`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLTRION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`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
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`Exhibits 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009
`Should Be Excluded as Unauthenticated, Not the Best Evidence, and
`Hearsay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Exhibits 2014 and 2015 Should Be Excluded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Portions of Exhibits 2016, 2017, and 2018 Should Be Excluded to the
`Extent that they Rely on Otherwise Inadmissible Evidence and Lack
`Foundation
`
`As explained in Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, Portions of Exhibits 2016-
`
`2018 should be excluded because they rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, as
`
`described above regarding Exhibits 2001-2009. (Paper 62 at 6-7.)
`
` Portions of Exhibit 2016 should also be excluded because they lack
`
`foundation under Federal Rule of Evidence 602. In the challenged paragraphs,
`
`Dr. Presta improperly speculates as to the knowledge of Dr. Carter. Simply
`
`because these scientists worked closely with one another and were in
`
`communication does not provide an evidentiary basis to establish Dr. Presta’s
`
`personal knowledge of facts that Dr. Carter knew. Such speculation is particularly
`
`improper in light of the fact that Patent Owner proffered a declaration from Dr.
`
`Carter and defended him at a deposition in this matter. Patent Owner could have
`
`offered testimony from Dr. Carter himself concerning his knowledge of the
`
`relevant facts but failed to do so.
`
`7
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`IV. 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. Petitioner maintains that these Exhibits are not relevant to
`
`this proceeding and should be excluded pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 402
`
`and 403.
`
`V. Exhibits 2042, 2043, 2044, 2055, and 2061 Should Be Excluded Because
`they are Irrelevant
`
`Patent Owner confirmed that the Board need not consider Exhibits 2042-
`
`2044 in this proceeding. (Paper 68 at 13.) Petitioner maintains that Exhibits 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, inadmissible
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence of 402, and to the extent that they are relevant, the
`
`risk of unfair prejudice outweighs any probative value under Federal of Evidence
`
`403.
`
`VI. Exhibit 2029 Should Be Excluded Because It Is Not Authenticated and
`Is Inadmissible Hearsay
`
`Patent Owner again attempts to shift the burden regarding admissibility of
`
`evidence to Petitioner regarding Exhibit 2029. Patent Owner has not provided any
`
`information to establish the authenticity of Exhibit 2029, as is required by Federal
`
`8
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Rule of Evidence 901. Additionally, Patent Owner has not established that Exhibit
`
`2029 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay. Patent Owner relies on
`
`the “Residual Exception” to the rule against hearsay, but Rule 807 should not
`
`apply here. Exhibit 2029 is not a financial disclosure document that has
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness—it is only an excerpt of a document
`
`reporting alleged financial information. Patent Owner did not present any
`
`information about what this document was or how the excerpt was created.
`
`Additionally, Rule 807 requires that the party offering a hearsay statement into
`
`evidence identify the name and address of the author of such a statement. FRE
`
`807(b). Patent Owner did not provide any of this required information, and
`
`Petitioner did not have an opportunity to question a knowledgeable witness about
`
`this Exhibit. Therefore, the “Residual Exception” to the rule against hearsay
`
`should not apply.
`
`Patent Owner was aware of Petitioner’s objections to Exhibit 2029, and had
`
`an opportunity to establish it as an authentic document that would not be excluded
`
`by the rule against hearsay, for example as a business record, but chose not to
`
`provide any supplemental evidence to overcome Petitioner’s objections.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 2029 should be excluded as not authenticated under Federal
`
`9
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Rule of Evidence 901 and inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`802.
`
`VII. Exhibit 2062 Should Be Excluded Because it Is an Irrelevant, Attorney-
`Created Exhibit
`
`Patent Owner does not contend that it relied on Exhibit 2062 in either its
`
`Preliminary Response or its Response, and therefore it is irrelevant to the issues in
`
`this proceeding. If this Exhibit directly addressed Dr. Reichmann’s credibility, as
`
`Patent Owner contends, Patent Owner would have directed the Board’s attention to
`
`it in its Response. Instead, Patent Owner seeks to confuse the record with
`
`attorney-created documents. (Ex. 2039, 226:9-227:13.) To the extent that Exhibit
`
`2062 is relevant, which Petitioner denies, any probative value is outweighed by
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence. Therefore, Exhibit 2062 should be excluded
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.
`
`VIII. Exhibit 2041 Should Be Excluded to the Extent that it Lacks
`Foundation or Relies on Evidence that Is Irrelevant
`
`Petitioner maintains that 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 under Federal Rule of Evidence 602. Further, because they
`
`are unsupported, any probative value of these paragraphs is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, wasting time,
`10
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`
`or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence, and these paragraphs should be
`
`excluded under Federal of Evidence 403. (See Paper 62 at 13.)
`
`
`
`Dated: July 10, 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
`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
`
`11
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01374
`Petitioner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 10th of July, 2018, I
`
`caused a copy of this PETITIONER CELLTRION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`
`ITS 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`