UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ETHICON LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ETHICON LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`PETITIONER’S HEARSAY ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE
`REJECTED ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Failed to Object with Sufficient Particularity to
`Appendices 1 and 2 of Exhibit 2009 ..................................................... 2
`
`The Dates on Exhibits 2003 and 2009 Are Not Hearsay ...................... 3
`
`Even if the Dates in Exhibits 2003 and 2009 Constitute
`Hearsay, the Business Records Exception Applies ............................... 3
`
`III.
`
`PETITIONER’S AUTHENTICATION ARGUMENTS
`CONCERNING EXHIBIT 2003-2007 AND APPENDICES 1 AND 2
`OF EXHIBIT 2009 SHOULD BE REJECTED .............................................. 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Assertion that an Inventor Cannot Authenticate a
`Document is Incorrect ........................................................................... 8
`
`Petitioner Failed to Properly Preserve Authentication
`Objections to the Dates Listed in Exhibits 2003-2007 and 2009 .......... 9
`
`Patent Owner Authenticated the Dates in Exhibits 2003 and
`2005-2007 ............................................................................................ 10
`
`D.
`
`Exhibit 2004 is Authentic at Least as of
`
` ....................... 12
`
`IV.
`
`THE INVENTORS DEMONSTRATED DIRECT KNOWLEDGE
`OF
` .................................................. 13
`
`V.
`
`EXHIBITS 2013-2015 DO NOT VIOLATE THE BOARD’S RULES ....... 14
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Chen v. Bouchard,
`347 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 5
`Conoco Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy,
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 4, 5
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`IPR2013–00082, Paper 83 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2014) ........................................... 3
`IBM v. Intellectual Ventures II, LLC,
`IPR2015-00092, Paper 44 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016) ........................................... 8
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01488, Paper 87 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018) ........................................... 9
`
`Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH,
`IPR2018-01676, Paper 30 (P.T.A.B. June 19, 2019) ......................................... 15
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2017-01474, Paper 42 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2018) ........................................... 4
`Samsung Elecs. Co.. v. M&K Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00696, Paper 48 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 4, 2019) ....................................... 2, 10
`Seabery N. Am. Inc. v. Lincoln Glob., Inc.,
`IPR2016-00840, Paper 60 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017) .............................................. 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a) ........................................................................................... 14, 15
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64 ..............................................................................................passim
`F.R.E. 803(6) .....................................................................................................passim
`F.R.E. 807 .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`
`US. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`EXHIBIT LIST FOR IPR2019—00880
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`
`
`
`
`11111111111
`
`Ex. 2010 US. Patent No. 5,465,895 (1995)
`
`Ex. 2011 US. Patent No. 5,632,432 (1997)
`
`In the Matter of Certain Reload Cartridgesfor Laparoscopic
`
`2020)
`
`Surgical Staplers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1167, Order 15: Construing the
`
`Terms of the Asserted Claims of the Patents at Issue (January 7,
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`
`US. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Bryan Knodel (December 13, 2019) Ex. 2019
`
`Ex. 2018
`
`Declaration of Shorya Awtar
`
`
`
`Ex. 2020 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Bryan Knodel (May 14, 2020)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s motion to exclude should be denied in its entirety. Pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64, prior to filing a motion to exclude a party “must identify the
`
`grounds for objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form
`
`of supplemental evidence.” For nearly all of the issues raised in Petitioner’s
`
`motion, it failed to satisfy this requirement. For example, Petitioner moves to
`
`exclude Appendices 1 and 2 of Exhibit 2009 on the bases of hearsay and
`
`authentication. Petitioner, however, failed to timely raise any objections at all to
`
`this evidence. Paper 18 at 6. Similarly, Petitioner seeks to exclude numerous
`
`exhibits for purportedly lacking authenticity as of the dates set forth therein.
`
`Petitioner, however, failed to timely make such objections with any particularity.
`
`For this reason alone, Petitioner’s motion should be denied.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion is also deficient on the merits for several reasons.
`
`Petitioner wholly failed to address the testimony set forth by Patent Owner, which
`
`clearly demonstrates the admissibility of Patent Owner’s evidence. Moreover,
`
`Petitioner’s Motion is riddled with misstatements of the law.
