IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC and PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2020-003241
`Patent 8,114,833
`______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2020-01252 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC and PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2020-003241
`Patent 8,114,833
`______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2020-01252 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Patent Owner Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo
`
`Nordisk”) moves to exclude from evidence, in their entirety, Exhibits 1091-1098,
`
`1103, 1106, and 1114-1115, which were submitted by Petitioner Mylan Institutional
`
`LLC (“Petitioner”) with its Reply (Paper 35). This Motion is timely pursuant to the
`
`Scheduling Order entered in this proceeding on June 23, 2020. Paper 15 at 10.
`
`Petitioner’s expert’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1106) offers new scientific
`
`theories that could, and should, have been included in the Petition and advances an
`
`entirely new basis for the prior art status of Betz (Exhibit 1005), a foundational
`
`reference of Petitioner’s Ground 3. Petitioner’s belated disclosure of these
`
`arguments contravenes the Board’s rules and prejudices Novo Nordisk, denying its
`
`expert an opportunity to respond. It is not the Board’s duty to sift through
`
`Petitioner’s 114-page Reply Declaration, separating improper from proper content,
`
`and the Board should exclude it in its entirety. At a minimum, the Board should
`
`exclude the paragraphs of the Reply Declaration that most clearly espouse new
`
`theories, as well as the numerous new Exhibits offered to support them.
`
`The Board should exclude 8 pages of the Reply Declaration which advance
`
`Petitioner’s new basis for the prior art status of Betz for the additional and
`
`independent reason that Petitioner attempts to improperly incorporate this argument
`
`by reference into its Reply, again flouting the Board’s rules.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`II.
`On December 14, 2020, Petitioner filed with its Reply 53 Exhibits, including
`
`a 114-page Reply Declaration of Dr. Laird Forrest (Ex1106). The twelve Exhibits
`
`that are the subject of this Motion were introduced for the first time with Petitioner’s
`
`Reply, not to counter arguments in the Patent Owner Response, but rather to address
`
`deficiencies in Petitioner’s prima facie case presented in its Petition.
`
`All references that are the subject of this Motion were publicly available at
`
`the time of the Petition and would have been revealed by a diligent search. There is
`
`no reason that Petitioner could not have filed them with its Petition, nor any reason
`
`its expert could not have opined on them in his first declaration. Because Petitioner’s
`
`untimely evidence and arguments were first submitted on Reply, Novo Nordisk and
`
`its expert were denied the opportunity to respond to them in the Patent Owner
`
`Response. The technical nature of the arguments, coupled with a lack of expert
`
`testimony at the sur-reply stage, denied Novo Nordisk a meaningful opportunity to
`
`respond to the arguments there, as well.
`
`Following service of the Reply, Novo Nordisk timely objected to the Exhibits
`
`that are the subject of this Motion by filing Patent Owner’s Notice of Objections
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 on December 21, 2020. Paper 38.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of evidence and
`
`expert testimony in an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a). Irrelevant evidence
`
`is not admissible, and relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, [or] confusing the
`
`issues.” FED. R. EVID. 402, 403.
`
`A Petitioner’s Reply may only respond to arguments raised in the Patent
`
`Owner Response and may not raise new issues. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide elaborates on this rule:
`
`[A] reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents
`
`evidence may not be considered. The Board is not
`
`required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions
`
`of the reply. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue
`
`has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary
`
`to make out a prima facie case for the . . . unpatentability
`
`of an original . . . claim . . . [and] new evidence . . . that
`
`could have been presented in a prior filing.
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“Trial Practice
`
`Guide”) at 74 (Nov. 2019), available at https://go.usa.gov/xpvPF.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`Improper new evidence introduced on Reply is inadmissible under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.61(a) and thus subject to exclusion. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d
`
`1064, 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[A] party may move to exclude evidence, whether as
`
`improper under the response-only regulation, under the Trial Practice Guide’s
`
`advice, or on other grounds.”). The Reply is not an opportunity for Petitioner to
`
`resolve deficiencies with the arguments and evidence presented in its Petition. See
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Sci. LLC, IPR2013-00424, Paper 50 at 21
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015) (“[Petitioner] cannot rely belatedly on this evidence in its
`
`Reply and Reply Declaration . . . to make up for the deficiencies in its Petition.”).
