Paper No. 30
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`MICRO LABS LIMITED AND MICRO LABS USA INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SANTEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. AND ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD.
`Patent Owners.
`_____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01434
`U.S. Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`_____________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`MICRO LABS LIMITED AND MICRO LABS USA INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SANTEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. AND ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD.
`Patent Owners.
`_____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01434
`U.S. Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`_____________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`II. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 2
`A. Exhibit 2023 ..................................................................................................... 2
`B. Exhibit 2027 ..................................................................................................... 2
`C. Paragraphs 8–26 of Exhibit 2028 .................................................................... 6
`D. Exhibit 2034 ................................................................................................... 10
`E. Exhibits 2038 and 2039 ................................................................................. 10
`F. Exhibits 2040 and 2041 ................................................................................. 11
`G. Exhibit 2044 ................................................................................................... 12
`H. Exhibit 2047 ................................................................................................... 12
`I. Exhibits 2056 and 2057 and Related Cross-Examination Testimony ........... 13
`J. Exhibits 2058–2060 and Related Cross-Examination Testimony ................. 14
`K. Improper Cross-Examination Testimony ...................................................... 14
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioners Micro Labs Limited and Micro
`
`Labs USA Inc. (together, “Petitioners”) move to exclude Exhibits (“Exs.”) 2023,
`
`2027, 2034, 2038–2041, 2044, and 2047, in their entirety, and Paragraphs 8–26 of
`
`the Supplemental Declaration of Timothy L. Macdonald (Ex. 2028). On March 12,
`
`2018, Petitioners timely objected to these exhibits (Paper No. 23, at 1–6), and
`
`Patent Owners failed to cure their deficiencies.
`
`Petitioners further move to exclude Exs. 2056–2060 in their entirety, and
`
`portions of Drs. deLong’s and Rose’s second deposition testimony related to these
`
`exhibits to the extent that Patent Owners reply upon them in their forthcoming
`
`motion for observations or at oral argument. Patent Owners introduced Exs. 2056–
`
`2057, for the first time, during the July 12, 2018 (second) deposition of Petitioners’
`
`Reply expert Dr. deLong, and Exs. 2058–2060 during the July 16, 2018 (second)
`
`deposition of Petitioners’ Reply expert Dr. Rose. Petitioners note that Exs. 2056–
`
`2060 are not part of the record to date. These exhibits and their related cross-
`
`examination testimony were outside the scope of Dr. deLong and Dr. Rose’s
`
`supplemental declarations. Petitioners’ counsel properly made objections on the
`
`record during each deposition. To the extent Patent Owners seek to enter Exs.
`
`2056–2060 into evidence or otherwise attempt to rely on them in their
`
`1
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`Observations or at oral argument, these exhibits, any related cross-examination
`
`testimony, and any argument related to them should be excluded.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Exhibit 2023
`Ex. 2023 is U.S. Patent No. 5,977,173 to Wos et al. Patent Owners
`
`improperly relied on Ex. 2023 as prior art evidence in their Response that, as of
`
`December 26, 1996, the POSA knew that prostaglandins bind to multiple receptors
`
`to varying degrees. (Paper No. 22 at 10–11.) But on its face, Ex. 2023 states that
`
`it was issued November 2, 1999 based on an application filed September 4, 1998,
`
`which claims priority to a provisional application filed September 9, 1997.
`
`Therefore, Ex. 2023 is not evidence of the level of knowledge of the POSA in
`
`December 1996. Ex. 2023 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and
`
`403.
`
`B.
`Exhibit 2027
`Ex. 2027 purports to be a Canadian court opinion in Alcon Canada Inc. v.
`
`Apotex Inc., 2014 FC 699 (Fed. Ct. CA, 2014) that appears to make reference to
`
`some of Petitioners’ expert Dr. deLong’s opinions related to the issue of the
`
`validity of Canadian Letters Patent No. 2,129,287 (“Canadian ’287 patent”) under
`
`the Canadian Patent Law. Patent Owners relied on paragraphs 11, 47, 122, 233,
`
`314, 315, 357, 432, 434, and 465 of Ex. 2027 in their Response. (See Paper No.
