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
`
`
`
`
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
` Before the Honorable Christopher L.
`
`Crumbley, the Honorable Lora M. Green, and the
`
`Honorable Robert A. Pollock, Administrative Patent
`
`Judges, via conference call, on the 1st day of
`
`June, 2016; commencing at 4:00 p.m., the following
`
`cases were called:
`
` PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` NOVARTIS AG
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
` Case IRP2016-00084
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
`Job No.: 113636
`
`Pages 1 - 38
`
`Reported by: Kimberly Anne Votta, RPR
`
`Ex. 1031-0001
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
` Before the Honorable Christopher L.
`
`Crumbley, the Honorable Lora M. Green, and the
`
`Honorable Robert A. Pollock, Administrative Patent
`
`Judges, via conference call, on the 1st day of
`
`June, 2016; commencing at 4:00 p.m., the following
`
`cases were called:
`
` PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` NOVARTIS AG
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
` Case IRP2016-00084
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
`Job No.: 113636
`
`Pages 1 - 38
`
`Reported by: Kimberly Anne Votta, RPR
`
`Ex. 1031-0001
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
` PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` NOVARTIS AG
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
` CASE IRP2016-01059
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
` BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` NOVARTIS AG.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _________________________
`
`14
`
`
`
` CASE IRP2016-01023
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0002
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
` BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`
`3
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
` NOVARTIS AG
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
` CASE NO. TO BE ASSIGNED
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
` ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` NOVARTIS AG
`
` Patent Owner
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
` CASE NO. TO BE ASSIGNED
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
` _________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1031-0003
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`4
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` (Via Telephone)
`
` For the Petitioner Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.:
`
` JONATHAN M. STRANG, ESQUIRE
`
` MARC ZUBICK, ESQUIRE
`
` Latham & Watkins, LLP
`
` 555 Eleventh Street, NW
`
` Suite 1000
`
` Washington, DC 20004-1304
`
` (202) 637-2200
`
` For the Petitioner Breckenridge
`
` Pharmaceutical, Inc.:
`
` MATTHEW L. FEDOWITZ, ESQUIRE
`
` MARY BRAM, ESQUIRE
`
` ALIREZA BEHROOZ, ESQUIRE
`
` Merchant & Gould, P.C.
`
` 1900 Duke Street, Suite 600
`
` Alexandria, VA 22314
`
` (703) 684-2500
`
` For the Petitioner Roxane Laboratories, Inc.:
`
` KEITH A. ZULLOW, ESQUIRE
`
` Goodwin Procter, LLP
`
` The New York Times Building
`
` 620 Eighth Avenue
`
` New York, NY 10018
`
` (212) 813-8800
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1031-0004
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S cont.
`
` (Via Telephone)
`
`5
`
` For the Patent Owner Novartis:
`
` NICHOLAS N. KALLAS, ESQUIRE
`
` RAYMOND R. MANDRA, ESQUIRE
`
` Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`
` 1290 Avenue of the Americas
`
` New York, NY 10104
`
` (212) 218-2100
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1031-0005
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: So as I said, this is Judge
`
`6
`
` Crumbley. I have with me Judges Green and
`
` Pollock. We have a phone call today in five
`
` related IPRs, and I'll read the numbers. It's
`
` IPR2016-00084, 01023, 01059, 01102, and 01103.
`
` Go ahead and get the appearances from the
`
` parties, Counsel. So let's start with the
`
` Petitioner Par Pharmaceutical.
`
` MR. STRANG: Yes. This is Jonathan Strang
`
` from Latham & Watkins, and with me I have Marc
`
` Zubick, also with Latham & Watkins. And that's
`
` for Petitioner Par.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right. Good afternoon,
`
` Mr. Strang.
`
` Okay. And do we have someone from
`
` Breckenridge on the phone?
`
` MR. FEDOWITZ: Yes. This is Matthew
`
` Fedowitz on behalf of Breckenridge.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Hi, Mr. Fedowitz. Do you
`
` have anyone else with you representing
`
` Breckenridge?
