throbber
IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`----------------------------x
`METRICS, INC. MAYNE PHARMA, :
`and JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC., :
` Petitioner, :
` vs. : Case IPR2014-01041
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., : Case IPR2014-01043
`LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., :
`and BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA :
`HOLDINGS CORP., :
` Patent Owner. :
`----------------------------x
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., :
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC, :
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA :
`LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS :
`INC., and MYLAN INC., :
` Petitioner, : Case IPR2015-00902
` vs. : Case IPR2015-00903
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., :
`LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., :
`and BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA :
`HOLDINGS CORP., :
` Patent Owner. :
`----------------------------x
`
` Conference Call
` Tuesday, April 15, 2015
` 11:00 a.m.
`
`Pages: 1 - 51
`Reported by: Cappy Hallock, RPR, CRR, CLR
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2001
`INNOPHARMA v. SENJU
`IPR2015-00903
`
`Page 1 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` (all appearances telephonically)
`
` PRESIDING:
` GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent
` Judge
` ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent
` Judge
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER METRICS, INC., MAYNE
` PHARMA, and JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC.:
` PATRICK D. McPHERSON, ESQUIRE
` Duane Morris LLP
` 505 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
` Washington, D.C. 20004-2166
` 202-776-7800 (P) 202-776-7801 (F)
` pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`3
`
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER INNOPHARMA LICENSING
` INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC, INNOPHARMA
` INC., INNOPHARMA LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
` INC., and MYLAN INC.:
` JITENDRA MALIK, Ph.D.
` BRYON SKELTON, Ph.D.
` LANCE SODERSTROM, ESQUIRE
` Alston & Bird LLP
` 4721 Emperor Blvd., Suite 400
` Durham, North Carolina 27703-8580
` 919-862-2200 (P) 919-862-2260 (F)
` jitty.malik@alston.com
` bryan.skelton@alston.com
` lance.soderstrom@alston.com
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`4
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER SENJU
` PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH &
` LOMB, INC., and BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA
` HOLDINGS CORP.,
` BRYAN C. DINER, ESQUIRE
` JUSTIN J. HASFORD, ESQUIRE
` JONATHAN R.K. STROUD, ESQUIRE
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garett & Dunner, LLP
` 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
` 202-408-4000 (P) 202-408-4400 (F)
` bryan.diner@finnegan.com
` justin.hasford@finnegan.com
` jonathan.stroud@finnegan.com
`
`Reported by:
` Cappy Hallock, RPR, CRR, CLR
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`5
`
`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 OBERMANN: Good morning. This
`is a consolidated conference call in
`IPR2014-01041, IPR2014-01043, IPR2015-00902,
`IPR2015-00903.
` This is Judge Grace Obermann, and
`before we get started I would like to confirm
`that a Judge Prats is on the line?
` Judge Prats, are you there?
` JUDGE PRATS: Judge Prats is here.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Judge Franklin, are
`you on the line?
` JUDGE FRANKLIN: I'm here.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Thank you, Judge
`Franklin.
` I would like to ask, is there a court
`reporter on the phone?
` THE REPORTER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: And may I ask, which
`party retained the court reporter?
` MR. DINER: The Patent Owner did, Your
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Honor. This is Brian Diner, speaking on behalf
`of the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Thank you, Mr. Diner.
`Would you please file a true copy of the
`transcript in due course as an exhibit in all
`four proceedings?
` MR. DINER: Yes, we will, Your Honor.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Thank you.
` The Board requested this conference
`call to find out what the status is of the
`parties' progression on maybe a meeting of the
`minds on the joinder motion. So I did send
`around an e-mail asking all counsel to be
`prepared to discuss a number of issues today.
` What I would like to do is start with
`a roll call of counsel, just so that we know who
`is on the line for each party.
` I understand that the Patent Owner is
`the same in both proceedings but I would like to
`ask first, Mr. Diner, are you representing Senju
`in all four actions?
` MR. DINER: Yes, I am, Your Honor, and
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`I am also joined by my colleagues, if you would
`like me to name them at this point in time.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Yes, I would. Thank
`you, Mr. Diner.
` MR. DINER: Justin Hasford and
`Jonathan Stroud.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Thank you, and may I
`ask who is appearing for Petitioner Metrics in
`IPR2015-01041 and -043?
