`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`Sandoz, Inc., et al.,
` Petitioners,
` -v- Case No. IPR2016-00318
`Eli Lilly & Company,
` Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`Neptune Generics, et al.,
` Case No. IPR2016-00237
` -v- Case No. IPR2016-00240
`Eli Lilly & Company,
` Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`
` TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
` Wednesday, February 22, 2017
` Before:
` Hon. Lora Green
`
`Reported by:
`CHRISTINA CUMMINS, CSR
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0001
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S :
` BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
` By MS. LAURA L. LYDIGSEN
` 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive
` NBC Tower - Suite 3600
` Chicago, Illinois 60611
` 312.321.4200
` llydigsen@brinksgilson.com
` on behalf of the Petitioner Sandoz, Inc.;
` SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
` By MS. SARAH E. SPIRES
` 2200 Ross Avenue - Suite 4800W
` Dallas, Texas 75201
` 214.978.6600
` sspires@skiermontderby.com
`
` on behalf of the Petitioner Neptune
` Generics, LLC;
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
` By MR. DAVID M. KRINSKY
` 725 Twelfth St. NW
` Washington DC 20005
` 202.434.5812
` dkrinsky@wc.com
`
` on behalf of the Patent Owner Eli Lilly &
` Company;
` GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
` By MS. CYNTHIA LAMBERT HARDMAN
` The New York Times Building
` 620 Eighth Avenue
` New York, New York 10018-1405
` 212.813.8800
`
` on behalf of Fresenius Kabi USA.
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0002
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 3
`
` THE COURT: Let's start with our roll call.
`Who do we have for patent owner Eli Lilly?
` MR. KRINSKY: This is David Krinsky, your
`Honor, from Williams & Connolly.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And then who do
`we have for Petitioner Neptune?
` MS. SPIRES: This is Sarah Spires from
`Skiermont Derby for Neptune.
` THE COURT: And then who do we have for
`Petitioner Sandoz?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: This is Laura Lydigsen of
`Brinks, Gilson & Leone for Sandoz.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. It's my
`understanding that Petitioners requested this conference
`call. You may begin, and please let me know who's going
`to be speaking for Petitioner?
` MS. SPIRES: Your Honor, this is Sarah Spires.
`I will be speaking for Petitioner Neptune.
` THE COURT: Okay.
` MS. SPIRES: And then you will probably hear
`from Laura Lydigsen, Petitioner for Sandoz, as well.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Well, let's
`start with the first issue. The first issue is filing a
`five-page surrebuttal. And I just wanted to know why
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0003
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Petitioner thinks a rebuttal is necessary at this point
`in the proceeding.
` MS. SPIRES: Your Honor, as you know, the --
`this is Sarah Spires for Neptune. As you know, the
`Petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating obviousness
`in this case. And there are some issues that were
`brought up for the first time in sur-reply to which
`Petitioners have not had an opportunity to respond.
` The parties have different records in them, and
`so I think there are some issues that Neptune would like
`to respond to and some issues that Sandoz would like to
`respond to, which is why we're requesting separate
`sur-replies. I can speak to the issues that Neptune
`would like to respond to.
` THE COURT: Would this be for the 237 and the
`240?
` MS. SPIRES: Yes, that's correct.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
` MS. SPIRES: And that's largely because the
`sur-reply is combined, and so some of the issues are
`directed to the Sandoz petition, some are directed to the
`Neptune petition.
` THE COURT: Thanks.
` MS. SPIRES: And the issues for the Neptune
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0004
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`petition that Neptune would like to address are Lilly's
`arguments related to the post-priority date statements to
`the FDA stating that those are irrelevant and Lilly's
`characterization of the Werzal and Hammond studies. In
`particular, Lilly made these arguments on February 14th,
`but there was new case law that came down that's directly
`on point that came down January 30th. And so because of
`the date of that case law, Neptune was not able to
`address it in its reply, but it was relevant at the time
`that Lilly filed its sur-reply. So we would like the
`opportunity to respond to Lilly's arguments with the most
`up-to-date case law.
` THE COURT: And what is the case law?
` MS. SPIRES: It's In Re: Copaxone, consolidated
`cases, C-o-p-a-x-o-n-e. It's before Judge Lee in the
`District of Delaware. The case number is 1:14-CV-01171.
`And that case is document 294.
