throbber
·1· ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKS OFFICE
`· · ·---------------------------------------------- X
`·2
`· · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3· ·_______________________________________________X
`
`·4· ·MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · ·Petitioner,
`· · ·-vs-
`·6
`
`·7· ·PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner.
`
`·9· ·Case IPR2018-00680(Patent 9,404,127)
`· · ·Case IPR2018-00739 (Patent 9,364,435)
`10· ·----------------------------------------------- X
`
`11· · · · · · · · ·Tuesday, April 30, 2019
`· · · · · · · · · · 2:01 p.m. - 2:34 p.m.
`12
`· · · · · · ·HEARING ON PATENT OWNER'S SUR-REPLY
`13
`
`14· · · · ·Panel Judges Present Via Teleconference
`
`15· · · · · · · · JUDGE SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL
`· · · · · · · · · JUDGE SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN
`16· · · · · · · · · JUDGE RICHARD J. SMITH
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`· · · · · · · This cause came on to be heard at the time
`22· ·aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings
`· · ·were stenographically reported by:
`23
`· · · · · · · · · · · Linda S. Blackburn
`24· · · · · · · · ·Registered Merit Reporter
`· · · · · · · · · Certified Realtime Reporter
`25· · · · · · · ·Certified Realtime Captioner
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p1
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · · A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`·2· ·On Behalf of Petitioner:
`
`·3· · · ·IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`· · · · ·1800 Avenue of the Stars
`·4· · · ·Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`· · · · ·BY: MICHAEL R. FLEMING, ESQUIRE
`·5· · · · · ·C. MACLAIN WELLS, ESQUIRE
`· · · · · · ·mfleming@irell.com
`·6· · · · · ·mwells@irell.com
`· · · · · · · · · · · ·(Via Telephone)
`·7
`· · ·On Behalf of Patent Owner:
`·8
`· · · · ·WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`·9· · · ·Attorneys for Patent Owners
`· · · · ·701 Fifth Avenue
`10· · · ·Suite 5100
`· · · · ·Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
`11· · · ·BY: MICHAEL T. ROSATO, ESQUIRE
`· · · · · · ·mrosato@wsgr.com
`12· · · · · ·SONJA R. GERRARD, ESQUIRE
`· · · · · · ·sgerrard@wsgr.com
`13· · · · · · · · · · ·(Via Telephone)
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p2
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Oh, Great.· Thank you.
`
`·2· ·Just, you know, and I'm sure you planned on as
`
`·3· ·soon as you get the transcript, if you could
`
`·4· ·file it in the record, that would be fantastic.
`
`·5· · · · MR. WELLS:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`·6· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Thank you.
`
`·7· · · · And who is on the line for patent owner?
`
`·8· · · · MR. ROSATO:· Good morning, Your Honor, at
`
`·9· ·least on the West Coast.
`
`10· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Yeah.
`
`11· · · · MR. ROSATO:· Good morning, good afternoon.
`
`12· ·Mike Rosato on behalf of patent owner.· I have
`
`13· ·Sonja Gerrard here with me, both of Wilson
`
`14· ·Sonsini.· And we -- I guess, underscoring the
`
`15· ·benefits of communication between counsel, we
`
`16· ·also have a court reporter.
`
`17· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Oh, great.· If you would
`
`18· ·also, when you get that transcript, if you would
`
`19· ·get that one on file, too, that would be
`
`20· ·fantastic.
`
`21· · · · MR. ROSATO:· Of course.
`
`22· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Well, let's get started.
`
`23· ·I know that petitioner originally sought the
`
`24· ·call, so let me start with petitioner.
`
`25· · · · MR. WELLS:· Yes, Your Honor.· We've asked
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p3
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·for authorization to file a motion to strike
`
`·2· ·regarding new evidence and new arguments that
`
`·3· ·the patent owner submitted with their sur-reply
`
`·4· ·brief.· The Trial Practice Guide is clear that
`
`·5· ·there is -- quote, a sur-reply may not be
`
`·6· ·accompanied by new evidence other that
`
`·7· ·deposition transcripts of the cross-examination
`
`·8· ·of any reply witness.
