throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`WOCKHARDT BIO AG, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A. INC., and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
`INDUSTRIES, LTD., SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA AB,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,1861
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`
`REGARDING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFOREST MCDUFF
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner Wockhardt from IPR2016-01209, Petitioner Teva from IPR2016-
`
`01122, Petitioner Aurobindo from IPR2016-01117, and Petitioner Sun/Amneal
`
`from IPR2016-01104 have each been joined as Petitioner to this proceeding.
`
`

`
`Petitioners file this Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on
`
`Cross-examination of DeForest McDuff (Paper 61) in accordance with Due Date 5
`
`(Papers 17, 35, 57).
`
`Observation #1:
`
`Patent Owner complains that Dr. McDuff did not review the entirety of the
`
`district court record, but Patent Owner did not produce the entirety of the district
`
`court record in this IPR proceeding. On October 13, 2016, Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioner entered a stipulation agreeing that “Petitioner Mylan will rely on the
`
`transcript of Dr. Christine Meyer’s September 21, 2016 cross-examination
`
`testimony from District Court Case …and the documents referenced therein” in
`
`lieu of deposing Dr. Meyer in the IPR regarding her declarations. Paper 35, ¶4.
`
`The parties also stipulated regarding the scope of district court materials for
`
`submission: “The entirety of the District Court Meyer cross-examination…and any
`
`documents referenced therein….” Paper 35, ¶5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s
`
`suggestion in Observation #1, Patent Owner did not produce in this IPR “the
`
`entirety of the record generated in the parallel district court proceeding involving
`
`the RE’186 patent on the issue of commercial success.” In EX2220 at 9:5-7, 14-
`
`19, Dr. McDuff testified that he reviewed all pertinent information in reaching his
`
`conclusions to the extent the information was available. Specifically, Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he reviewed the Meyer declaration (EX2059A) and the underlying
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`sources cited in the Meyer declaration and that he was provided with “all or nearly
`
`all of the exhibits” put forth by the patent holder. EX2220 at 11:8-12:10. Dr.
`
`McDuff also testified that he “reviewed a wide range of academic literature
`
`relating to pharmaceuticals” and information “generally about the subject matter of
`
`the case.” EX2220 at 12:11-22. Dr. McDuff testified that he “gathered
`
`information to the extent [he] thought it was relevant” and that “if [he] asked for
`
`information from counsel and they had access to that information, [he] was
`
`provided that as well.” EX2220 at 15:1-12. Dr. McDuff also testified at 16:4-7
`
`that he did not restrict his review to material favorable to Petitioners. Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he was not aware of Patent Owner producing Dr. Meyer’s expert
`
`report from the district court proceeding (EX2220 at 17:4-7, 19:9-16), and no such
`
`report appears on Patent Owner’s Exhibit List (Paper 64). Dr. McDuff also
`
`testified that he understood that Dr. Meyer’s IPR declaration provides the totality
`
`of “her opinions here” in the IPR proceeding. EX2220 at 17:19-18:2, 19:9-16,
`
`20:4-14. Dr. McDuff testified that he reviewed the Hofmann expert report that was
`
`deemed produced in this IPR by Patent Owner pursuant to the parties' stipulation
`
`(Paper 35) “to obtain information that was not available elsewhere.” EX2220 at
`
`19:17-22. Dr. McDuff also testified that he reviewed Patent Owner’s cross-
`
`examination of Mr. Hofmann’s testimony from the trial in the district court
`
`litigation (EX2220 at 18:20-23) and Dr. Meyer’s trial demonstratives (EX2220 at
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`20:15-20), thereby ensuring that he was aware of any deficiencies in Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s testimony that Patent Owner had purported to identify. Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he would have liked to review information that AstraZeneca failed to
`
`provide in this case, such as information about “discounts and information on early
`
`prescriptions and sales in the market.” EX2220 at 14:13-25. Dr. McDuff testified
`
`that he was “surprised to see in Dr. Meyer’s declaration given that she makes a
`
`claim on pricing that she did not provide information on discounts for Onglyza or
`
`Kombiglyze, nor did she provide information for other DPP-4 competitors, nor did
`
`AstraZeneca provide any business documents to my knowledge that provide such
`
`price comparison.” EX2220 at 139:7-14.
