UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEURELIS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00451
`Patent No. 9,763,876
`_____________________________
`
`NEURELIS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(C)
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 1
`
`SHOWINGS AND ARGUMENT ................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`Exhibit 2001 and Exhibit 2004.............................................................. 1
`
`Exhibit 2002 .......................................................................................... 3
`
`Exhibit 2003 and Exhibit 2004.............................................................. 3
`
`Exhibit 2006 .......................................................................................... 4
`
`Exhibit 2007 and Exhibit 2013.............................................................. 6
`
`Exhibit 2008 and Exhibit 2009.............................................................. 6
`
`Exhibit 2010 .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Exhibit 2012 – Declaration of Dr. Sveinbjorn Gizurarson, Ph.D. ........ 7
`
`Relevance .................................................................................... 8
`1.
`Personal Knowledge ................................................................... 8
`2.
`Expert Testimony ........................................................................ 8
`3.
`Hearsay ........................................................................................ 9
`4.
`Summary to Prove Content ....................................................... 10
`5.
`Exhibit 2014 ........................................................................................ 10
`
`Exhibit 2015 and Exhibit 2016............................................................ 11
`
`Exhibit 2017 ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Exhibits 2018, 2023, and 2024 ............................................................ 12
`
`Exhibit 2019 ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Exhibits 2020, 2021, and 2022 ............................................................ 14
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-i-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`I.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner (“Neurelis”) requests the Board to deny Petitioner’s
`
`(“Aquestive”) Motion to Exclude (Paper 34, “Motion”) because all exhibits
`
`challenged in Aquestive’s Motion fully comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”) as adopted in 37 CFR § 42.62. Aquestive has not met its burden to show
`
`that the evidence is inadmissible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c); Fanduel, Inc., et al. v. CG
`
`Tech. Development LLC, IPR2017-00902, Paper 45, 83 n.21 (PTAB 2018) (“An
`
`opponent bears the burden of establishing inadmissibility of an exhibit by filing a
`
`motion to exclude the evidence”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Aquestive’s Motion is essentially identical to its objections and provides no
`
`explanation or rationale for excluding evidence apart from reciting the FRE.
`
`Neither Neurelis in responding, nor the Board in rendering its decision, should
`
`have to assume a reason to exclude when Aquestive failed to provide one. For this
`
`reason, as well as those below, Aquestive’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`SHOWINGS AND ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Exhibit 2001 and Exhibit 2004
`
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2001 or EX2004 that allegedly are
`
`(1) irrelevant, (2) hearsay, or (3) not authentic, yet seeks to exclude these exhibits.
`
`The CDC publications are relevant to state the prevalence of epilepsy and need for
`
`treatment thereof. See OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1407
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-1-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (recognizing “low threshold for relevancy” under FRE 104).
`
`Aquestive fails to offer any evidence undermining relevance, and fails to identify
`
`any prejudice, much less prejudice that outweighs relevance.
`
`For hearsay, Aquestive fails to identify any statement offered to prove the
`
`truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Nonetheless, EX2001 and EX2004
`
`“are offered for what they describe, and not to prove the truth of the matter
`
`asserted,” and thus are not hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). EMC Corp. v.
`
`PersonalWeb Tech., LLC, IPR2013-00087, Paper 69, 42-43 (PTAB 2014). The
`
`documents reflect the Federal government position on epilepsy and existing
`
`treatments. See e.g., Biomarin Pharm., Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd.,
`
`IPR2013-00537, 2015 WL 1009197, at *13 (PTAB 2015) (exhibits offered as
`
`evidence of what it describes to an ordinary artisan are not hearsay).
