`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner Regeneron
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Patent Owner”), submits the following supplemental
`
`objections to Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits 1102–
`
`1176, and any reference to and/or reliance on the foregoing including, without
`
`limitation, citations thereto in Petitioner’s Reply. Patent Owner’s objections below
`
`apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.62.
`
`These objections supplement Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s
`
`Exhibits, served November 24, 2021, which Patent Owner maintains.
`
`Exhibit 1102 - Exhibit 1102 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1102 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of United States
`
`Patent No. 9,254,338 (“the ’338 patent”) (January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1103 - Exhibit 1103 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1103 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder.
`
`Exhibit 1104 - Exhibit 1104 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1104 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has
`
`filed what appears to be an excerpt of correspondence from Volume 29 of Eye. The
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`remainder of this document has not been introduced or filed by Petitioner, but in
`
`fairness ought to be considered at the same time as those pages that were provided.
`
`Exhibit 1104 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1104 is not
`
`relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was not published
`
`before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13,
`
`2011).
`
`Exhibit 1105 - Exhibit 1105 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1106 - Exhibit 1106 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1106 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1106 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1107 - Exhibit 1107 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1107 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`filed what appears to be an excerpt of the Volume 20 of the WHO Drug Information.
`
`The remainder of this document has not been introduced or filed by Petitioner, but
`
`in fairness ought to be considered at the same time as those pages that were provided.
`
`Exhibit 1107 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1107 is not
`
`relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder.
`
`Exhibit 1112 - Exhibit 1112 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. Exhibit 1112 is not cited, discussed or
`
`authenticated by any of Petitioner’s experts. Exhibit 1112 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 106 as incomplete, to the extent that it is relied upon in purported support
`
`Petitioner’s statement that “VEGF Trap-Eye/aflibercept was publicly distributed
`
`long before 2011.” Exhibit 1112 does not provide any information about the terms
`
`and restrictions surrounding transfer of the “VEGF Trap” discussed therein, and
`
`Petitioner has not introduced or filed any information concerning such terms and
`
`restrictions. Such information in fairness ought to be considered at the same time as
`
`Exhibit 1112. Exhibit 1112 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402, and 403, to the
`
`extent it is relied upon in purported support of Petitioner’s statement that “VEGF
`
`Trap-Eye/aflibercept was publicly distributed long before 2011.” As noted, Exhibit
`
`1112 does not provide any information about the terms and restrictions surrounding
`
`transfer of the “VEGF Trap” discussed therein. Absent such information, Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`1112 is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of confusing the issues and misleading the fact finder.
`
`Exhibit 1113 - Exhibit 1113 is objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has filed
`
`what appears to be a chapter excerpted from a larger volume. The remainder of this
`
`document has not been introduced or filed by Petitioner, but in fairness ought to be
`
`considered at the same time as those pages that were provided.
`
`Exhibit 1114 - Patent Owner incorporates its prior objections to Exhibits 1002
`
`and 1038 to the extent that Paragraphs 2 and 5 of Exhibit 1114 purport to incorporate
`
`Exhibits 1002 and 1038. Paragraphs1 9, 11-25, 27-29, 31-40, 42, 43, 48-54, 56, 59,
`
`63, 67-74, 76, 78, 80-82, 84, 85, 88-93, 97-101, 105-116, and 118 and Appendices
`
`A and B are objected to under FRE 106 and/or FRE 1006 as relying on incomplete
`
`evidence or improper summary and/or improperly cherry-picking selective passages
`
`of a reference, while ignoring other passages in the same reference. Paragraphs 18-
`
`24, 26, 40, 56, 59, 74, 80, 81, 86, 88-90, 92, 95, and 97-118 are also objected to
`
`under FRE 401, 402, and 403 because they discuss or rely on information that is
`
`irrelevant and for which probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of confusing the issues and misleading the fact finder, including, with respect to
`
`paragraphs 56, 59, 74, 80, 81, 86, 90, 92, 105-110, 112, and 116, information that
`
`
`1 For avoidance of doubt, as used herein, an objection to a numbered paragraph of
`an Exhibit applies equally to all footnotes to that paragraph.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`was not publicly available before the priority date of the challenged claims of the
`
`’338 patent (January 13, 2011). Paragraphs 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 67-69, 76, 77, 80-82,
`
`84, 85, 88, 90, 96, and 112 are further objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`relying on unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. Paragraphs 11-38, 40, 42-44, 46-
`
`53, 55, 56, 59, 67-71, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 88-92, 95, 97-102, 117, and 118 are
`
`also objected to as improper expert testimony under FRE 702, 703, and 705 because
`
`the opinions offered therein are not based on sufficient facts or data.
