`
`Filed: April 17, 2019
`
`Filed on behalf of: Eli Lilly and Company
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
`Petitioner
`v.
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01710 (Patent No. 8,586,045)
`Case IPR2018-01711 (Patent No. 9,884,907)
`Case IPR2018-01712 (Patent No. 9,884,908)1
`
`
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`
`
`1
`The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`
`caption. For the Board’s convenience, citations to the POPR refer to the paper filed
`
`in IPR2018-01710 involving Teva’s Patent No. 8,586,045.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`
`The Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) generally apply to proceedings
`
`
`
`before the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and
`
`the FRE, Patent Owner Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`submits the following objections to certain exhibits submitted by Petitioner Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals International GMBH (“Teva” or “Petitioner”). These objections
`
`apply equally to Petitioner’s reliance on these exhibits in any subsequently filed
`
`documents. These objections are timely filed and served within ten business days
`
`of the Board’s decision to institute trial in these proceedings.
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2001 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2001 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2002 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2002 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2003 for the truth of the
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2003 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`
`
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 2004 under FRE 401-403 as lacking relevance to the
`
`instituted grounds. Teva relies on Exhibit 2004 and asserts that CGRP8-37 was
`
`identified in 1989. POPR, 6. But Exhibit 2004 does not establish that CGRP8-37
`
`was first identified in 1989. Thus, this exhibit does not make any fact more or less
`
`probable than it would be without this exhibit. Moreover, Exhibit 2004 is unfairly
`
`prejudicial, confuses the issues, misleads the factfinder, and/or is a waste of time.
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`
`
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 2007 as being duplicative of its Exhibit 1052. “A
`
`document already in the record of the proceeding must not be filed again, not even
`
`as an exhibit or an appendix, without express Board authorization.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(d). Thus, this exhibit should be expunged.
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2008 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2008 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2011 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2011 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2012 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2012 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2019 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2019 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2021 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2021 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807. Lilly further objects to Exhibit 2021 because it lacks proper foundation or
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`authenticity under FRE 901.
`
`
`
`In addition, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2021 under FRE 401-403 as lacking
`
`relevance to the instituted grounds. Because Exhibit 2021 does not reflect any
`
`knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention, this exhibit
`
`does not make any fact more or less probable than it would be without this exhibit.
`
`Moreover, Exhibit 2021 is unfairly prejudicial, confuses the issues, misleads the
`
`factfinder, and/or is a waste of time.
`
`Exhibit 2022
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2022 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2022 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807. Lilly further objects to Exhibit 2022 because it lacks proper foundation or
`
`authenticity under FRE 901.
`
`
`
`In addition, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2022 under FRE 401-403 as lacking
`
`relevance to the instituted grounds. Teva relies on Exhibit 2022 and asserts that
`
`“Merck ultimately discontinued MK-0974.” POPR, 7. Exhibit 2022, which
`
`allegedly contains clinical trial search results for MK-0974, does not establish
`
`discontinuation of clinical trials for MK-0974. Because Exhibit 2022 does not
`
`reflect any knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention,
`
`this exhibit does not make any fact more or less probable than it would be without
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`this exhibit. Moreover, Exhibit 2022 is unfairly prejudicial, confuses the issues,
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`misleads the factfinder, and/or is a waste of time.
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2023 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2023 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807. Lilly further objects to Exhibit 2023 because it lacks proper foundation or
`
`authenticity under FRE 901.
`
`
`
`In addition, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2023 under FRE 401-403 as lacking
`
`relevance to the instituted grounds. Because Exhibit 2023 does not reflect any
`
`knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention, this exhibit
`
`does not make any fact more or less probable than it would be without this exhibit.
`
`Moreover, Exhibit 2023 is unfairly prejudicial, confuses the issues, misleads the
`
`factfinder, and/or is a waste of time.
`
`Exhibit 2046
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2046 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2046 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807. Lilly further objects to Exhibit 2046 because it lacks proper foundation or
`
`authenticity under FRE 901.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`
`
`In addition, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2046 under FRE 401-403 as lacking
`
`relevance to the instituted grounds. Because Exhibit 2046 does not reflect any
`
`knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention, this exhibit
`
`does not make any fact more or less probable than it would be without this exhibit.
`
`Moreover, Exhibit 2046 is unfairly prejudicial, confuses the issues, misleads the
`
`factfinder, and/or is a waste of time.
`
`Exhibit 2047
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2047 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2047 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`Exhibit 2048
`
`
`
`To the extent Teva relies on the content of Exhibit 2048 for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted, Lilly objects to Exhibit 2048 as inadmissible hearsay (see FRE 801
`
`and 802) that does not fall under any exceptions, including FRE 803, 804, 805, and
`
`807.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: April 17, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`By: /William B. Raich/
`William B. Raich (Reg. No. 54,386)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence was served electronically via email on
`
`April 17, 2019, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Deborah A. Sterling
`Robert C. Millonig
`Gaby L. Longsworth
`Jeremiah B. Frueauf
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`dsterling-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`bobm-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`glongs-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`jfrueauf-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`
`
`Patent Owner has consented to service by email.
`
`By: /William Esper/
`William Esper
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 17, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`