Paper 34
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEURELIS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`Case: IPR2019-00451
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEURELIS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`Case: IPR2019-00451
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................................................... 1
`II. SHOWINGS AND ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 1
`A. Exhibit 2001: Epilepsy Fast Facts, CDC, 2019............................................ 1
`
`B. Exhibit 2002: Grant Fast Track (diazepam intranasal solution), 2016. ....... 2
`
`C. Exhibit 2003: LeWine, “. . .Injection Helps Stop Epileptic Seizures,” ....... 2
`
`D. Exhibit 2004: “Managing Epilepsy . . .” CDC , 2016 .................................. 3
`
`E. Exhibit 2005: Fiest, “Prevalence and Incidence of Epilepsy. . .”, 2017 ...... 3
`
`F. Exhibit 2006: SIGMA Chemical Company Catalog, 1988.......................... 4
`
`G. Exhibit 2007: Bechgaard, “Solubilization of . . . Benzodiazepines . . .” ..... 4
`
`H. Exhibit 2008: Hussain, “Nasal Absorption of Propranolol . . .”, 1980 ........ 5
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Exhibit 2009: Lau, “Absorption of Diazepam and Lorazepam . . .” ............ 5
`
`Exhibit 2010: Schols-Hendriks, “Absorption of Clonazepam …”, 1995 .... 5
`
`K. Exhibit 2012: Declaration of Dr. Sveinbjorn Gizurarson, Ph.D. ............... 6
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.7-9; PO’s Reliance: POR(passim);
`
`Surreply16,18-22................................................................................................ 6
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice). ..... 6
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`Objections: FRE 701 (improper lay testimony); 702 (unqualifed expert
`
`testimony). .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Objection: FRE 802 (hearsay without exception). ............................................ 7
`
`Objection: FRE 1006 (summary to prove content). ........................................... 7
`
`Objection: FRE 105 (limited purpose). .............................................................. 7
`
`L. Exhibit 2013: Riss, “Benzodiazepines in Epilepsy . . .”, 2008 .................. 7
`
`M. Exhibit 2014: Wermeling, U.S. Patent No. 6,610,271, 2003 ....................... 8
`
`N. Exhibit 2015: Cole, “. . . Individual Epilepsy Guidelines . . .”, 2009 ......... 8
`
`O. Exhibit 2016: Terry, “... Rectal Gel in School and Day Care Settings,” ..... 9
`
`P. Exhibit 2017: Diastat® Label, 2005 ............................................................ 9
`
`Q. Exhibit 2018: NAYZILAM® (midazolam) 2019 .....................................10
`
`R. Exhibit 2019: French, “Initial Management of Epilepsy,” 2008 ...............10
`
`S. Exhibit 2020: Corbo, “Measurement of Nasal Mucociliary Clearance,” 11
`
`T. Exhibit 2021: “How does the nose work? The nasal mucosa,” 2019 .......11
`
`U. Exhibit 2022: Mygind, “Nasal Allergy,” 1979 ..........................................12
`
`V. Exhibit 2023: “Neurelis Files New Drug Application . . .” 2019 ..............12
`
`W. Exhibit 2024: FDA Orphan Drug Designation 2019 .................................13
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................14
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`I.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (“Aquestive”) requests exclusion of
`
`the following Patent Owner (“Neurelis, Inc.”) exhibits 2001-2010; 2012-2024.
`
`Each exhibit is used in a manner contrary to the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), as adopted in 37 C.F.R. § 42.62. Unless otherwise noted, Petitioner’s
`
`objections appear in Paper 19.1
`
`II.
`
`SHOWINGS AND ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits the following objections:
`
`A. Exhibit 2001: Epilepsy Fast Facts, CDC, 2019
`
`
`Objections Preserved: Paper 19, p.1; PO’s Reliance: POPR 1; POR 3. Objections:
`
`FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802 (hearsay
`
`without exception); FRE 901 (authentication); FRE 105 (limited purpose). The
`
`exhibit is not relevant to any instituted ground. Exhibit 2001’s probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be decided, its waste of
`
`the Board’s and Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will lead to unfair
`
`
`1 The following abbreviations are used: Patent Owner (“PO”); PO’s Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 7) (“POPR”); PO’s Response (Paper 16) (“POR”); PO’s Surreply
`
`(Paper 28) (“Surreply”); Declaration of Dr. Gizurarson (EX2012)
`
`(“GizurarsonDec.”); Petitioner’s Objections (Paper 19) (“Paper 19”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The exhibit is proffered to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception.
