`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED WITH PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`Patent Owner United Therapeutics Corporation (“Patent Owner”) hereby
`
`objects to the admissibility of certain evidence cited in support of the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review filed on March 30, 2020 (“Petition”). Patent Owner’s
`
`objections are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), relevant case law,
`
`federal statute, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) Rules. Patent
`
`Owner’s objections are set forth with particularity below.
`
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`Exhibit 1002 is described as “Declaration of Jeffrey D. Winkler, Ph.D.” Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1002, under FRE 701, because the opinion testimony
`
`contained in this exhibit reaches legal conclusions for which the declarant has not
`
`established that he is capable of providing. For example, paragraphs 4, 5, 12, 16,
`
`18-21, 23, 34, 36, 37, 46, 50, 52, 57, 62, 65, 66, 71, 72, 73, 82, 92, 96, 97, 99, 103,
`
`115, 117, 131, 136, 138, 148, 151, 152, 153, 178, 184, 185, 187, 207, 208, 226,
`
`235, and 240 each recite an unsupported legal conclusion and, thus, should not be
`
`considered by the PTAB in this proceeding. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002
`
`under FRE 702, on the basis that the testimony (over half of which is substantively
`
`identical to the Petition) is not based on sufficient facts or data, with respect to
`
`reliance on experimental data disclosed in references, and on other informal and
`
`unpublished documents that are hearsay under FRE 802, have not been
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, are not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and are
`
`not duplicates as defined by FRE 1001(e). For example, paragraphs 16, 27, 38, 47,
`
`71, 72,74, 93, 95, 96, 102, 115, 117, 118, 122, 132, 134, 148, 151, 168, 170, 179,
`
`180, 182, 183, 188, 191, 204, 207, 208, 221, 227, and 235 lack any cited basis.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002 to the extent it includes subject matter that is
`
`not permitted pursuant to FRE 602 or 701, including without limitation, to the
`
`extent that the declaration presents as “facts” information that is outside the
`
`personal knowledge of the declarant, and/or to the extent that the document offers
`
`improper lay opinion testimony. Exhibit 1002 is also objected to as irrelevant
`
`under FRE 401 and 402 because it does not make any facts at issue in the inter
`
`partes review more or less probable than it would have been without the evidence.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002 as unfairly prejudicial, confusing the issues,
`
`and a waste of time under FRE 403. Patent Owner objects to the portions of
`
`Exhibit 1002 that cite an exhibit objected to herein for the reasons stated herein.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002 under FRE 802 as hearsay without
`
`exception. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1002 under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the
`
`exhibit is what it purports to be.
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1002 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`EXHIBIT 1005
`
`Exhibit 1005 is described as “SteadyMed Ltd. v. United Therapeutics Corp.,
`
`IPR2016-00006, Paper 82 (PTAB March 31, 2017).” Patent Owner objects to
`
`Exhibit 1005 under FRE 402 and 403. Exhibit 1005 concerns a proceeding with a
`
`different petitioner and a different patent, and it is therefore irrelevant. Even if
`
`Exhibit 1005 has some marginal relevance, the relevance is substantially
`
`outweighed by the unfair prejudice and likelihood of confusing the issues based on
`
`use of a document from another proceeding involving different claims and
`
`different prior art. The Petitioner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of the
`
`matter asserted therein (e.g., Petition at 5-6, 19, 30, and 53), but it fails to meet the
`
`requirements of any hearsay exception or exemption under FRE 803-807.
`
`EXHIBIT 1007
`
`Exhibit 1007 is described as “U.S. Patent No. 6,765,117 to Moriarty, et al.”
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1007, which is purported to be a United States
`
`patent, under FRE 802, including to the extent Petitioner has asserted that its
`
`products are inherently the same as a product claimed in the ’901 patent and to the
`
`extent Petitioner has asserted that Exhibit 1007’s statements regarding or relating
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`to the level of skill in the art are true and accurate. The Petitioner relies on this
`
`exhibit to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, but it fails to meet the
`
`requirements of any hearsay exception or exemption under FRE 803-807.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1007 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`EXHIBIT 1008
`
`Exhibit 1008 is described as “PCT Application No. WO 2005/007081.” Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1008, which is purported to be an International
`
`application published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, under FRE 802,
`
`including to the extent Petitioner has asserted that its products are inherently the
`
`same as a product claimed in the ’901 patent and to the extent Petitioner has
`
`asserted that Exhibit 1008’s statements regarding or relating to whether certain
`
`practices or procedures were well-known, routine, or conventional, the level of
`
`skill in the art, and/or the underlying chemical and physical principles discussed
`
`therein are true and accurate. The Petitioner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth
`
`of the matter asserted therein, but it fails to meet the requirements of any hearsay
`
`exception or exemption under FRE 803-807. Exhibit 1008 is also objected to as
`
`irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402 because it does not make any facts at issue in
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`the inter partes review more or less probable than they would have been without
`
`the evidence.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1008 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`EXHIBIT 1009
`
`Exhibit 1009 is described as “Moriarty, R.M., et al., ‘The Intramolecular
`
`Asymmetric Pauson-Khand Cyclization as a Novel and General Stereoselective
`
`Route to Benzindene Prostacyclins: Synthesis of UT-15 (Treprostinil),’ J. Org.
