IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APOTEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`Title: USE FOR DEFERIPRONE
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN
`PETITIONER’S REPLY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APOTEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`Title: USE FOR DEFERIPRONE
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN
`PETITIONER’S REPLY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 and the Federal Rules of Evidence, as applied
`
`by the Board, Patent Owner Apotex Technologies, Inc. (“Apotex”) provides the
`
`following objections to Exhibits submitted by Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`
`(“Taro” or “Petitioner”) in association with its filing of its Reply (Paper 41). These
`
`objections are timely served within five (5) business days of Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`Apotex serves Taro with these objections to provide notice that Apotex may
`
`move to exclude the challenged evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) unless Taro
`
`cures the defects associated with the challenged evidence identified below. In
`
`addition, Apotex reserves the right to present further objections to this or additional
`
`evidence submitted by Taro, as allowed by the applicable rules or other authority.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibits 1037, 1038, 1040-1043, 1045, and 1047-1049
`
`Apotex objects to Exhibits 1037, 1038, 1040-1043, 1045, and 1047-1049 as
`
`hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802.
`
`Apotex object to Exhibits 1037, 1038, 1040-1043, 1045, and 1047-1049 for
`
`lack of authentication. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.
`
`Further, Apotex objects to the relevance and probative value of Exhibits
`
`1037, 1038, 1040-1043, 1045, and 1047-1049 as these exhibits do not contain
`
`evidence that is contradictory to any position advanced by Apotex in this
`
`proceeding. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. Exhibit 1060
`
`Apotex objects to portions of Exhibit 1060, Expert Declaration of Dr. Jayesh
`
`Mehta In Support of Petitioner’s Reply. Specifically, Apotex objects to ¶¶ 5, 14-
`
`16, 18, 20, 21-23, 36, 38-41, and 45-46 as not based on sufficient facts or data, the
`
`product of reliable principles and methods, and/or reliable application of the
`
`principles of methods and facts. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, 705, 403; 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 48,763; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
`
`Apotex objects to ¶¶ 44-45 of Exhibit 1060 as irrelevant as these paragraphs
`
`are not directly cited in the Reply. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Apotex further
`
`objects to Fn 1 and portions of ¶ 14 as irrelevant because they contain cites to
`
`Exhibit 1066, which is not cited in the Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 41). See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, 402. Apotex further objects to Fn 3 and portions of ¶ 25 as irrelevant
`
`because they contain cites to Exhibit 1065, which is not cited in Petitioner’s Reply
`
`and which is inadmissible for the reasons discussed below. See Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`402. Apotex further objects to Fn 8 and portions of ¶ 28 as irrelevant because they
`
`contain cites to Exhibits 1063-1064, which are not cited in Petitioner’s Reply. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402.
`
`Apotex objects to ¶¶ 19-50 as testimony provided on a topic which the
`
`declarant is not qualified to opine. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`III. Exhibit 1065
`
`
`
`Apotex objects to Exhibit 1065 for lack of authentication. See Fed. R. Evid.
`
`901. Apotex further objects to Exhibit 1065 because it is not a printed publication.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Apotex also objects to Exhibit 1065 as irrelevant. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402.
`
`IV. Exhibits 1052-1054 and 1056
`
`
`
`Apotex objects to the relevance and probative value of Exhibits 1052-1054
`
`and 1056, which are not cited in Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 41) or the Expert
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jayesh Mehta In Support of Petitioner’s Reply (Ex. 1060). See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`V. Exhibits 1063-1066
`
`
`
`Apotex objects to the relevance and probative value of Exhibits 1063-1066,
`
`which are cited in the Expert Declaration of Dr. Jayesh Mehta In Support of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Ex. 1060), but not cited in Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 41). See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: W. Blake Coblentz
`
`W. Blake Coblentz
`
`Reg. No. 57,104
`
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 912-4837
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 20, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence in Petitioner’s Reply to be served via
`
`electronic mail on the following attorneys of record:
`
`Huiya Wu
`Sarah Fink
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`HWu@goodwin.law.com
`SFink@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 20, 2018
`
`
`
`/s/ W. Blake Coblentz
`W. Blake Coblentz
`Reg. No. 57,104
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 912-4837
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
