1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` -----------------------------x
` AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
` Petitioner
` CASES IPR2013-00368
` vs. IPR2013-00371
` IPR2013-00372
` SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
` Patent Owner
` -----------------------------x
`
` TELECONFERENCE BEFORE
` Judges Kamholz, Green, and Braden
` Wednesday, June 4, 2014
` 2:30 p.m.
`
`
`
` Reported by:
` Jennifer Ocampo-Guzman, CRR, CLR
` JOB NO. 34708
`
`

`

` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Good afternoon.
` This is Judge Kamholz for the board.
` I'm joined by Judges Green and Braden.
` Is there a court reporter on the
` line?
` (Discussion off the record.)
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: This conference
` call is in cases IPR2013-368, 371 and
` 372, Amneal v. Supernus. We have
` outstanding issues from both parties.
` Could you please start with a roll
` call.
` Petitioner?
` MS. ELLISON: Good afternoon, Your
` Honor. This is Eldora Ellison from
` Sterne, Kessler, Golstein & Fox and I
` have with me H. Keeto Sabharwal.
` MR. SABHARWAL: Good afternoon.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: And for patent
` owner?
` MR MAEBIUS: Good afternoon, Your
` Honor. This is Steve Maebius with Foley
` & Lardner on behalf of Supernus and also
` with me is Andy Baluch on behalf of
`
`4
`
`5
`
` Supernus.
` MR. MORRIS: And good afternoon,
` Your Honor. It's Greg Morris from Paul
` Hastings on behalf of Supernus.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Thank you.
` If there is anyone else who will be
` speaking, please first identify the
` party that you represent.
` As I said, we have e-mail inquiries
` from both sides regarding issues in this
` case.
` Ms. Ellison, why don't we start
` with your e-mail, since that came in
` first. You had proposed to replace an
` exhibit; is that right?
` MS. ELLISON: It's not to replace
` an exhibit. It's just that through an
` unintentional clerical error we had not
` uploaded Exhibit 1025. This is an
` exhibit that has previously been served
` on the patent owner and the patent owner
` has stated that they don't oppose our
` request simply to file this exhibit.
` That's all we would like to do, Your
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`2
`
`
` TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES:
`
` On Behalf of Petitioner:
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` BY: ELDORA L. ELLISON, PhD, ESQ.
` eellison@skgf.com
` H. KEETO SABHARWAL, ESQ.
` Keetos@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
` On Behalf of Patent Owner:
` PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
` 191 N. Wacker Drive
` 30th Floor
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` 312.499.6000
` BY: GREGORY A. MORRIS, ESQ.
` gregorymorris@paulhastings.com
`
` FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
` 3000 K Street, N.W.
` Suite 600
` Washington, DC 20007-5109
` 202.672.5300
` BY: STEPHEN B. MAEBIUS, ESQ.
` smaebius@foley.com
` ANDREW S. BALUCH, ESQ.
` abaluch@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`

`

`6
`
`8
`
` in its patent owner's response, and as
` the board certainly understands and has
` stated in other cases, such as in the
` St. Jude versus University of Michigan
` IPR, a petitioner can't be expected to
` anticipate in its petition every
` counterargument that a patent owner
` might make in its response. That's IPR
` number 2013-00041, and as the board has
` noted, or I believe the board recognizes
` there have been a number of instances
` where the board has explained that they
` can deal with this issue as to whether
` there are new arguments raised in the
` reply, they can deal with this in the
` final written decision and we submit
` that that's appropriate here.
` For instance, in the Amkor v.
` Tessera IPR, that's IPR2013-00242, the
` board said we can discern this ourselves
` and figure it out in the final written
` decision.
` Likewise, in the Distinctive
` Developments v. Uniloc IPR, which is
`
`9
`
` IPR2013-00391, and the board also made
` such a determination in its final
` decision in the Corning v. DSM IPR,
` which is IPR2013-00047. And then even
` in CBMs, the board has noted it is
` perfectly capable of figuring this out
` in its final written decision, for
` instance, in the Liberty Mutual versus
` Progressive, CVM2012-00010.
` So we submit that there is no need
` for briefing on this issue at this
` point, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Thank you, Ms.
` Ellison.
` Mr. Maebius, can you give me an
` example of perhaps the most egregious,
` in your view, violation of the rule?
` MR. MAEBIUS: Yes, Your Honor. I
` think I would defer this question to
` Mr. Morris, and it relates to Exhibit
` Number 1068.
` MR. MORRIS: Yes. Your Honor, this
` is Greg Morris for Supernus.
` Exhibit 1068 was an example that
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: That's fine with
` us. You may proceed.
` MS. ELLISON: Thank you.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: And that was all
` from you, correct?
` MS. ELLISON: That's right, Your
` Honor.
` Okay, Mr. Maebius?
` MR. MAEBIUS: Yes, Your Honor. We
` are requesting guidance on how we should
` go about pointing out certain exhibits
` and arguments that have been presented
` in petitioner's reply that are belated
` and could have been submitted earlier.
` This is among the four expert
` declarations and 80 new exhibits that
` were a part of their reply and we've
` seen that several different proceedings
` have handled this issue in different
` ways. So basically what we're asking
` for is authorization, regardless of what
` the paper may be styled, to file a very
` short, two-column paper that points out
`
`7
`
` which exhibits among the 80 new exhibits
` and arguments are belated and things
` that could have been presented earlier.
` And this is in accordance with the trial
` practice guide, which states that the
` petitioner's reply should not include
` arguments that go to the prima facie
` case of patentability or unpatentability
` or evidence that could have been
` presented in a prior filing.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Understood. And I
` agree that there has been some
` differences among panels in how this
` issue has been handled.
` Ms. Ellison, do you have any
` comments?
` MS. ELLISON: Yes, Your Honor.
` First, with respect to the merits of
` their argument, we of course disagree
` that any of the evidence we submitted
` was necessary to make our prima facie
` case. This is quintessential
` impeachment or rebuttal evidence in
` response to arguments raised by Supernus
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`

`

`10
`
`12
`
` served almost three months after the
` board instituted trial in this matter,
` and it was in support of their patent
` owner response and it has to do with
` Exhibit 2016, Your Honor, is the
` declaration. This was an allegation
` that Dr. Rudnic made about the
` criticality of the ratio, and not only
` did we -- did we respond accordingly
` based on what he put in his declaration,
` but subsequently at his April 2014
` deposition, I asked him extensively
` about this issue. And this was used
` directly to impeach and undermine both
` the credibility, as well as the
` reliability of his statements, as well
` as the arguments accompanied by
` Supernus.
` So this is the most, quote/unquote,
` egregious example, this is
` quintessential impeachment and so,
` therefore, Your Honor, I would again
` echo Dr. Ellison's sentiments, that, if
` anything at all, the board can address
`
`13
`
` these issues in the final written
` decision. There is no need -- we
` already submitted extensive briefing on
` all of these issues to Your Honors and I
` don't think that we need to burden the
` board with any more paper.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Thank you. The
` board will confer. We are going to go
` on mute and we will come back shortly.
` MS. ELLISON: Thank you.
` (The panel conferred off the
` record.)
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: This is Judge
` Kamholz back on the line with Judges
` Green and Braden. Do I still have
` petitioner?
` MS. ELLISON: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: And patent owner?
` MR. MORRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. MAEBIUS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Thank you.
` The panel has discussed the issue
` and our view at this time is we do not
` require any submission from the patent
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` was raised for the first time in a Van
` Buskirk declaration that was submitted
` along with a reply. It was, although
` Amneal was aware of that reference
` during the litigation that was run in
` parallel with this action, it wasn't
` cited in Amneal's petition or in the
` initial Van Buskirk declaration, even
` though it could have been.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: This is a Williams
` paper?
` MR. MORRIS: This is a Williams
` paper, Your Honor, Exhibit 1068.
` And so the Exhibit 1068 was cited
` by Amneal in early 2013 in the district
` court litigation, as I was mentioning,
` in support of its opening expert report
` for Dr. Osberger (phonetic), in which
` the part of the allegations were the
` invalidity of the Chang '740 patent,
` just as it is here, and now they are
` in -- in Mr. Van Buskirk's reply report,
` in the reply itself, they're belatedly
` citing Exhibit 1068 in support of
`
`11
`
` Amneal's prima facie obviousness
` arguments, and also we object to the
` extent that this exhibit is, to the
` extent this is new alleged prior art
` that is not within ground 2, which is
` the ground that the board initiated on.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Ms. Ellison?
` MS. ELLISON: My colleague, Mr.
` Sabharwal is going to respond.
` MR. SABHARWAL: Good afternoon,
` Your Honor. This is Keeto Sabharwal on
` behalf of petitioner.
` Your Honor, as Dr. Ellison said,
` any arguments that they are claiming are
` new, are quintessential impeachment
` evidence and appropriate rebuttal
` evidence directly in response to
` allegations made by Supernus, both in
` their patent owner response and in its
` declaration. And specifically with
` respect to Exhibit 1068, Your Honor, I
` point the court to paragraph 146 of the
` declaration of Edward Rudnic. This is a
` 200-plus-paragraph declaration that was
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`

