throbber
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
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket