`
`
`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 REPLY TO
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4823-2778-4685.1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to
`Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`I.
`
`EX1002: PURPORTED WINKLER DECLARATION
`
`Liquidia contends its failure to file a sworn expert declaration with its
`
`Petition should be excused because (1) the objections lacked “sufficient
`
`particularity” and (2) the failure was “cured.” Neither contention withstands
`
`scrutiny.
`
` First, Liquidia means that the initial objection was too “generic,” but the
`
`initial objections (Paper No. 10) expressly put Liquidia on notice that its purported
`
`declaration was not authentic. Liquidia does not state that it did not understand the
`
`objection (in depositions they are far terser), that it sought clarification from UT, or
`
`that it could not identify how the exhibit lacked authentication. Significantly,
`
`Liquidia represented the exhibit as an IPR-specific declaration: essentially the only
`
`way a purported declaration could fail to be what it was represented to be would be
`
`by failing to meet the statutory and rule-based requirements for declarations. Yet
`
`Liquidia cannot claim ignorance of the applicable rules, which it followed for
`
`concurrently-filed EX1015 without any similar objection from UT (Paper No. 10).
`
`Rather than address the deficiency on which the objection is based, Liquidia
`
`objects to the objection. This defect is fatal. The failure to impress upon a witness
`
`that a statement is under oath goes to the heart of its reliability as evidence.
`
`Paper 31, citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298 (1973).
`
`4823-2778-4685.1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to
`Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
` Second, Liquidia cites authority for the Board authorizing correction of an
`
`omitted oath belatedly, but tellingly does not identify where Liquidia sought
`
`authorization to file supplemental (and belated) evidence with its reply. Instead,
`
`Liquidia simply ignored the defect. Even now, Liquidia presents its belated filing
`
`as a fait accompli rather than risk moving for relief.
`
` Congress offered declarations as an alternative to testimony under oath as a
`
`convenience to the filer, but the requirements that come with that convenience are
`
`not optional. Similarly, the Director promulgated rules requiring procedural
`
`regularity and electing to require the Federal Rules of Evidence to protect the
`
`efficiency and integrity of these proceedings. 35 U.S.C. §316(b). UT is entitled to
`
`rely on Liquidia’s failure to file timely supplemental evidence in filing its
`
`Response. Liquidia makes no attempt to show its flouting of the rules to file
`
`belated surprise evidence is in the interest of justice. The statute and rules must
`
`retain their explicit meaning.
`
` Regarding Dr. Winkler’s competence, Liquidia attempts to enlist the Board
`
`to do what it should have done: separate Dr. Winkler’s wheat from his chaff. Paper
`
`No. 32, 4 n.2. This is not the Board’s role as a neutral adjudicator, nor is the Final
`
`Written Decision the place for UT to learn what Liquidia should have made clear
`
`in its Petition.
`
`4823-2778-4685.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to
`Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`Indeed, Liquidia provides a great example in its opposition. Paper No. 32, 3
`
`n.1. Liquidia jettisoned Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony undermining Dr. Winkler’s
`
`relevance to testify in this proceeding. (If Liquidia’s sworn testimony is now
`
`admittedly unreliable, how much less can its unsworn testimony be trusted?)
`
`Liquidia argues that UT should have known Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony was
`
`nonsense from the context (id.), but Dr. Winkler’s statements on which Liquidia
`
`continues to rely suffers the same defect. Yet Liquidia expressly shifts the burden
`
`to UT and the Board to figure out what is reliable (Paper 32, 4-5 n.2), ignoring
`
`Justice Scalia’s admonition that discretion over how to determine expert reliability
`
`is not discretion over whether to exclude unreliable information. Paper 31, citing
`
`526 U.S. at 159. Again and again, Dr. Winkler’s statements about relevant
`
`technologies are wrong or inconsistent, revealing an inability or unwillingness to
`
`provide reliable testimony. Both UT and the reviewing court are entitled to the
`
`Board’s express determination of this unreliability.
`
` Liquidia’s opposition provides a second example in its discussion of
`
`polymorphs. Rather than rebut Dr. Pinal’s careful, qualified explanation of why Dr.
`
`Winkler’s testimony on polymorphs is utterly wrong, Liquidia simply says it is not
`
`relevant. Paper 32, 6 n.3. Yet recall Dr. Winkler’s lack of understanding about
`
`polymorphs is at the heart of his testimony about stability in the prior art. Paper 1,
`
`4823-2778-4685.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to
`Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`27, 43-44, 51-52, 68-69. Liquidia procured institution on the basis of relative
`
`polymorph stability, but now—after the close of briefing and faced with evidence
`
`undermining its arguments— Liquidia decides that its evidence is irrelevant. Dr.
`
`Winkler is unable to testify accurately on key technical concepts in this
`
`proceeding, or else is willing to change his testimony as suits, but either way his
`
`statements are unreliable.
`
`II. EX1012: PURPORTED KAWAKAMI APPLICATION
`
`Once again, this exhibit is not what it purports to be: a certified Japanese
`
`application. Instead, Liquidia filed an uncertified English “translation” without
`
`filing the foreign-language application at all, much less a certified translation.
`
`37 CFR §42.63(b). Liquidia responds by belatedly filing exhibits purporting to
`
`cure these defects. Once again, Liquidia does not bother with seeking
`
`authorization, but instead, engages in self-help sandbagging long after the close of
`
`briefing on the merits. Liquidia pleads that UT is not prejudiced because the
`
`unfiled materials appear in a different proceeding (without explaining how, for
`
`example, UT would cross-examine a declarant in the other proceeding for this
`
`case). Liquidia again ignores the discussed case law. As the motion explains,
`
`materials in a different—even if related—proceeding do not cure failure to file in
`
`the present proceeding. Paper 31, 10-11, citing Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325,
`
`4823-2778-4685.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to
`Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (reversing decision to ignore translation requirement).
`
`Indeed, the failure in this case is worse than in Stevens because Liquidia not only
`
`omitted the certification: it also omitted the underlying exhibit.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
` Congress imposed tight deadlines on the Board. In response, the Office
`
`adopted exacting rules with little discovery to ensure efficiency. The efficiency and
`
`integrity of these proceedings require that Liquidia follow rather than flout them.
`
`Liquidia’s cool disregard for the rules prejudices both UT and the Board. The rules
`
`should be followed in this case, which requires exclusion of these exhibits.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: June 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4823-2778-4685.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to
`Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Reply to Opposition to Motion to Exclude was served on counsel of
`
`record on June 8, 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 addresses:
`
`zLiquidiaIPR@cooley.com
`
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`
`emilch@cooley.com
`
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`
`
`4823-2778-4685.1
`
`6
`
`