` MR. McPHERSON: This is Patrick
`McPherson on the line, representing Metrics, the
`Petitioner in those two IPRs, Your Honor.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Thank you,
`Mr. McPherson.
` And may I please hear which counsel is
`representing Petitioner, is it InnoPharma in
`IPR2015-00902 and -903?
` MR. MALIK: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`Jitendra Malik. With me is my co-counsel Lance
`Sonderstrom. We are representing Petitioner
`InnoPharma and their related parties, including
`Mylan, in the two IPRs.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Okay.
` As an initial matter I would like
`counsel to first address whether there is any
`issue of a time bar regarding the petitions that
`were filed in the -902 and -903 actions, absent
`joinder. Would these petitions be time barred?
` Let me hear first from counsel for
`Patent Owner.
` MR. DINER: Your Honor, this is Brian
`Diner for the Patent Owner, and I do not believe
`that they would be time barred.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: And Mr. Malik, do you
`have anything to add to that?
` MR. MALIK: No, I do not. I do not
`believe they would be time barred.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: I'm glad we can get
`that out of the way early on.
` Okay, let's start with whether there
`has been a meet and confer on the issue of
`joinder. And I would like both parties to take
`their turns reporting on the status of that.
` Let's start with counsel for
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Petitioner. It sounds like Mr. Malik had
`approached counsel for Patent Owner to perhaps
`have a meet and confer, so let's start with
`Mr. Malik on that.
` What is the status of the meet and
`confer?
` MR. MALIK: Your Honor, we have
`actually had three meet and confers. And at the
`conclusion of all three meet and confers, we are
`unable to have a meeting of the mind. So that is
`sort of the 10,000 foot overview of the meet and
`confers that happened today.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Can you please
`explain for the Board what the nature of the
`disagreement is?
` MR. MALIK: The nature of the
`disagreement, from InnoPharma's point of view,
`are some of the conditions that Senju has asked
`in connection with the joinder petition,
`particularly with respect to depositions of
`experts, who can attend, and the nature of the
`hearing as to who can speak. I can go into more
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`detail if you wish on each one of those points.
` With respect to the schedule,
`InnoPharma doesn't have a strong opinion on it at
`this time. That's something more that Senju and
`Metrics seem to have more stronger opinions on,
`so I will defer on that. Certainly with respect
`to the procedures that are being discussed today,
`I'm happy to discuss what the nature of the
`disagreement is, if Your Honor would like to hear
`about that at this time.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Yes, I would like you
`to try to frame the dispute, and then I will give
`counsel for Senju and also counsel for Metrics an
`opportunity to respond.
` MR. MALIK: Obviously, in this case,
`there are two different experts, but the
`positions, the invalidity bases are identical, as
`we put in our motion. The fact that there are
`two different experts isn't automatically a bar
`to joinder. In fact, in IPR2015-518 there were
`different experts and the panel still allowed
`joinder.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` The nature of the disagreement is
`obviously there will be two depositions, one of
`Metrics' expert and also with respect to our
`expert. We are not opposing the deposition of
`our expert. I'm sure Metrics is not, but I will
`let Metrics speak for themselves.
` With respect to the two depositions,
`counsel for Senju has asked that the other
`counsel, so if, for example, Metrics' expert were
`being deposed, that neither counsel for
`InnoPharma nor its expert be present. And
`vice-versa, when Dr. Laskar, InnoPharma's expert
`was being deposed, neither Metrics' counsel or
`their expert be present. And we have not yet
`seen the Board implement such rules and we have
`not yet seen any authority affording those
`conditions, so that's the first nature of the
`disagreement.
` With respect to depositions of their
`expert, counsel for Senju was asked that, in
`essence, one counsel take the deposition, the
`other one essentially remain silent. We are not
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`opposed to consolidating and working together,
`but at this time, you know, we don't think it is
`appropriate to completely, in essence, silence
`one counsel while the other one essentially takes
`one hundred percent lead leaving the other one no
`opportunity to speak whatsoever.
` And finally, with respect to the
`hearing itself, Senju has said only one counsel
`be allowed to speak and we obviously -- we have
`been in IPRs before where two counsel has spoken
`so we don't think that is appropriate either.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Thank you, Mr. Malik.
`Does that sum up your presentation of the dispute
`as you see it?
` MR. MALIK: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Okay, thank you.
