`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`----------------------------x
`
`AKER BIOMARINE AS, : Inter Partes
`
` Petitioner, : Review Nos.
`
` v. : IPR 2014-00003
`
`NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES AND : Patent No.
`
`BIORESSOURCES, INC., : 8,278,351
`
` Patent Owner. :
`
`----------------------------x
`
` Telephonic Judges' Conference Before
`
` The Honorable Lora M. Green,
`
` The Honorable Jacqueline Wright Bonilla,
`
` and The Honorable Sheridan K. Snedden
`
` Bensalem, Pennsylvania
`
` Tuesday, August 26, 2014
`
` 4:00 p.m.
`
`Job No.: 65195
`
`Pages 1 - 29
`
`Reported by: Cynthia A. Whyte
`
`NEPN Ex. 2064
`Aker v. Neptune
`IPR2014-00003
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
` Telephonic Judges' Conference with the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`2
`
` Pursuant to Agreement, before Cynthia A. Whyte, a
`
`Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public of
`
`the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER AKER BIOMARINE:
`
`3
`
` AMANDA HOLLIS, ESQUIRE
`
` KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
` 300 North LaSalle
`
` Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
` (312) 862-2011
`
` (Present via telephone)
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ENZYMOTEC, LTD.:
`
` ELIZABETH J. HOLLAND, ESQUIRE
`
` DANIEL MARGOLIS, ESQUIRE
`
` KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
` One Broadway
`
` New York, New York 10004
`
` (Present via telephone)
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES
`
`4
`
` AND BIORESSOURCES, INC.:
`
` DEAN FARMER, ESQUIRE
`
` COOLEY LLP
`
` 500 Boylston Street
`
` 14th Floor
`
` Boston, Massachusetts 02116
`
` (617) 937-2371
`
` (Present via telephone)
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES
`
` AND BIORESSOURCES, INC.:
`
` LAURA CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE
`
` COOLEY LLP
`
` 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`
` Suite 700
`
` Washington, DC
`
` (202) 842-7800
`
` (Present via telephone)
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`5
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW NO. PAGE
`
`IPR 2014-0000 and PATENT NO.
`
`8,278,351
`
` Proceedings 6
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Good afternoon. This is
`
`Judge Green. I also have on the line Judge Bonilla
`
`and Judge Snedden. I would like to start with a roll
`
`call.
`
` For petitioner Aker?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: This is Amanda Hollis from
`
`Kirkland & Ellis, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Thank you.
`
` Who do I have for Enzymotec?
`
` MS. HOLLAND: Elizabeth Holland and Dan
`
`Margolis from Kenyon & Kenyon.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Who do I have for patent
`
`owner?
`
` MR. FARMER: You have Dean Farmer and Laura
`
`Cunningham from Cooley for Neptune, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: And then has anybody arranged
`
`for a court reporter to be on the line?
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, Your Honor. I'm
`
`Cindy Whyte from Planet Depos.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: And do you know who arranged
`
`for the court reporter?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: Yes; Laura Cunningham.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Thank you.
`
` Ms. Cunningham, you will make sure that a
`
`copy of the transcript gets filed as an exhibit in due
`
`course?
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
` It's my understanding that Petitioner Aker
`
`Biomarine requested this conference call to request
`
`leave to, one, compel discovery of specific documents
`
`containing inconsistent statements or inconsistent
`
`decisions or, two, request discovery of specific
`
`identified documents.
`
` Starting with the first category, counsel
`
`for Aker, would you like to begin?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`
`Amanda Hollis.
`
` We are requesting discovery of a total of
`
`eight documents under both the rules to compel routine
`
`discovery of inconsistent statements or, in the
`
`alternative, for additional discovery.
`
` The eight documents really boil down to
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`about five because three of those are just different
`
`volumes of the same witness' deposition transcript and
`
`another one of those documents is a translation of a
`
`second.
`
` We are seeking discovery of those
`
`documents, and the discovery would be no burden to
`
`Neptune. We are not asking them to search for any
`
`documents. We have identified what we are requesting
`
`with specificity. They both contain statements that
`
`are inconsistent with positions that Neptune has taken
`
`and are at least relevant to those positions in the
`
`IPR.
`
` I am a little bit handcuffed to explain in
`
`full detail the relevance of those documents and how
`
`they are inconsistent because Neptune in response to
`
`our request has not allowed us to discuss those
`
`documents with you in a manner that would reveal their
`
`content because they claim they are confidential. But
`
`even though, despite their claim, you know, we can
`
`still talk about these documents in a way that doesn't
`
`reveal the contents of them, and I hope that this will
`
`convey their relevance to you.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` The first category is a couple documents
`
`relating to Neptune's own repeats of the Beaudoin
`
`prior art process. You probably recall that Neptune
`
`says we did not faithfully repeat that Beaudoin
`
`process or Beaudoin patent in our expert declarations
`
`or in our petitions because our experts used some
`
`laboratory equipment like a separatory funnel that
`
`they say is not consistent with the Beaudoin repeats.