`
`For these and other reasons set forth in more detail below, Petitioner’s
`
`Motion should be denied.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`PETITIONER’S HEARSAY ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE REJECTED
`Petitioner seeks to exclude dates listed on Exhibit 2003 and Appendices 1
`
`and 2 of Exhibit 2009 as inadmissible hearsay. Motion at 1. As set forth below,
`
`Petitioner’s arguments should be rejected for several reasons.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Failed to Object with Sufficient Particularity to
`Appendices 1 and 2 of Exhibit 2009
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), objections to evidence must “identify the
`
`grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the
`
`form of supplemental evidence.” See also Samsung Elecs. Co. v. M&K Holdings,
`
`Inc., IPR2018-00696, Paper 48 at 91 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 4, 2019). With respect to
`
`Exhibit 2009, Petitioner’s hearsay objection made no reference to Appendices 1
`
`and 2. Instead, Petitioner made only a vague statement that unidentified
`
`“testimony” in Ex. 2009 constitutes hearsay:
`
`
`
`Paper 18 at 6. Appendices 1 and 2 of Exhibit 2009 are
`
`—not
`
`testimony. Thus, Petitioner failed to object to Appendices 1-2 as hearsay. As a
`
`result, Petitioner cannot move to exclude the dates listed in Appendices 1-2 of
`
`Exhibit 2009 on that basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)-(c).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`The Dates on Exhibits 2003 and 2009 Are Not Hearsay
`B.
`The dates listed in Exhibit 2003 and Appendices 1 and 2 of Exhibit 2009
`
`serve a non-hearsay purpose. As the Board explained in Seabery N. Am. Inc. v.
`
`Lincoln Glob., Inc., dates on exhibits are not hearsay because they “are
`
`circumstantial evidence of publication and not assertions that publication occurred
`
`on a date certain.” Seabery N. Am. Inc. v. Lincoln Glob., Inc., IPR2016-00840,
`
`Paper 60 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017); see also id. at 5 (“[O]ther panels of the
`
`Board have admitted such dates over hearsay objections. We agree with the view
`
`that the dates are not hearsay because they are not assertions.”). Accordingly, the
`
`Board should reject Petitioner’s hearsay argument because the dates listed in Ex.
`
`2003 and Appendices 1 and 2 of Ex. 2009 serve the non-hearsay purpose of
`
`providing circumstantial evidence regarding
`
`
`
`. EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00082, Paper 83
`
`at 60-61 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2014) (“[W]e agree with EMC that the date of August
`
`7, 1991, posted on Langer’s header and URL, serve a non-hearsay purpose … to
`
`prove that the document was available publicly as of that date.”).
`
`C. Even if the Dates in Exhibits 2003 and 2009 Constitute Hearsay,
`the Business Records Exception Applies
`Under F.R.E. 803(6), “records of a regularly conducted activity” are not
`
`hearsay, provided the opposing party has not established that the source of
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`information or the method or circumstances of their preparation indicate a lack of
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`trustworthiness, and the party offering the records establishes through the
`
`testimony of a qualified witness that the records are (a) “made at or near the time
`
`by--or from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge”, (b) “kept in
`
`the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business”, and (c) made as “a
`
`regular practice of that activity.” See also Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Huawei Techs.
`
`Co., IPR2017-01474, Paper 42 at 7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2018) (citing F.R.E.
`
`803(6)). “Because of the general trustworthiness of regularly kept records and the
`
`need for such evidence in many cases, the business records exception has been
`
`construed generously in favor of admissibility.” Conoco Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy,
`
`99 F.3d 387, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Ethicon clearly satisfied the requirements of
`
`F.R.E. 803(6) with respect to Exhibit 2003 and Appendices 1 and 2 of Exhibit
`
`2009.
`
`First, it is undisputed that Ex. 2003 and Appendices 1 and 2 of Ex. 2009
`
`were “made at or near the time by--or from information transmitted by--someone
`
`with knowledge.”
`
`
`
` Second, both inventors
`
`clearly explained that
`
` (Ex. 2003) and
`
` (Ex. 2009) were
`
`created and kept in the ordinary course of Ethicon’s business activity.
`
` For instance, both
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`explain that it was
`
`explained that
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
` Similarly,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Accordingly, Ethicon has met all
`
`the requirements of the business records exception.
