Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1043
`Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 1044
`
`Grossman, Dov
`Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y.
`Genderson, Bruce; Perlman, Adam; Rydstrom, Jessica; Bowers, Seth; Picozzi, Ben; Ruzich, Richard T.; Scott, Ian; araucci@MNAT.com
`RE: Stivarga Schedule
`Monday, March 25, 2019 9:43:19 AM
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Phil,
`
`  I
`
` write in advance of our meet-and-confer call on Tuesday at 11:00 am ET.  A dial in number is below.  Again, please make sure that Apotex’s local
`counsel is on the call.
` 
`As reflected in my prior email correspondence, you had previously represented that Apotex had unexpired samples of its ANDA Product and that you
`would produce them in connection with this litigation.  Bayer relied on that representation in agreeing to the schedule in this action—including Bayer’s
`agreement to consolidate the suit concerning the ‘232 patent with the existing case involving the ‘553 and ’107 patents—as well as the scope of
`discovery regarding the ‘232 patent.  You subsequently informed me on March 12, 2019 that Apotex, in fact, did not have unexpired samples of its
`ANDA Product.  I understand that you have taken a different position about what you represented, and I do not intend to debate that point here.  I will
`note, however, that you informed us just last week that Apotex’s samples expired in March 2018, which was months before the parties even began
`negotiating the revised schedule and long before you notified us in March 2019 that Apotex only had expired samples of its ANDA Product.  Yet Apotex
`had known since our letter in August 2018 regarding the ’232 patent that Bayer’s intention was to obtain unexpired samples of the ANDA Product and
`test them.
` 
`Nevertheless, we have asked you whether Apotex would produce new samples of its ANDA Product so that we may test them.  You have refused to do
`so.  We asked (on the March 12 call) whether you would treat the expired samples as representative of the unexpired product, but you would not agree
`to that either.  We asked when Apotex planned to prepare additional samples of its ANDA Product, but apparently that will not be done any time in the
`near future.  We further inquired on what basis you believe you can challenge infringement while simultaneously refusing to provide us with unexpired
`samples of Apotex’s ANDA Product, but you have not directly answered that question. 
` 
`In light of the foregoing, there appear to be two options.  The first is that, given the sequence of events here, Apotex should produce samples of its
`ANDA Product; if it refuses to do so, then Apotex should be barred from challenging infringement of the ‘232 patent.  The second possibility, as an
`alternative, is that the litigation involving the ‘232 patent should be severed from the remainder of the case, and then stayed until which point in time
`Apotex produces new samples of its ANDA Product.  Apotex would give Bayer advance notice of when it intends to produce such samples to allow
`Bayer time to prepare to test them, and then Apotex would immediately provide samples to Bayer once they are ready.  The results of such testing
`would then set the course for what next steps would be necessary to resolve the dispute between Bayer and Apotex regarding the ’232 patent.
` 
`Please be prepared to address these discovery/scheduling issues during the parties’ call.  Should Apotex fail to agree to produce unexpired samples of
`the ANDA Product during that call, we intend to promptly raise these issues with the Court.
` 
`Please use the following dial in number:
` 
`888-759-6037
`2024345812
` 
`Regards,
`Dov
` 
`From: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y. [mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com] 
`Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:39 PM
`To: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com>
`Cc: Genderson, Bruce <BGenderson@wc.com>; Perlman, Adam <APerlman@wc.com>; Rydstrom, Jessica <JRydstrom@wc.com>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com>; Picozzi, Ben <BPicozzi@wc.com>; Ruzich, Richard T. <rruzich@taftlaw.com>; Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com>; araucci@MNAT.com
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Dov, we will be available on Tuesday at 11 am.
` 
`Taft /
`
`Philip Y. Kouyoumdjian / Partner
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
`14 Penn Plaza
`225 West 34th Street
`Suite 2102
`New York, NY 10122
`Direct: 917.534.7180
`www.taftlaw.com / pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com
`
`111 East Wacker Drive • Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60601
`Direct: 312.836.4026 • Fax: 312.966.8555
`
`Subscribe to our law updates
`
`From: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com> 
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 1045
`
`Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:06 PM
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y. <pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>
`Cc: Genderson, Bruce <BGenderson@wc.com>; Perlman, Adam <APerlman@wc.com>; Rydstrom, Jessica <JRydstrom@wc.com>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com>; Picozzi, Ben <BPicozzi@wc.com>; Ruzich, Richard T. <rruzich@taftlaw.com>; Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com>; araucci@MNAT.com
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Phil - I am not available Monday but could do other times on Tuesday after 1030 am.