`
` You know, they also say that we didn't
`
`faithfully repeat Beaudoin because we didn't test some
`
`unclaimed parameters of the oil as it was being
`
`processed.
`
` This first category of documents that we
`
`are seeking is a handful of about three. One is a
`
`deposition of a man named Pierre St. John, a Neptune
`
`employee, and two exhibits to that deposition, and
`
`these relate to how Neptune itself repeated the
`
`Beaudoin process when it represented to the patent
`
`office that it had repeated that process, and if you
`
`review those, you will see, we think, that Neptune's
`
`open repeats are inconsistent with the positions it
`
`has been taking now in this IPR.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Okay.
`
` MS. HOLLIS: The second category involves
`
`an e-mail regarding commercial product that Neptune
`
`and its affiliates have contended practices the
`
`invention of the 351 patent, a Capri product. It's a
`
`single e-mail, and it involves a named inventor of the
`
`351 patent and it relates to a study performed on
`
`krill oil, a product called Capri, and we believe that
`
`this e-mail also is inconsistent with Neptune's
`
`positions in the IPR including its position that the
`
`heating step that they say is required by the Beaudoin
`
`process will destroy phospholipids in the oil
`
`including the claimed phospholipid.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Okay. And you're seeking
`
`this under either, one, to contain the inconsistent
`
`positions or specifically to identify documents.
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Correct. Yes, sorry. They
`
`are specifically identified documents. All of these
`
`documents are specifically identified, and we believe
`
`they contain inconsistent statements or are, at
`
`minimum, relevant and therefore satisfy the
`
`requirements for additional discovery.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Okay. And those are the only
`
`11
`
`two categories?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: No, there's a couple more.
`
` The next category is the deposition of the
`
`inventor Fontini Sampalis that was taken in connection
`
`with the ITC litigation between the parties.
`
` There are several excerpts of this
`
`deposition transcript that we feel are inconsistent,
`
`again, with Neptune's positions on heat. We have
`
`identified those relevant excerpts to Neptune. We've
`
`asked their permission for their consent to produce
`
`and submit to the Board the entire transcripts, given
`
`the Board's previous indications in conference calls
`
`and otherwise that it wants to see complete
`
`transcripts, but even if Neptune would refuse to
`
`provide or allow submission of the entire transcripts,
`
`we have asked them if they would at least consent to
`
`the excerpts, and they have declined both requests.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Okay.
`
` MS. HOLLIS: The next category is a report
`
`on Neptune krill oil analyses dated in 2007, and this
`
`we feel -- it contains information about NKO, another
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`product that Neptune contends practices the 351
`
`patent, and we believe this includes information
`
`that's inconsistent with their positions on how the
`
`free fatty acid claim limitation should be interpreted
`
`and their reasons for their proposed interpretation of
`
`that claim limitation.
`
` Those are the categories. In our meetings
`
`and conferences with Neptune to talk about our
`
`requests, they have raised a couple arguments for
`
`refusing to produce.
`
` Number one, they have said that they just
`
`don't think they are relevant, and of course without
`
`being able to discuss the contents of the documents
`
`with you in detail, like I said, I'm a little
`
`handcuffed to go through why we disagree, but they
`
`certainly have not indicated we are in any way
`
`mistaken or mooted our relevance arguments. We have a
`
`clear dispute on that, and we think it should be up to
`
`the Board to decide if they are relevant.
`
` Their principal argument has been that the
`
`documents are confidential, and this we argue is not a
`
`valid reason for refusing to produce the documents.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`We have an agreed protective order, and this is a
`
`protective order that Neptune itself drafted and
`
`proposed to us, and it specifically contemplates
`
`production of its own confidential information
`
`including documents that were produced in the ITC
`
`proceeding, which all of these documents that I have
`
`been talking about were produced in that proceeding.
`
` So Neptune cannot now argue that its own
`
`protective order is insufficient to protect its own
`
`confidential information and use that argument to
`
`shield that information from discovery altogether.
`
` They have not identified any reason why the
`
`submission of this information to the Board could ever
`
`hurt them, or really explained why the standard
`
`measures that Neptune itself agreed to for protecting
`
`confidential information are insufficient here.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Okay. Anything you want to
`
`add to that at this point?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Not at this point, but if you
`
`will allow me, I would like a chance to respond to
`
`anything that Neptune says.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: I understand that.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Enzymotec, counsel for Enzymotec, do you
`
`have anything to add at this point.
