`
`
`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 OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION
`TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`United Therapeutics Corporation (“Patent Owner” or “UTC) opposes
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper No. 65) (“Pet. MTE”) Exhibits 2100, 2101,
`
`2102, 2103, and deposition exhibit 2092 of Exhibit 2094. Petitioner moved to
`
`exclude the Exhibits for the following alleged grounds:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Deposition Exhibit
`2092 (attached to
`EX2094 at 63-65)
`EX2100
`
`EX2101
`
`EX2102
`
`EX2103
`
`British Library Communication
`from Rupert Lee
`
`Schill: Multisonic, Inhaling
`with ultrasonic infraControl,
`Instructions for Use (2004)
`(Exhibit from March 14, 2022
`Deposition of Dr. Gonda,
`referenced as “Tab 6”)
`Schill: Multisonic, Inhaling with
`ultrasonic infraControl,
`Instructions for Use (Exhibit
`from March 14, 2022
`Deposition of Dr. Gonda,
`referenced as “Tab 5”)
`DeVilbiss, UltraNeb, Ultrasonic
`Nebulizer User Manual (Exhibit
`from March 14, 2022
`Deposition of Dr. Gonda,
`referenced as “Tab 9”)
`Lieberman, et al., In Vitro
`Performance of the MyNeb™
`Nebulizer: A New Portable
`Aerosol Delivery System
`(Exhibit from March 14, 2022
`
`Alleged Reason to
`Exclude
`Allegedly incomplete
`document; not
`authenticated
`Allegedly not
`authenticated (no date
`or origin information)
`
`Allegedly not
`authenticated (no date
`or origin information)
`
`Allegedly not
`authenticated (no date
`or origin information)
`
`Allegedly not
`authenticated (no date
`or origin information)
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Deposition of Dr. Gonda,
`referenced as “Tab 4”)
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Deposition Exhibit 2092 of EX2094: British Library
`Communication
`
`There is no basis to exclude deposition exhibit 2092, which is authentic and
`
`not incomplete. In fact, it is an exact copy of EX2092 from IPR2017-01261
`
`showing an email communication from the British Library, and was used at the
`
`deposition of Dr. Hall-Ellis to impeach the basis for her opinions. See, e.g.,
`
`EX2094 at 20:22-4 (introducing Exhibit 2092). Unable to identify a legitimate
`
`reason to exclude this exhibit, it appears that Petitioner challenges this exhibit as a
`
`way to further argue on the merits.1
`
`First, Petitioner’s half-hearted attempt to exclude deposition exhibit 2092 on
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner’s attempts to argue the merits of the underlying issues in its MTE brief
`
`(e.g. Pet. MTE, 3) is improper. P.T.A.B. Consol. Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)
`
`at 79 (“A motion to exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g.,
`
`relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the
`
`evidence to prove a particular fact.”). Thus, while Patent Owner disagrees on the
`
`merits, it does not address the merits in this Opposition.
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`authenticity grounds under FRE 901 (Pet. MTE, 4) fails as a matter of law and fact.
`
`Under FRE 901, an email may be authenticated by reference to its “appearance,
`
`contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the
`
`item, take together with all the circumstances.” See United States v. Siddiqui, 235
`
`F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 940 (2001). On its face,
`
`deposition exhibit 2092 of EX2094 shows that the document is indeed an April
`
`2018 email from Mr. DiNatale to Mr. Maebius, forwarding an email from Mr.
`
`Rupert Lee of the British Library.
`
`Further, testimony from a witness with knowledge of an email exchange is
`
`prima facie evidence of authenticity. United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151
`
`(2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he standard for authentication is one of ‘reasonable
`
`likelihood’...and is ‘minimal’...both the informant and Agent Berglas testified that
`
`the exhibits were in fact accurate records of [defendant’s] conversations with Lorie
`
`and Julie. Based on their testimony, a reasonable juror could have found that the
`
`exhibits did represent those conversations, notwithstanding that the e-mails and
`
`online chats were editable.”). As explained by the email’s author, Mr. Jim
`
`DiNatale, the document in this exhibit is a true and correct copy of an email he
`
`forwarded to attorney Steve Maebius at Foley & Lardner LLP, sharing the
`
`response Mr. DiNatale had received from Mr. Rupert Lee of the BIPC Research
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Services team at the British Library after a series of telephone calls and email
`
`exchanges. See EX2105, ¶¶2-3.