`
`Lastly, EX2001 and EX2004 are properly authenticated. See Ericsson Inc. v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, IPR2014-01149, Paper 68, 12 (PTAB 2015) (“The
`
`burden of proof for authentication is ‘slight.’”). Specifically, EX2001 and EX2004
`
`are self-authenticating as “Official Publications” under FRE 902(5)— publicly
`
`available on a government-based website—and are otherwise authenticated under
`
`901(b)(4) as provided by a government agency, bearing official insignia, and
`
`including the agency’s contact information. Taken together, each of these exhibits
`
`are authenticated and should not be excluded.
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-2-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2002 that allegedly are (1)
`
`irrelevant or (2) hearsay, yet seeks to exclude the exhibit. The FDA letter is
`
`relevant to express a need for intranasal epilepsy treatment. See supra, Section II.A.
`
`Aquestive fails to offer any evidence undermining relevance, and fails to identify
`
`any prejudice, much less prejudice that outweighs relevance.
`
`Additionally, EX2002 is not relied on for the truth of the matter asserted
`
`therein but rather for what it describes to an ordinary artisan and, thus, is not
`
`hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). See supra, Section II.A. The FDA letter
`
`otherwise falls under the “Records of a Regular Conducted Activity” hearsay
`
`exception. FRE 803(6).
`
`Exhibit 2003 and Exhibit 2004
`C.
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2003 or EX2004 that allegedly are
`
`(1) irrelevant or (2) hearsay, yet seeks to exclude these exhibits. The exhibits are
`
`relevant documentation of a need for epilepsy treatment (and particularly,
`
`intranasal treatment). See supra, Section II.A. Aquestive fails to offer any evidence
`
`undermining relevance, and fails to identify any prejudice, much less prejudice that
`
`outweighs relevance.
`
`Additionally, EX2003 and EX2004 are not relied on for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted but rather for what they describe to an ordinary artisan and, thus,
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-3-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`are not hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). See supra, Section II.A.
`
`D.
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2006 that allegedly are (1)
`
`irrelevant, (2) hearsay, or (3) not authentic, yet seeks to exclude the exhibit.
`
`EX2006 is relevant to show what was incorporated by reference into the ’558
`
`Provisional (EX1008) and what would have been known to the ordinary artisan.
`
`See supra, Section II.A. Aquestive fails to offer any evidence undermining
`
`relevance, and fails to identify any prejudice, much less prejudice that outweighs
`
`relevance. Indeed, while EX2006 is quite relevant to the validity of Patent No.
`
`9,763,876, what it is irrelevant to is Aquestive’s Petition as Aquestive did not cite,
`
`and ignored EX2006—proving Aquestive’s failure to make its case in the Petition.
`
`Additionally, EX2006 is not relied on for the truth of the matter asserted but
`
`rather for what it described to an ordinary artisan and, thus, is not hearsay as
`
`defined under FRE 801(c). See supra, Section II.A. Moreover, the exhibit
`
`otherwise falls under the “Ancient Document” hearsay exception, as it pre-dates
`
`1998 (FRE 803(16)), and/or the “Market Reports and Similar Commercial
`
`Documents” hearsay exception, as it is a list or quotation of products for sale to the
`
`public and relied on by people in the industry (FRE 803(17)). Additionally, both
`
`parties’ experts rely on EX2006 without questioning its authority—see e.g.,
`
`EX2012, ¶¶68-75; EX1150, ¶¶171-177 (citing “the” Sigma catalogue)—and
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-4-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`EX2006 is more probative on the point for which it is offered than other evidence
`
`that Neurelis could have obtained. EX2006 thus also meets the “residual exception”
`
`of FRE 807(a). See e.g., QSC Audio Prods., LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00127, Paper 43, 14-15 (PTAB 2015); see also Nestle USA, Inc. et al. v. Steuben
`
`Foods, Inc., IPR2015-00249, Paper 76, 11 (PTAB 2016) (underlying data relied on
`
`by expert “should be submitted so that it may be considered, as implied by §
`
`42.65(a).”).
