`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED WITH PETITIONER REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`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 Reply in
`
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review filed on February 10, 2022 (“Reply”).
`
`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 1087
`
`Exhibit 1087 is described as “Affidavit of Christopher Butler.” This Exhibit
`
`was served as supplemental evidence in response to Patent Owner’s objections to
`
`the Petition, so it is improper for Petitioner to cite to this document in its Reply.
`
`Patent Owner objects to the extent it includes subject matter that is not permitted
`
`pursuant to FRE 602, including without limitation, to the extent that the declaration
`
`presents as “facts” information that is outside the personal knowledge of the
`
`declarant. Exhibit 1087 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 1087, and the exhibits thereto, as unfairly prejudicial, confusing the issues,
`
`and a waste of time under FRE 403. Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1087 as
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`it should have been included with the Petition and, thus, does not meet the
`
`requirements of Rule 104(b)(5).
`
`EXHIBITS 1089-1096, 1113, 1121
`
`Exhibits 1089-1096 purport to be portions of larger volumes comprising
`
`collections of abstracts. Exhibit 1113 is described as “JAHA Supplement Author
`
`Index.” Exhibit 1121 is described as “Ghofrani 2005, British Library.” Patent
`
`Owner objects to page 12 of Exhibit 1089 which appears to be different than page
`
`11 and not an accurate representation of the source document. Patent Owner
`
`objects to these exhibits under FRE 901-902 as lacking authentication and not self-
`
`authenticating because they lack sufficient indicia that the exhibits are what they
`
`purport to be. Patent Owner further objects to these exhibits under FRE 106 and
`
`401-403 as incomplete, irrelevant, waste of time, and likely to cause confusion
`
`because they contain only abstracts of the underlying articles. Patent Owner also
`
`objects to Exhibits 1089-1099 as they should have been included with the Petition
`
`and, thus, do not meet the requirements of Rule 104(b)(5). Patent Owner objects to
`
`Exhibit 1121 under FRE 604 as, aside from an abstract, it is presented in German.
`
`EXHIBITS 1088-1105, 1113, 1114, and 1118-1131
`
`Patent Owner objects to these exhibits under FRE 901-902 as lacking
`
`authentication and not self-authenticating because they lack sufficient indicia that
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`the exhibits are what they purport to be. Patent Owner further objects to these
`
`exhibits because Petitioner relies on these exhibits to prove the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein, but they fail to meet the requirements of any hearsay exception or
`
`exemption under FRE 803-807.
`
`EXHIBIT 1100
`
`Exhibit 1100 is described as “Ventavis EU Summary of Product
`
`Characteristics.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1100 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. In particular, Exhibit 1100 lacks
`
`information as to if, when, where, or how it was published. Patent Owner objects
`
`to Exhibit 1100 under FRE 802 as 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 also objects to
`
`Exhibit 1100 as it should have been included with the Petition and, thus, does not
`
`meet the requirements of Rule 104(b)(5).
`
`EXHIBITS 1104-1105
`
`Exhibits 1104-1105 are described as “Sulica, R. and Poon, M., ‘Medical
`
`therapeutics for pulmonary arterial hypertension: from basic science and clinical
`
`trial design to evidence-based medicine,’ Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 3(2),
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`(2005) (“Sulica 2005”)” and “European Society of Cardiology Annual Report
`
`2005.” Patent Owner objects to these Exhibits under FRE 802 as the Petitioner
`
`relies on them 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 these exhibits, which should have been included with the
`
`Petition and, thus, do not meet the requirements of Rule 104(b)(5).
`
`EXHIBIT 1106
`
`Exhibit 1106 is described as “Reply Declaration of Nicholas Hill, M.D.”
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1106 under FRE 702 and 703 on the basis that the
`
`testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data or the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods reliably applied in this case (pp. 11-76). In addition,
`
`Exhibit 1106 contains numerous legal arguments that are proffered as expert
`
`opinions (pp. 11-76).