`
`Accordingly, deposition exhibit 2092 has been properly authenticated, and
`
`Liquidia’s objection under FRE 901 should be denied.
`
`Second, Petitioner contends that deposition exhibit 2092 should be excluded
`
`under FRE 106 because it is allegedly an incomplete document, based upon
`
`Petitioner’s pure speculation that there was an original list of questions or other
`
`correspondence that were intentionally deleted from this document. Pet. MTE, 3-4.
`
`This argument likewise fails.
`
`First and foremost, FRE 106 is not even a rule by which evidence is
`
`excluded. See FED. R. EVID. 106; see also U.S. v. Jamar, C.A.4 (Va.) 1977, 561
`
`F.2d 1103 (noting that the purpose of this rule is “to permit the contemporaneous
`
`introduction of recorded statements that place in context other writings admitted
`
`into evidence which, viewed alone, may be misleading.”); U.S. v. Branch, C.A.5
`
`(Tex.) 1996, 91 F.3d 699 (noting that FRE 106 codifies the common-law “rule of
`
`completeness,” and its purpose is to permit contemporaneous introduction of
`
`recorded statements that place in context other writings admitted into evidence
`
`which, viewed alone, may be misleading). Petitioner’s motion under FRE 106 fails
`
`for this reason alone.
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Moreover, as is clear from the face of the document, deposition exhibit 2092
`
`is an exact copy of EX2092 from another proceeding, IPR2017-01621, which
`
`involved the same JAHA Abstract at issue in this proceeding, and in which Dr.
`
`Hall-Ellis likewise participated (see, e.g., EX2043, 149:21-23). EX2092 from that
`
`other IPR is publicly available, and a simple comparison confirms deposition
`
`exhibit 2092 is identical to EX2092 from IPR2017-01621. Having testified that
`
`she participated in IPR2017-01621, Dr. Hall-Ellis was cross-examined using
`
`EX2092 in this proceeding because she failed to acknowledge this exhibit in
`
`rendering contradictory opinions in this case directly involving the availability of
`
`the JAHA Abstract. See EX1112, ¶85; EX2094, 20:22–24:7.2 In short, deposition
`
`
`
`2 The fact that Dr. Hall-Ellis participated in IPR2017-01621 and cited other
`
`exhibits from that proceeding in her declarations here (see, e.g., EX1036, 31 n.21
`
`& 37 n.22; EX1112, ¶37, 81), belies Petitioner’s argument that “Dr. Hall-Ellis had
`
`no reason to have seen the exhibit before or have knowledge of its origins or
`
`contents” (Pet. MTE, 3). Indeed, given Dr. Hall-Ellis’ reliance on other statements
`
`from the British Library to try to show public availability of the JAHA Abstract in
`
`this case (see EX1112, ¶85)), EX2092 from IPR2017-01621 should have been
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`exhibit 2092 as filed in this case is a complete copy properly used to cross-examine
`
`Dr. Hall-Ellis.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s claims that parts of the communications between Mr.
`
`DiNatale and the British Library “appear to be deleted” (Pet. MTE, 4) are pure
`
`speculation. Speculation regarding some unproven alteration or deletion to a
`
`document is not a basis for exclusion under FRE 106. To the extent Liquidia
`
`genuinely believed there was anything missing from this document, it could have
`
`sought to introduce additional evidence to correct any allegedly misleading
`
`impression. See United States v. Adams, 722 F.3d 788, 826, 2013 U.S. App.
`
`LEXIS 14418, *83-84, 2013 FED App. 0179P (6th Cir.), 45-46, 2013 WL
`
`3717429 (6th Cir. Ky. 2013) (“The ‘rule of completeness’ allows a party to correct
`
`a misleading impression created by the introduction of part of a writing or
`
`conversation by introducing additional parts of it necessary to put the admitted
`
`
`
`served on Patent Owner in this proceeding pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii).
