`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.,
`Petitioners,
`
`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
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner Apotex Technologies, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`(“Apotex”) presents the following objections to evidence served with the Petition
`
`of Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Taro” or “Petitioner”).
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Apotex objects to Exhibit 1002, Declaration of Jayesh Mehta, M.D.
`
`Specifically, Apotex objects to ¶¶ 26-28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 55, 56, 60, 64, 66,
`
`67, 72, 74-76, 80, and 82-85 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 ¶¶ 31, 34, 37- 40, 63-65, 68-71, and 80-81 as irrelevant.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 402. These paragraphs are not directly cited in the Petition and
`
`the relevance of the paragraphs is not apparent. Apotex further objects to ¶ 30 as
`
`irrelevant because it contains a cite to Exhibit 1028, which is not cited in the
`
`Petition. See Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`Apotex objects to ¶¶ 63-85 as testimony provided on a topic which the
`
`declarant is not qualified to opine. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 and 703.
`
`Apotex further objects to Ex. 1002, which does not disclose Dr. Mehta’s
`
`compensation. See Ex. 1002 at ¶ 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(vi).
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1022, 1024, 1026, and 1030
`
`
`
`Apotex objects to the relevance of Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1022, 1024, 1026,
`
`and 1030 in the obviousness analysis of the Petition and Dr. Mehta’s obviousness
`
`analysis. See Petition at pp. 43-51; see also Ex. 1002 at ¶ 83. Specifically,
`
`because the Petition failed to identify any combination of references in the
`
`obviousness analysis, the relevance of Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1022, 1024, 1026 and
`
`1030 to the alleged obviousness of the challenged claims of the ’328 patent is not
`
`apparent. See Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`III. Exhibits 1028, 1029, 1031, 1033-1035
`
`
`
`Apotex objects to the relevance and probative value of Exhibits 1028, 1029,
`
`1031, and 1033-1035, which are not cited in the Petition. See Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`402, and 403.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 12, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence 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: December 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
