`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`United Therapeutics Corporation (“UT”) moves to exclude Petitioner’s
`
`Exhibits 1002 and 1012 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) and the Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 8) on the following grounds:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Reason to Exclude
`
`EX1002
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey D.
`
`Not authenticated; hearsay; not
`
`Winkler, Ph.D. (in its entirety)
`
`reliable
`
`EX1012
`
`Kawakami (JP 56 –122328 A) Not authenticated; no verified
`
`translation
`
`
`
`Petitioner relied on these exhibits in its Petition (Paper No. 1) and Petitioner’s
`
`Reply (Paper No. 15), and thus, Patent Owner also moves to exclude the portions
`
`of Petitioner’s Petition and Reply that rely on these exhibits.
`
`II. PATENT OWNER TIMELY OBJECTED
`
`A. EX1002: Winkler Declaration
`
` UT timely objected to EX1002 under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”)
`
`701, 702, 802, 901, and 902. Paper 10, 2-3. This exhibit should be excluded under
`
`each of these rules. No supplemental evidence was timely filed to address these
`
`objections.
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`B. EX1012: Kawakami (JP 56 –122328 A)
`
`UT timely objected to EX1012 under FRE 402, 403, 802, 803-807, 901, 902,
`
`1001-1003, 1012. Paper 10, 2-3. This exhibit should be excluded under each of
`
`these rules. No supplemental evidence was timely filed to address these objections.
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. EX1002 Should Be Excluded
`
` EX1002 purports to be a declaration, but without authentication because it
`
`lacks the statutorily-required oath or caveat for a declaration. 35 U.S.C. §25;
`
`37 CFR §42.2. As such, EX1002 falls short of the statutory threshold for a legally-
`
`cognizable declaration. This is not mere pedantry. Statements lacking the required
`
`oath or caveat “thwart the purpose of our rules regarding affidavits/declarations,
`
`and forgo the guarantee of truthfulness imparted by a declarant’s acknowledgment
`
`of the possible consequences––fine, imprisonment, or penalty of perjury.” Int’l
`
`Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2015-01323, Paper 38, 9-11
`
`(2016) (sustaining objection, noting failure to file supplemental evidence).
`
` Similarly, EX1002 constitutes hearsay without exception because it
`
`represents an out-of-Board statement not “made under oath or other circumstances
`
`that impress the speaker with the solemnity of his statements.” Chambers v.
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298 (1973) (“The hearsay rule . . . is based on
`
`experience and grounded in the notion that untrustworthy evidence should not be
`
`presented to the triers of fact.”).
`
` Finally, Dr. Winkler is unqualified to testify on the relevant subject matter
`
`and bases his testimony, whether by mistake or design, on materials no expert in
`
`pharmaceutical manufacturing would consider probative. FRE 701, 702. Dr.
`
`Winkler’s self-serving assertions of qualifications in a relevant field are belied by
`
`the testimony of experts offered by both Liquidia and UT: Dr. Hall-Ellis and Dr.
`
`Pinal, respectively.
`
`Dr. Hall-Ellis explains the education and experience of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art:
`
`a person of ordinary skill in this subject matter or art would typically be
`someone who is a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree)
`in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of
`experience in radiation oncology physics, treatment planning, treatment plan
`optimization related to radiation oncology applications, and computer
`programming associated with treatment plan optimization (or equivalent degree
`or experience).
`EX1015, ¶16. Yet, Liquidia provides no evidence that Dr. Winkler has any of these
`
`qualifications, and even Dr. Winkler does not claim to possess these qualifications.
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`Dr. Pinal explained (with corroborating evidence) why Dr. Winkler lacks
`
`relevant qualifications to address the issues that faced a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art:
`
`Organic and medicinal chemists have a particular set of skills to
`address synthetic or drug design problems. They do not, however,
`have the requisite skill set for the large-scale manufacture of the same
`synthetic drugs nor either pharmaceutical compositions or
`pharmaceutical products. See EX2008 (Stahl), vii (noting “the
`majority of medicinal chemists working in the pharmaceutical
`industry are organic chemists whose main concern is to design and to
`synthesize novel compounds as future drug entities. While they focus
`on this challenging primary goal, salt formation is often restricted to a
`marginal activity with the short term aim of obtaining nicely
`crystalline material. Moreover, chemists are not explicitly trained in
`the various aspects of pharmaceutical salts”), 250 (“The preparation of
`pharmaceutical salts is usually not a matter of university teaching, and
`most of the organic chemists are not trained to prepare salts.”).