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1031-0006
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. FEDOWITZ: I have Mary Bram and
`
` Alireza --
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I did not
`
` hear you.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Why don't we get names --
`
` why don't we get their name spellings after --
`
` after the call, if that's all right.
`
` MR. STRANG: We'll take care of that, Your
`
` Honor.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right. Thank you.
`
` MR. ZULLOW: This is Keith Zullow, Your
`
` Honor, on behalf of Roxane.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Hi, Mr. Zullow. And who do
`
` we have from Novartis on the phone?
`
` MR. KALLAS: For the patent owner, Judge
`
` Crumbley, we have Nick Kallas, and with me is
`
` Ray Mandra.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right, Mr. Kallas.
`
` So I have an e-mail here -- actually, before
`
` we get underway, which party retained the court
`
` reporter?
`
` MR. STRANG: That's was Petitioner Par, Your
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0007
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Honor.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right, Mr. Strang. So
`
` do me a favor and when you receive the
`
` transcript provide a copy to the -- to the other
`
` parties, and file a copy in PRPS for us. And,
`
` actually, the other petitioners need to do the
`
` same in their cases as well.
`
` MR. STRANG: Yes, Your Honor. Would you
`
` like the parties to use a 3,000 series number or
`
` our own series of numbers?
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: No. I think it's okay for
`
` you to just use your own series of numbers.
`
` MR. STRANG: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right. Okay. So I
`
` have an e-mail here from the parties in the --
`
` so between Par and Novartis, but we decided to
`
` include Breckenridge and Roxane as well since I
`
` think the issues are relevant to their cases as
`
` well.
`
` The first issue in the e-mail is that the
`
` Patent Owner Novartis wants to extend due date
`
` one, currently set for July 29th, until late
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0008
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` September. So -- and, Mr. Kallas, why don't you
`
` speak to that briefly, and then we can hear from
`
` the petitioner on that.
`
` MR. KALLAS: Yes, Your Honor. The
`
` scheduling issue here arises because there is a
`
` district court trial starting on August 29th of
`
` this year. That district court trial will occur
`
` after due date one, July 29th, which is Patent
`
` Owner's response, but before due date two,
`
` October 31st, which is Petitioner Par's reply.
`
` And just so you have it correctly, hopefully
`
` it's clear, due date one on July 29th is Patent
`
` Owner's response. There's a district court
`
` trial on August 29th. Due date two,
`
` October 31st; Petitioner Par's reply.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: And what are you seeking
`
` for the --
`
` MR. KALLAS: Well, we're seeking here,
`
` because there is going to be a trial on the same
`
` patent involving several of the same issues, and
`
` we -- we think it's only fair that both parties
`
` either get to use the trial testimony, or
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0009
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` neither one of them gets to use the trial
`
` testimony. However, under the current schedule,
`
` Par will be allowed to use the trial testimony
`
` in its reply, or it will decline to use it if
`
` it's adverse to them, and -- and under the
`
` present schedule, the patent owner won't get the
`
` opportunity to use any part of that trial
`
` testimony. We'll be denied that opportunity.
`
` And all we're looking for is a reasonable
`
` resolution to this issue, because we believe
`
` there should be a level playing field. Either
`
` both sides get to use it, or neither gets to use
`
` it.
`
` And because of that, and we think it's
`
` unfair if Patent Owner doesn't get that
`
` opportunity, we made several proposals to Par.
`
` The first one was to extend the current
`
` schedule. And our proposal would be on the
`
` lines of, rather than having our paper due --
`
` due date one July 29th, we would move that back
`
` to shortly after the trial. We believe we could
`
` have our papers in on September 16th. And then
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0010
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` we would give the Petitioner Par an extension of
`
` due date two from October 31st to, say,
`
` November 29th, and then no other dates really
`
` have to be moved. We think that would
`
` accommodate us in -- for us allowing having
`
` access and use of this relevant trial testimony.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Well, let me interrupt you
`
` for just a moment. So from what you just said,
`
` I'm reading between the lines, I take it that
`
` you're not intending to file a motion to amend
`
` in this case?
