`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner Genentech, Inc. by:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`Lauren V. Blakely (Reg. No. 70,247)
`Robert J. Gunther, Jr. (Pro Hac Vice)
`Lisa J. Pirozzolo (Pro Hac Vice)
`
`Kevin S. Prussia (Pro Hac Vice)
`
`Andrew J. Danford (Pro Hac Vice)
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`Adam R. Brausa (Reg No. 60,287)
`Daralyn J. Durie (Pro Hac Vice)
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`CELLTRION, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`Case IPR2017-01373
`U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213
`____________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Genentech, Inc.
`
`(“Genentech”) presents the following objections to evidence served with Petitioner
`
`Celltrion, Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Reply (Paper 54).
`
`I.
`
`Exhibits 1133, 1135, 1144, 1145, and 1193-1196
`Genentech objects to Exhibits 1133, 1135, 1144, 1145, and 1193-1196 for
`
`the following reasons.
`
`A. Exhibit 1133
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1133 to the extent it includes statements made
`
`without personal knowledge of the facts asserted, including in, but not limited to,
`
`paragraph 3. See Fed. R. Evid. 602.
`
`B.
`Exhibit 1135
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1135 as a new exhibit that was not included in
`
`the Petition or the instituted grounds, or any submission by Patent Owner. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Genentech objects to the use of Exhibit 1135 on the grounds
`
`that it is irrelevant because it is not part of the instituted grounds, and because
`
`Petitioner’s use of the exhibit is misleading, confusing, and unfairly prejudicial.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Genentech further objects to Exhibit 1135 as
`
`lacking proper authentication. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`C. Exhibit 1144
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1144 as a new exhibit that was not included in
`
`the Petition or the instituted grounds, or any submission by Patent Owner. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Genentech objects to the use of Exhibit 1144 on the grounds
`
`that it is irrelevant because it is not part of the instituted grounds, and because
`
`Petitioner’s use of the exhibit is misleading, confusing, and unfairly prejudicial.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403.
`
`D. Exhibit 1145
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1145 as a new exhibit that was not included in
`
`the Petition or the instituted grounds, or any submission by Patent Owner. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Genentech objects to the use of Exhibit 1145 on the grounds
`
`that it is irrelevant to the instituted grounds because it is not part of the instituted
`
`grounds, and because Petitioner’s use of the exhibit is misleading, confusing, and
`
`unfairly prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Genentech further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1145 as inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802.
`
`E.
`Exhibit 1193
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1193 as a new exhibit that was not included in
`
`the Petition or the instituted grounds, or any submission by Patent Owner. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Genentech objects to the use of Exhibit 1193 on the grounds
`
`that it is irrelevant because it is not part of the instituted grounds, and because
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s use of the exhibit is misleading, confusing, and unfairly prejudicial.
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Genentech further objects to Exhibit 1193 as
`
`inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802.
`
`F.
`Exhibit 1194
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1194 as a new exhibit that was not included in
`
`the Petition or the instituted grounds, or any submission by Patent Owner. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Genentech objects to the use of Exhibit 1194 on the grounds
`
`that it is irrelevant to the instituted grounds because it is not prior art, not part of
`
`the instituted grounds, not probative of the of the state of the art at the time of the
`
`invention, and because Petitioner’s use of the exhibit is misleading, confusing, and
`
`unfairly prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Genentech further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1194 as inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802.
`
`G. Exhibit 1195
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1195 as a new exhibit that was not included in
`
`the Petition or the instituted grounds, or any submission by Patent Owner. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Genentech objects to the use of Exhibit 1195 on the grounds
`
`that it is irrelevant to the instituted grounds because it is not part of the instituted
`
`grounds, and because Petitioner’s use of the exhibit is misleading, confusing, and
`
`unfairly prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Genentech further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1195 as inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`H. Exhibit 1196
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1196 as a new exhibit that was not included in
`
`the Petition or the instituted grounds, or any submission by Patent Owner. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Genentech objects to the use of Exhibit 1196 on the grounds
`
`that it is irrelevant to the instituted grounds because it is not part of the instituted
`
`grounds and because Petitioner’s use of the exhibit is misleading, confusing, and
`
`unfairly prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. Genentech further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1196 as inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802.
`
`II. Deposition Transcript of Ian Wilson, D. Phil. (Exhibit 1138)
`Genentech objects to excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Ian Wilson,
`
`D. Phil. (Exhibit 1138) cited within the Reply to the extent that they are
`
`mischaracterized or taken out of context, including 19:7-20:1, 19:23-20:25, 22:8-
`
`12, 28:2-8, 91:3-92:14, 102:23-103:5, 103:23-104:1, 104:12-105:5, 116:1-122:1,
`
`143:20-144:24, 184:16-185:7, 196:5-197:6, and 253:18-254:21, as being
`
`misleading, confusing, unfairly prejudicial, and irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`402, 403.
