`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Adam R. Brausa (Reg No. 60,287)
`Daralyn J. Durie (Pro Hac Vice)
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has moved to strike Exhibit 1193 and the associated
`
`arguments and testimony that rely on this exhibit, including the first full paragraph
`
`of page 18 of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 53); Ex. 1143 ¶30, and Ex. 1138 at 176:25
`
`to 178:23. As explained in Patent Owner’s contemporaneously filed Motion to
`
`Strike, this evidence and argument is new and improper. To the extent the Board
`
`agrees, it should also exclude these new arguments and evidence under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 401 and 402 because they are not relevant to any of the
`
`instituted grounds, for which Petitioner was obligated to identify all of the
`
`supporting evidence with particularity in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a); see
`
`also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Moreover, because Patent Owner has been denied any
`
`meaningful opportunity to substantively respond to Petitioner’s positions, any
`
`alleged relevance is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to Patent Owner,
`
`and the evidence and argument should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`403. 1
`
`
`1 Among other grounds, Patent Owner objected to Ex. 1193 as improper new
`
`evidence and irrelevant and misleading under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b). (Paper 54 at 2.) Patent Owner objected to Ex. 1143 ¶30 as
`
`improper for raising new arguments in reply, and under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703,
`
`705, 403; 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65, and as being misleading
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 22, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`and/or confusing under Fed. R. Evid. 403. (Id. at 7). Patent Owner objected to
`
`Ex. 1138 as containing testimony elicited from questions outside the scope of the
`
`witness’s direct testimony, and as being misleading, confusing, unfairly
`
`prejudicial, and irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. (Id. at 4; Ex. 1138 at
`
`177:4-6 (objecting to questions pertaining to Ex. 1193).)
`
`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
