`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`and PFIZER, INC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITONER MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`37 CFR §42.64(c)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`The petitioner (Mylan) seeks exclusion of patent owner (Sanofi) exhibits
`
`2001-2014, 2017-2026, 2100-2102, 2104-2107, 2111-2153, 2158-2201, 2203-
`
`2212, 2214-2218, 2223-2225, and the redirect testimony in Mylan exhibit 1054.
`
`Except as otherwise noted, the objections appear in Papers 22, 33 and 57.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Petitioner (“Mylan”) submits the following objections:
`
`A. EX2001-EX2003 – Press Releases (PR Newswire)
`EX2001-EX2003 should be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(FRE) 402-403. They are offered to show Mylan’s clinical development and
`
`commercialization of a follow-on insulin glargine product. Paper 10, 6. That
`
`Mylan is developing such a product is not relevant to any contested issue in this
`
`proceeding. Thus, EX2001-EX2003 lack relevance and risk confusing the issues.
`
`B.
`
`EX2004, EX2005, EX2007– Sanofi Complaints, (D. Del.),
`(D.N.J.)
`EX2004 and EX2005 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. EX2004 is
`
`offered to show Sanofi asserted the ’044 patent against another competitor.
`
`Paper 10, 6. EX2007 is offered to show that Sanofi asserted the ’044 patent in
`
`collateral litigation. Paper 10, 10. Whether the ’044 patent has been asserted is
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`not relevant to any contested issue in this proceeding. Thus, these exhibits lack
`
`relevance and risk confusing the issues.
`
`C. EX2006 – Stipulation and Proposed Order, (D.N.J.)
`EX2006 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. EX2006 is offered to show
`
`a joint request for a trial date in collateral litigation. Paper 10, 8; Paper 15, 2. This
`
`request is not relevant to any contested issue in this proceeding. Thus, EX2006
`
`lacks relevance and risks confusing the issues.
`
`D. EX2008-EX2010 – Mylan Invalidity Contentions, (D.N.J.)
`EX2008-EX2010 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. These exhibits
`
`are offered to show that Mylan has referenced overlapping prior art as a basis for
`
`invalidity in the co-pending district court case. Paper 10, 11, 13, 15. That Mylan
`
`has referenced overlapping prior art in its invalidity contentions in the district court
`
`case is not relevant to any contested issue in this proceeding. Thus, they lack
`
`relevance and risk confusing the issues.
`
`E.
`EX2011 –Service of Sanofi’s Responses (D.N.J.)
`EX2011 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. EX2011 is offered to show
`
`the date on which Sanofi served its response to Mylan’s amended invalidity
`
`contentions, Paper 10, 15, which is not relevant to any contested issue in this
`
`proceeding. Thus, EX2011 lacks relevance and risks confusing the issues.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`F.
`EX2012 – MP4 file of Sanofi’s Patented Pen animation
`EX2012 should be excluded under FRE 801-804. EX2012 is offered to show
`
`an animated operation of an embodiment of the injection pen described in the ’486
`
`patent. Paper 10, 18. The animation is hearsay because it is offered for the truth of
`
`its content without satisfying any of the hearsay exceptions.
`
`G. EX2013 – Mylan claim construction brief (D.N.J., excerpts)
`EX2013 should be excluded under FRE 402-402. This exhibit is offered to
`
`suggest that the parties agree that the same claim constructions should apply for all
`
`patents asserted in the co-pending district court case. Paper 10, 23-24 n.10. The
`
`quoted language is taken out of context and does not support this assertion. Thus,
`
`EX2013 lacks relevance, risks confusing the issues, is misleading, and is
`
`prejudicial to Mylan.
`
`H. EX2014 – District Court construction (Merck litigation)
`EX2014 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. EX2014 is offered to show
`
`a claim construction (“main housing”) adopted by a district court in a prior
`
`litigation not involving Mylan. Paper 10, 25-26. A district court’s construction in
`
`an unrelated case is not relevant to any contested issue in this proceeding. Thus,
`
`EX2014 lacks relevance, risks confusing the issues, and is prejudicial to Mylan.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`I.
`EX2017, EX2018 — Animation for Møller embodiments
`EX2017 and EX2018 should be excluded under FRE 801-804. They are
`
`offered to show an animated operation of an embodiment of the injection pen
`
`described in Møller. Paper 10, 47, 52, 54. The animation is hearsay because it is
`
`offered for the truth of its content without satisfying any hearsay exception.
