks foundation as incomplete to the extent that it does not
`
`include errata. It should therefore be excluded under FRE 106 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 2037 (Vaux Book Review)
`
`J.
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2037 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Lupin also objects to Exhibit 2037
`
`under FRE 901 on the basis that it has not been properly authenticated and lacks
`
`foundation.
`
`K. Exhibit 2041 (RAVICTI Label)
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2041 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2041 is dated after September
`
`30, 2011, and therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`
`the art would have known by the priority date used for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Therefore, Exhibit 2041 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2041 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception. Lupin also objects to Exhibit
`
`2041 under FRE 901 on the basis that it has not been properly authenticated and
`
`lacks foundation.
`
`Exhibit 2042 (Summar)
`
`L.
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2042 is dated after September
`
`30, 2011, and therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have known by the priority date used for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Therefore, Exhibit 2042 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception.
`
`M. Exhibit 2045 (Buphenyl Drugs@FDA Webpage)
`Lupin objects to Exhibit 2045 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2045 has no discernible
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`
`publication date and Patent Owner has not established that it is prior art. Absent
`
`such a showing, it bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known by the priority date used for the purposes of this proceeding,
`
`Sept. 30, 2011. Therefore, Exhibit 2045 should be excluded under FRE 402 and
`
`403. Lupin further objects to Exhibit 2045 under FRE 802 on the basis that it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay, not within a hearsay exception. Lupin also objects to Exhibit
`
`2045 under FRE 901 on the basis that it has not been properly authenticated and
`
`lacks foundation.
`
`Dated: October 13, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Elizabeth J. Holland (Reg. No. 47,657)
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No.
`53,179)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile)
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO
`
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.64 was served electronically via email
`
`on October 13, 2017 on the following:
`
`Matthew Phillips (backup counsel, Reg. No. 43,403)
`Laurence & Phillips IP Law LLP
`mphillips@lpiplaw.com
`
`
`Robert Green (Reg. No. 27,555)
`Emer Simic (Reg. No. 61,235)
`Green, Griffith & Borg-Breen, LLP
`rgreen@greengriffith.com
`esimic@greengriffith.com
`
`Dennis Bennett (Reg. No. 34,547)
`GLOBAL PATENT GROUP, LLC
`dennisbennett@globalpatentgroup.com
`
`Dated: October 13, 2017
`
`
`
`/Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`