`

`14
`
`16
`
` of record promptly, as well as our order
` which will be following in due course.
` MR. MAEBIUS: Thank you, Your
` Honor. Okay.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Are there any other
` questions from either side? Ms.
` Ellison?
` MS. ELLISON: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Mr. Maebius?
` MR. MAEBIUS: No.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Did I hear a
` question?
` MR. MORRIS: I'm not sure, Your
` Honor. Is it only on this issue or we
` moving on to the next issue? I
` apologize, I didn't know if you meant --
` there was another issue on the call,
` Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Forgive me. Please
` proceed.
` MR. MORRIS: Your Honor, it's Greg
` Morris for Supernus, and we just wanted
` to raise a matter with you about
` deposition scheduling.
`
`17
`
` Amneal in its reply has submitted
` four declarations, and part of that
` reply, and the parties have not been
` able to agree on the deposition schedule
` for -- for those four experts. And the
` issue, Your Honor, is that we requested
` a specific sequence for those
` depositions to take place as set forth
` in the rules that we may choose the
` order in which those witnesses are to be
` examined; and Amneal has not provided
` dates that are in the order as we had
` requested. And that's even in light of
` the fact that when Amneal was trying to
` schedule the deposition of Supernus'
` witnesses, they asserted that same rule
` against us, and they requested a
` specific order and we then complied.
` But they threatened that if we did not
` provide that order, they would take the
` matter before the board.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Is the issue here
` that there is not enough time or is it
` simply the order?
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` owner outlining his concerns with the
` reply and the evidence. The matter is
` really within the discretion of the
` panel and already goes to the merits of
` the case. So we will really have to
` address this as part of the final
` written decision, and that's how we
` would prefer to handle it at this point.
` We understand patent owner's
` concerns that there is material in the
` reply in their view they have to
` confront for the first time at this
` stage of the proceeding, but I think the
` petitioner has also explained that this
` may very well be impeachment evidence
` and the board, the panel will simply
` have to consider that as it deals with
` the case on the merits.
` We will, however, remind the
` petitioner that the purpose of the reply
` is to respond to arguments raised in the
` patent owner's response. And that's --
` a reply that raises new issues or
` belatedly raises new evidence will not
`
`15
`
` be considered and we will not
` distinguish proper portions of the reply
` from improper portions.
` In other words, the petitioner runs
` the risk of having the entire content of
` the reply and the evidence submitted
` with it not considered if any portion of
` it is not proper, proper reply evidence.
` I would like to make that clear.
` Do you understand that,
` Dr. Ellison?
` MS. ELLISON: Yes, I do, Your
` Honor. Thank you.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Sure.
` And Mr. Maebius, is that clear to
` you as well?
` MR. MAEBIUS: Yes, we understand,
` Your Honor. I think we are just unsure
` of how to avoid some kind of waiver that
` presents us from raising the issue on
` appeal, if that were ever necessary.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: You have a
` transcript of this conference call,
` which I'm sure Ms. Ellison will be made
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`