`
`IV. EXHIBITS OUTSIDE THE PROPER SCOPE OF PETITIONER’S
`REPLY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED UNDER THE PTAB RULES, THE
`TRIAL PRACTICE GUIDE, AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF
`EVIDENCE
`Petitioner’s Reply improperly introduced new evidence and arguments
`
`intended to address deficiencies in its Petition. The new evidence is inadmissible
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a) and should be excluded. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 74; Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`
`IPR2013-00517, Paper 87 at 14-16 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015) (rather than rebutting
`
`the Patent Owner Response, Petitioner improperly presented new evidence and
`
`rationale on Reply); Lupin Ltd. v. Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd., IPR2015-01099, Paper 69
`
`at 27-28, 44-45 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2016) (according no weight to Petitioner’s
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`identification of “further motivation” in support of its obviousness argument, which
`
`was “impermissibly raised for the first time in the Reply”).
`
`Petitioner’s new evidence should also be excluded under the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence. Considering new evidence prejudices Novo Nordisk at this late stage,
`
`particularly in light of Novo Nordisk’s expert’s inability to respond to it, such that
`
`any “probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice,
`
`[or] confusing the issues.” FED. R. EVID. 403.
`
`A. Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration (Ex1106) Contains Improper
`Opinions and Should Be Excluded
`Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration (Ex1106) should be excluded in its entirety
`
`because it offers new arguments, based on new Exhibits, that should have been
`
`submitted with the Petition, thus exceeding the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). “The Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from
`
`improper portions of the reply.” Trial Practice Guide, 74; see also Intelligent Bio-
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, at 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“Once the Board identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither
`
`this court nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts
`
`of that brief are responsive and which are improper.”).
`
`Paragraphs 78-96, 108-109, and 113-116 of Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration
`
`contain improper opinions, which are discussed in detail below. The opinions raised
`
`in these paragraphs go to larger issues, however, making it difficult, if not
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`impossible, to parse proper from improper paragraphs of the Reply Declaration. For
`
`example, paragraphs 108-109 present arguments concerning the motivation to
`
`modify the prior art, which is inextricably intertwined with obviousness Grounds 2
`
`and 3. Paragraphs 78-96 and 113-116 concern Betz, a foundational reference of
`
`Ground 3—and specifically, whether a skilled artisan would have considered it
`
`(¶¶78-96) and whether it qualifies as 102(e) prior art (¶¶113-116). Thus, the
`
`opinions contained in these paragraphs support Dr. Forrest’s broader opinions,
`
`making it appropriate to exclude the Reply Declaration in full because it is not for
`
`the Board to parse them out. Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369-70.
`
`At a minimum, paragraphs 78-96, 108-109, and 113-116 of Dr. Forrest’s
`
`Reply Declaration contain new arguments and evidence that are not merely rebuttal,
`
`but rather should have been raised in the Petition, and, because they were not, should
`
`be excluded as improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821
`
`F.3d at 1370 (upholding the Board’s refusal to consider Petitioner’s new theory for
`
`motivation to combine raised for the first time on Reply); 10X Genomics, Inc. v.
`
`Univ. of Chicago, IPR2015-01157, Paper 51 at 13-15, 22 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2016)
`
`(declining to consider a change in Petitioner’s rationale for unpatentability presented
`
`for the first time on Reply because doing so “would deprive [Patent Owner] of a
`
`meaningful opportunity to respond”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`To permit Petitioner to introduce new arguments and evidence through its
`
`expert, at the Reply stage, severely prejudices Novo Nordisk, who was denied an
`
`opportunity to respond in its Patent Owner Response, and its expert, who was denied
`
`any opportunity to respond. This prejudice substantially outweighs any relevance
`
`the evidence or arguments may have. FED. R. EVID. 403.
`
`Paragraphs 78-96 of Exhibit 1106 Should Be Excluded
`1.
`Novo Nordisk explained in the Patent Owner Response that Petitioner did not
`
`meet its burden to present a credible reason that a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have combined the teachings of Petitioner’s primary references, Betz (concerning
`
`hGH formulations) and Flink (concerning GLP-1 formulations). Paper 25 at 55-58.
`
`In contrast, Novo Nordisk identified important, well-known differences between
`
`hGH and GLP-1 that would have made hGH formulations irrelevant to a skilled
`
`artisan formulating GLP-1. Id.
`
`In hopes of curing this deficiency in its Reply, Petitioner argued as a reason
`
`for combining these unrelated references, in a vaguely and conclusory fashion, only
`
`that “proteins having greater complexity [i.e., hGH] often have stability issues that
`
`are the same as or similar to peptides with less complexity [i.e., GLP-1].” Paper 35
`
`at 19. In support of this bare assertion, Petitioner cited to nearly twenty paragraphs
`
`of Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration, which cite to eight new Exhibits in support.
