`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.61(a) and 42.64(b)(1), and the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence (“FRE”), the Petitioner Liquidia Technologies, Inc. hereby serves and
`
`submits the following objections to evidence submitted by Patent Owner
`
`accompanying Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply filed and served on March 16, 2022.
`
`These objections are timely because they are filed within five business days of
`
`service of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EXHIBITS
`
`A. Appended Ex. 2092 to Hall-Ellis Deposition (Ex. 2094)
`
`For context, Patent Owner’s produced Ex. 2092 for the first time during the
`
`March 11, 2022 deposition of Petitioner’s expert librarian, Dr. Hall-Ellis, and then
`
`appended it to the Deposition Transcript (Ex. 2094) and then filed the Deposition
`
`Transcript as part of the Patent Owner Sur-Reply.1 Appended Ex. 2092 is objected
`
`to as new evidence filed with the Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply in violation of Rule
`
`
`1 Patent Owner appears to have filed two Exhibit 2092s. The first was filed as the
`
`“Mandy Kim Bio” on January 5, 2022. The other is a British Library email dated
`
`April 20, 2018 that was first produced during the March 11, 2022 deposition of Dr.
`
`Hall-Ellis. The Objection above is directed to the appended email and not the
`
`“Mandy Kim Bio.”
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793
`
`42.23(b). Appended Ex. 2092 is also objected to as violating the Board’s March 3,
`
`2022 Order, which expressly denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to
`
`submit this same type of evidence with its Sur-Reply. (Order, 5.) The Order stated
`
`that “there is no right to submit additional evidence with Patent Owner’s Sur-
`
`Reply” and explained that the Board was “not persuaded that we should waive the
`
`limits imposed on the Sur-Reply by Rule 42.23(b).” (Order, 5-4; see also Ex. 2104
`
`(Telephonic Hearing Transcript on 3/1/2022), 24:2-23 (the Board indicating that
`
`submitting new evidence
`
`in
`
`this manner provides an “opportunity for
`
`gamesmanship.”).)
`
`Appended Ex. 2092 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 106 because it is an
`
`incomplete document. The email cuts off on page 2 – all of the prior email
`
`correspondence between the British Library contact and Patent Owner’s counsel’s
`
`research contact appear to be deleted.
`
`Appended Ex. 2092 is objected to under Fed. R. Evid. 901 because there is
`
`insufficient evidence to support a finding that the exhibit is what Petitioner claims
`
`it is. For example, it is unclear how, why or in what context this email originated
`
`(in part because the email chain is incomplete) and in what capacity the British
`
`Library contact is responding.
`
`To the extent appropriate, Petitioner also objects to any portion of Patent
`
`Owner’s Sur-Reply that discusses, references and/or relies on appended Ex. 2092
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793
`
`(see, e.g., Sur-Reply, 7-9), and further objects to any portion of Dr. Hall-Ellis
`
`Deposition Transcript (Ex. 2094) discussing appended Ex. 2092 (see, e.g., Ex.2094,
`
`18:22-24:7).
`
`B. Appended Ex. 2093 to Hall-Ellis Deposition (Ex. 2094)
`
`Ex. 2093 was also produced for the first time during Dr. Hall-Ellis’ March
`
`11, 2022 deposition and was appended to and then filed with the Deposition
`
`Transcript (Ex. 2094) as part of the Patent Owner Sur-Reply.2 Appended Ex. 2093
`
`is objected to as new evidence filed with the Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply in violation
`
`of Rule 42.23(b). It is further objected to as violating the Board’s March 3, 2022
`
`Order. (Order, 5.)
`
`To the extent appropriate, Petitioner also objects to any portion of Patent
`
`Owner’s Sur-Reply that discusses, references and/or relies on appended Ex. 2093
`
`(see, e.g., Sur-Reply, 10-11), and further objects to any portion of Dr. Hall-Ellis
`
`
`2 Patent Owner also appears to have filed two Exhibit 2093s. The first was filed as
`
`the “Declaration of Mandy Kim” on January 5, 2022. The other is a journal article
`
`that was first produced during the March 11, 2022 deposition of Dr. Hall-Ellis. The
`
`Objection above is directed to the appended journal article and not the “Declaration
`
`of Mandy Kim.”
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793
`
`Deposition Transcript (Ex. 2094) discussing appended Ex. 2093 (see, e.g., Ex.2094,
`
`32:11-41:16).
`
`C.
`
`Exs. 2100-2103
`
`Patent Owner produced Exs. 2100-2103 for the first time during the March
`
`14, 2022 deposition of Petitioner’s technical expert, Dr. Igor Gonda. Exs. 2100-
`
`2103 were then filed as part of the Patent Owner Sur-Reply and simply identified
`
`as exhibits to the deposition. Exs. 2100-2103 are objected to as new evidence filed
`
`with the Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply in violation of Rule 42.23(b). Exs. 2100-2103
`
`are also objected to as violating the Board’s March 3, 2022 Order. (Order, 5.)
`
`Exs. 2100-2103 are objected to as lacking authentication under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`901, as there is no indication about the origins or dates of public availability for
`
`these documents.
`
`To the extent appropriate, Petitioner also objects to any portion of Patent
`
`Owner’s Sur-Reply that discusses, references and/or relies on Exs. 2100-2103 (see,
`
`e.g., Sur-Reply, 14, 16), and further objects to any portion of Dr. Gonda’s
`
`Deposition Transcript (Ex. 2099) discussing Exs. 2100-2103 (see, e.g., Ex.2099,
`
`164:1-203:11).
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2092 and 2093
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793
`
`appended to the Hall-Ellis Deposition, and Exhibits 2100, 2101, 2102 and 2013.
`
`Dated: March 23, 2022
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (212) 479-6840
`Fax: (212) 479-6275
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/Erik B. Milch/
`Erik B. Milch
`Reg. No. 42,887
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`/Erik B. Milch/
`Erik B. Milch
`Reg. No. 42,887
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq., a complete copy of the
`attached PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(b)(1) and related documents are being served via email on the 23rd day of
`March 2022, upon Patent Owner’s attorneys of record:
`
`UT-793@foley.com
`Stephen B. Maebius (smaebius@foley.com)
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`UTCvLiquidia-IPR@mwe.com
`
`Dated: March 23, 2022
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (212) 479-6840
`Fax: (212) 479-6275
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`