UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CIPLA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 8,168,620
`Issue Date: May 1, 2012
`Title: COMBINATION OF AZELASTINE AND STEROIDS
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2017-00807
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CIPLA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 8,168,620
`Issue Date: May 1, 2012
`Title: COMBINATION OF AZELASTINE AND STEROIDS
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2017-00807
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioner opposes Cipla’s motion to exclude certain evidence (Paper 41,
`
`hereafter “Mot.”). In sum, Cipla’s motion fails to identify any rule or statutory
`
`basis for the requested exclusions, and similarly fails to identify any prejudice.
`
`II. EX1055 and ¶¶ 53 and 54 of Dr. Schleimer’s Second Declaration
`(EX1144) Should Not Be Excluded
`
`Exhibit 1055 is an excerpted demonstrative slide from the Apotex trial. It is
`
`the only such record that is available to Petitioner. The sponsoring witness at trial,
`
`Dr. Accetta, described the underlying, original patient record (DTX-2) in great
`
`detail during the Apotex trial, and Cipla had ample opportunity to cross-examine
`
`him on this document. See EX2018, 48:11-50:17 (direct testimony); 62:14-65:4
`
`(cross-examination). The trial court then allowed exhibit DTX-2 into evidence. Id.
`
`at 58:21. Despite this, the original patient record underlying EX1055 remained
`
`unavailable to Petitioner, contrary to Cipla’s contention (Mot., 2-3). First, the
`
`District Court denied a request for copies of the Apotex trial exhibits. EX1174
`
`(Decl. of Tyler Liu), ¶ 2. Petitioner then requested a copy of the exhibit from Cipla,
`
`but Cipla refused. See EX1175 (Email From Adam LaRock to Michael Houston).
`
`Because EX1055 is the only evidence of the patient record available to Petitioner,
`
`it should not be excluded, especially where Cipla has the underlying document.
`
`As for timeliness, Cipla fails to identify any reason why EX1055 is not
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`proper reply evidence.1 See Mot., 2. Exhibit 1055 is responsive at least to Dr.
`
`Carr’s opinions that the closest prior art is monotherapy, ignoring the prevalent
`
`practice in the art of co-prescribing the two drugs together. See EX1144, ¶¶ 53-54.
`
`As for relevance, which is already waived,2 Cipla misstates Dr. Schleimer’s
`
`use of the exhibit; his declaration identifies EX1055 to support the fact that
`
`“[c]onjunctive use of a fluticasone propionate nasal spray and an azelastine
`
`hydrochloride nasal spray was confirmed in the prior Apotex trial” well before the
`
`filing date of the ’620 patent. See EX1144, ¶53. Dr. Schleimer is not advancing
`
`EX1055 as a printed publication, but instead as evidence to show that doctors did
`
`in fact co-prescribe azelastine and fluticasone for adjunctive administration well
`
`before the priority date, thus corroborating his testimony regarding the prior art.
`
`Turning next to Cipla’s arguments based on FRE 1002, Cipla offers no
`
`explanation of how “modification” of the underlying patient record to focus in on
`
`1 This scope argument is improper in a motion to exclude. See section IV, below.
`
`2 EX1055 was first served on Cipla at the deposition of Dr. Carr on Feb. 7, 2018.
`
`Cipla did not make a relevance or hearsay objection, so both have been waived.
`
`See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Cipla’s later filed objections of Mar. 13, 2018 – more than 5 business days after
`
`initial service – are untimely as to this exhibit. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`the details relating to co-administration actually affects the probative value of the
`
`exhibit. See Mot., 3. The fact that Dr. Carr did not have access to the original
`
`patient record during his deposition is not a reason to exclude EX1055, as Dr. Carr
`
`was an expert witness in the Apotex trial and had more access to the original
`
`patient record than Petitioner. EX1142, 11:22-12:8 (“I was there for pretty much
`
`the whole trial…I do remember [Dr. Accetta] testifying.”).