`
`Ex1106 at ¶¶78-96, citing Exs. 1091-1098. Those paragraphs include a lengthy
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`explanation of the structure, size, behavior, and properties of hGH and GLP-1,
`
`among other issues not hinted at in the Petition, offered belatedly as a justification
`
`for why a skilled artisan would look to hGH for guidance on formulating GLP-1. Id.
`
`These arguments and evidence should have been included in Petitioner’s
`
`Ground 3 prima facie case as to why a person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to combine Betz and Flink. Instead, Petitioner withheld opinions on the
`
`alleged relevancy of hGH to GLP-1 until Reply, denying Novo Nordisk the
`
`opportunity to respond in its Patent Owner Response and denying its expert the
`
`opportunity to respond at all to these new, highly technical opinions.
`
`Paragraphs 108-109 of Exhibit 1106 Should Be Excluded
`2.
`Petitioner argued in the Petition that prior art showed that mannitol tended to
`
`crystallize and, therefore, skilled artisans would have been motivated to replace it.
`
`Paper 2 at 21-23. In the Patent Owner Response, Novo Nordisk explained that
`
`Petitioner’s supporting references involved supersaturated concentrations of
`
`mannitol, many times higher than those at issue in Flink or the ’833 patent, and
`
`therefore did not support the motivation that Petitioner asserted. Paper 25 at 52; see
`
`also Ex2022, ¶79.
`
`In Reply, Petitioner attempts to correct this deficiency by presenting a new
`
`theory, i.e., that formulations containing much smaller concentrations of mannitol
`
`are subject to evaporation, thereby eventually leading to precipitation and
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`supersaturation of those formulations, making its originally cited references
`
`allegedly relevant. Paper 35 at 20-21; see also id.at 23-24.
`
`Paragraphs 108 and 109 of Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration are used to present
`
`this new “evaporation theory,” additionally citing to new Exhibits 1114 and 1115.
`
`Ex1106 at ¶¶108-109. Petitioner’s “evaporation theory” goes to motivation to
`
`replace mannitol with propylene glycol, and it should have been included in
`
`Petitioner’s prima facie obviousness case presented in the Petition. Instead,
`
`Petitioner improperly withheld this new argument and supporting evidence, denying
`
`Novo Nordisk the opportunity to respond in its Patent Owner Response, and denying
`
`its expert the opportunity to respond at all.
`
`Paragraphs 113-116 of Exhibit 1106 Should Be Excluded
`3.
`Petitioner argued in the Petition that Betz’s July 8, 2003 filing date, qualified
`
`it as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Paper 2 at 27. Paragraphs 113-116 of the
`
`Reply Declaration present a new argument why Betz is prior art, based on the filing
`
`date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/394,699 (“the ’699 application”), to
`
`which Betz claims priority. The Petition does not reference the ’699 application or
`
`a July 9, 2002 102(e) reference date. Instead, the ’699 application was first
`
`submitted with Petitioner’s Reply as Exhibit 1103, cited for the first and only time
`
`in Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration, where he compares it to the claims of Betz to
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`purportedly show that Betz is entitled to the July 9, 2002 reference date. Ex1106,
`
`¶¶113-116, citing Ex1103.
`
`It was Petitioner’s burden to provide notice, in its Petition, of its invalidity
`
`arguments, including by identifying the prior art on which it would rely, along with
`
`the asserted priority dates of the references. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster
`
`LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Google LLC v. Koninklijke Philips
`
`N.V., 789 Fed. App’x 874, 876-77 (Fed. Cir. 2019). It did not. Petitioner’s shifting-
`
`sands approach to Betz’s 102(e) reference date denied Novo Nordisk the opportunity
`
`to respond to Petitioner’s current position in its Patent Owner Response, and denied
`
`its expert the opportunity to respond at all. Petitioner’s changing position on Betz’s
`
`reference date is particularly prejudicial here, given that Novo Nordisk presented
`
`evidence of prior invention to antedate Betz, based on Petitioner’s characterization
`
`of Betz’s 102(e) reference date in the Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 1091-1098, 1103, and 1114-1115 Are Belatedly Identified
`References that Exceed the Proper Scope of Petitioner’s Reply
`and Should Be Excluded
`Petitioner improperly introduced Exhibits 1091-1098, 1103, and 1114-1115
`
`with its Reply, and those exhibits should therefore be excluded under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.23(b), the Trial Practice Guide’s response-only rule, and Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402 and 403, as irrelevant and highly prejudicial to Novo Nordisk. See
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, IPR2013-00517, Paper 87 at 14-16; Lupin Ltd., IPR2015-
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`01099, Paper 69 at 27-28, 44-45; Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2013-00424, Paper 50 at
`
`21.
