`
` U N I T E D S T A T E S P A T E N T A N D T R A D E M A R K O F F I C E
`
` B E F O R E T H E P A T E N T T R I A L A N D A P P E A L B O A R D
`
` C A S E I P R 2 0 1 6 - 0 1 1 2 7
`
` P a t e n t N o . 8 . 6 8 5 , 9 3 0 B 2
`
`M Y L A N P H A R M A C E U T I C A L S , I N C . , )
`
`T E V A P H A R M A C E U T I C A L S U S A , )
`
`I N C . , a n d A K O R N , I N C . , )
`
`P e t i t i o n e r s )
`
`v s . )
`
`A L L E R G A N , I N C . , P a t e n t O w n e r )
`
` T E L E P H O N I C H E A R I N G
`
` S e p t e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 7
`
`R e p o r t e d b y : S h a u n a F o r e m a n , C S R
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 1
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`1 0
`
`1 1
`
`1 2
`
`1 3
`
`1 4
`
`1 5
`
`1 6
`
`1 7
`
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`2 1
`
`2 2
`
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
` THE COURT: Who is on the call
`
`representing petitioner?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`This is Richard Torczon. I am appearing on behalf of
`
`Mylan, and with me on the line is I believe Steve
`
`Parmelee and Jad Mills and Wendy Devine.
`
` THE COURT: Mr. Torczon,
`
`T-O-R-C-Z-O-N? And you will be speaking today on
`
`behalf of petitioner?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` THE COURT: And who do we have on the
`
`call for Allergan?
`
` MS. WHELAN: Your Honor, this is
`
`Dorothy Whelan, and I'm joined by Michael Kane. We
`
`represent Allergan.
`
` THE COURT: And who would be speaking
`
`for Allergan?
`
` MS. WHELAN: No one will be speaking
`
`for Allergan, but Michael Shore will be speaking on
`
`the sovereign immunity issue -- the tribe's issue.
`
` THE COURT: And who is representing
`
`the tribe?
`
` MR. SHORE: Michael Shore, S-H-O-R-E,
`
`and with me -- in the room with me are Chris Evans
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 2
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`and Jessica (inaudible).
`
` THE COURT: And I understand that we
`
`have a pro hac vice motion and just want to confirm
`
`that no one is going -- no one objects to Mr. Shore
`
`speaking today on today's conference call.
`
` MR. TORCZON: You Honor, this is
`
`Richard Torczon on behalf of Mylan. We have already
`
`indicated to -- to the tribe that we do not oppose
`
`their pro hac vice entry.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank
`
`you. I hear we have a court reporter. Who --
`
` MR. CHAN: Your Honor, this is Alfonso
`
`Chan. I'm also on the call on behalf of the tribe.
`
` THE COURT: Thank you. And is there
`
`anybody else on the call?
`
` MR. SPEIER: Your Honor, this is Gary
`
`Speier on behalf of Teva.
`
` MR. DEWANSIK: Your Honor, this is
`
`Mike Dzwonczyk on behalf of Akorn.
`
` THE COURT: And anyone else?
`
` MS. GRAY: Your Honor, this is Marissa
`
`Young-Gray (phonetic) on behalf of Teva.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. I'll keep asking
`
`until I get a silence. Anybody else?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, this is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 3
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`Richard Torczon. If counsel are all done, you should
`
`be aware that there are actually two court reporters
`
`on the call. Each side has requested to have a court
`
`reporter present.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that
`
`information. And if you could, both parties file
`
`their -- their transcript following this call.
`
` Okay. I think with that, we'll begin.
`
`Mr. Shore, would you like to begin?
`
` MR. SHORE: Yes, Your Honor. I'm
`
`going to take the phone off speaker so that this part
`
`of the call will be easier for the court reporters
`
`to -- to hear. I want to make sure there's no
`
`feedback or anything.
`
` Thank you for taking the call today,
`
`Your Honor. For the record, my name is Michael
`
`Shore. I represent St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. I do not
`
`represent Allergan, and I do not speak for Allergan
`
`on this call. I only speak behalf of the St. Regis
`
`Mohawk Tribe.
