`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`PROLLENIUM US INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ALLERGAN INDUSTRIE, SAS,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`IPR2019-01505, Patent 8,450,475 B2
`IPR2019-01506, Patent 8,357,795 B2
`IPR2019-01508, Patent 9,238,013 B2
`IPR2019-01509, Patent 9,358,322 B2
`IPR2019-01617, Patent 8,822,676 B2
`IPR2019-01632, Patent 8,357,795 B2
`IPR2020-00084, Patent 9,089,519 B2
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Authorization for the use of a joint caption page was received on April 27, 2020.
`Neither party opposes the use of a joint caption page. An identical paper has been
`filed in each case recited in the consolidated caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, Patent 8,450,475 B2; IPR2019-01506, Patent 8,357,795 B2;
`IPR2019-01508, Patent 9,238,013 B2; IPR2019-01509, Patent 9,358,322 B2;
`IPR2019-01617, Patent 8,822,676 B2; IPR2019-01632, Patent 8,357,795 B2;
`IPR2020-00084, Patent 9,089,519 B2
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Allergan Industrie, SAS
`
`(“Patent Owner”) hereby submits these objections to Petitioner’s Declarations of
`
`Dr. Dale DeVore, numbered Exhibit 1002 in each of the above-captioned IPR
`
`proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 1002 Should Be Excluded Under Fed. R. Evid. 702
`Exhibit 1002 is improper expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and
`
`should be excluded because Dr. DeVore is not a qualified expert under Daubert v.
`
`Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dr. DeVore’s cross-examination
`
`testimony revealed that he is not qualified in the pertinent art (see, e.g., IPR2019-
`
`01505, Exhibit 1002, ¶¶ 69-72), does not have a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in
`
`Biochemistry, did not base his testimony on sufficient facts and data, and his
`
`testimony is not the product of reliable principles and methods, all bases on which
`
`Exhibit 1002 should be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 702(a), (b) and (c).
`
`II. Exhibit 1002 Should Be Excluded For Violating 37 C.F.R. § 42.11
`Exhibit 1002 should be excluded for the additional reason that its signatory,
`
`Dr. DeVore, misrepresented his credentials to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.11(b),
`
`(c). Dr. DeVore admitted during cross-examination that his Ph.D., M.S., and B.S.
`
`are in Food Science & Technology despite representing to the Board that his
`
`degrees were in Biochemistry.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, Patent 8,450,475 B2; IPR2019-01506, Patent 8,357,795 B2;
`IPR2019-01508, Patent 9,238,013 B2; IPR2019-01509, Patent 9,358,322 B2;
`IPR2019-01617, Patent 8,822,676 B2; IPR2019-01632, Patent 8,357,795 B2;
`IPR2020-00084, Patent 9,089,519 B2
`
`III. Patent Owner Objections to Exhibit 1002 Are Timely
`The objections made herein are based on testimony offered by Dr. DeVore at
`
`his recently concluded deposition. Dr. DeVore was deposed on August 12-14,
`
`2020. Patent Owner is filing these objections within five business days of the date
`
`on which Patent Owner was made aware of the relevant facts, which were
`
`discovered through cross-examining Dr. DeVore at his deposition. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.64(b)(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 19, 2020
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Anthony M. Insogna/
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`Jones Day
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121-3134
`Tel.: (858) 314-1200
`Fax.: (844) 345-3178
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioner a true and correct copy of Patent Owner’s Objections to
`
`Petitioner’s Evidence by electronic means at the following address of record:
`
`mcc.prollenium.ipr@mcciplaw.com
`
`Dated: August 19, 2020
`
`
`/Anthony M. Insogna/
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`Jones Day
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121-3134
`Tel.: (858) 314-1200
`Fax.: (844) 345-3178
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
