`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`___________________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.'S
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`Petitioner, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), objects under the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) to the admissibility
`
`of Exhibits 2048–2055 and 2060–2067 (the “Challenged Evidence”), filed by
`
`Patent Owner Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (“Corcept”) with its Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, filed on February 27, 2020. Teva’s Objections are timely filed under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) because they have been filed within five business days of
`
`service of evidence. Teva files these Objections to provide notice to Corcept that
`
`Teva may move to exclude the Challenged Evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2063
`Teva objects to Exhibit 2063 as lacking authentication under FRE 901. This
`
`exhibit purports to be a PDF printout of a web page, which is inadmissible under
`
`FRE 901 because Corcept has failed to provide sufficient evidence indicating the
`
`origin and creation of the PDF document. Accordingly, Corcept has not provided
`
`sufficient information regarding its authenticity. Further, this exhibit is not self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`Exhibits 2048, 2053, 2060, 2061, 2062, 2064, and 2067
`
`B.
`Teva also objects to Exhibits 2048, 2053, 2060, 2061, 2062, 2064, and 2067
`
`as irrelevant under FRE 401 through FRE 403 because these exhibits are not cited
`
`by Corcept in the Patent Owner’s Response. They are, therefore, irrelevant under
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`FRE 401. Teva therefore objects to these exhibits under FRE 402. Teva also
`
`objects to these exhibits under FRE 403 because they have no probative value,
`
`create unfair prejudice to Teva, and will only confuse issues and waste the Board’s
`
`time.
`
`C. Exhibits 2061 and 2065
`Teva also objects to Exhibits 2061 and 2065 under FRE 1001 through FRE
`
`1003 because these documents have stray markings, extra pages, and other indicia
`
`that they are not original, or even clean copies of the original document. For
`
`example, the first page of Exhibit 2061 includes the terms “Exhibit E,” without
`
`explanation, and the first page of Exhibit 2065 includes a watermark.
`
` Teva objects because these exhibits do not a reflect an appropriate
`
`“duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e) insofar as the exhibit is not “a copy . . .
`
`which accurately reproduces the original.” Further, Teva objects to these exhibits
`
`for failure to comply with the best evidence rule. FRE 1002.
`
`D. Exhibits 2056, 2057, and 2058
`Teva also objects to Exhibits 2056, 2057, and 2058 under FRE 702, FRE
`
`703, and FRE 602. In particular, Teva objects to certain testimony included in
`
`¶¶ 47, 48, 50, 64, 65, 66, 79, 81, and 82 of Exhibit 2056 because Dr. Guenberich is
`
`not appropriately qualified to support this testimony or because the testimony lacks
`
`proper bases. Teva also objects to certain testimony included in ¶¶ 36, 39, 41, 44,
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`52, 56, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, and 84–94 of
`
`Exhibit 2057 because Dr. Carroll is not appropriately qualified to support this
`
`testimony, lacks personal knowledge, or because the testimony does not disclose
`
`the underlying facts or data. Finally, Teva objects to certain testimony included in
`
`¶¶ 44, 47, 48, 50, 54, 55, 62, 66, 67, 71, 72, 74, 76–83, 85–89, and 91–99 of
`
`Exhibit 2057 because Dr. Katznelson is not appropriately qualified to support this
`
`testimony, lacks personal knowledge, or because the testimony does not disclose
`
`the underlying facts or data.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`To the extent Corcept fails to correct the defects associated with the
`
`Challenged Evidence in view of Teva’s objections herein, Teva may file a motion
`
`to exclude the Challenged Evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`Deborah A. Sterling, Ph.D.
`Date: March 5, 2020
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Registration No. 62,732
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “TEVA
`
`PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE" was served
`
`in its entirety on March 5, 2020, upon the following parties via email:
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito
`Eric C. Stops
`John P. Galanek
`Frank C. Calvosa
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
`johngalanek@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`Deborah A. Sterling, Ph.D.
`Date: March 5, 2020
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Registration No. 62,732
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