`EX2002, 92. Dr. Winkler testified he did not know whether manufacturing
`
`pharmaceutical products presented problems in the art. EX2026, 72:23-73:9. He
`
`was unable to answer accurately even the most basic questions about
`
`manufacturing requirements in the United States (id., 72:23-74:23) or development
`
`considerations (see, e.g., EX2032, 171:23-175:5 (acid neutralization), 250:11-
`
`252:16 (bioavailability), 252:18-274:22 (counterion selection), 287:6-296:19
`5
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`(clinical safety) 321:1-322:9 (crystal morphology)), despite his vague assertions
`
`about “consulting” with pharmaceutical companies. See, e.g., EX2026, 47:12-20
`
`(asserting that, measuring from 1983, close to 40 years ago, Dr. Winkler
`
`“probably” has “at least five years accumulated experience in dealing with issues
`
`in process chemistry”); see also EX2025, ¶15 (“These lines of testimony
`
`underscore the misguided focus of Dr. Winkler’s analyses in this case, and lack of
`
`understanding of the field pertinent to the claims of the ’901 patent. I note for
`
`example that in the pharmaceutical field, terms such as ‘batch’ have a clear
`
`regulatory definition”).
`
`Instead, Dr. Winkler based his testimony on his understanding of “Organic
`
`Chemistry 101”—simple academic exercises carefully selected for
`
`undergraduates—rather than the real-world problems of real-world practitioners in
`
`the relevant field. EX1002, ¶5; EX2025, ¶¶49-50. Indeed, Dr. Winkler makes
`
`elementary mistakes in interpreting Phares’ differential scanning calorimetry traces
`
`by comparing different polymorphs, which even he had previously indicated he
`
`knew was wrong. Id., ¶¶126-36 (explaining error and noting EX2007, 193:3-14);
`
`see also id., ¶206 (“Dr. Winkler conflates two different aspects of stability, namely,
`
`thermodynamic and kinetic stability. This makes it easy to mislead someone
`
`untrained in the field. I note however, that the important difference between
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`thermodynamic and kinetic stability is something the POSA would have been
`
`acutely aware of”), ¶247 (describing Dr. Winkler’s “creative[]” but “tortured,
`
`illogical, and scientifically incorrect discussion of endothermic events as measured
`
`using differential scanning calorimetry”).
`
`As Dr. Pinal explained, Dr. Winkler’s testimony is replete with such basic
`
`mistakes:
`
`Dr. Winkler testified that “a POSA reading this experimental
`procedure for the formation of 7, would understand that Moriarty, in
`fact, is preparing a salt of treprostinil.” EX2026 (Winkler Depo.),
`130:4-8. However, in his testimony, Dr. Winkler leaves out that the
`solution he is referring to has “pH 10-12,” too high for the solution to
`be useful for any practical pharmaceutical application, such that “a
`POSA reading this experimental procedure” would understand that the
`mixture Dr. Winkler is referring to is an intermediate mixture in the
`process of Moriarty. Moreover, Dr. Winkler testified, “I would say
`that that aqueous layer is, which is described on . . . the third line of
`the right-hand column of page 13, that aqueous layer is, in fact,
`treprostinil potassium salt, a solution of it.” Id., 129:1-11. It is
`remarkable that in referring to the “aqueous layer” in Moriarty, Dr.
`Winkler’s testimony leaves out the fact that the very sentence he is
`pointing at teaches (actually starts as): “The aqueous layer was
`acidified to pH 2-3 by addition of 3 M HCl.” EX1009, 13. Any
`chemist, regardless of area of specialization, would understand that
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`acidification of the aqueous layer precludes the formation of any salt
`of treprostinil. Dr. Winkler further testified that the “steps of Moriarty
`and of the ’901 in both starting with the benzidene triol, alkylating
`and then hydrolyzing are identical, yes.” EX2026 (Winkler Depo.),
`131:1-3. This is one more instance in which Dr. Winkler takes very
`general concepts (alkylation, hydrolysis) and misrepresents them as
`very specific teachings.
`EX2025, ¶232; see also, e.g., id., ¶¶185 (“any chemist would know that simply
`
`adding diethanolamine in the presence of KOH would not result in the
`
`diethanolamine salt”), 185-86 (“Dr. Winkler finishes his analysis…cit[ing]
`
`EX1014 (’075 patent), . . . asserting that it teaches selective alkylation of the
`
`treprostinil triol intermediate. EX1002, ¶¶82-83. It does not.”), 187-88 (“Dr.
