Telephone Conference Hearing 2/22/2017
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