`
` Patent owner St. Regis Mohawk Tribe,
`
`which I'm going to refer to as "the tribe" for the
`
`remainder of my discussion today for the purposes of
`
`the court reporter, hereby makes a special appearance
`
`before this board to protect its sovereignty. No
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 4
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`immunity is waived by the tribe's counsel
`
`participating in this call or in any briefing that
`
`might follow regarding the tribe's assertion of its
`
`sovereign immunity.
`
` First, the tribe requests that the
`
`board immediately enter an order staying all
`
`proceedings in all IPRs before the board that might
`
`in any way adversely affect the tribe's rights in
`
`U.S. Patent Numbers 8,685,930, 8,629,111, 8,624,556,
`
`866 -- 633,162, 8,648,048, 9,248,191. And for the
`
`purposes of the court reporters, for the remainder of
`
`my discussion today the '930 patent, the '111 patent,
`
`the '556 patent, the '162 patent, the '048 patent,
`
`and the '191 patent will be collectively referred to
`
`as the patents-at-issue.
`
` The stay -- the stay should remain in
`
`place pending resolution of the tribe's sovereign
`
`immunity challenge to the board's jurisdiction to
`
`proceed with the IPRs.
`
` The tribe is a federally-recognized
`
`sovereign American Indian tribe. It has acquired all
`
`the patents-at-issue. This is established by the
`
`Assignment, which is Exhibit 2086 in the court's
`
`record and the Updated Mandatory Notice, which was
`
`Paper Number 63 in IPR2016-01127.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 5
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
` The tribe, as a sovereign government,
`
`is not amenable to suit unless it expressly consents
`
`or Congress abrogates its immunity. Neither of these
`
`exceptions apply here, as will be more fully briefed
`
`in the tribe's forthcoming Motion to Dismiss.
`
` The stay is required, Your Honor, not
`
`discretionary, because "sovereign immunity by nature
`
`is jurisdictional," so it must be addressed before
`
`the board may proceed to the merits. Sovereign
`
`immunity goes to the issue of the court's power to
`
`hear the case and, therefore, it must be decided as
`
`an antecedent issue to the merits of the case.
`
`Absent jurisdiction, the board cannot proceed to the
`
`merits. It would frankly be unprecedented for the
`
`board to deny the tribe the right to seek a dismissal
`
`before conducting the hearing on the merits.
`
` The -- every other instance in which a
`
`sovereign has applied to the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board to seek a dismissal prior to a hearing on the
`
`merits has been granted. And we can give you
`
`multiple examples of that, and I believe some of them
`
`are already in the record as Exhibits 2094 -- or will
`
`be in the record as Exhibits 2094, 2095, and 2096
`
`when filed.
`
` The tribe's sovereign immunity is not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 6
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`merely a liability defense. It's an immunity from
`
`suit that would be effectively be lost if IPRs are
`
`permitted to go to trial.
`
` To respect the tribe's sovereign
`
`immunity as required by binding Supreme Court
`
`precedent, the court must stay this proceeding
`
`pending a final determination of the tribe's
`
`assertion of its immunity.
`
` Should the board disregard binding
`
`precedent and attempt to force the tribe to
`
`participate in this process before ruling on the
`
`applicability of the its immunity, the tribe has a
`
`right to an appellate review.
`
` The tribe does not and will not waive
`
`its sovereign immunity to the IPRs proceeding against
`
`the patents-in-suit.
`
` Therefore, if the board allows the
`
`September 15, 2017 hearing to proceed, the tribe's
`
`immunity would be effectively abrogated in violation
`
`of federal law. The better course is to stay the
`
`current proceedings, preserve the status quo, and
`
`continue the hearing until after the board has had
`
`the opportunity to fully consider the tribe's
`
`assertion of sovereign immunity and, if the board
`
`acts adversely, await a decision on the application
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 7
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`of the tribe's immunity at the Federal Circuit, as
`
`the tribe would pursue its rights to immediate appeal
`
`under the collateral order doctrine.
`
` I would also note that the one-year
`
`statutory deadline to complete the IPRs, which
`
`expires on December 8, 2017, could be extended under
`
`37 C.F.R. Section 41.100(c) for either good cause or
`
`joinder of new parties. The need to allow the tribe
`
`to assert its sovereign immunity clearly qualifies as
`
`good cause, and the addition of the tribe as a
`
`newly-joined party and the late addition of Teva and
`
`Akorn would also support an extension of the
`
`deadlines.
