`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`GRÜNENTHAL GMBH,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANTECIP BIOVENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00028
`U.S. Patent No. 10,052,338
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DATED: April 17, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`MASCHOFF BRENNAN, PLLC
`
`
`By /R. Parrish Freeman/
` R. Parrish Freeman, Reg. No. 42,556
`pfreeman@mabr.com
`Brent A. Johnson, Reg. No. 51,851
`bjohnson@mabr.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`ANTECIP BIOVENTURES II LLC
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,052,338
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`
`I.
`
`Exhibit 1004 (Poree Declaration)
`
`Petitioner does not identify any testimony by Dr. Poree that would suffice
`
`for showing the non-patent references his testimony relies upon are documents that
`
`“experts in the particular field would reasonably rely … in forming an opinion on
`
`the subject.” Rule 703, Fed. R. Evid. Since the non-patent references are not
`
`otherwise admissible, all of Dr. Poree’s obviousness opinions based on them
`
`should be excluded under Rule 702(b) and 703.
`
`II. Hearsay dates appearing on non-patent references (Exs. 1006-1010)
`
`Patent Owner does not contest the point that the dates appearing on the face
`
`of the five non-patent references are hearsay. Patent Owner contends instead that
`
`the hearsay dates are admissible as exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Patent
`
`Owner cites three Board decisions for support, but none is designated
`
`“precedential.” Indeed, there are just as many Board decisions that go the other
`
`way and find date information on a non-patent reference to be inadmissible
`
`hearsay. E.g., Apple, Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2015-00369, slip op.
`
`at 6–13 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (Paper 14); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo,
`
`Inc., Case IPR2014–00148, slip op. at 13–16 (PTAB Apr. 23, 2015) (Paper 41);
`
`ServiceNow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case IPR2015-00716, slip op. at 16
`
`(PTAB Aug. 26, 2015) (Paper 13). Federal courts agree that “dates imprinted on ...
`
`documents are hearsay when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that
`
`is, that [the non-patent invalidity reference] was accessible to the public as of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,052,338
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`
`date set forth on the documents.” Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp.
`
`2d 964, 974 (E.D. Mich. 2003). “Dates on letters or other documents, when offered
`
`to prove the truth of the date, are inadmissible hearsay unless an exception applies
`
`or the date can be proven by other means.” Insight Tech., Inc. v. SureFire, LLC,
`
`No. CIV. 04-CV-74-JD, 2007 WL 3244092, at *6 (D.N.H. Nov. 1, 2007).
`
`Petitioner contends the applicable exceptions in this case are the “market reports”
`
`exception of Rule 803(17), the “learned treatise” exception of Rule 803(18), and
`
`the “catch-all” or “residual” exception of Rule 807. None of these exceptions apply
`
`to the facts at issue here.
`
`The “market reports” exception is inapposite because the date information at
`
`issue is not part of a compilation or listing of publication or copyright dates. Rule
`
`803(17) is directed to lists and compilations, such as “newspaper market reports,
`
`telephone directories, and city directories.” Fed. R. Evid. 803 (Advisory
`
`Committee Notes, 1972 Proposed Rules, Note to Paragraph (17)). The exception is
`
`based on the trustworthiness of these types of compilations. “The basis of
`
`trustworthiness is general reliance by the public or by a particular segment of it,
`
`and the motivation of the compiler to foster reliance by being accurate.” Id. There
`
`is no evidence of any such reliance or motivation in this case. See Conoco Inc. v.
`
`Dep’t of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 393 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`The “learned treatise” exception is inapposite because the dates inscribed on
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,052,338
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`
`the non-patent references at issue are not the subject matter being substantively
`
`addressed therein. The rationale for the exception is that “the treatise is written
`
`primarily and impartially for professionals, subject to scrutiny and exposure for
`
`inaccuracy, with the reputation of the writer at stake.” Id. (Note to Paragraph (18)).
`
`The exception is thus for the substantive analysis put forth in the treatise, not for
`
`the date information appearing on its cover.
`
`The “catch-all” or “residual” exception of Rule 807 is likewise inapposite.
