`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2460
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:2461
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`Docket No. 16 C 651
`
`Chicago, Illinois
`December 11, 2017
`9:20 a.m.
`
`)))))))))
`
`HOSPIRA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - Status
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE REBECCA R. PALLMEYER
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`BY: MS. SARA T. HORTON
`MR. YUSUF ESAT
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`BY: MR. JOEL M. WALLACE
`233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`FRANCES WARD, CSR, RPR, RMR, FCRR
`Official Court Reporter
`219 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2144D
`Chicago, Illinois 60604
`(312) 435-5561
`frances_ward@ilnd.uscourts.gov
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:2462
`
`2
`
`THE CLERK: 16 C 651, Hospira versus Fresenius Kabi
`
`USA for status.
`
`MS. HORTON: Good morning, your Honor.
`
`Sara Horton and Yusuf Esat for Hospira.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. WALLACE: Joel Wallace on behalf of Fresenius
`
`Kabi.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`Okay. We are here for status. What's our status?
`
`MS. HORTON: Your Honor, the status is that you
`
`issued a Markman ruling about a month ago.
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`MS. HORTON: And in the interim, also, Hospira
`
`filed suit on a related patent against Fresenius Kabi, and
`
`then the parties agreed to file a joint consolidation motion,
`
`which you granted.
`
`THE COURT: Correct.
`
`MS. HORTON: So we have that added into this case.
`
`In its answer, Fresenius Kabi counter-claimed
`
`adding an additional patent. So there are now two additional
`
`patents, aside from the four that were involved in the
`
`underlying case -- the first case, I should say.
`
`We have discussed with Fresenius Kabi a schedule
`
`going forward and how to work these other two patents into
`
`the case.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:2463
`
`3
`
`THE COURT: These are patents held by Fresenius
`
`Kabi?
`
`MS. HORTON: No. Held by Hospira.
`
`THE COURT: Held by Hospira. Okay.
`
`So the counterclaim is for invalidity?
`
`MS. HORTON: The counterclaim is for invalidity. I
`
`believe we have not yet answered the counterclaim. But
`
`it's -- in short, it's a patent that issued sometime between
`
`the time that Hospira first sued Fresenius Kabi and between
`
`the second case that we filed against them. And I believe
`
`Fresenius just wants it litigated all at the same time.
`
`THE COURT: Sure. Okay. We did grant the motion
`
`for reassignment. Remind me of the number of that case so I
`
`can get them both on the same track. We will assume this is
`
`a status in that case as well.
`
`MR. WALLACE: The other case was 17 CV 7903.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So this will -- today's status
`
`will be deemed a status in 17 C 7903 as well.
`
`Does that include the -- that includes the same
`
`patents that are at issue in this case.
`
`MS. HORTON: Yes.
`
`MR. WALLACE: It includes only two more patents
`
`that were part of the same family of the four patents that
`
`are in the original case. And there are two more patents
`
`from the same family, same inventor, same specification that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:2464
`
`4
`
`issued later, and those have now been all consolidated.
`
`The parties have agreed that the claim construction
`
`from the first case applies to the later, because they
`
`share -- all of the -- I guess two of the terms are in all of
`
`the patent claims as well.
`
`THE COURT: And does the addition of two patents in
`
`the original case -- actually, does the addition of any of
`
`these patents involve additional claims as well?
`
`MS. HORTON: Additional claim terms?
`
`THE COURT: Additional claim terms, yes.
`
`MS. HORTON: Yes, your Honor, they do. It's
`
`unclear, to Hospira at least, whether or not there will need
`
`to be additional claim construction briefing. We actually
`
`assume that there will not be, but we haven't done any
`
`discovery on them yet to understand that.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, what we need to do,
`
`then, is get a revised Rule 16 schedule in place based
`
`upon -- I am assuming you are going to at least factor in the
`
`local patent rule schedule, but recognizing that some of the
`
`things that have happened already would eliminate that need
`
`in this case.
`
`So can we set a date for that to happen, for you to
`
`develop a proposed schedule?
`
`MR. WALLACE: We have discussed a proposed
`
`schedule. Right now this is the overarching situation. It's
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:2465
`
`5
`
`sort of the impasse between the two parties on setting a
`
`schedule, because of the delay between the claim construction
`
`hearing and the ruling.