`
`Observation #2:
`
`As explained above in Petitioners’ response to Observation #1, Patent
`
`Owner complains that Dr. McDuff did not review the entirety of the district court
`
`record, but Patent Owner did not produce the entirety of the district court record in
`
`this IPR proceeding. The parties stipulated regarding the scope of district court
`
`materials for submission and to the use of Dr. Meyer’s cross-examination in lieu of
`
`a separate deposition in the IPR. Paper 35, ¶¶45. Moreover, Dr. McDuff testified
`
`at length regarding the information he reviewed in reaching his conclusions,
`
`including the totality of Dr. Meyer’s opinions in this case and the supporting
`
`materials thereto. EX2220 at 9:5-7, 9:14-19, 11:8-12:10, 12:11-22, 15:1-12,16:4-
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`7. Dr. McDuff testified that he was not aware of Patent Owner producing Dr.
`
`Meyer’s expert report from the district court proceeding (EX2220 at 17:4-7, 19:9-
`
`16), and no such report appears on Patent Owner’s Exhibit List (Paper 64). Dr.
`
`McDuff also testified that he understood that Dr. Meyer’s IPR declaration provides
`
`the totality of “her opinions here” in the IPR proceeding. EX2220 at 17:19-18:2,
`
`19:9-16, 20:4-14. Dr. McDuff testified that he reviewed the Hofmann expert
`
`report that was deemed produced in this IPR by Patent Owner pursuant to the
`
`parties' stipulation (Paper 35) “to obtain information that was not available
`
`elsewhere.” EX2220 at 19:17-22. Dr. McDuff also testified that he reviewed
`
`Patent Owner’s cross-examination of Mr. Hofmann’s testimony from the trial in
`
`the district court litigation (EX2220 at 18:20-23) and Dr. Meyer’s trial
`
`demonstratives (EX2220 at 20:15-20), thereby ensuring that he was aware of any
`
`deficiencies in Mr. Hofmann’s testimony that Patent Owner had purported to
`
`identify.
`
`Observation #3:
`
`In EX2220 at 53:3-54:7, Dr. McDuff testified, that “[t]here are situations
`
`where I do have a finding or opinion of commercial success,” and that “I have had
`
`that finding in my work,” but simply that in none of these cases has he served as
`
`the testifying expert where the case proceeded to a point where he testified
`
`regarding that opinion. In EX2220 at 159:23:160:11, Dr. McDuff testified that
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`there were “situations where I worked on those cases…[and] I agreed with those
`
`opinions that were provided, at least with respect to commercial success of those
`
`products.”
`
`Observation #4:
`
`In EX2220 at 161:22-162:3, Dr. McDuff testified that he has “presented on
`
`commercial success as testimony in court” but that “the speaking engagements that
`
`I’ve referenced and listed under speaking engagements on my CV” have not been
`
`specific to commercial success.”
`
`Observation #5:
`
`In his declaration, Dr. McDuff stated that “Commercial success is a
`
`secondary consideration that a patent owner may use to argue that a patent is not
`
`obvious based on the alleged commercial success of a product embodying the
`
`invention of the patent. EX1060, ¶13. In EX2220 at 160:12-25 Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he performed an independent analysis in which he focused on
`
`reviewing and discussing the declaration of Dr. Meyer and responding to that
`
`declaration and the claims made there. Dr. McDuff referenced the Patent Owner’s
`
`burden of production with regard to commercial success, and stated that he
`
`understood “that the board will ultimately make a determination.” Id. In EX2220
`
`at 52:14-24, Dr. McDuff testified: “I reviewed Dr. Meyer’s opinions and did not
`
`find them persuasive for a finding of commercial success, nor did I see any
`
`evidence that convinced me that this was a commercial success.”