`
` MS. HOLLAND: No, we don't have anything to
`
`add. I would just say we are in complete agreement
`
`with Aker Biomarine on this issue.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Patent owner, would you like
`
`to respond?
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, Your Honor, thank
`
`you. There are a couple of issues here. Let me first
`
`address the confidentiality issue.
`
` All of the documents that are being
`
`requested were produced in the ITC litigation between
`
`the parties pursuant to the protective order that
`
`governs the ITC investigation. As Your Honor may
`
`recall, the use of confidential materials from the ITC
`
`investigation is something that the parties discussed
`
`early on in this proceeding. I myself raised this
`
`issue with Your Honor during a May 28 Board call,
`
`because we had been unsuccessful in securing a
`
`reciprocal agreement with Petitioners to use
`
`confidential materials from the ITC case.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: It seems to me it wasn't that
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`you couldn't use the confidential materials. It was
`
`that the two of you were having a hard time coming up
`
`with a schedule and I wasn't going to enforce a
`
`schedule on additional discovery that the two parties
`
`had agreed to.
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: As I recall, that was really
`
`the issue. It wasn't the confidentiality. It was
`
`just I wasn't going to enforce an agreement that the
`
`parties had made amongst themselves.
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: I understand, Your Honor,
`
`and I reference that call for a couple of reasons.
`
`One is to just introduce the issue. And Ms. Hollis
`
`specifically just stated now that our confidentiality
`
`concerns were not a valid reason not to produce these
`
`documents, but, in fact, that is exactly the position
`
`that Aker's counsel took during that May 28 call.
`
`They referred to the production of these materials as
`
`a waiver of a protection to which they are entitled
`
`under the ITC protective order, and they emphasized
`
`that any such agreement to use confidential materials
`
`needs to be reciprocal.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Petitioners never agreed to allow us to use
`
`documents that were used in the ITC case that are
`
`confidential. Exactly what they are asking us to do
`
`now is what they refused to do a few months ago. And
`
`the documents that they are requesting were marked
`
`confidential in the ITC case because they contain very
`
`sensitive proprietary details; for example, regarding
`
`Neptune's manufacturing process.
`
` The confidentiality of these documents was
`
`never disputed by either Aker or Enzymotec in the ITC
`
`case, and we do have, we think, legitimate concern
`
`here regarding their production for a variety of
`
`reasons.
`
` The protective order that is in place here
`
`is indifferent in important ways from the protective
`
`order we had in the ITC case, and our understanding is
`
`that the Board necessarily retains the right to
`
`declassify whatever information may be marked as
`
`confidential. So that is one difference.
`
` Another difference is there is no type of
`
`prosecution bar at all in this protective order, and
`
`our understanding is that such prosecution bars are
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`not permitted in IPR protective orders.
`
` So I don't want to -- I think Your Honor
`
`understands the issue, and we think that we have a
`
`right to maintain the confidentiality of these
`
`documents. That's something that's of great concern
`
`to Neptune.
`
` With respect to the relevance of the
`
`documents, we disagree that any of these documents are
`
`relevant or that they show any kind of inconsistency
`
`with the arguments that Neptune has presented in its
`
`patent owner responses.
`
` If I could just briefly run through the
`
`category of documents that Ms. Hollis identified, the
`
`first category I think she identified were documents
`
`related to a repeat, an attempted repeat, of the
`
`Beaudoin patent by Neptune employees.
`
` Ms. Hollis stated that these were
`
`regarding -- these documents regard the Beaudoin
`
`repeat experiments that were submitted to the patent
`
`office, but in fact they cover a lot more than just
`
`the single experiment that was submitted to the patent
`
`office in connection with, I believe, the 348 patent.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` These documents involve an entire
`
`deposition transcript from an ITC proceeding which
`
`is -- I'm not sure whether or not the particular
`
`experiment that was submitted to the patent office was
`
`even mentioned, and that transcript contains a lot of
`
`confidential information including about Neptune's
`
`commercial manufacturing process.