` THE COURT: And how is that case law relevant
`to this case?
` MS. SPIRES: In that case Teva was arguing that
`there were -- there were FDA documents that Teva -- or
`documents that Teva had submitted to the FDA, and Teva
`argued that those documents were not relevant. And --
`for the same reasons that Lilly argued here saying that
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0005
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`they were postdated documents and not publicly available,
`that sort of thing. And the District Court in that case
`found that the update documents were actually party
`admissions and so were relevant despite their date and
`the fact that they were not publicly available.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Is that it for
`why you would like to file a surrebuttal to 237 and 240?
` MS. SPIRES: Yes, for Neptune.
` THE COURT: Okay.
` MS. SPIRES: I believe Sandoz had a few other
`items.
` THE COURT: Okay. Sandoz, would you like to
`go?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Yes. This is Laura Lydigsen for
`Sandoz. We would like to address the argument that was
`raised in Lilly's sur-reply, burning of dihydrofolate
`reductase, which is one of -- which is one of the enzymes
`involved in pemetrexed -- pemetrexed mechanisms of
`action. On pages 2 through 5 of the sur-reply of these,
`Lilly makes an argument about DHFR and concludes the
`argument that Sandoz's expert opinion, and this is
`Dr. Stover, conflicts with the opinions of Neptune's
`expert, Dr. Gwyer.
` DHFR was apparently much more of a focus in the
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0006
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Neptune proceedings than it was in the Sandoz
`proceedings. We have not yet seen this argument and
`would like to have a chance to respond to it. Sandoz
`does not believe there is a conflict and would like an
`opportunity to explain that on the record.
` The other issue that we would like to address
`is Lilly's argument concerning the methyl trap. And in
`particular on page 7 of their sur-reply, Lilly makes a
`new argument that its beach balm does not release the
`methyl trap, then the Vitamin B12 can have no benefit to
`pemetrexed toxicity. And Sandoz would like an
`opportunity to respond to that as well.
` THE COURT: Okay. I think I understand.
`Patent owner, would you like to respond?
` MR. KRINSKY: I would, your Honor. And this is
`Dave Krinsky for Eli Lilly. I wanted to -- I think we
`should begin with really none of these arguments are new.
`Just to remind your Honor of the procedural posture here,
`we had submitted a sur-reply to respond to certain
`arguments that had appeared in the reply for the first
`time and we hadn't an opportunity to address.
` All of the things that you just heard about
`from both Neptune and Sandoz are our responses to those
`arguments. And I think we kept it in -- pretty well kept
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0007
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`it to responding to new reply arguments. These are not
`new arguments of ours in reply, you know. And the notion
`that, you know, we need further briefing, it seems to me
`that, you know, this needs to end somewhere. And we have
`not heard a justification for why further briefing is
`warranted at this time. Had these issues that we've
`responded to replied potentially should have been in the
`petition, they would have been in our patent on a
`response and then they would have had the opportunity to
`reply.
` But the entire purpose of the sur-reply is to,
`you know, cure the prejudice that arose from new
`arguments and reply. And at this late stage in the
`proceeding it seems like more briefing is unnecessary.
` Specifically on the Copaxone case point, I
`should also note that some of these arguments were
`addressed in the parties' motions to exclude, and the
`Copaxone case was cited for the specific point and
`discussed in that context. We have not filed our
`opposition to that but we would exclude it so the Court
`has briefing on that point as well.
` To the extent any of these warrant further
`argument or further discussion, it seems to me that the
`oral argument ought to be sufficient.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0008
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` THE COURT: Okay. I'll give Petitioners each a
`brief rebuttal. Neptune, you can begin first.
` MS. SPIRES: Your Honor, to address the last
`point where Mr. Krinsky says that addressing these
`arguments in oral argument would be sufficient, we note
`that Lilly is actually asking for the parties Neptune and
`Sandoz to split the time in oral argument, so only a half
`an hour a piece.
` There's not an order out yet for oral argument,
`but that's something that we think would be highly
`prejudicial to both Neptune and Sandoz as we weren't
`allowed a chance to address these issues in oral
`argument -- or in a sur-reply and that it would take
`basically the entire oral argument time or a decent
`portion of it just to address the issues in the sur-reply
`that we've not yet had an opportunity to address.
` THE COURT: It's currently in the first of the
`sur-reply, so there can't be that much.