`
`·9· · · · By submitting new evidence and new
`
`10· ·arguments in their sur-reply brief for the first
`
`11· ·time, they've prejudiced our client.· We don't
`
`12· ·have the opportunity to respond or counter or
`
`13· ·address the relevance of this evidence.· And all
`
`14· ·of this evidence is publicly available documents
`
`15· ·that were foreseeable, and so we would like
`
`16· ·permission to bring a motion to strike.
`
`17· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· All right.· Let me hear
`
`18· ·from patent owner.
`
`19· · · · MR. ROSATO:· Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`20· · · · So a couple things that warrants a
`
`21· ·(indiscernible) in this instance, all these
`
`22· ·materials, for one, are in a case where there's
`
`23· ·both a motion to amend and in addition to the
`
`24· ·briefing in the case in chief, so these are --
`
`25· ·these are materials and evidence that are
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p4
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·properly of record in the context of the reply
`
`·2· ·brief in the motion to amend, as well as
`
`·3· ·exhibits in evidence that were properly brought
`
`·4· ·in during cross-examination of petitioner's
`
`·5· ·witness, specifically for impeach -- impeachment
`
`·6· ·purposes.· So these are all properly of record
`
`·7· ·and -- at least in that regard.
`
`·8· · · · But addition -- in addition to that, this
`
`·9· ·is a somewhat unique situation where the
`
`10· ·references that are being brought in, they're --
`
`11· ·the reason they're being brought in for
`
`12· ·impeachment purposes is that, you know, one,
`
`13· ·they're in direct conflict with arguments or
`
`14· ·advanced in the reply materials; but, two, these
`
`15· ·are really petitioner's own publications that
`
`16· ·we're talking about.
`
`17· · · · And when petitioner has, as I noted, public
`
`18· ·documents that they should have known about that
`
`19· ·are running in direct and unquestionable
`
`20· ·conflict with the arguments they're advancing,
`
`21· ·those should have been disclosed.· And the fact
`
`22· ·that we were fortunately able to find some of
`
`23· ·them doesn't extinguish the obligation under
`
`24· ·Rule 51 that petitioner has to provide those
`
`25· ·documents to us.· We shouldn't be left in a
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p5
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·position of having to search for that
`
`·2· ·information.· And, you know, whatever other
`
`·3· ·information might be out there, you know, is --
`
`·4· ·is sort of, you know -- if anything, underscores
`
`·5· ·the issue here.
`
`·6· · · · Beyond that, it's difficult to go through
`
`·7· ·the reply materials and the sur-reply materials
`
`·8· ·and come to any conclusion other than this --
`
`·9· ·the argument and evidence that's being
`
`10· ·identified is anything other than directly
`
`11· ·responsive to the arguments that were raised in
`
`12· ·reply.
`
`13· · · · And I haven't heard anything to date
`
`14· ·indicating why this argument and material would
`
`15· ·not be deemed properly responsive to what's in
`
`16· ·the reply materials.· And it is.· And I'm happy
`
`17· ·to walk through the -- what seemed to be the
`
`18· ·three main issues and -- and point out how it's
`
`19· ·very clearly and directly responsive to the
`
`20· ·arguments that were raised.
`
`21· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Well, let --
`
`22· · · · MR. ROSATO:· And --
`
`23· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Can I ask you -- can I ask
`
`24· ·you a quick question?
`
`25· · · · With regards to you're saying a lot of the
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p6
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·new evidence was used in cross-examination of a
`
`·2· ·witness, is that how it's been introduced in the
`
`·3· ·sur-reply?· Does that make sense?
`
`·4· · · · MR. ROSATO:· Well, the sur-reply certainly
`
`·5· ·identifies the corresponding testimony in the
`
`·6· ·cross-examination transcript and points out that
`
`·7· ·the expert confirmed that he had not considered
`
`·8· ·this material, which -- which, of course, calls
`
`·9· ·into question the credibility of his testimony
`
`10· ·on this point.
`
`11· · · · And if he's making a point, affirmatively
`
`12· ·stating something like ionizable cationic lipids
`
`13· ·were nontoxic and he confirms that he didn't
`
`14· ·consider Exhibits 2051 and 2052, but
`
`15· ·petitioner -- petitioner's own publications
`
`16· ·which state expressly and unequivocally that
`
`17· ·they believe ionizable cationic lipids are
`
`18· ·toxic, that raises questions as to the
`
`19· ·credibility of the witness's testimony, it's
`
`20· ·direct impeachment evidence, and it was raised
`
`21· ·in the context of that cross-examination.
