`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Supplemental Evidence
`
`Patent Owner United Therapeutics Corporation (“Patent Owner”) hereby
`
`objects to the admissibility of certain evidence submitted on June 1, 2021
`
`concurrently with Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`(Paper 32). Patent Owner’s objections are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), relevant case law, federal statute, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) Rules. Patent Owner’s objections are set forth with particularity below.
`
`EXHIBIT 1049
`
`Exhibit 1049 is described as “Affidavit of Boris Levine certifying Translation
`
`of Japanese Patent App. No. 56-122328A to Kawakami, et al., previously
`
`submitted as Ex. 1011 in Steadymed Ltd. v. United Therapeutics Corp., IPR2016-
`
`00006.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1049 under FRE 802 without exception.
`
`Exhibit 1052 is declaration testimony that is being offered for its truth but is not
`
`subject to cross examination.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1049 as unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403. On
`
`October 27, 2020, Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibit 1012, described as
`
`“Certified English translation of Japanese Patent App. No. 56-122328A to
`
`Kawakami, et al. (‘Kawakami’)”, for the following reasons: “Patent Owner
`
`objects to Exhibit 1012 under FRE 802, including to the extent Petitioner has
`
`asserted that the translation is a true and accurate representation of the original
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Supplemental Evidence
`
`Japanese-language patent….” (Paper 10 at page 9). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(2), Petitioner had the opportunity to “respond to the objection by
`
`serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the
`
`objection.” Petitioner failed to respond within the allotted 10 business days and
`
`instead now seeks to belatedly cure this deficiency by introducing supplemental
`
`evidence in the form of Exhibit 1049 months after Patent Owner’s objections were
`
`served. Accordingly, Exhibit 1049 should not be admitted or considered because
`
`its filing is untimely, contravenes 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), on which Patent Owner
`
`is entitled to rely in briefing the case, and would unfairly prejudice Patent Owner.
`
`EXHIBIT 1052
`
`Exhibit 1052 is described as “Supplemental Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis,
`
`Ph.D.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1052 under FRE 802 as hearsay without
`
`exception. Exhibit 1052 is declaration testimony that is being offered for its truth
`
`but is not subject to cross examination.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1052 as unfairly prejudicial under
`
`FRE 403. On October 27, 2020, Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibit 1015,
`
`described as “Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.” (see Paper 10 at pages 11-
`
`13) under, among other rules, FRE 702(b) as unreliable. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(2), Petitioner had the opportunity to “respond to the objection by
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Supplemental Evidence
`
`serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the
`
`objection.” Petitioner failed to timely respond and instead now seeks to cure this
`
`deficiency by introducing supplemental evidence in the form of Exhibit 1052
`
`months after Patent Owner’s objections were served. Accordingly, Exhibit 1052
`
`should not be admitted or considered because its filing is untimely, contravenes 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), and would unfairly prejudice Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Date: June 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Supplemental Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Supplemental Evidence Submitted with
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served on
`
`counsel of record on June 8, 2021, by filing this document through the PTAB E2E
`
`System as well as delivering a copy via email to the counsel of record for the
`
`Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`zLiquidiaIPR@cooley.com
`
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`
`emilch@cooley.com
`
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`
`
`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