`
`At a minimum, it was not unreasonable for Patent Owner to have impeached Dr.
`
`Hall-Ellis during her deposition regarding her testimony in paragraph 85 using this
`
`pre-existing document from a proceeding that involved both Dr. Hall-Ellis and the
`
`same public-availability question regarding the JAHA Abstract.
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`portions in proper context.”). Petitioner did not do so.
`
`Petitioner also complains that Mr. DiNatale’s declaration “provides no
`
`details as to exactly what questions led to the response in [deposition exhibit
`
`2092]” (id. at 3) and that it is allegedly unclear “in what context this email
`
`originated” or “in what capacity the British Library contact” was responding (id. at
`
`4), but these are substantive arguments, not proper evidentiary objections under
`
`FRE106. P.T.A.B. Consol. Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 79 (“A motion to
`
`exclude must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or
`
`hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove
`
`a particular fact.”). Petitioner could have put this document into the proceeding
`
`earlier and sought discovery related to it, had Petitioner so desired. Petitioner’s
`
`failure to timely seek discovery related to deposition exhibit 2092 does not justify
`
`exclusion under FRE 106.
`
`Rather, the Board has established that FRE 106 requires that the context of a
`
`witness’s testimony (i.e., Dr. Hall-Ellis’s cross-examination) should be considered
`
`contemporaneously when the Board evaluates such witness’s testimony. See
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. et al. v. NIDEC Motor Corp., IPR2014-
`
`01121,-01122 (Sept. 10, 2015) (Paper 34) (allowing a Patent Owner to file a chart
`
`identifying portions of deposition transcript as an exhibit); see also Ascend
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Performance Materials Operations LLC v. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., IPR2020-
`
`00349, Paper 53, at 12 (July 15, 2021).
`
`In Ascend, the Board held that “if exhibits are introduced during a
`
`deposition for the purposes of testing witness’ testimony, a party should be able
`
`to submit those exhibits with the transcript, so the board has full context
`
`available in order to evaluate the testimony.” Id. In Ascend, three exhibits
`
`submitted for the first time in a sur-reply along with deposition transcript were
`
`proper evidence to submit for the purpose of evaluating the testimony of the
`
`deponent. Id. at 12-13. Importantly, each of the exhibits were introduced during
`
`the deposition and were objected at the time of the deposition. Id.
`
`In Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, deposition exhibit 2092 was submitted in
`
`order to impeach the testimony of Dr. Hall-Ellis in relying on an unsworn,
`
`conclusory statement from a librarian at the British Library that the JAHA
`
`Supplement was “available for public use.” (Paper 44, at 7-9). More
`
`specifically, it was submitted to dispute Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony that the JAHA
`
`Supplement was “available for public use” at the British Library (see EX1112,
`
`¶85). Failing to admit the document would result in an omission of evidence
`
`necessary to provide the Board with the full context of the deposition testimony.
`
`In particular, deposition exhibit 2092 is relevant to the context and veracity of Dr.
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Hall-Ellis’ testimony that the JAHA Supplement was “available for public use”
`
`because the exhibit contradicts the testimony of Dr. Hall-Ellis.
`
`Accordingly, deposition exhibit 2092 should not be excluded under FRE 106
`
`and/or 901.
`
`B.
`
`EX2100 and EX2101: Schill Instructions for Use
`
`Petitioner’s motion to exclude EX2100 and EX2101 under FRE 901 should
`
`be denied. As an initial matter, Petitioner’s motion is conditional—Petitioner only
`
`moves for exclusion “to the extent the Board finds that the proffered Internet
`
`Archive declarations by Petitioner (EX1087 and EX1115) is insufficient evidence
`
`of the origins and/or dates of public availability of the documents[.]” Patent Owner
`
`notes that (1) this condition is unclear at least as to “the documents,” which are not
`
`identified, and (2) there are issues with EX1037 beyond dates and availability. See
`
`Paper No. 66 at 5-10 (citing reasons to exclude). Further, the Board stated with
`
`respect to EX1037 that Petitioner’s expert Dr. Hill relied on it “not as prior art but
`
`merely as evidence of the general knowledge in the art at around the time of the
`
`invention.” Inst. Dec. (Paper No. 18) at 24. If EX1037 is not excluded, EX2100-
`
`2101 should likewise not be excluded for similar reasons.