`
` MR. KALLAS: Yes. Yes.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. Because --
`
` MR. KALLAS: We -- we would do that. We're
`
` hoping that we could work this out, but we've
`
` had -- we had several proposals on the table.
`
` We think the most fair one would be to move the
`
` schedule or change the schedule in the
`
` beginning, which doesn't appear to prejudice
`
` anybody, and it allows the patent owner the same
`
` opportunity that the Petitioner Par would have.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Right. Now, I take your
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0011
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` point. I guess what -- the reason I asked that
`
` was, you said that you would -- you were going
`
` to propose moving due date two to where due date
`
` three, which is the reply to the motion to amend
`
` currently as set, which, to me, it says that
`
` you're not intending to file a motion to amend;
`
` therefore, we actually don't need due date three
`
` in the first place.
`
` MR. KALLAS: That is correct, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. So the one thing
`
` that I think I'll point out here is that the
`
` parties do have the ability to move these dates
`
` by stipulation. And if there is this -- you
`
` know, if there's no need for due date three in
`
` the schedule as it stands right now, that --
`
` that might give you enough leeway to accommodate
`
` whatever -- whatever moves you're looking to
`
` make without the involvement of the Board.
`
` So let me -- I know you have a couple
`
` alternative proposals as well that are in the
`
` e-mail, but let me -- I want to turn to counsel
`
` for Par.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0012
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Mr. Strang, do you -- do you have a response
`
` to that? Do you -- are you amenable to
`
` discussing, you know, these kinds of moving due
`
` dates between the parties, and if we're not
`
` needing the Board's involvement if they're not
`
` filing a motion to amend?
`
` MR. STRANG: Yes, we are, Your Honor. And
`
` had we heard these proposals before, we might
`
` not even be here today taking up your time. The
`
` previous proposal we had was, in total, what was
`
` in the e-mail to the Board, which was move due
`
` date two -- or, pardon me, move due date one,
`
` the patent owner response, back by two months.
`
` There was no discussion of what to do with the
`
` rest of the due dates.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay.
`
` MR. STRANG: As a matter of fact, we -- when
`
` we looked at it, we weren't sure how we were
`
` going to manage this, because due date six and
`
` seven, we can't move. Due date six is right
`
` after the holidays. Due date five is 1/3,
`
` January 3, so we couldn't move that. So we
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0013
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` didn't quite see how to do -- do that. But we
`
` think in light of the new proposal presented for
`
` the first time today that we could be able to
`
` come to an agreement, and that would help us
`
` synchronize the schedules for the other
`
` proceeding also.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: And that was going to be my
`
` next -- next -- once we dealt with this topic,
`
` that was going to be my next point, which was
`
` that I think it might make our -- the issues
`
` with that -- with our second issue maybe a
`
` little easier to deal with if we do have this
`
` flexibility in the schedule in the first case.
`
` So what I would like the parties to do, I'd
`
` like Par and Novartis to do, in the 00084 case
`
` is just, once we finish today, either sit down
`
` together and discuss, you know, whether you can
`
` come to some sort of agreement now that we know
`
` due date three is not going to be in play, and
`
` then come up with a stipulated schedule that you
`
` could -- that you could file with the Court.
`
` And then, therefore, we wouldn't have to get
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0014
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` into modifying the scheduling order in any way
`
` at this -- at this point.
`
` Does that sound okay to you, Mr. Kallas?
`
` MR. KALLAS: Yes, it does, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right. Well, I'll put
`
` that to you and Mr. Strang to do after we get
`
` off the call today.
`
` If there's nothing else on that issue, I
`
` want to turn to the second issue in the e-mail,
`
` which has to do with accelerating the due date
`
` for -- in the preliminary response in the 1059
`
` proceeding, which seeks joinder to the -- to
`
` the 84 proceeding.
