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 OBJECTIONS TO
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`_______________
`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 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 objections to
`
`Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits 1001–1094, and any
`
`reference to and/or reliance on the foregoing. Patent Owner’s objections below
`
`apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.62.
`
`Exhibit 1002 - Paragraphs 43, 44, 58, 60, 71, 72, 78, 79, 128, 149, 172, 173,
`
`176, 187, 199, 202, 221, 245, 269, 293, 318, 342, 367, 369, 390, and 409 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 44, 50, 51, 52, 127, 128,
`
`405, and 407 are also 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 44, 127,
`
`149, 176, 199, 219, 221, 225, 245, 269, 293, 318, 342, 369, and 390 are further
`
`objected to under FRE 901 and FRE 802 as relying on unauthenticated and hearsay
`
`evidence. Paragraphs 44, 58, 60, 61, 77, 90 (footnote 13), 99, 127, 128 (footnote
`
`18),
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`175, 180, 184, 187, 202, 221, 245, 269, 293, 318, 342, 366, 368, 369, 390, 407, 410,
`
`411, 412, and 413 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 1003 - Paragraphs 16, 17, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 68, 69, 70, 76,
`
`78, 79, 80, 81, 88, 91, and 92 of Exhibit 1003 are 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 78, 79, and 91 of Exhibit 1003 is also objected to under FRE
`
`901 and FRE 802 as relying on unauthenticated and hearsay evidence to the extent
`
`it relies on Exhibit 1078.
`
`Exhibit 1005 - Exhibit 1005 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1005. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled
`
`Exhibit 1006 - Exhibit 1005 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1005. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`Exhibit 1011 - Exhibit 1011 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1011 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 1014 - Exhibit 1014 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1014 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 1014 is also objected to under FRE 901 because
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1014. It is not clear where
`
`the exhibit came from, how it was compiled, or what methods or metrics were used
`
`to arrive at the information in the document.
`
`Exhibit 1015 - Exhibit 1015 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1015 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 1015 is also objected to under FRE 901 because
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1015. It is not clear where
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`the exhibit came from, how it was compiled, or what methods or metrics were used
`
`to arrive at the information in the document.
`
`Exhibit 1017 - Exhibit 1017 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1017 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 1017 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has
`
`filed what appears to be an portion from the file history of patent application no.
`
`13/940,370. 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 1017 is also objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1017. It is not clear how it was
`
`compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1018 - Exhibit 1018 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1018 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 1019 - Exhibit 1019 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1019 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`4
`
`
`
`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 1024 - Exhibit 1024 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1024 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 1024 is also objected to under FRE 106. Petitioner has
`
`filed what appears to be an incomplete excerpt from the file history of Patent
`
`Application No. 11/016,503. 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 1025 - Exhibit 1025 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1025 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1026 - Exhibit 1026 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1026 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`not discussed in the Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003). Exhibit 1026 is also objected to under FRE 901 because
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1026. It is not clear where
`
`the exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1028 - Exhibit 1028 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1028 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1029 - Exhibit 1029 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1029 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003), and it was not published before the priority date of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011). Exhibit 1029 is also
`
`objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner has not demonstrated the authenticity
`
`of Exhibit 1029. It is not clear where the exhibit came from, how it was compiled,
`
`or what methods or metrics were used to arrive at the information in the document.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`Exhibit 1030 - Exhibit 1030 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1030. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1031 - Exhibit 1031 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1031 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1032 - Exhibit 1032 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1032. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1034 - Exhibit 1034 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1034 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1035 - Exhibit 1035 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1035 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`not discussed in the Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1038 - Exhibit 1038 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1038 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 1040 - Exhibit 1040 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1040. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1040 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 106. Petitioner has 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 1041 - Exhibit 1041 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1041 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`Exhibit 1042 - Exhibit 1042 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1042 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 1044 - Exhibit 1044 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1044 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 1048 - Exhibit 1048 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1048. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1049 - Exhibit 1049 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1049. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1055 - Exhibit 1055 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1055. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1055 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1055 is not relevant, and its probative value is
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the
`
`fact finder because it was not discussed in the Petition (Paper 1) or in any of
`
`Petitioner’s expert declarations (Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1057 - Exhibit 1057 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1057 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1058 - Exhibit 1058 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1058 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1059 - Exhibit 1059 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1059 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003).
