`_______________
`
`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 REQUEST FOR PANEL REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Request for Panel Rehearing
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests panel rehearing of the limited portion of the
`
`October 8, 2021 Final Written Decision (“FWD”) (Paper 45) finding that Petitioner
`
`established that claims 1-5, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,604,901 (“the ’901
`
`patent”) are obvious over the combination of Moriarty and Phares. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d). The Board’s decision relied on inadmissible, unsworn expert
`
`statements submitted by Petitioner that, when timely objected to by Patent Owner,
`
`Petitioner failed to timely cure as required by 17 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2). Because
`
`Petitioner did not timely submit admissible evidence that would support the
`
`Board’s conclusion, the Board should find that claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are not
`
`unpatentable. The FWD found claims 1-5, 8, and 9 obvious only over the
`
`combination of Moriarty and Phares and does not address the other asserted ground
`
`of obviousness over Phares alone in relation to these claims. FWD at p. 50. To the
`
`extent that the panel grants this rehearing request, the panel should also hold that
`
`the other ground of obviousness based on Phares alone similarly fails to establish
`
`obviousness of these claims because it too is only supported by unsworn
`
`statements as to several critical elements of obviousness. Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper No. 12) at pp. 29, 30-32, and 34.
`
`
`
`
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
`
`Request for Panel Rehearing
`
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), a party may request panel rehearing of a Final
`
`Written Decision by the Board. “The request must specifically identify all matters
`
`the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where
`
`each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`A. Affidavits Submitted in IPRs Must Be Sworn.
`
`Under the Board’s rules, non-deposition testimony must be in the form of an
`
`“affidavit.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a). The “affidavit” must be either testimony given
`
`under oath (such as a true sworn affidavit) or a declaration acknowledging that it is
`
`given under penalty of perjury, such as “a declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.2 (“Affidavit”). That is consistent with the statutes governing
`
`testimony in the Patent and Trademark Office. 35 U.S.C. §§ 23, 25. Under
`
`§ 1746, a declaration does not qualify unless it is “subscribed by [the declarant],
`
`under penalty of perjury,” and “substantially” adheres to the form of the prescribed
`
`attestation. 28 U.S.C. § 1746. That attestation is simple, but necessary: without it,
`
`an unsworn statement is inadmissible evidence because the speaker is not
`
`prosecutable for perjury.
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Request for Panel Rehearing
`
`
`
`The procedure and time limits for identifying and curing defective declarations
`
`are straightforward. The Board’s rules require a party challenging the
`
`admissibility of evidence to raise its objection promptly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1),
`
`and any objection must be preserved with a motion to exclude, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(c). And the Board’s rules create a simple avenue for parties to cure any
`
`defectively submitted affidavits: they afford the party relying on timely challenged
`
`evidence ten days to serve admissible supplemental evidence. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(2). But if, after receiving a timely objection, the party fails to cure, then
`
`the declaration must stand or fall as originally submitted. A party cannot see
`
`whether an objection gets traction and then submit untimely supplemental
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`B. The FWD Improperly Relied on Unsworn Statements That Were Not
`Timely Cured in Compliance with § 42.64(b).
`
`The Board’s decision here is inconsistent with the clear rules described above.
`
`The Winkler Declaration (EX1002) is not an affidavit: it is unsworn and did not
`
`include any attestation that it was submitted under penalty of perjury, yet the FWD
`
`specifically relies upon EX1002 at pp. 32-34, 36-38, 41, and 42. Patent Owner
`
`timely objected to it in Paper No. 10 (as acknowledged at the final hearing, see
`
`Paper 44 at 21:12-25), and rather than addressing that objection as required by the
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Request for Panel Rehearing
`
`
`
`rules, Petitioner ignored the objection and engaged in self-help months after the
`
`deadline (Paper 44 at 22:8-23:17, 25:3-14). The Board’s reliance on the Winkler
`
`Declaration despite Patent Owner’s timely, meritorious objection is contrary to the
`
`Board’s own rules and the statute.
`
`The FWD relies extensively upon the Winkler Declaration in concluding that
`
`Petitioner established obviousness of claims 1-5, 8, and 9 based on the
`
`combination of Moriarty and Phares. FWD at pp. 32-34, 36-38, 41, and 42.1 But
`
`as noted in the Patent Owner Response (Paper No. 12) at pp. 1 and 60 and in Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper No. 31), Dr. Winkler’s statements were not
`
`admissible as submitted. And when Patent Owner timely objected to its
`
`
`
`1 For example, the FWD relies upon EX1002 in stating “we agree with Dr. Winkler
`
`that ‘Kawakami teaches the purification of a methanoprostacyclin derivative by
`
`salt formation with a secondary amine, which is the same reaction as taught in
`
`Phares for the formation of the diethanolamine salt of treprostinil.’” FWD at 42.