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Observation #6:
`
`Dr. McDuff testified: “I further understand that evidence of commercial
`
`success is only relevant if there is a nexus between the alleged commercial success
`
`and the patentable features of the asserted claims. In other words, the patent owner
`
`must show that the commercial success is attributable to the novel parts of a patent
`
`claim, and not on factors that are unrelated or were already known. EX1060, ¶13.
`
`In EX2220 at 49:24-50:4, Dr. McDuff testified that factors that were unrelated or
`
`were already known would include the prior art. In EX2220 at 117:24-118:5, Dr.
`
`McDuff testified that whether sitagliptin or saxagliptin was invented first is “not a
`
`primary consideration here” in “observing poor differentiation in the actual market
`
`where the economic evidence is.” In EX2220 at 50:5-14, Dr. McDuff explained
`
`that “the economic evaluation of commercial success is about assessing the
`
`marketplace as it exists and can be observed” because that is where the “economic
`
`evidence” is. In EX2220 at 50:15-25, Dr. McDuff explained that he examined
`
`“differentiation in the marketplace as it can be observed” and that he evaluates the
`
`“economic matter” as it’s observed in the market,” leaving the Board to decide the
`
`“legal issue” of what “legal inference” to draw regarding obviousness.
`
`Observation #7:
`
`Dr. McDuff testified that he neither disputed nor confirmed certain
`
`assertions made by Dr. Meyer. E.g., EX2220 at 21:22-22:3. In EX2220 at 24:17-
`
`25:25, Dr. McDuff testified that “gross sales” do not properly qualify as “sales of
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Onglyza” because “[t]hey’re not earned revenues and they wouldn’t typically be
`
`described as the overall sales figures[,] not in terms of what is earned and actually
`
`booked….” Dr. McDuff also testified that Dr. Meyer failed to compare the
`
`Onglyza sales to anything (EX2220 at 27:13-22), that the IMS promotional data
`
`relied upon by Dr. Meyer understates the true promotional expenditures (EX2220
`
`at 31:6-15), and that the understatement would not be expected to be uniform
`
`across products (EX2220 at 31:16-25, 35:14), meaning that saxagliptin’s
`
`promotional expenditures may be understated relative to its competitors’
`
`promotional expenditures. Dr. McDuff also testified that Dr. Meyer’s Figure 7 is
`
`not particularly informative because it “is graphed on a monthly basis,” is “highly
`
`influenced by the amount of marketing or sales in a particular month,” such as the
`
`very low amount of sales in the denominator when a product launches.” EX2220 at
`
`36:7-39:3. Dr. McDuff also testified that such comparisons based on “the same
`
`calendar year…aren’t apples to apples” because they do not compare promotional
`
`efforts based on the number of “years since launch.” EX2220 at 120:6-121:22.
`
`Observation #8:
`
`In EX2220 at 27:13-22, 59:15-22, Dr. McDuff testifies that Dr. Meyer relied
`
`on products sales “in some abstract, unexplained sense” and that she did not
`
`compare sales of Onglyza or Kombiglyze to sales of any other drug, whether gross
`
`sales or net sales. Dr. McDuff explained that Dr. Meyer merely provides “a
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`recitation of calculations,” that “she has not compared them to anything,” and that
`
`“Dr. Meyer’s lack of any comparison is problematic.” EX2220 at 59:23-61:4,
`
`61:16-63:5, 70:17-19. Dr. McDuff explained that whether $2.5 billion in net
`
`revenue is “substantial” depends on the context at issue (EX2220 at 63:9-10, 66:2),
`
`and that “in light of [the] comparisons, I don’t think that [the] sales of saxagliptin
`
`are substantial. EX2220 at 64:6-17. Dr. McDuff explained that he “provided
`
`points of comparison to put Dr. Meyer’s calculations into context” in paragraph 18
`
`and elsewhere in his declaration (EX2220 at 69:11-14). Dr. McDuff explained that
`
`the points of comparison he provided included other DPP-4 drugs, other drugs used
`
`to treat Type 2 diabetes, such as non-insulin anti-diabetic drugs, and other factors.”