`
`________________________________
`From: "Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y." <pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>
`Sent: Mar 22, 2019 3:56 PM
`To: "Grossman, Dov" <DGrossman@wc.com>
`Cc: "Genderson, Bruce" <BGenderson@wc.com>; "Perlman, Adam" <APerlman@wc.com>; "Rydstrom, Jessica" <JRydstrom@wc.com>; "Bowers,
`Seth" <SBowers@wc.com>; "Picozzi, Ben" <BPicozzi@wc.com>; "Ruzich, Richard T." <rruzich@taftlaw.com>; "Scott, Ian" <iscott@taftlaw.com>;
`"Raucci, Anthony D." <araucci@MNAT.com>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Dov,
`
`Are you available on Monday for the m&c?
`
`Best,
`Phil
`
`Taft /
`
`Philip Y. Kouyoumdjian / Partner
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
`14 Penn Plaza
`225 West 34th Street
`Suite 2102
`New York, NY 10122
`Direct: 917.534.7180
`www.taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com> / pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>
`
`111 East Wacker Drive • Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60601
`Direct: 312.836.4026 • Fax: 312.966.8555
`
`Subscribe to our law updates<http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe>
`From: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com>
`Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 2:20 PM
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y. <pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>
`Cc: Genderson, Bruce <BGenderson@wc.com>; Perlman, Adam <APerlman@wc.com>; Rydstrom, Jessica <JRydstrom@wc.com>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com>; Picozzi, Ben <BPicozzi@wc.com>; Ruzich, Richard T. <rruzich@taftlaw.com>; Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com>; Raucci,
`Anthony D. <araucci@MNAT.com>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Phil,
`
`Please let us know whether you are available for a meet and confer call with local counsel on Tuesday at 1:30 pm ET. We would like to discuss next
`steps given Apotex's positions and representations with respect to unexpired samples of its ANDA Product.
`
`Regards,
`Dov
`
`________________________________
`From: "Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y." <pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>
`Sent: Mar 22, 2019 11:53 AM
`To: "Grossman, Dov" <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>
`Cc: "Genderson, Bruce" <BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>; "Perlman, Adam"
`<APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com>>; "Rydstrom, Jessica" <JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>; "Bowers, Seth"
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com>>; "Picozzi, Ben" <BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>; "Ruzich, Richard T."
`<rruzich@taftlaw.com<mailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com>>; "Scott, Ian" <iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Dov,
`
`We have already addressed your first question. Your request that Apotex make new, unexpired product is unreasonable and is completely outside the
`scope of Apotex’s discovery obligations. As we have discussed, Apotex is in the process of providing you with samples of each of the three expired
`batches of its ANDA product.
`
`Regarding your second inquiry, we understand that no new ANDA product is scheduled to be prepared. We have reached out to our client to confirm
`this.
`
`Best,
`Phil
`
`From: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>
`Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 11:46 AM
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 1046
`
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y. <pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>
`Cc: Genderson, Bruce <BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>; Perlman, Adam <APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com>>;
`Rydstrom, Jessica <JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>; Bowers, Seth <SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com>>; Picozzi,
`Ben <BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>; Ruzich, Richard T. <rruzich@taftlaw.com<mailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com>>; Scott, Ian
`<iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Phil,
`
`We have some follow-up questions in light of your email:
`
`1) Am I correct that Apotex will not prepare new samples of its ANDA Product now so that we may test them? If so, what is the basis for Apotex’s
`refusal?
`
`2) If Apotex will not prepare new samples of its ANDA Product now, when does Apotex anticipate it will prepare new samples of its ANDA Product?
`
`Please let us know the answers promptly, and no later than the end of this week, so that we can determine how to proceed given Apotex's prior
`representations.
`
`Regards,
`Dov
`
`From: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y. [mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:35 AM
`To: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com%3cmailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>>
`Cc: Genderson, Bruce <BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>;
`Perlman, Adam <APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>; Ruzich, Richard T.
`<rruzich@taftlaw.com<mailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com<mailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com>>>; Scott, Ian
`<iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Dov,
`
`In our response to your March 14 email, we requested a meet and confer if you intended to seek to bar Apotex from contesting infringement. We do not
`agree that responding to the three questions in your email of March 15 is a necessary precursor to holding this meet and confer.
`
`In the spirit of cooperation, however, we provide the following responses:
`
`1) On what date did Apotex’s samples of its ANDA Product expire?
`
`RESPONSE: March 2018.
`
`2) What criteria are being used to determine whether the samples of Apotex’s ANDA Product are expired and who set/determined those criteria?
