`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`_______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby submits the following objections to exhibits served with
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. These objections are timely filed
`
`and served within five (5) business days of service of evidence to which the
`
`objections are directed.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.62, Patent Owner’s objections apply the Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence. As explained herein, Patent Owner also objects to evidence to
`
`the extent it violates 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner’s objections and the basis
`
`for each objection are as follows:
`
`I.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS 1065 AND 1066
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1065 and 1066 pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401, 402, 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Each of these Exhibits are cited as
`
`allegedly supporting the invalidity of the challenged claims. They are improperly
`
`introduced for the first time in reply, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). They are
`
`therefore irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`II. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1067
`Patent Owner Objects to Exhibit 1067, “Second Declaration of Dr. David J.
`
`Greenblatt, M.D.” Specifically, Patent Owner objects to the following paragraphs
`
`and associated headings in Exhibit 1067 pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 703 (insufficient qualification or support for expert testimony), Fed. R. Evid.
`
`1
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`602 (lack of personal knowledge, speculation), 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (expert testimony
`
`does not disclose the underlying facts or data), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (expert
`
`testimony improperly relies on and/or introduces evidence for the first time in
`
`reply): ¶¶ 10-21 and 24-25.
`
`Corcept also objects to ¶¶ 1-7 and 22 of Exhibit 1067 under FRE 402 and
`
`403. Teva does not cite any of these paragraphs in its Reply, rendering Dr.
`
`Greenblatt’s testimony in these paragraphs irrelevant under FRE 401. Corcept
`
`therefore objects to these paragraphs under FRE 402. Corcept also objects to these
`
`paragraphs under FRE 403 because they have no probative value, create unfair
`
`prejudice to Corcept, and will only confuse the issues and waste the Board’s time.
`
`III. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1068
`Patent Owner Objects to Exhibit 1068, “Declaration of Adrian Dobs, M.D.”
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1068 in its entirety pursuant to Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). This Exhibit is cited as
`
`allegedly supporting the invalidity of the challenged claims. It is improperly
`
`introduced for the first time in reply, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). It is
`
`therefore irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403. Patent Owner
`
`further objects to the following paragraphs and associated headings in Exhibit 1068
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, Fed. R. Evid. 703 (insufficient qualification or
`
`support for expert testimony), Fed. R. Evid. 602 (lack of personal knowledge,
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`speculation) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (expert testimony does not disclose the
`
`underlying facts or data): ¶¶ 13, 17-18, 21-24, 26-27.
`
`Corcept also objects to ¶¶ 1-16, 19-21, and 24-25 of Exhibit 1068 under
`
`FRE 402 and 403. Teva does not cite any of these paragraphs in its Reply,
`
`rendering Dr. Dobs’ testimony in these paragraphs irrelevant under FRE 401.
`
`Corcept therefore objects to these paragraphs under FRE 402. Corcept also objects
`
`to these paragraphs under FRE 403 because they have no probative value, create
`
`unfair prejudice to Corcept, and will only confuse the issues and waste the Board’s
`
`time.
`
`IV. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1072
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1072 as lacking authentication under FRE
`
`901. This exhibit purports to be a PDF printout of a webpage, but it is
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901 because Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient
`
`evidence indicating the origin and creation of the PDF document, and accordingly
`
`Petitioner has not provided sufficient information regarding its authenticity.
`
`Further, this exhibit is not self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1072 pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 802
`
`(hearsay) if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`V.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT 1075
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1075 as lacking authentication under FRE
`
`901. This exhibit purports to be a PDF printout of thesis, but it is inadmissible
`
`under FRE 901 because Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence
`
`indicating the origin and creation of the PDF document, and accordingly Petitioner
`
`has not provided sufficient information regarding its authenticity. Further, this
`
`exhibit is not self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1075 pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 802
`
`(hearsay) if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1075 pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401,
`
`402, 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). This Exhibit is cited as allegedly supporting
`
`the invalidity of the challenged claims. It is improperly introduced for the first
`
`time in reply, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). It is therefore irrelevant
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1075 is also irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403
`
`because it is not the type of evidence on which the relevant POSA would rely.
`
`VI. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS 1076 AND 1077
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1076 and 1077 as lacking authentication
`
`under FRE 901. These exhibits purport to be, respectively, a PDF printout of an
`
`email and a PDF printout of a web page, but each is inadmissible under FRE 901
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`because Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence indicating the origin
`
`and creation of the PDF documents, and accordingly Petitioner has not provided
`
`sufficient information regarding their authenticity. Further, these exhibits are not
`
`self-authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1076 and 1077 pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 802 (hearsay) if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibits 1076 and 1077 pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, 402, 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Each of these Exhibits are cited as
`
`allegedly supporting the invalidity of the challenged claims. They are improperly
`
`introduced for the first time in reply, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). They are
`
`therefore irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403. Exhibits 1076
`
`and 1077 are also irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403 because
`
`they are not the type of evidence on which the relevant POSA would rely.
`
`VII. OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS 1078, 1079 AND 1080
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1078, 1079, and 1080 pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 401, 402, 403, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Each of these Exhibits are cited as
`
`allegedly supporting the invalidity of the challenged claims. They are improperly
`
`introduced for the first time in reply, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). They are
`
`therefore irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403. Exhibits 1078,
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`1079, and 1080 are also irrelevant pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403
`
`because they are not the type of evidence on which the relevant POSA would rely.
`
`In addition, Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1080 as irrelevant pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403 because Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1080 in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Date: June 11, 2020
`
`Eric C. Stops (Reg. No. 51,163)
`Daniel C. Wiesner (pro hac vice)
`Frank C. Calvosa (Reg. No. 69,064)
`John Galanek (Reg. No. 74,512)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on the date indicated below a copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Objections to Exhibits thereto were served electronically
`
`by filing these documents through the PTAB E2E System, as well as by e-mailing
`
`copies to counsel of record for Petitioners at dsterling-PTAB@sternekessler.com,
`
`opartington-PTAB@sternekessler.com, jcrozendaal-PTAB@sternekessler.com,
`
`ueverett-PTAB@sternekessler.com, wmilliken-PTAB@sternekessler.com.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Date: June 11, 2020
`
`Eric C. Stops (Reg. No. 51,163)
`Daniel C. Wiesner (pro hac vice)
`Frank C. Calvosa (Reg. No. 69,064)
`John Galanek (Reg. No. 74,512)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`