UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS PHARMA AG,
`NOVARTIS TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00816
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S SECOND OBJECTIONS TO
`ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS PHARMA AG,
`NOVARTIS TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00816
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S SECOND OBJECTIONS TO
`ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`
`hereby objects as follows to the admissibility of evidence filed by Patent Owners
`
`Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, Novartis Pharmaceuticals
`
`Corporation, in conjunction with the Patent Owner Response, filed on January 18,
`
`2022.
`
`Evidence
`Exhibits 2099-
`2126, 2128-2134,
`2136-2148, 2150,
`2152-2164, 2166-
`2172, 2174-2188
`
`Objections
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibit 2189
`
`Petitioner refers to the objections made during the
`
`deposition of Horst Koller, which are incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`Exhibits 2190-
`2193
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibit 2194
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit may
`
`be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for a
`
`limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Petitioner refers to the objections made during the
`
`deposition of Mr. Overcashier, which are incorporated
`
`herein by reference.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Evidence
`Exhibits 2195
`
`Objections
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibits 2196
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibits 2198
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: Each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 2199
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: Each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibits 2200
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 402: Each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibit 2201
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be
`
`for a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 4-8, and 19-288, the
`
`exhibit includes assertions for which evidence has not been
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`introduced sufficient to show that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matter asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 9-18, 30-37, 47-128, 138-140, and 145-288, the
`
`declarant is not qualified to opine on what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand, to opine on patent
`
`claim limitations, to perform claim construction, and/or to
`
`perform legal analysis of invalidity. The opinion testimony
`
`offered in this exhibit is not based on scientific, technical, or
`
`other specialized knowledge, and is also not based on
`
`personal knowledge. The opinion testimony includes
`
`unsubstantiated leaps and advances inaccurate, unqualified
`
`and unsupported generalizations. The opinion testimony
`
`fails to properly disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based. The opinion testimony includes
`
`testimony on United States patent law and/or patent
`
`examination practice.
`
`FRE 705 and /or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 4-8 and 19-288, the exhibit includes expert
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Exhibit 2202
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be
`
`for a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 9-12, 21, and 35-74, the
`
`exhibit includes assertions for which evidence has not been
`
`introduced sufficient to show that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matter asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 15-16, 19, 23-25, 30, 44-59, and 69-74, the
`
`declarant is not qualified to opine on what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand, to opine on patent
`
`claim limitations, to perform claim construction, and/or to
`
`perform legal analysis of invalidity. The opinion testimony
`
`offered in this exhibit is not based on scientific, technical, or
`
`other specialized knowledge, and is also not based on
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`personal knowledge. The opinion testimony includes
`
`unsubstantiated leaps and advances inaccurate, unqualified
`
`and unsupported generalizations. The opinion testimony
`
`fails to properly disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based. The opinion testimony includes
`
`testimony on United States patent law and/or patent
`
`examination practice.
`
`FRE 705 and /or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 9-12, 21, and 35-74, the exhibit includes expert
`
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Exhibit 2203
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be
`
`for a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 18-25, 30-53, and 59-
`
`103, the exhibit includes assertions for which evidence has
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`not been introduced sufficient to show that the witness has
`
`personal knowledge of the matter asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 26-29, 50-58, 83-88, and 91-103, the declarant is
`
`not qualified to opine on what a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand, to opine on patent claim
`
`limitations, to perform claim construction, and/or to perform
`
`legal analysis of invalidity. The opinion testimony offered
`
`in this exhibit is not based on scientific, technical, or other
`
`specialized knowledge, and is also not based on personal
`
`knowledge. The opinion testimony includes unsubstantiated
`
`leaps and advances inaccurate, unqualified and unsupported
`
`generalizations. The opinion testimony fails to properly
`
`disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
`
`based. The opinion testimony includes testimony on United
`
`States patent law and/or patent examination practice.