` I would like to hear next from counsel
`for Senju. Could you please respond?
` MR. DINER: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`Brian Diner, counsel for Senju.
` We disagree on a number of different
`aspects, Your Honor. First off, I would have to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`say that it's the Patent Owner's position that we
`do oppose joinder unless the schedule was
`extended out because there are going to be
`substantive differences as between the two
`petitions.
` And with regard to the expert
`depositions, which counsel from InnoPharma has
`acknowledged are different experts and there are
`different substance positions being offered
`there, we usually --
` JUDGE OBERMANN: I'm sorry to
`interrupt, but when you say the schedule needs to
`be extended out, you are talking about the
`schedule in the first two filed IPRs.
` MR. DINER: That is correct, Your
`Honor, pursuant to what the statute permits the
`rules do, as well as the legislative history.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: And how, what is your
`position on timing? When would the final hearing
`on all four proceedings go forward, if you know?
` MR. DINER: I'm glad you asked. We
`have been really mulling that about, Your Honor,
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`and thinking about it some. And we are kind of
`coming out -- and I know Your Honors are very
`interested in what is happening in the parallel
`proceedings in the district court cases. So a
`schedule I think would be, what we would propose
`would be tied to that. Let me explain.
` In the district court proceeding
`which, as you know from the papers that was filed
`yesterday, it is going forward as to Metrics.
`The motion to dismiss that they filed has been
`denied and that is going forward. Presently in
`the district court cases in New Jersey there are
`-- it is going to go forward with at least three
`defendants and five patents, and the judge in the
`district court has set a trial date for March
`6th, 2016.
` And so what we were thinking, Your
`Honor, if you're going to join, that an
`appropriate extension would be one that would put
`the two cases on a similar path and pace. And
`that is because, as you know, from our
`preliminary response, we were looking to have the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`petition be denied because it was in conflict
`with the Hatch-Waxman, which you denied. But as
`you probably remember from reading our arguments
`that one of the things that we emphasized was
`this race to the federal circuit to try to
`avoid -- and it's our objective to get there at
`the same time -- to try to avoid a situation
`where you have inconsistent decisions based on
`maybe the same grounds of inpatentability and
`what the Petitioners are alleging are the same
`arguments, same evidence.
` So what we would propose is that in
`order to do this fairly, and put everyone on
`equal footing on this race to the federal
`circuit, that if trial is scheduled for March 6th
`of 2016 in which both defendants right now will
`appear to be there, as well as a third defendant,
`then we would propose that we have a hearing
`sometime in April of 2016.
` It would put it all on the same track.
`It would coincide with the decision that the
`defendants in the district court will have before
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the 30-month stay. And it would nicely, Your
`Honors, put it all up at the federal circuit
`right at the same time for decision to avoid
`inconsistent decisions and the problems, as we
`all know from the Fresenius case and others, that
`that can cause. So I have gotten a little bit
`ahead of myself.
` But since you asked, I thought I would
`put that out there. And I can go back and
`address the other arguments that counsel for
`InnoPharma made.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Okay. I appreciate
`that very much.
` So I don't have to interrupt you
`again, I just want to make clear that what you
`would propose in the event that we did grant the
`later filed petitions in -902 and -903, and if we
`were to grant the joinder, your position would be
`that the oral hearing in all four should coincide
`on the same date sometime in April of 2016.
` MR. DINER: That's correct.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Okay. So that
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`does -- I'm looking at -- if we did not join,
`since InnoPharma is not time barred, in the event
`that we granted their petition but did not join,
`I believe that the schedule would go out until
`September of -- our final decisions in those two
`wouldn't be due probably until September of 2016.
`So you are advocating some sort of an abbreviated
`schedule in those later filed petitions
`regardless of whether we join?
` MR. DINER: That's correct, Your
`Honor.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Okay, that's helpful.
`In that case, please proceed and address the
`other issues.
` MR. DINER: Thank you very much, Your
`Honor.
` So one of the points that my friend
`from InnoPharma made was with regard to the
`petition and the declaration of the expert I
`believe as being identical. Actually, Your
`Honor, they characterize those as being
`consistent and in terms of the petition. And the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`declarations, they called it congruent which
`implicitly in each of those words means that
`there is some differences. We went into them and
`sort of surfaced a number of different
`substantive differences that, if Your Honor
`likes, I can go into. But there are a number of
`differences, some claim construction to the
`substantive factual arguments being made and the
`legal support for those enhanced and supplemented
`legal arguments.