`
`Lastly, Neurelis served librarian affidavits (EX2025, EX2026)
`
`authenticating EX2006. See Google, Inc. v. Zuili, CBM2016-00008, Paper 55, 7
`
`(PTAB 2017) (affidavits can verify authentication). The affidavits provide
`
`“Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge” satisfying FRE 901(b)(1). EX2006 is
`
`also self-authenticating under at least FRE 902(7) and otherwise bears distinctive
`
`authenticating characteristics under FRE 901(b)(4). EX2006 is a copy of the 1988
`
`SIGMA Catalog, bearing the “SIGMA” trademark, and also the title, date, and
`
`contact information for SIGMA Chemical Company. The trade inscriptions make
`
`EX2006 self-authenticating under FRE 902(7). See e.g., Biomarin Pharm., 2015
`
`WL 1009197, at *13. Additionally, the SIGMA trademark and contact and pricing
`
`information further bear the “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or
`
`other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the
`
`circumstances” under FRE 901(b)(4). Indeed, both of Aquestive’s experts were
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-5-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`familiar with the SIGMA Catalog. See EX2011, 125:13-19 (further recognizing
`
`EX2006 as the 1988 price listing catalog); EX2031, 108:10-22. Thus, EX2006 is
`
`properly authenticated.
`
`Exhibit 2007 and Exhibit 2013
`E.
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2007 or EX2013 that allegedly are
`
`hearsay, yet seeks to exclude these exhibits. Neither was relied on for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted therein but rather for what they describe to an ordinary artisan
`
`and, thus, are not hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). EX2007 and EX2013
`
`otherwise meet the “residual exception” under FRE 807(a) as Dr. Gizurarson relies
`
`on them1—see e.g., EX2012, ¶¶47-49—and are more probative on the point for
`
`which they are offered (benzodiazepine solubility) than other evidence that
`
`Neurelis could have obtained. See supra, Section II.D.
`
`Exhibit 2008 and Exhibit 2009
`F.
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2008 or EX2009 that allegedly are
`
`hearsay, yet seeks to exclude these exhibits. Neither is relied on for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted but rather for what it describes to an ordinary artisan and, thus, are
`
`not hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). EX2008 and EX2009 otherwise meet the
`
`“residual exception” under FRE 807(a) as they are relied on by Dr. Gizurarson—
`
`1 Notably, EX2007 is relied on by Dr. Gizurarson as his own work.
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-6-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`see e.g., EX2012, ¶¶53, 59, 61-63—and are more probative on the point for which
`
`it is offered (background on intranasal administration of therapeutic drugs,
`
`including of benzodiazepine drugs) than other evidence that Neurelis could have
`
`obtained. See supra, Section II.D.
`
`G.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2010 that allegedly are (1)
`
`irrelevant or (2) hearsay, yet seeks to exclude the exhibit. EX2010 is relevant to
`
`show the background of intranasal administration of benzodiazepines. Aquestive
`
`fails to offer any evidence to undermine relevance, and fails to identify any
`
`prejudice, much less prejudice that outweighs relevance.
`
`Additionally, EX2010 is not relied on for the truth of the matter asserted but
`
`rather for what it describes to an ordinary artisan and, thus, is not hearsay as
`
`defined under FRE 801(c). EX2010 otherwise meets the “residual exception”
`
`under FRE 807(a) as it is relied on by Dr. Gizurarson—see e.g., EX2012, ¶¶63,
`
`111—and is more probative on the point for which it is offered (background on
`
`intranasal administration of benzodiazepine drugs) than other evidence that
`
`Neurelis could have obtained. See supra, Section II.D.
`
`H.
`
`Exhibit 2012 – Declaration of Dr. Sveinbjorn Gizurarson, Ph.D.
`
`Dr. Gizurarson’s Declaration is proper expert testimony and should not be
`
`excluded. Aquestive has not met its burden to exclude any portion of EX2012.