`
`EXHIBIT 1107
`
`Exhibit 1107 is described as “Reply Declaration of Igor Gonda, Ph.D.”
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1107 under FRE 702 and 703 on the basis that the
`
`testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data or the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods reliably applied in this case (pp. 5-43). Patent Owner
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`further objects to Exhibit 1107’s reliance on Exhibit 1100 has not been properly
`
`authenticated appears to be irrelevant.
`
`EXHIBITS 1108-1110
`
`Exhibits 1108-1110 are described as “Transcript from the January 8, 2022
`
`Deposition of Aaron Waxman, M.D., Ph.D., Liquida [sic] Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`United Therapeutics Corp., IPR2021-00406,” “Transcript from the January 11,
`
`2022 Deposition of Jason McConville, Liquida [sic] Technologies, Inc. v. United
`
`Therapeutics Corp., IPR2021-00406,” and “Transcript from the December 29,
`
`2021 Deposition of Lyndsey Pilar Wyman, Liquida [sic] Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`United Therapeutics Corp., IPR2021-00406,” respectively. Petitioner objects to
`
`these Exhibits to the extent Petitioner relies on any portion, or that the transcripts
`
`involve testimony involving, objectionable Exhibits, including without limitation
`
`EX1089-EX1096, discussed above.
`
`EXHIBIT 1112
`
`Exhibit 1112 is described as “Reply Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.”
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1112, under FRE 701, because the opinion
`
`testimony contained in this exhibit reaches legal conclusions for which the
`
`declarant has not established that she is capable of providing. Patent Owner also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1112 under FRE 702, on the basis that the testimony is not based
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`on sufficient facts and is based on other informal and unpublished documents
`
`including its attached exhibits 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 1112 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
`
`1112 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 1112, 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 1112 that
`
`cite or reproduce an exhibit objected to herein for the reasons stated herein.
`
`EXHIBIT 1114
`
`Exhibit 1114 is described as “American Heart Association 2004 Online
`
`Archive . . . .” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1114 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 to Exhibit 1114
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`under FRE 802 as 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 also objects to Exhibit
`
`1114 as it should have been included with the Petition and, thus, does not meet the
`
`requirements of Rule 104(b)(5).
`
`EXHIBITS 1089-1096, 1104-1105 AND 1113-1129
`
`Patent Owner also objects to these exhibits as they should have been
`
`included with the Petition and, thus, do not meet the requirements of Rule
`
`104(b)(5). Further, Patent Owner objects to the portions of Petitioner’s Reply and
`
`Exhibits 1106, 1108-1110, 1112, and 1132 that rely upon these exhibits.
`
`EXHIBIT 1115
`
`Exhibit 1115 is described as “Affidavit of Duncan Hall, December 7, 2021.”
`
`Patent Owner objects to the extent it includes subject matter that is not permitted
`
`pursuant to FRE 602, including without limitation, to the extent that the declaration
`
`presents as “facts” information that is outside the personal knowledge of the
`
`declarant. Exhibit 1115 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 1115, and the exhibits thereto, as unfairly prejudicial, confusing the issues,
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`and a waste of time under FRE 403. Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1115 as
`
`it should have been included with the Petition and, thus, does not meet the
`
`requirements of Rule 104(b)(5).
`
`EXHIBIT 1116
`
`Exhibit 1116 is described as “Voswinckel JAHA British Library
`
`Declaration.” Patent Owner objects to the extent it includes subject matter that is
`
`not permitted pursuant to FRE 602, including without limitation, to the extent that
`
`the declaration presents as “facts” information that is outside the personal
`
`knowledge of the declarant. Exhibit 1116 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 1116, and the exhibits thereto, as unfairly prejudicial,
`
`confusing the issues, and a waste of time under FRE 403. Patent Owner also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1116 as it should have been included with the Petition and, thus,
`
`does not meet the requirements of Rule 104(b)(5). Patent Owner also objects to
`
`Exhibit 1116 as it is not a “declaration” executed under penalty of perjury.
