`
`—————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————
`
`SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EYE THERAPIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————
`
`Case No.: IPR2022-00142
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,293,742
`
`—————
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION
`TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the admissibility of the evidence that
`
`Petitioner seeks to exclude are flawed. Therefore, the Board should exclude Exhibits
`
`2152–2156 and portions of Exhibits 2023 and 1052.
`
`I.
`
`Paragraph 7 of Exhibit 2023 and Portions of Exhibit 1052
`
`Patent Owner argues that Paragraph 7 of Exhibit 2023 “is admissible as a
`
`summary to prove content of voluminous IQVIA data that cannot be conveniently
`
`examined in court,” citing FRE 1006. Paper No. 62 at 2. But FRE 1006 requires that
`
`“[t]he proponent must make the originals…available for examination…by other
`
`parties.” FRE 1006. Patent Owner did not produce the originals, so FRE 1006 is
`
`inapplicable. Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Yeda Rsch. & Dev. Co. Ltd., IPR2015-00643,
`
`Paper No. 90 at 37–38 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2016) (denying motion to exclude because
`
`the underlying documents had been made available to the moving party); see also,
`
`e.g., Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AS, IPR2019-00765, Paper No. 30 at 8
`
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2020); Designing Health, Inc. v. Erasmus, 132 F. App’x 826,
`
`833 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Failure to make available the materials underlying a summary
`
`exhibit, renders that summary exhibit inadmissible.”).
`
`Patent Owner mistakenly attempts to shift the burden to Petitioner, alleging
`
`that Petitioner never “asked for [the underlying data],” (Paper No. 62 at 2), but it is
`
`Patent Owner who “must make the originals or duplicates available for examination
`
`or copying.” FRE 1006 (emphasis added). Patent Owner relies on Paragraph 7 of
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2023 to bolster its claims of secondary considerations of non-obviousness,
`
`for which Patent Owner bears the burden of production. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`
`480 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[P]atentee has the burden of going forward
`
`with rebuttal evidence.”). It was not Petitioner’s burden to request the underlying
`
`data, and this contention should not support the inclusion of inadmissible data.
`
`Patent Owner attempts to preserve its ability to get this same, undisclosed data
`
`into the record through Dr. Jarosz’s re-direct examination, simply because he is an
`
`expert, but this is nothing but gamesmanship. FRE 702(b) requires that an expert’s
`
`testimony be “based on sufficient facts or data.” FRE 702(b). Dr. Jarosz’s testimony
`
`is nothing more than a regurgitation of Mr. Ferris’s unsupported statements. There
`
`is no evidence that Dr. Jarosz reviewed the underlying IQVIA data—it is not in his
`
`materials considered list, was not mentioned in his declaration, and was not shown
`
`to him at the deposition. Therefore, Dr. Jarosz was not made aware of the data that
`
`supports Mr. Ferris’s testimony, and Dr. Jarosz’s testimony should be excluded.1
`
`II. Exhibit 2156 and Paragraphs 14–18 of Exhibit 2023
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments that Exhibit 2156 falls into an exclusion or
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner allegedly failed to preserve its
`
`objections are similarly misplaced. Petitioner timely objected to the questions
`
`Petitioner seeks to exclude during the deposition. See EX-1052 at 105:10–107:16.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`exception to the rule against hearsay are also flawed. Patent Owner is wrong that
`
`Exhibit 2156 qualifies as a market report under FRE 803(17).2 FRE 803(17) “applies
`
`to ‘objective compilations of easily ascertainable facts,’ not reports containing
`
`‘conclusions reached after analysis by a specialized marketing company.’” Bianco
`
`v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00146-WCB, 2014 WL 119285, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 12, 2014) (quoting JIPC Mgmt., Inc. v. Incredible Pizza Co., No. CV 08-04310
`
`MMM (PLAx), 2009 WL 8591607, at *24 (C.D. Cal. 2009)). Here, Ipsos—a
`
`specialized market research company—conducted a survey of eye care
`
`professionals, analyzed the data, and created a presentation for Patent Owner to
`
`communicate its conclusions. This is exactly the type of subjective analysis that was
`
`excluded in Telebrands and Bianco, and it should be excluded here.