`
`Exhibits 1091-1098 Should Be Excluded
`1.
`Petitioner introduced Exhibits 1091-1098 in Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration
`
`in support of belated theories for why the hGH solutions disclosed in Betz would
`
`have been allegedly relevant to a person of ordinary skill working with GLP-1
`
`formulations, as discussed supra. See supra § IV.A.1. This evidence is essential to
`
`Petitioner’s prima facie case of obviousness—specifically, to provide an alleged
`
`reason why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Betz,
`
`which concerns hGH formulations, with Flink, which concerns GLP-1 formulations.
`
`Yet, Petitioner introduced it only after Novo Nordisk identified in its Patent Owner
`
`Response that the Petition lacks any such credible evidence. Paper 25 at 55-58. The
`
`Reply was too late for Petitioner to attempt to cure the deficiencies in its prima facie
`
`case with this new evidence.
`
`Exhibits 1091-1098 should be excluded for the additional reason that they are
`
`not cited in Petitioner’s Petition or Reply and, hence, are irrelevant, having no
`
`tendency to make a fact of consequence in this proceeding more or less probable.
`
`One World Techs., Inc. v. The Chamberlain Grp., Inc., IPR2017-00126, Paper 56 at
`
`15-17 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018) (excluding exhibit as irrelevant where it was only
`
`cited in an expert declaration). Exhibits 1091-1098, and all argument related thereto,
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`should be excluded. See FED. R. EVID. 402 (“Irrelevant evidence is not
`
`admissible.”).
`
`Exhibit 1103 Should Be Excluded
`2.
`Exhibit 1103 is the ’699 application that Petitioner and Dr. Forrest now argue
`
`should provide the 102(e) reference date for Betz. See supra § IV.A.3. The Petition
`
`identified July 8, 2003, Betz’s filing date, as the relevant “prior art” date, and does
`
`not mention the ’699 application. Paper 2 at 27. Nor does the Reply identify the
`
`’699 application (Exhibit 1103). See Paper 35. Instead, Exhibit 1103 is cited only
`
`in Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration where it is compared to the claims of Betz to
`
`purportedly show that Betz is entitled to a July 9, 2002 reference date. See Ex1106,
`
`¶¶113-116.
`
`Betz’s 102(e) reference date is essential to Petitioner’s prima facie case of
`
`obviousness, and yet Petitioner identified it only after Novo Nordisk argued in the
`
`Patent Owner Response that the inventors had reduced their invention to practice
`
`before the July 8, 2003 102(e) date of Betz that Petitioner had originally identified
`
`in the Petition. Paper 25 at 49. It was Petitioner’s burden to put Novo Nordisk on
`
`notice, in its Petition, of its invalidity arguments, including by identifying the prior
`
`art on which it would rely, along with the priority dates of the references. See Henny
`
`Penny, 938 F.3d at 1330-31; Google LLC, 789 Fed. App’x at 876-77. Petitioner
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`should have identified Exhibit 1103 in the Petition in support of the July 9, 2002
`
`reference date it now asserts.
`
`Exhibit 1103 should be excluded for the additional reason that it is not cited
`
`in Petitioner’s Petition or Reply and, hence, is irrelevant, having no tendency to
`
`make a fact of consequence in this proceeding more or less probable. One World
`
`Techs., IPR2017-00126, Paper 56 at 15-17. Exhibit 1103, and all argument related
`
`thereto, should be excluded. See FED. R. EVID. 402.
`
`Exhibits 1114 and 1115 Should Be Excluded
`3.
`Exhibits 1114 and 1115 concern alleged crystallization of mannitol following
`
`evaporation. Dr. Forrest cites them in his Reply Declaration in support of his new
`
`“evaporation theory,” to argue relevance of the references he originally relied on as
`
`showing motivation to modify the prior art. See supra § IV.A.2. This argument
`
`appears nowhere in Petitioner’s Petition in support of its prima facie case, and
`
`Exhibits 1114 and 1115 cited in support should be excluded. See Henny Penny, 938
`
`F.3d at 1330-31; Google LLC, 789 Fed. App’x at 876-77.