`
`EX2220 at 70:8-14. Dr. McDuff testified that this “context is important.” EX2220
`
`at 80:7-18. He also explained that it is helpful to look at both DPP-4 comparators
`
`and other NIAD comparators. EX2220 at 76:6-77:13. Dr. McDuff also testified
`
`that he did not agree with Dr. Meyer that it was appropriate to focus on
`
`comparisons solely to DPP-4 inhibitors to the exclusion of other NIAD
`
`comparators because “[i]t’s very common for there to be separate classes of
`
`treatment for the same disease or diagnosis, yet they are in competition with one
`
`another, such as D[P]P-4s and other noninsulin antidiabetic drugs.” EX2220 at
`
`78:3-79:2. Dr. McDuff also testified: “I think it is not reasonable to ignore the
`
`broader notion of competition and the competition with treatments outside D[P]P-4
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`inhibitors, I don’t agree with that.” EX2220 at 79:3-12. Dr. McDuff also testified
`
`that a focus on comparing saxagliptin sales only to DPP-4 inhibitors instead of the
`
`broader NIAD market would overstate saxagliptin’s commercial sales because “the
`
`Type 2 diabetes treatment market as a whole is larger than the D[P]P-3 inhibitor
`
`market.” EX2220 at 81:10-18.
`
`Observation #9:
`
`In EX2220 at 42:1-22, Dr. McDuff testified that “My declaration provides
`
`my opinions and they do primarily relate to commercial success and its relation to
`
`the ’186 patent,” that it is “possible that some of my opinions may be cited in
`
`support of other indicia, yet my opinions are generally focused on commercial
`
`success as I would think of it, yet they may relate to other indicia as well,” and that
`
`he is not offering an opinion on the overall validity of the ’186 patent “[a]s a
`
`conclusory matter,” but that his “opinions may go towards that determination via
`
`secondary considerations.”
`
`Observation #10:
`
`In EX2220 at 75:20-76:2, in answer to a question whether he “studied the
`
`relative efforts of AstraZeneca and Novartis to promote and market saxagliptin-
`
`containing products and vildagliptin-containing products outside of the U.S.,” Dr.
`
`McDuff testified that this “[i]s not something I focused on, nor do I recall seeing
`
`that evaluation in the Meyer declaration.”
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Observation #11:
`
`In EX2220 at 82:5-14, Dr. McDuff testified that he thought sitagliptin had “a
`
`first mover advantage to some degree” that was “substantial enough to understand
`
`and evaluate as one factor that influenced how this market developed.” In EX2220
`
`at 82:15-25, Dr. McDuff testified that “Given the lack of differentiation, relative
`
`lack of differentiation of the competition here, at least among D[P]P-4 inhibitors,
`
`the first mover advantage would tend to be stronger,” but was not absolute, as
`
`evidenced by “Tradjenta over[taking] Onglyza despite the reverse order in launch.”
`
`Dr. McDuff testified that “this class of treatments [DPP-4 inhibitors] is less
`
`differentiated than most pharmaceutical markets,” and that “in light of that lack of
`
`differentiations” sitagliptin’s first mover advantage “was impactful.” EX2220 at
`
`83:1-25. IN EX2220 at 112:7-15, Dr. McDuff testified: “In this market with the
`
`limited differentiation among the products that are competing, I think the first
`
`mover advantage for Merck was more impactful than average.”
`
`Observation #12:
`
`In EX2220 at 91:20-92:10, Dr. McDuff testified that “it’s likely that the
`
`expected cost of commercializing the saxagliptin products were on the greater side
`
`of drug commercialization costs,” that he was “not aware of any specific dollar
`
`figures having been provided by AstraZeneca or Dr. Meyer,” but that he cites
`
`“typical costs of drug developments, as well as facts specific to Onglyza and
`
`Kombiglyze XR’s development that allows a determination or an overall
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`assessment of what those costs would be.” In EX2220 at 95:15-96:6, Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he had not seen data “provided by AstraZeneca or Dr. Meyer that
`
`would allow for calculation” of the exact amount expended to develop Onglyza
`
`and Kombiglyze, but that he had provided information about “what is typical for
`
`commercialization costs and have indicated that Onglyza and Kombiglyze together
`
`have similar characteristics as the drugs that have been studied and would thus
`
`have similar or possibly greater commercialization costs relative to figures from
`
`the published literature.” In EX2220 at 97:6-16, Dr. McDuff testified that he had
`
`enough information about efforts to develop and commercialize saxagliptin to
`
`opine under oath that it is likely that the cost of development was on the greater
`
`side of pharmaceutical development costs based on the evidence he reviewed, but
`
`that he would have been open to considering evidence about actual development
`
`costs had AstraZeneca chosen to provide it.
