`
`Filed On Behalf Of:
`Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
`
`By:
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`NKallas@fchs.com
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`(212) 218-2100
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ____
`Date Filed: January 25, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01592
`
`Patent No. 8,410,131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`BY BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In its January 3, 2018 decision instituting inter partes review in this
`
`proceeding (Paper 12, “Institution Decision”), the Board authorized Petitioner
`
`Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Breckenridge”) “to file one or more
`
`declarations explaining the relevance of the documents appended to the Luan
`
`abstract….” Institution Decision at 22-23 (discussing Exhibit 1005, Luan). On
`
`January 18, 2018, Breckenridge filed Exhibits 1112 – 1118. In its January 23,
`
`2018 Order Regarding the Conduct of the Proceeding Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`(Paper 16, “Order”), the Board authorized Breckenridge to file a Declaration of Fu
`
`L. Luan, M.D. on the basis of Breckenridge’s representation to the Board that “the
`
`proposed ‘declaration specifically addresses the publication date issue of the Luan
`
`Abstract.’” Order at 2. On January 23, 2018, Breckenridge filed Exhibit 1119.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Novartis Pharmaceuticals
`
`Corporation (“Novartis”) objects to the admissibility of the following exhibits filed
`
`on January 18, 2018 and January 23, 2018 by Breckenridge on the grounds set
`
`forth below.
`
`In this paper, a reference to “F.R.E.” means the Federal Rules of Evidence, a
`
`reference to “C.F.R.” means the Code of Federal Regulations, and “the ’131
`
`Patent” means U.S. Patent No. 8,410,131. All objections under F.R.E. 802
`
`(hearsay) apply to the extent Breckenridge relies on the exhibits identified in
`
`connection with that objection for the truth of the matters asserted therein.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Novartis’s objections to Breckenridge’s exhibits are without prejudice to
`
`Novartis’s reliance on or discussion of those exhibits in Novartis’s papers in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Novartis’s objections are as follows:
`
`Exhibit 1112
`
`
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1112 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), as Dr. Evans’s testimony is not rationally based on his
`
`perceptions and not helpful to clearly understanding his testimony or determining a
`
`fact in issue in this proceeding.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1112 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E.
`
`403 (confusing, waste of time), 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2), 42.24(a), 42.104(b), and 42.105; Exhibit 1112 was not cited in
`
`Breckenridge’s Petition. Any attempt by Breckenridge to rely on this document to
`
`establish unpatentability is improper and untimely and will constitute an improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) or attempt to circumvent
`
`the word count limits for petitions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1112 as improper and untimely to the
`
`extent this document is cited in support of Breckenridge’s prima facie case as this
`
`document should have been included in the evidence served with Breckenridge’s
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b), and 42.105.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1112 ¶¶ 2-7 and 9-12 under F.R.E. 701
`
`(improper testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time); these paragraphs include statements based on
`
`documents that are inadmissible under at least 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time, needlessly presenting cumulative evidence), F.R.E. 701
`
`(improper testimony by lay witness), and F.R.E. 901 (authentication), documents
`
`that are stamped with dates after the February 19, 2001 priority date of the ’131
`
`Patent, the October 17, 2001 priority date of the ’131 Patent, or the February 18,
`
`2002 application date of the ’131 Patent, documents that were not published until
`
`after the February 19, 2001 priority date of the ’131 Patent, the October 17, 2001
`
`priority date of the ’131 Patent, or the February 18, 2002 application date of the
`
`’131 Patent, and/or documents for which Breckenridge has not provided evidence
`
`to prove were published before the February 19, 2001 priority date of the ’131
`
`Patent, the October 17, 2001 priority date of the ’131 Patent, or the February 18,
`
`2002 application date of the ’131 Patent, as not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`
`proceeding and not the type of document upon which a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1112 ¶ 5 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time), as the declarant has provided no information to support his
`
`testimony that Exhibit 1114 was located “[f]rom online research” or is “available
`
`online.” Exhibit 1112 ¶ 5.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1112 ¶¶ 3-7, 9, and 10 under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123 and as beyond the scope of the Board’s order in its Institution Decision,
`
`as these paragraphs do not “explain[] the relevance of the documents appended to
`
`the Luan abstract” and/or rely on documents that are not “declarations explaining
`
`the relevance of the documents appended to the Luan abstract.”