`
`PO failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish the exhibit is what it is
`
`purported to be. If this exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose
`
`for which it was offered in PO’s Preliminary Response and PO’s Response.
`
`B. Exhibit 2002: Grant Fast Track (diazepam intranasal solution), 2016.
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.2; PO’s Reliance: POPR 2; POR 43.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2002 is not
`
`relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be decided, its waste of the Board’s
`
`and the Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will lead to unfair prejudice if used
`
`later in the proceeding or on appeal. This exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the
`
`matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception. If this exhibit is admitted,
`
`its use should be limited to the purpose for which it was offered in POPR and POR.
`
`C. Exhibit 2003: LeWine, “. . .Injection Helps Stop Epileptic Seizures,”
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.2-3; PO’s Reliance: POPR 2. Objections: FRE
`
`402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802 (hearsay without
`
`exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2003 is not cited in POR or
`
`Surreply and is not relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s probative value
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be decided, its waste of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`the Board’s and the Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will lead to unfair
`
`prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The exhibit is offered to
`
`prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception. If
`
`this exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for which it was
`
`offered in POPR and POR.
`
`D. Exhibit 2004: “Managing Epilepsy . . .” CDC , 2016
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.3-4; PO’s Reliance: POPR 1,2. Objections:
`
`FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802 (hearsay
`
`without exception); FRE 901 (authentication); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit
`
`2004 is not relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be decided, its waste of
`
`the Board’s and the Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will lead to unfair
`
`prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The exhibit is offered to
`
`prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception. PO
`
`failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish the exhibit is what it is purported
`
`to be. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for which
`
`it was offered in POPR and POR.
`
`E. Exhibit 2005: Fiest, “Prevalence and Incidence of Epilepsy. . .”, 2017
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.4-5; PO’s Reliance: POPR 1; POR 3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2005 is not
`
`relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be decided, its waste of the Board’s
`
`and the Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will lead to unfair prejudice if used
`
`later in the proceeding or on appeal. The exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the
`
`matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception. If the exhibit is admitted,
`
`its use should be limited to the purpose for which it was offered in POPR and POR.
`
`F. Exhibit 2006: SIGMA Chemical Company Catalog, 1988
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.5; PO’s Reliance: POPR 25-26; POR 10-11;
`
`Surreply 6,9-10,12. Objections: FRE 802 (hearsay without exception); FRE 901
`
`(authentication); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2006 is offered to prove the
`
`truth of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception. PO failed to
`
`provide evidence sufficient to establish the exhibit is what it is purported to be. If
`
`the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for which it was
`
`offered in POPR and POR.
`
`G. Exhibit 2007: Bechgaard, “Solubilization of . . . Benzodiazepines . . .”
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.5-6; PO’s Reliance: POR 6,42; Surreply
`
`
`
`
`20,21; GizurarsonDec. §§49,64,65,82. Objections: FRE 802 (hearsay without
`
`exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2007 is offered to prove the truth
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception. If the exhibit is
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`H. Exhibit 2008: Hussain, “Nasal Absorption of Propranolol . . .”, 1980
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.6; PO’s Reliance: POR 5,42; GizurasonDec.
`
`§53. Objections: FRE 802 (hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited
`
`purpose). Exhibit 2008 is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without
`
`meeting any hearsay exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited
`
`to the purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`I. Exhibit 2009: Lau, “Absorption of Diazepam and Lorazepam . . .”
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.6; PO’s Reliance: POR 5,42; GizurarsonDec.
`
`§53. Objections: FRE 802 (hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose).
`
`Exhibit 2009 is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting
`
`any hearsay exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the
`
`purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`J. Exhibit 2010: Schols-Hendriks, “Absorption of Clonazepam …”, 1995
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.6-7; PO’s Reliance: GizurarsonDec. §§63,111.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2010 is not cited
`
`in POR or Surreply and is not relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`decided, its waste of the Board’s and the Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`will lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The
`
`exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any
`
`hearsay exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the
`
`purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`K. Exhibit 2012: Declaration of Dr. Sveinbjorn Gizurarson, Ph.D.
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.7-9; PO’s Reliance: POR(passim);
`
`Surreply16,18-22.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice).
`
`Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, 67 of Exhibit 2012 are not relevant to any instituted ground and
`
`their probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to
`
`be decided, its waste of the Board’s and the Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it
`
`will lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal.
