Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` NEPTUNE GENERICS, LLC,
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
` ELI LILLY COMPANY,
` Patent Owner.
`
` Case IPR2016-00237
` Patent 7,772,209 B2
`
` Telephone hearing before Administrative
`Patent Judges, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY and TINA E. HULSE,
`commencing on October 31, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in the
`above-entitled cause pursuant to the applicable rules.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0001
`
`
` 10/31/2016
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` NEPTUNE GENERICS, LLC,
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
` ELI LILLY COMPANY,
` Patent Owner.
`
` Case IPR2016-00237
` Patent 7,772,209 B2
`
` Telephone hearing before Administrative
`Patent Judges, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY and TINA E. HULSE,
`commencing on October 31, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in the
`above-entitled cause pursuant to the applicable rules.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0001
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S:
` BRINKS, GILSON & LIONE by
` MS. LAURA LYDIGSEN and
` MR. JOSHUA H. JAMES
` NBC Tower
` 455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60611
` (312) 321-4200
` lleydigsen@brinksgilson.com
` jjames@brinksgilson.com
` appeared on behalf of Sandoz;
`
` GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP by
` MS. CYNTHIA L. HARDMAN
` 620 Eighth Avenue
` New York, New York 10018
` (212) 459-7295
` chardman@goodwinlaw.com
`
` appeared on behalf of Fresenius;
`
` SKIERMONT DERBY, LLP by
` MS. SARAH SPIRES
` 2200 Ross Avenue
` Suite 4800W
` Dallas, Texas 75201
` (214) 978-6600
` sspires@skiermontderby.com
` appeared on behalf of Neptune;
` CARLSON CASPERS by
` MR. GARY J. SPEIER
` 225 South 6th Street
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` (612) 436-9600
` gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`
` appeared on behalf of Teva;
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`89
`
`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 1062-0002
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP by
` MR. DAVID M. KRINSKY and
` MR. DOV P. GROSSMAN
` 725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
` Washington, DC 20005
` (202) 434-5338
` dkrinsky@wc.com
` dgrossman@wc.com
` appeared on behalf of Eli Lilly;
` BLANK & ROME, LLP by
` MR. PAUL M. ZAGAR
` 405 Lexington Avenue
` New York, New York 10174
` (212) 885-5290
` pzagar@blankrome.com
` appeared on behalf of Emcure and
` Glenmark;
` ALSTON, BIRD, LLP by
` MR. THOMAS J. PARKER
` MS. ELLEN CHEONG and
` MR. CHARLES A. NAGGAR
` 90 Park Avenue
` 15th Floor
` New York, New York 10016
` (212) 210-9529
` thomas.parker@alston.com
` ellen.cheong@alston.com
` charles.naggar@alston.com
` appeared on behalf of Mylan;
` RAKOCZY, MOLINO, MAZZOCHI & SIWIK, LLP by
` MR. PATRICK GILORE
` 6 West Hubbard Street
` Suite 500
` Chicago, Illinois 60654
` (312) 527-2157
` appeared on behalf of Apotex.
`REPORTED BY:
` CAROL CONNOLLY, CSR, CRR
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0003
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
` JUDGE TIERNEY: This is Judge Tierney. Welcome to
`the conference call. The cases we are talking about are
`IPR 2016-00237 and 00240, as well as IPR 2016-00318. The
`parties that will be speaking today it's my understanding
`will be Neptune, Sandoz, and Lilly. If another party,
`for example, one who has joined needs to speak, let me
`know, otherwise, I'll direct all conversation to Neptune,
`Sandoz, and Lilly.
` Are there any questions before we begin?
` Not hearing any questions, we'll begin. My
`understanding is that the petitioners, Neptune and
`Sandoz, wanted to request additional discovery. I'll
`turn it over -- I'll begin with Neptune, then I'll turn
`it over to Sandoz, afterwards I'll turn it over to Lilly.
`But beginning with Neptune, if you could please give the
`board a sense of what discovery issue we need to look at
`today.
