`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`————————————————
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`————————————————
`Case IPR2022-00722
`Patent 7,041,786
`————————————————
`
`PETITIONER MYLAN’S OBJECTIONS
`TO PATENT OWNER’S PRE-INSTITUTION EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner (Mylan) objects to Patent Owner (Bausch) exhibits EX2001-
`
`EX2021 for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§42.62(a), 42.64(b)(1).
`
`II. OBJECTIONS
`
`A. Bausch’s Fintiv exhibits (EX2001-EX2007) are not relevant
`
`
`
`Bausch exhibits EX2001-EX2007 violate FRE 402 and 403. The exhibits are
`
`not cited in the record. Rather, they relate exclusively to an argument Bausch
`
`withdrew. Hence, these exhibits relate to no issue properly before the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board. Because Bausch’s withdrawn argument was redacted from its
`
`preliminary response, the exhibits cannot aid decision-maker or public
`
`understanding of the record. Instead, these exhibits can only cause undue
`
`prejudicial confusion and should be excluded from the record.
`
`B. Bausch’s technical exhibits (EX2008-EX2021) are hearsay
`without exception
`
`
`
`Bausch offers EX2008-EX2021 as non-testimony evidence to prove the truth
`
`of the matter Bausch asserts, without identifying any exception to support such
`
`use, in violation of FRE 802. Bausch’s reliance on statements Mylan cannot cross
`
`examine is prejudicial.
`
`C. Bausch’s press-release exhibit (EX2013) is also irrelevant and
`unauthenticated
`
`
`
`Bausch offers a press release (EX2013) as proof in support of a baseless and
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`rejected legal theory, rendering this exhibit unduly prejudicial and confusing in
`
`violation of FRE 402 and 403. Additionally, Bausch makes no attempt to establish
`
`the authenticity of EX2013, in violation of FRE 901.
`
`D. Each Bausch exhibit must be restricted to the purpose for
`which Bausch offered the exhibit
`
`
`
`Each Bausch exhibit must be restricted to the purpose for which Bausch
`
`offered the exhibit. See FRE 105. Should Bausch rely on an exhibit for a different
`
`purpose than that for which it has been offered, Mylan reserves the right to make
`
`additional objections.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Mylan submits these objections as authorized by Board rules.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: September 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jad Mills/
`Jad Mills, Reg. No. 63,344
`Counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that today this paper was served by email on Bausch’s counsel at:
`
`Justin J. Hasford
`
`Bryan C. Diner
`
`Joshua Goldberg
`
`Caitlin O’Connell
`
`Kyu Yun Kim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 28, 2022
`
`
`
`justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
`bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`caitlin.o’connell@finnegan.com
`
`kyuyun.kim@finnegan.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jad Mills/
`Jad Mills
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`