` They also, Your Honor, adopt the
`position of the Board in an institution decision
`and effectively attempt to get what by analogy is
`the second bite at the apple, which I know Your
`Honor is familiar with in the Unilever case, and
`it's exactly like trying to just use the
`institution decision as a road map to fill gaps
`and file these serial petitions and prejudice
`Patent Owners and tax the Board's already taxed
`resources.
` He mentioned, Mr. Malik mentioned the,
`I believe it was the IPR case 2014-00518. I
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`don't think that that one really applies to this
`case, if I have the right number and the right
`case in mind based on what he said, because in
`that case the Patent Owner did not oppose the
`joinder, did not file a preliminary response in
`the case that was considered for joining, or --
`or in the second filed case I should say. And
`they also agreed to a one-month extension of the
`time deadlines in that case, which is not
`applicable here at all, because while InnoPharma
`may be more sympathetic to extending the
`deadline, I think it is fair to say on behalf of
`Mylan and my friend Pat McPherson from Metrics
`that his client would not be.
` And then the other point I would like
`to make, he talked about experts being present at
`the deposition. They would like, the Petitioners
`would like their experts to be present when the
`first Petitioner's expert is being deposed, and
`we object to that, Your Honor.
` And, as you know, the Board follows
`the Federal Rules of Evidence, and there is a
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 615(c) dealing with
`sequestration of witnesses, and there is case law
`out there as well dealing with sequestration of
`expert witnesses, In re Omeprazole from the
`Southern District of New York in 2002, as well as
`a Fourth Circuit case in 1996, the Opus 3 case,
`all of which point to various factors why experts
`on the same side as the V, Your Honor, in other
`words, the same side as the Petitioner, should
`not be present while the other expert is being
`deposed because it effectively gives them a dry
`run on substantive, essential issues, and it
`ruins their objectivity.
` And, you know, we would be prepared,
`if Your Honor would like, to brief that some
`more. But we do have that, our first scheduled
`deposition coming up, Your Honor, on April 29th
`of Metrics' expert, Dr. Kompella. So to some
`extent that is before the Board for its
`consideration, and I guess to some extent a
`decision on that issue.
` So I think at that point I think I
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`have addressed all the points that Mr. Malik had
`made and I will rest and let Mr. McPherson have a
`go at it.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Let me just ask what
`is the basis, if any, of your opposition -- your
`position that should we consolidate these that
`only one counsel should be allowed to speak at
`the final hearing?
` MR. DINER: Well, Your Honor, there
`are a number of cases out there which talk about
`in cases where they have joined that the parties
`have made concessions, or the Board has ordered
`that the second party take a silent role so as
`not to exasperate the situation and ratchet up
`the complexity and ask questions over again that
`others have asked, and to keep things
`streamlined. Otherwise, we get into disputes as
`to what can be asked and how long it can take,
`and those sort of things and a lot of that. And
`it just means coming back to the Board for
`guidance and disputes to be resolved. There are
`a number of cases that talk about the silent role
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`or the understudy role, and it seems to be
`consistent with that.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Okay. Before I move
`to counsel for Metrics, Mr. Diner, I would like
`to ask one last thing.
` MR. DINER: Very well.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Do you have any
`objections to or do you foresee any impossibility
`or difficulty to putting together a schedule,
`should we decide to grant the later filed
`petitions and should we decide to join them.
`Setting aside these disputes that you have about
`presence of experts and counsel at depositions
`and what the particular format of the final
`hearing would be, would you be able to get
`together with opposing counsel to put together a
`schedule that would work?
` In other words, do you foresee any
`sort of impossibility as far as the scheduling
`goes to be able to put together a schedule that
`would work to consolidate these cases so that we
`could get final decisions out in all four
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`sometime in July of 2016?
` MR. DINER: Well, from our end, Your
`Honor, I don't see it as a problem. We would be
`very happy to work with our colleagues from
`InnoPharma and with Metrics. I suspect that
`Metrics' position is that -- they won't agree to
`an extension, at least that has been their
`position so far, whereas Mr. Malik said on behalf
`of InnoPharma, I think he is a little more
`sympathetic to that. And so we are certainly
`willing to work with them, Your Honor, and we are
`happy to meet and confer and do this for them.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Okay, thank you, Mr.