`
`Regardless, there is no basis to exclude either EX2100 or EX2101 (even if
`
`EX1037 is excluded). Petitioner contends that EX2100-2101 are undated and lack
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`information about origin or dates of public availability. But unlike EX1037,
`
`EX2100-2101 are not translations with missing information required for
`
`authentication or compliance with PTAB rules. They are product manuals, in
`
`English, readily available online. Petitioner contends that “Mr. Frank-White’s
`
`declaration allegedly provides no pathway as to how a POSA would be able to find
`
`EX2100 or EX2101 as of 2006.” Pet. MTE at 5. Public availability is a separate
`
`issue from authenticity under FRE 901, however, and Liquidia has not cited
`
`anything about the exhibits’ appearance, contents, substance, or archived location
`
`at www.schillmedical.co.uk that allegedly shows inauthenticity. EX2106 at ¶5,
`
`pp.4, 34. Moreover, “[s]tatus as a prior art printed publication is a substantive
`
`issue, not an evidentiary issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2017-
`
`02187, Paper 42 at 17. Regardless, Patent Owner submitted a signed declaration by
`
`Mr. Frank-White showing that the URLs associated with the contents provided in
`
`EX2100 and 2101 were recorded on January 26, 1997, prior to the 2006 effective
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`date.3
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Petitioner’s motion should also be denied because EX2100-2101 were used
`
`during Dr. Gonda’s deposition to cross-examine him on the alleged bases for his
`
`opinions regarding device output rates and efficiency. See, e.g., EX2099 at 164:5-
`
`14 et seq. EX2101 and EX2100 provide context to the deposition of Dr. Gonda,
`
`and illustrate that Petitioner’s reliance on “typical” nebulization rates “misapplies
`
`and misrepresents the evidence.” Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, at 13-14, 16. The
`
`requested exclusion of EX1037 does not change the fact that EX2100-2101 were
`
`used to test and undermine Dr. Gonda’s opinions. Ascend Performance, IPR2020-
`
`00349, Paper 53, at 12 (“[I]f exhibits are introduced during a deposition for the
`
`purposes of testing witness’ testimony, a party should be able to submit those
`
`exhibits with the transcript, so the board has full context available in order to
`
`evaluate the testimony.”); see also Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, at 13-14.
`
`Excluding EX2092 would result in an incomplete record that omitted evidence
`
`
`
`3 Petitioner complains that Mr. Frank-White did not state whether EX2100-2101
`
`are the same documents as he attached to his declaration. Petitioner has both
`
`documents, which can easily be compared, and failed to identify any differences
`
`between them.
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`necessary to provide the Board with the full context of the deposition testimony.
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, the board should deny Petitioner’s motion
`
`to exclude EX2100 and EX2101.
`
`C. EX2102: DeVilbiss UltraNeb Ultrasonic Nebulizer User Manual
`
`Liquidia’s motion to exclude EX2102 under FRE 901 should also be denied.
`
`Petitioner contends that EX2102 lacks information on origin or date of public
`
`availability, but conspicuously fails to assert that EX2102 is not authentic. In fact,
`
`Petitioner’s expert testified that he had no reason to believe the information in
`
`EX2102 was inaccurate. EX2099, 184:11-17. There is no basis to contend, and
`
`Petitioner has not contended, that EX2102 is not what it purports to be. Cf. FRE
`
`901(a). The motion should fail for that reason alone.
`
`Petitioner’s point that “[l]arge chunks” of the document are in languages
`
`other than English is inapposite. The portions used at Dr. Gonda’s deposition and
`
`cited in Patent Owner’s sur-reply are in English. E.g., Sur-reply (Paper No. 55) at
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`14 (citing EX2102 at 27).4
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Petitioner’s second point, that the document was introduced at Dr. Gonda’s
`
`deposition “without establishing that [he] had ever seen the document before”
`
`actually proves why EX2102 is relevant and admissible. Dr. Gonda’s Reply
`
`Declaration asserts various “average” and “conventional” values (e.g., EX1107,
`
`¶¶17-25, 45, 48) and relies on Gessler (EX1062), which is why Patent Owner
`
`tested the basis for his assumptions about average values by inquiring whether he
`
`had ever reviewed EX2102. See, e.g., EX2099, 180:22-183:25.