`
`RESPONSE: See, e.g., https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm366082.pdf
`
`3) On what basis do you believe you can contest infringement with respect to the ’232 patent and yet fail to provide us with unexpired samples of
`Apotex’s ANDA Product?
`
`RESPONSE: This inquiry is an improper contention interrogatory to which we have already responded. See Apotex’s responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set
`of Interrogatories with respect to the ’232 patent. Apotex reserves its right to supplement these and other responses.
`
`We are available to meet and confer on these issues.
`
`Best,
`Phil
`
`From: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com%3cmailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>>
`Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 8:28 AM
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y.
`<pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>>
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 1047
`
`Cc: Genderson, Bruce <BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>;
`Perlman, Adam <APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>; Ruzich, Richard T.
`<rruzich@taftlaw.com<mailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com<mailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com>>>; Scott, Ian
`<iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Phil,
`
`I am not going to provide a point by point response to your email, but to be clear we disagree with your characterization of events. Nevertheless, if
`Apotex would like to meet and confer further about these issues, we can do so. However, in order to make such a call as productive as possible, please
`provide us with the following information in advance:
`
`1) On what date did Apotex’s samples of its ANDA Product expire?
`
`2) What criteria are being used to determine whether the samples of Apotex’s ANDA Product are expired and who set/determined those criteria?
`
`3) On what basis do you believe you can contest infringement with respect to the ’232 patent and yet fail to provide us with unexpired samples of
`Apotex’s ANDA Product?
`
`Please let us know when we can receive this information.
`
`Regards,
`Dov
`
`From: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y. [mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com]
`Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 4:10 PM
`To: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com%3cmailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>>
`Cc: Genderson, Bruce <BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>;
`Perlman, Adam <APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>; Ruzich, Richard T.
`<rruzich@taftlaw.com<mailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com<mailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:rruzich@taftlaw.com>>>; Scott, Ian
`<iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Dov,
`
`We are disappointed that you intend to seek to bar Apotex from contesting infringement in this action if Apotex does not provide you with unexpired
`ANDA product. Any motion to strike our noninfringement defenses with respect to the ’232 patent would be both meritless and frivolous under the
`Federal and Local Rules.
`
`Your assertions that we represented to you that Apotex would (or could) produce unexpired samples of its ANDA product are both factually incorrect
`and wholly unsupported. As the correspondence attached to your email of today clearly shows, we never suggested, either explicitly or implicitly, that
`Apotex had unexpired ANDA product. We have consistently maintained that we would provide you with sample ANDA product “[t]o the extent
`possible,” and have diligently worked toward that end. See email of P. Kouyoumdjian to D. Grossman, Oct. 31, 2018. None of our emails to you
`contains even a modicum of evidence that we had any knowledge that Apotex’s ANDA product was expired. Upon learning that Apotex’s sample
`tablets were expired, we informed you immediately. As we stated during our discussion on March 12, we are, nonetheless, prepared to provide you with
`samples of Apotex’s expired ANDA products that you can make available to your experts for testing, if you so choose.
`
`We explicitly notified you that Apotex’s API samples were expired, at least as early as November 19, 2018. See email of D. Grossman to P.
`Kouyoumdjian, Nov. 19, 2018. We have been making every effort to provide you with unexpired API samples. To that end, we informed you that the
`supplier could only forward the samples to one of your experts. However, you have yet to provide us with the complete contact information that we
`requested to fulfill the shipment. Please provide the necessary requested information as soon as possible so that we can have the shipment effected as
`requested in our correspondence of today. See attached letter.
`
`As an important aside, your email of today fails to indicate how Bayer is prejudiced by its current awareness that Apotex has no unexpired ANDA
`product. If you believe the present case schedule and the scope of discovery need to be amended because Apotex does not possess unexpired ANDA
`product, we are willing to meet and confer to discuss these issues. However, your request that Apotex somehow make or obtain new, unexpired product
`is patently unreasonable and completely outside the scope of Apotex’s discovery obligations.
`
`As to the schedule, the expert discovery deadline for Bayer to serve its infringement report on Apotex is May 15, 2019. If you intend to move forward
`with your threat to seek relief from the Court to bar Apotex from contesting infringement in this action, we request an immediate meet-and-confer. We,
`of course, are prepared to seek any and all redress for being forced to respond to any such filing with this Court.
`
`Best,
`Phil
`
`From: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com%3cmailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>>
`Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:12 AM
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 1048
`
`<pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>>
`Cc: Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>; Genderson, Bruce
`<BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>; Perlman, Adam
`<APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Ian and Phil,
`
`I write to follow up concerning our conversation on Tuesday about Apotex’s production of unexpired samples of its ANDA Product.