`
`Regarding hearsay, another waived objection, the crux of Cipla’s argument
`
`is that Dr. Schleimer “relies on the out-of-court statements in the underlying,
`
`original patent record portrayed in EX1055.” Mot., 4. As a patient record, the
`
`original underlying document falls within the exception of FRE 803(4) –
`
`“Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.” Here, the statement in the
`
`original document was “made for—and is reasonably pertinent to—medical
`
`diagnosis or treatment” and “describes medical history; past or present symptoms
`
`or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.” FRE 803(4). As for the
`
`“second level” of hearsay resulting from EX1055 not being the original document
`
`itself, there are no allegations of actual modification of any of the text from the
`
`original patient record. That is, Cipla does not contend that the portions of the
`
`original patient record shown in EX1055 are anything but that—a copy of at least a
`
`portion of the actual record. Thus, this is not a hearsay-within-hearsay situation.
`
`Even if it were, because the underlying document is just being reproduced, it “has
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” and otherwise meets sub-
`
`parts (2)-(4) of FRE 807. See FRE 807; 805 (exception of hearsay within hearsay).
`
`Further, EX1055 has non-hearsay relevance in terms of corroborating Dr.
`
`Accetta’s trial testimony regarding the original patient record, DTX-2, and his
`
`prescribing practices in general. That testimony is the primary evidence Petitioner
`
`relies on for the underlying facts, as supported by Dr. Schleimer. See EX1144,
`
`¶ 41; EX1170, ¶ 2.
`
`As for any prejudice to Cipla, there can be none at least because Cipla itself
`
`put Dr. Accetta’s testimony in evidence in this proceeding, and Cipla was a party
`
`in the Apotex trial where EX1055 was used, and where the original patient record,
`
`DTX-2, was admitted into evidence. Cipla also had ample opportunity to cross-
`
`examine Dr. Accetta at deposition and during the trial. There simply can be no
`
`surprise or prejudice in connection with EX1055.
`
`As for declaration paragraphs 53 and 54, Cipla seeks to exclude them
`
`wholesale even though their content does not exclusively rely on EX1055. See e.g.,
`
`EX1144, ¶ 53 (discussion of closest prior art); ¶ 54 (discussion of Dr. Carr prior
`
`admissions). In any event, FRE 703 allows Dr. Schleimer to rely on the contents of
`
`EX1055, even if it suffers from the evidentiary flaws alleged by Cipla.
`
`III. EX1037 Should Not Be Excluded
`No exhibit numbered 1037 was cited in the Petition, and 1037 was not a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`designated exhibit number at that time; thus, Cipla’s sole objection relating to that
`
`exhibit (i.e., that it was an exhibit not described in the exhibit list and not filed)
`
`was unfounded and there could not have been any correction made at that time. At
`
`the reply stage, an article co-authored by Cipla’s own expert, Dr. Carr, was
`
`designated as EX1037 and was then cited in Petitioner’s Reply and Dr. Schleimer’s
`
`second declaration (EX1144). However, Cipla failed to raise any objection to
`
`EX1037 or to portions of the Reply and declaration that cited to it. See Paper 32.
`
`Thus, the objections Cipla raises now are waived. See 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1).
`
`An error did occur during Petitioner’s reply filing, such that EX1037 and
`
`EX1043 (another exhibit introduced for the first time on reply) were inadvertently
`
`not filed along with the Reply, which error was the result of confusion caused by
`
`using the lower exhibit numbers for these two exhibits. Concurrent with this filing,
`
`Petitioner is filing these two exhibits and an updated exhibit list providing a
`
`description and an indication these two exhibits have been filed. Petitioner regrets
`
`the filing oversight that occurred, but has now remedied the error.
`
`In any event, Cipla cannot claim any prejudice regarding EX1037, as it is
`
`clearly identified in Dr. Schleimer’s second declaration (EX1144, ¶ 90) in relation
`
`to Cipla’s own EX2052 which itself cites EX1037. Dr. Schleimer even provides a
`
`quote directly from EX1037. EX1144, ¶ 90. And, EX1037 was also discussed
`
`during the Apotex trial during Dr. Carr’s direct testimony. See EX2021, 538:10-
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`540:8. Given that EX1037 is a paper that Dr. Carr himself authored, there cannot
`
`be any surprise regarding EX1037, and Cipla clearly has a copy of it. Also, Cipla
`
`could have asked counsel for Petitioner or questioned Dr. Schleimer about the
`
`identity of this document if there were any confusion, but Cipla did not once ask
`
`about the exhibit, apparently content to sit on its earlier objections directed to
`
`exhibits that were nonexistent at the time. EX1037 should not be excluded.