`
`22· · · · So both -- so, yes, it's -- if what you're
`
`23· ·asking is did we cite to the cross-examination
`
`24· ·testimony, the answer is yes, we certainly did.
`
`25· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p7
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · MR. WELLS:· May I respond, Your Honor?
`
`·2· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Go ahead.· Well, let me --
`
`·3· · · · MR. WELLS:· So at the deposition of the
`
`·4· ·expert, what counsel did was put two new
`
`·5· ·references before him that had never been made
`
`·6· ·of the record, never been introduced, and said
`
`·7· ·did you consider these.· And I -- and they were
`
`·8· ·objected to as outside the scope of his
`
`·9· ·testimony.· And there was an objection to each
`
`10· ·of these exhibits on the record, noting that
`
`11· ·they were improper new evidence being admitted
`
`12· ·for the -- for improper purposes outside the
`
`13· ·scope, and those objections were all noted.
`
`14· · · · And then in their reply -- or their
`
`15· ·sur-reply, I'm sorry, they reference the
`
`16· ·testimony, but then they also go into these
`
`17· ·exhibits and start pulling out one phrase out of
`
`18· ·a 300-page patent application and say, oh, out
`
`19· ·of context, this one phrase directly contradicts
`
`20· ·the assertions.
`
`21· · · · We obviously have a different opinion
`
`22· ·regarding what those references disclose, but
`
`23· ·our expert hasn't had an opportunity to opine on
`
`24· ·them because of the timing here.
`
`25· · · · And their allegation that these are proper
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p8
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·references that were brought up in the sur-reply
`
`·2· ·appropriately is, one, not accurate, first of
`
`·3· ·all.· All of these references, again, were
`
`·4· ·public.· They had access to this information.
`
`·5· ·This isn't information that was hidden.· This
`
`·6· ·isn't test data that's -- was unknown to them
`
`·7· ·and that they couldn't have access to, and it
`
`·8· ·was foreseeable that they could have searched
`
`·9· ·and found this information readily for the
`
`10· ·purposes of their patent owner response.
`
`11· · · · It does not directly contradict anything
`
`12· ·that the patent -- the petitioner has said.· We
`
`13· ·obviously very much disagree with that.· So we
`
`14· ·haven't -- there's been no discovery misconduct
`
`15· ·that warrants that kind of late disclosure.
`
`16· · · · And the rules are entirely clear that
`
`17· ·sur-replies are not allowed to include
`
`18· ·additional evidence other than transcripts of
`
`19· ·cross-examination.· That's the Trial -- Trial
`
`20· ·Practice Guide from 2018 at page 14.
`
`21· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Well, if it's introduced
`
`22· ·in relation to testimony for impeachment
`
`23· ·purposes, how is that not introducing evidence
`
`24· ·in relation to testimony?
`
`25· · · · MR. WELLS:· Well, they're allowed to cite
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p9
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·to the deposition transcript, and they're
`
`·2· ·allowed to -- but they're not allowed to put
`
`·3· ·random articles in front of an expert that
`
`·4· ·wasn't part of either their expert's opinions or
`
`·5· ·our expert's opinions and then in the sur-reply
`
`·6· ·attach those articles characterize the contents
`
`·7· ·thereof without any support from an expert, only
`
`·8· ·attorney argument, and deprive us of the
`
`·9· ·opportunity to respond.
`
`10· · · · The Trial Practice Guide is clear that
`
`11· ·that's -- that the whole point of the sur-reply
`
`12· ·was to -- to be a substitute for the prior
`
`13· ·observation practice.· And the prior observation
`
`14· ·practice wouldn't have allowed the citation of
`
`15· ·new evidence with attorney argument and no
`
`16· ·expert opining on the content of these articles
`
`17· ·to deprive the other party of the opportunity to
`
`18· ·respond.
`
`19· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· Let me ask you, so
`
`20· ·were these particular new exhibits also part of
`
`21· ·the motion to amend briefing or not?
`
`22· · · · MR. WELLS:· Part of -- some of them were.
`
`23· ·There were -- there's a subset of -- that are
`
`24· ·also cited in the motion to amend.· They're
`
`25· ·cited to make the same arguments in the motion
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p10
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·to amend that they're including in the sur-reply
`
`·2· ·where they also make these arguments.