`
`Petitioner makes several unavailing arguments regarding why the business
`
`records exception should not apply. First, Petitioner incorrectly asserts that an
`
`inventor cannot be the custodian or other qualified witness authenticating the
`
`business records.1 Motion at 2-3. F.R.E. § 803(6) contains no such requirement.
`
`Instead, all that is required is someone who “understands the system used to
`
`prepare the records.” Conoco, 99 F.3d at 391. As the creators of Ex. 2003 and
`
`Appendices 1 and 2 of Ex. 2009, the inventors are clearly qualified.
`
`
`1 Chen v. Bouchard fails to support Petitioner’s argument. There, the Board
`
`excluded lab notebooks as hearsay because “the author … was not called to
`
`testify.” 347 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Chen is inapplicable because the
`
`authors of Ex. 2003 and Appendices 1-2 have testified.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`Second, Petitioner asserts that it is not clear that the exhibits were “kept in
`
`
`
`
`the course of a regularly conducted activity of [Ethicon’s] business.” Motion at 3.
`
`This is not so. Both
`
` testified that Exhibit 2003 was
`
`created and maintained in the ordinary course of business at Ethicon
`
`
`
`
`
` Similarly,
`
` explained that it was the regular
`
`practice at Ethicon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus, Patent
`
`Owner demonstrated that Exhibit 2003 and Appendices 1-2 of Exhibit 2009 were
`
`created and kept in the ordinary course of business.
`
`Petitioner appears to suggest that Patent Owner was required to explain why
`
`Ethicon has continued to maintain these records. Motion at 3. Although
`
`Petitioner’s assertion is irrelevant,
`
` clearly explained
`
`why the records have been maintained—
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`Third, Petitioner contends these exhibits “do not bear indicia that would
`
`
`
`
`suggest they are legitimate business records.”2 Motion at 4. Petitioner, however,
`
`bears the burden of demonstrating that “the source of information or the method or
`
`circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.” See F.R.E. §
`
`803(6)(E). Yet it has failed to do so. Petitioner’s only argument in this respect is
`
`that Exhibit 2003 and Appendices 1 and 2 do not have the same format as Exhibits
`
`2004-2006. Motion at 4. There is, however, no requirement that a document be
`
`set forth in a specific format to qualify as a business record.
`
`Given the limitations with respect to file formats that can be submitted to the
`
`Patent Office, Exhibits 2003 and Appendices 1 and 2 were submitted as electronic
`
`reproductions of their native files. Petitioner, however, has been in possession of
`
`the underlying native files since before Patent Owner filed its POR.3 To the extent
`
`there were truly concerns regarding the trustworthiness of Ex. 2003 and
`
`Appendices 1-2 of Exhibit 2009, Petitioner was in possession of all the necessary
`
`
`2 Petitioner also failed to raise this issue in its objections with sufficient
`
`particularity, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). Paper 18 at 2, 6.
`
`3 Petitioner’s motion incorrectly asserts that it was not in possession of the
`
`underlying native files. Patent Owner produced them to Petitioner in the co-
`
`pending ITC investigation prior to filing its POR.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`information to raise that issue. Having failed to do so, Petitioner’s argument that
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`the business records exception does not apply should be rejected.4
`
`III. PETITIONER’S AUTHENTICATION ARGUMENTS CONCERNING
`EXHIBIT 2003-2007 AND APPENDICES 1 AND 2 OF EXHIBIT 2009
`SHOULD BE REJECTED
`Petitioner also seeks to exclude Exhibits 2003-2007 and Appendices 1-2 of
`
`Exhibit 2009 for lack of authentication. Motion at 5. As explained below,
`
`Petitioner failed to raise proper authentication grounds with respect to these
`
`exhibits, and has also failed to raise any legitimate issue regarding their
`
`authenticity. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments should be rejected.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Assertion that an Inventor Cannot Authenticate a
`Document is Incorrect
`Petitioner asserts that Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2007, and Appendices 1-2 of
`
`Exhibit 2009 should be excluded because an inventor purportedly cannot
`
`authenticate a document that he authored. Motion at 9. Notably, Petitioner has
`
`failed to cite a single district court or Federal Circuit case to support this assertion.
