`
`
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent 10,716,793
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of
`Its Motion to Exclude
`
`I.
`
`EX1037 Is not the Same Manual as EX1086 or Exhibit E to EX1087
`Petitioner argues that EX1037 identified as an “English translation of
`
`OptiNeb User Manual 2005” is offered “as evidence of what it describes to an
`
`ordinary artisan.” EX1037 however, is an undated, purported English translation
`
`of “an Optineb manual” and not self-authenticating (FRE 902). Petitioner failed to
`
`timely provide the underlying German document that was allegedly translated, or
`
`an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation filed with the document.
`
`In an attempt to cure the evidentiary deficiencies of EX1037, Petitioner
`
`asserts that the German document and translation attached to EX1086 and 1087
`
`(served as supplemental evidence) establish that EX1037 “is what it is asserted to
`
`be.” Paper No. 68, 4. However, they do not cure any deficiencies.
`
`First, Petitioner relied upon EX1037 for a purported nebulization rate of “0.6
`
`mL/min” (Petition, 23; Institution Decision, Paper No. 18, 24), but EX1087 and
`
`EX1086 recite a different nebulization rate in a range of “<0.6 mL/min.” EX1037,
`
`28; EX 1087, 27 and EX1086, 31 and 50.1 A specific rate of “0.6 mL/min” is not
`
`
`1 Liquidia’s EX1086 was served as supplemental evidence, used to cross-
`
`examine Dr. Hill, and filed as an attachment to EX2108 (Hill deposition
`
`transcript). EX1086 is cited in the opposition (Paper 68, 4), but was not filed by
`
`Liquidia.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent 10,716,793
`
`equivalent to a range of “<0.6 mL/min.” Petitioner has failed to establish that
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of
`Its Motion to Exclude
`
`EX1086 and EX1087 are the same documents and further, that the translation is
`
`accurate.
`
`Second, Petitioner’s identification of a 2005 date for EX1037 is misleading
`
`and inconsistent with the submitted supplemental evidence. Although Petitioner
`
`asserts EX1037 is a 2005 manual (Petition, vii), the manual provided in Exhibit E
`
`to EX1087 is from 2004 (see EX1087, ¶7), and EX1086 corresponds to that
`
`document (EX1086, 35).
`
`Petitioner’s undated translation of some Optineb manual is in direct
`
`contravention of 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) and should therefore be excluded.
`
`II. EX1029 Should Be Excluded Under FRE 902
`
`EX1029 (alleged Ventavis label) should be excluded. Petitioner bore the
`
`burden to prove authenticity, which it describes as a “low bar,” but failed to do so.
`
`EX1029 does not identify a date, and Petitioner failed to explain where it was kept
`
`or how it was obtained. Paper No. 66, 14-15. Petitioner tries to correct these
`
`deficiencies by belatedly providing new evidence in its Opposition (Paper No. 68,
`
`11, n.3-4). This new evidence is untimely, and these websites were accessed on
`
`April 22, 2022, not before the priority date or contemporaneously with the Petition
`
`or its supporting declarations. Petition, 17; EX1002, ¶¶36, 41, 42; EX1004, ¶¶33,
`
`92, 104, 108, 131, n.4-6. Petitioner references the approval date for Ventavis, but
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent 10,716,793
`
`this has no bearing on whether that version of a drug’s label existed at a given
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of
`Its Motion to Exclude
`
`point or whether it is authentic.
`
`Petitioner’s next argument asserts that EX1029 is an authentic drug label
`
`because it looks like a drug label. If that argument is sufficient, it provides yet
`
`more support for admissibility of EX2100-2103.
`
`Regardless, because Petitioner provided new evidence of alleged
`
`authenticity for the first time with its Opposition, Patent Owner is only now able to
`
`evaluate the evidence. While public accessibility is not addressed in a Motion to
`
`Exclude, Patent Owner has no other opportunity to address the issue other than this
`
`reply. Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence that EX1029 would have been
`
`“indexed and thereby findable by a search engine” at the time it asserts (2004).
