`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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 IPR2017-01374
`U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213
`____________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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 53).
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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.
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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, 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-
`
`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,
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`and 38:8-11, as being misleading, confusing, unfairly prejudicial, and irrelevant.
`
`IPR2017-01374
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`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, 32:17-20, 35:9-
`
`20, 36:11-37:13, 36:25-37:5, 43:24-44:4, 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,
`
`131:10-136:14, 139:11-17, and 176:6-177:19 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
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
` 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
`
`
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
