`
`––––––––––––––
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`
`GENOME & COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`PGR2019-00002
`Patent 9,855,302 B2
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO REPLY EVIDENCE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), as applied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent Owner submits the following objections to evidence
`
`filed by Petitioner with its Reply (Paper 23). These objections are timely filed
`
`within five (5) business days of the due date of the Reply (November 11,
`
`2019).
`
`Patent Owner reserves the right to present further objections to this or
`
`additional evidence submitted by Petitioner, as allowed by the applicable rules
`
`or other authority, including without limitation upon conclusion of cross-
`
`examination of Dr. Jonathan Braun.
`
`Exhibit 1041 (Fares)
`
`Exhibit 1041 is inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402 for lack of
`
`relevance. Exhibit 1041 recites “published at ascopubs.org on May 17, 2019”
`
`(Ex. 1041 at 1, left-hand margin) and includes the year “2019” in its footer.
`
`Thus, Exhibit 1041 indicates that it was not available until 2019, which is after
`
`the effective filing date in this case. Exhibit 1041 also lacks relevance because
`
`Petitioner does not cite this Exhibit in its Reply. Patent Owner objected to the
`
`introduction of this exhibit during Dr. Mani’s deposition. Ex. 1042, 37:18–
`
`38:13.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1043 (Reply Declaration of Dr. Braun)
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Exhibit 1043 is inadmissible to the extent it is relied upon as evidence
`
`of the truth of the matters asserted therein, because it is hearsay under FRE
`
`802 and does not meet the standard for an expert to rely on hearsay under FRE
`
`702 and 703. For example, at least the following paragraphs of Exhibit 1043
`
`mirror the Reply nearly verbatim:
`
`Exhibit 1043
`¶¶ 41, 43–44
`¶¶ 57–63
`¶¶ 64–66
`¶¶ 72–77
`¶¶ 78–83
`¶¶ 84–85, 87–89
`¶¶ 90–92
`¶¶ 93–98
`
`Duplicated from Reply pages
`10–11
`12–13 (Section II.B.2)
`13–15 (Section II.B.3)
`15–17 (Section II.B.4)
`18–19, 21 (Section III.A)
`21–24 (Section III.B)
`24–25 (Section III.B.1)
`25–27 (Section III.C)
`
`Although an expert may rely on hearsay in certain circumstances, “[a]n
`
`expert who simply repeats the hearsay of the client who retained him, without
`
`any independent investigation or analysis, does not assist the trier of fact in
`
`understanding matters
`
`that require specialized knowledge”—in such
`
`circumstances, the expert’s testimony does not qualify for an exception. Arista
`
`Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 409, 424–29 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2009) (excluding portions of an expert’s testimony under FRE 702 where the
`
`expert did not investigate facts himself and merely restated the views of the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`party hiring him). In other words, an expert relying on hearsay may not
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`“simply transmit that hearsay” to the factfinder and instead “must form his
`
`own opinions by applying his extensive experience and reliable methodology
`
`to the inadmissible materials,” as “simply repeating hearsay evidence without
`
`applying any expertise whatsoever . . . allows [a party] to circumvent the rules
`
`prohibiting hearsay.” United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 197–98 (2nd Cir.
`
`2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, the
`
`statements of Dr. Braun’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1043) that mirror the
`
`Reply should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 1043 is also inadmissible to the extent it is relied upon as expert
`
`witness testimony because it does not satisfy the requirements of FRE 702.
`
`For example, Dr. Braun’s statements that are verbatim recitations of the
`
`Reply’s arguments are attorney argument and do not provide “scientific,
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to
`
`understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” as required by FRE
`
`702(a), and they are not “the product of reliable principles and methods” as
`
`required by FRE 702(c). Thus, Dr. Braun’s reply declaration testimony is
`
`inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`In addition, at least paragraphs 1–9, 14, 20–22, 57–58, 63–64, 72, 77–
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`78, 81, 84, 87, 93–94, and 99 of Exhibit 1043 are inadmissible under FRE 401
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`and 402 because they lack relevance to this proceeding, as the Reply does not
`
`refer to or cite these paragraphs.