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-7-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`1. Relevance
`Aquestive moves to exclude paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 67, merely reciting FRE
`
`402 and 403 as its “argument.” The paragraphs describe Dr. Gizurarson’s
`
`background relevant to formulation of an intranasal benzodiazepine product—the
`
`subject of his declaration and the patent-at-issue.2 Aquestive fails to explain the
`
`alleged “unfair prejudice” that would result from admitting these paragraphs, let
`
`alone explain how any purported “unfair prejudice” outweighs their probative
`
`value.
`
`2. Personal Knowledge
`Aquestive also moves to exclude paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 28-33, 36, 44, 48, and
`
`50-51, merely reciting FRE 602 as its “argument.” Aquestive fails to explain why
`
`Dr. Gizurarson allegedly lacks personal knowledge—instead, the paragraphs
`
`identified specifically describe Dr. Gizurarson’s background relevant to the art.
`
`These paragraphs (and the declaration, itself) otherwise contain opinions about
`
`printed publications and are replete with citations to those documents.
`
`3. Expert Testimony
`Aquestive identifies paragraphs 16-25, 26, 28, 31-36, 38-39, 41-43, 48, 50-
`
`52, 54-56, 58, 60-61, 67-70, 75, 77-80, 82-87, 89-95, 97, 99-109, and 111-116,
`
`2 Notably, Aquestive does not argue that Dr. Gizurarson is not a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-8-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`stating without explanation that “the declarant is not qualified” to opine on the
`
`topics therein. Paper 34, 6-7. Yet, Aquestive identifies no deficiency in Dr.
`
`Gizurarson’s qualifications and fails to explain any deficiencies in Dr.
`
`Gizurarson’s 76-page, 117-paragraph declaration. This is so despite Aquestive’s
`
`deposition of Dr. Gizurarson, which Aquestive submitted with its response. See
`
`EX1149. Dr. Gizurarson’s testimony is proper expert testimony based on
`
`substantial underlying facts and data—including Dr. Gizurarson’s own vast
`
`experience in the art at the time of the invention and the references at issue. See
`
`Hospira, Inc., et al. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-00737, Paper 108, 53-54 (PTAB
`
`2018). Indeed, Aquestive itself twice relies on Dr. Gizurarson’s work to make its
`
`arguments. See e.g., EX1041, ¶111 (citing EX1030); EX1150, ¶209 n.12 (citing
`
`EX1070). Aquestive fails to explain why the Board should give less than full
`
`weight to (much less exclude) the testimony. See Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp.,
`
`IPR2012-00005, 2014 WL 574596, at *32 (PTAB 2014).
`
`4. Hearsay
`Aquestive moves to exclude paragraphs 28-33, 44-46, 48, 50-52, 54, 56-61,
`
`63-67, 71-72, 74, 77-78, 83-84, 89, 92, and 111-113, merely reciting FRE 802(c)
`
`as its “argument.” Dr. Gizurarson’s Declaration evinces that his conclusions are
`
`based on his decades of experience, as further detailed in Section I (¶¶2-12) and
`
`Appendix C. See FRE 703.
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-9-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`5. Summary to Prove Content
`Finally, Aquestive moves to exclude paragraphs 28-29, 36, 48, 50-51, 56, 58,
`
`59-60, 79, 85, 87, 89, 95, 100-102, 104-105, 109, and 114-116, merely reciting
`
`FRE 1006 as its “argument.” Yet, Aquestive fails to allege any of the materials
`
`considered within these paragraphs were unavailable, such that a summary of those
`
`materials would be improper. Here, all the materials Dr. Gizurarson relied on are
`
`publicly available and/or have been submitted as exhibits. Furthermore, 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.65(a) simply requires that expert testimony disclose the underlying facts or
`
`data and Neurelis has complied with that rule.
`
`Thus, Aquestive failed to show that any portion of EX2012 should be
`
`excluded.