`
`Patent Owner is also wrong that Exhibit 2156 qualifies as a business record
`
`under FRE 803(6). FRE 803(6) requires that the conditions of the exception “are
`
`shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness.” FRE
`
`803(6)(d). Patent Owner has not supplied the foundational testimony to establish
`
`
`2 Patent Owner mistakenly complains that the Telebrands decision on which
`
`Petitioner relies is unavailable, but the redacted version of that decision is publicly
`
`available as Exhibit 3001. Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enters., PGR2016-00030,
`
`EX-3001 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`how Exhibit 2156 was generated—either at Ipsos or Bausch. Mr. Ferris has no
`
`knowledge of how Ipsos creates or maintains its documents. EX-1051 at 23:8–24:3.
`
`Mr. Ferris is the “Senior Vice President, Global Consumer” and admitted that he
`
`was not the “content owner” for Exhibit 2156. EX-2023 at ¶3; EX-1051 at 10:8–12.
`
`None of his testimony provides any information regarding the creation of this
`
`document as it was kept at Bausch. Courts routinely “decline to admit business
`
`records under Rule 803(6) based on declarations of upper management employees
`
`who never claim to be a ‘witness…familiar with the record keeping system.’”
`
`Fambrough v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 611 F. App’x 322, 328–29 (6th Cir. 2015)
`
`(quoting United States v. Hathaway, 798 F.2d 902, 906 (6th Cir. 1986)). Patent
`
`Owner cites to Paragraph 14 of Exhibit 2023, but this paragraph does not provide
`
`the information necessary to trigger FRE 803(6), such as, that the record was created
`
`at or near the time by someone with knowledge. Thus, Mr. Ferris has not provided
`
`the requisite testimony to establish Exhibit 2156 as admissible hearsay.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments that Mr. Ferris should be allowed to provide lay
`
`opinion testimony in Paragraphs 14–18 of his declaration (EX-2023), consisting
`
`simply of repeating the data and conclusions drawn in Exhibit 2156, is misplaced.
`
`Exhibit 2156 represents the scientific, technical, and specialized knowledge of Ipsos,
`
`not Mr. Ferris. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (excluding testimony where witness did not have proper expertise).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`To allow Mr. Ferris to parrot Ipsos’s subjective analysis would flout the FRE and
`
`deprive Petitioner of its right to test the opinions contained therein. These paragraphs
`
`should be excluded as hearsay and as inappropriate testimony from a lay witness.
`
`III. Exhibits 2152–2155 and Paragraph 6 of Exhibit 2023
`Patent Owner argues that Exhibits 2152–2155 fall under the market report
`
`exception to the rule against hearsay under FRE 803(17). But these website
`
`screenshots are not the type of document contemplated by the market report
`
`exception. See Triple Crown Am., Inc. v. Biosynth AG, No. CIV. A. 96-7476, 1999
`
`WL 305342, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 1999); see also Bianco, 2014 WL 119285, at *1 (“[T]he
`
`exception is designed to include compilations of information such as reports of stock
`
`market prices, telephone directories, and sales information for products.”). These
`
`website screenshots are far afield from the documents contemplated by the exception
`
`and should be excluded along with Paragraph 6 of Mr. Ferris’s declaration (EX-
`
`2023), which relies on these inadmissible exhibits.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the reasons set forth above and in Petitioner’s opening brief, Petitioner
`
`respectively requests that the Board exclude the entirety of Exhibits 2152–2156 and
`
`portions of Exhibits 2023 and 1052.
`
`Dated: February 20, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Linnea P. Cipriano/
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`(Reg. No. 67,729)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 813-8800
`Cell: (443) 235-1739
`Fax: (212) 937-2204
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Slayback
`Pharma LLC
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude was served
`
`on February 20, 2023, by electronic mail to:
`
`Bryan Diner
`
` bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`
`Justin Hasford
`
`Justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
`Caitlin O’Connell caitlin.o’connell@finnegan.com
`
`Christina Yang christina.yang@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`February 20, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Linnea P. Cipriano/
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`(Reg. No. 67,729)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 813-8800
`Cell: (443) 235-1739
`Fax: (212) 937-2204
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Slayback
`Pharma LLC
`
`
`
`7
`
`