`
`·3· · · · And, one, we don't think that the motion
`
`·4· ·to -- a reply on the motion to amend is meant to
`
`·5· ·be an end run around limitations on the content
`
`·6· ·and introduction of new evidence in an untimely
`
`·7· ·manner; and, two, there's arguments in their
`
`·8· ·sur-reply regarding these exhibits that has
`
`·9· ·nothing do with the motion to amend.
`
`10· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.
`
`11· · · · MR. WELLS:· In addition, there are exhibits
`
`12· ·that aren't part of the motion to amend.
`
`13· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· But you still --
`
`14· ·petitioner still has an opportunity to respond,
`
`15· ·right, to what's in --
`
`16· · · · MR. WELLS:· Well, in theory, we would have
`
`17· ·an opportunity to respond to the arguments in
`
`18· ·the motion to amend to the subset of exhibits
`
`19· ·that were addressed in the motion to amend, not
`
`20· ·to the ones that weren't.
`
`21· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· But there are some
`
`22· ·that you --
`
`23· · · · MR. WELLS:· And we're -- and given it's a
`
`24· ·sur-reply, we're limited on what we can include.
`
`25· ·They didn't include an expert declaration
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p11
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·addressing any of these, so we can't include
`
`·2· ·cross-examination evidence and we can't include
`
`·3· ·any responsive materials, and we can't -- and,
`
`·4· ·in theory, unless the board authorizes further
`
`·5· ·brief -- further declarations from our expert,
`
`·6· ·we can't submit expert evidence in response
`
`·7· ·either.
`
`·8· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· Patent Owner, would
`
`·9· ·you like to respond?· I know we sort of
`
`10· ·interrupted what you were saying originally.
`
`11· · · · MR. ROSATO:· No problem, Your Honor.· Thank
`
`12· ·you.
`
`13· · · · Well, I guess a couple points.· The -- this
`
`14· ·is a bit of what I find a circular argument by
`
`15· ·petitioner, that because an expert declaration
`
`16· ·didn't accompany the reply and arguing that new
`
`17· ·evidence shouldn't be included in a reply and
`
`18· ·then complaining that an expert declaration
`
`19· ·wasn't submitted with the reply, it sort of
`
`20· ·loses sight of what's going on here.
`
`21· · · · And what's going on here is they submitted
`
`22· ·an expert declaration with their reply
`
`23· ·materials.· That declaration had opinions, and
`
`24· ·those opinions are contradicted by their own
`
`25· ·publication.· Their expert confirmed he didn't
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p12
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·consider conflicting evidence in rendering his
`
`·2· ·opinions.· That calls into question the
`
`·3· ·credibility and reliability of those opinions.
`
`·4· ·And that's the point of impeachment evidence.
`
`·5· · · · So it's somewhat circular to say, well, it
`
`·6· ·shouldn't be considered because there wasn't a
`
`·7· ·corresponding set of further evidence, which
`
`·8· ·they're complaining is not permissible.
`
`·9· · · · So this all leads back to the same point.
`
`10· ·This is impeachment evidence.· This directly
`
`11· ·contradicts what they argued.· It's directly
`
`12· ·responsive to what they argued.· So that doesn't
`
`13· ·really make sense from that regard.
`
`14· · · · And I would further say that one of the
`
`15· ·points that Your Honor touched on was the
`
`16· ·opportunity for additional briefing.· I will
`
`17· ·note that there has been objections to this same
`
`18· ·evidence filed in this case.· So we're assuming
`
`19· ·that petitioner's going to file a motion to
`
`20· ·exclude and brief the same issues, so -- which
`
`21· ·is an additional factor there is a concern for,
`
`22· ·you know, whether it's to the benefit of the
`
`23· ·parties and the board to have the record flooded
`
`24· ·with additional briefing and various forms
`
`25· ·addressing the same context.
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p13
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · And in terms of the -- the alleged --
`
`·2· ·alleged improper evidence, I think all of these
`
`·3· ·exhibits -- I think most of these exhibits were
`
`·4· ·actually cited in the -- in the motion to amend,
`
`·5· ·so I think they're -- I think they're all there,
`
`·6· ·but this is the first I've heard of that
`
`·7· ·argument.