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2014 that allegedly are hearsay, yet
`
`seeks to exclude the exhibit. EX2014 is not relied on for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted but rather for what it describes to an ordinary artisan and, thus, is not
`
`hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). EX2014 otherwise meets the “residual
`
`exception” under FRE 807(a) as it is relied on by Dr. Gizurarson and Aquestive’s
`
`own expert—see e.g., EX2012, ¶90; EX1150, ¶210—and is more probative on the
`
`point for which it is offered (reactions of disclosed alcohols) than other evidence
`
`that Neurelis could have obtained. See supra, Section II.D.
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-10-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`Exhibit 2015 and Exhibit 2016
`J.
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2015 or EX2016 that allegedly are
`
`(1) irrelevant or (2) hearsay, yet seeks to exclude these exhibits. The exhibits are
`
`relevant to show the state of the art and background of epilepsy treatment. See
`
`supra, Section II.A. Aquestive fails to offer any evidence undermining relevance,
`
`and fails to identify any prejudice, much less prejudice that outweighs relevance.
`
`Additionally, EX2015 and EX2016 are not relied on for the truth of the
`
`matter asserted but rather for what they describe to an ordinary artisan and, thus, is
`
`not hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). EX2015 and EX2016 otherwise met the
`
`“residual exception” under FRE 807(a) as they are relied on by Dr. Gizurarson—
`
`see e.g., EX2012, ¶¶45-46—and are more probative on the point for which they are
`
`offered (background on epilepsy treatment) than other evidence that Neurelis could
`
`have obtained. See supra, Section II.D.
`
`K.
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`Aquestive does not identify portions of EX2017 that allegedly are (1)
`
`irrelevant, (2) hearsay, or (3) not authentic, yet seeks to exclude the exhibit. The
`
`Diastat® label is relevant to show the state of epilepsy treatment. See supra,
`
`Section II.A. Aquestive fails to offer any evidence undermining relevance, and
`
`fails to identify any prejudice, much less prejudice that outweighs relevance.
`
`Additionally, EX2017 is not relied on for the truth of the matter asserted but
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-11-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`rather for what it describes to an ordinary artisan and, thus, is not hearsay as
`
`defined under FRE 801(c). EX2017 otherwise meets the “residual exception”
`
`under FRE 807(a) as it is relied on by Dr. Gizurarson—see e.g., EX2012, ¶52—
`
`and is more probative on the point for which it is offered (available epilepsy
`
`treatment) than other evidence that Neurelis could have obtained. See supra,
`
`Section II.D.
`
`Finally, EX2017 is self-authenticating under at least FRE 902(7) and
`
`otherwise bears authenticating distinctive characteristics under FRE 901(b)(4).
`
`EX2017 is a copy of the Diastat® drug label and bears the “Diastat” label and
`
`trademarks. It also includes the Valeant Pharmaceuticals International contact
`
`information as well as a barcode. The trade inscriptions make EX2017 self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902(7). See Section II.D. Additionally, the Disatat®
`
`trademarks, contact information, and prescribing information therein further bear
`
`the “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive
`
`characteristics of the item, taken together with the circumstances” under FRE
`
`901(b)(4). Thus, EX2017 is properly authenticated. See supra, Section II.A.
`
`L.
`
`Exhibits 2018, 2023, and 2024
`
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2018, EX2023, or EX2024 that
`
`allegedly are (1) irrelevant, (2) hearsay, or (3) not authentic, yet seeks to exclude
`
`these exhibits. The press releases are relevant to show the state of intranasal
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-12-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`epilepsy treatment. See supra, Section II.A. Aquestive fails to offer any evidence
`
`undermining relevance, and fails to identify any prejudice, much less prejudice that
`
`outweighs relevance.
`
`Additionally, EX2018, EX2023, and EX2024 are not relied on for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted therein but rather for what they describe to an ordinary
`
`artisan and, thus, are not hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). The exhibits
`
`otherwise met the “residual exception” under FRE 807(a) as they are relied on by
`
`Dr. Gizurarson—see e.g., EX2012, ¶¶5, 67, 113—and are more probative on the
`
`point for which it is offered (available intranasal epilepsy treatment) than other
`
`evidence that Neurelis could have obtained. See supra, Section II.D.