` MS. SPIRES: Good afternoon, your Honor. This is
`Sarah Spires speaking on behalf of Neptune. In all three
`petitions, so the Sandoz ones and the Lilly ones --
`Sandoz and Neptune ones, Lilly has relied on Exhibit 2116
`in its patent owner response, and that exhibit is the
`trial testimony from the district court litigation of
`Dr. Clet Niyikiza, and because Lilly has relied, I'll say
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0004
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`fairly extensively, I think we counted 9 or so cites and
`about 36 or so pages cited at the trial testimony, both
`Sandoz and Neptune would like the opportunity to depose
`Dr. Niyikiza under 37 CFR, 42.51(b)(2).
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Do you have anything else to add
`before I turn it over to Sandoz?
` MS. SPIRES: I'll just mention that we've looked
`around at the case law, and it seems that the board has
`ruled repeatedly that when patent owner relies on
`testimony that's in a prior proceeding or different
`proceeding, that the board has still ruled that that is
`affidavit testimony within the meaning of 37 CFR
`42.51(b)(1)(2), and instances of that -- April of this
`year the board ruled that way in PGR 2015-00011, paper
`29, the board ruled similarly in 2014 in IPR 2013-00253
`on paper 20.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Before I turn it over to Sandoz, I
`did have a question. If Sandoz wants to jump in, they
`can. Have the petitioners contacted the patent owner and
`come to any agreement, or has this issue already been
`attempted to be resolved and no issue was forthcoming?
` MS. SPIRES: We have attempted to resolve this
`issue, your Honor. While the parties were able to
`resolve several other discovery disputes, this one the
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0005
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`parties are not able to come to a resolution.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. Anything else before I turn
`it to Sandoz?
` MS. SPIRES: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. Sandoz, do you have anything
`to add to the petitioner's side, in particular your -- is
`it also your request to have discovery of Dr. Niyikiza?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Yes, it is also our position we would
`like to take Dr. Niyikiza's deposition, and we agree with
`everything that Neptune has said.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Do you have anything to add before I
`turn it over to party Lilly?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: We do not.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. Patent owner Lilly, if you
`could -- if you'd take the floor and give us your side of
`the story on this.
` MR. KRINSKY: My apologies for cutting you off
`there. This is David Krinsky for Lilly.
` I think it's important to give the board a
`little bit more color as to what we're talking about here
`and why we're talking about it. This is a case where the
`validity of the same patent-in-suit was previously
`litigated through a full trial in district court, and in
`that trial the inventor Dr. Clet Niyikiza testified about
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0006
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`-- testified about a number of things, but he testified
`as relevant here about skepticism of the invention, and,
`you know, we put in a body -- fairly voluminous body of
`documents about skepticism of the invention as well as
`his trial testimony sort of contextualizing that and
`discussing that.
` In that prior proceeding Teva, and the party
`now known as Fresenius who are joinder petitioners here,
`had every opportunity to depose him, did so, and
`cross-examined him at trial on exactly these same issues,
`and our position is that because these are literally the
`same issues all over again, notwithstanding any slight
`differences in the grounds raised, none of that bears on
`skepticism of the invention. So there's already been an
`extensive record here, which we have at the request of
`Sandoz and Neptune either provided them or about to
`provide them, that's some of the discovery that, you
`know, has been mentioned by one of the -- one of my
`opponents, in terms of what we've agreed to.
` Our view is that, you know, they sort of having
`gotten all that, then they also want more, they want
`their own attempt at a deposition of Dr. Niyikiza, but we
`don't think that's appropriate here at all in light of
`the limited discovery availability in our proceedings,
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0007
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`and in light of the discovery they're talking about.
` I heard a little bit of confusion from Neptune
`at least about whether we're talking here about routine
`discovery or whether we're talking about additional
`discovery. You know, the rules are very clear, and I
`think the petitioners now concede this is not routine
`discovery under 42.51(b)(1)(2), because this is not
`cross-examination as to an affidavit prepared for the
`proceedings. The rules are quite clear on that.