`
`Observation #13:
`
`In EX2220 at 100:4-14, Dr. McDuff testified that he agreed that,
`
`numerically speaking, the promotional spending reported by IMS for sitagliptin
`
`was approximately two times that reported by IMS for Onglyza and Kombiglyze.
`
`However, Dr. McDuff also testified that “marketing for Onglyza and Kombiglyze
`
`was above average relative to sales in comparison to other D[P]P-4 inhibitors” for
`
`its time period. EX2220 at 148:21-25. Dr. McDuff further testified that marketing
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`expenditures for Onglyza and Kombiglyze was less “on a dollar basis” than for the
`
`Januvia product family from 2009 to 2015, but that the same was not true “[o]n a
`
`share of voice verses share[ of] prescription basis.” EX2220 at 149:1-8.
`
`Observation #14:
`
`In EX2220 at 123:12-20, Dr. McDuff testified that both the decline in sales
`
`that started in 2012 and the 2016 FDA warning “go towards supporting the overall
`
`notion of limited future opportunity” for saxagliptin. In EX2220 at 125:8-126:4,
`
`Dr. McDuff testified that it “may have been” known to prescribers prior to the
`
`issuance of the FDA warning in 2016 that patients receiving saxagliptin “had a
`
`greater risk of hospitalization for heart failure,” but that even if the issue were
`
`known, the FDA warning would still have an effect because “it’s a matter of
`
`degree and a matter of signal” when the FDA “at some point elevates” the risk “to
`
`the level where the FDA evaluates it and issues a warning.” Dr. McDuff testified
`
`that even if there were “some impact from the scientific evidence,” he would
`
`expect a “further impact from the FDA warning.” EX2220 at 125:13-126:4.
`
`Observation #15:
`
`In EX2220 at 132:14-135:5, Dr. McDuff testified: “As indicated in my
`
`declaration and as described in my previous response, I looked at the discounts for
`
`Novartis as a company. They did not separately report discount[s] for vildagliptin,
`
`but I use them as a representative benchmark.” In EX2220 at 131:14-132:13, Dr.
`
`McDuff referenced paragraphs 41-13 of his declaration and testified that Novartis
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`is the manufacturer of vildagliptin and is “a representative benchmark for not only
`
`the company that is the competitor company selling the competitor product, but as
`
`a company selling this type of product.” Dr. McDuff testified that he analyzed the
`
`discounts for Onglyza and Kombiglyze “relative to not only my experience
`
`analyzing pharmaceutical discounts” and also compared to “the best information I
`
`could find on a benchmark… It was the company selling vildagliptin.” EX2220 at
`
`133:25-134:7. Dr. McDuff testified that the Onglyza and Kombiglyze discounts
`
`were “large relative to” his experience analyzing pharmaceutical discounts
`
`generally. Dr. McDuff testified that is “notable how much lower those
`
`[vildagliptin health care plans and program rebates] are compared to Onglyza and
`
`Kombiglyze” because “[i]t’s an order of magnitude lower, from a company that is
`
`“representative not only of the industry generally, but representative of the
`
`company that sells vildagliptin.” EX2220 at 135:3-12. Dr. McDuff explained that
`
`although the Novartis data is not isolated to “vildagliptin specifically, which was
`
`not available,” that it is “either the case that competitor D[PP]-4 products don’t
`
`have as big a discount as Onglyza or Kombiglyze, which is my expectation, but if
`
`they did, again, because I’ve been using the best proxy that I can, [it] just further
`
`indicates the lack of differentiation in the market. So either way the large discount
`
`for Onglyza and Kombiglyze indicate a relative lack of nexus to the patent-in-suit.”