`
`Finally, the press releases bear distinctive characteristics for authentication
`
`under FRE 901(b)(4). For example, the press releases show their respective sources,
`
`publication dates, and contact information that bear the “appearance, contents,
`
`substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken
`
`together with the circumstances” under FRE 901(b)(4). Moreover, the information
`
`in the exhibits comes from Neurelis and/or its expert-Dr. Gizurarson. Thus,
`
`EX2018, 2023, and 2024 are properly authenticated. See supra, Section II.A.
`
`M.
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2019 that allegedly are hearsay, yet
`
`seeks to exclude the exhibit. EX2019 is not relied on for the truth of the matter
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-13-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`asserted but rather for what it describes to an ordinary artisan and, thus, are not
`
`hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). EX2019 otherwise meet the “residual
`
`exception” under FRE 807(a) as it is relied on by Dr. Gizurarson—see e.g.,
`
`EX2012, ¶¶44-45—and is more probative on the point for which it is offered
`
`(background on epilepsy) than other evidence that Neurelis could have obtained.
`
`See supra, Section II.D.
`
`Exhibits 2020, 2021, and 2022
`N.
`Aquestive fails to identify portions of EX2020, EX2021, or EX2022 that
`
`allegedly are (1) irrelevant or (2) hearsay, yet seek to exclude these exhibits. The
`
`exhibits are relevant to show the state of intranasal treatment. See supra, Section
`
`II.A. Aquestive fails to offer any evidence undermining relevance, and fails to
`
`identify any prejudice, much less prejudice that outweighs relevance.
`
`Additionally, EX2020, EX2021, and EX2022 are not relied on for the truth
`
`of the matter asserted but rather for what they describe to an ordinary artisan and,
`
`thus, are not hearsay as defined under FRE 801(c). The exhibits otherwise meet the
`
`“residual exception” under FRE 807(a) as they are relied on by Dr. Gizurarson—
`
`see e.g., EX2012, ¶¶57-60—and are more probative on the point for which they are
`
`offered (intranasal treatement) than other evidence that Neurelis could have
`
`obtained. See supra, Section II.D.
`
`Finally, EX2021 bears distinctive authenticating characteristics under FRE
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-14-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`901(b)(4) (showing its respective source) and otherwise is corroborated by Dr.
`
`Gizurarson’s testimony on the reliability of the diagram it contains and what it
`
`teaches. See EX2012, ¶57; see also Ericsson Inc., IPR2014-01149, Paper 68 at 12
`
`(“The burden of proof for authentication is ‘slight.’”). Taken together, each of
`
`these exhibits are authenticated and should not be excluded. See supra, Section
`
`II.A.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Aquestive failed to justify exclusion of any exhibit or portion of an exhibit.
`
`Accordingly, its motion to exclude should be denied.
`
`Dated: April 28, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Jeffrey W. Guise/
`Jeffrey W. Guise, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 34,613
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-15-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served true and correct copies of the
`
`foregoing Neurelis, Inc.’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) on this 28th day of April, 2020, on the
`
`Petitioner at the correspondence address of the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Daniel A. Scola, Jr.
`
`dscola@hbiplaw.com
`
`Michael I. Chakansky
`
`
`
`mchakansky@hbiplaw.com
`
`James F. Harrington
`
`jharrington@hbiplaw.com
`
`Matthew J. Solow
`
`msolow@hbiplaw.com
`
`John T. Gallagher
`
`jgallagher@hbiplaw.com
`
`HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP
`
`876IPR@hbiplaw.com
`
`Dated: April 28, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Jeffrey W. Guise/
`Jeffrey W. Guise, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 34,613
`
`IPR2019-00451
`
`-16-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,763,876
`
`