`Diner.
` And along those lines, I'm just
`thinking if we were to look for final decisions
`in all four in July of 2016, that would make the
`Decision to Institute in the later filed actions,
`we would want those to be due in July. I'm just
`trying to get a sense of cutting back your time
`on the preliminary response.
` You mentioned that there may be some
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`differences between the factual arguments and
`maybe some differences in the evidentiary
`support, including the identity of the experts.
`Is there any reason why you couldn't file or
`waive your preliminary response in the -902 and
`-903 cases so that the due date for filing would
`fall on April 30th of 2015?
` MR. DINER: Would that be conditioned
`upon extending it out as Your Honor was
`contemplating a moment ago to a final decision
`sometime in July of 2016?
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Well, I don't see how
`we are going to get there unless we cut your
`preliminary response time down. I'm not
`saying -- I'm not going to say that we are
`definitely going to grant the later filed
`petitions at this point. That would be in our
`Decision to Institute or not, but just so that we
`can sort of get ahead of the curve, I would like
`to have your preliminary response due on April
`30th so that I can try to get the decisions to
`institute out early, and that way in the event
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that we do go forward on the later two and in the
`event we do want to join we are not looking at,
`you know, an impossible situation.
` MR. DINER: The only -- it could
`become impossible for us if we were having to do
`that with no opportunity -- I know that you're
`not making the decision now on the phone at this
`conference about putting a date to July of 2016,
`for example, for a final decision. But if we
`knew that was somewhat likely then we would
`probably concede to that in order to get the two
`cases or to get these IPRs on the same schedule.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Let me just be clear.
`I don't think I'm asking for a concession because
`I can order you to do it earlier. There is
`nothing in the rule that provides you a right to
`three months.
` MR. DINER: I understand, Your Honor.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: I can shorten your
`time, but I don't want to do that if you can
`demonstrate that there is some kind of prejudice.
`What I'm hearing is that there may be
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 25 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`differences, but I don't hear how those
`differences at this point justify giving you
`three months. Even if we didn't join, I mean, it
`would be nice to get these things out earlier
`even if we don't join. So right now I'm actually
`asking you is there any prejudice that you would
`suffer if I were to change the date to April
`30th.
` And before you answer, let me just
`give you a little prelude to what I'm thinking of
`doing. I'm thinking of requiring you to file
`your preliminary response by April 30th, and on
`that same day I would ask all three parties to
`come forward with a proposed joint schedule --
`well, let me back up.
` Your preliminary response, should you
`decide to file one on April 30th, should include
`any opposition to joinder. And at the same time
`in a separate document I would ask all three
`parties to file a joint schedule, a proposed
`schedule to be followed in the four actions, and
`I would give all three of you an opportunity in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 26 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that joint document to discuss any disagreements
`you have about the dates so that we could
`decide -- I could decide everything in the
`Decision to Institute.
` MR. DINER: I see. Okay.
` Well, then, if I may, I will answer
`your question with regard to the prejudice to the
`Patent Owner with regard to having to file on the
`30th, recognizing what you have just said and
`what you were giving us a prelude into.
` It's primarily, we are in the throes
`of trying to file our Patent Owner's response in
`the Metrics IPRs which is due May 19th, Your
`Honor, and on April 29th, as I mentioned earlier,
`we are scheduled to depose Dr. Kompella. So that
`would be the day before you would like us to file
`our preliminary response in the InnoPharma's
`IPRs.
` And we are also, just so Your Honor
`knows, contemplating putting in four substantive
`declarations and we are also contemplating a
`motion to amend as we discussed at the conference
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 27 of 62
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01041; IPR2014-01043; IPR2015-00902; IPR2015-00903
`Conference Call
`April 15, 2015
`
`28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`call with Your Honor back in March, March 17th.
`So it is our feeling that if we had to do all
`that and also put in the preliminary response by
`April 30th, that that would be prejudicial to the
`Patent Owner.
` JUDGE OBERMANN: What date could you
`have it in by reasonably?
` MR. DINER: Could we get it in just
`after our Patent Owner's responses due on May
`19th?
` Would that work for the Board?
` JUDGE OBERMANN: Well, I don't want to
`put it in now, but I would like to know, would
`May 19th be an acceptable date to you, Mr. Diner?
` MR. DINER: How

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket