Filed: October 24, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`SAWAI USA, INC., AND
`SAWAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR2018-01403*
`Patent No. 8,399,514
`____________________________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`* Case IPR2019-00789 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`SAWAI USA, INC., AND
`SAWAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR2018-01403*
`Patent No. 8,399,514
`____________________________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`* Case IPR2019-00789 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`I. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................ 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Post-Priority Date Publications (Exs. 1036, 1037, and 1066) .......................... 1
`
`B. The Internet Archive Declaration & Schimrigk Poster (Ex. 1012) .................. 3
`
`C. The Mihail Declaration (Ex. 1054) and Clinical Trials (Ex. 1010) ................. 7
`
`D. The Rock Declaration (Ex. 1055 and Ex. 1122) ............................................ 11
`
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`CaptionCall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00637, Paper 98 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2016) ................................................. 9
`Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00805, Paper 83 (PTAB Oct. 3, 2018) .................................................. 1
`HTC Corp. v. NFC Tech., LLC,
`IPR2014-01198, Paper 41 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2015) ....................................... 7, 9, 11
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 13
`KVK-Tech, Inc. v. Shire PLC,
`IPR2018-00290, Paper 58 (PTAB July 3, 2019) .................................................. 2
`Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`921 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 2
`Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC,
`IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2015) ............................. 9, 10, 12, 13
`Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC v. Shoes By Firebug LLC,
`IPR2017-01809, Paper 64 (PTAB Jan. 16, 2019) ................................................ 7
`US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC,
`PGR2015-00019, Paper 54 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2016) .............................................. 8
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.12 ......................................................................................... 4, 6, 7, 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51 ....................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.52 ....................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 ....................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`DESCRIPTION
`ABBREVIATION
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`’514 patent
`Biogen or Patent Owner Biogen MA Inc.
`Bolded Italics
`Emphasis added unless otherwise noted
`Clinical Trials
`Ex. 1010
`DMF
`Dimethyl fumarate
`EMA 2013
`Ex. 1037
`Fox 2011
`Ex. 1036
`MS
`Multiple sclerosis
`Mylan or Petitioner
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`Phillips 2013
`Ex. 1066
`POSA
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), the amended Scheduling Order (Paper 31),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`and Patent Owner’s timely filed objections (Papers 14, 72), Patent Owner Biogen
`
`hereby moves to exclude Exhibits 1010, 1012, 1036, 1037, 1054, 1055, 1066, and
`
`1122 filed by Petitioner Mylan as inadmissible under the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”).
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Post-Priority Date Publications (Exs. 1036, 1037, and 1066)
`Mylan relies on Fox 2011 (Ex. 1036), EMA 2013 (Ex. 1037), and Phillips
`
`2013 (Ex. 1066) in support of its obviousness allegations. These exhibits were
`
`published after Biogen’s Phase III results with the claimed 480 mg/day dose were
`
`known and long after the February 2007 priority date of the ’514 patent. Paper 38,
`
`28-31; Ex. 1036, 2; Ex. 1037, 1; Ex. 1066, 1. They are necessarily tainted by the
`
`knowledge that the 480 mg/day dose was effective in Phase III trials—information
`
`not known to a POSA as of Biogen’s February 2007 priority date. The law,
`
`however, requires assessment of information available in the prior art “at the time
`
`the invention was made.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. Exhibits 1036, 1037 and 1066 should
`
`therefore be excluded as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under FRE 401-403.
`
`Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-00805, Paper 83 at 34-35 (PTAB Oct. 3,
`
`2018) (rejecting petitioner’s reliance on post-priority date references).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Fox 2011, EMA 2013, and Phillips 2013 are particularly irrelevant and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`prejudicial because they were motivated by the unexpected results demonstrated by
`
`the claimed 480 mg/day dose of DMF in Biogen’s post-filing date Phase III trials.1
`
`Researchers involved in the Phase III trials were so surprised by the unexpected
`
`magnitude of efficacy of 480 mg/day that they retroactively searched for reasons
`
`why it happened, relying on data that was not available in the prior art. Ex. 1125,
`
`138:16-139:7. Reinterpretations of data in view of later-discovered surprising
`
`results have no place in a § 103 analysis. See Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly &
`
`Co., 921 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to read prior art references in
`
`view of post-priority date analyses); KVK-Tech, Inc. v. Shire PLC, IPR2018-
`
`00290, Paper 58 at 42-43 (PTAB July 3, 2019) (rejecting petitioner expert’s
`
`“current reinterpretation” of prior art data). Accordingly, Exhibits 1036, 1037 and
`
`1066 should be excluded.
`
`
`1 Fox 2011 states that in Biogen’s Phase III trials, “MS patients treated with 240
`
`mg twice daily (480 mg/d) had a 49% reduction in the proportion with relapses.”
`
`Ex. 1036, 7. Phillips 2013 similarly states that 480 and 720 mg/day “reduced the
`
`annualized relapse rate . . . by 44 to 53%.” Ex. 1066, 5. EMA 2013 also states that
`
`480 and 720 mg/day had “statistically significant effects . . . of similar direction
`
`and magnitude” in Biogen’s Phase III trials. Ex. 1037, 75.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Additionally, the authors of Fox 2011, EMA 2013, and Phillips 2013 had
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`access to unpublished data from Biogen’s clinical studies. This further taints these
`
`documents because they draw post-priority date conclusions based on information
`
`that was never available to a POSA. Mylan’s expert, Dr. McKeague,
`
`acknowledged that the individual patient data upon which conclusions in EMA
`
`2013 were based were not publicly available. Ex. 2064, 116:19-24; Ex. 2060 ¶83.
`
`Dr. Thisted testified that the post hoc calculations in Fox 2011 also cannot be
`
`derived from the information in Phase II publications, but instead rely on different,
`
`non-public data. Ex. 2060 ¶¶69-70. Dr. Thisted’s testimony is uncontradicted.
`
`Dr. McKeague acknowledged a discrepancy between figures in Fox 2011 and
`
`figures in the Phase II publications and was unwilling and unable to replicate post
`
`hoc calculations in Fox 2011 using publicly available information. Ex. 2064,
`
`92:10-94:11.
`
`For at least the reasons above, Exhibits 1036, 1037, and 1066 should be
`
`excluded because they have no relevance to Mylan’s obviousness challenge and
`
`any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
`
`from hindsight bias. FRE 401-403.
`
`B.
`The Internet Archive Declaration & Schimrigk Poster (Ex. 1012)
`Mr. Christopher Butler, an Office Manager of the Internet Archive, provided
`
`a declaration for Mylan purporting to establish public availability of a Schimrigk
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Poster (Ex. 1012) prior to the priority date of the ’514 patent. Biogen moves to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`exclude Exhibit 1012 on three bases, any one of which is sufficient: lack of
`
`foundation, personal knowledge, and authentication. FRE 602, 901.
`
`Independently, Biogen further requests that the Board exercise its authority under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.12 to exclude Exhibit 1012 because Mr. Butler’s routine cross-
`
`examination was thwarted by Mylan, the proponent of his testimony. Paper 41, 5.
`
`The Butler declaration is inadmissible because it is not based on personal
`
`knowledge and fails to provide any foundation for alleged public availability of the
`
`attached poster. He testified that the documents attached to his declaration are
`
`merely “true and accurate copies of printouts of the Internet Archive’s records of
`
`the HTML files or PDF files for the URLs and the dates specified in the footer of
`
`the printout.” Ex. 1012, 1. The Butler declaration does not provide any testimony
`
`demonstrating personal knowledge of whether the poster was actually archived or
`
`publicly available before the critical date.