`
`Paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 28-33, 36, 44, 48, 50-51 of Exhibit 2012 include assertions for
`
`which evidence has not been introduced sufficient to show that the witness has
`
`personal knowledge of the matters asserted.
`
`Objections: FRE 701 (improper lay testimony); 702 (unqualifed expert testimony).
`
`For paragraphs 16-25, 26, 28, 31-36, 38-39, 41-43, 48, 50-52, 54-56, 58, 60-61,
`
`67-70, 75, 77-80, 82-87, 89-95, 97, 99-109, 111-116 of Exhibit 2012, the declarant
`
`is not qualified to opine on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`understand, to opine on patent claim limitations, to perform claim construction,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`and/or to perform legal analysis of patent invalidity. The opinion testimony offered
`
`in this exhibit is not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,
`
`and is also not based on personal knowledge. The opinion testimony includes
`
`unsubstantiated leaps and advances inaccurate, unqualified generalizations.
`
`Objection: FRE 802 (hearsay without exception).
`
`For paragraphs 28-33, 44-46, 48, 50-52, 54, 56-61, 63-67, 71-72, 74, 77-78, 83-84,
`
`89, 92, 111-113 of Exhibit 2012, the exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the
`
`matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception.
`
`Objection: FRE 1006 (summary to prove content).
`
`Paragraphs 28-29, 36, 48, 50-51, 56, 58, 59-60, 79, 85, 87, 89, 95, 100-102, 104-
`
`105, 109, 114-116 of Exhibit 2012 constitute improper summary with underlying
`
`documents not made available.
`
`Objection: FRE 105 (limited purpose).
`
`If Exhibit 2012 is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for which
`
`it was offered in POR.
`
`L. Exhibit 2013: Riss, “Benzodiazepines in Epilepsy . . .”, 2008
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.5-6; PO’s Reliance: POR 5; GizurarsonDec.
`
`§47. Objections: FRE 802 (hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose).
`
`Exhibit 2013 is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`any hearsay exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`M. Exhibit 2014: Wermeling, U.S. Patent No. 6,610,271, 2003
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.9; PO’s Reliance: POR 34; Surreply 18;
`
`GizurarsonDec. ¶90. Objections: FRE 802 (hearsay without exception); FRE 105
`
`(limited purpose). Exhibit 2014 is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
`
`without meeting any hearsay exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be
`
`limited to the purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`N. Exhibit 2015: Cole, “. . . Individual Epilepsy Guidelines . . .”, 2009
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.9; PO’s Reliance: GizurarsonDec. ¶¶45,46.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2015 is not cited
`
`in POR or Surreply and is not relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be
`
`decided, its waste of the Board’s and Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will
`
`lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The exhibit is
`
`offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay
`
`exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for
`
`which it was offered in POR.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`O. Exhibit 2016: Terry, “... Rectal Gel in School and Day Care Settings,”
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.10-11; PO’s Reliance: GizurarsonDec. ¶46.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2016 is not cited
`
`in POR or Surreply and is not relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be
`
`decided, its waste of the Board’s and Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will
`
`lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The exhibit is
`
`offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay
`
`exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for
`
`which it was offered in POR.
`
`P. Exhibit 2017: Diastat® Label, 2005
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.11; PO’s Reliance: GizurarsonDec. ¶52.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 901 (authentication); FRE 105 (limited purpose).
`
`Exhibit 2017 is not cited in POR or Surreply and is not relevant to any instituted
`
`ground. The exhibit’s probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion
`
`of the issues to be decided, its waste of the Board’s and Petitioner’s time, and the
`
`danger that it will lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on
`
`appeal. The exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`meeting any hearsay exception. PO failed to provide evidence sufficient to
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`establish the exhibit is what it is purported to be. If the exhibit is admitted, its use
`
`should be limited to the purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`Q. Exhibit 2018: NAYZILAM® (midazolam) 2019
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.12; PO’s Reliance: POR 43; GizurarsonDec. ¶5.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 901 (authentication); FRE 105 (limited purpose).
`
`Exhibit 2018 is not relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s probative value
`
`is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be decided, its waste of
`
`the Board’s and Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will lead to unfair
`
`prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The exhibit is offered to
`
`prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay exception. PO
`
`failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish the exhibit is what it is purported
`
`to be. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for which it
`
`was offered in POR.
`
`R. Exhibit 2019: French, “Initial Management of Epilepsy,” 2008
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.12-13; PO’s Reliance: POR 3; GizurarsonDec.