`
`Thus, the Board supports its conclusion that there would be an expectation of
`
`successfully purifying treprostinil by combining a diethanolamine salt formation
`
`step from Phares with Moriarty based on Dr. Winkler’s testimony, as well as for
`
`other key findings at pp. 32-34 and 36-38 of the FWD.
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Request for Panel Rehearing
`
`
`
`admissibility (Paper No. 10), Petitioner did not take the opportunity to serve a
`
`supplemental sworn affidavit within ten business days as required by § 42.64(b)(2).
`
`Instead, months later, Petitioner filed a new declaration at the Reply stage
`
`(EX1039)—without even attempting to obtain the necessary permission from the
`
`Board—which the Board itself acknowledged does not cure Petitioner’s violation
`
`of § 42.64(b)(2). FedEx Corp. v. Ronald A Katz Tech. Lisc., CBM2015-00053,
`
`Paper 9, pp. 7–8 (P.T.A.B. June 29, 2015) (giving no weight to a non-compliant
`
`declaration); FWD at 55-56; see Paper 44 at 23:22-24:7.
`
`Although the Board correctly determined that the unauthorized, late-filed
`
`Winkler Declaration is entitled to no weight (FWD at pp. 56-57), it erred by
`
`considering and relying extensively on the inadmissible original Winkler
`
`Declaration. The Board cannot waive the statutory sworn-testimony requirement;
`
`the Patent Act requires that testimony in “cases in the Patent and Trademark
`
`Office” be under oath or, at a minimum, under penalty of perjury. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 23, 25. A paper that is “unsworn” “can be taken merely as argument and not to
`
`establish facts.” In re Mehta, 347 F.2d 859, 866 (C.C.P.A. 1965). And the Board
`
`has not waived its procedural or admissibility rules for Petitioner. Doing so would
`
`be particularly inappropriate where, as here, the rules create a simple and clear
`
`mechanism for quickly curing evidentiary defects. Petitioner not only failed to
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Request for Panel Rehearing
`
`
`
`comply with those rules—choosing to stand on its original, defective submission—
`
`but then four months later improperly filed additional evidence without even
`
`seeking leave to do so. The Board’s rules do not permit “resort[ing] to self-help.”
`
`FWD at p. 57.
`
`The Board appeared to rely on a purported lack of prejudice in considering the
`
`unsworn statements, but the governing statutes and rules contain neither a good-
`
`cause exception nor a no-prejudice exception. Indeed, the Board implicitly
`
`acknowledged in refusing to consider untimely-submitted evidence that 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64 does not contain a no-prejudice exemption from the requirement that
`
`evidentiary defects be timely cured. If, as the Board correctly held, untimely-
`
`submitted evidence cannot be considered, neither can the original declaration
`
`whose defect Petitioner was improperly trying to repair. The Board does not have
`
`discretion to allow unsworn statements that fail to comply with the statutory
`
`sworn-testimony requirements, and it cannot rely on such statements over a timely,
`
`uncured objection just by asserting a lack of “prejudice.”2 The prejudice to Patent
`
`
`
`2 The FWD declined to exclude EX1002 in response to the Motion to Exclude
`
`(Paper No. 31, pp. 1-3). Regardless of whether or not this exhibit is excluded, the
`
`FWD cannot rely upon it given the statutory requirements for sworn declarations.
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Request for Panel Rehearing
`
`
`
`Owner is now apparent in light of the FWD: the Board actually relied on the
`
`challenged document. On the Board’s reasoning, it appears “prejudice” could be
`
`proved only if the objecting party identified a lie punishable by prosecution for
`
`perjury. That is an impossible standard that would license parties to disregard the
`
`oath and penalty-of-perjury requirements and suffer no consequences.
`
`Accordingly, the FWD cannot rely upon unsworn testimony for its conclusion
`
`that it would be obvious to apply the diethanolamine salt-forming step of Phares to
`
`the treprostinil process of Moriarty or for any other critical finding at pp. 32-34 and
`
`36-38 of the FWD supporting its conclusion as to claims 1-5, 6, and 8.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the reasons provided above, rehearing by the panel is requested to
`
`issue an FWD that does not rely upon EX1002, and which concludes that
`
`Petitioner has failed to establish that claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are unpatentable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: Nov. 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`Request for Panel Rehearing
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Request for
`
`Panel Rehearing was served on counsel of record on Nov. 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: Nov. 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`4877-5178-5218.1
`
`