`
`Winkler also refers to this exhibit in asserting that Phares cites to the ’075 patent
`
`for teaching this alleged alkylation of the triol. It does not.”), 205-07 (Dr. Winkler
`
`attempts to support his arguments regarding storage “us[ing] a teaching of relative
`
`thermodynamic stabilities” of polymorphs, which “is not a scientifically valid
`
`conclusion”).
`
`In sum, Dr. Winkler lacks knowledge and experience in the relevant art and, in
`
`any case, applies fundamentally inappropriate analyses in constructing his
`
`opinions.
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`The Board must ensure that expert testimony is both relevant and reliable.
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999). Whether testimony is
`
`based on experience or knowledge, it must employ the level of intellectual rigor
`
`characterizing experts in the field. Id., 152-153 (the district court “excluded the
`
`testimony because, despite those qualifications, it initially doubted, and then found
`
`unreliable” the methodology and the “basis, if any”). The question is not general
`
`reliability, but reliability for the proffered purpose. Id., 154. Subjective, uncertain,
`
`or inconsistent testimony supports exclusion. Id., 54-56; see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.65(a) (unsupported expert testimony entitled to little or no weight). Indeed,
`
`unreliable evidence should be excluded whatever the expert’s qualifications might
`
`be. Kumho, 526 U.S. at 154-55; see also id., 159 (Scalia, J., concurring)
`
`(emphasizing “trial-court discretion in choosing the manner of testing expert
`
`reliability [] is not discretion to abandon the gatekeeping function.”).
`
` EX1002 is unreliable as a declaration because it lacks the most basic (and
`
`statutorily required) elements of a declaration. Moreover, despite his degrees and
`
`experience in other fields, Dr. Winkler is unqualified to testify on the subject
`
`matter in this proceeding and, in any case, has demonstrated his unreliability by
`
`offering opinions that he knows, or should know based on his experience, to be
`
`wrong. Because the authentication, hearsay, and expert-qualification failings apply
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`to the entire exhibit, the entire exhibit should be excluded to ensure the integrity of
`
`the proceeding and a clear record for review.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`EX1012 Should Be Excluded
`
`EX1012 purports to be a translation of Kawakami, JP No. 56- 122328A, but is
`
`objectionable for a variety of reasons:
`
` Liquidia did not establish that EX1012 is a true and accurate
`
`representation of the original purported Japanese-language patent (FRE
`
`802; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)); and
`
` EX1012 lacks sufficient indicia to support a finding that it is what it
`
`purports to be and is not self-authenticating (FRE 901 & 902).
`
`Despite these objections, Liquidia took no action and failed to serve any
`
`supplemental evidence relating to EX1012.
`
` EX1012 contains neither the purported Japanese document being translated,
`
`nor a verified translator’s declaration. Even where an English translation of a
`
`document has been submitted in earlier prosecution by Patent Owner, a Petitioner
`
`must provide a verified translator’s declaration relating to a translated reference it
`
`wishes to rely upon. Norman Int’l Inc. v. Andrew J. Testamentary Trust, IPR2014-
`
`00283, Paper 52 at 13 (P.T.A.B., June 18, 2015) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b)
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`separate requirement for translation); accord Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325,
`
`1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (error to accord priority without certified translation in trial
`
`record, even though a translation appeared in the prosecution history).
`
`Moreover, § 42.63(b) is an additional requirement, not authorization to file a
`
`translation instead of the original document. Indeed, a foreign public document
`
`must be certified by the appropriate foreign certifying authority. FRE 902(3). By
`
`omitting the filing of the purported Japanese document, Liquidia necessarily also
`
`omitted the required certification of the purported foreign document. Liquidia
`
`made no effort to cure these defects, which must be strictly enforced. United States
`
`v. Perlmuter, 693 F.2d 1290, 1292 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Although the trial court was
`
`correct in finding that neither Rule 901 nor 902(3) was complied with, the court
`
`did abuse its discretion in holding the evidence authentic and admissible.”); id. at
`
`1293 (“[C]ertainly it is not enough that the documents present an ‘aura of
`
`authenticity.’ Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the
`
`unauthenticated documents into evidence.”).
`
`For these reasons, EX1012 should be excluded in its entirety. Similarly, the
`
`Petition at pp. 23-24 and 55, and also the Winkler Declaration (EX1002) at par. 49
`
`and 157, which cite to EX1012, should be excluded (in addition to the reasons for
`
`excluding the entire Winkler Declaration set forth above).
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`For at least the reasons provided above, Patent Owner urges the Board to grant
`
`this motion and exclude Exhibits 1002 and 1012, as well as the arguments of
`
`Petitioner that rely on these exhibits as set forth above.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: May 24, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served on counsel of record on May 24, 2021, 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: May 24, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`4819-8264-4971.1
`
`