`
`
`4 This information is at least admissible under F.R.E. 807 due to its probative value
`
`to show
`
` and guarantees of trustworthiness. IBM v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, IPR2015-00092, Paper 44 at 58-60 (P.T.A.B. Apr.
`
`25, 2016).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion at 9-10. As other panels have correctly explained, inventors are permitted
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`to authenticate documents that they create. Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-01488, Paper 87 at 56 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018) (“We also credit Patent
`
`Owner’s argument that the inventors themselves authenticated Exhibits 2001-
`
`2004 as their own laboratory notebooks…and Exhibits 2010-2015 as internal
`
`business records that they recognize from their work at Genentech.”). Petitioner’s
`
`argument to the contrary incorrectly conflates authentication with corroboration.
`
`See id. at 56, n.29 (“Petitioners appear to conflate authentication with
`
`corroboration in arguing that inventors cannot authenticate their own laboratory
`
`notebooks.”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument should be rejected.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Failed to Properly Preserve Authentication Objections
`to the Dates Listed in Exhibits 2003-2007 and 2009
`As explained above, 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) requires that a party timely
`
`raise an objection to evidence with sufficient particularity before moving to
`
`exclude. With respect to Exhibit 2009, Petitioner failed to make any authentication
`
`objection at all, let alone a specific objection to Appendices 1 and 2. Paper 18 at 6.
`
`Thus, Petitioner cannot move to exclude Exhibit 2009 based on authentication.
`
` Petitioner’s authentication objection with respect to Exhibit 2004 is also
`
`deficient. Petitioner’s objection included only a vague statement that Exhibit 2004
`
`is inadmissible for lack of authentication. See Paper 18 at 3 (“Exhibit 2004 is
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`inadmissible for lack of proper authentication … .”). It was not until the filing of
`
`its Motion that Petitioner specifically identified the dates listed on Exhibit 2004 as
`
`the basis for its authentication objection. Motion at 8-9. Petitioner’s vague
`
`authentication objection regarding Exhibit 2004 failed to satisfy the sufficient
`
`particularity requirement because it did not provide Patent Owner with notice that
`
`Patent Owner should address with supplemental evidence any purported issues
`
`concerning the dates listed on Ex. 2004. M&K Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00696,
`
`Paper 48 at 91 (agreeing that a laundry list of generalized objections fails to meet
`
`the “sufficient particularity” requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64).
`
`Petitioner likewise failed to provide sufficient authentication objections to
`
`the dates listed in Ex. 2003 and 2005-2006. Paper 18 at 2-4. Petitioner’s generic
`
`authentication objections deprived Patent Owner of fair notice and an adequate
`
`opportunity to respond with supplemental evidence. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
`
`authentication arguments concerning Exhibits 2003-2007 and 2009 should be
`
`rejected for failing to comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Authenticated the Dates in Exhibits 2003 and 2005-
`2007
`Aside from Petitioner’s incorrect argument that the inventors cannot
`
`authenticate Exhibits 2003 and 2007, the only issue raised by Petitioner regarding
`
`the authenticity of Exhibits 2003 and 2005-2007 is that they purportedly do not
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`represent the documents as they existed on the dates listed therein. Motion at 8.
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`As explained above, Petitioner did not properly raise this objection under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64. In any event, Patent Owner clearly demonstrated that Exhibits
`
`2003 and 2005-2007 are authentic as to the dates set forth therein.
`
` both testified that Exhibit 2003 represents
`
`
`
` Their testimony thus establishes that Exhibit 2003
`
`represents
`
`
`
`Likewise,
`
` testified that Ex. 2005 and 2006 represent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` testimony thus establishes Ex. 2005
`
`and 2006 represent
`
` as they existed on the dates set forth in the exhibits.
`
`Finally,
`
` explained that Exhibit 2007 represents a document
`
`that he created
`
`. Ex. 2009, ¶ 20. Petitioner has failed to provide any reason
`
`why the Board should discount his uncontested testimony. In any event, Patent
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner has not attributed a specific date to Exhibit 2007. Instead,
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`has explained that Exhibit 2007 is a document that he created to describe
`
`
`
` This is true regardless of when the document was
`
`actually created. Because Patent Owner has not attributed a specific date to
`
`Exhibit 2007, Petitioner’s assertion that Exhibit 2007 should be excluded because
`
`it is purportedly not authentic as to a specific date should be rejected.