`
`THE COURT: A lot of the dates should change,
`
`right.
`
`MR. WALLACE: Well, the issue for Fresenius Kabi is
`
`that its 30-month stay on regulatory approval is expiring in
`
`June.
`
`Fresenius Kabi is interested in launching as soon
`
`as possible at that time. It also implicates whether or not
`
`Hospira would be looking to file a preliminary injunction
`
`motion at that time.
`
`So the two options are, we can either compress our
`
`schedule now to try to get everything prepared and get
`
`everything before the Court for a trial in, for example,
`
`early April, and give the Court enough time to hear all the
`
`evidence and then issue a ruling before the June date
`
`happens.
`
`The other alternative, which is what Hospira is
`
`proposing, is to take a more traditional schedule at this
`
`time, following the local patent rules more closely, which
`
`then would push trial out to probably late summer, early --
`
`around early autumn, late summer. But there is this high
`
`risk that partway through the proceeding everything is going
`
`to put on a fast track when we get around the end of the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:2466
`
`6
`
`exclusivity period.
`
`THE COURT: Of those two options -- you probably
`
`won't like hearing this, but I prefer the first. I would
`
`like to try it in April, if we could.
`
`MS. HORTON: So the issue with that, your Honor,
`
`from Hospira's standpoint, is, that requires, under the
`
`schedule that Fresenius has proposed to us -- what they are
`
`proposing is that all discovery on the two new patents and
`
`any updated discovery on the other four patents, after claim
`
`construction, be completed by January 11th.
`
`That would include any depositions on these two new
`
`patents, one of which Hospira didn't even assert against
`
`Fresenius Kabi, that they are asserting against us. So they
`
`brought this into the case.
`
`They are also proposing that they get a summary
`
`judgment motion in January, but Hospira does not get one
`
`similarly.
`
`We are just not sure how it's actually going to
`
`work, to do all of the discovery on these two new patents
`
`from the other case.
`
`THE COURT: I can short-circuit this by saying that
`
`if we want to try it -- if you want to try it in April, we
`
`can't have any summary judgment proceeding. It wouldn't
`
`work.
`
`It seems to me you have time to get your discovery
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:2467
`
`7
`
`done between now and April, and January 11th seems
`
`extraordinarily aggressive to me, given the holidays.
`
`If I said, get discovery done by middle to the end
`
`of February, that seems slightly more realistic, and I think
`
`that could easily accommodate a trial date in April.
`
`MS. HORTON: That might work for fact discovery. I
`
`think the other issue is that we think that there will be
`
`significant expert discovery that hasn't happened yet.
`
`We have infringement issues in this case and
`
`invalidity issues in this case. It's going to be -- there
`
`will be damages experts on secondary considerations of
`
`commercial success. I think there will be probably, at least
`
`on Hospira's side, three or four experts that will be
`
`testifying and having expert reports due and needing to be
`
`deposed. I assume the same on Fresenius Kabi's side.
`
`When we lay out the dates, which we have tried to
`
`do, it seems really aggressive to be able to do contentions,
`
`fact discovery and expert discovery, and a pretrial order
`
`before April.
`
`MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, we have had discussions
`
`with Hospira about this, but the two new patents -- one
`
`patent literally adds -- it includes everything from all the
`
`other patents and merely narrows from any type of
`
`dexmedetomidine to one salt form. And there's really no
`
`dispute that's the only one that's been used by anyone. The
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:2468
`
`8
`
`other patent adds a few other steps.
`
`We discussed with Hospira. If they will narrow the
`
`scope of the claims that they want to assert, Fresenius Kabi
`
`is willing to discuss stipulations on infringement to
`
`streamline the case as much as possible, that perhaps this
`
`can be an invalidity-only case, which would make it more
`
`amenable to an April trial.
`
`MS. HORTON: That's true.
`
`MR. WALLACE: I believe those discussions, they
`
`wanted -- in any event, the parties -- what Fresenius Kabi is
`
`proposing is that we do contentions in the month of January.
`
`Basically at the beginning of January, Fresenius Kabi would
`
`send its -- we would simultaneously exchange their
`
`infringement contentions on the new patents, and we would
`
`propose our invalidity contentions, amending the old
`
`contentions and adding in the new patents as well.
`
`And then that would put us at the end of January
`
`for -- or the beginning of February for the responsive
`
`contentions. And then at that point, all that would really
`
`be left is expert discovery.