`
`FRE 705 and /or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 18-25, 30-53, and 59-103, the exhibit includes
`
`expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`or data.
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Exhibit 2204
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be
`
`for a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 28-36, 43-52, 54-55, 57-
`
`58, 61-112, 117-118, 121-125, and 128-137, the exhibit
`
`includes assertions for which evidence has not been
`
`introduced sufficient to show that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matter asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 14-31, 37-42, 67-112, and 128-137, the
`
`declarant is not qualified to opine on what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand, to opine on patent
`
`claim limitations, to perform claim construction, and/or to
`
`perform legal analysis of invalidity. The opinion testimony
`
`offered in this exhibit is not based on scientific, technical, or
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`other specialized knowledge, and is also not based on
`
`personal knowledge. The opinion testimony includes
`
`unsubstantiated leaps and advances inaccurate, unqualified
`
`and unsupported generalizations. The opinion testimony
`
`fails to properly disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based. The opinion testimony includes
`
`testimony on United States patent law and/or patent
`
`examination practice.
`
`FRE 705 and /or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 28-36, 43-52, 54-55, 57-58, 61-112, 117-118,
`
`121-125, and 128-137, the exhibit includes expert
`
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Exhibit 2205
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit may
`
`be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for a
`
`limited purpose.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 15-25, 27, 37-44, 46-49,
`
`50-52, the exhibit includes assertions for which evidence
`
`has not been introduced sufficient to show that the witness
`
`has personal knowledge of the matter asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 11-13, 36, 39-44, 48, 50-52, the declarant is not
`
`qualified to opine on what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand, to opine on patent claim limitations,
`
`to perform claim construction, and/or to perform legal
`
`analysis of invalidity. The opinion testimony offered in this
`
`exhibit is not based on scientific, technical, or other
`
`specialized knowledge, and is also not based on personal
`
`knowledge. The opinion testimony includes unsubstantiated
`
`leaps and advances inaccurate, unqualified and unsupported
`
`generalizations. The opinion testimony fails to properly
`
`disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
`
`based. The opinion testimony includes testimony on United
`
`States patent law and/or patent examination practice.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 705 and /or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 11-13, 15-25, 27, 36-44, 46-49, 50-52, the
`
`exhibit includes expert testimony that does not disclose the
`
`underlying facts or data.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 2206
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit may
`
`be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for a
`
`limited purpose.
`
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 6-52, the exhibit
`
`includes assertions for which evidence has not been
`
`introduced sufficient to show that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matter asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 16, 27, 29, 40, the declarant is not qualified to
`
`opine on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand, to opine on patent claim limitations, to perform
`
`claim construction, and/or to perform legal analysis of
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`invalidity. The opinion testimony offered in this exhibit is
`
`not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
`
`knowledge, and is also not based on personal knowledge.
`
`The opinion testimony includes unsubstantiated leaps and
`
`advances inaccurate, unqualified and unsupported
`
`generalizations. The opinion testimony fails to properly
`
`disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
`
`based. The opinion testimony includes testimony on United
`
`States patent law and/or patent examination practice.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein, including paragraphs 24-25, 27, 28-29, 52-53. By
`
`way of non-limiting example, Dr. Sigg’s assertions
`
`concerning what “Vetter told us” and what particular
`
`employees of Vetter purportedly stated are inadmissible
`
`hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 2208
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit may
`
`be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for a
`
`limited purpose.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 24-28, 33, 36-44, 46-59,
`
`61-68, 70-73, 74-121, the exhibit includes assertions for
`
`which evidence has not been introduced sufficient to show
`
`that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter
`
`asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 10, 24-28, 33, 36-44, 46-59, 61-68, 70-73, 74-
`
`121, the declarant is not qualified to opine on what a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand, to opine on
`
`patent claim limitations, to perform claim construction,
`
`and/or to perform legal analysis of invalidity. The opinion
`
`testimony offered in this exhibit is not based on scientific,
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge, and is also not
`
`based on personal knowledge. The opinion testimony
`
`includes unsubstantiated leaps and advances inaccurate,
`
`unqualified and unsupported generalizations. The opinion
`
`testimony fails to properly disclose the underlying facts or
`
`data on which the opinion is based. The opinion testimony
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`includes testimony on United States patent law and/or patent
`
`examination practice.
