`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PFIZER, INC., and
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD.,1
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01489
`Patent 6,407,213
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF THEIR MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE2
`
`
`1 Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd.’s IPR2017-02140 has been joined with this
`
`proceeding. (IPR2017-02140, Paper 40.)
`
`2 All emphases within are added.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER ........................ 1
`I.
`PO’S UNRELIABLE NOTEBOOKS / INTERNAL DOCUMENTS ............ 1
`II.
`PO’S UNRELIABLE “SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS” ..................... 4
`III.
`IV. DR. WILSON’S UNRELIABLE VALIDITY OPINIONS ............................ 5
`V.
`IMPROPER ERRATA .................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apator ApS v. Kamstrup,
`887 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 1
`Chen v. Bouchard,
`347 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 3
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 3
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Norred,
`IPR2014-00110, Paper 46 (Apr. 23, 2015) ........................................................... 1
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00293, Paper 33 (Oct. 14, 2014) ........................................................... 1
`Neste Oil OYJ v. Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC,
`IPR2013-00578, Paper 52 (March 12, 2015) ....................................................... 1
`NHK Seating of America, Inc. v. Lear Corp.,
`IPR2014-01200, Paper 29 (Feb. 2, 2016) ............................................................. 3
`SMF Holding Co. v. BASF,
`IPR2015-00600, Paper 41 (Apr. 7, 2016) ............................................................. 5
`Rules
`FRE 401 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`FRE 402 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`FRE 403 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`FRE 602 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`FRE 801 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`FRE 802 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`FRE 803 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`FRE 901 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`FRE 902 ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`I.
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY PROPER
`Petitioners’ motion clearly “present[s] an evidentiary basis to exclude” the
`
`challenged exhibits, including FRE 901-02, 801-03, 602, 401-03, and supporting
`
`caselaw excluding corroboration evidence. Mot. at 7-13. Petitioners timely objected
`
`on these bases and “[i]dentif[ied] where in the record th[ose] objection[s]…w[ere]
`
`made.” Id. at 4 (citing Papers 32 at 2-26; 44 at 2-4; 52 at 1). PO asserts
`
`“corroboration” is not a basis for exclusion, but insufficient authentication, hearsay,
`
`and lack of personal knowledge are, and “independent evidence of authenticity is
`
`required” for antedation. Id. at 10, citing Neste Oil, IPR2013-00578, Paper 52, 4-5.
`
`II.
`
`PO’S UNRELIABLE NOTEBOOKS / INTERNAL DOCUMENTS
`PO’s opposition confirms its notebooks/internal documents are inadmissible.
`
`For notebooks, PO relies on “the individuals who created the documents.” Opp. at
`
`2-3. But PO provides no testimony from non-inventors Rowland, Hotaling and
`
`Carver, whose notebooks (along with Brady’s, Exs. 2005–09) cannot corroborate as
`
`they do not show the tested antibodies met the claims. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Norred,
`
`IPR2014-00110, Paper 46 at 9 (Apr. 23, 2015). And having the inventors
`
`authenticate their own unwitnessed notebooks (Exs. 2001-04) is the very “circular”
`
`situation that is impermissible for corroboration. Neste Oil, IPR2013-00578, Paper
`
`52 at 4 (Mar. 12, 2015); Microsoft, IPR2013-00293, Paper 33 at 52 (Oct. 14, 2014);
`
`cf. Apator ApS v. Kamstrup, 887 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(“unwitnessed
`
`laboratory notebook, alone, cannot corroborate an inventor’s testimony of
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`conception.”). PO’s assertion that the notebooks are “readily identifiable” and “dated
`
`before the critical date” beg the questions raised by its failure to authenticate.
`
`Nor has PO “separately show[n] through the testimony of its records custodian
`
`[Ms. Loeffler] that the lab notebooks were kept in the ordinary course of business.”
`
`Opp. at 6. Indeed, she had no personal knowledge as to how the notebooks were
`
`“created and maintained.” Ex. 1700 at 18:2-20:6, 21:1-22:7, 23:18-27:24, 28:2-
`
`38:11, 41:18-42:4, 46:14-50:3. And unlike the custodians in the cases PO cites, she
`
`also could not identify any “record-keeping system;” rather, she testified that each
`
`assignee was responsible for his or her own notebook. Id. And she conceded PO’s
`
`notebook policies were not followed for the produced notebooks. Id. at 16:15–27:24;
`
`28:2–38:11; 46:14–50:3.3 Thus, Ms. Loeffler’s testimony does not meet even the
`
`minimum standards for a records custodian that PO itself admits “[t]he rules
`
`require.” Opp. at 4. And without proper authentication, the notebooks cannot show
`
`“ideas supporting conception” at any given time. Contra Opp. at 6.
`
`With respect to PO’s other internal documents (Exs. 2010-15), it does not
`
`
`3 The inventors already had the opportunity to testify, admitting they did not follow
`
`PO’s notebook policies. Ex. 1699 66:3-67:5; 179:14-180:15; 1198 at 172:5-15,
`
`172:16-22. PO’s untimely, prejudicial request to undo these admissions through
`
`oral testimony from Dr. Carter at the hearing (Opp. at 10) should be denied.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`dispute that Ms. Loeffler did not address them, and relies only on the inventors for
`
`authentication. Opp. at 10-11. But PO itself concedes that the Federal Circuit has
`
`affirmed exclusion in almost identical circumstances, “where there was no evidence
`
`of a company’s policies regarding maintenance” of the challenged documents “and
`
`the inventor attempted to authenticate the [documents] of a third party to corroborate
`
`his invention story.” Id. at 5 (citing Chen v. Bouchard, 347 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003)). Again, PO’s conclusory assertion that the exhibits have non-hearsay
`
`legal significance is unavailing in the absence of adequate authentication.
