`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Demonstratives
`
`
`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 DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Demonstratives
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order Granting Request for Oral Argument (Paper
`
`
`
`67), Patent Owner submits objections to Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives.
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner objects to slides 88, 89, 127, and 128 because they
`
`include material that was presented untimely by Petitioner and that is subject to
`
`Patent Owner’s motions to strike and to exclude. See Paper 59; Paper 61.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner objects to slides 92 and 120 because they rely on the
`
`testimony of ’213 patent inventor Dr. Leonard Presta regarding how he arrived at
`
`the invention of the ’213 patent and his expectations to argue that the challenged
`
`claims would have been obvious. An inventor’s knowledge and expectations,
`
`however, do not reflect the knowledge and expectations of a person of ordinary
`
`skill and may not be used to prove obviousness. See Standard Oil Co. v. Am.
`
`Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Inventors, as a class . . . sets
`
`them apart from the workers of ordinary skill, and one should not go about
`
`determining obviousness under § 103 by inquiring into what patentees (i.e.,
`
`inventors) would have known or would likely have done, faced with the revelations
`
`of references.”); 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s slides 29 and 65 to the extent
`
`they assert that the prior art teaches serial substitutions of framework residues to
`
`increase binding affinity because such argument was not made in the Petition and
`
`is therefore an untimely and improper argument.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 13, 2018
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Demonstratives
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh /
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Reg. No. 36,476
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`202-663-6025
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Demonstratives
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on July 13, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`following materials:
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Demonstratives
`
`
`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
`rcerwinski@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
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Demonstratives
`
`/Lauren V. Blakely/
`Lauren V. Blakely
`Reg. No. 70,247
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 600-5039
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