`
` So I guess I'll turn it again -- this is
`
` your request, Mr. Strang. I'll turn it to you
`
` first to -- what are you -- what are you seeking
`
` from the Board on this -- on this issue?
`
` MR. STRANG: Your Honor, as we originally
`
` proposed in our motion for joinder, we sought an
`
` accelerated schedule for the POPR so that we
`
` would more easily synchronize the two
`
` proceedings' schedules together. And, in fact,
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0015
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` since there's absolutely -- there's no
`
` difference, in our view, as we laid out in our
`
` petition, and I don't want to get into the
`
` merits here, but there's really no substantive
`
` difference between claims 7 and claims 1, 8,
`
` and 9, that it would be appropriate and
`
` reasonable for Petitioners to have a month for
`
` their POPR to the Board with them. We didn't
`
` seek to have to the Board's three months and
`
` then a month for the POPR. And then that would
`
` give us two weeks to address the additional
`
` issues that are just in that delta between
`
` what -- you know, what you possibly argue
`
` between claims 7 and claim 1 and 9.
`
` So we gave the parties -- you know, we gave
`
` them about a month for each of their responses,
`
` ourselves for two weeks, and we seen that was
`
` reasonable. We didn't get any sort of
`
` counter-proposal or how to integrate that with
`
` the existing schedule, and had we known that we
`
` were able to -- that the -- that Novartis was
`
` willing to move due date two and forego their
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0016
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` motion to amend so we'd have plenty of time,
`
` I -- I don't really see why the parties can't
`
` come to agreement on that either, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Well, before we -- before
`
` we go down that road, and I have a couple of
`
` sort of preliminary questions. The first thing
`
` is for Mr. Fedowitz and Mr. Zullow. Are -- are
`
` Breckenridge and Roxane also seeking shortened
`
` dates in -- in those cases that are also seeking
`
` joinder?
`
` MR. FEDOWITZ: This is Matt Fedowitz for
`
` Breckenridge. We're interested in fully
`
` coordinating with Par on that, so whatever works
`
` out in that regard, we're -- we're fully on
`
` board with that.
`
` MR. ZULLOW: And, Your Honor, this is Keith
`
` Zullow on behalf of Roxane, and we -- we feel
`
` the same way. We want to coordinate fully, and
`
` think that all of these should be on the same
`
` schedule. So we believe we'll be fine, but
`
` whatever Par is able to work out with -- with
`
` the patent owner.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0017
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Right. But -- okay. Okay.
`
` I think the issue is that -- that your
`
` petitions, or at least some of them, have come
`
` later, even later than -- than Par's second
`
` petition. So I -- I'm just trying to -- there's
`
` a lot of certain moving parts here, so I'm
`
` trying to figure out what all the parties want
`
` to do moving the schedule.
`
` Just another preliminary question, because I
`
` just -- I haven't looked that much into the
`
` merits, is, are you all past the one year 315(b)
`
` date for these joined cases? I'll ask you
`
` first, Mr. Strang.
`
` MR. STRANG: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. We're
`
` past our one year date.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: In the -- in the 1059 case?
`
` MR. STRANG: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. And then,
`
` Mr. Fedowitz, just for your 1102 case, are you
`
` past your date as well?
`
` MR. FEDOWITZ: Yes, sir.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. And Mr. Zullow?
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0018
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. ZULLOW: Yes, sir. Same thing.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. So -- so in the
`
` absence of joinder, those -- those cases are --
`
` are barred. Okay.
`
` I guess the only other question I had for
`
` you, Mr. Strang, before I turn to Mr. Kallas --
`
` oh, I have -- I have a couple questions. One --
`
` one is, do you have a reason why you didn't
`
` raise claim 7 in the -- in the original petition
`
` in the 84 case?
