`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`and PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01675
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`_____________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`37 CFR §42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`OBJECTIONS
`
`Petitioner (“Mylan”) submits the following objections:
`
`1.
`
`EX2223 – DCA web page
`
`Grounds for objection: FRE 105, 402, 403, 802, 901.
`
`EX2223 is irrelevant because it is not cited. The exhibit is hearsay without
`
`exception, lacks authentication, and is unreasonably prejudicial because it is cited
`
`for a new purpose and is just self-serving advertisement by an interested entity. To
`
`the extent EX2223 is admitted, its scope should be restricted to the purpose for
`
`which it was originally submitted. FRE 105.
`
`2.
`
`EX2224 – tandfonline.com web page
`
`Grounds for objection: FRE 105, 402, 403, 802, 901.
`
`EX2224 is irrelevant because it is not cited. The exhibit is hearsay without
`
`exception, lacks authentication, and is unreasonably prejudicial because it is cited
`
`for a new purpose. To the extent EX2224 is admitted, its scope should be restricted
`
`to the purpose for which it was originally submitted. FRE 105.
`
`3.
`
`EX2225 – Excerpt from Trial Transcript. Sanofi v. Merck,
`16cv812 (RGA) (District of Delaware) (May 29, 2018)
`
`Grounds for objection: FRE 105, 402, 403, 802.
`
`EX2225 is irrelevant because it is not cited. Moreover, the exhibit is hearsay
`
`without exception and is prejudicial due to its late and unexplained introduction.
`
`To the extent EX2225 is admitted, its scope should be restricted to the purpose for
`
`which it was originally submitted. FRE 105.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`EX2319 – Declaration of Robert Veasey
`
`Grounds for objection: FRE 402, 403, 802.
`
`EX2319 is irrelevant because it is not cited. It is also prejudicial because it
`
`was belatedly submitted for a new purpose. It is also hearsay without exception.
`
`To the extent EX2319 is admitted, its scope should be restricted to the purpose for
`
`which it was originally submitted. FRE 105.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: 6 November 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/ Richard Torczon /
`Richard Torczon, Reg. No. 34,448
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Today a correct copy of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Objections to
`
`Evidence was served on Sanofi via email as follows:
`
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`
`Anish R. Desai
`
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`Sundip K. Kundu
`
`sundip.kundu@weil.com
`
`Kathryn M. Kantha
`
`kathryn.kantha@weil.com
`
`William S. Ansley
`
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`
`Matthew D. Sieger
`
`matthew.sieger@weil.com
`
`Adrian C. Percer
`
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`
`Brian C. Chang
`
`brian.chang@weil.com
`
`Robert T. Vlasis
`
`robert.vlasis@weil.com
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`Sanofi.IPR.Service@weil.com
`
`John S. Goetz, Joshua A. Griswold,
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`Matthew S. Colvin, Kenneth W. Darby &
`
`W. Karl Renner
`
`and on joinder counsel as follows:
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Jovial Wong
`
`jwong@winston.com
`
`Charles B. Klein
`
`cklein@winston.com
`
`Dan H. Hoang
`
`dhoang@winston.com
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`PfizerIPRs@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: 6 November 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/ Richard Torczon /
`Richard Torczon, Reg. No. 34,448
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`