`
`Chem. Vol. 69, No. 6, 1890-1902 (2004).” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1009,
`
`which is purported to be an article from the Journal of Organic Chemistry, under
`
`FRE 802, including to the extent Petitioner has asserted that its products are
`
`inherently the same as a product claimed in the ’901 patent and to the extent
`
`Petitioner has asserted (implicitly or explicitly) that Exhibit 1009’s statements
`
`regarding whether certain practices or procedures were well-known, routine, or
`
`conventional, the level of skill in the art, and/or the underlying chemical and
`
`physical principles discussed therein are true and accurate. The Petitioner relies on
`
`this exhibit to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, but it fails to meet the
`
`requirements of any hearsay exception or exemption under FRE 803-807. Exhibit
`
`1009 is also objected to as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402 because it does not
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`make any facts at issue in the inter partes review more or less probable than they
`
`would have been without the evidence.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1009 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`EXHIBIT 1010
`
`Exhibit 1010 is described as “Wiberg, K., Laboratory Technique in Organic
`
`Chemistry (1960), p.112.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1010, which is
`
`purported to be an organic chemistry lab textbook, under FRE 802, including to the
`
`extent Petitioner has asserted that Exhibit 1010’s statements regarding or relating
`
`to whether certain practices or procedures were well-known, routine, or
`
`conventional, the level of skill in the art, and/or the underlying chemical and
`
`physical principles discussed therein are true and accurate. The Petitioner relies on
`
`this exhibit to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, but it fails to meet the
`
`requirements of any hearsay exception or exemption under FRE 803-807. Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1010 under FRE 901-902 as lacking authentication and
`
`not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the exhibit is what it
`
`purports to be.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1010 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1011
`
`Exhibit 1011 is described as “Schoffstall, A.M. et al., Microscale and Miniscale
`
`Organic Chemistry Laboratory Experiments, 2d ed. (2004) pp. 200-202.” Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1011, which is purported to be an organic chemistry lab
`
`textbook, under FRE 802, including to the extent Petitioner has asserted that
`
`Exhibit 1011’s statements regarding or relating to whether certain practices or
`
`procedures were well-known, routine, or conventional, the level of skill in the art,
`
`and/or the underlying chemical and physical principles discussed therein are true
`
`and accurate. The Petitioner relies on this exhibit to prove the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein, but it fails to meet the requirements of any hearsay exception or
`
`exemption under FRE 803-807. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1011 under FRE
`
`901-902 as lacking authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks
`
`sufficient indicia that the exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner further
`
`objects to Exhibit 1011 under FRE 106 and 401-403 as incomplete, irrelevant,
`
`waste of time, and likely to cause confusion because a short excerpt from an
`
`undergraduate organic textbook regarding micro-scale laboratory synthesis is
`
`irrelevant to the invention.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1011 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1012
`
`Exhibit 1012 is described as “Certified English translation of Japanese Patent
`
`App. No. 56-122328A to Kawakami, et al.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1012
`
`under FRE 802, including to the extent Petitioner has asserted that the translation is
`
`a true and accurate representation of the original Japanese-language patent and to
`
`the extent Petitioner has asserted that Exhibit 1012’s statements regarding or
`
`relating to whether certain practices or procedures were well-known, routine, or
`
`conventional, the level of skill in the art, and/or the underlying chemical and
`
`physical principles discussed therein are true and accurate. The Petitioner relies on
`
`this exhibit to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, but it fails to meet the
`
`requirements of any hearsay exception or exemption under FRE 803-807. Patent
`
`Owner further objects to this exhibit under FRE 402 and 403 because an
`
`inadequate translation renders the exhibit irrelevant. Patent Owner further objects
`
`to this exhibit under FRE 901 and 902 because Exhibit 1012 lacks sufficient
`
`indicia to support a finding that it is what it purports to be and is not self-
`
`authenticating. Patent Owner further objects to this exhibit under FRE 1001-1003
`
`because Exhibit 1012 is not an original writing and genuine questions regarding its
`
`authenticity and the circumstances of its production make it unfair to admit.