`
`J.
`EX2019-EX2023 – Papers, (N.D. W. Va.), (D.N.J.)
`EX2019-EX2023 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. These exhibits
`
`are offered to show party statements regarding the timeline of collateral litigation.
`
`Paper 15, 1-4. These statements are not relevant to the issues in this proceeding.
`
`These exhibits lack relevance and risk confusing the issues.
`
`K. EX2023-EX2025 –Transcript Excerpts, (N.D. W. Va.),
`(D.N.J.)
`EX2023-EX25 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. These exhibits are
`
`offered to show comments of district court judges and a magistrate judge,
`
`respectively, in collateral litigation. Paper 15, 2-3. These comments are not
`
`relevant to any contested issues in this proceeding. Thus, these exhibits lack
`
`relevance and risk confusing the issues.
`
`L.
`EX2026 –Local Patent Rules, Explanatory Notes
`EX2026 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. EX2026 is offered to
`
`establish the patent rules specific to the United States Court for the District of New
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`Jersey. Paper 15, 3. These rules are irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding.
`
`Thus, EX2026 lacks relevance and risks confusing the issues.
`
`M. EX1054 – Professor Slocum Redirect (pp. 391-406)
`Objection preserved at page 391 of the exhibit. The redirect should be
`
`excluded under FRE 702(a). Professor Slocum may be an esteemed professor of
`
`mechanical engineering, but that does not automatically qualify him as an expert in
`
`injection pens. Indeed, he conceded that he “didn't have personal knowledge of the
`
`industry at the time of the invention, so I wanted to talk to [inventor Robert
`
`Veasey] who was clearly in the thick of it at the time.” Sanofi did not offer Mr.
`
`Veasey as its expert on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`or done at the relevant time; instead, it relied on Professor Slocum, who bases his
`
`testimony on what Mr. Veasey told him off the record.
`
`Triers of fact must exercise a gatekeeping function, “ensuring that an
`
`expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at
`
`hand.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 580 (1993). Here,
`
`Professor Slocum is used simply to launder the off-record testimony of Robert
`
`Veasey, the lead inventor of the challenged patents, as well as data and a test rig
`
`that Professor Slocum unquestioningly accepted from Mr. Veasey. EX1053, 30:23-
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`33:13; 37:21-38:3; 40:20-42:13; 46:23-47:2; 47:25-51:13; 54:2-22; 75:8-21; 203:2-
`
`5; 209:15-213:5; EX1054, 316:22-323:18; 329:13-331:11; 332:23-333:25.
`
`Professor Slocum’s lack of curiosity about the bases of his own testimony and
`
`willingness to outsource his qualifications to an inventor is the most salient feature
`
`of his testimony as an expert in this case. Yet the case law is clear that inventor
`
`testimony must be viewed with skepticism precisely because inventors are
`
`presumed to be motivated to protect their patents. E.g., Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex
`
`Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Use of any testimony infected by the
`
`inventor’s off-record, unexamined influence would undermine the integrity of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Here, Sanofi not only fails to corroborate its inventor’s factual assertions, it
`
`actively shields its inventor from cross examination by passing the inventor’s
`
`untested assertions through Professor Slocum and refusing to produce Mr. Veasey
`
`for cross examination on his substantial and off-the-record shaping of Dr.
`
`Slocum’s testimony. By his own admission, Professor Slocum was not
`
`knowledgeable about the relevant art at the relevant time (instead relying on an
`
`inventor for his information) or about the equipment or parameters needed for his
`
`ex parte testing (instead docilely accepting of any data and equipment the inventor
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`provided). Professor Slocum’s testimony in this case thus lacks the reliable
`
`foundation required of expert testimony.
`
`N. EX2100-EX2102, EX2104-EX2106, EX2111-EX2153,
`EX2158-EX2201, EX2203-EX2212, EX2214-EX2218
`and EX2225 – exhibits not cited
`EX2100-EX2106, EX2111-EX2116, EX2118-EX2135, EX2128-EX2146,
`
`EX2151, EX2158-EX2161, EX2166-EX2174, EX2176-EX2201, EX2203-
`
`EX2205, EX2208-EX2210, EX2212, and EX2214 should be excluded under
`
`FRE 402 and 403 because they were not discussed in the response, cannot be
`
`relevant to it, and consequently serve only to confuse and create prejudice through
`
`belated surprise.