`

`18
`
`20
`
` But under the current schedule, we
` could only -- we could only provide our
` witnesses, make our witnesses available
` in the order they asked for, for the
` first three, and the fourth witness
` would need to be deposed on the same day
` as the third witness. And it's just
` based on their availability, Your Honor;
` and frankly, since they mentioned their
` efforts to make their witnesses
` available, frankly, we've been much more
` accommodating than they were. Because
` in the seven weeks that they had to make
` their five witnesses available, they
` only offered us 13 days and we've
` offered ten in just a matter of few
` weeks for our witnesses.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Well, I think what
` we would like to do then is allow you to
` stipulate the changes of due dates four
` and five, see if you can work it out,
` and if you are still having trouble,
` then come back to us.
` As I look, as I look at the
`
`21
`
` schedule for this case, we have oral
` argument scheduled for August 12th,
` which out of curiosity, do both parties
` expect to request oral argument?
` MS. ELLISON: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
` MR. MORRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: I would suggest
` then, whatever you do as far as
` rescheduling dates four and five, please
` file your requests for oral argument by
` June 30th. That is due date four that
` is currently set, and there's a reason
` for that, it's simply logistics, so that
` we can plan for that, an hour of hearing
` room schedule.
` But otherwise, you may move due
` dates four and five as you like but no
` later than due date six.
` MR. MORRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: As I said, if that
` can't resolve the situation, then please
` do come back to us.
` MR. MORRIS: We appreciate that.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: There was another
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. MORRIS: I think it's a little
` bit of both, Your Honor. I think we
` were trying to be reasonable with Amneal
` and one suggestion we had was that we
` would extend the period to take
` depositions or certainly raise that
` issue with the board, and we're amenable
` to doing that.
` But the other thing, Your Honor, is
` that we also, for -- strategically, we
` wanted to have a certain order of
` witnesses and that was something that
` Supernus would like to do.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Well, we're coming
` up on due date four, on June 30th; is
` that right?
` MR. MORRIS: That's correct, Your
` Honor.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: If we give the
` parties leave to stipulate the changes
` of due dates four and five, will that
` help alleviate the situation?
` MR. MORRIS: From Supernus' point
` of view, I believe it would. But I
`
`19
`
` think, I guess we also have to hear from
` Amneal.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Ms. Ellison?
` MS. ELLISON: It would probably
` help, Your Honor. Let me just state by
` way of background. Supernus, just a few
` days ago, identified the order in which
` they would like to depose our witnesses,
` and as I read it, we've offered in this
` rather short time period, which is just
` about a three-week deposition window, we
` have offered 13 different dates for our
` witnesses. And as I look at the sort of
` the matrix of availability of our
` witnesses, we could accommodate the
` order that they asked for, except that
` two of the witnesses would need to be
` deposed, the last two witnesses would
` need to be deposed on the same day. If
` we're able to adjust the schedule as you
` just authorized, I can go back to Mr.
` Green, the witness they hope to depose
` last, and see if he's available, given a
` new set of deadlines.
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`