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1012 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`EXHIBIT 1013
`
`Exhibit 1013 is described as “Ege, S., Organic Chemistry Second Edition, Ch.
`
`14 Carboxylic Acids and Their Derivates I. Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions at
`
`the Carbonyl Group (1989) pp. 543-547.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1013,
`
`which is purported to be an organic chemistry textbook, under FRE 802, including
`
`to the extent Petitioner has asserted that Exhibit 1013’s statements regarding or
`
`relating to whether certain practices or procedures were well-known, routine, or
`
`conventional, the level of skill in the art, and/or the underlying chemical and
`
`physical principles discussed therein are true and accurate. The Petitioner relies on
`
`this exhibit to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, but it fails to meet the
`
`requirements of any hearsay exception or exemption under FRE 803-807. Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1013 under FRE 901-902 as lacking authentication and
`
`not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the exhibit is what it
`
`purports to be.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1013 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted. Patent Owner further objects to
`
`Exhibit 1013 under FRE 106 and 401-403 as incomplete, irrelevant, a waste of
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`time, and likely to cause confusion because a short excerpt from an undergraduate
`
`organic textbook is irrelevant to the invention.
`
`EXHIBIT 1014
`
`Exhibit 1014 is described as “U.S. Patent No. 4,306,075 to Aristoff.” Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1014, which is purported to be a United States patent,
`
`under FRE 802, including to the extent Petitioner has asserted that Exhibit 1014’s
`
`statements regarding or relating to whether certain practices or procedures were
`
`well-known, routine, or conventional and/or the underlying chemical and physical
`
`principles discussed therein are true and accurate. The Petitioner relies on this
`
`exhibit to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, but it fails to meet the
`
`requirements of any hearsay exception or exemption under FRE 803-807. Exhibit
`
`1014 is also objected to as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402 because it does not
`
`make any facts at issue in the inter partes review more or less probable than they
`
`would have been without the evidence.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1014 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`EXHIBIT 1015
`
`Exhibit 1015 is described as “Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.” Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1015, under FRE 701, because the opinion testimony
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`contained in this exhibit reaches legal conclusions for which the declarant has not
`
`established that she is capable of providing. For example, paragraphs 21, 36, 42,
`
`43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, and 71 each
`
`recite an unsupported legal conclusion and, thus, should not be considered by the
`
`PTAB in this proceeding. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1015 under FRE 702(b),
`
`on the basis that the testimony is not based on sufficient facts and is based on other
`
`informal and unpublished documents that are hearsay under FRE 802, have not
`
`been authenticated under FRE 901, are not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and
`
`are not duplicates as defined by FRE 1001(e). Patent Owner objects to Exhibit
`
`1015 to the extent it includes subject matter that is not permitted pursuant to FRE
`
`602 or 701, including without limitation, to the extent that the declaration presents
`
`as “facts” information that is outside the personal knowledge of the declarant,
`
`and/or to the extent that the document offers improper lay opinion testimony.
`
`Exhibit 1015 is also objected to as irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402 because it
`
`does not make any facts at issue in the inter partes review more or less probable
`
`than it would have been without the evidence. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit
`
`1015, and the exhibits thereto, as unfairly prejudicial, confusing the issues, and a
`
`waste of time under FRE 403. Patent Owner objects to the portions of Exhibit 1015
`
`that cite or reproduce an exhibit objected to herein for the reasons stated herein.
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1015 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`EXHIBIT 1016
`
`Exhibit 1016 is described as “Prosecution History of the ’393 patent.” Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1016 under FRE 402 and 403. Exhibit 1016 concerns a
`
`different patent challenged by a different petitioner in a different proceeding, and it
`
`is therefore irrelevant. Even if Exhibit 1016 has some marginal relevance, the
`
`relevance is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice and likelihood of
`
`confusing the issues based on use of a document from another proceeding
`
`involving different claims and different prior art.
`
`Patent Owner objects under FRE 105 that use of Exhibit 1016 should be
`
`restricted to the purpose for which it was admitted.
`
`
`
`Date: October 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Evidence Submitted With Petition was served
`
`on counsel of record on October 27, 2020, by filing this document through the
`
`PTAB E2E System as well as delivering a copy via email to the counsel of record
`
`for the Petitioner at the following address:
`
`zLiquidiaIPR@cooley.com
`
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`
`emilch@cooley.com
`
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`
`
`
`Date: October 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`4820-4920-9551.6
`
`