`
`FRE 705 and /or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 10, 24-28, 33, 36-44, 33, 36-44, 46-59, 61-68,
`
`70-73, 74-121, the exhibit includes expert testimony that
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit 2209
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of this exhibit may
`
`be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for a
`
`limited purpose.
`
`FRE 602: As to at least paragraphs 28-38, the exhibit
`
`includes assertions for which evidence has not been
`
`introduced sufficient to show that the witness has personal
`
`knowledge of the matter asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702 and/or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 29, 30, 35-38, the declarant is not qualified to
`
`opine on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`understand, to opine on patent claim limitations, to perform
`
`claim construction, and/or to perform legal analysis of
`
`invalidity. The opinion testimony offered in this exhibit is
`
`not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
`
`knowledge, and is also not based on personal knowledge.
`
`The opinion testimony includes unsubstantiated leaps and
`
`advances inaccurate, unqualified and unsupported
`
`generalizations. The opinion testimony fails to properly
`
`disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
`
`based. The opinion testimony includes testimony on United
`
`States patent law and/or patent examination practice.
`
`FRE 705 and /or 37 C.F.R. § 42.65: As to at least
`
`paragraphs 28-38, the exhibit includes expert testimony that
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`Exhibits 2210-
`2211
`
`FRE 402: The exhibits are not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`Exhibits 2212
`
`FRE 402: The exhibits are not relevant to any ground upon
`
`Exhibits 2213-
`2215, 2218, 2222,
`2224, 2228-2230,
`2232, 2253-2255
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibit 2256
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`Exhibit 2257
`
`Petitioner refers to the objections made during the
`
`deposition of Dr. Kiss, which are incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`Exhibits 2258-
`2262, 2264-2266,
`2269
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibit 2270
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2271
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibit 2272
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Exhibits 2273-
`2281
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibit 2282
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibit is what
`
`Petitioner claims it is.
`
`Exhibits 2283-
`2285, 2287-2289,
`2291-2322
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 403: The probative value of each of these exhibits to
`
`any ground upon which trial was instituted is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the
`
`issues, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative
`
`evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibits 2286
`
`FRE 105: To the extent that any portion of these exhibits
`
`may be deemed admissible, such admissibility should be for
`
`a limited purpose.
`
`FRE 402: each of these exhibits is not relevant to any
`
`ground upon which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of these exhibits are inadmissible
`
`hearsay if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly
`
`asserted therein.
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`FRE 901: Patent Owner has not produced evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that the exhibits are what
`
`Patent Owner claims they are.
`
`Exhibit 2325
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 403: The exhibit’s probative value to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`Exhibit 2326
`
`FRE 402: The exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon
`
`which trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 802: The entirety of the exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`if offered to prove the truth of any matter allegedly asserted
`
`therein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`Date: January 26, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`Elizabeth S. Weiswasser
`Reg. No. 55,721
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`T: 212-310-8000
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 26, 2022, copies of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S SECOND OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF
`EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PATENT OWNER was served via electronic
`mail upon the following:
`
`Elizabeth J. Holland
`Linnea Cipriano
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`EHolland@goodwinlaw.com
`LCipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`
`William G. James
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`1900 N Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`WJames@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Joshua Weinger
`Nicholas K. Mitrokostas
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`JWeinger@goodwinlaw.com
`Nmitrokostas@goodwinlaw.com
`
`DG-NovartisPFS@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`/Lauren McDuffie/
`Lauren McDuffie
`Senior IP Paralegal
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`202-682-7000
`lauren.mcduffie@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