`
`·8· · · · MR. WELLS:· And if I can respond,
`
`·9· ·Your Honor --
`
`10· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Well, let me --
`
`11· · · · MR. WELLS:· -- or would you like me to --
`
`12· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Let me --
`
`13· · · · MR. WELLS:· -- respond?
`
`14· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Let me -- yeah, I will in
`
`15· ·a minute.
`
`16· · · · Let me ask patent owner, Mr. Rosato, the --
`
`17· ·you're asking if we do grant the motion -- the
`
`18· ·authorization to file the motion to strike,
`
`19· ·you're -- were you also asking for a motion for
`
`20· ·sanctions because these particular exhibits were
`
`21· ·not produced to you by petitioner?
`
`22· · · · MR. ROSATO:· Yeah.· Our position is the
`
`23· ·board's fully capable of looking at the record
`
`24· ·and assessing whether the petitioner's arguments
`
`25· ·are supported by evidence or whether they're
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p14
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·contradicted by evidence, but to do that, the
`
`·2· ·record has to reflect reality, and for that to
`
`·3· ·happen here, petitioner's own publications,
`
`·4· ·which directly contradict their arguments,
`
`·5· ·should be of record.· You know, that was the
`
`·6· ·approach and what seemed to make most of the
`
`·7· ·sense in terms of the efficiency from our
`
`·8· ·perspective.
`
`·9· · · · Look, we were really surprised that some of
`
`10· ·these arguments were being advanced and --
`
`11· ·and -- and that the corresponding references
`
`12· ·were never disclosed, but that's the approach
`
`13· ·petitioner chose to take.
`
`14· · · · You know, that being said, if -- if
`
`15· ·we're -- we're getting into arguing that, you
`
`16· ·know, key evidence be struck from the record, I
`
`17· ·mean, it's -- it -- that's a bit of a surprising
`
`18· ·argument and approach as well.
`
`19· · · · And if we're looking at Rule 51 and -- and
`
`20· ·Rule 12, I mean, we're seeing what really should
`
`21· ·have been an obligation as routine discovery
`
`22· ·under Rule 51, which wasn't -- wasn't observed.
`
`23· ·And that lack of disclosure combined with the
`
`24· ·arguments advanced in the petitioner's reply is
`
`25· ·sanctionable conduct under Rule 12.· And, you
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p15
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·know, given these particular issues, the
`
`·2· ·appropriate remedy is, you know, what is
`
`·3· ·specifically outlined in -- in Rule 12(b), and
`
`·4· ·that includes holding that certain facts be
`
`·5· ·established and precluding petitioner from
`
`·6· ·contesting corresponding issues.· So it's --
`
`·7· ·under the letter of the rule, it's perfectly
`
`·8· ·appropriate.
`
`·9· · · · As a practical matter, we have confidence
`
`10· ·that the board can assess the evidence and see
`
`11· ·that their arguments that petitioner's advancing
`
`12· ·lacks supporting evidence and that the exhibits
`
`13· ·that are in dispute right now are contradictory
`
`14· ·evidence.
`
`15· · · · And I was -- I just want to make one -- one
`
`16· ·other note.· Petitioner mentioned something
`
`17· ·about experimental testing.· You know, this does
`
`18· ·sort of underscore another point here, which is,
`
`19· ·you know, there's -- this lack of disclosure
`
`20· ·is -- it has become a pervasive issue in -- in
`
`21· ·this proceeding, because in this very same
`
`22· ·deposition of petitioner's expert, we learned
`
`23· ·for the first time -- even though we had asked
`
`24· ·previously, but we learned for the first time in
`
`25· ·very late stage of the case that petitioner had
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p16
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·commissioned outside testing specifically for
`
`·2· ·the purposes of -- of this -- these -- these
`
`·3· ·IPRs, commissioned experimental testing, had
`
`·4· ·results, never disclosed them either to us or to
`
`·5· ·the board, and when -- when asked about why that
`
`·6· ·was, the expert told us that he felt that data
`
`·7· ·was unreliable, so they chose not to submit it.
`
`·8· · · · It was a surprise to hear that experimental
`
`·9· ·work that was specifically commissioned for
`
`10· ·litigation purposes was not disclosed and not
`
`11· ·identified when previously asked, and the only
`
`12· ·reasonable conclusion is it wasn't helpful to
`
`13· ·their case.· But they -- the expert also tried
`
`14· ·to spin that information to touch on some of the
`
`15· ·same issues that we're talking about here today.