`
` The tribe requests 15 days to prepare
`
`and file its motion to dismiss the IPRs. And
`
`understanding that petitioners do not likely have a
`
`great deal of experience in briefing Indian sovereign
`
`immunity and may need time to line up additional
`
`counsel with experience in that area, the tribe is
`
`willing to voluntarily provide the petitioners 60
`
`days from the day we file our motion to file a
`
`response, or more time if they request it. And the
`
`tribe would ask -- then ask for 15 days after their
`
`filing to file a reply brief.
`
` So unless the board has any other
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 8
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`questions for me, I believe that I've stated the
`
`tribe's position. I understand this call is normally
`
`not the place to argue case law, but I have at my
`
`disposal citations and cases that back every factual
`
`and legal statement I've made. If the board would
`
`like a reference to anything now in this call, I can
`
`provide it to you.
`
` The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe would like
`
`to thank you for taking our call today, and I look
`
`forward to working with the board to resolving all of
`
`these issues before us.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you,
`
`Mr. Shore. I think we understand the nature of your
`
`request. I'll go ahead and allow Mr. Torczon to
`
`respond.
`
` MR. TORCZON: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`This is Richard Torczon from Mylan. As an initial
`
`matter, I would like to address our objections to the
`
`call. The board, in setting the call on Friday, said
`
`we could do that today. I would also like to discuss
`
`the moving of the hearing date and then, finally,
`
`suggest that there's little reason to believe that
`
`there would be success on the merits as a further
`
`assurance for not moving the -- the date.
`
` The objections to the call, there was
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 9
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`no meet and confer. This is a concern for several
`
`reasons. In this case, particularly at this
`
`juncture, we're seeing a lot of push on the -- the
`
`petitioners and on the board to act hastily. In this
`
`particular case because the -- there was no meet and
`
`confer and Mylan at least was unable to determine a
`
`timely availability for the call, one of our key
`
`attorneys is not available today.
`
` This is not the first time Allergan
`
`has failed to do a meet and confer in this
`
`proceeding. At least once before a reply was
`
`authorized under similar circumstances, and we just
`
`would like to note our objection to these procedural
`
`irregularities. Let me clarify. There was a meet
`
`and confer this morning, but I mean a meet and confer
`
`before the call was set.
`
` The second point of objection is that
`
`we were given less than one business day to prepare
`
`for this. The tribe has known about this issue since
`
`April. They have been telling the media that. And
`
`so, there really is no basis for a hurry in this
`
`case. They have had plenty of time to consider what
`
`they're doing. They've waited until the last
`
`possible moment. The only construction that can go
`
`with that is intentional prejudice to the petitioner.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 10
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`And, therefore, we ask that you not consider their
`
`belatedness a good reason for haste on Mylan's part
`
`or on the board's part.
`
` We also understand that this call is
`
`just about whether you're going to authorize a motion
`
`to delay the hearing and authorize a motion to
`
`dismiss. Again, we've had so little time to prepare
`
`to address the merit, we're really not prepared at
`
`this juncture to address the substance of all of
`
`those facts.
`
` Having gone through the objections, I
`
`would like to address the hearing date. As the board
`
`knows, it is under a one-year clock to decide this.
`
`That means that the decision is going to be due in
`
`early December. While opposing counsel has noted
`
`that there are bases for extending, this case is not
`
`one of those cases that justifies such an extension.
`
`The briefing has all been timely. The briefing has
`
`all been complete. The only thing that awaits is the
`
`hearing and the decision on the merits. Once again,
`
`Allergan's decision to delay this until the last
`
`possible moment is not good cause for anything.
`
` Secondly, the board is supposed to
`
`take into account in its proceedings the efficient
`
`administration, the office, and the ability of the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 11
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`office to timely complete its proceeding, both of
`
`which clearly apply in this circumstance. The same
`
`provision of the Statute 316(b) also requires the
`
`board to take into account the economy and the
`
`integrity of the patent system, both of which are
`
`strongly implicated in this case.
`
` The motion should not be authorized,
`
`the motion to dismiss. But if it is, it should
`
`proceeded in parallel, not to the exclusion of
`
`consideration of the -- the merits. We have been
`
`told that there's no precedent for delay. Quite to
`
`the contrary, on the closest authority to this case
`
`there is precedent for briefing after when the
`
`immunity issue is raised at the very last moment.