`Instead, they need to meet the standards for additional
`discovery, and they also need to meet the standard for
`compelled testimony under 42.51(b)(2) and 42.52. I
`really haven't heard anything anchoring any of this to
`the Garmin factors.
` I don't quite understand -- notwithstanding our
`prior meet and confers, I don't quite understand why
`there is more than a mere possibility or allegation that
`they get something different from a new deposition that
`wasn't already explored fully by Teva's counsel in the
`prior deposition and/or explored fully as a
`cross-examination at trial.
` And, moreover, at the end of the day, this
`testimony is largely authenticating and contextualizing
`the documentary record, all of which we are also
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0008
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`providing. To the extent we haven't provided the
`documents by putting them in the record ourselves, we've
`also agreed in the meet and confers to date to give them
`the full set of trial exhibits from below, as well as the
`materials that were used in his deposition, and as well
`as the materials that were used on cross-examination and
`not admitted.
` So, you know, they have this vast body of,
`frankly, everything that we think is conceivably relevant
`to the issues on which we cited Dr. Niyikiza's testimony,
`and in light of that, and in light of the fact that he is
`not a Lilly employee, and so he's a third party, he's a
`busy pharmaceutical executive, you know, who we'd have to
`go and have to take his time to do this, we don't think
`they have even tried to meet the standards for additional
`discovery under Garmin.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: I do have a question. So, is it --
`maybe the board will need additional briefing on this.
`What -- Just walk me through briefly what is the
`timeframe if we allowed for briefing, how soon do we need
`to make a decision on this issue and try and keep on
`track, on schedule?
` MS. SPIRES: The petitioners have to file their
`replies on December 22nd, so we would say sometime --
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0009
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`we'd want to schedule the deposition no later than kind
`of early December. So roughly a month before we'd need
`to do that.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: So while I'm doing this, I'm pulling
`up my calendar. Basically this is -- it sounds like it's
`going to get to be a fact intensive issue if the parties
`are unable to resolve.
` Is that a fair statement going to petitioners?
` MS. SPIRES: Speaking for Neptune, yes, I believe
`that's a fair statement.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Lilly?
` MR. KRINSKY: I think it's -- I don't think I agree,
`your Honor, for the simple reason that, you know, I
`haven't even heard any articulation of what they want
`that they don't already have. Obviously --
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Well, if we'd stop here, that's why
`briefing would be done, otherwise, we could be here for
`hours to go through, read off the equivalent of a brief
`on the call, but, I mean, if that's what you want to do
`right now, we can do go through and spend the next 15
`minutes listening to them articulate reasons and you'd
`spend another 15 trying to come up with reasons why it
`would not be appropriate, and we have a reply from them
`that goes on for another 10 minutes. I think the best
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0010
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`way to go forward is with briefing where everyone can see
`exactly what's being said, we can go and pull the
`references as we go, but --
` MR. KRINSKY: That's fine with Lilly, your Honor.
`You called for the reactions.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: I mean, if you want to go without
`briefing, it's possible to make a decision where all the
`issues weren't quite as detailed as it should be, that's
`why I'm inclined to do briefing. But your comment as to
`briefing, disagree or not agree to have a briefing
`schedule?
` MR. KRINSKY: We're fine with briefing, your Honor.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. Then the question becomes
`what would be the timeframe for briefing, and I'll start
`with party Lilly.
` What do you suggest for a briefing schedule?
` MR. KRINSKY: Well, your Honor, I think in all
`likelihood it would make sense for petitioners to go
`first on this.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: I'm just wondering what timeframe
`are you looking at. Because you're going to have to come
`back and brief it yourself, and response, and if we grant
`the discovery, there's a question of whether we could get
`the deposition scheduled early December is what they're
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0011
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`asking for. So with the holidays coming up I thought I'd
`talk to you first.
` MR. KRINSKY: Your Honor, I think we have a fair
`amount of flexibility on that on our end, certainly
`getting the briefing done, you know, so it doesn't go
`ruin anyone's Thanksgiving is in everyone's interest,
`whether that's a week, or little longer. I can pull up
`my calendar. I haven't given it any thought.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: No problem. Let's assume for sake
`of argument we're going to allow briefing on this issue.