`
`22, at 5, 47–50). As explained below, Petitioners move to exclude Ex. 2027, and
`
`2
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`Patent Owners’ reference to or reliance thereon in this proceeding, under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 106, 401, 402, 403, 801, 802, 805 and 901.
`
`Ex. 2027 should be excluded in its entirety under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402
`
`because it is irrelevant: it is a foreign court decision resolving an issue under
`
`foreign law involving a Canadian patent unrelated to the challenged patent—U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,886,035 (“the ’035 patent”) —in this proceeding. Neither the Petition
`
`nor Dr. deLong’s first declaration cited Ex. 2027. To the extent Ex. 2027 is
`
`offered by Patent Owners to support an alleged contradiction between Dr.
`
`deLong’s testimony in this proceeding and his opinion regarding compound C
`
`submitted in the Canadian proceeding, Ex. 2027 is wholly irrelevant. This is
`
`because the analysis and conclusions in the Canadian proceeding, including Dr.
`
`deLong’s alleged statements therein, addressed a different issue under foreign law:
`
`whether the Canadian ’287 patent (a counterpart of Klimko but with different
`
`claims) is a “selection patent,” and has novelty (“inventive concept”) advantage
`
`over or is anticipated by European Patent Application EP 0364417
`
`(“Stjernschantz,” Ex. 2017) under the Canadian Patent Act. (See, e.g., Ex. 2027, at
`
`¶¶ 32, 161, 286).
`
`At issue in this case is whether, as of December 1996, compound C would
`
`be selected by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) (defined under the
`
`U.S. patent law) as a lead compound for further modification and development.
`
`3
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`Patent Owners erroneously conflate this issue with the very different issue in the
`
`Canadian proceeding of whether compound C would have been selected as drug
`
`for direct therapeutic use in humans. In addition to conflating two unrelated
`
`issues, any probative value from the Canadian opinion is undercut by the differing
`
`legal standards applied under Canadian law, the differing technical knowledge
`
`applied in August 1993 (the priority date of the Canadian ’287 patent) and
`
`December 1996 (the priority date of the ’035 patent), and the absence of a
`
`complete record of the proceeding. Moreover, a reliance on Ex. 2027 would also
`
`ignore the intervening period and developments in the state of the art between
`
`August 3, 1993 and December 26, 1996. To allow Patent Owners to rely on
`
`Ex. 2027 would also confuse the issues in the present case and be unduly
`
`prejudicial. Moreover, there is a substantial risk that considering only the specific
`
`portions of the Canadian record that the court chose to reproduce, and sometimes
`
`to paraphrase or summarize, without detailed knowledge of Canadian Patent law,
`
`would confuse the issues and cause undue prejudice, in contravention of the
`
`purpose and requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Ex. 2027 should be excluded for another simple reason. It is an out of court
`
`statement being offered for truth and therefore constitutes inadmissible hearsay
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802. The alleged statements attributed to Dr. deLong
`
`are only reported in the Canadian opinion and not made “while testifying at the
`
`4
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`current trial or hearing.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) (emphasis added); 802. Worse,
`
`specific portions of Ex. 2027 relied on by Patent Owners are independently hearsay
`
`because they allegedly quote or paraphrase the purported statements of another, Dr.
`
`deLong. For this reason alone, and independent of the admissibility of Ex. 2027 as
`
`a whole, all purported quotes, summaries, paraphrasing, or other characterizations
`
`by a third party, allegedly attributable to Dr. deLong, should be excluded. Ex.
`
`2027 should be excluded in its entirety because no hearsay exception applies here.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 803, 804, 807. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) does not apply to judicial
`
`findings of fact, let alone a foreign judicial findings such as a Canadian opinion.
`
`This is black-letter law.1 Moreover, in many cases, Patent Owners’ reliance on Ex.