`
`That's the Neocort versus Maryland decision,
`
`IPR2016-002008, Paper 28.
`
` We have been told in this proceeding
`
`or in this call that the -- that if the board doesn't
`
`stay, there's an immediate appeal. We know that
`
`that's not true. The first time we heard about this
`
`was -- was about an hour ago from opposing counsel
`
`during the meet and confer. They cited the
`
`collateral order doctrine. Just cursory research
`
`into that shows that that doctrine, which is actually
`
`Statute 28 U.S.C. 1291, only applies to district
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 12
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`court proceedings and it's applied very, very
`
`stringently even in those proceedings.
`
` There's nothing that they have cited
`
`that suggests that it applies in an administrative
`
`context. There's nothing to suggest that it
`
`overrules the finality doctrine that applies under
`
`the APA. And in any case, we know from IPR specific
`
`case law that there's no interrogatory appeal.
`
`So -- so that's completely a misplaced assumption on
`
`opposing counsel's part.
`
` There's already been delay in this
`
`case. We -- we've already set the hearing back, and
`
`that's going to further prejudice the board's ability
`
`to get a decision out in a timely fashion. We expect
`
`that any motion that gets authorized will require
`
`substantial briefing and fact production from both
`
`sides.
`
` Due to Allergan's last-minute raising
`
`of this issue, we would expect to have time
`
`commiserate to the month-long preparation they've had
`
`to address this issue to fully explore the facts and
`
`legal issues involved. Any opposition that would be
`
`due from us should await Allergan's -- or rather the
`
`tribe's action in the district court. While the
`
`tribe is insisting that the board act immediately
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 13
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`affecting its -- its immunity in this case, they have
`
`told that -- the district court in a letter on Friday
`
`that they would make an appearance in due course.
`
` This is clearly an effort by them to
`
`play the court and the board's jurisdiction off each
`
`other because they know that the minute they make an
`
`appearance in the district court there will be yet
`
`another waiver argument.
`
` Mylan shouldn't -- shouldn't have to
`
`file any opposition until they have acted in the
`
`district court. Anything else would be allowing them
`
`to manipulate both the board and the court's
`
`jurisdiction.
`
` Any delay in considering the merits in
`
`this case, prejudices Mylan. Mylan has already
`
`expended substantial resources in this case,
`
`including since April when a lot of the discovery and
`
`briefing has occurred. It's expended substantial
`
`resources before Friday when this issue was first
`
`raised preparing for the hearing. It also has
`
`business interests that -- that have involved
`
`substantial investment toward launching a product
`
`that now would be delayed.
`
` The tribe's media reported royalty for
`
`delay works out to about $41,000 a day. That's just
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 14
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`the tribe's fraction of the royalties involved here.
`
`So -- so they have a substantial interest in dragging
`
`this out as long as possible. We really need to get
`
`to the merits. The public deserves that. The
`
`integrity of the patent system deserves that.
`
` Our delay in making the request waives
`
`any equity it has on this. Allergan has controlled
`
`the timing. It has timed things to maximum the
`
`prejudice of the board of Mylan. There's no
`
`prejudice to Allergan. Allergan can appear for the
`
`oral argument or not at its discretion. If it does
`
`appear, it won't waive its rights any more than it
`
`already has. So -- so that argument is specious.
`
` If -- if Allergan remains, the tribe
`
`can be dismissed and the proceeding can continue
`
`without it. There's actually precedent from the
`
`board -- again, the most on-point precedent in the
`
`case of Reactive Services versus Toyota in which the
`
`state entity was dismissed and the proceeding
`
`continued with the other interested parties.
`
` On the likelihood of -- of their -- of
`
`the motion to succeed on the merits, I would like to
`
`point out that we haven't cited any authority that's
`
`directly on point to this situation. Counsel has
`
`just told us that there are a lot of cases out there,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 15
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`but we know for a fact that there's not a single IPR
`
`tribal immunity case. They would like us draw
`
`analogies to the 11th Amendment. The board is
`
`probably very familiar with the 11th Amendment and
`
`knows that it does not apply to tribes. If there's
`
`any doubt, there's multiple Supreme Court cases that
`
`state that.