`Do the parties want to work that out themselves a
`briefing schedule and do that offline and get back to us,
`or do they want to work it out today? What would be
`best?
` MR. KRINSKY: Speaking for Lilly, I would imagine
`the parties would be able to work something out. If your
`Honor could give us some guidance about what you're
`interested in in terms of the scope of the briefing,
`length-wise and the like, I'm sure we can work out a
`schedule.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. Let's start there. Let's go
`back to the petitioner.
` Petitioner, starting with Neptune, assuming we
`allow briefing, and we're going to talk in terms of pages
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0012
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`instead of word count, let's make it easier for myself,
`how many pages do you require to explain why you need
`this particular discovery?
` MS. SPIRES: Speaking for Neptune, I would think
`that -- if we're looking at double-spaced pages, 15 pages
`would be good.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Sandoz, how many pages do you
`believe are necessary?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: I think we can probably do it in less
`pages than that. For Sandoz, we would target 10 pages.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: That sounds even better to me.
` MS. SPIRES: That's fine with Neptune as well.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Going back. Lilly, assuming we're
`talking briefing, is there a number of pages you think
`would be appropriate? Obviously they've said 10 pages
`per request, I'm assuming that -- how many pages would
`you want in opposition? Would it be 10, or how many do
`you look at needing?
` MR. KRINSKY: I guess, your Honor, one question is
`is there really a need for separate briefing as to Sandoz
`and Neptune here? As I understand it, we had
`consolidated meetings for cross both petitioners, and I
`know we have three IPRs, but --
` JUDGE TIERNEY: We can have a consolidated briefing
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0013
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`Page 14
`
`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 goes in each file, that's fine, but right now I just
`need to know what are we looking for in page length for
`opposition. Are you looking at 10 pages, or are you
`going to need something more?
` MR. KRINSKY: I think if there's ten pages of
`consolidated briefing, we get the same amount in
`response, I think that's just fine. I mean, I think my
`inclination is that shorter is adequate here as long as
`we have sufficient space to respond to both of their
`arguments.
` The reason I raise it, your Honor, is if there
`are separate briefs, obviously we'd like a little more so
`that we can respond to different arguments that are in
`one versus the other, whether it's ten and ten in each
`proceeding or whether it's, you know, ten and some
`slightly larger consolidated count for us. I just don't
`want to have less than they do essentially.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Understood.
` So I'm turning back to petitioners, Neptune and
`Sandoz. I was going to go ahead and have this be a
`consolidated briefing where both parties, Neptune and
`Sandoz, are submitting the same essentially brief in the
`two different IPRs. Is there any objection to that
`though, starting first with Sandoz?
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0014
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
` MS. LYDIGSEN: No objection.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Neptune, any objection?
` MS. SPIRES: Sarah Spires for Neptune, no objection.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. I'm going to go ahead, and
`I've consulted Judge Hulse, we agree. We are going to
`have a consolidated briefing. I'm going to type this up.
`Ten pages of briefing and opposition from Lilly will also
`be ten pages of briefing. The briefs will be filed in
`each of the three IPRs. That would be the 237, 240 and
`318 IPRs.
` Any questions? I'll start with Lilly.
` MR. KRINSKY: No, your Honor, that's fine.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Neptune, Sandoz, any questions on
`this?
` MS. SPIRES: No questions for Neptune.
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Is there a reply, or is it just an
`opening and then a opposition?
` JUDGE TIERNEY: At this point if there's a reply
`needed, the board will authorize it, but at this time we
`do not authorize it. We would rather decide it on the
`briefing and the motion and opposition. Again, if a
`reply is needed, we'll contact the parties.
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Got it. Thank you.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Now, on that question, we'll go to
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0015
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
`next would be timing, and I believe patent owners has
`indicated they're willing to work with the petitioners to
`determine a time for the filing of the briefs.