`
`O. EX2107 – Slocum Declaration
`EX2107 should be excluded under FRE 702 for the reasons provided above
`
`(in section M) for the redirect portion of EX1054.
`
`Additionally, EX2107 should be excluded under FRE 702, 703 and 705
`
`because it does not provide sufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods, and has not applied the proper principles to the facts of
`
`this proceeding. For example, Appendences A through F do not set forth the
`
`principles used nor do they demonstrate the calculations used in generating the
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`spreadsheets. EX2107 appendix B indicates that Dr. Slocum received input values
`
`from a named inventor (Veasey) but provides no independent justification for
`
`relying on data about a third-party pen injector from one of the inventors. Other
`
`contributions from Mr. Veasey go entirely unmentioned. As a matter of law, no
`
`expert should accept uncorroborated data from an inventor as the bases for expert
`
`testimony. Allergan, 754 F.3d at 968. At a minimum, the paragraphs relying on the
`
`declarations—¶¶182-191, 233, 237-238, 242-255—should be excluded for failing
`
`to disclose the underlying facts and data, and failing to set forth the bases of
`
`Dr. Slocum’s opinions.
`
`P.
`
`EX2117, EX2147-EX2152, EX2162, EX2167, EX2168,
`EX2206, EX2207, EX2211, EX2215-EX2218 – Animations
`EX2117, EX2147-EX2152, EX2162, EX2167, EX2168, EX2206, EX2207,
`
`EX2211, and EX2215-EX2218 should be excluded under FRE 801-804. The
`
`animations are offered to show animated operations of prior art and non-prior art
`
`injection pens. The animations are hearsay because they are offered for the truth of
`
`their contents without satisfying any of the hearsay exceptions.
`
`Q. EX2136, EX2137, EX2175 —commercial pen exhibits
`EX2136, EX2137 and EX2175 should be excluded under FRE 402-403. The
`
`exhibits, which relate to commercial pens and their properties, such as injection
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`force, are irrelevant to the extent they rely on an improper standard of obviousness
`
`and unclaimed features. These exhibits are also prejudicial and confuse the issues
`
`as a result.
`
`R. EX2223 – DCA web page; EX2224 – tandfonline.com web page
`EX2223 and EX2224 should be excluded under FRE 403, 802, 901. These
`
`exhibits are offered to show secondary considerations. They are hearsay without
`
`exception, lack authentication, and are unreasonably prejudicial because they are
`
`cited for a new purpose. EX2223 is just self-serving advertisement by an interested
`
`entity.
`
`S. Limiting request
`To the extent that any exhibit or portion of an exhibit is not excluded, use of
`
`the exhibit should be restricted to the use for which it was originally submitted.
`
`FRE 105.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`Sanofi exhibits 2001-2014, 2017-2026, 2100-2102, 2104-2107, 2111-2153,
`
`2158-2201, 2203-2212, 2214-2218, 2223-2225, and the redirect testimony in
`
`Mylan exhibit 1054 should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`Dated: 9 December 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Wesley E. Derryberry/
`Wesley E. Derryberry,
`First Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 71,594
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that this paper was served today on the electronic service addresses
`
`of Sanofi as follows:
`
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`
`Anish R. Desai
`
`Sundip K. Kundu
`
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`sundip.kundu@weil.com
`
`Kathryn M. Kantha
`
`kathryn.kantha@weil.com
`
`William S. Ansley
`
`Matthew D. Sieger
`
`Adrian C. Percer
`
`Brian C. Chang
`
`Robert T. Vlasis
`
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`
`matthew.sieger@weil.com
`
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`
`brian.chang@weil.com
`
`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
`
`and W. Karl Renner
`
`and on joinder counsel as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01676
`Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`Jovial Wong
`
`Charles B. Klein
`
`Dan H. Hoang
`
`jwong@winston.com
`
`cklein@winston.com
`
`dhoang@winston.com
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`PfizerIPRs@winston.com
`
`Dated: 9 December 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Wesley E. Derryberry/
`Wesley E. Derryberry,
`First Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 71,594
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`