`
`Finally, PO does not dispute that, if the Board excludes any of Exs. 2001-15,
`
`it also should exclude the portions of its declarations relying on them. Mot. at 12.
`
`PO argues only that the inventors’ did not need to perform a “claim-by-claim
`
`analysis.” Opp. at 11-12. But PO concedes that “a document purporting to show
`
`prior invention must, in fact, disclose the elements of the prior invention.” Id. (citing
`
`NHK, IPR2014-01200, Paper 29 at 15-16. Whether or not that requires a “claim-by-
`
`claim analysis,” here the inventors and PO’s expert admittedly performed no
`
`substantiating analysis. Exs. 1698, 37:19-39:15; 1699, 84:3-85:2; 1697, 256:12-
`
`257:3. And although PO asserts such analysis is “in Patent Owner’s Response,”
`
`“[u]nsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence
`
`is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.” Invitrogen Corp. v.
`
`Clontech Labs., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005); POR at 22-23, 34-43.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`III. PO’S UNRELIABLE “SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS”
`PO’s “evidence” does not “make it ‘more or less probable’…that [any]
`
`unexpected results and commercial success…were attributable to the” claimed
`
`invention. Opp. at 13. The ’213 does not claim “humanization techniques” or a
`
`“consensus approach,” and the fact PO argues the alleged success and results are
`
`attributable to these unclaimed processes is a concession that no nexus to the claimed
`
`antibodies with their specifically claimed characteristics has been established. PO’s
`
`substitution of an invitation to the Board to “evaluate” for itself “whether” PO’s
`
`products “embody the challenged claims” in place of actual evidence is not well
`
`taken. Id. PO bears the burden on nexus, and uses a higher standard when evaluating
`
`prior art. And evidence that drugs include certain substitutions does not show they
`
`embody the claims, which include Markush groups limiting substitutions and/or
`
`require specific substitution combination. PO has not shown any commercial success
`
`or “unexpected results” of any drug are attributable to its sequence substitutions.
`
`PO’s argument that antibodies “unexpectedly lacked immunogenicity and
`
`demonstrated superior binding affinity” (id.) also fails the nexus requirement. PO’s
`
`expert did not attempt to compare the immunogenicity and/or affinity resulting from
`
`the “consensus” and “best-fit” approaches. Ex. 1697 at 184:16-185:4. The only
`
`comparison evidence in the record states there was “no clear advantage” to using
`
`either approach. Id. at 191:18-192:6; 1694 at 9; 1699 at 136:9-14; 1696 at 5-6.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`IV. DR. WILSON’S UNRELIABLE VALIDITY OPINIONS
`PO concedes that the challenged claims “encompass antibodies with any one
`
`of the recited framework substitutions,” and does not dispute Dr. Wilson testified he
`
`instead required every recited substitution to be disclosed or obvious. Opp. at 14; Ex.
`
`1697, 84:11-15, 91:3-13, 92:3-14, 93:4-12. Nor does PO dispute this analysis is
`
`legally flawed. Mot. at 14. That Dr. Wilson’s declaration lays out the same invalidity
`
`standards offered by Petitioners (Opp. at 14) is irrelevant as his testimony confirms
`
`he applied them incorrectly. And whether or not the limitation is “determinative” of
`
`obviousness (id.), at the very least his opinions on that limitation should be excluded.
`
`V.
`
`IMPROPER ERRATA
`PO’s opposition confirms its errata are improper. That Dr. Carter “did not
`
`know exactly how Kabat was compiled” (Opp. at 15) further explains why he should
`
`not be permitted to change his testimony to suggest that Kabat included all known
`
`sequences. And the fact that Dr. Wilson provided contradictory testimony (id.) also
`
`does not justify withdrawal of his admission that he was aware that Riechmann’s
`
`CAMPATH antibody was made using a “consensus” sequence. At the very least, the
`
`Board should “ultimately give little or no weight” to the changed testimony. SMF
`
`Holding Co. v. BASF, IPR2015-00600, Paper 41 at 3 (Apr. 7, 2016).
`
`Date: July 10, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Amanda Hollis/
`Attorney For Petitioner Pfizer, Inc.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01489: Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Reply in Support
`
`of Motion to Exclude Evidence was served on July 10, 2018, via electronic service
`
`on lead and back-up counsel:
`
`For Genentech:
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`lauren.blakely@wilmerhale.com
`robert.gunther@wilmerhale.com
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`ddurie@durietangri.com
`andrew.danford@wilmerhale.com
`kevin.prussia@wilmerhale.com
`lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com
`
`For Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.:
`ddrivas@whitecase.com
`sweingaertner@whitecase.com
`eric.majchrzak@whitecase.com
`athakore@whitecase.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Amanda Hollis/
`Amanda Hollis
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`