`
` It's not clear to me why Petitioners are
`
`taking the position that this document relates to our
`
`criticisms of the Beaudoin repeat submitted by their
`
`experts in this case. None of the work that was done
`
`by these Neptune employees is at issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
` The second category Ms. Hollis identified
`
`was an e-mail about a commercial product under
`
`development at Neptune's subsidiary, ACASTI. Again, a
`
`document about studies on a commercial product is very
`
`far afield from the prior art issues that the Board is
`
`considering here. We fail to see how this
`
`information -- this study about a commercial product
`
`is just -- we fail to see the connection to the prior
`
`art at issue here.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Those same comments would also apply with
`
`respect to the deposition transcript of the inventor,
`
`Dr. Fontini Sampalis. Petitioner has identified for
`
`us certain excerpts. We're not clear on whether
`
`Petitioner would be seeking to compel production of
`
`the entire transcripts or only those excerpts, but in
`
`either case the excerpts primarily deal with Neptune's
`
`commercial manufacturing process, which is not
`
`relevant here and which, of course, is proprietary and
`
`the details of which are very sensitive.
`
` I would also note that those transcripts
`
`span three separate days of testimony and that
`
`Dr. Sampalis was testifying as a corporate witness for
`
`Neptune under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`30(b)(6), and so those topics have no relevance to
`
`this proceeding.
`
` And the last category of documents I
`
`believe that Ms. Hollis referenced was a study about
`
`NKO, and other Neptune commercial products, and she
`
`said that this would be relevant to claim
`
`construction. Claim construction is an issue of law.
`
`I don't understand why the Board would be looking at
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`an external study on a commercial product in order to
`
`interpret the claims of the patent, and certainly we
`
`don't see how this goes to our claim construction
`
`position.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Anything further?
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: Not at this time, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Ms. Hollis, would you like to
`
`respond?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` On confidentiality, again they are saying
`
`that the reason, the primary reason, why they are not
`
`agreeing to produce this information is because it's
`
`confidential. Well, again, they were the ones who
`
`drafted and agreed to the protective order that is
`
`designed to protect confidentiality interests.
`
` If for some reason that protective order
`
`was insufficient, the time to address those
`
`insufficiencies would have been before they submitted
`
`it to Your Honor. It doesn't make sense now. Nothing
`
`has changed now, other than we have identified
`
`documents that they don't like, to somehow change the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`circumstances around their confidential information.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: What about Ms. Cunningham's
`
`argument that they had tried to come up with a
`
`schedule that some of these confidential documents
`
`should be produced by both parties and that the
`
`parties were having a hard time agreeing to that and
`
`that specifically that you did not want to produce
`
`certain documents?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Right, Your Honor. As I
`
`recalled, my understanding is consistent with what
`
`Your Honor said, which is that the discussion on that
`
`conference call was mostly about their request that
`
`you compel a schedule to agree to something or to
`
`enforce a separate agreement.
`
` There is no inconsistency between what we
`
`were saying in that circumstance and what we are
`
`asking for now. Back then Neptune wanted us to give
`
`them a blanket agreement to use either all of the
`
`confidential documents that had been produced in that
`
`ITC case or a list of select documents, but what they
`
`wanted to do was skip over the discovery rules in the
`
`IPR and not have to explain why the documents were
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`relevant before we would agree to allow them to use
`
`those documents, to produce them.
`
` We consistently asked them why do you think
`
`these documents are relevant. And we noted they are
`
`confidential, so we, at minimum, would at least like
`
`to hear from you why are they relevant, and they
`
`refused over and over again to tell us even a single
`
`reason why the specific documents they were asking
`
`for, much less all of the documents they originally
`
`requested, were relevant.
`
` There's no inconsistency here. We have in
`
`writing and in conference calls identified very
`
`specific reasons why the documents we are seeking are
`
`relevant, and the bottom line, Your Honor, is that
`
`what they seem to be arguing is a tit for tat. They
`
`think they shouldn't have to produce relevant
`
`discovery to us because they think -- they have an
`
`impression that we didn't give them the answer they
`
`wanted on a similar request before, and this tit for
`
`tat argument I don't think is relevant or dispositive
`
`of our request here.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Okay. I understand.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MS. HOLLIS: They also argued that -- the
`
`only reasons why they are saying the protective order
`
`is insufficient, as I'm hearing it, is, number one, it
`
`allows the Board, if it relies on some of the
`
`confidential information, to disclose that in opinions
`
`and so forth, and, number two, that there isn't really
`
`a provision barring prosecution counsel from accessing
`
`these documents.
`
` Well, Your Honor, I think those arguments
`
`apply to every single standard protective order that
`
`has been entered in every IPR, and if these reasons
`
`were sufficient to allow them to not produce relevant
`
`discovery, well, then I guess everyone could stand
`
`behind those reasons, and I don't think that's really
`
`where the process should go.