`
`2027 is double-hearsay.
`
`Further, Ex. 2027 is also not properly authenticated because an uncertified
`
`printout from an alleged Canada Federal Court website is not self-authenticating
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Herrick v. Garvey, 298 F.3d 1184, 1192–93 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Rule
`
`803(8) was not intended to allow the admission of findings of fact by courts. . . .
`
`We thus join the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the public records
`
`exception of Rule 803(8) does not apply to judicial findings of fact in a prior,
`
`unrelated case.”).
`
`5
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`under Fed. R. Evid. 902.2 Ex. 2027 also does not address or reference Dr.
`
`deLong’s complete opinions as filed in those proceedings, and thus it violates the
`
`rule of completeness and should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 106.
`
`In sum, Ex. 2027 contains purported statements of a foreign court, relying on
`
`foreign law, citing isolated portions of an evidentiary record that has not been
`
`introduced in this case, and deciding a different issue than what is before the Board
`
`in this case. It is irrelevant to the Board’s determination of any disputed issue in
`
`this case and more likely to confuse the issues and cause undue prejudice. It is also
`
`inadmissible hearsay that is not subject to any exception, including the residual
`
`hearsay exception. Petitioners would be highly prejudiced by the admission of Ex.
`
`2027 for all of these reasons. Accordingly, Ex. 2027 should be excluded. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403.
`
`C.
`Paragraphs 8–26 of Exhibit 2028
`Ex. 2028 is the supplemental declaration of Patent Owners’ expert Dr.
`
`Timothy L. Macdonald, who purports to provide opinions on secondary
`
`
`2 The supplemental evidence Exs. 2051 (the same Canadian court decision printed
`
`from WestLaw database) and 2052 (an alleged Canada Federal Court webpage
`
`showing a purported link to the Canadian opinion) served by Patent Owners in
`
`response to Petitioners’ objections do not cure this deficiency.
`
`6
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`considerations of non-obviousness, including commercial success, copying,
`
`unexpected results, long-felt and unmet need, and failure of others. Patent Owners
`
`relied on paragraphs 8–26 of Ex. 2028 extensively in their Response. (See Paper
`
`No. 22, at 46, 54–56, 65–70.)
`
`Exclusion of paragraphs 8–26 of Dr. Macdonald’s Supplemental Declaration
`
`is warranted because they pertain to topics on which Dr. Macdonald is ill-qualified
`
`as an expert to testify on under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Dr. Macdonald is not an expert
`
`in prostaglandin analogs or their use in treatment of glaucoma. Despite allegedly
`
`serving as a technical consultant on the discovery and evaluation of novel
`
`compounds, allegedly including prostaglandin analogs, for nearly 30 years, none of
`
`Dr. Macdonald’s over 200 scientific publications and more than 50 issued US
`
`patents is in the area of prostaglandin analogs, let alone the use of prostaglandin
`
`analogs in the treatment of glaucoma or ocular hypertension. (Ex. 2001, ¶ 8; Ex.
`
`A.) He purports only to be an expert in the field of “the medicinal chemistry and
`
`molecular pharmacology of lipid signaling systems.” (Paper No. 22, at 1 (emphasis
`
`added); Ex. 2001, Ex. A.)
`
`In addition, Dr. Macdonald has no industry experience or formal education
`
`in the areas of marketing or business. Nor is he a practicing ophthalmologist. (Ex.
`
`2001, ¶ 8; Ex. A.) He thus lacks the credible knowledge, skill, experience,
`
`training, and education to opine on issues of commercial success, copying,
`
`7
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`unexpected results, long-felt and unmet need, and failure of others related to the
`
`glaucoma and/or ocular hypertension market. Dr. Macdonald’s general expertise
`
`as a medicinal chemist and molecular pharmacologist neither qualifies him as an
`
`expert to provide opinions on these issues nor overcomes his deficiencies. Extreme
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 395 F. App’x 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(“General experience in a related field may not suffice when experience and skill
`
`in specific product design are necessary to resolve patent issues.”); Flex-Rest, LLC
`
`v. Steelcase, Inc., 455 F.3d 1351, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (excluding testimony
`
`of an expert because his area of expertise was in ergonomics rather than keyboard
`
`design support systems).