`
`Mr. Butler’s cross-examination in another PTAB proceeding (DocsCorp
`
`LLC v. Litéra Technologies, LLC, IPR2016-00541) confirms the deficiencies in
`
`Mr. Butler’s declaration here. Ex. 2129. Mr. Butler only began working for the
`
`Internet Archive in 2009, after the purported archival date of the poster attached to
`
`his declaration. Paper 41, 4; Ex. 2129, 6:11-16. Throughout his employment
`
`history, including at the Internet Archive, Mr. Butler has possessed no experience
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`programming web crawlers or archiving web pages. Ex. 2129, 7:5-8:25.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`Therefore, he does not and cannot have any personal knowledge of whether the
`
`poster in Exhibit 1012 was allegedly archived from a public source in 2004.
`
`In addition to his own lack of personal knowledge, Mr. Butler failed to
`
`establish that his employer (the Internet Archive) operated the web-crawlers that
`
`purportedly archived the poster in Exhibit 1012. Ex. 1012, 1. Biogen made a
`
`showing that the webpage Mr. Butler seeks to authenticate was “crawled” by a
`
`third party—Alexa Internet—not by the Internet Archive. Ex. 2128. Alexa
`
`Internet was a separate entity from the Internet Archive in 2004, the year the
`
`webpage archival addressed in Exhibit 1012 allegedly occurred. Ex. 2129, 18:6-
`
`19:16. Mr. Butler admits to having no knowledge of the operations of Alexa
`
`Internet. Ex. 2129, 19:12-16. Mr. Butler therefore has no personal knowledge to
`
`support any authenticating testimony, much less to establish when it was allegedly
`
`crawled and archived.
`
`Mr. Butler also admitted that the standard affidavit he supplies to parties in
`
`litigation—like Mylan—is prepared by receiving a “specific” URL on the public
`
`Internet Archive website from a requesting party, and then Mr. Butler “visit[s]” the
`
`same URL to print out the requested webpage. Ex. 2129, 13:12-15:4. Mr. Butler’s
`
`declaration thus evinces no more knowledge than any member of the public would
`
`have from accessing the Internet Archive website. Mr. Butler’s mere use of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`same publicly available Internet Archive website fails to provide any foundation
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`based on personal knowledge for establishing that the pages attached to his
`
`declarations are what they purport to be, or that those pages were ever publicly
`
`available at the relevant times. Id.; FRE 901.
`
`Mr. Butler’s declaration is also silent as to the alleged public availability of
`
`the poster. Ex. 1012, 1. In fact, the Internet Archive’s legal policy regarding its
`
`standard affidavits completed by Mr. Butler disclaims making any representations
`
`as to public availability, stating: “It remains your burden to convince the finder of
`
`fact what pages were up when.” Ex. 2129, 24:14-25. Dr. Corboy, the Mylan
`
`witness who cites the poster in Exhibit 1012, also does not establish any personal
`
`knowledge about its public availability. Instead, he relies solely on the deficient
`
`declaration of Mr. Butler. Ex. 1002 ¶53. Accordingly, the Board should exclude
`
`Exhibit 1012 as inadmissible under FRE 602 and 901.
`
`Finally, the Board should exercise its authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 to
`
`exclude Exhibit 1012 because Biogen was deprived of the opportunity to cross-
`
`examine Mr. Butler. As recognized by the Board and conceded by Mylan, the
`
`Butler declaration is subject to routine discovery (Paper 30, 2), which imposes on
`
`Mylan an affirmative obligation to make Mr. Butler available for cross-
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`examination.2 See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.51-42.53. But Mylan thwarted all of Biogen’s
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`efforts to cross-examine Mr. Butler. Paper 33, 1. Mylan opposed Biogen’s motion
`
`seeking Mr. Butler’s testimony under routine discovery and refused to join
`
`Biogen’s request for a subpoena. Id.; Paper 41, 5. Flouting discovery obligations,
`
`as Mylan has done, alone justifies excluding Exhibit 1012. Paper 41, 5; HTC
`
`Corp. v. NFC Tech., LLC, IPR2014-01198, Paper 41 at 4 (PTAB Nov. 6, 2015).