`
` And I have to just say again they were the
`
`ones that agreed to this in the first place. I don't
`
`see any reason why it's suddenly insufficient.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: What about the relevancy
`
`argument?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: On relevancy they -- as I
`
`understood Ms. Cunningham, she said she doesn't think
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that the Beaudoin patent repeat discussed in the
`
`Pierre St. John deposition is relevant because those
`
`experiments were not at issue here and they cover a
`
`lot more than the single Beaudoin experiment that was
`
`submitted to the Board.
`
` Number one, this is the first time we're
`
`hearing of these arguments. They didn't discuss them
`
`in our conferences before, but, more importantly, the
`
`course is relevant. This is Neptune's own repeat of
`
`the Beaudoin prior art process, which it represented
`
`it did faithfully to the patent office in order to get
`
`its patent. How Neptune conducted those experiments
`
`that it said were done correctly is relevant to their
`
`criticisms and their assertions that we have done our
`
`experiments incorrectly.
`
` The other criticisms they have on the
`
`requested documents seem to boil down to well, they
`
`were about commercial products, not the patents. I
`
`think that's what they are saying on the study of
`
`Capri and the NKO document, the analysis there.
`
` What they are omitting is that the
`
`commercial products are ones that Neptune has alleged
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`practiced the claimed invention, so its own statements
`
`and representations in documents about the embodiment
`
`of the claimed invention in their view are relevant to
`
`our arguments about that claimed invention here.
`
`They're the typical information that's relevant and
`
`discoverable, and they haven't explained any reason
`
`why the reasons I have given previously do not apply.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: I think I understand both
`
`parties' positions. I'm going to put you on hold and
`
`confer with the panel.
`
` (Short recess.)
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Hello. This is Judge Green
`
`again. Do I still have counsel for Aker?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Do I still have counsel for
`
`Enzymotec?
`
` MS. HOLLAND: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: And do I still have counsel
`
`for Neptune?
`
` MR. FARMER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: It appears there are a lot of
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`issues here and a lot going on. I think the easiest
`
`way to do this is go ahead and authorize Aker to file,
`
`because of the four different categories, a 15-page
`
`motion. And, Aker, when can you get that in?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: I think next week we could do
`
`that easily.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Can you give me a date?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Sure. Let me just look at the
`
`calendar quickly. Thursday, the 4th.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Thursday, the 4th?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Yes.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: And in that regard, I point
`
`you to the Garman decision, which was in IPR
`
`2012-0001. It's on our website as a representative
`
`order. In particular, I would like to point you to
`
`Factor 1 where they talk about the difference between
`
`relevant and useful because it not only has to be
`
`relevant, it has to be useful to show something of a
`
`substantive value to a contention that you're making.
`
` MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Neptune, I am authorizing a
`
`seven-page response. Will that be sufficient do you
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`think?
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: And when can you get that in
`
`by?
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: If we submit it by the
`
`following Wednesday, the 10th, is that acceptable?
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Wednesday, the 10th, I would
`
`think -- if you want a week, I can make it the 11th
`
`and that way you have a little bit of wiggle room. I
`
`think a week is reasonable.
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Your Honor. We
`
`appreciate that.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Since it's four different
`
`categories and there is a lot going on here, I would
`
`like to see it in writing before I make a ruling on
`
`it.
`
` At this point anything additionally, Aker?
`
`Aker, do you have anything additionally at this point?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: I'm here.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Anything else at this time,
`
`Ms. Hollis?
`
` MS. HOLLIS: No. I apologize. It was
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`28
`
`quiet and I didn't hear anything after you asked
`
`Ms. Cunningham for her response.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: You know, the telephone is
`
`great, but, again, all of these conference systems are
`
`sometimes a little bit buggy.
`
` Okay. Anything from counsel for Enzymotec?
`
` MS. HOLLAND: No, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Anything from counsel for
`
`Neptune?
`
` MS. CUNNINGHAM: No, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE GREEN: Thank you all very much.
`
`Have a good afternoon. This call is adjourned. Thank
`
`you.
`
` (The conference call adjourned at 4:33
`
`p.m.)
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`TELEPHONIC JUDGES' CONFERENCE
`CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2014
`
`29
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER - NOTARY PUBLIC
`
` I, Cynthia A. Whyte, the officer before whom the
`
`foregoing proceedings were taken, do hereby certify
`
`that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct
`
`record of the proceedings; that said proceedings were
`
`taken by me stenographically and thereafter reduced to
`
`typewriting under my supervision; and that I am
`
`neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any
`
`of the parties to this case and have no interest,
`
`financial or otherwise, in its outcome.
`
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
`
`and affixed my notarial seal this 28th day of August,
`
`2014.
`
`My commission expires July 15, 2015.
`
`-----------------------------
`
`CYNTHIA A. WHYTE
`
`NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE
`