`
`Independent of Dr. Macdonald’s lack of qualifications, paragraphs 8–26
`
`should also be additionally excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65(a) because Dr. Macdonald failed to provide sufficient facts or data to
`
`support his opinions. Although Dr. Macdonald alleged commercial success from
`
`“Tapros sales,” he relied on forecasted sales only in the year that ended March 31,
`
`2018 to support his assertion. He did not provide any data or comparison of the
`
`total number of prescriptions written for tafluprost versus any competitor drugs for
`
`any period. Nor did he provide information regarding the cost of tafluprost vis-à-
`
`vis competitor drugs. Moreover, he also failed to include any data on other key
`
`elements that are essential to a commercial success analysis, such as the size of the
`
`8
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`relevant market and the market share of tafluprost, in forming his opinion. (Ex.
`
`2028, ¶¶ 9–14.) In addition, for Dr. Macdonald’s assertion that “Tafluprost
`
`exhibits a unique receptor profile,” he provided neither data nor evidence of
`
`complete receptor profiles of any other prostaglandin analogs for comparison. (Id.
`
`at ¶ 25) (emphasis added). Accordingly, paragraphs 8–26 of Ex. 2028 should be
`
`excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`Evidence is relevant only if it has a tendency to make more or less probable
`
`a fact that is of consequence in determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Dr.
`
`Macdonald’s testimony is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402 because testimony
`
`from an unqualified expert is unreliable and not of consequence in these
`
`proceedings. There can be no dispute that the testimony presented in paragraphs
`
`8–26 purports to express expert opinions and does not pertain to subject matter
`
`over which Dr. Macdonald has personal knowledge under Fed. R. Evid. 602. The
`
`fact that Dr. Macdonald’s opinions constitute unfiltered reliance on Dr. Fechtner’s
`
`knowledge and experience confirms that he had no personal knowledge and that he
`
`is not qualified as an expert to offer an expert opinion on the secondary
`
`considerations topics referenced here. (Ex. 2028, ¶¶ 25–26.) Therefore, Ex. 2028
`
`should be excluded because it is irrelevant and any potential probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of causing unfair prejudice and wasting
`
`time. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403.
`
`9
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
`D. Exhibit 2034
`Ex. 2034 appears on its face to be an article titled “Effect of 8-iso
`
`Prostaglandin E2 on Aqueous Humor Dynamics in Monkeys.” Patent Owners
`
`improperly relied on Ex. 2034 in in their Response as evidence that a POSA in
`
`December 1996 would prefer compounds that do not cause an initial rise in IOP.
`
`(Paper No. 22 at 39–40.) But on its face the article labeled as Ex. 2034 was not
`
`published until 1998. Therefore it is not evidence of the level of knowledge of the
`
`POSA in December 1996. Ex. 2034 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`402, and 403.
`
`E.
`Exhibits 2038 and 2039
`Exs. 2038 and 2039 appear, on their face, to be the FDA approved
`
`prescribing information for Lumigan® 0.03% and Lumigan® 0.01% respectively.
`
`Patent Owners improperly relied on Exs. 2038 and 2039 as evidence in their
`
`Response that bimatoprost (the prostaglandin analogue contained in Lumigan®) is
`
`associated with a “very high risk of hyperemia,” which Patent Owners claim prove
`
`that tafluprost fulfilled a long-felt but unmet need for an effective prostaglandin
`
`analogue that could be tolerated by patients unable to tolerate other prostaglandin
`
`analogues. (Paper No. 22 at 68–69.) But on their face Exs. 2038 and 2039 were
`
`not publicly available until at least July 2017, and Lumigan® was first approved in
`
`2010. Whether a long-felt need is unmet is determined as of “the filing date of the
`
`10
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`challenged invention.” See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566
`
`F.3d 989, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“we look to the filing date of the challenged
`
`invention to assess the presence of a long-felt and unmet need.”). Therefore Exs.