`

`22
`
`24
`
` C E R T I F I C A T E
` STATE OF NEW YORK )
` : ss.
` COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
`
` I, Jennifer Ocampo-Guzman, a
` Notary Public within and for the State
` of New York, do hereby certify that the
` within is a true and accurate
` transcript of the proceedings taken on
` June 4, 2014.
` I further certify that I am not
` related to any of the parties to this
` action by blood or marriage and that I
` am in no way interested in the outcome
` of this matter.
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
` hereunto set my hand this 16th day of
` June 2014.
`
` ________________________________
` JENNIFER OCAMPO-GUZMAN, CRR, CLR
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` matter I now see regarding a pending
` district court litigation. Would you
` like to take us through that?
` MR. MAEBIUS: Sure. We just wanted
` to point out that we had filed an
` updated notice concerning the dismissal
` of the litigation. So it's already been
` filed.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Thank you.
` Has there been any progress, or I
` should say discussions regarding
` settlement of the IPR?
` MR. SABHARWAL: Your Honor, this is
` Keeto Sabharwal on behalf of the
` petitioner.
` We have had discussions, but
` unfortunately they were unavailing and
` as it stands right now, the parties are
` proceeding full speed ahead. There has
` been no recent discussion of resolution.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Any comments from
` patent owner?
` MR. MAEBIUS: Nothing further from
` me, Your Honor.
`
`23
`
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: All right. I think
` then those are all the issues for now.
` Is there anything else? Ms.
` Ellison?
` MS. ELLISON: Not from petitioner,
` Your Honor. Thank you very much.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Mr. Maebius?
` MR. MAEBIUS: No, nothing further.
` Thank you.
` JUDGE KAMHOLZ: Thank you. The
` call is adjourned.
` (Time noted: 2:52 p.m.)
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 24)
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`A
`abaluch@f...
`3:19
`able 17:5
`19:21
`accommod...
`19:16
`accommod...
`20:13
`accompanied
`12:18
`accurate
`24:10
`action 10:7
`24:15
`address
`12:25 14:7
`adjourned
`23:12
`adjust 19:21
`afternoon 4:2
`4:15,19,22
`5:3 11:11
`ago 19:8
`agree 7:13
`17:5
`ahead 22:20
`allegation
`12:7
`allegations
`10:20 11:19
`alleged 11:5
`alleviate
`18:23
`allow 20:20
`amenable
`18:8
`Amkor 8:19
`Amneal 1:5
`4:10 10:5
`10:16 17:2
`17:12,15
`18:4 19:3
`Amneal's
`10:8 11:2
`ANDREW
`3:18
`Andy 4:25
`
`anticipate 8:7
`apologize
`16:17
`appeal 1:2
`15:22
`APPEARA...
`2:2
`appreciate
`21:24
`appropriate
`8:18 11:17
`April 12:12
`argument
`7:20 21:3,5
`21:11
`arguments
`6:14 7:3,8
`7:25 8:15
`11:3,15
`12:18 14:22
`art 11:5
`asked 12:13
`19:17 20:5
`asking 6:22
`asserted
`17:17
`August 21:3
`authorizati...
`6:23
`authorized
`19:22
`availability
`19:15 20:9
`available
`19:24 20:4
`20:12,15
`Avenue 2:6
`avoid 15:20
`aware 10:5
`B
`B 3:16
`back 13:10
`13:15 19:22
`20:24 21:23
`background
`19:7
`Baluch 3:18
`
`4:25
`based 12:11
`20:9
`basically 6:22
`behalf 2:4 3:2
`4:24,25 5:5
`11:13 22:15
`belated 6:15
`7:3
`belatedly
`10:24 14:25
`believe 8:11
`18:25
`bit 18:3
`blood 24:15
`board 1:2 4:3
`8:3,10,11
`8:13,21 9:2
`9:6 11:7
`12:3,25
`13:7,9
`14:17 17:22
`18:8
`Braden 1:13
`4:4 13:16
`briefing 9:12
`13:4
`burden 13:6
`Buskirk 10:3
`10:9
`Buskirk's
`10:23
`C
`C 24:2,2
`call 4:9,13
`15:24 16:18
`23:12
`capable 9:7
`case 5:12 7:9
`7:23 14:6
`14:19 21:2
`cases 1:6 4:9
`8:4
`CBMs 9:6
`certain 6:13
`18:12
`certainly 8:3
`
`18:7
`certify 24:9
`24:13
`Chang 10:21
`changes
`18:21 20:21
`Chicago 3:6
`choose 17:10
`cited 10:8,15
`citing 10:25
`claiming
`11:15
`clear 15:10
`15:16
`clerical 5:19
`CLR 1:21
`24:23
`colleague
`11:9
`come 13:10
`20:24 21:23
`coming 18:15
`comments
`7:17 22:22
`complied
`17:19
`concerning
`22:7
`concerns
`14:2,11
`confer 13:9
`conference
`4:8 15:24
`conferred
`13:12
`confront
`14:13
`consider
`14:18
`considered
`15:2,8
`content 15:6
`Corning 9:4
`correct 6:7
`18:18
`counterarg...
`8:8
`COUNTY
`
`24:5
`course 7:20
`16:3
`court 4:5
`10:17 11:23
`22:3
`credibility
`12:16
`criticality
`12:9
`CRR 1:21
`24:23
`curiosity 21:4
`current 20:2
`currently
`21:13
`CVM2012-...
`9:10
`D
`date 18:16
`21:12,19
`dates 17:13
`18:22 19:13
`20:21 21:10
`21:18
`day 19:20
`20:7 24:19
`days 19:8
`20:16
`DC 2:7 3:14
`deadlines
`19:25
`deal 8:14,16
`deals 14:18
`decision 8:17
`8:23 9:4,8
`13:3 14:8
`declaration
`10:3,9
`11:21,24,25
`12:7,11
`declarations
`6:18 17:3
`defer 9:20
`depose 19:9
`19:23
`deposed
`
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`25
`
`19:19,20
`20:7
`deposition
`12:13 16:25
`17:5,16
`19:12
`depositions
`17:9 18:7
`determinat...
`9:3
`Developme...
`8:25
`differences
`7:14
`different 6:20
`6:21 19:13
`directly
`11:18 12:15
`disagree 7:20
`discern 8:21
`discretion
`14:4
`discussed
`13:23
`discussion
`4:7 22:21
`discussions
`22:12,17
`dismissal
`22:7
`Distinctive
`8:24
`distinguish
`15:3
`district 10:16
`22:3
`doing 18:9
`Dr 10:19
`11:14 12:8
`12:24 15:12
`Drive 3:4
`DSM 9:4
`due 16:3
`18:16,22
`20:21 21:12
`21:17,19
`E
`
`