`
` MR. STRANG: Your Honor, there was nothing
`
` strategic in -- in the decision. I wasn't at
`
` the team -- I wasn't on the team at the time,
`
` but it was an inadvertent omission. But I think
`
` the real point here is that joinder's
`
` appropriate because there's no discernable
`
` prejudice to the patent owner. We have exactly
`
` the same declaration as in the original
`
` petition. We have exactly -- we have the same
`
` arguments. All we basically argue is, claim 7
`
` essentially rises and falls for the same reasons
`
` as claim 1, 8, and 9.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0019
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: No. I take your point on
`
` that. I just -- it wasn't in your -- I didn't
`
` see it in your motion that it was, for example,
`
` a newly asserted claim in the district court
`
` litigation in our -- in the complaint, for
`
` example. That's not the case, is it?
`
` MR. STRANG: No, Your Honor, it is not.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. All right. And the
`
` only other issue I have is -- is, you know -- so
`
` you haven't had a discussion with Mr. Kallas
`
` about this. So my question to you is, you know,
`
` does -- does short -- shortening the time period
`
` to a month not in some way harm Novartis's
`
` ability to respond to your petition? I mean, I
`
` know that you say that claim 7 stands or falls,
`
` but, I mean, don't they have the ability to
`
` introduce evidence? They're not bound to
`
` evidence in the -- in the first case. They --
`
` they're actually -- under our new rules, they're
`
` actually able to submit new testimonial evidence
`
` in response -- to form their response now.
`
` How -- how are they able to have a full
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0020
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` opportunity to do that in a month?
`
` MR. STRANG: Well, Your Honor, I have two
`
` answers to your question. The first one is that
`
` they don't -- we can give them much more than a
`
` month now that due date two is going to move
`
` from October 31. Our previous schedule --
`
` schedule's goal, a proposed schedule as laid out
`
` in the motion for joinder, was to synchronize
`
` the petitioner's reply on October 31. Now that
`
` we've moved that back to November 29, or at
`
` least in that neighborhood, that gives it plenty
`
` more time for them to address the issues.
`
` And that leads to my second point. The only
`
` issue here, the only issue presented by the
`
` petition and the second petition, is that
`
` claim 7, in effect, rises and falls with
`
` claims 1, 8, and 9. So we don't feel that
`
` there's going to be an additional -- a
`
` significant amount of testimony or evidence that
`
` goes to that issue. Claim 7 is the compound of
`
` claim 1, with, your claims 8 and 9 are
`
` administering the compound, presumably with a
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0021
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` carrier, to a patient.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: And I understand your point
`
` on that. I just am trying to -- and maybe --
`
` maybe this resolves itself if we have a little
`
` more time in the first case.
`
` But I want -- I want to give Mr. Kallas an
`
` opportunity to respond. I guess the first thing
`
` to ask you, Mr. Kallas, is, do you oppose
`
` shortening somewhat your time period for
`
` response to the petition in view of their --
`
` their apparent willingness to work with you on
`
` extending the first case?
`
` MR. KALLAS: Well, I don't know how much
`
` that somewhat is, Your Honor, but we do oppose
`
` not -- not getting our full time for this.
`
` First of all, let me just mention that we're
`
` allowed 30 days to oppose the joinder motion.
`
` And my understanding is that opposition is due
`
` on the 17th of June, and we are going to file an
`
` opposition motion. I won't get into the -- the
`
` merits of that. I'll save everybody on that.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: No. And I'm not asking you
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0022
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` to -- to give us your position now, and we'll
`
` take that when we receive it. Are you going to
`
` oppose the joinder; for example, Breckenridge,
`
` on the claim -- you know, basically a copied
`
` petition from the first case?
`
` MR. KALLAS: Well, Breckenridge filed -- I'm
`
` not certain which Breckenridge petition you're
`
` talking about.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Well, the 1023 case, which,
`
` again, maybe I'm -- I haven't seen something
`
` different in there, but appears to have the same
`
` grounds that we instituted on in the 84 case.
`
` Are you intending to oppose the joinder of
`
` Breckenridge to the 84 case?
`
` MR. KALLAS: Your Honor, Patent Owner will
`
` oppose that as well.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right. And I'm not
`
` saying you can't. I'm just trying to understand
`
` what -- you know, what you're planning on doing.