` I'm going to turn petitioners and have them
`state, would it be possible to have you work it out with
`the patent owner as the time for briefing, or do you need
`to have a decision from the board to intervene today and
`decide the specific schedule?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: I think we can work it out with
`Lilly.
` MS. SPIRES: Neptune agrees with that.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. My understanding then is the
`parties, Neptune, Sandoz, will file a consolidated
`briefing of ten pages in each of the three files on a
`schedule that will be worked out in conjunction with the
`patent owner. Patent owner will file its opposition,
`again on a schedule that's been worked out with Neptune
`and Sandoz, and it will be also limited to ten pages.
` Going back to petitioner. Is there anything
`else that we need to take care of today? Starting with
`Neptune.
` MS. SPIRES: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Sandoz?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: No, your Honor.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0016
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Lilly?
` MR. KRINSKY: No, your Honor.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. So we -- this is confirmed.
`So there's no misunderstanding, the board is going to put
`an order or basically -- would you rather have a separate
`order, or is the conference call transcript sufficient?
` MR. KRINSKY: Speaking for Lilly, I think the
`transcript is sufficient, your Honor.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. Petitioners, Neptune, is the
`transcript sufficient, or would you rather have a
`specific order in addition to the transcript?
` MS. SPIRES: The transcript is sufficient for
`Neptune.
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Same for Sandoz.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: There will be no separate order put
`out on this. We'll go with the transcript.
` If I may, I believe, Sandoz, you requested the
`transcript?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Yes, we did.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Okay. If you could file a copy of
`the transcript in at least 318 as an exhibit, and,
`Neptune, if you can get a copy from Sandoz and file it as
`an exhibit in the 237 and 240 IPRs, I'd appreciate it.
` MS. SPIRES: Yes.
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0017
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`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
`
` JUDGE TIERNEY: So, with that, my understanding, ten
`pages Neptune and Sandoz, opposition will be from Lilly,
`also ten pages on a schedule to be worked out by the
`parties; the transcript will be sufficient, no further
`written memorandum of the phone call will be done by the
`board. And that should be the end, but let's just double
`check.
` We'll start with patent owner. We'll give you
`-- my colleague has also pointed out -- my colleague
`agrees to all this.
` I'll start with patent owner. Was there
`anything else we need to discuss today?
` MR. KRINSKY: Nothing further, your Honor. Thank
`you for your time today, and Happy Halloween.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: I appreciate that. Happy Halloween.
` Petitioner, I checked earlier, but just
`confirm, is there anything you thought of before we
`adjourn?
` MS. SPIRES: Nothing else from Neptune, your Honor.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: Sandoz?
` MS. LYDIGSEN: Same for Sandoz.
` JUDGE TIERNEY: All right. Happy Halloween,
`everyone. Thank you for the call.
` (Off the record)
`
`800-868-0061
`
`DTI Court Reporting Solutions - Chicago
`www.deposition.com
`
`Sandoz Inc. IPR2016-00318
`Sandoz v. Eli Lilly, Exhibit 1062-0018
`
`
`
`Neptune Generics v. Eli Lilly
` 10/31/2016
`
`Page 19
`
`STATE OF ILLINOIS )
` ) SS:
`COUNTY OF C O O K )
`
` CAROL CONNOLLY, being first duly sworn, deposes
`and says that she is a Certified Shorthand Reporter in
`Cook County, Illinois, and reporting proceedings in the
`Courts in said County;
` That she reported in shorthand and thereafter
`transcribed the foregoing proceedings;
` That the within and foregoing transcript is
`true, accurate and complete and contains all the evidence
`which was received and the proceedings had upon the
`within cause.
`
` __________________________________
` CAROL CONNOLLY, CSR, CRR
` CSR No. 084-003113
` 105 West Adams Street
` Suite 1200
` Chicago, Illinois 60603
` Phone: (312) 386-2000
`
`Subscribed and sworn to before me this
`
`_______ day of________________, A.D., ______.
`
`_______________________________
`
`1
`
`2
`
`34
`
`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 1062-0019
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