`

`E 24:2,2
`earlier 6:16
`7:4
`early 10:16
`echo 12:24
`Edward
`11:24
`eellison@s...
`2:10
`efforts 20:11
`egregious
`9:17 12:21
`either 16:7
`Eldora 2:9
`4:16
`Ellison 2:9
`4:15,16
`5:13,17 6:5
`6:8 7:16,18
`9:15 11:8,9
`11:14 13:11
`13:18 15:12
`15:13,25
`16:8,9 19:4
`19:5 21:6
`23:5,6
`Ellison's
`12:24
`entire 15:6
`error 5:19
`ESQ 2:9,11
`3:8,16,18
`evidence 7:10
`7:21,24
`11:17,18
`14:3,16,25
`15:7,9
`examined
`17:12
`example 9:17
`9:25 12:21
`exhibit 5:16
`5:18,20,21
`5:24 9:21
`9:25 10:14
`10:15,25
`11:4,22
`12:6
`
`exhibits 6:13
`6:18 7:2,2
`expect 21:5
`expected 8:6
`expert 6:17
`10:18
`experts 17:6
`explained
`8:13 14:15
`extend 18:6
`extensive
`13:4
`extensively
`12:13
`extent 11:4,5
`e-mail 5:10
`5:14
`
`F
`F 24:2
`facie 7:8,22
`11:2
`fact 17:15
`far 21:9
`figure 8:22
`figuring 9:7
`file 5:24 6:24
`21:11
`filed 22:6,9
`filing 7:11
`final 8:17,22
`9:3,8 13:2
`14:7
`fine 6:3
`first 5:8,15
`7:19 10:2
`14:13 20:6
`five 18:22
`20:15,22
`21:10,18
`Floor 3:5
`Foley 3:11
`4:23
`following
`16:3
`Forgive
`16:20
`forth 17:9
`
`four 6:17
`17:3,6
`18:16,22
`20:21 21:10
`21:12,18
`fourth 20:6
`Fox 2:5 4:17
`frankly 20:10
`20:12
`full 22:20
`further 22:24
`23:9 24:13
`G
`give 9:16
`18:20
`given 19:24
`go 6:13 7:8
`13:9 19:22
`goes 14:5
`going 11:10
`13:9
`GOLDSTE...
`2:5
`Golstein 4:17
`good 4:2,15
`4:19,22 5:3
`11:11
`Green 1:13
`4:4 13:16
`19:23
`Greg 5:4 9:24
`16:22
`GREGORY
`3:8
`gregorymo...
`3:9
`ground 11:6
`11:7
`guess 19:2
`guidance
`6:12
`guide 7:6
`H
`H 2:11 4:18
`hand 24:19
`handle 14:9
`
`handled 6:21
`7:15
`Hastings 3:3
`5:5
`hear 16:12
`19:2
`hearing
`21:15
`help 18:23
`19:6
`hereunto
`24:19
`Honor 4:16
`4:23 5:4 6:2
`6:9,11 7:18
`9:13,19,23
`10:14 11:12
`11:14,22
`12:6,23
`13:18,20,21
`15:14,19
`16:5,9,15
`16:19,22
`17:7 18:3
`18:10,19
`19:6 20:9
`21:6,7,20
`22:14,25
`23:7
`Honors 13:5
`hope 19:23
`hour 21:15
`I
`identified
`19:8
`identify 5:8
`Illinois 3:6
`impeach
`12:15
`impeachme...
`7:24 11:16
`12:22 14:16
`improper
`15:4
`include 7:7
`initial 10:9
`initiated 11:7
`
`inquiries
`5:10
`instance 8:19
`9:9
`instances
`8:12
`instituted
`12:3
`interested
`24:16
`invalidity
`10:21
`IPR 8:6,9,20
`8:25 9:4
`22:13
`IPR2013-0...
`9:5
`IPR2013-0...
`8:20
`IPR2013-0...
`1:6
`IPR2013-0...
`1:7
`IPR2013-0...
`1:7
`IPR2013-0...
`9:2
`IPR2013-368
`4:9
`issue 6:21
`7:15 8:14
`9:12 12:14
`13:23 15:21
`16:15,16,18
`17:7,23
`18:8
`issues 4:11
`5:11 13:2,5
`14:24 23:3
`J
`Jennifer 1:21
`24:7,23
`JOB 1:22
`joined 4:4
`Jude 8:5
`Judge 4:2,3,8
`4:20 5:6 6:3
`
`DAVID FELDMAN WORLDWIDE, INC.
`450 Seventh Avenue - Ste 500, New York, NY 10123 1.800.642.1099
`
`26
`
`6:6 7:12
`9:14 10:11
`11:8 13:8
`13:14,14,19
`13:22 15:15
`15:23 16:6
`16:10,12,20
`17:23 18:15
`18:20 19:4
`20:19 21:8
`21:21,25
`22:10,22
`23:2,8,11
`Judges 1:13
`4:4 13:15
`June 1:14
`18:16 21:12
`24:12,20
`K
`K 3:12
`Kamholz
`1:13 4:2,3,8
`4:20 5:6 6:3
`6:6 7:12
`9:14 10:11
`11:8 13:8
`13:14,15,19
`13:22 15:15
`15:23 16:6
`16:10,12,20
`17:23 18:15
`18:20 19:4
`20:19 21:8
`21:21,25
`22:10,22
`23:2,8,11
`Keeto 2:11
`4:18 11:12
`22:15
`Keetos@sk...
`2:12
`Kessler 2:5
`4:17
`kind 15:20
`know 16:17
`L
`
`