`
`Accordingly, Exhibit 1012 should be excluded for lack of foundation,
`
`personal knowledge, and authentication. FRE 602, 901. The Board should also
`
`exercise its authority to exclude Exhibit 1012 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.
`
`C. The Mihail Declaration (Ex. 1054) and Clinical Trials (Ex. 1010)
`Mylan relies on Exhibit 1054, an attorney declaration from Robert Mihail,
`
`Esq. (“the Mihail declaration”) originally filed in a different IPR, to establish
`
`public availability and authenticity of Exhibit 1010 (“Clinical Trials”). Exhibit
`
`1010 is asserted as a reference in Ground 4 of the Petition. Biogen moves to
`
`exclude Exhibit 1054 as inadmissible hearsay and as lacking foundation and
`
`
`2 “The right to cross-examine an adversarial witness is a long-standing and vital
`
`feature of the law in all cases including administrative actions.” Stride Rite
`
`Children’s Grp., LLC v. Shoes By Firebug LLC, IPR2017-01809, Paper 64 at 21
`
`(PTAB Jan. 16, 2019).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`personal knowledge, and Exhibit 1010 as lacking authentication and as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 1054 should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit 1054 is
`
`out-of-court testimony under the hearsay rules because it was filed in a different
`
`IPR by a different petitioner. US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments,
`
`LLC, PGR2015-00019, Paper 54 at 38-42 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2016) (excluding a
`
`declaration submitted in another proceeding as hearsay). Mylan offered this out-
`
`of-court testimony to prove the alleged truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that
`
`“[Clinical Trials] is a document publicly available from ClinicalTrials.gov as of
`
`September 14, 2005.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1054). The Mihail declaration is
`
`therefore inadmissible hearsay pursuant to FRE 801-802.
`
`The former testimony exception does not apply. Former testimony from
`
`another proceeding may be admitted as an exception to hearsay under FRE 804
`
`only if the declarant is “unavailable.” Rule 804 imposes five specific criteria for
`
`determining when a declarant is “unavailable.” FRE 804(a). Mylan has not
`
`asserted or shown that any of the five criteria are met, but instead refused to make
`
`Mr. Mihail available3 and represented that Mylan “does not control Mr. Mihail.”
`
`
`3 Nothing in the record suggests that Mylan tried to secure Mr. Mihail’s availability
`
`for cross-examination or that Mr. Mihail is even aware that Mylan has submitted
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Paper 28, 6. Mylan’s excuse is irrelevant: Mylan “is responsible for the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`availability of its chosen declarants, regardless whether or not they are employed
`
`by” Mylan. HTC, IPR2014-01198, Paper 41 at 4 (expunging declaration when
`
`cross-examination was unavailable).
`
`The Mihail declaration also lacks foundation for authenticating Clinical
`
`Trials based on personal knowledge. FRE 602. To authenticate a website, the
`
`proponent of the evidence must present testimony from a witness “with knowledge
`
`of the website . . . for example, a web master or someone else with personal
`
`knowledge.” Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, IPR2013-00578, Paper
`
`53 at 3-4 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2015). Mr. Mihail does not meet this standard. Rather
`
`than having personal knowledge of ClinicalTrials.gov from 2005, Mr. Mihail is an
`
`attorney who merely participated in a different IPR on behalf of a different
`
`petitioner. Ex. 1054, 1-2. The Mihail declaration is therefore also inadmissible
`
`pursuant to FRE 602.
`
`Accordingly, because the Mihail declaration fails to provide authenticating
`
`
`his testimony in this proceeding. CaptionCall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2015-
`
`00637, Paper 98 at 16 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2016) (denying application of Rule 804
`
`exception where “no attempt to bring [the declarant] forward as a witness in this
`
`proceeding” was made by the proponent of the testimony).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`testimony, Exhibit 1010 (Clinical Trials) is inadmissible as lacking authentication.