`
`
`D. Exhibit 2004 is Authentic at Least as of
`The testimony of
` unquestionably demonstrates that
`
`Exhibit 2004 reflects
`
` that he created on
`
`, and subsequently
`
`completed and approved on
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Nonetheless, Petitioner asserts for the first time in its
`
`Motion that Exhibit 2004 is not authentic as of the dates identified by
`
`because Exhibit 2004 includes
`
`
`
`
`
`.5 Motion at 8. Petitioner’s argument is meritless and irrelevant.
`
`
`5 Had Petitioner served objections that comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Patent
`
`Owner would have submitted a supplemental declaration to address these dates.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contents
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`. This, however, does not call into question the authenticity of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Again, Petitioner has failed to explain how this date has any bearing on
`
`the authenticity of the contents
`
`
`
`.6
`
`IV. THE INVENTORS DEMONSTRATED DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF
`
`Petitioner also argues that the testimony of
`
`
`
` should be excluded because the individuals
`
`purportedly lack personal knowledge
`
`. Motion at 10. In other words,
`
`Petitioner contends that the individuals
`
`
`
`should be precluded from testifying about it. Petitioner’s argument is meritless.
`
`
`6 At most, Exhibit 2004 should only be considered authentic as of
`
`.
`
`This does not warrant wholesale exclusion of Exhibit 2004.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The inventors clearly have personal knowledge to testify
`
`.
`
`V. EXHIBITS 2013-2015 DO NOT VIOLATE THE BOARD’S RULES
`Patent Owner submitted videos in Ex. 2013-2015 to demonstrate
`
`
`. Petitioner contends that statements by Patent Owner’s
`
`expert therein violate 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a). Motion at 11-12. This is not so.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a) requires “[u]ncompelled direct testimony … be
`
`
`
`
`submitted in the form of an affidavit.” Patent Owner complied with this
`
`requirement with respect to the testimony of Dr. Awtar, who submitted a 100-page
`
`declaration setting forth his direct testimony. Ex. 2019C. The statements made by
`
`Dr. Awtar in Exhibits 2013-2015 regarding
`
` correspond
`
`directly to his declaration testimony, which was submitted via affidavit in line with
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a). Thus, Exhibits 2013-2015 do not violate the Board’s rules.
`
`Even if the Board determines that Exhibits 2013-2015 include improper
`
`video testimony, exclusion should be limited to the testimony, not the video itself.
`
`First, Petitioner only objected to the testimony in Ex. 2013-2015 (Paper 18 at 7-9),
`
`which is thus all that can be excluded under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. Second, the video
`
`footage is the only means by which Patent Owner could demonstrate
`
`
`
` given that there is no process by which parties can
`
`submit physical exhibits for the Board’s consideration. See Mylan Pharms., Inc. v.
`
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH, IPR2018-01676, Paper 30 at 2 (P.T.A.B. June
`
`19, 2019) (“First, we note that the Board does not have an established procedure in
`
`place to accept and keep physical evidence….”). Thus, Ex. 2013-2015 should not
`
`be excluded in their entirety.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons herein, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude should be denied.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 19, 2020
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Anish R. Desai/
`Anish R. Desai
`Reg. No. 73,760
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`T: 212-310-8730
`E: anish.desai@weil.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE contains no more than 15 pages and therefore complies with the
`
`limitations of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a).
`
`
`
`Dated: June 19, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Anish R. Desai/
`Anish R. Desai
`Reg. No. 73,760
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`T: 212-310-8730
`E: anish.desai@weil.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00880
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,749
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on June 19, 2020, a copy of PATENT OWNER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE and any
`
`accompanying exhibits was served by filing this document through the PTAB’s
`
`E2E Filing System as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the
`
`following:
`
`
`Steven R. Katz
`Joshua A. Griswold
`Kenneth W. Darby, Jr.
`John C. Phillips
`Ryan P. O’Connor
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`katz@fr.com
`griswold@fr.com
`kdarby@fr.com
`phillips@fr.com
`oconnor@fr.com
`
`IPR11030-0049IP4@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`T: 202-682-7075
`E: timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