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1112 ¶¶ 2-12 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time), as they are not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding because
`
`they relate to the field of immunosuppression and/or transplantation and/or are in a
`
`separate field of endeavor and/or are not pertinent to the entire problem solved by
`
`the ’131 Patent.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1112 ¶¶ 4, 5, and 10 under F.R.E. 701
`
`(improper testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403
`
`(confusing, waste of time). The declarant is not stated to have expertise with
`
`respect to renal cell carcinoma, transplantation, library science, or related fields
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`and has provided no evidence of his alleged “experience attending conferences.”
`
`Exhibit 1112 ¶ 5.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1112 ¶¶ 3-7 and 9-12 under F.R.E. 602 (lack
`
`of personal knowledge), F.R.E. 701 (improper testimony by lay witness), F.R.E.
`
`402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), as the declarant is
`
`testifying regarding factual matters for which he does not have personal
`
`knowledge.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1112 ¶¶ 2-4 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time), as the declarant is testifying regarding issues of law, which is not
`
`helpful to clearly understanding the declarant’s testimony or to determining a fact
`
`in issue. Further, any attempt by Breckenridge to rely on the declarant’s testimony
`
`regarding any issue of law to establish unpatentability will constitute an attempt to
`
`circumvent the word count limits for petitions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`Exhibits 1113 – 1117
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibits 1113 - 1117 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E.
`
`402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1113 – 1117 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123
`
`and as beyond the scope of the Board’s order in its Institution Decision, as these
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`documents are not “declarations explaining the relevance of the documents
`
`appended to the Luan abstract.”
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1113 – 1117 under F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), as they are not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`
`proceeding, and are not the type of documents upon which a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of invention would rely because they relate to the field of
`
`immunosuppression and/or transplantation and/or are in a separate field of
`
`endeavor and/or are not pertinent to the entire problem solved by the ’131 Patent.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1114 under F.R.E. 901 (authentication).
`
`Breckenridge has not provided sufficient evidence that this exhibit is authentic or
`
`that this exhibit is self-authenticating under F.R.E. 902.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1113 – 1117 under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(5) (failure to identify specific portions of evidence).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1116 and 1117 under 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), F.R.E. 402 (relevance),
`
`F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and F.R.E. 701 (improper testimony by lay
`
`witness), as these documents were not published until after the February 19, 2001
`
`priority date of the ’131 Patent, the October 17, 2001 priority date of the ’131
`
`Patent, or the February 18, 2002 application date of the ’131 Patent, and are not the
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`types of documents upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention would rely.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1113 and 1115 under 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), F.R.E. 402 (relevance),
`
`F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and F.R.E. 701 (improper testimony by lay
`
`witness), as these documents are stamped with dates after the February 19, 2001
`
`priority date of the ’131 Patent or the October 17, 2001 priority date of the ’131
`
`Patent, were not published until after the February 19, 2001 priority date of the
`
`’131 Patent or the October 17, 2001 priority date of the ’131 Patent, and are not the
`
`types of documents upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention would rely.
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1114 under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5), and 42.105, 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), F.R.E. 402 (relevance),
`
`F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and F.R.E. 701 (improper testimony by lay
`
`witness), as Breckenridge has not provided evidence to prove that this document
`
`was published before the February 19, 2001 priority date of the ’131 Patent, the
`
`October 17, 2001 priority date of the ’131 Patent, or the February 18, 2002
`
`application date of the ’131 Patent, and this exhibit is not the type of document
`
`upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would rely.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1113 – 1117 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.24(a), 42.104(b), and 42.105 as these
`
`documents are not cited in the Petition, and therefore any attempt by Breckenridge
`
`to rely on these Exhibits to establish unpatentability (either directly by citing these
`
`Exhibits, or indirectly by citing paragraphs of Breckenridge’s declarations that
`
`discuss these Exhibits) is improper and untimely and will constitute an improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibits 1113 – 1117 as improper and untimely
`
`to the extent they are cited in support of Breckenridge’s prima facie case as they
`
`should have been included in the evidence served with Breckenridge’s Petition as
`
`required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b), and
`
`42.105.