` MS. SPIRES: Agree that there's not that much,
`but I believe when you're speaking, at least for myself,
`that things tend to take a little bit longer than when
`you have the time to sit down and make things very
`concise when you're writing.
` So that's one where I think that if you guys
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0009
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`are concerned about this not being -- kind of ending
`somewhere, one solution that is to potentially allow
`additional time for Petitioners to address the sur-reply
`topics in oral argument.
` The other item that I'd like to mention is
`actually from one of Sandoz's points, but I heard
`Mr. Krinsky say that everything here could have been
`raised in the Petitioners' replies. And under our
`understanding of the rules, that's actually not the case.
` There was a point that Miss Lydigsen brought up
`that said -- she said that Lilly argued that the experts
`for Neptune and Sandoz were in conflict. And at least
`under our understanding of the rules, the records from
`the Neptune petitions and the records for Sandoz
`petitions are not available across the various petitions.
`And so, for instance, Neptune wouldn't have the
`opportunity to address the argument and look at the
`record in Sandoz and say, well, here's why the Sandoz
`expert actually was not in conflict with the Neptune
`expert and vice versa.
` And so that's one that is something that hasn't
`happened in this case and is one of the points I think we
`brought up in our email. The intermingling of the cases
`has become very kind of confusing in trying to figure out
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0010
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`where one record starts and one record stops. And so
`that's something we'd like to be able to address.
` THE COURT: Okay. Sandoz?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: This is Laura Lydigsen for
`Sandoz. I think Sarah addressed a point that I wanted to
`raise which was simply that we're concerned that we will
`not have an opportunity to respond to some of these new
`points that are drawn in from the records of Neptune.
` THE COURT: Okay. I understand. I understand
`that the proceedings are complicated. I mean, we have
`multiple parties and we have multiple petitioners
`across -- some petitioners are common to all three
`proceedings.
` At this point I don't think a sur-reply is
`necessary. I think that the panel could go through the
`record and read appropriately what has been raised
`inappropriately and give the appropriate weight to each
`of those arguments. So at this point I don't think
`sur-reply is necessary.
` As to argument, we are in the midst of drafting
`the oral -- the trial order. At this time my plan is to
`give both sides -- I'm going to issue one trial order for
`all three proceedings giving each side 75 minutes, and
`then the parties can figure out how you want to argue
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0011
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`that.
` So if you want to do them altogether, that's
`fine. If you want to do them sequentially, that's fine.
`All I ask is that if you can figure out how you want to
`argue it and then let us know a day or two before the
`hearing just so that we're prepared. I'm trying to give
`the parties as much discretion how they want to approach
`these cases.
` As to -- and I know that you're going to talk
`about this next, but we can also -- we will be looking at
`all three cases together in drafting the final decision
`as they all address the same patent, and it will just be
`a smart use of judicial resources to go ahead and write
`all three of these cases together.
` That being said, we know how to keep the record
`separate, and we do understand that these are separate
`proceedings with separate challenges, and we'll be
`looking at the evidence as it pertains to each challenge.
`So that is something that we are comfortable with and
`that we know how to do. So while there is some overlap,
`we're trying to approach this in the most expedient
`manner possible given that they all have the same patent
`owner and the same -- and address the same patent.
` Petitioner's response, Neptune, is there
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0012
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`anything you'd like to say or do you understand?
` MS. SPIRES: We understand that, your Honor.
` THE COURT: Sandoz?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: We understand that as well. We
`were hoping for a little bit of additional time, but we
`understand.
` THE COURT: I will say with regards to the
`additional time, if, if the panel is very active and we
`have a lot of questions for you and the, you know --
`we're not -- we will not hesitate to give extra time if
`needed. That being said, it's much easier to give time
`than to take away time. So, you know, if we're getting
`into some interesting discussion and you need a little
`extra time after your argument, you're more than welcome
`to ask for that, but to do -- if you're being very
`productive we're probably not going to cut you off.
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Thank you, your Honor.
` THE COURT: Patent owner?
` MR. KRINSKY: I understand your ruling, your
`Honor. That all sounds fine to us. Thank you very much.
` THE COURT: Okay. Given what I've just said,
`do we need to discuss the second point which was
`Petitioner's request that the references to other records
`be struck from each IPR?