`
`MS. HORTON: That's actually not at all
`
`inconsistent with what Hospira has agreed with Fresenius
`
`Kabi.
`
`Where, I guess, the rubber hits the road is whether
`
`or not, based on those contentions and what happens there, if
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:2469
`
`9
`
`the local rules would then contemplate Markman proceedings.
`
`We don't think there is going to be a need to
`
`construe any other claims, but we just don't know how they
`
`are going to be construing terms.
`
`And then after that, the expert discovery -- you
`
`know, after the contentions, then you do expert reports, and
`
`then you have to depose all these people. And then you have
`
`to do a pretrial order.
`
`So what we were -- what we had proposed to
`
`Fresenius was -- frankly, they had expressed in our
`
`meet-and-confers that -- and Mr. Wallace will correct me if
`
`I'm wrong -- that they were keen to have an early summary
`
`judgment or an early trial.
`
`We, Hospira, thought, okay, well, if you want an
`
`early summary judgment, we wouldn't oppose that. I don't
`
`know what the summary judgment will actually be on, but if
`
`they wanted to do that quickly, we said, go for it,
`
`basically.
`
`If that's case-dispositive, as they think it is,
`
`then that might get us to their end goal anyway.
`
`The other thing I wanted to alert your Honor,
`
`because I should have said it earlier, is, the underlying
`
`four patents from the first case have been -- gone through a
`
`trial in Delaware --
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`10
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:2470
`
`MS. HORTON: -- in front of Judge Andrews. We are
`
`expecting a ruling in that case this month.
`
`So I think there is probably a high likelihood,
`
`depending on what happens in this case, the parties might be
`
`rushing around trying to figure out how that implicates what
`
`they are doing in this case.
`
`MR. WALLACE: From Fresenius Kabi's point of view,
`
`it's, in many ways, irrelevant. If the patents are found
`
`invalid, we are sure that Hospira would probably appeal that
`
`ruling, which means that Fresenius Kabi still doesn't have
`
`certainty on launching whenever it gets final approval or
`
`not.
`
`If Hospira prevails, then Fresenius Kabi, of
`
`course, would still want to go forward, because we have
`
`unique and separate theories -- I think both parties would
`
`agree with that -- than from what was going on in the
`
`Delaware trial.
`
`THE COURT: If the judge declares parts or all of
`
`the Hospira patent invalid, wouldn't that at least militate
`
`in favor of a settlement of this case?
`
`I mean, it will make a difference however the judge
`
`rules.
`
`MR. WALLACE: Yes, your Honor. It could make a
`
`difference.
`
`There have not been settlement discussions between
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`11
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:2471
`
`the parties. So we are not at this point sure what Hospira's
`
`position is.
`
`THE COURT: And if you try to settle it now, are
`
`you going to be saying, we need to wait until the judge rules
`
`in Delaware?
`
`MS. HORTON: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: That's what I think, too.
`
`All right. Here is what I am going to do. I think
`
`we should develop a schedule that gets us ready for trial by
`
`the end of April. If it is just a validity trial, that could
`
`be fine. It could work out very well.
`
`It sounds to me like both parties agree that we are
`
`not going to need further claims construction proceedings in
`
`this case. So we could probably jettison the whole Markman
`
`issue, and obviously that, unfortunately, generates delay.
`
`I would also heavily discourage any summary
`
`judgment briefing unless it's a straight, single issue that
`
`actually could dispose of the whole case.
`
`Let's set it for status -- I will ask you to
`
`develop a schedule along those lines, and let's set it for
`
`status at the end of January.
`
`In the meantime, as soon as the judge out in
`
`Delaware rules, you can let me know, and let me know whether
`
`or not it makes sense now to start talking about a settlement
`
`at that point.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`12
`Case: 1:16-cv-00651 Document #: 81-1 Filed: 01/16/18 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:2472
`
`So January 31st for status? 9 o'clock?
`
`In the meantime, within the next, say, 10 days, if
`
`you could get a schedule to us, we will enter it.
`
`MS. HORTON: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`MR. WALLACE: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I will see you
`
`in January.
`
`* * * * *
`
`I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the
`record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`/s/ Frances Ward_________________________January 9, 2018.
`Official Court Reporter
`F/j
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`