`
`“The residual exception to the hearsay rule is to be reserved for ‘exceptional
`
`cases,’ and is not ‘a broad license on trial judges to admit hearsay statements that
`
`do not fall within one of the other exceptions.’” Standard Innovation, Case
`
`IPR2014–00148, slip op. at 15 (Paper 41) (quoting Conoco Inc., 99 F.3d at 392). It
`
`should not be applied where, as here, the proponent provides only “conclusory
`
`assertion[s] … [of] equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that the dates are trustworthy because they appear on the
`
`documents is circular, and its admission that such dates are the best evidence of
`
`public accessibility is a damaging admission that should no go overlooked.
`
`III.
`
`Improper Reply evidence (Exs. 1040, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046)
`
`Petitioner’s argument, distilled, is that a petitioner may withhold from its
`
`petition the evidence and argument required to support a legal conclusion of
`
`“printed publication” status, and that it may present that evidence for the first time
`
`with its reply. Petitioner provides this statement from Hulu as support: “if the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,052,338
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`
`patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner
`
`may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument
`
`that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” (Opp’n, 7 (citing Hulu, LLC v.
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039, slip op. at 15 (PTAB Dec.
`
`20, 2019) (precedential) (Paper 29).) This is not the sweeping endorsement of trial
`
`by ambush that Petitioner would have the Board believe. Read in context with the
`
`rest of the opinion, it is clear that Hulu provides no cover for presenting the first
`
`and only substantive evidence and argument in support of printed publication
`
`status in the reply.
`
`Petitioner asserted nothing but non-patent references in its Petition. It
`
`supplied no declaration evidence, except the expert’s irrelevant hindsight
`
`observation that a POSA would think some (but not all) were “published” on the
`
`date indicated. (Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 40, 46, 50.) This does nothing to inform as to how or
`
`whether a POSA could have located each reference before the priority date,
`
`assuming the requisite amount of interest and a reasonable amount of diligence.
`
`And Petitioner provided no argument in the Petition itself as to whether it was
`
`contending printed publication status by dissemination, availability, or some
`
`combination. Patent Owner noted the deficiency in the Patent Owner Response. A
`
`proper reply would have tried to explain why the Petition evidence and argument,
`
`such as they were, were sufficient. Neither Hulu, nor 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), nor any
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,052,338
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`
`other rule sanctions answering with a whole new collection of evidence and
`
`arguments, finally explaining which theory of printed publication is being
`
`advanced. Petitioner contends its Reply evidence was proper under Rule 42.23(b),
`
`but that rule is not open-ended, as Hulu recognizes: “after institution, the petitioner
`
`‘may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented
`
`earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.’” Hulu, at 7 (quoting
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) at 73). “And the parties cannot raise
`
`new issues in reply.” Id. (citing CTPG at 74).
`
`Of course a petitioner may present reply evidence to respond to matters on
`
`which a patent owner has the burden of coming forward, such as antedating
`
`conception, subsequent diligence and reduction to practice, entitlement to claim
`
`priority to an ancestor application, secondary considerations of nonobviousness, a
`
`competing claim construction, and anything else that sounds in the nature of an
`
`affirmative defense. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375-1381
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d
`
`1375, 1378-1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015). What Petitioner cannot do, and what Hulu says
`
`nothing about, is present its evidence and argument of dissemination and/or
`
`availability for the first time with its Reply. The Board should exclude Exs. 1040
`
`and 1043–1046 accordingly, as improper efforts to make out a printed publication
`
`case for the first time in the Reply.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,052,338
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00028
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 17th day of April,
`
`2020, the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT
`
`OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served via electronic mail on the following
`
`counsel of record for Petitioner.
`
`Daniel J. Minion (Reg. No. 53,329)
`Bruce C. Haas (Reg. No. 32,734)
`Katherine E. Adams (Reg. No. 73,758)
`VENABLE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Telephone: (212) 218-2290
`Facsimile: (212) 218-2200
`dminion@venable.com
`bchaas@venable.com
`keadams@venable.com
`
`By: /R. Parrish Freeman/
`
`R. Parrish Freeman, Reg. No. 42,556
`MASCHOFF BRENNAN, PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`