`
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1138 to the extent testimony was elicited from
`
`questions outside the scope of the witness’s direct testimony, as such testimony is
`
`both not relevant and prejudicial to Genentech, as well as in violation of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Deposition Transcript of John Ridgway Brady (Exhibit 1139)
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1139 to the extent testimony was elicited from
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`questions outside the scope of the witness’s direct testimony, as such testimony is
`
`both not relevant and prejudicial to Genentech, as well as in violation of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`IV. Deposition Transcript of Paul J. Carter, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1140)
`Genentech objects to excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Paul J.
`
`Carter, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1140) cited within the Reply to the extent that they are
`
`mischaracterized or taken out of context, including 22:1-24:7, 36:2-37:3, 60:3-12,
`
`82:22-83:4, 130:5-134:14, 159:22-163:19, and 171:11-173:13, as being
`
`misleading, confusing, unfairly prejudicial, and irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`402, 403.
`
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1140 the extent testimony was elicited from
`
`questions outside the scope of the witness’s direct testimony, as such testimony is
`
`both not relevant and prejudicial to Genentech, as well as in violation of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`V. Deposition Transcript of Irene Loeffler (Exhibit 1141)
`Genentech objects to excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Irene Loeffler
`
`(Exhibit 1141) cited within the Reply to the extent that they are mischaracterized
`
`or taken out of context, including 15:5-12, 19:18-20:6, 21:13-17, 28:20-23, 29:11-
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`16, 30:19-24, 31:4-12, 31:25-33:1, 33:15-21, 34:9-12, 35:12-14, 36:9-11, 37:15-17,
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`and 38:8-11, as being misleading, confusing, unfairly prejudicial, and irrelevant.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403.
`
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1141 to the extent testimony was elicited from
`
`questions outside the scope of the witness’s direct testimony, as such testimony is
`
`both not relevant and prejudicial to Genentech, as well as in violation of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`VI. Deposition Transcript of Leonard George Presta, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1142)
`Genentech objects to excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Leonard George
`
`Presta, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1142) cited within the Reply to the extent that they are
`
`mischaracterized or taken out of context, including 27:14-28:13, 30:5-13, 32:17-
`
`20, 35:9-20, 36:11-37:13, 36:25-37:5, 43:24-44:4, 57:23-58:6, 58:25-63:11, 65:20-
`
`66:11, 76:19-80:13, 97:14-98:22, 101:24-102:19, 111:1-6, 112:5-9, 112:16-21,
`
`118:8-17, 131:10-132:5, 139:11-17, 176:6-177:19, and 178:18-179:14 as being
`
`misleading, confusing, unfairly prejudicial, and irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`402, 403.
`
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1142 to the extent testimony was elicited from
`
`questions outside the scope of the witness’s direct testimony, as such testimony is
`
`both not relevant and prejudicial to Genentech, as well as in violation of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 611(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. Reply Declaration of Lutz Reichmann, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1143)
`Genentech objects to Exhibit 1143 to the extent it includes arguments that
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`were not made in the Petition and are therefore improper to raise for the first time
`
`in Petitioner’s Reply, including in, but not limited to, paragraphs 18, and 29-30 of
`
`Exhibit 1143. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`Genentech further objects to paragraphs 4-30, and 32-35 as not based on
`
`sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable principles and methods, and/or a
`
`reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts, see Fed. R. Evid.
`
`702, 703, 705, 403; 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, and as being
`
`misleading and/or confusing. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Genentech objects to excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of Ian Wilson,
`
`D. Phil. (Exhibit 1138) cited within the Reichmann Reply Declaration (Ex. 1143)
`
`to the extent that they are mischaracterized or taken out of context, including
`
`213:10-217:22, as being misleading, confusing, unfairly prejudicial, and irrelevant.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403.
`
`Genentech objects to excerpts to the Deposition Transcript of Leonard
`
`George Presta, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1142) cited within the Reichmann Reply Declaration
`
`(Ex. 1143) to the extent that they are mischaracterized or taken out of context,
`
`including 42:16-25, 101:24-102:19, and 131:10-132:5, as being misleading,
`
`confusing, unfairly prejudicial, and irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 4, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`By:
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Reg. No. 36,476
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`202-663-6025
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on June 4, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy
`of the following materials:
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`to be served via electronic mail on the following attorneys of record:
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`chardman@goodwinlaw.com
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`
`Robert V. Cerwinski
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`rcerwinksi@goodwinlaw.com
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`
`Elizabeth Holland
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`eholland@goodwinlaw.com
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`
`Sarah J. Fischer
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`sfischer@goodwinlaw.com
`100 Northern Avenue, Boston, MA 02110
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`/Lauren V. Blakely/
`Lauren V. Blakely
`Reg. No. 70,247
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 600-5039
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`