`
`IV. Petitioner’s Reply and Dr. Donovan’s Second Declaration (EX1145) Are
`Correctly Limited to Proper Reply Evidence and Argument
`
`The Board has held that “[a] motion to exclude is neither a substantive
`
`surreply, nor a proper vehicle for arguing whether a reply or supporting evidence is
`
`of appropriate scope.” Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00007, Paper 51
`
`at 34 (PTAB March 27, 2014). Yet here, Cipla’s motion does just that, seeking to
`
`exclude because “Petitioner and its declarant Dr. Donovan improperly supplement
`
`their obviousness arguments” and that “[t]hese arguments and evidence are newly
`
`raised to purportedly support obviousness and were available to Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Donovan at the time the Petition was filed.” Mot. 5, 7. These assertions are
`
`improper for a motion to exclude and should not be considered.
`
`Further, the Federal Circuit has explained that a Petition is not required to
`
`preemptively address every possible argument, and that a Reply may counter
`
`arguments raised in the POR. See Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. v. SFC Co. Ltd., 870 F.
`
`3d 1376, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This is precisely what Petitioner has done in
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`connection with its proper reply expert evidence, which is responsive to Cipla’s
`
`Response; each bullet point at page 6 of the Motion is addressed below:
`
`1) As discussed in her first declaration, it was well known to a POSA in
`
`2002 that multi-dose nasal spray formulations must be preserved against microbial
`
`contamination. EX1004, ¶52. In addition, Dr. Donovan’s discussion in ¶¶60-66 is
`
`responsive to Cipla’s assertion that there was no design need or market pressure to
`
`use the claimed three-preservative combination (POR at 41-44).
`
`2) The citation to Remington’s is responsive to Cipla’s assertions that a
`
`POSA would not focus on EDTA, BKC, and phenyl ethyl alcohol (“PEA”) (POR,
`
`41-44; EX2150, ¶¶53-54), and that preservatives would be avoided all together
`
`based on Segal (id., ¶ 52). Remington’s is cited in Segal (EX1012, 4:1-3), and Dr.
`
`Donovan uses it to illustrate why a POSA would have limited their preservative
`
`options, while finding EDTA, BKC, and PEA very promising (EX1145, ¶¶60-66).
`
`3) Dr. Donovan’s discussion of EDTA’s chelating properties as further
`
`motivation for its use is responsive to Cipla’s argument that a POSA would not
`
`have been motivated to use EDTA (id.) as well as Dr. Smyth’s assertion that a
`
`POSA “would not have had a good reason” to include EDTA in a nasal spray
`
`suspension (EX2150, ¶ 54).
`
`4) Dr. Donovan’s assertions regarding the use of sodium chloride and
`
`dextrose as tonicity agents respond to Dr. Smyth’s assertion that there was a “clear
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`preference in the art for sodium chloride and dextrose” and that “there was no
`
`reason for a POSA to pursue glycerin” (EX2150, ¶¶ 56, 58), as well as Cipla’s
`
`assertion that there was no “good reason to pursue glycerine” (POR at 46).
`
`5) In the Petition and in Dr. Donovan’s first declaration, the use of glycerine
`
`as a humectant and the use of humectants to provide nasal formulations
`
`comfortable for the use is expressly described. Pet. at 44; EX1004, ¶¶ 56, 72.
`
`Because humectants “effect moisturization” (EX1004, ¶ 56, EX1012, 4:8-10)
`
`among other things, Dr. Donovan’s assertion is not new to the Reply. Petitioner
`
`and Dr. Donovan’s discussion of using glycerine to add to the comfort of a nasal
`
`spray is also responsive to Cipla’s assertion that a POSA would not have been
`
`motivated to use glycerine (POR at 3, 40, 44-46; EX2150, ¶ 55).