`
`Exhibits 1114 and 1115 should be excluded for the additional reason that they
`
`are not cited in Petitioner’s Petition or Reply and, hence, are irrelevant, having no
`
`tendency to make a fact of consequence in this proceeding more or less probable.
`
`One World Techs., IPR2017-00126, Paper 56 at 15-17. Exhibits 1114 and 1115, and
`
`all argument related thereto, should be excluded. See FED. R. EVID. 402.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`V. EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN
`PETITIONER’S REPLY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`As Petitioner acknowledges, for its “claim [that Betz is entitled to a July 9,
`
`2002 reference date] to be ‘proper,’ the underlying U.S. application must provide
`
`support for the claims of Betz.” Paper 35 at 27 (citing MPEP § 2136). But
`
`Petitioner’s Reply is devoid of any analysis showing that the ’699 application
`
`(Ex1103) provides the required support. Indeed, the Reply does not even identify
`
`the ’699 application. See Paper 35 at 27 (alleging only that “Betz claims priority to
`
`a July 9, 2002 U.S. application” that “contains a nearly identical specification and
`
`provides support for the claims,” thus “Betz is [ ] entitled to the July 9, 2002 date”).
`
`Instead, Petitioner cites to 8 pages of Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration, which
`
`purportedly map support in the ’699 application to the claims of Betz (Paper 35 at
`
`27 (citing Ex1106, ¶¶113-116)), thereby improperly incorporating the required
`
`analysis by reference into its Reply.
`
`Incorporation by reference runs afoul of the prohibition in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(a)(3) of “incorporate[ing] by reference from one document into another,” and
`
`circumvents the word count limit of the Reply, thus providing an additional basis for
`
`the Board to exclude paragraphs 113-116 of the Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1106)
`
`and Exhibit 1103. See Boston Sci. Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., 813 Fed.
`
`App’x 572, 582 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (upholding the Board’s decision to exclude
`
`arguments not substantively addressed in a brief); Surgalign Spine Techs., Inc. v.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`LifeNet Health, IPR2019-00570, Paper 71 at 12-14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020)
`
`(excluding arguments not set forth independently in a brief).
`
`Novo Nordisk is unfairly prejudiced by Petitioner’s reliance on 8 pages of
`
`analysis, detailed only in Dr. Forrest’s Reply Declaration, which is necessary to
`
`show that one of its primary references, Betz, is 102(e) prior art. This analysis
`
`should have been, but was not, included in the Petition. The prejudice flowing to
`
`Novo Nordisk from its consideration substantially outweighs its relevance, and it
`
`should be excluded. FED. R. EVID. 403.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`Novo Nordisk requests that the Reply Declaration of Dr. Forrest (Exhibit
`
`1106) as well as Exhibits 1091-1098, 1103, and 1114-1115, and all argument related
`
`thereto, be excluded from evidence in their entirety and expunged from the record.
`
`Dated: March 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Jeffrey J. Oelke/
`Jeffrey J. Oelke (Reg. No. 37,409)
`Lead Counsel
`Ryan P. Johnson
`Laura T. Moran
`Back-Up Counsel
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`902 Broadway, Suite 14
`New York, NY 10010
`(212) 430-2600
`joelke@fenwick.com
`ryan.johnson@fenwick.com
`laura.moran@fenwick.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner Novo Nordisk A/S
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on March 5, 2021, the
`
`foregoing document is being served by filing this document through the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board End to End System, as well as delivering a copy via electronic
`
`mail upon the following attorneys of record for the Petitioners:
`
`Brandon M. White (Reg. No. 52,354)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`Telephone: (202) 654-6206
`Fax: (202) 654-9681
`BMWhite@perkinscoie.com
`White-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Lara Dueppen (Reg. No. 65,002)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1888 Century Park East
`Suite 1700
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 788-3349
`Fax: (310) 788-3399
`LDueppen@perkinscoie.com
`Dueppen-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`Liraglutide@perkinscoie.com
`
`Emily J. Greb (Reg. No. 68,244)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`33 East Main Street, Suite 201
`Madison, WI 53703
`Telephone: (308) 663-7494
`Fax: (608) 283-4494
`greb-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00324
`Patent 8,114,833 B2
`
`Thomas J. Meloro (Reg. No. 33,538)
`Michael W. Johnson (Reg. No. 63,731)
`Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 728-8428
`Fax: (212) 728-8111
`tmeloro@willkie.com
`mjohnson1@willkie.com
`amoore@willkie.com
`mao-ny@willkie.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jeffrey J. Oelke/
`Jeffrey J. Oelke (Reg. No. 37,409)
`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
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