`
`As I mentioned over the phone, it was our understanding, based on your representations, that Apotex would produce unexpired samples of its ANDA
`Product. That is reflected in my email below dated November 19, 2018, which memorializes that “[y]ou have represented that Apotex can produce the
`samples requested in my August 29, 2018 letter to Ian Scott, with the caveat that Apotex no longer has unexpired samples of the regorafenib API”
`(emphasis added). The August 29, 2018 letter to Ian Scott (attached), in turn, specifically requests “100 tablets (divided into five groups of 20 tablets) of
`Apotex’s ANDA Product for each lot referenced in ANDA No. 209765,” and subsequently provides, “[a]ll references to samples above should be
`understood to refer to unexpired samples” (emphasis added). You did not contradict that statement. Indeed, the fact that the correspondence highlighted
`unexpired API as an item for follow-up—but not Apotex’s ANDA Product—reinforces the understanding that it was not in question that Apotex would
`produce unexpired samples of its ANDA Product.
`
`Bayer’s agreement to the current schedule and the scope of discovery was premised on the notion that we would receive the discovery that Apotex
`promised to provide, including unexpired samples of Apotex’s ANDA Product. We fail to understand why Apotex—after waiting for months to
`produce any samples—now asserts that it only has expired samples of its ANDA Product. Accordingly, please immediately produce the unexpired
`samples of Apotex’s ANDA Product that you agreed to produce. Even if Apotex does not currently have such samples, there is no reason that Apotex
`could not make or obtain them. If Apotex refuses to take steps necessary to produce to us the unexpired samples for testing that it agreed to produce, we
`intend to seek to bar Apotex from contesting infringement in this action
`
`Regards,
`Dov
`
`From: Grossman, Dov
`Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 9:11 AM
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y.
`<pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>>
`Cc: Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>; Genderson, Bruce
`<BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>; Perlman, Adam
`<APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Phil – I am following up about this. Please let us know where things stand.
`
`Regards,
`Dov
`
`From: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y. [mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 11:18 AM
`To: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com%3cmailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>>
`Cc: Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>; Genderson, Bruce
`<BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>; Perlman, Adam
`<APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Dov,
`
`We agree with paragraphs 1 and 2. We are still waiting for a response from our client regarding the expired API. We will get back to you as soon as
`possible regarding that issue.
`
`Best,
`Phil
`
`From: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com%3cmailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>>
`Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:42 AM
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y.
`<pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>>
`Cc: Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>; Genderson, Bruce
`<BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>; Perlman, Adam
`<APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 1049
`
`Phil,
`
`As a follow-up to your email and our subsequent conversations:
`
`1) We discussed that the four fact deposition limit would be for Rule 30(b)(1) depositions, and that each party would be permitted to serve a Rule 30(b)
`(6) notice concerning the ’232 patent.
`
`2) We discussed that Apotex would continue to produce any correspondence with the FDA related to its ANDA.
`
`3) You have represented that Apotex can produce the samples requested in my August 29, 2018 letter to Ian Scott, with the caveat that Apotex no
`longer has unexpired samples of the regorafenib API. We have discussed ways to address this issue—such as by Apotex re-certifying the samples that
`Apotex does have, or by Apotex producing a sample of the expired API, as well as a small sample of unexpired API that is obtained from the API
`manufacturer (and which Bayer would be willing to pay for assuming the cost is reasonable)—and I understand that you are following up with your
`client concerning this issue.
`
`Once we have resolution of item 3 above concerning API samples, I believe the parties are in agreement on the scope of discovery and the proposed
`schedule. Please let us know where Apotex stands so that we can take the appropriate next steps to raise this issue with the Court.
`
`Regards,
`Dov
`
`From: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y. [mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com]
`Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 11:19 AM
`To: Grossman, Dov <DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com<mailto:DGrossman@wc.com%3cmailto:DGrossman@wc.com>>>
`Cc: Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>; Genderson, Bruce
`<BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>; Perlman, Adam
`<APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>
`Subject: RE: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Dov,
`
`Apologies for the delay in responding to your email of October 31.
`
`We generally don’t have any issues with your email other than the following:
`
`· In addition to providing us with documents of the files of the three named inventors for the ’232 patent whose files were not produced in the 16-1221
`case, we ask that, to the extent not already produced, Bayer provide us with those documents in Juergen Stiehl’s files which are relevant to the ’232
`patent. Obviously, we are not asking for any Stiehl documents that you have already produced in connection with the current case.