`
`FRE 901. In addition, the date on the face of Clinical Trials that Mylan relies on to
`
`prove the date of alleged public availability is inadmissible hearsay. Neste,
`
`IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5-6. Mylan has not proffered any testimony or
`
`evidence establishing the publication date of Clinical Trials, aside from
`
`inadmissible testimony from Mr. Mihail. The date on Exhibit 1010, as well as the
`
`entire content, is therefore inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`The residual exception to hearsay, reserved for “exceptional cases,” does not
`
`apply to the Mihail declaration and Clinical Trials. Neste, IPR2013-00578, Paper
`
`53 at 10. To fall under this exception, a hearsay statement must: (1) have
`
`circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) be offered as evidence of a
`
`material fact; (3) be more probative on the point for which it is offered than any
`
`other evidence the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and (4) be in
`
`the interests of justice to admit. FRE 807.
`
`Here, three of the four considerations strongly weigh against admission.
`
`First, these exhibits lack circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Biogen
`
`already proffered evidence that the Mihail declaration’s accuracy is suspect. Paper
`
`24, 2, 4; Ex. 2050 (showing error message resulting from entering the URL Mr.
`
`Mihail purportedly used to obtain the Clinical Trials webpage). Second, cross-
`
`examination testimony of Mr. Mihail would have been more probative evidence.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`But Mr. Mihail’s unavailability is of Mylan’s own making—Mylan refused to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`make Mr. Mihail available and never represented that it made even a “reasonable
`
`effort” under FRE 807 to secure his availability. Paper 24, 1-3. Third, for the
`
`same reasons, it is not in the interest of justice to admit these exhibits. The Board
`
`should require the proponent of the evidence to do more than print a website and
`
`offer testimony from a different proceeding. Otherwise, the opponent would be
`
`deprived of any meaningful ability to cross-examine the declarant or otherwise test
`
`the veracity of the proffered hearsay statements. The residual exception therefore
`
`should not rescue Exhibits 1010 and 1054.
`
`Additionally, the Board should exercise its authority under 37 C.F.R. §42.12
`
`to exclude Ex. 1054 because Biogen was deprived of the opportunity to cross-
`
`examine Mr. Mihail. Having chosen to submit and rely upon Mr. Mihail’s
`
`declaration in this IPR, Mylan cannot escape its obligation to produce the witness
`
`for cross-examination. HTC, IPR2014-01198, Paper 41 at 4.
`
`D. The Rock Declaration (Ex. 1055 and Ex. 1122)
`Mylan relies upon Exhibit 1055, a declaration from Ms. Jennifer Rock, to
`
`establish authenticity of “Business Wire” press releases printed from a Westlaw
`
`website, as well as their alleged dates of public availability. Biogen timely
`
`objected to Exhibit 1055 and Mylan failed to remedy the objections with its
`
`supplemental Exhibit 1122. Biogen moves to exclude Exhibits 1055 and 1122
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`(collectively, “the Rock declaration”) as lacking foundation and personal
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`knowledge, as irrelevant, and as inadmissible hearsay. FRE 401-403, 602, 802,
`
`805.
`
`The Rock declaration lacks the personal knowledge necessary to
`
`authenticate the online press releases. To authenticate a website, the proponent of
`
`the evidence must present testimony from a witness “with knowledge of the
`
`website . . . for example, a web master or someone else with personal knowledge.”
`
`Neste, IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 3-4. Ms. Rock’s testimony does not meet this
`
`standard because it is admittedly not based on personal knowledge. Ex. 2065,
`
`33:1-34:12. The Rock declaration is therefore inadmissible pursuant to FRE 602.