`
`Exhibit 1115 - Patent Owner incorporates its prior objections to Exhibits 1003
`
`and 1061 to the extent that Paragraphs 2 and 5 of Exhibit 1115 purport to incorporate
`
`Exhibits 1003 and 1061. Paragraphs 10, 11, 13, 14, 19-29, 33, 35-38, 40, 41, 44-46,
`
`48, 50, 51, 53, 57-59, 61-63, 66-70, 73, 76, 79-82, 84, 89, and 91 are objected to
`
`under FRE 106 and/or FRE 1006 as relying on incomplete evidence or improper
`
`summary and/or improperly cherry-picking selective passages of a reference, while
`
`ignoring other passages in the same reference. Paragraphs 12-32, 37, 53, 57-59, and
`
`81 are further objected to under FRE 401, 402, and 403 to the extent they discuss or
`
`rely on information that was not publicly available before the priority date of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011), because such information
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`confusing the issues and misleading the fact finder. Paragraphs 9, 47, 49, 50, 52, and
`
`86-92 are further objected to under FRE 401, 402, and 403 as not relevant to any
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`issue in this proceeding and FRE 702 and 703 as improper expert testimony for the
`
`same reason. Paragraphs 13, 33, 41, 48, 51, 57, 58, 62, 73, 85, and 88 are further
`
`objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as relying on unauthenticated and hearsay
`
`evidence. Paragraphs 6, 29, 31, 33, 46, 47, 55, 57, 60, 66, 67, 69, 72, 74-77, 82-85,
`
`87, 88, and 90-92 are further objected to as improper expert testimony under FRE
`
`702, 703, and 705 because the opinions offered therein are not based on sufficient
`
`facts or data.
`
`Exhibit 1117 - Exhibit 1117 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1117 is also objected to under FRE 1006 as an
`
`improper summary. Exhibit 1117 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1117 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1118 - Exhibit 1118 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1118 is also objected to under FRE 1006 as an
`
`improper summary. Exhibit 1118 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1118 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011) and because it is not cited, discussed, or relied upon in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply or in any expert declaration submitted with Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`Exhibit 1121 - Exhibit 1121 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1121 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1121 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011) and because it is not cited, discussed, or relied upon in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply or in any expert declaration submitted with Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`Exhibit 1122 - Exhibit 1122 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1122 is also objected to under FRE 1006 as an
`
`improper summary. Exhibit 1122 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1122 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`
`Exhibit 1123 - Exhibit 1123 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1124 - Exhibit 1124 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1124 is also objected to under FRE 1006 as an
`
`improper summary. Exhibit 1124 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1124 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011) and because it is not cited, discussed, or relied upon in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply or in any expert declaration submitted with Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`Exhibit 1125 - Exhibit 1125 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1125 is objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has filed
`
`what appears to be an excerpt from the preface to a larger volume. The remainder of
`
`this document has not been introduced or filed by Petitioner, but in fairness ought to
`
`be considered at the same time as those pages that were provided.
`
`Exhibit 1126 - Exhibit 1126 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1126 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has
`
`filed what appears to be a section excerpted from a larger volume. The remainder of
`
`this document has not been introduced or filed by Petitioner, but in fairness ought to
`
`be considered at the same time as those pages that were provided.
`
`Exhibit 1127 - Exhibit 1127 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1127 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011). Exhibit 1127 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has
`
`filed what appears to be an portion from the file history of patent application no.
`
`10/009,852. The remainder of the file history has not been introduced or filed by
`
`Petitioner, but in fairness ought to be considered at the same time as those pages that
`
`were provided.
`
`Exhibit 1128 - Exhibit 1128 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1128 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011). Exhibit 1128 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has
`
`filed what appears to be an portion from the file history of United States Patent No.
`
`7,070,959. The remainder of the file history has not been introduced or filed by
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`Petitioner, but in fairness ought to be considered at the same time as those pages that
`
`were provided. Exhibit 1128 is also objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1130 - Exhibit 1130 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1130 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1131 - Exhibit 1131 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1131 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1131 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1133 - Exhibit 1133 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1133 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`
`Exhibit 1134 - Exhibit 1134 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1134 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1135 - Exhibit 1135 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1137 - Paragraphs 21, 37, 40, 70-72, 78-83, 91-92, 94, 96 (footnote
`
`154), and 98 are objected to under FRE 106 and/or FRE 1006 as relying on
`
`incomplete evidence or improper summary and/or improperly cherry-picking
`
`selective passages of a reference, while ignoring other passages in the same
`
`reference. Paragraphs 21, 29, 34, 57, 59-66, 68-74, 86, 87, 88, 89, 97, and 98 are
`
`further objected to under FRE 401, 402, and 403 because they discuss or rely on
`
`information that is irrelevant and for which probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and misleading the fact finder
`
`including, with respect to paragraphs 21, 29, 34, 97, and 98, information that was
`
`not publicly available before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338
`
`patent (January 13, 2011). Paragraphs 21, 24-25, 28-39, 44, 47, 49-54, 58-61, 63-68,
`
`72-74, 85-89, and 97 are further objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as relying
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`on unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. Paragraphs 36, 38-39, 41, 44-48, 52-53,
`
`55, 58-59, 63, 65, 69, 72, 74, 77-78, 86-89, and 93 are further objected to as improper
`
`expert testimony under FRE 702, 703, and 705 because the opinions offered therein
`
`are not based on sufficient facts or data.
