`
`
`
`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
`_______________________
`
`
`REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Teva’s Procedural Arguments Lack Merit ...................................................... 1
`Teva’s Arguments on the Merits Are Baseless ............................................... 2
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Alexander v. Estepp,
`95 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................... 3
`Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. 5th Market, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00114, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2015) ..................................... 1-2
`Dalgic v. Misericordia Univ.,
`No. 3:16-cv-0443, 2019 WL 2867236 (M.D. Pa. July 3, 2019) ............................ 4
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00130, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. May 8, 2017) ............................................. 1
`Seaberry N. Am. Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00840, Paper 60 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017) ............................................... 5
`Smith v. Isuzu Motors Ltd.,
`137 F.3d 859 (5th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................. 3-4
`
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) ............................................................................................... 3-5
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 ...................................................................................................1, 5
`
`
`Other
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803 Advisory Committee’s Notes .......................................................4
`Motion to Exclude, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. Int’l,
`IPR2018-01710, Paper 51 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2019) .......................................2, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`I.
`
`Teva’s Procedural Arguments Lack Merit
`
`Teva preliminarily asserts that Corcept’s motion should be denied on two
`
`procedural grounds. First, Teva contends that “Corcept’s motion does not contest
`
`the admissibility of the thesis … and should be denied for that reason alone.”
`
`Paper 45 at 1. This is demonstrably false. The Motion to Exclude contests the
`
`admissibility of the thesis in no uncertain terms. See Paper 44 at 1 (“Exhibit 1075
`
`should be excluded pursuant to FRE 901”); see also id. at 5.
`
`Second, Teva contends that “arguments as to the public accessibility of
`
`[Ex. 1075] should have been presented in [the] Patent Owner Sur-Reply.” Paper
`
`45 at 3. Not so. The Board has considered public accessibility under FRE 901
`
`where, as here, “authentication and hearsay issues as they relate to the printed date
`
`information on [the alleged prior art] are … intertwined with admissibility.” Johns
`
`Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2016-00130, Paper 35 at 17
`
`(P.T.A.B. May 8, 2017). The Chicago Mercantile case that Teva cites stands for
`
`the same proposition—there, the Board explained that “addressing the
`
`admissibility of evidence, e.g., authenticity or hearsay, underlying the factual
`
`determinations of whether [the reference] is a prior art printed publication may be
`
`the subject of a motion to exclude.” CBM2014-00114, Paper 35 at 52.
`
`These are the same grounds on which Corcept moved to exclude Ex. 1075.
`
`Corcept expressly argued that Teva “put forth insufficient evidence indicating that
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`Exhibit 1075 was cataloged in any library,” because the only “evidence” Teva
`
`offered in support of its alleged availability is an email chain that the Board should
`
`refuse to consider on hearsay grounds. Paper 44 at 3-4. In other words, Corcept’s
`
`motion properly addresses the admissibility of the evidence “underlying the factual
`
`determinations of whether [Ex. 1075] is a prior art printed publication.” Chicago
`
`Mercantile, CBM2014-00114, Paper 35 at 52. Accordingly, Corcept’s motion is
`
`procedurally proper under the Board’s precedent.
`
`Moreover, Teva and its lead counsel agreed with and embraced this
`
`approach less than one year ago in moving to exclude a thesis “under FRE 901
`
`because [its proponent] … ha[d] not provided sufficient information regarding its
`
`authenticity as a publicly accessible document.” Motion to Exclude, Eli Lilly &
`
`Co. v. Teva Pharm. Int’l., IPR2018-01710, Paper 51 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2019).
`
`Teva and its counsel advocated to the Board that “[t]he public accessibility of
`
`[a thesis] is an essential part of the foundation analysis.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, Teva’s opposition on procedural grounds should be rejected.
`
`II. Teva’s Arguments on the Merits Are Baseless
`
`Teva’s response on the merits fares no better. Teva argues that Ex. 1075
`
`was publicly available because “the thesis has been indexed in the Central
`
`Catalogue of Dutch libraries for the past 28 years and has been available online
`
`since 2013.” Paper 45 at 4. The only “evidence” that Teva cites in support of its
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`argument—Ex. 1076—is inadmissible hearsay that the Board cannot rely on.