`
` MR. KALLAS: Yeah. And -- and that's -- my
`
` reading of the papers is that what -- their
`
` grounds are not exactly the same.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0023
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: All right.
`
` MR. KALLAS: There's additional grounds in
`
` their paper. But we will --
`
` MR. FEDOWITZ: And just to clarify on the
`
` record --
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You just
`
` cut out there.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Yeah. And do me a favor.
`
` That was garbled for me as well, so was that
`
` Mr. Fedowitz?
`
` MR. FEDOWITZ: Yes, sir. To clarify for the
`
` record, the grounds are identical --
`
` THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: The ground are identical --
`
` for the reporter, I think he said the grounds
`
` are identical to Par's.
`
` Mr. Fedowitz, you're getting somewhat
`
` garbled on your line, so you may just want
`
` to --
`
` MR. KALLAS: Yeah. Your Honor, this is Nick
`
` Kallas again. I hope I didn't misspeak. I
`
` meant to say the evidence isn't exactly the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0024
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` same, and if I said the grounds were different,
`
` then I -- I misspoke.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. That's fine. So the
`
` other question I had for you is -- and, again,
`
` you know, without getting too far into the
`
` merits, I mean, is it your position that there's
`
` something about claim 7 that makes it separately
`
` patentable from claim 1?
`
` MR. KALLAS: Your Honor, I do believe it is
`
` separately patentable. We're looking at that.
`
` It may require a new type of expert that we have
`
` and need here, a formulation expert. Also,
`
` we're considering whether we need to or should
`
` amend claim 7 in the case. And all of this will
`
` take time to consider.
`
` I think you came up with the point that we
`
` were going to raise. Since we were able to
`
` respond on our first petition, or when we did
`
` respond, the rules have changed. Now we're able
`
` to go and vet this with an expert and put in an
`
` expert declaration, and -- and that will take
`
` time to prepare.
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0025
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` But I'm not -- I believe you; the patent
`
` owner views the world much differently than the
`
` other petitioners. As I -- as we look at
`
` section 103 and obviousness, we compare that
`
` claim with the prior art that cited against it.
`
` We don't compare the validity of that claim with
`
` other claims that aren't prior art in the same
`
` patent. And we should be able to get the full
`
` opportunity to attack that prior art. I believe
`
` they're relying on five references. We should
`
` get the full opportunity to show to the Court
`
` why those five references don't make sense in
`
` invalidating claim 7. And that's why it's --
`
` it, obviously, cannot be done by June 20th,
`
` which is less than three weeks from today, which
`
` is the date that Par had proposed. And we
`
` realize by pushing back the schedule, there may
`
` be room in the schedule to line these up. We
`
` had not considered that before, and maybe it's
`
` premature to discuss that, and maybe the parties
`
` ought to take a step back and see if they could
`
` figure out some other schedule other than the
`
`PLANET DEPOS
`888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
`
`Ex. 1031-0026
`
`
`
`Conference Call
`Conducted on June 1, 2016
`
`27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` one Par's proposed, and if they can't, then we
`
` come back to the Board and have the Board
`
` resolve that.
`
` But, again, I don't think we can say yes or
`
` no whether it will fit in the present schedule
`
` or not, because it wasn't an issue that was ripe
`
` for discussion today. Today it was, Par wanted
`
` a very fast schedule, which -- and our -- our
`
` thought was, it's not very reasonable, and
`
` certainly not fair to the patent owner. And,
`
` Judge Crumbley, you brought up yourself, we're
`
` allowed to bring in expert evidence now, and we
`
` didn't get that opportunity, unfortunately, with
`
` our preliminary response to the first petition.
`
` JUDGE CRUMBLEY: No. And I understand that.
`
` But, I mean, let's look at this in the big
`
` picture here, which is that there's something
`
` that you want, which is delaying due date one in
`
` the 84 case, and there's something that the
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