`
`2038 and 2039 are not evidence of long felt but unmet need and should be
`
`excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`F.
`Exhibits 2040 and 2041
`Exs. 2040 and 2041 appear, on their face, to be the FDA approved
`
`prescribing information for Travatan® and Travatan Z® respectively. Patent
`
`Owners improperly relied on Exs. 2040 and 2041 as evidence in their Response
`
`that travoprost (the prostaglandin analogue contained in Travatan® and Travatan
`
`Z®) is associated with a “very high risk of hyperemia,” which Patent Owners claim
`
`prove that tafluprost fulfilled a long-felt but unmet need for an effective
`
`prostaglandin analogue that could be tolerated by patients unable to tolerate other
`
`prostaglandin analogues. (Paper No. 22 at 68–69.) But on their face Exs. 2040
`
`and 2041 were not publicly available until at least 2011 and 2017 respectively.
`
`Whether a long-felt need is unmet is determined as of “the filing date of the
`
`challenged invention.” See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566
`
`F.3d 989, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“we look to the filing date of the challenged
`
`invention to assess the presence of a long-felt and unmet need.”) Therefore, Exs.
`
`11
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`2040 and 2041 are not evidence of long felt but unmet need and should be
`
`excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`G. Exhibit 2044
`Ex. 2044 appears on its face to be a printout of the medication guide for
`
`“TAPROS Mini ophthalmic solution 0.0015%” from a Japanese website. Patent
`
`Owners relied on Ex. 2044 in their Response to show that Tapros are allegedly
`
`their “branded tafluprost drugs” marketed in “Japan/Asia/Europe.” (Paper No. 22
`
`at 65.)
`
`Ex. 2044 should be excluded because Patent Owners have not offered
`
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that the document is what Patent Owners
`
`claim it to be, as required by Fed. R. Evid. 901. Further, Ex. 2044 does not satisfy
`
`the requirements for any of the categories of self-authenticating evidence set forth
`
`in Fed. R. Evid. 902. Nor does any of the supplemental evidence cure this
`
`deficiency. The entire contents of Ex. 2044 also constitute impermissible hearsay
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802.
`
`H. Exhibit 2047
`Ex. 2047 appears on its face to be an article titled “Organic Fluorine Hardly
`
`Ever Accepts Hydrogen Bonds.” Patent Owners improperly relied Ex. 2047 in
`
`their Response as evidence that, as of December 26, 1996, the POSA understood
`
`that fluorine is incapable of being a hydrogen bond donor, and is a poor hydrogen
`
`12
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`bond acceptor. (Paper No. 22 at 55.) But on its face Ex. 2047 was made publicly
`
`available no earlier than January 1997. Therefore, Ex. 2047 is not evidence of the
`
`level of knowledge of the POSA in December 1996. Ex. 2047 should be excluded
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibits 2056 and 2057 and Related Cross-Examination
`Testimony
`Exs. 2056 and 2057 appear on their face to be “Human Metabolome
`
`Database Entries” for tafluprost. Patent Owners improperly introduced these
`
`documents at the second deposition of Dr. deLong, and Petitioners properly
`
`objected during the deposition that these documents, which had not been cited by
`
`either party, considered by any expert, or otherwise introduced in this proceeding,
`
`were outside the scope of proper cross-examination. (deLong Dep. Tr. Dated July
`
`12, 2018, at 108:14–110:22.) Petitioners further objected that these documents
`
`were published after December 1996, the relevant timeframe for the POSA in this
`
`case. (Id. at 111:8–12.) Petitioners further objected that these documents are
`
`incomplete, to which Patent Owners’ counsel agreed. (Id. at 112:23–113:11.) To
`
`the extent Patent Owners attempt to enter these exhibits and/or any related
`
`testimony (e.g., 108:14-117:14 of deLong Dep. Tr. Dated July 12, 2018) as
`
`evidence or otherwise rely on them, Petitioners respectfully request that such
`
`exhibits and/or testimony be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 106, 401, 402, 403, and
`
`611(b).