`

`L 2:9
`Lardner 3:11
`4:24
`leave 18:21
`Liberty 9:9
`light 17:14
`Likewise
`8:24
`line 4:6 13:15
`litigation
`10:6,17
`22:3,8
`little 18:2
`LLC 1:5
`LLP 3:3,11
`logistics
`21:14
`look 19:14
`20:25,25
`M
`Maebius 3:16
`4:22,23
`6:10,11
`9:16,19
`13:21 15:16
`15:18 16:4
`16:10,11
`22:5,24
`23:8,9
`marriage
`24:15
`material
`14:11
`matrix 19:15
`matter 12:3
`14:3 16:24
`17:22 20:17
`22:2 24:17
`meant 16:17
`mentioned
`20:10
`mentioning
`10:17
`merits 7:19
`14:5,19
`Michigan 8:5
`months 12:2
`
`Morris 3:8
`5:3,4 9:21
`9:23,24
`10:13 13:20
`16:14,22,23
`18:2,18,24
`21:7,20,24
`move 21:17
`moving 16:16
`mute 13:10
`Mutual 9:9
`N
`
`N 3:4
`necessary
`7:22 15:22
`need 9:11
`13:3,6
`19:18,20
`20:7
`new 2:6 6:18
`7:2 8:15
`11:5,16
`14:24,25
`19:25 24:3
`24:5,9
`Notary 24:8
`noted 8:11
`9:6 23:13
`notice 22:7
`number 8:10
`8:12 9:22
`NW 2:6
`N.W 3:12
`O
`object 11:3
`obviousness
`11:2
`Ocampo-G...
`1:21 24:7
`24:23
`offered 19:10
`19:13 20:16
`20:17
`OFFICE 1:1
`Okay 6:10
`16:5
`
`opening
`10:18
`oppose 5:23
`oral 21:2,5,11
`order 16:2
`17:11,13,19
`17:21,25
`18:12 19:8
`19:17 20:5
`Osberger
`10:19
`outcome
`24:16
`outlin