`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Celltrion, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`Genentech, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,407,213
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01374
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER CELLTRION’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper 16),
`
`and the Federal Rules of Evidence, Petitioner Celltrion, Inc. hereby moves to
`
`exclude, in whole or in part, Exhibits 2001-2009, 2014-2018, 2021, 2029, 2041-
`
`2044, 2053, 2055, and 2059-2062 submitted by Patent Owner Genentech, Inc.
`
`Petitioner also moves to exclude the following paragraphs from the Declarations
`
`submitted by Patent Owner: paragraphs 11-30, 32, 34-36, 38, 39, 41-50 of Exhibit
`
`2016; paragraphs 12, 15, 20, 23-29, 35-39, 41, 43-50, 53, 54-56, 59-65, 68, 70, 73-
`
`75, and 78 of Exhibit 2017; paragraphs 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 21-23 of Exhibit
`
`2018; and paragraphs 25, 36-37, 48, 65, 172, 180, 186, and 231 of Exhibit 2041.
`
`II.
`
` Identification of Original Objections
`
`Petitioner timely raised objections to Patent Owner’s evidence on December
`
`15, 2017, and March 15, 2018. (Papers 20 and 39, respectively.) Patent Owner did
`
`not address Petitioner’s objections with supplemental evidence or otherwise. Here,
`
`Petitioner requests the Board to exclude additional evidence that was not objected
`
`to in the prior papers because Petitioner was not aware of the circumstances that
`
`give rise to the objections when the prior objections were submitted. Petitioner did
`
`not appreciate the identity of Exhibits 2001-2009 until the depositions of Patent
`
`Owners’ witnesses, at which time Petitioner promptly lodged its objections. (Ex.
`
`1141, 7:10-8:7, 8:23-10:2.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009
`Should Be Excluded as Unauthenticated, Not the Best Evidence, and
`Hearsay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` —3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Exhibits 2014 and 2015 Should Be Excluded
`
`IV. Exhibits 2014 and 2015 Should Be Excluded
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Portions of Exhibits 2016, 2017, and 2018 Should Be Excluded to the
`Extent that they Rely on Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence
`
`Portions of Exhibit 2016, the Declaration of Dr. Leonard G. Presta, should
`
`be excluded to the extent that they rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, as
`
`described above regarding Exhibits 2001-2009. Specifically, paragraphs 11-30,
`
`32, 34-36, 38, 39, and 41-48 of Exhibit 2016 rely on Exhibits 2001 and 2002, and
`
`should be excluded for the same reasons as stated above for Exhibits 2001 and
`
`2002.
`
`Portions of Exhibit 2017, the Declaration of Dr. Paul Carter, should
`
`similarly be excluded to the extent that they rely on otherwise inadmissible
`
`evidence, as described above regarding Exhibits 2001-2009. Specifically,
`
`paragraphs 12, 15, 20, 23-29, 35-39, 41, 43-50, 53, 54-56, 59-65, 68, 70, 73-75,
`
`and 78 of Exhibit 2017 rely on Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008 and
`
`should be excluded for the same reasons as stated above for Exhibits 2003 and
`
`2004.
`
`Portions of Exhibit 2018, the Declaration of John Ridgeway Brady, should
`
`also be excluded to the extent that they rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, as
`
`described above regarding Exhibits 2001-2009. Specifically, paragraphs 9, 10, 12-
`
`17, 19, and 21-23 of Exhibit 2018 rely on Exhibits 2005, 2006, and 2009 and
`
`should be excluded for the same reasons as stated above for Exhibits 2005 and
`
`2006.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. Portions of Exhibits 2016 and 2018 Should Be Excluded Because They
`Lack Foundation
`
`Paragraphs 23, 49, and 50 of Exhibit 2016 should be excluded because they
`
`lack foundation under Federal Rule of Evidence 602. There is no evidence in the
`
`record that Dr. Presta had personal knowledge of Dr. Carter’s knowledge or
`
`activities that is discussed in paragraphs 23, 49, and 50. Therefore, these
`
`paragraphs should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 602.
`
`Similarly, Paragraphs 21 and 23 and Exhibit 2018 should be excluded under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 602 because they lack foundation. There is no evidence
`
`in the record that Mr. Brady had personal knowledge of the activities of Monique
`
`Carver as discussed in paragraphs 21 and 23. Therefore, these paragraphs should
`
`also be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 602.