`
`Exhibit 1118
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1118 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), as Mr. Stokke’s testimony is not rationally based on his
`
`perceptions and not helpful to clearly understanding his testimony or determining a
`
`fact in issue in this proceeding.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E.
`
`403 (confusing, waste of time), 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`42.22(a)(2), 42.24(a), 42.104(b), and 42.105; Exhibit 1118 was not cited in
`
`Breckenridge’s Petition. Any attempt by Breckenridge to rely on this document to
`
`establish unpatentability is improper and untimely and will constitute an improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) or attempt to circumvent
`
`the word count limits for petitions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1118 as improper and untimely to the
`
`extent this document is cited in support of Breckenridge’s prima facie case as this
`
`document should have been included in the evidence served with Breckenridge’s
`
`Petition as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b), and 42.105.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 3-9 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time); these paragraphs include statements based on documents that are
`
`inadmissible under at least 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time,
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence), F.R.E. 701 (improper testimony by lay
`
`witness), and F.R.E. 901 (authentication), and/or documents for which
`
`Breckenridge has not provided evidence to prove were published before the
`
`February 19, 2001 priority date of the ’131 Patent, the October 17, 2001 priority
`
`date of the ’131 Patent, or the February 18, 2002 application date of the ’131
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent, as not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding and not the type of
`
`document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
`
`would rely.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 3-9 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time), as they are not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding because
`
`they relate to the field of immunosuppression and/or transplantation and/or are in a
`
`separate field of endeavor and/or are not pertinent to the entire problem solved by
`
`the ’131 Patent.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶¶ 5-7 under F.R.E. 602 (lack of
`
`personal knowledge), F.R.E. 701 (improper testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), as the declarant is
`
`testifying regarding factual matters for which he does not have personal
`
`knowledge.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1118 ¶ 6 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of
`
`time), and F.R.E. 106 (completeness), as the declarant is testifying regarding one
`
`or more document(s) that are not in evidence in this proceeding that in fairness
`
`ought to be considered in connection with Exhibits 1005 and/or 1118.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1119
`
`Novartis objects to Exhibit 1119 under F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), and F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), as Dr. Luan’s testimony is not rationally based on his
`
`perceptions and not helpful to clearly understanding his testimony or determining a
`
`fact in issue in this proceeding.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 under F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E.
`
`403 (confusing, waste of time), 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22(a)(2), 42.24(a), 42.104(b), and 42.105; Exhibit 1119 was not cited in
`
`Breckenridge’s Petition. Any attempt by Breckenridge to rely on this document to
`
`establish unpatentability is improper and untimely and will constitute an improper
`
`incorporation by reference under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) or attempt to circumvent
`
`the word count limits for petitions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`Novartis further objects to Exhibit 1119 as improper and untimely to the
`
`extent this document is cited in support of Breckenridge’s prima facie case as this
`
`document should have been included in the evidence served with Breckenridge’s
`
`Petition as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2),
`
`42.104(b), and 42.105.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3) and as
`
`beyond the scope of the Board’s order in its Institution Decision, as Breckenridge
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`filed Exhibit 1119 on January 23, 2018, after the January 18, 2018 deadline set by
`
`the Board (Institution Decision at 23), even though Breckenridge failed to show
`
`good cause for the late action or that consideration of Exhibit 1119 on the merits
`
`would be in the interests of justice.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 to the extent that the Board’s Order
`
`deprives Novartis of any property interest and/or Novartis is adversely affected by
`
`the Board’s Order without providing Novartis an opportunity to be heard. Novartis
`
`indicated in its January 22, 2018 email to the Board (Ex. 3002 at 1) that it opposed
`
`Breckenridge’s request to file Exhibit 1119 after the deadline, but did not include
`
`substantive arguments in support of its opposition because such arguments are
`
`prohibited in an email by Board Technical Issue No. 2. The Board did not give