`
`¶¶44,45. Objections: FRE 802 (hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited
`
`purpose). Exhibit 2019 is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without
`
`meeting any hearsay exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`to the purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`S. Exhibit 2020: Corbo, “Measurement of Nasal Mucociliary Clearance,”
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.13; PO’s Reliance: GizurarsonDec. ¶57.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2020 is not cited
`
`in POR or Surreply and is not relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be
`
`decided, its waste of the Board’s and the Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it
`
`will lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The
`
`exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any
`
`hearsay exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the
`
`purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`T. Exhibit 2021: “How does the nose work? The nasal mucosa,” 2019
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.14; PO’s Reliance: GizurarsonDec. ¶57.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 901 (authentication); FRE 105 (limited purpose).
`
`Exhibit 2021 is not cited in POR or Surreply and is not relevant to any instituted
`
`ground. The exhibit’s probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion
`
`of the issues to be decided, its waste of the Board’s and the Petitioner’s time, and
`
`the danger that it will lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`appeal. The exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`meeting any hearsay exception. PO failed to provide evidence sufficient to
`
`establish the exhibit is what it is purported to be. If the exhibit is admitted, its use
`
`should be limited to the purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`U. Exhibit 2022: Mygind, “Nasal Allergy,” 1979
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, p.15; PO’s Reliance: GizurarsonDec. ¶60.
`
`Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste, prejudice); FRE 802
`
`(hearsay without exception); FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2022 is not cited
`
`in POR or Surreply and is not relevant to any instituted ground. The exhibit’s
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues to be
`
`decided, its waste of the Board’s and Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it will
`
`lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The exhibit is
`
`offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any hearsay
`
`exception. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to the purpose for
`
`which it was offered in POR.
`
`V. Exhibit 2023: “Neurelis Files New Drug Application . . .” 2019
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.15-16; PO’s Reliance: POR 43;
`
`GizurarsonDec. ¶67. Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion, waste,
`
`prejudice); FRE 802 (hearsay without exception); FRE 901 (authentication); FRE
`
`105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2023 is not relevant to any instituted ground. The
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`exhibit’s probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the issues
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`to be decided, its waste of the Board’s and Petitioner’s time, and the danger that it
`
`will lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The
`
`exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any
`
`hearsay exception. PO failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish the exhibit
`
`is what it is purported to be. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to
`
`the purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`W. Exhibit 2024: FDA Orphan Drug Designation 2019
`
`
`Objections Preserved, Paper 19, pp.16-17; PO’s Reliance: POR 43;
`
`GizurarsonDec. ¶113. Objections: FRE 402 (relevance); FRE 403 (confusion,
`
`waste, prejudice); FRE 802 (hearsay without exception); FRE 901 (authentication);
`
`FRE 105 (limited purpose). Exhibit 2024 is not relevant to any instituted ground.
`
`The exhibit’s probative value is substantially outweighed by its confusion of the
`
`issues to be decided, its waste of the Board’s and Petitioner’s time, and the danger
`
`that it will lead to unfair prejudice if used later in the proceeding or on appeal. The
`
`exhibit is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted without meeting any
`
`hearsay exception. PO failed to provide evidence sufficient to establish the exhibit
`
`is what it is purported to be. If the exhibit is admitted, its use should be limited to
`
`the purpose for which it was offered in POR.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`
`
`Neurelis’ Exhibits 2001-2010; 2012-2024 should be excluded at least for the
`
`reasons provided above.
`
`Dated: April 21, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael I. Chakansky/
`Michael I. Chakansky (Reg. No. 31,600)
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`4 Century Drive
`
`Parsippany, N.J. 07054
`mchakansky@hbiplaw.com
`Tel: 973.331.1700
`
`
`
`First Backup Counsel for
`Petitioner Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this the 21st day of April 2020, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`was served in its entirety on the following counsel of record by electronic service
`
`by email at the email addresses as set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Jeffrey Guise
`Richard Torczon
`Lorelei Westin
`Lee Johnson
`Nathaniel Leachman
`Alina L. Litoshyk
`Wendy Devine
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`jguise@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`lwestin@wsgr.com
`ljohnson@wsgr.com
`nleachman@wsgr.com
`alitoshyk@wsgr.com
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`35401.652.palib1@matters.wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael I. Chakansky/
`Michael I. Chakansky (Reg. No. 31,600)
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`4 Century Drive
`
`Parsippany, N.J. 07054
`mchakansky@hbiplaw.com
`Tel: 973.331.1700
`
`
`
`15
`
`
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