`
`In addition, like EX2100-2101 above, EX2101 should not be excluded
`
`(1) if EX1037 is allowed, “as evidence of the general knowledge in the art at
`
`around the time of the invention” (Inst. Dec. (Paper No. 18) at 24), and (2) as
`
`context for the cross-examination of Dr. Gonda on the basis for his reply
`
`declaration opinions. EX2102 illustrates that the testimony “misapplies and
`
`misrepresents the evidence.” Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, at 13-14. The Board has
`
`
`
`4 It is also clear that, like many product manuals, EX2102 provides the same
`
`information in different languages for the user’s convenience. As grey sidebars in
`
`the manual indicate, pages 3-17 are German (“Deutsch”), pages 18-31 are English,
`
`pages 32-45 are French (“Francais”), and 46-49 are Italian (“Italiano”).
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`held that just because exhibits were introduced during a deposition for the first
`
`time does not preclude the Patent Owner from relying on the exhibits in a sur-
`
`reply. See IPR2020-00349, Paper 53, at 12 (July 15, 2021) (PTAB admitting
`
`exhibits for use in sur-reply for evaluating deposition testimony). EX2102
`
`provides necessary context to evaluate Dr. Gonda’s testimony regarding an
`
`“average” nebulizer output and efficiency, and because the exhibit undermines
`
`the bases for Dr. Gonda’s opinions, EX2102 is admissible for at least those
`
`purposes. Accordingly, the Board should deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude
`
`EX2102.
`
`D. EX2103: Lieberman article
`
`Petitioner’s motion to exclude EX2103 should also be denied. First,
`
`Petitioner asserts it “was not able to readily retrieve any article with that title
`
`dated in 2006.” This strains credibility. Searching Google for “Respiratory Drug
`
`Delivery 2006” readily brings any internet searcher to https://www.rddonline
`
`.com/, which can be searched overall and, specifically, within the 2006
`
`proceedings. It’s easy to find EX2103.
`
`Petitioner also alleged that since EX2103 does not indicate that it was
`
`published before the May 15, 2006 date. EX2103 is not being cited as prior art,
`
`however, and the relevance of EX2103 is not limited to whether the exhibit
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`predates May 15, 2006. Moreover, “[s]tatus as a prior art printed publication is a
`
`substantive issue, not an evidentiary issue.” Caterpillar, IPR2017-02187, Paper 42
`
`at 17. Rather, Patent Owner relies on EX2103 for what it shows about the
`
`general knowledge of the POSA around the priority date (cf. Inst. Dec. (Paper
`
`No. 18) at 24) and to provide the full context of deposition testimony (as
`
`discussed above regarding the other objected-to exhibits). Patent Owner’s Sur-
`
`reply relies on EX2103 to impeach Dr. Gonda’s testimony (EX2099) regarding
`
`his assumed efficiencies of nebulizers in general and the alleged differences
`
`between jet and ultrasonic nebulizers. Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper No. 55)
`
`at 15-16. EX2103 provides context necessary to evaluate the references Dr.
`
`Gonda relied upon during his testimony. Id. at 16. For all of these reasons, the
`
`Board should deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude EX2103.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the response provided above, Patent Owner asks the Board to
`
`deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude EX2092 (attached to EX2094 at pages 63-65),
`
`EX2100, EX2101, EX2102, and EX2103. Patent Owner also requests that, if the
`
`Board excludes any one of these exhibits, the Board not exclude any of the
`
`arguments that cite these exhibits since each of the arguments are supported by
`
`facts independent of the content of these exhibits.
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition To
` Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Opposition To Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner’s Updated
`
`Exhibit List, and exhibits were served on counsel of record on April 27, 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
`
`ssukduang@cooley.com
`
`
`
`Date: April 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`4894-6420-3806
`
`