`
`Novartis any opportunity to provide substantive arguments regarding its opposition
`
`to Breckenridge’s request to file Exhibit 1119.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 3-7 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time); these paragraphs include statements based on documents that are
`
`inadmissible under at least 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(2) and (b)(5),
`
`F.R.E. 802 (hearsay), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time,
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence), F.R.E. 701 (improper testimony by lay
`
`witness), and F.R.E. 901 (authentication), and/or documents for which
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Breckenridge has not provided evidence to prove were published before the
`
`February 19, 2001 priority date of the ’131 Patent, the October 17, 2001 priority
`
`date of the ’131 Patent, or the February 18, 2002 application date of the ’131
`
`Patent, as not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding and not the type of
`
`document upon which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
`
`would rely.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 3, 4, 6, and 7 under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123 and as beyond the scope of the Board’s orders in its Institution Decision
`
`and Order, as these paragraphs do not “explain[] the relevance of the documents
`
`appended to the Luan abstract” and/or rely on documents that are not “declarations
`
`explaining the relevance of the documents appended to the Luan abstract.”
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 1-7 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time), as they are not relevant to any issue in this IPR proceeding because
`
`they relate to the field of immunosuppression and/or transplantation and/or are in a
`
`separate field of endeavor and/or are not pertinent to the entire problem solved by
`
`the ’131 Patent.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶¶ 3 and 5-7 under F.R.E. 602 (lack of
`
`personal knowledge), F.R.E. 701 (improper testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402
`
`(relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing, waste of time), as the declarant is
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`testifying regarding factual matters for which he does not have personal knowledge
`
`and/or has not testified that he has personal knowledge of such factual matters.
`
`Novartis also objects to Exhibit 1119 ¶ 7 under F.R.E. 701 (improper
`
`testimony by lay witness), F.R.E. 402 (relevance), and F.R.E. 403 (confusing,
`
`waste of time), as the declarant is testifying regarding issues of law, which is not
`
`helpful to clearly understanding the declarant’s testimony or to determining a fact
`
`in issue. Further, any attempt by Breckenridge to rely on the declarant’s testimony
`
`regarding any issue of law establish unpatentability will constitute an attempt to
`
`circumvent the word count limits for petitions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Novartis also objects under F.R.E. 402, F.R.E. 403, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3),
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) to any evidence that does not appear in instituted
`
`Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 and that Breckenridge relies upon to establish any element
`
`of their prima facie case against claims 1-3 and 5-9 of the ’131 Patent (other than
`
`evidence used for the limited purposes of describing the state of the art or
`
`reinforcing the meaning of a prior art reference that appears in Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4,
`
`or 5). See In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 972-73 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Board abused its
`
`discretion by relying on portion of prior art reference that was first identified by
`
`petitioner in its reply; that portion of the reference did not merely describe the state
`
`of the art, but instead was the sole prior art disclosure of disputed claim elements
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`relied upon by the Board); Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Limited Partnership v.
`
`Biomarin Pharms. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (parties should move
`
`to exclude a reference not cited in instituted grounds).
`
`
`
`Dated: January 25, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Nicholas N. Kallas/
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`Registration No. 31,530
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel. 212-218-2100
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64 To Evidence Submitted By Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. was
`
`served on January 25, 2018 by causing it to be sent by email to counsel for
`
`Petitioner at the following email addresses:
`
`
`
`Daniel R. Evans (devans@merchantgould.com)
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake (jblake@merchantgould.com)
`
`Melissa M. Hayworth (mhayworth@merchantgould.com)
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 25, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Nicholas N. Kallas/
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`Registration No. 31,530
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel. 212-218-2100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
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