`
`VII. Exhibits 2021, 2053, 2059, and 2060 Should Be Excluded Because they
`Are Not Prior Art and Are Therefore Not Relevant
`
`Exhibits 2021, 2053, 2059, and 2060 were not available until after the
`
`relevant priority date. The Petition asserts invalidity positions based on
`
`obviousness. In an obviousness inquiry, it is the available knowledge of a POSA
`
`as of the priority date that is relevant. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`3 (“This is the test of obviousness, i.e., whether the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made…”); id. at 14-15 (“Section
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`103…refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`
`the prior art, meaning what was known before…”) (emphasis added). Patent
`
`Owner has not demonstrated that Exhibits 2021, 2023, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2053,
`
`2055, 2059, 2060, and 2061 were available to a POSA before the priority date, and
`
`therefore, are irrelevant for the purpose of establishing the teachings of the prior
`
`art. Since these documents are not prior art, having them in the record is
`
`prejudicial, as Patent Owner is relying on them for improper purposes, as
`
`explained below.
`
`Exhibit 2021 is a purported copy of an article entitled “Humanization of an
`
`Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Monoclonal Antibody for the Therapy of
`
`Solid Tumors and Other Disorders” that appears to bear a date of October 15,
`
`1997, years after the relevant priority date. Patent Owner cites this article to
`
`support its argument that residues disclosed by the inventors are relevant to other,
`
`post-art, therapies. (Paper 7 at 35.) Patent Owner does not contend that this
`
`knowledge was available in the prior art.
`
`Exhibit 2053 is a purported copy of an article entitled “Therapeutic
`
`Antibodies for Human Diseases at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century” that
`
`appears to bear a date of January 2003, years after the relevant priority date. Patent
`
`Owner cites this article in its Response to show the purported skepticism regarding
`
`the therapeutic potential of monoclonal antibodies. (Paper 37 at 33-34 n.6.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Patent Owner does not contend that this knowledge was available in the
`
`prior art.
`
`Exhibit 2059 is a purported copy of an article entitled “Monoclonal
`
`Antibodies in the Detection and Therapy of Micrometastatic Epithelial Cancers”
`
`that appears to bear a date of 1992. Patent Owner relies, in part, on Exhibit 2059
`
`to support its argument that a POSA would have known that there were difficulties
`
`in developing antibody-based treatments at the time of the invention. However,
`
`Patent Owner does not contend that this knowledge was available in the prior art.
`
`Exhibit 2060 is a purported copy of an article entitled “Monoclonal
`
`Antibodies in Cancer Therapy” that appears to bear a date of 1993. Patent Owner
`
`relies, in part, on Exhibit 2060 to support its argument that a POSA would have
`
`known that there were difficulties in developing antibody-based treatments at the
`
`time of the invention. However, Patent Owner does not contend that this
`
`knowledge was available in the prior art.
`
`***
`
`The probative value of each of these Exhibits is substantially outweighed by
`
`the undue prejudice stemming from Patent Owner’s improper reliance on these
`
`non-prior art documents to show purported prior art practices or the knowledge of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Board should therefore exclude Exhibits
`
`2021, 2023, 2053, 2059, and 2060, under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 and 403.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. Exhibits 2042, 2043, 2044, 2055, and 2061 Should Be Excluded Because
`they are Irrelevant
`
`Exhibits 2042, 2043, 2044, 2055, and 2061 should be excluded because
`
`Patent Owner did not rely on any of them in either its Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response or its Patent Owner’s Response, and thus they are not relevant under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence of
`
`402. To the extent that they are relevant, the risk of unfair prejudice outweighs any
`
`probative value, and should therefore be excluded under Federal of Evidence 403.
`
`Furthermore, each of the Exhibits was published after the relevant priority date.
`
`Exhibit 2042 is s a purported copy of United States Patent No. 7,375,193,
`
`which issued to Manuel Baca, et al., on May 20, 2008, years after the relevant
`
`priority date. Patent Owner did not rely on this Exhibit in either its Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response or its Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Exhibit 2043 is a purported copy of United States Patent No. 7,560,111,
`
`which issued to Yung-Hsiang Kao, et al., on July 14, 2009, years after the relevant
`
`priority date. Patent Owner did not rely on this Exhibit in either its Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response or its Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Exhibit 2044 is a purported copy of an article entitled “Humanization of an
`
`Antibody Directed Again IgE” that appears to bear a date of September 1, 1993,
`
`more than a year after the priority date. Patent Owner did not rely on this Exhibit
`
`in either its Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response or its Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2055 is a purported copy of an article entitled “Antibody-Based
`
`Therapy” that appears to bear a date of May 1993, more than a year after the
`
`relevant priority date. Patent Owner did not rely on this Exhibit in either its Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response or its Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Exhibit 2061 is a purported copy of an article entitled “Phase II Study of
`
`Receptor-Enhanced Chemosensitivity Using Recombinant Humanized Anti-
`
`pl85HER2/neu Monoclonal Antibody Plus Cisplatin in Patients With HER2/neu-
`
`Overexpressing Metastatic Breast Cancer Refractory to Chemotherapy Treatment”
`
`that appears to bear a date of August, 1998, years after the relevant priority date.
