`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: 19 April 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOUR MILE BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00053
` Patent 9,283,080 B1
`
`Before, JOSIAH COCKS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00053
`Patent 9,283,080 B1
`Patent Owner serves the following Response to Petitioner’s Objections to
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). This Response is
`
`being served within ten business days of Petitioner’s filing of its objections.
`
`Patent Owner offers three important reasons why Petitioner’s motion to
`
`exclude evidence should be refused.
`
`First, evidence in an IPR proceeding should be admitted because “there is a
`
`strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative
`
`proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins.
`
`Co., CBM2012-00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB February 24, 2014).
`
`Second, the PTAB is capable of determining the proper weight of evidence
`
`received. See Corning, Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19
`
`(PTAB May 1, 2014) (citing Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224
`
`(8th Cir. 1941) (“[o]ne who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility
`
`of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received . . .
`
`.”)).
`
`Third, the PTAB has an obligation to maintain a complete record for any
`
`potential appellate review. See Gnosis S.p.A. v. S. Alabama Med. Sci. Found.,
`
`IPR2013-00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014) (citing Donnelly Garment
`
`Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“If the record on review contains
`
`not only all evidence which was clearly admissible, but also all evidence of
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00053
`Patent 9,283,080 B1
`doubtful admissibility, the court which is called upon to review the case can
`
`usually make an end of it, whereas if evidence was excluded which that court
`
`regards as having been admissible, a new trial or rehearing cannot be avoided.”)).
`
`In addition to these three important reasons, Patent Owner provides further
`
`reasons below directed to each of Petitioner’s objections.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Objections Based on Relevance (FRE 401 and 402)
`
`Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2009, 2012, 2015, 2017, and
`
`2020 under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, asserting that Petitioner [sic,
`
`“Patent Owner”] has not established that these exhibits are relevant to what one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the alleged invention
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,283,080 (the ‘080 patent).
`
`Patent Owner submitted exhibits 2009, 2012, 2015, 2017, and 2020 to
`
`establish the patentability of the patent claims at issue in the ‘080 patent. In the
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Patent Owner relied on these exhibits to show
`
`what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the invention claimed
`
`in the ‘080 patent. For example, exhibits 2009, 2012, 2017, and 2020 show that
`
`cutting Bobyn’s material smears the material and renders it unsuitable for use on a
`
`hip implant. Exhibit 2015 provides a definition for the term “base” recited in one
`
`or more claims.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00053
`Patent 9,283,080 B1
`
`II. Objections Based on Hearsay (FRE 801 and 802)
`
`Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2001-2013 and 2015-2020 on
`
`the ground of hearsay under FRE 801 and 802.
`
`Exhibits 2001-2013 and 2015-2020 were submitted to establish the
`
`patentability of the patent claims at issue. These exhibits are being offered for what
`
`they describe—not for the truth of their disclosure. See, e.g., EMC Corp. v.
`
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC, IPR2013-00085, Final Written Decision, Paper
`
`No. 73 at 66 (PTAB May 15, 2014) (“[A] prior art document submitted as a
`
`‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is offered simply as evidence of
`
`what it described, not for proving the truth of the matters addressed in the
`
`document.”) (citing Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck, 751 F. Supp. 225, 233 n.2
`
`(D.D.C. 1990); Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) 1997 Adv. Comm. Note (“If the significance
`
`of an offered statement lies solely in the fact that it was made, no issue is raised as
`
`to the truth of anything asserted, and the statement is not hearsay.”)).
`
`Furthermore, many of these exhibits fall under an exception to the hearsay
`
`rule. F.R.E. 803(18) (“The following are not excluded by the rule against
`
`hearsay … (18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00053
`Patent 9,283,080 B1
`
`III. Objections Based on Authentication (FRE 901 and 902)
`
`Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009,
`
`2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2020 under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and
`
`902 as not having been properly authenticated.
`
`Many of these exhibit were already authenticated by Declarations of Dr.
`
`Helmus and Vincelli. Furthermore, many of the exhibits are self-authenticating as
`
`qualifying as a “Periodical” under Rule 902(6).
`
`IV. Objections to Exhibit 2003 and 2008
`
`Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2003 and 2008 because they
`
`allegedly include information unrelated to the issues in this proceeding.
`
`Exhibits 2003 and 2008 are Declarations of Dr. Helmus and Vincelli and
`
`include relevant evidence about the state of the art, exhibits cited in this proceeding,
`
`and information relating to how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the invention claimed in the ‘080 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Philip S. Lyren/
`Philip S. Lyren (# 40,706)
`Counsel for Patent Owner (FMB)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00053
`Patent 9,283,080 B1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on April 19, 2018 the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s
`
`Exhibits is being served electronically via email to the following counsel of record:
`
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Young Park
`youngpark@paulhastings.com
`
`Paromita Chatterjee
`mitachatterjee@paulhastings.com
`
`
`Dated: April 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Philip S. Lyren/
`Philip S. Lyren (# 40,706)
`Counsel for Patent Owner (FMB)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