`
`Exhibit 1138 - Exhibit 1138 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1138 is also objected to under FRE 802 as inadmissible
`
`hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 1139 - Exhibit 1139 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1139 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1139 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1140 - Exhibit 1140 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1140 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1140 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1141 - Exhibit 1141 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1141 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011). Exhibit 1141 is also objected to under FRE 802 as inadmissible
`
`hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 1142 - Exhibit 1142 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1142 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1142 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1143 - Exhibit 1143 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1143 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`
`Exhibit 1144 - Exhibit 1144 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1144 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not discussed in the Petitioner Reply (Paper 61) and Petitioner’s expert
`
`acknowledges that it has “nothing to do with ‘[m]ethods for treating eye disorders
`
`using VEGF antagonists.’” (Ex. 1114 ¶21).
`
`Exhibit 1153 - Exhibit 1153 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1153 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1153 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder.
`
`Exhibit 1154 - Exhibit 1154 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence that Petitioner is improperly offering into
`
`evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Exhibit 1154 is also objected to
`
`under FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1154 is not relevant, and its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the
`
`fact finder because it contains nothing more than uncorroborated allegations made
`
`in a legal pleading.
`
`Exhibit 1155 - Exhibit 1155 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1155 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1156 - Exhibit 1156 is objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has filed
`
`what appears to be a draft label excerpted from BLA 125387/S-051. The remainder
`
`of the BLA has not been introduced or filed by Petitioner, but in fairness ought to be
`
`considered at the same time as those pages that were provided. Exhibit 1156 is also
`
`objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner has not demonstrated the authenticity
`
`of Exhibit 1156.
`
`Exhibit 1158 - Exhibit 1158 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1158 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1159 - Exhibit 1159 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1159 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`
`Exhibit 1160 - Exhibit 1160 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1160 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1161 - Exhibit 1161 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1161 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1162 - Exhibit 1162 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1162 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1163 - Exhibit 1163 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1163 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`
`Exhibit 1164 - Exhibit 1164 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1164 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1165 - Exhibit 1165 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1165 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not published before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent
`
`(January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1167 - Exhibit 1167 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1168 - Exhibit 1168 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1170 - Exhibit 1170 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or
`
`how it was compiled. Exhibit 1170 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1170 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder. Exhibit 1170 is
`
`also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has filed what appears to be an excerpt
`
`from a third-party website. The remainder of the website content has not been
`
`introduced or filed by Petitioner, but in fairness ought to be considered at the same
`
`time as those pages that were provided.
`
`Exhibit 1171 - Exhibit 1171 is objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has filed
`
`what appears to be an excerpt from the website https://eylea.us. The remainder of
`
`the content from that website has not been introduced or filed by Petitioner, but in
`
`fairness ought to be considered at the same time as those pages that were provided.
`
`Exhibit 1173 - Exhibit 1173 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence that Petitioner is improperly offering into
`
`evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Exhibit 1173 is also objected to
`
`under FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1173 is not relevant, and its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the
`
`fact finder because it contains nothing more than uncorroborated allegations made
`
`in a legal pleading.
`
`Exhibit 1174 - Exhibit 1174 is objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as
`
`unauthenticated and hearsay evidence that Petitioner is improperly offering into
`
`evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is not clear where the exhibit
`
`came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1174 is also objected to under FRE 401,
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`402 and 403. Exhibit 1174 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder.
`
`Exhibit 1176 - Exhibit 1176 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1176 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it is not
`
`cited, discussed, or relied upon in Petitioner’s Reply or in any expert declaration
`
`submitted with Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 6, 2022
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Deborah E. Fishman
`Deborah E. Fishman (Reg. No. 48,621)
`3000 El Camino Real #500
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner,
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`SECOND OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS was served on June
`
`6, 2022, via e-mail at the following email addresses:
`
`MYL_REG_IPR@rmmslegal.com
`paul@ rmmslegal.com
`wrakoczy@ rmmslegal.com
`hsalmen@ rmmslegal.com
`nmclaughlin@rmmslegal.com
`
`/s/ Deborah E. Fishman
`Deborah E. Fishman (Reg. No. 48,621)
`3000 El Camino Real #500
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner,
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