`
`13
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`J.
`Exhibits 2058–2060 and Related Cross-Examination Testimony
`Ex. 2058 appears on its face to be an article titled “Additive effect of
`
`latanoprost, a prostaglandin F2α analogue, and timolol in patients with elevated
`
`intraocular pressure.” Ex. 2059 appears on its face to be an article titled “PhXA34
`
`– a prostaglandin F2α analogue. Effect on intraocular pressure in patients with
`
`ocular hypertension.” Ex. 2060 appears on its face to be the prescribing
`
`information for Xalatan®, and bears the date November 26, 2001. (Ex. 2060, last
`
`page.)
`
`Patent Owners improperly introduced these documents at the second
`
`deposition of Dr. Rose, and Petitioners properly objected during the deposition that
`
`these documents, which had not been cited by either party, considered by any
`
`expert, or otherwise introduced in this proceeding, were outside the scope of
`
`proper cross-examination. (Rose Dep. Tr. Dated July 16, 2018, at 16:25–21:12;
`
`32:23–33:12; 112:9–115:23.) To the extent Patent Owners attempt to enter these
`
`exhibits and/or any related testimony as evidence or otherwise rely on them,
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that such evidence and/or testimony be excluded
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 611(b).
`
`K.
`Improper Cross-Examination Testimony
`To the extent Patent Owners otherwise improperly attempt to rely on
`
`objectionable cross-examination testimony of Dr. deLong or Dr. Rose in their
`
`14
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`forthcoming motion for observations or at oral argument, Petitioners hereby move
`
`to exclude all such testimony.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the forgoing reasons, Petitioners request that the Board 1) exclude Exs.
`
`2023, 2027, 2034, 2038–2041, 2044, and 2047, in their entirety, and paragraphs 8–
`
`26 of Ex. 2028 from evidence and expunged from the record, and strike all
`
`references thereof from Patent Owners’ Response; and 2) exclude Exs. 2056–2060
`
`in their entirety, and portions of Drs. deLong’s and Rose’s second deposition
`
`testimony related to these exhibits to the extent that Patent Owners reply upon
`
`them in their forthcoming motion for observations or at oral argument.
`
`Dated: July 26, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Cedric C.Y. Tan/
` Cedric C.Y. Tan (Reg. No. 56,082)
`H. Keeto Sabharwal
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`Yun Wei (Reg. No. 70,744)
`Alton L. Hare (Reg. No. 68,638)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP
`SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel.: (202) 663-8000
`Fax.: (202) 663-8007
`Email: cedric.tan@pillsburylaw.com
`Email:keeto.sabharwal@pillsburylaw.com
`Email: sophie.wei@pillsburylaw.com
`Email: alton.hare@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
` Sean M. Weinman (Reg. No. 69,515)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP
`SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard, 14th Floor
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel.: (703) 770-7511
`Fax.: (703) 770-4856
`Email: sean.weinman@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Micro Labs
`Limited and Micro Labs USA Inc.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01434
`Patent 5,886,035
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that a copy of the
`
`foregoing Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`was served on July 26, 2018, by filing this document through the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board End to End System as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail
`
`upon the following attorneys of record for the Patent Owners:
`
`Arlene L. Chow (Reg. No. 47,489)
`arlene.chow@hoganlovells.com
`Eric J. Lobenfeld (pro hac vice)
`eric.lobenfeld@hoganlovells.com
`Ernest Yakob, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 45,893)
`ernest.yakob@hoganlovells.com
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`875 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 918-3000
`Fax: (212) 918-3100
`
`
`
` /Cedric C.Y. Tan/
` Cedric C.Y. Tan (Reg. No. 56,082)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP
`SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel.: (202) 663-8000
`Fax.: (202) 663-8007
`Email: cedric.tan@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