`
`Patent Owner did not rely on this Exhibit in either its Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response or its Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`IX. Exhibits 2029 Should Be Excluded Because they Are Not Authenticated
`and Are Inadmissible Hearsay
`
`Exhibit 2029 purports to be a copy of a portion of a 2016 Finance Report
`
`from Roche, which appears to contain only the cover page and pages 10 and 11 of
`
`the document. Patent Owner relies on this document in an attempt to support its
`
`argument that products that embody the claims have experienced commercial
`
`success. (Paper 7 at 65; Paper 37 at 64.) Patent Owner has provided no
`
`information to establish the authenticity of Exhibit 2029, as is required by Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence 901. Further, Patent Owner relies on Exhibit 2029 for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted, namely that the products listed in the document have
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`generated the purported number of sales (POR at 64), but has not established that
`
`Exhibit 2029 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay. Therefore,
`
`Exhibit 2029 should be excluded as not authenticated under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 901 and inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802.
`
`X. Exhibit 2062 Should Be Excluded Because it Is an Irrelevant, Attorney-
`Created Exhibit
`
`Exhibit 2062 purports to be a comparison between the declarations
`
`submitted by Dr. Lutz Riechmann in this this matter and the declaration submitted
`
`by Dr. Eduardo A. Padlan, submitted in Case Nos. IPR2016-01693 and IPR2016-
`
`01694, which counsel for Patent Owner created. (Ex. 2039, 226:9-227:13.) Patent
`
`Owner did not rely on Exhibit 2062 in either its Preliminary Response or its
`
`Response. This attorney-created document does not make any issue in this
`
`proceeding more or less probable. As such, it is not relevant under Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 401, and is therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
`
`To the extent that Exhibit 2062 is relevant, any probative value is outweighed by
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence. The record shows that regardless of any
`
`similarity between Dr. Padlan’s declaration submitted in IPR2016-01693 and
`
`IPR2016-01694 and Dr. Riechmann’s declaration submitted in this proceeding,
`
`Dr. Reichmann performed his own independent analysis and the opinions in his
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`declarations are his own. (See Ex. 1003, ¶ 10; Ex. 1142, ¶ 36.) Therefore, Exhibit
`
`2062 should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
`
`XI. Exhibit 2041 Should Be Excluded to the Extent that it Lacks
`Foundation or Relies on Evidence that Is Irrelevant
`
`Portions of Exhibit 2041, the Expert Declaration of Dr. Ian Wilson, should
`
`be excluded to the extent that they lack foundation or rely on improper evidence.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Wilson does not provide any citations or support for the
`
`statements made in paragraphs 25, 36-37, 48, 65, 172, 180, 186, and 231 of Exhibit
`
`2041. Therefore, he has not provided suitable foundation for these opinions, and
`
`the Board should exclude them under Federal Rule of Evidence 602. Further,
`
`because they are unsupported, any probative value of paragraphs 25, 36-37, 48, 65,
`
`172, 180, 186, and 231 of Exhibit 2041 is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
`
`cumulative evidence for the reasons stated above, and therefore these paragraphs
`
`should be excluded under Federal of Evidence 403.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 22, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No. 53,179)
`Elizabeth J. Holland (Reg. No. 47,657)
`Robert V. Cerwinski (admitted pro hac vice)
`Linnea P. Cipriano (Reg. No. 67,729)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile)
`
`Sarah J. Fischer (Reg. No. 74,104)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA, 02210
`(617) 570-3908 (telephone)
`(617) 801-8991 (facsimile)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 22nd of June, 2018, I
`
`caused a copy of this PETITIONER CELLTRION’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`EVIDENCE by email on the lead and back up counsel for Patent Owners at:
`
`David Cavanaugh (David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Lauren V. Blakely (lauren.blakely@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Robert Gunther (Robert.Gunther@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Adam Brausa (abrausa@durietangri.com)
`
`Daralyn Durie (ddurie@durietangri.com)
`
`Andrew Danford (Andrew.Danford@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Lisa Pirozzolo (Lisa.Pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Kevin Prussia (Kevin.Prussia@wilmerhale.com)
`
`By: /Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`