`
` Instead, tribal immunity is a
`
`common-law privilege. It doesn't control any
`
`Congressionally-mandated scheme. There's ample
`
`Supreme Court and Appeals Court authority for that.
`
` So -- so they are essentially asking
`
`you to use federal common-law to overcome a statutory
`
`scheme that Congress has created.
`
` There are also plenty -- there's a lot
`
`of reasons for concern that -- that this transaction
`
`is a sham transaction. In this case, the tribe did
`
`not purchase the intellectual property. Instead,
`
`they were paid to take it, plus promised a
`
`$15 million a year royalty stream on top of the $13
`
`and a half million that they were paid to take it.
`
` There are extensive cases in a lending
`
`fraud context where federal courts are permitting
`
`extensive briefing and discovery into these kinds of
`
`sham transactions, and at least in one case
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 16
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`there's -- federal prosecution is being pursued on
`
`racketeering charges in these sort of circumstances.
`
` So facially this transaction is a
`
`sham. There's no reason to believe that it will lead
`
`to any success. But in any case, there's an
`
`unequivocal waiver here. Mylan expects to have a lot
`
`of arguments on merit, but you should have confidence
`
`that this motion can't succeed because they have
`
`clearly sought out this forum. Mylan did not drag
`
`them into this forum. Akorn did not drag them into
`
`this forum. Teva did not drag them into the forum,
`
`and even the board did not drag them into this forum.
`
`Rather, by their own admissions to the press -- the
`
`press releases, they have -- the tribe has said that
`
`they have sought this out as an opportunity that they
`
`are marketing to patentees, that this is basically a
`
`protection scheme that they have put forth. They
`
`have been looking at this with the advice of counsel.
`
`They are marketing it to people. They are
`
`specifically targeting the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board. They are going to patentees who they think
`
`have weak patents and at risk of cancellation, and
`
`they are offering this protective service. They are
`
`explicit selling immunity.
`
` So this is not -- this is totally
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 17
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`non-analogous to any of the 11th Amendment cases even
`
`if those sorts of cases apply because in all of those
`
`cases, the state entity was the pre-existing owner of
`
`the intellectual property. In all of those cases, it
`
`was the state entity that had been dragged into the
`
`proceeding against its will. The tribe here has not
`
`been dragged into this proceeding against its will.
`
`It has deliberately by its own admission targeted
`
`these proceedings for exactly this kind of
`
`revenue-generating opportunity.
`
` So there's -- there can be no question
`
`that there's waiver under these circumstances. If
`
`waiver has any meaning in any context, the tribe has
`
`waived it.
`
` I also point out that there's a
`
`statutory waiver under 35 U.S. 8.261. When you
`
`accept a patent, you accept it with strings attached.
`
`Congress did not create unlimited property. Under
`
`261, which is the only one that addresses any kind of
`
`property rights under the patent code, Congress
`
`actually expressly reserves that any ownership is
`
`taken subject to the provisions of the patent code.
`
`One of those provisions is amenability to IPRs. So
`
`the tribe when went into this with eyes open. They
`
`are stuck with it. They have waived it statutorily.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 18
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`They have waived it equitably.
`
` Finally, I would like to point out
`
`that the director of the PTO has policy guidance and
`
`management supervision duties under 35 U.S.D.
`
`3(a)2(a). Sovereignty is clearly a policy issue.
`
`Destroying IPRs with sham transactions is a policy
`
`pattern. The head of Allergan has said that this is
`
`going to open the floodgates. The tribe has said
`
`that they already have an unidentified non-pharma
`
`tech patent owner who -- who they are extending this
`
`protection service to.
`
` So this is just the tip of the
`
`iceberg. The effects of this would be to -- if
`
`granted, if the motion were granted, would be to deny
`
`the director of the power to institute. So this is
`
`an attack on director power -- we understand that the
`
`board has taken a position that you cannot request an
`
`expanded panel. However, SOP1 actually in
`
`Section 3(c) says that a party can suggest it. And I
`
`strongly suggest -- Mylan strongly suggests that if
`
`the board decides to authorize this motion that it do
`
`so in a manner that allows the director to play the
`
`director's policy role and speak on how the
`
`director's institution powers would be used in this
`
`context.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 19
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
` MR. SHORE: Your Honor, this is
`
`Michael Shore. If I may quickly respond -- and I
`
`apologize. I'm sure that my opponent was speaking
`
`with relatively little preparation, so I'll forgive
`
`him for his lack of understanding of tribal immunity.
