By:
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Ranbaxy Inc.
`Joseph M. Reisman
`Carol Pitzel Cruz
`Kerry S. Taylor
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: BoxRanbaxy332@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: April 26, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`RANBAXY INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00024
`Patent 8,772,306
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`FILED WITH PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Ranbaxy Inc.
`Joseph M. Reisman
`Carol Pitzel Cruz
`Kerry S. Taylor
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: BoxRanbaxy332@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: April 26, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`RANBAXY INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00024
`Patent 8,772,306
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`FILED WITH PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ranbaxy v. Jazz
`Case IPR2016-00024
`U.S. Pat. 8,772,306
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner objects as follows to the
`
`admissibility of evidence filed with Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response on
`
`January 15, 2016.
`
`Petitioner reserves its right: (1) to timely file a motion to exclude these
`
`objectionable exhibits, or portions thereof; (2) to challenge the credibility and/or
`
`weight that should be afforded to these exhibits, whether or not Petitioner files a
`
`motion to exclude the exhibits; (3) to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to
`
`meet Patent Owner’s burden of proof on any issue, whether or not Patent Owner
`
`has objected to, or files a motion to exclude, the evidence; and (4) to cross examine
`
`any Patent Owner declarant within the scope of his or her direct testimony relating
`
`to these exhibits, without regard to whether Petitioner has objected to the testimony
`
`or related exhibits, and without regard to whether the testimony or related exhibits
`
`are ultimately found to be inadmissible.
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`Relevance and Unfair Prejudice (FRE 402, 403):
`
`There exists no evidence to establish that this Exhibit qualifies as a
`
`printed publication that qualifies as prior art. Thus, this Exhibit is
`
`not relevant to the extent that it is not a printed publication.
`
`This Exhibit is also not relevant to the extent that it does not
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Ranbaxy v. Jazz
`Case IPR2016-00024
`U.S. Pat. 8,772,306
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`support the proposition that it is cited for.
`
`Hearsay (FRE 802): This Exhibit is hearsay to the extent that it is
`
`as an out of court statement and is being used to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted.
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Relevance and Unfair Prejudice (FRE 402, 403):
`
`This Exhibit is not relevant to the extent that it does not support
`
`the proposition that it is cited for.
`
`Hearsay (FRE 802): This Exhibit is hearsay to the extent that it is
`
`as an out of court statement and is being used to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted.
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Relevance and Unfair Prejudice (FRE 402, 403):
`
`There exists no evidence to establish that this Exhibit is prior art to
`
`the ’306 patent. Thus, it is not relevant.
`
`Hearsay (FRE 802): This Exhibit is hearsay to the extent that it is
`
`as an out of court statement and is being used to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted.
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`Hearsay (FRE 802): This Exhibit is hearsay to the extent that it is
`
`as an out of court statement and is being used to prove the truth of
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Ranbaxy v. Jazz
`Case IPR2016-00024
`U.S. Pat. 8,772,306
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`the matter asserted.
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Relevance and Unfair Prejudice (FRE 402, 403):
`
`There exists no evidence to establish that this Exhibit is prior art to
`
`the ’306 patent. Thus, it is not relevant.
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Hearsay (FRE 802): This Exhibit is hearsay to the extent that it is
`
`as an out of court statement and is being used to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted.
`
`Ex. 2007
`
`Hearsay (FRE 802): This Exhibit is hearsay to the extent that it is
`
`as an out of court statement and is being used to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted.
`
`Ex. 2008
`
`Relevance and Unfair Prejudice (FRE 402, 403):
`
`There exists no evidence to establish that this Exhibit is prior art to
`
`the ’306 patent. Thus, it is not relevant. Also, Par’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review is not relevant to the current proceeding.
`
`Hearsay (FRE 802): This Exhibit is hearsay to the extent that it is
`
`as an out of court statement and is being used to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted.
`
`Ex. 2009
`
`Relevance and Unfair Prejudice (FRE 402, 403): Relevance and
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Ranbaxy v. Jazz
`Case IPR2016-00024
`U.S. Pat. 8,772,306
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Unfair Prejudice (FRE 402, 403):
`
`This Exhibit appears to not be prior art to the ’306 patent. Thus, it
`
`is not relevant. Also, Dr. Winkelman’s Declaration, filed with
`
`Par’s Petition for Inter Partes Review, is not relevant to the current
`
`proceeding.
`
`Hearsay (FRE 802): This Exhibit is hearsay to the extent that it is
`
`as an out of court statement and is being used to prove the truth of
`
`the matter asserted.
`
`Ex. 2017
`
`Relevance and Unfair Prejudice (FRE 402, 403):
`
`There exists no evidence to establish that this Exhibit is prior art to
`
`the ’306 patent. Thus, it is not relevant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 26, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`By: /Kerry Taylor/
`Joseph M. Reisman (Reg. No. 43,878)
`Carol Pitzel Cruz (Reg. No. 61,224)
`Kerry S. Taylor (Reg. No. 43,947)
`Customer No. 20,995
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`RANBAXY INC.
`(949) 760-0404
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Ranbaxy v. Jazz
`Case IPR2016-00024
`U.S. Pat. 8,772,306
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify
`
`that a
`
`true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE is being
`
`served on April 26, 2016, via email pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(3) and agreement
`
`of the parties to lead and back up counsel for Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. at the
`
`addresses below:
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito
`Evangeline Shih
`Frank C. Calvosa
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Email: nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
` evangelineshih@quinnemanuel.com
`
` frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`John V. Biernacki
`Jones Day
`North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Email: jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`
`
`Dated: April 26, 2016
`
`23160679
`
`
`
` /Kerry Taylor/
`Kerry S. Taylor (Reg. No. 43,947)
`Attorney for Petitioner
`RANBAXY INC.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
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