`
`6) Dr. Donovan’s discussion of Dr. Govindarajan’s successful examples
`
`(which were submitted by Cipla to begin with) is directly responsive to Cipla and
`
`Dr. Smyth’s false assertion that those examples “failed” and were “(i)
`
`unacceptably acidic; (ii) unstable, leading to significant caking of azelastine; and
`
`(iii) unable to consistently deliver proper doses” (POR at 34; EX2150, ¶¶ 37-41).
`
`Not only is none of the foregoing inconsistent with Dr. Donovan’s trial
`
`testimony, even if it were that would not justify exclusion from the proceeding.
`
`Thus, neither the portions of Dr. Donovan’s second declaration identified by Cipla
`
`nor Petitioner’s Reply are improper.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`V. Evidence Need Not Be Cited In Papers To Remain In The Record
`The Board has held that “[i]t is better to have a complete record of the
`
`evidence submitted by the parties than to exclude particular pieces of evidence.”
`
`Biomarin Pharm. Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. L.P., IPR2013-00537, Paper
`
`79 at 25 (PTAB February 23, 2015). With that policy in mind, while certain of
`
`Petitioner’s exhibits are not referenced directly in the Petition or the Reply, the
`
`vast majority of the exhibits identified by Cipla that were not intentionally blank or
`
`a public version of another exhibit are cited in at least one of Petitioner’s expert
`
`declarations (112 of 117).3 Further, Cipla’s motion provides no explanation of how
`
`the Board would be prejudiced by the identified exhibits, particularly given their
`
`content such as EX1014 (a U.S. patent publication), EX1051 (Dr. Schleimer’s
`
`CV), and EX1139 (Mr. Staines’ CV). See Hughes Network Systems, LLC, et al. v.
`
`3 Exhibits 1062-63, 1080, and 1086 were provided by Mr. Staines, but were
`
`ultimately not cited in his declaration (a copy of his CV (EX1139) is appended to
`
`Mr. Staines’ declaration). However, exhibits 1030-31, 1034-43, 1047, 1051, 1055,
`
`1148, 1150, and 1159-1164 were cited by Dr. Schleimer; exhibits 1014, 1027,
`
`1048-49, 1052, 1054, 1056, 1149, 1152-53, and 1168 were cited by Dr. Donovan;
`
`and exhibits1057-61, 1064-1079, 1081-1085, 1087-1138 were cited by Mr.
`
`Staines. Exhibits 1026, 1028-29, 1032, and 1044 were intentionally left
`
`blank/unused. Exhibit 1165 is simply a public version of 1145.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech., IPR2015-00059, Paper 42 at 40 (PTAB April 21, 2016)
`
`(denying motion to exclude where “the listed exhibits are all discussed, relied upon
`
`and cited either in the Petition, Reply or supporting declarations” and where
`
`movant had failed to identify any prejudice).
`
`The fact that certain paragraphs of the expert declarations are not cited in the
`
`Petition or the Reply also does not support their exclusion from the record.4 This is
`
`demonstrated by their actual content, such as paragraphs 1-11 of EX1003 – Dr.
`
`Schleimer’s first declaration – which describes his retention and expert
`
`qualifications. Similar to the non-declaration exhibits, Cipla only cursorily
`
`addresses alleged irrelevancy and lack of probative value, and fails to identify any
`
`actual prejudice, which the Board has found insufficient to support exclusion from
`
`the record. See Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, IPR2016-01760, Paper 35 at
`
`4 Cipla misrepresents the record regarding many of the challenged expert
`
`declaration paragraphs. Mot., 7-8. For example, paragraph 53 of EX1003 is cited in
`
`the Petition at page 37. A listing of all such citations is as follows: Petition:
`
`EX1003, ¶¶53(37), 55(37), 70(36), 84(37,43), 88-90(56), 95(56), 115(40);
`
`EX1004, ¶¶27(12,14), 41(49), 44-45(23), 59(18,45,47); Reply: EX1003, ¶¶53(8),
`
`62(8), 84-90(6); EX1004, ¶¶27(15), 32(2,15), 34(15), 59(10); EX1140, ¶¶50(25),
`
`114(25), 137(27), 149(26); EX1144, ¶¶53-54(19), 72-73,78,80(21-22); EX1145,
`
`¶¶22-23(10-12,17), 53-54(10-11,17), 59(17), 72(17-18), 73,78,80,81(26).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`42 (PTAB March 12, 2018) (“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s cursory
`
`argument that evidence not cited in Petitioner’s Reply is irrelevant or lacks
`
`probative value outweighed by its prejudice.”). Similarly, Cipla has failed to
`
`explain how the uncited paragraphs would result in confusion, delay, or wasted
`
`time, and would not instead just cause confusion by selectively excluding some
`
`paragraphs from the declarations for no apparent benefit. See id.