`
`The following paragraphs of Exhibit 1043 are also inadmissible
`
`because, as cited in the Reply, they constitute an improper circumvention of
`
`the word count limit: paragraphs 23–30 (465 words), which are cited together
`
`in the Reply at 9, note 6; paragraphs 31–42 (750 words), which are cited
`
`together in the Reply at 10, note 7; paragraphs 45–51 (442 words), which are
`
`cited together in the Reply at 11; and paragraphs 67–71 (317 words), which
`
`are cited together in the Reply at 15. These paragraphs are cited with little or
`
`no explanation in the Reply and are therefore incorporations-by-reference in
`
`violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). See Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation
`
`Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12, 7–10)
`
`(informative) (“we will not consider arguments that are not made in the
`
`Petition, but are instead incorporated by reference to the cited paragraphs [of
`
`the expert declaration]”). The passages thus incorporated total 1,974 words,
`
`which, when combined with the Reply certified word count of 5,457 (Reply
`
`29) causes the Reply to exceed the word limit of 5,600 words (37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.24(c)(1)) by 1,831 words, or 33% of the allowed limit.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1044 (Sánchez)
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Exhibit 1044 is inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402 for lack of
`
`relevance. Exhibit 1044 recites “Volume 2015” in its first-page header and
`
`“Copyright © 2015” on the first page. Petitioner has not provided any
`
`evidence showing that Exhibit 1044 was available as a printed publication
`
`before the effective filing date in this case.
`
`Exhibits 1046 (Dunn), 1047 (Blanco), 1052 (Boopathy), 1053
`(Bouhnik), 1056 (Brook), 1057 (Weber), 1058 (Cheroutre)
`Exhibits 1046, 1047, 1052, 1053, 1056, 1057, and 1058 each are
`
`inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402 for lack of relevance. As listed in the
`
`following table, Petitioner cites each of these exhibits generally, without
`
`identifying the particular part of each document relied upon as evidence. Each
`
`of these documents is over 1,000 words in length (several over 10,000 words
`
`in length), such that the relevance of each to this proceeding is not readily
`
`ascertainable without undue burden on the Patent Owner and the Board.
`
`Exhibit Page cited in Reply
`1046
`10, 11
`1047
`11
`1052
`18
`1053
`18
`1056
`24
`1057
`24
`1058
`27
`
`
`Length
`16,867 words
`10,792 words
`3,812 words
`4,668 words
`3,620 words
`1,499 words
`13,513 words
`Total 54,771 words
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Each of these exhibits is also inadmissible for being incorporations-by-
`
`reference disallowed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). By not identifying which
`
`parts of these documents it relies upon, Petitioner in effect forces Patent
`
`Owner and the Board to sift through an additional 60,000+ words to locate
`
`portions, if any, that relate to Petitioner’s Reply arguments.
`
`Exhibit 1045 (Ridaura)
`
`Exhibit 1045 is inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402 for lack of
`
`relevance. Petitioner does not cite this Exhibit in its Reply.
`
`Exhibit 1057 (Weber)
`
`Exhibit 1057 is inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402 for lack of
`
`relevance, as Petitioner has not provided any evidence that Exhibit 1057 was
`
`available as a printed publication before the effective filing date. Exhibit 1057
`
`recites “CID 2015:61 (1 August)” in its footer, “1 August” in its first-page
`
`header, and “2015” and “© The Author 2015” at the end. The date August 1,
`
`2015 is after the effective filing date in this case.
`
`Exhibit 1059 (Schultz Declaration)
`
`Exhibit 1059 is inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402 for lack of
`
`relevance. Petitioner does not cite this Exhibit in its Reply.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Ex. 2005 as relied upon in the Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Exhibit 2005, as relied upon in the Reply at 9–10, is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 401 and 402 for lack of relevance. Petitioner cites Exhibit 2005 as
`
`relevant to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded
`
`(Reply at 10, note 7) but has not presented evidence that Exhibit 2005 predates
`
`the effective filing date. Exhibit 2005 includes a “DEC 08 2015” date stamp
`
`on its cover page, the date “27 NOVEMBER 2015” on its Contents page and
`
`footer, and the text “Published online 5 November 2015” on page 1084—all
`
`of these dates are after the effective filing date.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Dated: November 18, 2019
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Scott E. Kamholz/
`Scott E. Kamholz, Reg. No. 48,543
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Phone: (202) 662-5339
`Fax: (202) 778-5339
`
`Jennifer L. Robbins, Reg. No. 61,163
`Covington & Burling LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Ave
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 841-1180
`Fax: (646) 441-9180
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00002
`U.S. Patent No. 9,855,302 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I certify that on the date listed below, a
`
`copy of this paper and every exhibit (if any) filed with this paper was served
`
`on the Petitioner by electronic mail to the following counsel of record for
`
`Petitioner:
`
`John A. Bauer (john.bauer@nelsonmullins.com)
`Kongsik Kim (kongsik.kim@nelsonmullins.com)
`Jane Remillard (jane.remillard@nelsonmullins.com)
`Amy Mandragouras (amy.mandragouras@nelsonmullins.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Scott E. Kamholz/
`Scott E. Kamholz, Reg. No. 48,543
`
`
`
`
`
`
`