`
`Teva contends that Ex. 1076 is not hearsay because “e-mails from public
`
`entities concerning the activities carried on by the entity… are subject to the
`
`public-records exception.” Paper 45 at 5. Teva is incorrect and sees a hearsay
`
`exception in FRE 803(8) that would swallow the rule. FRE 803(8)(A)(i) provides
`
`that a public record is admissible if it sets out “the [public] office’s activities.” But
`
`Ex. 1076 does not set forth the activities of the National Library of the Netherlands
`
`in a manner contemplated by the Rule. The sort of records that traditionally have
`
`been held to fall within the exception set forth in FRE 803(8)(A)(i) are not emails
`
`between government employees and members of the public, but rather, records
`
`that are maintained by a public agency. See, e.g., Alexander v. Estepp, 95 F.3d
`
`312, 314 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that a county registry of applicants for
`
`firefighter positions was a public record under Rule 803(8)(A)).
`
`In contrast, emails such as Ex. 1076 that reflect the opinion of a government
`
`agent in response to a public inquiry, are typically not admitted under FRE
`
`803(8)(A)(i). This is because FRE 803(8)(A)(ii)-(iii) allow for the admissibility of
`
`records that set forth “a matter observed while under a legal duty to report” or
`
`“factual findings from a legally authorized investigation.” Courts have recognized
`
`that if informal communications that set forth “opinions of agency staff members”
`
`were deemed admissible under subsection (i), it would “swallow whole” FRE
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`803(8)(ii)-(iii) and their “limitations would be meaningless.” Smith v. Isuzu
`
`Motors Ltd., 137 F.3d 859, 862 (5th Cir. 1998).1 Therefore, while courts will
`
`admit government reports under FRE 803(8), informal emails reflecting opinions
`
`“based only on [a] review of [the] file” are not admissible. Dalgic v. Misericordia
`
`Univ., No. 3:16-cv-0443, 2019 WL 2867236, at *17 (M.D. Pa. July 3, 2019).2
`
`Indeed, Teva recently argued before this Board that an email from a library
`
`employee to establish public availability of a thesis is “the epitome of hearsay.”
`
`See IPR2018-01710, Paper 51 at 6. Teva now takes the position that its prior
`
`conduct is “moot,” because “Corcept has not even moved to exclude [Ex. 1076].”
`
`Paper 45 at 6. This is a red-herring. Corcept’s motion challenges the sufficiency
`
`and admissibility of the evidence offered to establish foundation for Ex. 1075, i.e.
`
`Ex. 1076. Teva’s previous arguments that an email from a library employee is “the
`
`epitome of hearsay” and cannot be relied upon to establish public availability is not
`
`
`1 Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) was amended in 2011, and subsections (A) through
`
`(C) were renumbered as subsections (A)(i) through (iii). These amendments were
`
`“stylistic only.” See Fed. R. Evid. 803 Advisory Committee’s Notes.
`
`2 None of the cases cited by Teva compels a different outcome, because
`
`they uniformly do not concern the interplay between FRE 803(8)(A)(i) and
`
`803(8)(A)(ii)-(iii).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`only relevant to—but dispositive of—the instant dispute.
`
`Teva tries to distinguish its prior case, stating that “the public-records
`
`exception would not have been available … because the e-mail itself indicated a
`
`lack of reliability,” since the librarian had “hazarded guesses” about the
`
`information provided. Paper 45 at 6 (citing FRE 803(8)(b)). But here, Teva has
`
`also failed to provide any indicia of reliability in support of the information
`
`contained within Ex. 1076. No background information is provided on the
`
`declarant, nor is it clear how she allegedly knows any of the information she
`
`provides. This is why, when the Board has allowed into evidence the statements of
`
`third parties to support the public availability of a thesis, those statements have
`
`been in the form of sworn declarations and the declarants are subject to cross
`
`examination. See, e.g., Seaberry N. Am. Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc., IPR2016-
`
`00840, Paper 60 at 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017). Exhibit 1076 is neither a sworn
`
`statement, nor has the declarant been made available for cross examination. The
`
`unsworn statements in Ex. 1076 thus fail to rise to the requisite level of reliability
`
`to fall within hearsay exception contained within FRE 803(8), and they cannot be
`
`used to support the admissibility of Ex. 1075.
`
`Accordingly, because Teva has put forth insufficient and inadmissible
`
`“evidence” indicating that Ex. 1075 was publicly available, it should be excluded
`
`for lacking foundation under FRE 901.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Date: August 13, 2020
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214
`
`
`
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`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
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
`danielwiesner@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`johngalanek@quinnemanuel.com
`
`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 Reply in Further Support of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude was
`
`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.
`
`Date: August 13, 2020
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`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
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
`danielwiesner@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`johngalanek@quinnemanuel.com
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`