`
`· We ask that the cut-off date for the above-referenced documents be October 11, 2007 (on year after the priority date for the ’232 patent).
`
`· To the extent possible and such information is under Apotex’s custody and control, Apotex will produce the samples requested by Bayer in your
`August 29, 2018 letter to Ian Scott, as well as the material data safety sheets and any handling and storage instructions, as well as the XRPDs requested
`in your August 29, 2018 letter to Ian Scott.
`
`Please let us know if you have any questions or comments.
`
`Best,
`Phil
`
`Taft /
`
`Philip Y. Kouyoumdjian / Partner
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
`14 Penn Plaza
`225 West 34th Street
`Suite 2102
`New York, NY 10122
`Direct: 917.534.7180
`www.taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com<http:/www.taftlaw.com>> /
`pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>
`
`111 East Wacker Drive • Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60601
`Direct: 312.836.4026 • Fax: 312.966.8555
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-01221-LPS Document 127-1 Filed 05/02/19 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 1050
`
`Subscribe to our law updates<http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe>
`
`This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
`recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and
`delete the message and any attachments.
`From: Grossman, Dov [mailto:DGrossman@wc.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 1:40 PM
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y.
`<pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>>
`Cc: Scott, Ian <iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>; Genderson, Bruce
`<BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>; Perlman, Adam
`<APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>
`Subject: FW: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Phil – to follow up on our conversation today, and so you have it near the top of your inbox, below is my email from last week concerning the Stivarga
`schedule. Please let us know.
`
`Thanks,
`Dov
`
`From: Grossman, Dov
`Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:03 PM
`To: Kouyoumdjian, Philip Y.
`<pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com<mailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:pkouyoumdjian@taftlaw.com>>>
`Cc: Genderson, Bruce <BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com<mailto:BGenderson@wc.com%3cmailto:BGenderson@wc.com>>>;
`Perlman, Adam <APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com<mailto:APerlman@wc.com%3cmailto:APerlman@wc.com>>>; Rydstrom, Jessica
`<JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com<mailto:JRydstrom@wc.com%3cmailto:JRydstrom@wc.com>>>; Bowers, Seth
`<SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com<mailto:SBowers@wc.com%3cmailto:SBowers@wc.com>>>; Picozzi, Ben
`<BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com<mailto:BPicozzi@wc.com%3cmailto:BPicozzi@wc.com>>>; Scott, Ian
`<iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com<mailto:iscott@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:iscott@taftlaw.com>>>
`Subject: Stivarga Schedule
`
`Phil,
`
`I write to follow up regarding our meet-and-confer call last week concerning scheduling.
`
`Bayer’s original proposal was to complete the remaining fact discovery on the ’553 patent now (fact discovery on the ’107 patent already have been
`completed) and then proceed with expert discovery on the ’553 and ’107 patents, and to separately determine a schedule for fact and expert discovery
`for the ’232 patent based on a new trial date for a combined trial for both the existing case (No. 16-1221) and the ’232 patent case. Apotex, however,
`preferred to push back expert discovery for the ’553 and ’107 patents and combine it with expert discovery for the ’232 patent. Both parties were
`interested in a consolidated trial in approximately November 2019 or shortly thereafter (subject to the Court’s schedule), and recognized that such an
`expedited schedule for the ’232 patent would require a more streamlined and limited scope of fact discovery.
`
`As we discussed on the call last week, we are willing to accommodate Apotex’s request concerning the timing of expert discovery, so long as the
`parties are able to streamline the fact discovery process for the ’232 patent and preserve time for Bayer’s responsive expert reports. Therefore, with
`respect to document production for the ’232 patent, we propose the following, which is along the lines of our discussion last week: (1) the parties agree
`that the documents produced in the 16-1221 action can be used in connection with the ’232 patent case; (2) subject to Bayer’s January 19, 2018
`objections and responses to the defendants’ document requests in the 16-1221 case, Bayer will produce all non-privileged documents located after a
`reasonable search of the files of the three named inventors for the ’232 patent whose files were not produced in the 16-1221 case (i.e., other than
`Juergen Stiehl) concerning the claimed invention up until the October 11, 2006 priority date for the ’232 patent; (3) subject to those same objections
`and responses, Bayer will produce all non-privileged documents that refer or relate to the ’232 patent, and which are located after a reasonable search of
`(a) the departmental files of Bayer’s patent department for the ’232 patent, and (b) the patent prosecution files of Millen, White, Zelano and Branigan,
`P.C. for the ’232 patent; (4) Apotex will produce the samples requested by Bayer in my August 29, 2018 letter to Ian Scott, as wel