`
`16· · · · So there's an issue with lack of disclosure
`
`17· ·here.· And, you know, I think the most efficient
`
`18· ·thing for the board to do is, you know, let
`
`19· ·published literature stay of record, make the
`
`20· ·assessment that we think the board is capable of
`
`21· ·making.· But if, you know, if that's the going
`
`22· ·to remain a disputed issue, I think we have
`
`23· ·to -- I think we have to observe, you know, the
`
`24· ·appropriate remedies that are available to us,
`
`25· ·and that includes a motion for sanctions.
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p17
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Thank you.
`
`·2· · · · Mr. Wells, certainly I'll let you respond,
`
`·3· ·but also let me ask you, first, would -- why is
`
`·4· ·the motion to exclude not sufficient for your
`
`·5· ·purposes to address --
`
`·6· · · · MR. WELLS:· Yes, Your Honor.
`
`·7· · · · So the motion to strike is the appropriate
`
`·8· ·motion, I believe, for materials that are
`
`·9· ·attached improperly to a sur-reply.· A motion to
`
`10· ·exclude may be warranted on the basis that
`
`11· ·there's -- that this is unreliable evidence and
`
`12· ·they haven't put -- and all they have is
`
`13· ·attorney argument regarding what they alleged
`
`14· ·the content of this stuff is and what -- and
`
`15· ·obviously we have a disagreement on that fact.
`
`16· · · · But the Trial Practice Guide is clear that
`
`17· ·you're not supposed to make motion to strike
`
`18· ·arguments as part of a motion to exclude.· So we
`
`19· ·do think that the motion to exclude is the
`
`20· ·proper remedy for the untimely and improper
`
`21· ·attachment of new evidence to a sur-reply.
`
`22· · · · Does that answer your question regarding
`
`23· ·the --
`
`24· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Yes.
`
`25· · · · MR. WELLS:· -- motion to exclude?
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p18
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Yes.
`
`·2· · · · MR. WELLS:· Now, if I can respond to a
`
`·3· ·couple of the things that counsel raised.
`
`·4· · · · Counsel raised, at the last part, this
`
`·5· ·testing evidence.· Well, our expert did do
`
`·6· ·testing regarding the 435 patent.· This was
`
`·7· ·never asked about previously by counsel with
`
`·8· ·regard to the 435 patent where the testing
`
`·9· ·related to.· And he basically determined that
`
`10· ·after spending time and money, the testing
`
`11· ·couldn't -- they couldn't make the system work
`
`12· ·with the payloads that they were looking at.
`
`13· · · · That's an enablement argument.· That
`
`14· ·wouldn't normally be part of an IPR process.· It
`
`15· ·could potentially be relevant to the motion to
`
`16· ·amend, but it certainly wasn't something that
`
`17· ·would have been relevant prior to their motion
`
`18· ·to amend being brought.
`
`19· · · · And the fact that the disclosures are not
`
`20· ·enabling doesn't undercut our position at all
`
`21· ·and, in fact, would support nonenablement
`
`22· ·arguments.· So I -- the fact that the expert
`
`23· ·decided not to rely on that doesn't -- there was
`
`24· ·no obligation to disclose that information.
`
`25· ·When asked about it, he did so.· We're not --
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p19
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·and that certainly wasn't anything that the
`
`·2· ·patent owner has brought up in regards to the
`
`·3· ·pending motion or the request for authorization
`
`·4· ·on the motion to strike.
`
`·5· · · · Now, regarding letting evidence in being
`
`·6· ·attached to a sur-reply and being characterized
`
`·7· ·by patent owner as having certain disclosures
`
`·8· ·and certain ramifications without allowing us
`
`·9· ·the opportunity to respond is prejudicial to the
`
`10· ·petitioner, and it sets a dangerous precedent to
`
`11· ·go against the Trial Practice Guide and allow
`
`12· ·the introduction of new evidence as a sur-reply.
`
`13· ·Not all of the exhibits are addressed in the
`
`14· ·motion to amend.
