From: Arnold, Jeffery [mailto:JArnold@CantorColburn.com]
`Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 4:25 PM
`To: Abramic, John
`Cc: Hagerty, Peter; Maxwell, Anne; Ryan, Andrew; Fox, Harold; Reister, Andrea (areister@cov.com); Sawyer, Michael
`(msawyer@cov.com); Dustin.Weeks@troutmansanders.com; Daniel.Ladow@troutmansanders.com
`Subject: RE: IPR2016-01111, -01112, and -01113
`
`Dear John,
`
`Petitioner interprets the email below as a service of interrogatories impermissibly seeking additional
`discovery in violation of the respective Boards’ Orders of 31 August 2016 denying Patent Owners’
`respective motions for additional discovery. Petitioner in its oppositions to Patent Owners’ motions
`explained in detail its position on additional discovery. Accordingly, Petitioner will not respond to the
`interrogatories.
`
`Based upon the first paragraph of your email below, Patent Owners have a quarrel with a sentence in
`the Boards’ Decision. Petitioner declines to comment on the sentence-at-issue. Any questions
`regarding the Orders should be addressed with the Boards.
`
`Regards,
`
`Jeff
`
`Jeffery B. Arnold 
`Partner 
`
` 
`
`1180 Peachtree St., N.E. | Suite 2050 | Atlanta, GA  30309 
`Work: 404‐607‐9991, ext. 2127 | Fax: 404‐607‐9981 | Mobile: 404‐665‐7311 
`jarnold@cantorcolburn.com 
`www.cantorcolburn.com 
`
`HARTFORD    WASHINGTON, D.C.    ATLANTA    HOUSTON    DETROIT 
`
`From: Abramic, John [mailto:jabramic@Steptoe.com]
`Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:51 AM
`To: Arnold, Jeffery
`Cc: Hagerty, Peter; Maxwell, Anne; Ryan, Andrew; Fox, Harold; Reister, Andrea (areister@cov.com); Sawyer, Michael
`
`1
`
`MonoSol2013-0001
`
`Dr. Reddys v. MonoSol
`IPR2016-01112
`
`

`
`(msawyer@cov.com); Dustin.Weeks@troutmansanders.com; Daniel.Ladow@troutmansanders.com
`Subject: IPR2016-01111, -01112, and -01113
`
`Dear Jeffery,
`
`The Board’s recent decisions denying motions for additional discovery in the above-referenced IPR’s contain
`the following statement: “With respect to Patent Owner’s second and third Requests for Production, Petitioner
`represents that no responsive documents exist. Opp. 18.” We believe that this statement regarding Petitioner’s
`representation is incorrect.
`
`Petitioner’s response to category 2 of Patent Owners’ requests states the following: “Notwithstanding this
`objection and the objections of category (1), and subject to them, no correspondence or communications
`directed to terms sheets or letters of intent exist. No common interest agreements or other agreements related
`to the Agreement prior to the execution of the “definitive agreement” identified in category (1) exist.” We do not
`read Petitioner’s response as representing that no responsive documents exist. For example, category 2 of
`Patent Owners’ requests call for correspondence or communications related to the “definitive agreement.” We
`do not read Petitioner’s response as representing that there is no correspondence or communications between
`the parties that ultimately led to the executed definitive agreement, as this would be difficult, if not impossible,
`to imagine in practice.
`
`Accordingly, we are seeking clarification regarding Petitioner’s response to category 2 of Patent Owners’
`requests, and we ask that Petitioner provide answers to the following questions so that we may assess the
`accuracy of the Board’s statement. We request your answers by 10:00 AM Eastern time on September 12,
`2016, which should be achievable given the diligence you have previously done on these issues.
`
`(1) Does Petitioner represent that no documents responsive to category 2 exist?
`
`(2) Does any correspondence or communication related to the “definitive agreement” exist? For clarity, this
`category includes any correspondence or communication, prior to execution of the “definitive agreement,”
`regarding the subject matter of the transaction memorialized in the “definitive agreement.” Put another way,
`correspondence and communication leading up to the execution of the “definitive agreement” are related to the
`“definitive agreement” even though they occurred prior to execution.
`
`(3) Do any drafts of the “definitive agreement” exist?
`
`(4) Does any correspondence or communication related to any drafts of the “definitive agreement” exist?
`
`Regards,
`
`John L. Abramic | Steptoe
`Partner 
`312 577 1264 | direct 
`630 341 9128 | mobile 
`312 577 1370 | fax 
`jabramic@steptoe.com 
`
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP 
`115 South LaSalle Street  Suite 3100 
`Chicago, IL 60603 
`www.steptoe.com 
` 
`
`
`
`This transmission, and any attached files, may contain information from the law firm of Cantor Colburn LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. Such 
`information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this transmission is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
`notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmitted information is strictly prohibited, that 
`copies of this transmission and any attached files should be deleted from your disk directories immediately, and that any printed copies of this transmission or 
`attached files should be returned to this firm. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone or e‐mail immediately, and we will arrange 
`for the return to Cantor Colburn LLP of any printed copies.  
`
`2
`
`MonoSol2014-0002