`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________________________
`
`HOPEWELL PHARMA VENTURES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`MERCK SERONO S.A.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00481
`Patent 8,377,903
`
`____________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S ORAL HEARING
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00481
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s May 21, 2024 Order Setting Oral Argument (Paper
`
`
`
`50), Patent Owner, Merck Serono S.A., and Petitioner, Hopewell Pharma Ventures,
`
`Inc., have met and conferred regarding objections to the demonstratives on June
`
`20, 2024. Patent Owner hereby submits the following objections to Petitioner’s
`
`demonstrative slides:
`
`1.
`
`Slide 41: Patent Owner objects to the Petitioner’s presentation of
`
`“Fed. Cir. precedent belies Merck’s contentions of new arguments” and citations to
`
`Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and
`
`Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) as
`
`improper new argument to Patent Owner’s sur-reply outside of the trial record.
`
`2.
`
`Slide 42: Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s presentation of
`
`“Hopewell did not shift to a new obviousness theory to rely on Rice” as improper
`
`new argument to Patent Owner’s sur-reply outside of the trial record.
`
`3.
`
`Slide 43: Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s presentation of
`
`“Hopewell did not introduce a new argument regarding Bodor’s bioavailability” as
`
`improper new argument to Patent Owner’s sur-reply outside of the trial record.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00481
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`
`Slide 44: Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s presentation of
`
`4.
`
`“Hopewell did not ‘revise’ its routine optimization argument” as improper new
`
`argument to Patent Owner’s sur-reply outside of the trial record.
`
`5.
`
`Slide 47: Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s presentation of its
`
`demonstrative chart, which presents new rebuttal arguments not present in
`
`Petitioner’s chart provided in its Reply at 3-4; Patent Owner identifies by highlight
`
`the objectionable portions of Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 47 in Appendix A.
`
`Dated: June 21, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Emily R. Whelan/
`Emily R. Whelan (Reg. No. 50,391)
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
`LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel. (617) 526-6567
`E-mail: emily.whelan@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00481
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00481
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00481
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` hereby certify that on June 21, 2024, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
` I
`
`below documents:
`
` Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Oral Hearing
`
`Demonstratives
`
` Appendix A to Patent Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Oral
`
`Hearing Demonstratives
`
`to be served via e-mail, as consented to by Petitioner, to:
`
`eellison-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`opartington-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`cvira-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`jcrozendaal-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`cdashe-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`pkhanduri-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`tliu-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`mbond-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`PTAB@sternekessler.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
`E-mail: cindy.kan@wilmerhale.com
`6
`
`
`
`
`
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