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0013
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 14
`
` MS. SPIRES: Sarah Spires for Neptune. No,
`your Honor, I think that what you said was clear. The
`one question I think we have related to that is whether
`we are still allowed to respond to any matter raised in
`the late sur-reply and during oral arguments even if it
`has not been briefed.
` THE COURT: You know, at this point I'll allow
`it to the extent that you can point out that it's, that
`it's new and that we should consider it.
` MS. SPIRES: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
` THE COURT: Sandoz, are you okay with not
`addressing the second issue?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Yes, your Honor. I think it's
`been addressed.
` THE COURT: Okay. Finally, Petitioners seek
`authorization to file a request to expunge the motions
`for observation filed by Lilly on February 14th.
`Neptune, do you want to start with that one?
` MS. SPIRES: Okay, your Honor. The sur-reply
`date of February 14th was specifically set to make sure
`that it fell after Lilly cross examined all the experts
`for both Neptune and Sandoz, and that is what happened.
`And we've seen in cases such as this the board has
`expunged motions when their motions for observation that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0014
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`are filed after a substantive reply within the trial
`practice guides that the filing for a motion for
`observation is to be authorized in the event that cross
`examination occurs after a party has filed its last
`substantive paper on an issue.
` And since here the motions for observation
`occurred -- the cross examination before Lilly filed its
`last substantive paper, we don't believe that it was
`proper to file a motion for observation here. I know
`cases that we've seen where the board has expunged in
`this identical circumstance, IPR2015-00325, and that's
`paper 52. We've also seen it in CPM2014-00182, paper 56.
`That was the first ground.
` The second was that there is quite a bit of
`argument in the motions for observation as opposed to
`just the observation the board allows. If you'd like we
`can go -- I can explain where some of this argument
`occurs. If not, I'll just state that that's our -- we
`would like to file the motion based on the fact there's
`quite a bit of argument. And this is the Medtronic
`versus Nuvasive case where the board has expunged motions
`for observation based on improper argument. And that's
`IPR2013-00506, paper 37, and also in IPR2015-00325, paper
`52.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0015
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` THE COURT: Okay. And what was the last
`substantive paper, I'm sorry if I missed that, that
`patent owner filed?
` MS. SPIRES: The sur-reply.
` THE COURT: The sur-reply.
` MS. SPIRES: That was filed on February 14th.
`And the last of the cross examinations was, if I'm not
`mistaken, February 10th.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Sandoz, do you
`have anything to add?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: We agree with that statement.
` THE COURT: Okay. Patent owner, would you like
`to respond?
` MR. KRINSKY: Yes, your Honor. We understood
`our sur-reply to be limited to responding to new
`arguments where they just didn't reply that were sort of
`improperly raised in reply given that they were new. And
`at least our cross examinations of the reply declarants
`weren't so limited. Our motions for observation included
`a number of issues we did not consider to be properly
`discussed in the sur-reply, and so we didn't discuss them
`there, and we think we ought to be able to, you know,
`make observations in the usual course, all those.
` In terms of the argumentativeness, we filed --
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0016
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`our observations contained just a short paragraph on each
`of the observations consistent with our understanding of
`the current practice and just a sentence or two
`explaining the relevance. As your Honor noted earlier,
`this is a complicated proceeding, so I had a few cases,
`it's more than this is relevant to X, Y, Z, it's this is
`a relevant to X, Y, Z because A, B, C. But we, you know,
`we don't think we were improperly argumentative or
`kept -- you know, sort out what needs to be sorted out.
` At this point the Petitioner's reply will bear
`oppositions to our motion with frankly much more
`argument. At this point, you know, we don't think
`there's reason to expunge anything and just consider it
`all in due course.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Neptune, any
`response?
` MS. SPIRES: I would agree that we filed our
`responses to the motion for observation, and those do
`contain argument in that we obviously didn't know the
`outcome of our request for a motion to expunge. And so
`it's hard to address argument without also coming up with
`arguments. I'd say I can't agree that there is just a
`short paragraph or a sentence or two. If you're
`interested, I mean, I can read you one of these motions
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0017
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`or --
` THE COURT: I think that's something that we
`can do.
` MS. SPIRES: Okay. I would direct you if you
`want to look to examples to in Neptune's 237 IPR, if you
`look at Paper 60, observation 4, there's a good example.