`
`15· · · · And in addition, the -- a motion to amend
`
`16· ·shouldn't be used as an end run around those
`
`17· ·disclosures.· These disclosures, again, are
`
`18· ·public documents they could have found if they
`
`19· ·really thought they supported their position in
`
`20· ·the course of preparing their patent owner
`
`21· ·response, they didn't do so, and we don't have a
`
`22· ·fair opportunity to have our expert weigh in on
`
`23· ·the evidence and what the potential import is.
`
`24· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· All right.· I think
`
`25· ·we understand -- understand your position.
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p20
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · What if petitioner did have an opportunity
`
`·2· ·to reply to the new evidence, would that obviate
`
`·3· ·the need for the motion to strike and any
`
`·4· ·requisite sanctions motion that patent owner
`
`·5· ·would like to file?· Well, let me --
`
`·6· · · · MR. WELLS:· Sorry.· Go ahead.
`
`·7· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· No.· Go ahead.· If you
`
`·8· ·understood.
`
`·9· · · · MR. WELLS:· If we have the opportunity for
`
`10· ·our expert to weigh in and for us to weigh in on
`
`11· ·the alleged import of this evidence and whatnot,
`
`12· ·it's additional briefing, and it -- and I don't
`
`13· ·know that that, one, has necessarily been
`
`14· ·contemplated by the rules, but that would help
`
`15· ·ameliorate the prejudice.· But we do think we
`
`16· ·need the IN (phonetic) opportunity to respond.
`
`17· ·The timing is what I'm concerned about.
`
`18· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Yeah.· Okay.· At least
`
`19· ·that's fair.
`
`20· · · · And, Mr. Rosato, what would you say if we
`
`21· ·allowed a reply to the evidence?
`
`22· · · · MR. ROSATO:· I'm a little struck by the
`
`23· ·comment of prejudice.· Again, we're talking
`
`24· ·about their own publications, and the point is
`
`25· ·their expert didn't consider them.· So that's --
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p21
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·that's sort of the point.· So to say that
`
`·2· ·they're prejudiced because their expert didn't
`
`·3· ·consider them misses that point.
`
`·4· · · · This is evidence that should have been
`
`·5· ·considered, and there's no privilege in not
`
`·6· ·having the opportunity to -- to address their
`
`·7· ·own evidence, because their point is they should
`
`·8· ·have addressed it.· So the prejudice thing is --
`
`·9· ·really doesn't make sense to me.
`
`10· · · · In terms of the type of response I heard
`
`11· ·petitioner argue, again, there's -- they're
`
`12· ·saying we're not allowed to include evidence in
`
`13· ·reply and didn't include an expert witness
`
`14· ·testimony, but now asking for an opportunity to
`
`15· ·have their witness come and comment on this.
`
`16· · · · So I would certainly oppose that.· I mean,
`
`17· ·it's admission of new declaration testimony at
`
`18· ·this stage.· It just does not seem to be -- to
`
`19· ·be practical or possible.· They've already had
`
`20· ·two declarations from their witness and had the
`
`21· ·opportunity where they're the party carrying the
`
`22· ·burden of proof.· So a third bite at the apple,
`
`23· ·I think we would oppose that.
`
`24· · · · If -- if this is something other than, you
`
`25· ·know, references that should have been
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p22
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·considered, it should have been disclosed in the
`
`·2· ·first place and there may be a more sympathetic
`
`·3· ·position, but that's the -- you know, this is
`
`·4· ·the situation here.
`
`·5· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· I think we
`
`·6· ·understand the different positions.· If you all
`
`·7· ·will hold for just a minute and let me confirm
`
`·8· ·with the panel, I will be back in just a moment.
`
`·9· ·Thanks.
`
`10· · · · (Recess from 2:27 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.)
`
`11· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· This is Judge Mitchell.
`
`12· ·I'm back with the panel, Judge Smith and Judge
`
`13· ·Snedden.· We would like to take this under
`
`14· ·advisement.· Sorry.· We -- we're not going to
`
`15· ·issue an order today, but in the next day or so.
`
`16· · · · So I'm not sure how fast you can get the
`
`17· ·transcripts in.· I know that sometimes
`
`18· ·(indiscernible).· But, anyway, we will take
`
`19· ·the -- the request for authorization under
`
`20· ·advisement and issue an order shortly.
`
`21· · · · So are there any more issues or questions
`
`22· ·from petitioner?