`
`Lastly, as to the allegations regarding page lengths and incorporation by
`
`reference, the Board has previously held that “not every statement made by an
`
`expert need be repeated in a brief to avoid incorporation by reference; otherwise,
`
`separate expert declarations would be unnecessary.” Sumitomo Elec. Indus., Ltd. v.
`
`United Technologies Corp., IPR2017-00966, Paper 7 at 11 (PTAB Sept. 13, 2017).
`
`The Board has also recognized that uncited portions of expert declarations can
`
`provide context and support for testimony elsewhere in the declaration. See Google
`
`Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-01031, Paper 41 at 13-14 (PTAB
`
`December 7, 2015).
`
`VI. Petitioner’s Rebuttal Evidence on Secondary Considerations Is Timely
`Petitioner’s ability to address secondary considerations evidence has already
`
`been addressed by the Board. See Paper 11, 22-26. The Board recognized many
`
`distinctions over the Robert Bosch IPR, including that “Petitioner was not a party
`
`to the [] trial and therefore did not have an opportunity in that case to response to
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence” and that “the Board relied upon the Administrative
`
`Judge’s determination in the corresponding ITC proceeding.” Id., 25. The Board
`
`further noted that the prosecution history was the only fixed record at that time,
`
`and that the POPR offered “testimony and evidence from different declarants” to
`
`which “Petitioner has not yet had an opportunity to respond.” Id., 25-26.
`
`Thus, the Board held that “a better course of action is to permit the parties to
`
`develop a more complete record during trial before considering Patent Owner’s
`
`evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness” (id., 24), which is precisely what
`
`Petitioner did with its timely submissions directed to secondary considerations
`
`raised in the POR. This makes logical sense because the traditional way to develop
`
`such a record is for a Patent Owner to first raise the issues it intends to raise, and
`
`then allow Petitioner to appropriately respond. See Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v.
`
`Westerngeco LLC, IPR2014-01477, Paper 18 at 32 (PTAB March 17, 2015)
`
`(finding Petition not deficient where Petitioner was not a named defendant in a
`
`prior litigation, and stating “evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness
`
`must be first developed in this proceeding by Patent Owner”).
`
`This approach is even more critical here because, as noted above, Petitioner
`
`attempted to gain access to the Apotex trial record and was denied by both the
`
`District Court and Cipla. EX1174, ¶ 2; EX1175. Thus, Petitioner did not know at
`
`the Petition stage which arguments from the prior litigation Cipla would raise here,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`nor did Petitioner have access to the evidence underlying those arguments.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Donovan explained in her deposition that some litigation materials
`
`were subject to a protective order that barred her from discussing such information
`
`in this proceeding. See EX2159, 125:16-19.
`
`Cipla should not be allowed to exclude evidence and arguments that
`
`Petitioner could realistically only have submitted in its Reply papers. Requiring
`
`anything more from Petitioner beyond addressing the arguments from the
`
`prosecution history would simply be unfair and not in the interests of justice,
`
`especially given that Cipla could have requested to file a sur-reply, but chose not
`
`to. See, e.g., Campbell Soup Co., et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., IPR2017-00087, Paper
`
`37 at 3-4 (PTAB Nov. 17, 2017) (granting sur-reply on secondary considerations).