`
`EXHIBIT 1117
`
`Exhibit 1117 is described as “Voswinckel JAHA Supplement PubMed
`
`Search Results.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1117 under FRE 901-902 as
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`lacking authentication and not self-authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia
`
`that the exhibit is what it purports to be. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1117
`
`under FRE 802 as 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 1118
`
`Exhibit 1118 is described as “PubMed.gov search results for Sulica, R. and
`
`Poon, M. . . . .” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1118 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 to Exhibit 1118
`
`under FRE 802 as 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 1119
`
`Exhibit 1119 is described as “Voswinckel JESC British Library
`
`Declaration.” Patent Owner objects to the extent it includes subject matter that is
`
`not permitted pursuant to FRE 602, including without limitation, to the extent that
`
`the declaration presents as “facts” information that is outside the personal
`
`knowledge of the declarant. Exhibit 1119 is also objected to as irrelevant under
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`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 1119, and the exhibits thereto, as unfairly prejudicial,
`
`confusing the issues, and a waste of time under FRE 403. Patent Owner also
`
`objects to Exhibit 1119 as it should have been included with the Petition and, thus,
`
`does not meet the requirements of Rule 104(b)(5). Patent Owner also Objects to
`
`Exhibit 1119 as it is not a “declaration” executed under penalty of perjury.
`
`EXHIBIT 1120
`
`Exhibit 1120 is described as “Voswinckel JESC Web of Science Search
`
`Results.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1120 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 to Exhibit 1120 under FRE
`
`802 as 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 1122
`
`Exhibit 1122 is described as “Ghofrani 2005 Search Results.” Patent Owner
`
`objects to Exhibit 1122 under FRE 901-902 as lacking authentication and not self-
`
`authenticating because it lacks sufficient indicia that the exhibit is what it purports
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`to be. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1122 under FRE 802 as 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.
`
`EXHIBITS 1123-1129
`
`Exhibits 1123-1129 are described as being library records. Patent Owner
`
`objects to Exhibits 1123-1129 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 Exhibits 1123-1129 under FRE 802
`
`as 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. In particular, these exhibits purport to be circulation records
`
`for various libraries but there is not proper evidence that exhibits are what they
`
`purport to be.
`
`EXHIBIT 1132
`
`Exhibit 1132 is described as “Transcript from the January 15, 2022
`
`deposition of Aaron B. Waxman, M.D., Ph.D., United Therapeutics Corp. v.
`
`Liquidia Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00755 (D. Del.).” Patent Owner
`
`objects to this exhibit under FRE 401-403 as not being relevant and unduly
`
`prejudicial. The district court deposition concerned a different expert report and
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`
`involved different issues and scope from what is at issue in this proceeding and
`
`what is permitted within the scope of questioning under the PTAB Trial Practice
`
`Guide. The use of deposition testimony from another proceeding is also improper
`
`under Rule 42.53. Patent Owner also objects pursuant to FRE 403 and 106 as
`
`misrepresenting the contents of Dr. Waxman’s testimony and further, as an
`
`incomplete document in omitting other portions of the transcript, and other
`
`documents, that should also be considered.
`
`EXHIBITS 1094, 1100-1103, 1114-1129, AND 1131
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 1094, 1100-1103, 1114-1129, and 1131-1132 for
`
`not being cited in the Reply. As such, these exhibits are in violation of Rule
`
`104(b). Additionally, Patent Owner objects to these exhibits under FRE 402 and
`
`403 as lacking any tendency to make any fact at issue in this proceeding more or
`
`less probable, rendering it irrelevant. Patent Owner also objects to these exhibits
`
`under FRE 901-902 as lacking authentication.
`
`
`
`Date: February 17, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`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 Petitioner’s Reply
`
`was served on counsel of record on February 17, 2022, 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: February 17, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`4854-0897-4095.1
`
`