`
`23· · · · MR. WELLS:· No, Your Honor.
`
`24· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· And from patent
`
`25· ·owner?
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p23
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · MR. ROSATO:· Thank you, Your Honor.· There
`
`·2· ·is one other issue --
`
`·3· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Sure.
`
`·4· · · · MR. ROSATO:· -- to discuss.
`
`·5· · · · There is an issue of -- and this may have
`
`·6· ·gotten lost in some e-mail communications, and
`
`·7· ·we apologize for the nature of those.· But there
`
`·8· ·was an issue surrounding some certain deposition
`
`·9· ·transcripts' exhibits that were filed by
`
`10· ·petitioner, and rather than submitting clean
`
`11· ·copies of the deposition transcripts, they
`
`12· ·submitted exhibits that were marked up with the
`
`13· ·various highlighting sections.
`
`14· · · · We had thought this was inadvertent and
`
`15· ·communicated with petitioner to let them know
`
`16· ·that it looked like some -- the wrong versions
`
`17· ·of the documents had been submitted, but we had
`
`18· ·been told by petitioner that they meant to do
`
`19· ·that and that those were the exhibits they
`
`20· ·wanted on file.
`
`21· · · · So in any event, our position is the record
`
`22· ·should have clean copies of deposition
`
`23· ·transcripts, not transcripts that are marked up
`
`24· ·by one party.· So our proposal would be that
`
`25· ·clean copies be submitted in replacement and the
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p24
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· ·marked-up versions be expunged.
`
`·2· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· And --
`
`·3· · · · MR. WELLS:· And, Your Honor, the --
`
`·4· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Go ahead.
`
`·5· · · · MR. WELLS:· We submitted transcripts of the
`
`·6· ·depositions, and we highlighted the portions
`
`·7· ·that are cited in the brief for ease of reading
`
`·8· ·for Your Honors.· We're happy to submit a clean
`
`·9· ·copy if, for some reason, they want a clean copy
`
`10· ·on the record when we get the signed version,
`
`11· ·happy to do so.· If Your Honors don't think a
`
`12· ·highlighted version is useful to you, we're
`
`13· ·happy to remove it, but other courts have
`
`14· ·certainly found it to be very useful when they
`
`15· ·can be directed to a portion of the transcript
`
`16· ·that's cited in the brief.
`
`17· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· So it's highlighting of
`
`18· ·portions that you've cited, but nothing -- just
`
`19· ·highlighting?
`
`20· · · · MR. WELLS:· All the portions cited in our
`
`21· ·brief highlighting, that's it.· No comments,
`
`22· ·editing, no extraneous information.
`
`23· · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· Okay.· Well, I'll
`
`24· ·take that under advisement to you, and I'll make
`
`25· ·sure -- because I did see that, and I apologize,
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p25
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · ·I didn't -- I wasn't connecting that that had
`
`·2· · · ·not been resolved, so we will also resolve that
`
`·3· · · ·issue in the order.
`
`·4· · · · · · Is there anything else from petitioner?
`
`·5· · · · · · MR. WELLS:· No, Your Honor.
`
`·6· · · · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· Okay.· And patent owner?
`
`·7· · · · · · MR. ROSATO:· No, Your Honor.· Thank you for
`
`·8· · · ·call.
`
`·9· · · · · · JUDGE MITCHELL:· All right.· Thank you all
`
`10· · · ·for your time.· I appreciate it.· And as soon as
`
`11· · · ·you can get the transcripts of the call on file,
`
`12· · · ·that would be great.· Thank you very much, and
`
`13· · · ·we are adjourned.
`
`14· · · · · · THEREUPON the proceedings were concluded
`
`15· ·at 2:34 p.m.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Moderna Ex 1026-p26
`Moderna v Protiva
`IPR2018-00739
`
`

`

`·1· · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·STATE OF FLORIDA
`
`·4· ·COUNTY OF POLK
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · I, Linda S. Blackburn, Registered Merit
`
`·7· ·Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, and
`
`·8· ·Certified Realtime Captioner, do hereby certify
`
`·9· ·that I was authorized to and did report the
`
`10· ·foregoing proceedings, and that the transcript,
`
`11· ·pages 1 through 27, is a true and correct record of
`
`12· ·my stenographic notes.

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