`
`But --
`
` THE COURT: Mr. Torczon, are you
`
`finished?
`
` MR. TORCZON: I -- I am, Your Honor.
`
`I'm -- I'm willing to -- to hear what Mr. Shore says.
`
`I would like an opportunity to respond, though.
`
` MR. SHORE: First, tribal sovereignty
`
`is broader, not narrower (inaudible), and it is
`
`clearly established in the case law that a sovereign
`
`immunity does not waive its sovereign immunity
`
`through the acts of (inaudible) to a corporation.
`
`It's either not entitled sovereign immunity or that
`
`it has waived sovereign immunity. There's a whole
`
`slew of cases on that.
`
` Sovereign -- sovereign immunity
`
`attaches as part of the asset. It doesn't matter
`
`where the asset is or how the asset is positioned
`
`before the acquisition. I think the Seminole case on
`
`that came out of Puerto Rico out of the First
`
`Circuit, but that case has followed many, many times.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 20
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`But that is not an issue.
`
` Second, some of the statements he made
`
`were just wrong. This -- this transaction has not
`
`been contemplated since April. Allergan and St.
`
`Regis Mohawk Tribe did not ever talk to one another
`
`until August, and the deal was consummated on Friday.
`
`And within two hours of the deal being consummated,
`
`paperwork was filed. So this is not just something
`
`that anyone is sitting on their hands about at all.
`
` There is -- there is no waiver by
`
`appearance in district court. And I can kind of
`
`speak with authority on this because on behalf of the
`
`University of Texas in the Texas Board of Regents
`
`versus Texas case I actually won on that issue in the
`
`Federal Circuit that if you file in one forum that
`
`doesn't mean that you waive as to any other forum.
`
`As a matter of fact, the law is you only waive as to
`
`the forum where you file compulsory (inaudible). For
`
`state sovereign immunity -- actually, tribal
`
`sovereign immunity only allows counterclaims for
`
`recoupment.
`
` So his understanding of tribal law is
`
`wrong. His understanding of the facts are wrong.
`
`His understanding of the law generally here is wrong.
`
`But -- but what it really comes down to, Your Honor,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 21
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
`is I think he has articulated very well that he needs
`
`to do a lot of research, the board needs --
`
` THE COURT: All right, Mr. Shore. I
`
`think I understand your position. Let me ask a
`
`couple questions.
`
` Ms. Whelan, are you withdrawing from
`
`this case?
`
` MS. WHELAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
`
` THE COURT: Are you withdrawing as
`
`counsel from this case?
`
` MS. WHELAN: No, we are not.
`
` THE COURT: So will you be prepared on
`
`Friday to attend the hearing?
`
` MS. WHELAN: If the hearing proceeds,
`
`we will be prepared to attend the hearing.
`
` THE COURT: And will you be
`
`representing the patent owner?
`
` MS. WHELAN: We will only be
`
`representing Allergan.
`
` THE COURT: And -- but not as patent
`
`owner?
`
` MS. WHELAN: Correct.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
`
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, this is
`
`Richard Torczon. If I may address just that point.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`800-336-4000
`
`Page 22
`
`Job No. 2706052
`
`SRMT 2090
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01127
`
`
`
`Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017
`
` Just as a matter of formality, the
`
`updated notice on Friday was defective and -- and
`
`confusing. It does leave -- leave open the question
`
`of who's got a power of attorney for whom and who is
`
`speaking from whom -- for whom.
`
` The board has a rule in place that
`
`does allow for a represent patient by a part owner or
`
`somebody with a partial interest in the case that's
`
`42.9(b). It sets forth a process for doing that.
`
`And just as a matter of formality, I will note that
`
`that process has not been observed here.
`
` MR. SHORE: Your Honor, I've got
`
`another, I think, relatively important point to make.
`
`The earlier complaints about conferencing and noted
`
`and things like that, the court should be aware that
`
`prior to any conference today, Mylan had already sent
`
`a letter to the district court judge saying that
`
`Mylan will vigorously op