`
`The Rock declaration is also irrelevant. Far from demonstrating public
`
`availability of the press releases before the February 2007 priority date, Ms. Rock
`
`testified that the press releases are “accurate copies of the articles as they appear on
`
`Westlaw as of today’s date.” Ex. 1122 ¶5. She admitted that she did not pull any
`
`archived versions of the press releases at the relevant time period. Ex. 2065, 31:1-
`
`6. Nor did she testify that the press releases were available to a POSA. Ex. 1122
`
`¶6. Instead, she admitted that access was limited to attorneys—not POSAs under
`
`either party’s definition—and that special steps would have been required to find
`
`the press releases. Ex. 2065, 14:20-15:6, 16:24-17:19, 19:2-16, 23:5-27:7.
`
`Finally, Ms. Rock’s testimony as to the alleged dates of public availability of
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`the press releases is inadmissible hearsay-within-hearsay. FRE 802, 805. The
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`dates and times identified in paragraph 6 of Ms. Rock’s declaration repeat out-of-
`
`court statements (for which she has no personal knowledge of their accuracy) and
`
`are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the documents were
`
`available as of those dates and times.4 Ex. 2065, 33:10-36:4; Neste, IPR2013-
`
`00578, Paper 53 at 7-8. The dates/times alleged in the Rock declaration to be the
`
`publication dates of the press releases are therefore inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 802 and 805.
`
`Mylan has not proffered any further testimony or evidence adequately
`
`establishing the publication dates of the press releases, aside from inadmissible
`
`testimony from Ms. Rock. The inadmissibility of the Rock declaration further
`
`confirms that Mylan failed to meet its burden of establishing that the press releases
`
`were “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical
`
`date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`
`4 Ms. Rock admitted that the times identified in her declaration differ from the
`
`information on the face of the underlying press releases themselves. Ex. 2065,
`
`34:14-36:4. With the Rock declaration’s accuracy in doubt, the residual exception
`
`to hearsay should not apply.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should exclude Exhibits 1010, 1012,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`1036, 1037, 1054, 1055, 1066, and 1122 from the record.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 24, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Barbara C. McCurdy/
`Barbara C. McCurdy, Reg. No. 32,120
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that this brief complies with the page limit
`
`
`
`
`limitations of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(v), as measured by the word-processing
`
`system used to prepare this paper.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 24, 2019
`
`
`By: /Barbara C. McCurdy/
`Barbara C. McCurdy, Reg. No. 32,120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude Evidence was served electronically via the PTAB electronic
`
`filing system and via email on October 24, 2019, in its entirety, on the following:
`
`Brandon M. White
`Shannon M. Bloodworth
`Michael A. Chajon
`Maria A. Stubbings
`Nathan Kelley
`Perkins Coie LLP
`700 13th St., NW, Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 654-6206
`Email: bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`Email: sbloodworth@perkinscoie.com
`Email: mchajon@perkinscoie.com
`Email: mstubbings@perkinscoie.com
`Email: nkelley@perkinscoie.com
`
`David L. Anstaett
`Emily J. Greb
`Perkins Coie LLP
`One East Main St., Suite 201
`Madison, WI 53703
`Telephone: (608) 663-7494
`Email: danstaett@perkinscoie.com
`Email: egreb@perkinscoie.com
`
`Courtney M. Prochnow
`Perkins Coie LLP
`633 W. 5th St., Suite 5850
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (310) 788-3284
`Email: cprochnow@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,399,514
`IPR2018-01403
`
`
`Brian Sodikoff
`Martin S. Masar III, Ph.D.
`Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
`525 West Monroe Street
`Chicago, IL 60661-3693
`Telephone: (312) 902-5462
`Email: brian.sodikoff@kattenlaw.com
`Email: martin.masar@kattenlaw.com
`
`Christopher B. Ferenc
`Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
`2900 K Street NW,
`North Tower - Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (202) 625-3647
`Email: Christopher.ferenc@kattenlaw.com
`
`Petitioner has agreed to electronic service.
`
`
`Dated: October 24, 2019
`
`
`
`By: /Barbara C. McCurdy/
`Barbara C. McCurdy, Reg. No. 32,120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