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mere
`
`publication to the internet is not a sufficient showing to establish public
`
`accessibility. See Celltrion, Inc. v. Biogen, Inc., IPR2016-01614, Paper No. 65 at
`
`17-20 (PTAB Feb. 21, 2018) (citation omitted).2 In Celltrion, the Petitioner
`
`
`2 Petitioner relies on New World Med., Inc. v. Microsurgical Tech., Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-01573, Paper 63 at 9 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2022). However, New World
`
`addresses accessibility of abstracts, not drug labels. The Celltrion case provides the
`
`standards for authenticating the public availability of online drug labels.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent 10,716,793
`
`similarly asserted that a copy of a label posted on a website along with an Internet
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of
`Its Motion to Exclude
`
`Archive declaration was an authenticated printed publication. Id. at 17. The Board
`
`disagreed, stating that even if the declaration establishes that the reference was
`
`online before the priority date, petitioner failed to adequately support its contention
`
`that the label was publicly accessible prior to the critical date. Id. at 20. Here,
`
`there is not even an Internet Archive declaration. Accordingly, Petitioner has not
`
`shown EX1029 was publicly accessible by the date it asserts.
`
`III. EX1050, EX1066, EX1074, and EX1078 Should Be Excluded
`Petitioner presents EX1050, EX1066, EX1074, and EX1078 as labels for
`
`various drugs, but the exhibits do not identify where they were kept or how they
`
`were obtained, are not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and Petitioner has not
`
`provided evidence these versions were publicly accessible by any given dates.
`
`Dates printed on the documents are not sufficient. Celltrion, Paper No. 65, 20. The
`
`fact that the experts prescribe or use the products relating to a label on patients has
`
`no bearing on whether a specific version of that product’s label existed on a
`
`website or otherwise had an identifiable source to allow for authentication. There is
`
`insufficient evidence to authenticate any of these exhibits or show they were
`
`publicly accessible. Id.
`
`IV. EX1114, 1117, 1120, and the Portions of EX1112 Relying Thereon
`Should Be Excluded
`
`Petitioner’s claim that it does not rely on these exhibits or testimony to prove
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent 10,716,793
`
`the Abstracts’ date of public availability (Pet. Opp. at 8) is nonsensical. That is
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of
`Its Motion to Exclude
`
`exactly how Petitioner uses them. Paper 44 at 3, 8-9 (citing EX1112, ¶¶ 39, 87).
`
`Further, the Neste Oil case cited by Petitioner contradicts its own arguments.
`
`While the Board admitted certain navigational pages, it excluded the documents
`
`proffered to prove the date of public availability. See IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at
`
`4-6 (excluding printouts and date stamps). The same should occur here.
`
`Finally, while experts can sometimes rely on hearsay, those requirements are
`
`not met here. First, Dr. Hall-Ellis never testified that “experienced librarians would
`
`reasonably rely on [these exhibits] in forming their opinions” in order to satisfy
`
`FRE 703. Second, Hall-Ellis did not use these exhibits to find EX1007 or EX1008
`
`and Petitioner cannot point to a single instance of any of these exhibits actually
`
`leading to the Abstracts themselves. This lack of evidence demonstrates why these
`
`exhibits and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony relying on them should be excluded under
`
`FRE 702. There is no evidence Dr. Hall-Ellis’ unproven claims to the contrary are
`
`the product of reliable principles and methods.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For at least the reasons provided above and in Paper No. 66, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests the Board to grant its motion and exclude EX1037, 1029,
`
`1050, 1066, 1074, and 1078, as well as the arguments of Petitioner that rely on
`
`these exhibits in the Petition and in its Reply. Paper No. 69, 2, 3, 5, and 15.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent 10,716,793
`
`Date: May 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of
`Its Motion to Exclude
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s In Support of Its Motion to Exclude was served on counsel of record on
`
`May 4, 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: May 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4879-4754-4606
`
`