UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PFIZER, INC., and
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-014891
`Patent 6,407,213
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER PFIZER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-02140 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PFIZER, INC., and
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-014891
`Patent 6,407,213
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER PFIZER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-02140 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner objects to the admissibility of
`
`evidence as follows:
`
`Exhibit(s)
`2041
`
`Objections2
`FRE 602: The declarant lacks sufficient personal
`
`knowledge to testify on the asserted subject matter. See,
`
`e.g., ¶¶ 45, 47, 57, 60, 64–87, 89–95, 98–100, 102, 111, 112,
`
`116, 122, 126, 127, 133, 135–38, 141, 144, 147, 149, 152,
`
`157, 160, 162, 163, 165–68, 171–85, 187–92, 194–97, 199–
`
`208, 210–14, 216–224, 226–38, 240–48, 250, 251, 253, 254,
`
`256–59, 261–68.
`
`FRE 702: The declarant is not qualified as an expert on the
`
`subject matter of his declaration, and thus cannot testify in
`
`the form of an opinion or otherwise in a manner that would
`
`assist the Board. The testimony is based on insufficient facts
`
`or data, the product of unreliable principles or methods,
`
`and/or an unreliable application of the principles or methods
`
`to the facts of this case.
`
`
`2 References to “FRE” are to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 703: Patent Owner has not established that an expert in
`
`the particular field would reasonably rely on the kinds of
`
`facts or data relied upon in forming an opinion on the
`
`subject. The probative value of the testimony is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
`
`FRE 705/37 C.F.R. § 42.65: The testimony lacks a
`
`disclosed basis of sufficient facts or data.
`
`FRE 801/802: The testimony relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter asserted therein, and does not
`
`fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: The testimony relies on improper exhibits for
`
`which Patent Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`
`support a finding that the exhibits are what Patent Owner
`
`claims they are. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that these exhibits are self-authenticating under
`
`FRE 902. See, e.g., ¶¶ 87, 122, 187.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: The testimony relies on evidence that
`
`Patent Owner has not shown is the original document or an
`
`authentic duplicate. See, e.g., ¶¶ 87, 122, 187.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`Lack of Foundation: The declarant does not provide
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2042
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2043
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2044
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2045
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2051
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2052
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2053
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2054
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2055
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2056
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`2057
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`2058
`
`FRE 401/402: This document is irrelevant. Patent Owner
`
`has failed to identify any fact of consequence in determining
`
`an issue in this proceeding that is made more or less
`
`probable by this exhibit.
`
`FRE 403: Any probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues.
`
`FRE 801/802: The exhibit relies on hearsay if offered to
`
`prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein, and
`
`does not fall under any exceptions.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Exhibit(s)
`
`Objections2
`FRE 901/902: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what Patent
`
`Owner claims it is. Nor has Patent Owner presented any
`
`evidence that the exhibit is self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902.
`
`FRE 1002/1003: Patent Owner has not shown this exhibit is
`
`the original document or an authentic duplicate.
`
`Lack of Foundation: Patent Owner has not provided
`
`sufficient explanation of what the evidence allegedly shows.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`Date: March 15, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Amanda Hollis/
`Amanda Hollis (Reg. No. 55,629)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`P: 312.862.2000; F: 312.862.2200
`amanda.hollis@kirkland.com
`
`Attorney For Petitioner
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner Pfizer’s Objections to Admissibility of Evidence for IPR2017-01489
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Objections was
`
`served on March 15, 2018, via electronic service on lead and back up counsel:
`
`ddrivas@whitecase.com
`sweingaertner@whitecase.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`owen.allen@wilmerhale.com
`Robert.Gunther@wilmerhale.com
`ddurie@durietangri.com
`Lisa.Pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com
`Andrew.Danford@wilmerhale.com
`rebecca.whitfield@wilmerhale.com
`Kevin.Prussia@wilmerhale.com
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`
` /Amanda Hollis/
`Amanda Hollis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
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
