`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APOTEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01446
`Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), Petitioner Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (“Taro”) objects to the
`
`admissibility of evidence filed by Patent Owner Apotex Technologies, Inc. on
`
`September 11, 2017, with its Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
`
`1.
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Taro objects to this exhibit because it is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802
`
`and Patent Owner has not shown that it is within any hearsay exception.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Taro objects to this exhibit under FRE 401 and 402 because it is not relevant
`
`under FRE 401 and therefore not admissible under FRE 402. Taro further objects
`
`to this exhibit under FRE 403 because Patent Owner has not shown that any
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, or wasting time. Taro objects to this exhibit as not
`
`authenticated under FRE 901. Taro further objects to this exhibit because it is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 and Patent Owner has not shown that it is
`
`within any hearsay exception.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`Taro objects to this exhibit under FRE 401 and 402 because it is not relevant
`
`under FRE 401 and therefore not admissible under FRE 402. Taro further objects
`
`to this exhibit under FRE 403 because Patent Owner has not shown that any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
`
`confusing the issues, or wasting time.
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Taro objects to this exhibit as not authenticated under FRE 901. Taro
`
`further objects to this exhibit because it is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 and
`
`Patent Owner has not shown that it is within any hearsay exception.
`
`5.
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Taro objects to this exhibit because it is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802
`
`and Patent Owner has not shown that it is within any hearsay exception.
`
`6.
`
`Exhibit 2016
`
`Taro objects to this exhibit because it is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802
`
`and Patent Owner has not shown that it is within any hearsay exception.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 12, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Huiya Wu /
`Huiya Wu (Reg. No. 44,411)
`Robert V. Cerwinski (to seek pro hac vice
`admission)
`Sarah Fink (Reg. No. 64,886)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 813-8800
`Fax: (212) 355-3333
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), I certify that on this 12th day of December,
`
`2017, I served a copy of this PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER’S
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE by electronic mail on the following:
`
`wcoblentz@cozen.com
`alukas@cozen.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Sarah Fink/
`Sarah Fink
`
`
`
`
`
`