`If you look at Paper 58, observation 2, there's another
`good example.
` THE COURT: Okay. You know, at this point it
`is my understanding that this requires very limited
`(inaudible), so I'm not going to say that because they
`were filed that the motions on observations -- the motion
`for observation on cross examination were filed before
`that paper that they were untimely so I want to expunge
`them.
` In addition, we can determine if the motion is
`argumentative, and we can sua sponte expunge them at that
`point while we're doing our final record review. So at
`this point I don't think that we need briefing or
`anything to expunge those motions at this time. So I
`think that's something that the panel can do when we're
`addressing the final decision.
` Petitioner Neptune, anything further at this
`time?
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0018
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`Page 19
`
` MS. SPIRES: No, your Honor.
` THE COURT: Petitioner Sandoz, anything?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: No, your Honor.
` THE COURT: And then patent owner?
` MR. KRINSKY: No, your Honor. Thank you.
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all for your time.
`I hope you all have a good rest of your day, and this
`call is adjourned. Thank you.
` MR. KRINSKY: You as well, your Honor. Thank
`you.
` MS. SPIRES: Thank you.
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Thank you.
`
` WHICH WERE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS
` HAD OR OFFERED AT THE HEARING
` OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0019
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing
`
`2/22/2017
`
`Page 20
`
`STATE OF ILLINOIS )
`
`) SS.
`
`COUNTY OF C O O K )
`
`I, CHRISTINA CUMMINS,
`
`CSR,
`
`do hereby certify
`
`that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
`
`hearing aforesaid, and that the foregoing is a true,
`
`complete and accurate transcript of the proceedings at
`
`said hearing as appears from my stenographic notes so
`
`taken and transcribed under my personal direction this
`
`24th day of February, A.D.
`
`2017.
`
`I further certify that the hearing terminated
`
`at 1:55 p.m.
`
`Christina Cummins
`
`Notary Public
`License No. O84~003157
`105 West Adams Street’
`Suite 1200
`
`60603
`Chicago, Illinois
`Phone:
`312.386.2000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"OFFICIAL SEAL"
`g
`CHRISTINA CUMMINS
`Notaty Public. State of Illinois
`
`M Commission Expires 112612021
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions
`
`— Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`
`Sand0zV.EHiIjfly,Exhflfit1137-0020
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0020
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing
`
`2/22/2017
`
`DTI Global
`
`105 West Adams Street — Suite 1200
`
`Chicago, Illinois
`
`60603
`
`Phone:
`
`312.386.2000
`
`February 24, 2017
`
`Mr. David M. Krinsky
`
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`1
`
`Washington DC
`
`20005
`
`Sandoz,
`
`Inc. v. Eli Lilly (2/22/17)
`
`Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly
`
`Case Nos.
`
`IPR20l6—O03l8,
`
`IPR2016~0O237,
`
`IPR20l6~OO240
`
`Dear Mr. Krinsky:
`
`Pursuant
`
`to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(b),
`
`this
`
`letter will serve as notice to you that proceedings taken
`
`in the above—entitled matter have been transcribed and
`
`are ready for filing.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`DTI Global
`
`' ; E‘.
`
`.
`
`Christina Cummins./
`
`Laura L. Lydigsen, Esq.
`
`Ms. Sarah E. Spires, Esq.
`
`800~868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions
`
`— Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`
`Sand0zv.EHiIjfly,Exhflfit1137:0021
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0021
`
`
`
`Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`STATE OF ILLINOIS)
` ) SS:
`COUNTY OF C O O K)
` FORASMUCH as the matters and things herein
`contained do not otherwise fully appear of record, this
`is herewith tendered, a record of proceedings, approved
`by counsel, and prays that the Court approve the same and
`order the same filed as a part of the record in the
`within cause.
`
` APPROVED____________________________
` Counsel for Plaintiff
` ____________________________
` Counsel for Defendant______
` ____________________________
` Counsel for Defendant______
` ____________________________
`WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DONE, and the same is hereby approved
`and certified as correct, and ordered filed as a part of
`the record in the within cause this __________ Day of
`______________________, A.D. 2017.
`
` ENTER___________________________________
` Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County
`
`Sandoz, Inc. v. Eli Lilly, Neptune v. Eli Lilly
`No. IPR2016-00318, IPR2016-00237, IPR2016-00240
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1137-0022
`
`