`
`Exhibit 1060 - Exhibit 1060 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1060 is not relevant, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`the danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact finder because it was
`
`not discussed in the Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published before the priority date of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1061 - Exhibit 1061 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1061 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 1062 - Exhibit 1062 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1062. It is not clear from the exhibit
`
`itself that WO 2012/097019 is an accurate copy of EP 2 663 325. Exhibit 1062 is
`
`also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1062 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 1063 - Exhibit 1063 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1063. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1063 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1063 is not relevant, and its probative value is
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`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 1064 - Exhibit 1064 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1064 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and because it was not published before the priority date of
`
`the challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011). Exhibit 1064 is also
`
`objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner has not demonstrated the authenticity
`
`of Exhibit 1064. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1065 - Exhibit 1065 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1065 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published before the priority date of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011). Exhibit 1065 is also
`
`objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner has not demonstrated the authenticity
`
`of Exhibit 1065. It is not clear where the exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`Exhibit 1066 - Exhibit 1066 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1066. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1066 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1066 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of
`
`Petitioner’s expert declarations (Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published
`
`before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011)
`
`as evidenced by the statement “Last updated: September 30, 2013.”
`
`Exhibit 1067 - Exhibit 1067 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1067. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1067 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1067 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of
`
`Petitioner’s expert declarations (Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published
`
`before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011)
`
`as evidenced by the statement “Last updated: November 5, 2013.”
`
`Exhibit 1069 - Exhibit 1069 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1069. It is not clear where the
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1069 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1069 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 1070 - Exhibit 1070 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1070. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1070 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1070 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of
`
`Petitioner’s expert declarations (Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published
`
`before the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13,
`
`2011).
`
`Exhibit 1071 - Exhibit 1071 is also objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1071 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published before the priority date of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011).
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`Exhibit 1072 - Exhibit 1072 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1072. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1075 - Exhibit 1075 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1075. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1076 - Exhibit 1076 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1076. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled.
`
`Exhibit 1077 - Exhibit 1077 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1077. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1077 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1077 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 1078 - Exhibit 1078 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1078. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1078 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 106. Petitioner has filed what appears to be an excerpt of the Volume 121 of
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`1972 University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 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 1079 - Exhibit 1079 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1079. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1079 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1079 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 1080 - Exhibit 1080 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1080. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1080 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1080 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 1081 - Exhibit 1081 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1081. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1081 is also objected to under
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1081 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 1082 - Exhibit 1082 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1082. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1082 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 1006 as an improper summary. Exhibit 1082 is also objected to under FRE 401,
`
`402 and 403. Exhibit 1082 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert
`
`declarations (Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published before the priority
`
`date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1083 - Exhibit 1083 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1083. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1083 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 1006 as an improper summary. Exhibit 1083 is also objected to under FRE 401,
`
`402 and 403. Exhibit 1083 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`declarations (Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published before the priority
`
`date of the challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011).
`
`Exhibit 1086 - Exhibit 1086 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1086. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1086 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1086 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 1091 - Exhibit 1091 is objected to under FRE 401, 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1091 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 Petition (Paper 1) or in any of Petitioner’s expert declarations
`
`(Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003) and it was not published before the priority date of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’338 patent (January 13, 2011) as evidenced by the
`
`language “revised 5/2019.”
`
`Exhibit 1092 - Exhibit 1092 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1092. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1092 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 401, 402 and 403. Exhibit 1092 is not relevant, and its probative value is
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`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) as evidenced by the language “Last
`
`updated: November 05, 2013.”
`
`Exhibit 1093 - Exhibit 1093 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1093. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1093 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 1006 as an improper summary. Exhibit 1093 is also objected to under FRE 401,
`
`402 and 403. Exhibit 1093 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 1094 - Exhibit 1094 is objected to under FRE 901 because Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated the authenticity of Exhibit 1094. It is not clear where the
`
`exhibit came from or how it was compiled. Exhibit 1094 is also objected to under
`
`FRE 1006 as an improper summary. Exhibit 1094 is also objected to under FRE 401,
`
`402 and 403. Exhibit 1094 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).
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`Dated: November 24, 2021
`
`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.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS was served on November 24,
`
`2021, 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
