`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MERCK SERONO SA,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2023-00050
`U.S. Patent 8,377,903
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FILED AND SERVED
`WITH PETITIONER’S REPLY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00050
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence Filed and Served with Petitioner’s Reply
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent Owner submits the following
`
`objections to evidence filed and served with Petitioner’s Reply (“Reply”).
`
`Patent Owner’s objections apply equally to Petitioner’s reliance on these
`
`exhibits in any subsequently filed documents. These objections are timely,
`
`having been filed within five business days of service of evidence to which the
`
`objection is directed (June 20, 2024).
`
`Exhibit 1047 (Rebuttal Declaration of Benjamin M Greenberg, M.D.)
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1047 as misleading, incomplete, lacking
`
`relevance, and because any probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder,
`
`undue delay, wasting time, and/or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 106 and 401-403. Patent Owner also objects to the extent the
`
`content of the declaration is not discussed in the Reply and represents an
`
`improper incorporation by reference to impermissibly expand the page limit for
`
`the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). In particular, Patent Owner objects to:
`
` ¶¶ 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 17, 19, 22, and 33 as misleading, incomplete,
`
`and irrelevant because they lack support for the contentions for which
`
`they are cited;
`
` ¶ 34 as misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant because it lacks support for
`
`the contentions for which it is cited and improperly characterizes the
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00050
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence Filed and Served with Petitioner’s Reply
`teachings of the ’903 patent;
`
` ¶¶ 5, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 23-32, and 34-39 as misleading,
`
`incomplete, and irrelevant because they lack support for the contentions
`
`for which they are cited and improperly characterize the teachings of
`
`Bodor and Rice;
`
` ¶¶ 4-5, 9, 11-14, 16, 18-21, 25, 29-31, 33-34, 38-39 as misleading,
`
`incomplete, and irrelevant because they lack support for the
`
`contentions for which they are cited and/or improperly characterize
`
`the testimony and opinions of Dr. Lublin;
`
` ¶¶ 2, 7, 34 and 39 as irrelevant because these paragraphs refer to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,713,947, which is not at issue in this inter partes review.
`
`Further, any probative value of these paragraphs is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
`
`misleading the fact finder, undue delay, wasting time, needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to ¶¶ 2-39 as not being based on sufficient
`
`facts or data, the product of reliable principles and methods, and/or not
`
`reflecting a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts. See
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702-703.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to ¶¶ 1-4, 6-9, 11-12 and 31-33 because
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00050
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence Filed and Served with Petitioner’s Reply
`these paragraphs are not directly cited in the Reply and the relevance of these
`
`paragraphs is not apparent. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-402.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to ¶¶ 9, 18, 21-22, 28, which cite to exhibits
`
`that are not cited in the Reply, as irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`Exhibit 1039
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1039 under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403 as
`
`lacking relevance and because its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the fact finder,
`
`undue delay, and/or wasting time.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1039 as inadmissible hearsay, to the
`
`extent it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1039 under Fed. R. Evid. 901
`
`because the document lacks authentication.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to any paragraph of Exhibit 1047 to the
`
`extent it relies on Exhibit 1039 for at least the reasons identified here.
`
`Exhibits 1041, 1042, 1045
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1041 under Fed. R. Evid. 106 as an
`
`incomplete and/or inaccurate transcript of the April 18, 2024 Deposition of Dr.
`
`Nicholas Bodor because the transcript does not include any forthcoming errata
`
`sheet, which must in fairness be considered at the same time as the exhibit.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00050
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence Filed and Served with Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1042 under Fed. R. Evid. 106 as an
`
`incomplete and/or inaccurate transcript of the June 14, 2024 Deposition of Dr.
`
`Fred Lublin because the transcript does not include any forthcoming errata
`
`sheet, which must in fairness be considered at the same time as the exhibit.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1045 under Fed. R. Evid. 106 as an
`
`incomplete and/or inaccurate transcript of the June 7, 2024 Deposition of Dr.
`
`Alain Munafo because the transcript does not include any forthcoming errata
`
`sheet, which must in fairness be considered at the same time as the exhibit.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1041, 1042, 1045 for the same
`
`reasons as the objections stated in those transcripts.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to any paragraph of Exhibits 1047 to the
`
`extent it relies on Exhibits 1041, 1042, 1045, for at least the reasons identified
`
`here.
`
`Date: June 27, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Emily R. Whelan/
`Emily R. Whelan (Reg. No. 50,391)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
`LLP 60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel. (617) 526-6567
`Email: Emily.Whelan@wilmerhale.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00050
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence Filed and Served with Petitioner’s Reply
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on June 27, 2024, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the following document:
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence Filed and Served with
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 to be served via e-mail, as
`
`consented to by Petitioner, on the following attorneys of record:
`
`Philip.Segrest@huschblackwell.com
`Nathan.Sportel@huschblackwell.com
`Steve.Howe@huschblackwell.com
`Don.Mizerk@huschblackwell.com
`
`By: /Cindy Kan/
`Cindy Kan (Reg. No. 76,385)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`Tel: 212-295-6470
`Email: cindy.kan@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`