`
`EX2220 at 135:12-136:13
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Observation #16:
`
`In EX2220 at 140:6-141:11, Dr. McDuff was asked to examine a partial
`
`excerpt of an undated deposition transcript marked as Exhibit 2218 that Patent
`
`Owner represented was read into a trial record on September 1, 2016. In EX2220
`
`at 144:4-9, Dr. McDuff was asked to examine for the first time a document marked
`
`as Exhibit 2219 that Patent Owner represented as a CVS Caremark Value
`
`Formulary effective as of October 1, 2016. Dr. McDuff testified that he could not
`
`confirm whether either of these documents was what Patent Owner represented
`
`them to be because he had no independent knowledge about the document.
`
`EX2220 at 141:4-11, 144:10-15. Dr. McDuff was asked to speculate regarding the
`
`relationship between EX2218 and EX2219. EX2220 at 145:6-146:7. Dr. McDuff
`
`answered that he did not see any price comparison in the documents, that the
`
`document provided “limited context,” and that the questioning attorney’s
`
`speculation “may be possible.” Id.
`
`Observation #17:
`
`In EX2220 at 149:1-150:6, Dr. McDuff testified that the marketing
`
`expenditures for Onglyza and Kombiglyze were not lower than expenditures for
`
`the Januvia product family from 2009 to 2015 when the relative share of
`
`prescriptions was taken into account, and that a calendar month comparison “does
`
`not take into account the differences in time of launch.” In EX2220 at 151:22-
`
`152:10, Dr. McDuff testified that comparing the numerical promotional spending
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`for Tradjenta vs. Onglyza was not “a valid comparison” because “[i]t cuts off
`
`significant early promotional expenditures for Onglyza in the two years before
`
`2011, and looking at their market share as of 2015, the’re more comparable. It’s
`
`13.7 percent for Tradjenta and 13.1 percent for Onglyza and Kombiglyze.” In
`
`EX2220 at 152:12-14, Dr. McDuff testified, “Looking at those values, I’d say they
`
`are more occasional as opposed to one being significantly different than the other.”
`
`See also EX2220 at 152:19-25 (2015 market share of 13.7 for Tradjenta vs. 13.1
`
`for Onglyza family).
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 19 December 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`
`
`/ Richard Torczon /
`Richard Torczon, Reg. No. 34,448
`Counsel for Mylan
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`37 CFR §42.6(e)
`
`I certify that, on 19 December 2016, this PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`OF DEFOREST MCDUFF was served on AstraZeneca at the following service
`
`electronic addresses:
`
`Charles E. Lipsey
`
`charles.lipsey@finnegan.com
`
`Eric E. Grondahl
`
`egrondahl@mccarter.com
`
`John D. Livingstone
`
`john.livingstone@finnegan.com
`
`Anthony A. Hartmann
`
`anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com
`
`M. David Weingarten
`
`david.weingarten@finnegan.com
`
`Nicole A. Conlon
`
`nicole.conlon@finnegan.com
`
`Daniel M. Silver
`
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`
`Kassandra M. Officer
`
`kassandra.officer@finnegan.com
`
`on Wockhardt at the following service electronic addresses:
`
`Frederick R. Ball
`
`FRBall@duanemorris.com
`
`Patrick C. Gallagher
`
`PCGallagher@duanemorris.com
`
`on Teva at the following service electronic addresses:
`
`Iain A. McIntyre
`
`IMcIntyre@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Gary J. Speier
`
`GSpeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`on Aurobindo at the following service electronic addresses:
`
`Sailesh K. Patel
`
`SPatel@schiffhardin.com
`
`Joel Wallace
`
`JWallace@schiffhardin.com
`
`George Yu
`
`GYu@schiffhardin.com
`
`
`and on Sun/Amneal at the following service electronic addresses:
`
`Samuel S. Park
`
`spark@winston.com
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`
`asommer@winston.com
`
`
`Dated: 19 December 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Richard Torczon /
`Richard Torczon, Reg. No. 34,448
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-

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