`
`Lastly, Cipla requests to exclude numerous exhibits for which an objection
`
`as to timeliness was not asserted. See Paper 32, 9-11 (not identifying exhibits 1037,
`
`1057-1138, 1147-48, 1150, 1157-58, and 1163-65).
`
`VII. Cross-Examination Questioning Was Properly Within The Scope
`Petitioner’s cross-examination questioning of Drs. Carr and D’Addio was
`
`within the scope of their declarations; each of Cipla’s points raised at pages 12-13
`
`of the Motion are addressed below:
`
`1) Cross-examination relating to Dr. Carr’s prescribing habits of Astelin and
`
`Flonase administered sequentially was within the scope of his opinion that “a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`POSA would have known that co-administration of antihistamines and steroids
`
`provided no meaningful benefit as compared to steroids alone” and that “the art did
`
`not motivate a POSA to combine azelastine and fluticasone into a fixed dose
`
`combination.” See EX2147, ¶¶ 45-64 and 80-95. That is, if there were no
`
`meaningful benefits, and there was otherwise no motivation, why would Dr. Carr
`
`have regularly prescribed such a combination?
`
`2) Cross-examination relating to Dr. Carr’s prescribing habits of Dymista®
`
`was within the scope of his opinions that Dymista® is “the new gold standard for
`
`the treatment of AR” and has “unexpectedly reduced side effects as compared to
`
`either azelastine or fluticasone monotherapies.” See EX2147, ¶¶ 148-49, 122-29.
`
`That is, Dr. Carr’s frequency and conditions of prescription are relevant to whether
`
`Dymista really is “the gold standard,” and his experiences with side-effects are
`
`relevant to his opinion regarding “unexpectedly reduced side effects.”
`
`3), 4), and 5) Cross-examination that identified (i) the months-long efforts
`
`to develop compositions in the ’206 patent, (ii) general new product development
`
`times of “probably months,” and (iii) further formulation work that took days just
`
`to make a “minor variation” to the final Cipla formula was relevant to and within
`
`the scope of Dr. D’Addio’s testimony regarding Meda’s alleged “efforts” to
`
`formulate a composition of azelastine and fluticasone that hardly spanned more
`
`than a day (see EX2148, ¶¶ 20-25), which Cipla characterizes as a “failure by
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`others” (POR at 60-61).
`
`VIII. EX1171 Should Not Be Excluded
`While Cipla characterizes the corrections Mr. Staines identified in EX1171
`
`as Petitioner’s, they were clearly those independently identified by Mr. Staines
`
`during his deposition preparation efforts. EX2180, 119:7-121:8, 166:9-20. Cipla’s
`
`reference to 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(3) is misplaced, as that rule is not directed to the
`
`situation here were a declarant has already submitted direct testimony in a
`
`declaration. Cipla was afforded the opportunity to question Mr. Staines about
`
`EX1171, including time to review notes and assistance in printing any exhibits
`
`needed. See EX2180, 121:9-14; 167:1-20. Notably, while Cipla’s Counsel claimed
`
`there were five “new exhibits” cited in EX1171 (i.e., 1069, 1092, 1133, and 1136-
`
`37), all of those exhibits were cited in Mr. Staines’ original declaration. See,
`
`EX1140, FN 240 (EX1069); FN 122 (EX1092); FN 252 (EX1133); FN 286
`
`(EX1136); FN 289 (EX1137). Cipla’s additional examination lasted one-hour, and
`
`only covered two of the five “new exhibits.” See EX2180, 121:18 (start time of
`
`2:57pm); 167:21 (end time of 3:56pm); 4:14-15. Thus, Cipla cannot claim any real
`
`prejudice, and EX1171 should thus not be excluded from the record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 24, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Michael R. Houston/
`Michael Houston
`Registration No. 58,486
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: 312-832-4500
`Facsimile: 312-832-4700
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 was
`
`served on April 24, 2018, on Counsel for Patent Owner via electronic mail to the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 24, 2018
`
`dvarughe-PTAB@skgf.com
`dsterlin-PTAB@skgf.com
`alarock-PTAB@skgf.com
`ueverett-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Michael R. Houston/
`Michael Houston
`Registration No. 58,486
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
