throbber
1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` __________
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` __________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`
` USA, INC., and AKORN INC.
`
` Petitioners,
`
` v.
`
` ALLERGAN, INC.
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` __________
`
` Case IPR2016-01127
` Patent No. 8,685,930 B2
`
` Case IPR2016-01128
` Patent No. 8,629,111 B2
`
` Case IPR2016-01129
` Patent No. 8,642,556 B2
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01130
` Patent No. 8,633,162
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01131
` Patent No. 8,648,048
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01132
` Patent No. 9,248,191
` __________
`
` TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL
` September 11, 2017
` 1:00 p.m.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`MYLAN - EXHIBIT 1137
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131 & -01132
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` (all appearances telephonically)
`
`PRESIDING:
`
` SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative
`
` Patent Judge
`
` TINA E. HULSE, Administrative
`
` Patent Judge
`
` CHRISTOPHER GILBERT PAULRAJ,
`
` Administrative Patent Judge
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS,
`
`INC.:
`
` RICHARD TORCZON, ESQUIRE
`
` Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`
` 1700 K Street, N.W., 5th Floor
`
` Washington, D.C. 20006
`
` 202-973-8811 (P) 202-973-8899 (F)
`
` rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
` - and -
`
`Reported by: Cappy Hallock, RPR, CRR, CLR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
` STEVEN W. PARMELEE, ESQUIRE
`
` JAD A. MILLS, ESQUIRE
`
` Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`
` 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`
` Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
`
` 206-883-2542 (P) 206-883-2699 (F)
`
` sparmelee@wsgr.com jmills@wsgr.com
`
` - and -
`
` WENDY L. DEVINE, ESQUIRE
`
` Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`
` One Market Street
`
` Spear Tower Floor 33
`
` San Francisco, California 94105-1126
`
` 858-350-2321 (P) 415-947-2099 (F)
`
` wdevine@wsgr.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 4
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
`
`INC.:
`
` GARY SPEIER, ESQUIRE
`
` RIVKA JUNGRIES, ESQUIRE
`
` Carlson Caspers Vandenburgh Lindquist &
`
` Schuman, P.A.
`
` 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
` 612-436-9600 (P) 612-436-9605 (F)
`
` gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER AKORN INC.:
`
` MICHAEL R. DZWONCZYK, ESQUIRE
`
` Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`
` 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`
` Washington, D.C. 20037
`
` 202-293-7060 (P) 202-293-7860 (F)
`
` mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`ON BEHALF OF ALLERGAN, INC.:
`
` DOROTHY P. WHELAN, ESQUIRE
`
` MICHAEL KANE, ESQUIRE
`
` Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
` 3200 RBC Plaza
`
` 60 South Sixth Street
`
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
` 612-335-5070 (P) 612-288-9696 (F)
`
` PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE:
`
` MICHAEL W. SHORE, ESQUIRE
`
` ALFONSO G. CHAN, ESQUIRE
`
` CHRISTOPHER EVANS, ESQUIRE
`
` JOSEPH F. DePUMPO, ESQUIRE
`
` Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
`
` 901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`
` Dallas, Texas 75202
`
` 214-593-9110 (P) 214-593-9111 (F)
`
` mshore@shorechan.com, achan@shorechan.com
`
` jdepumpo@shorechan.com, cevans@shorechan.com
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` - - - - - -
`
` THE COURT: Who is on the call
`
`representing Petitioner?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Thank you, Your Honor,
`
`this is Richard Torczon. I'm appearing on behalf
`
`of Mylan, and with me on the line is Steve
`
`Parmelee and Jad Mills and Wendy Devine.
`
` THE COURT: And Mr. Torczon?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Yes, T-o-r-c-z-o-n.
`
` THE COURT: And you will be speaking
`
`today on behalf of Petitioner, Mylan.
`
` 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. I am joined by Michael Kane. We
`
`represent Allergan.
`
` THE COURT: Who will be speaking for
`
`Allergan?
`
` MS. WHELAN: No one will be speaking
`
`for Allergan, but Michael Shore will be speaking
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`on behalf of the Mohawk Tribe because the
`
`sovereign immunity issue is the Tribe issue.
`
` THE COURT: And who is on the line
`
`representing the Tribe?
`
` MR. SHORE: Michael Shore, S-h-o-r-e,
`
`and listening in the room with me are Chris Evans
`
`and Joseph DePumpo.
`
` THE COURT: And I understand that we
`
`have pro hac vice motions, and I want to confirm
`
`that no one objects to Mr. Shore speaking today on
`
`the today's conference call?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, this is
`
`Richard Torczon on behalf of Mylan. We have
`
`already indicated to the Tribe that we do not
`
`oppose their pro hac vice entry.
`
` THE COURT: Okay, thank you. I hear
`
`we have a court reporter.
`
` MR. CHAN: This is Alfonso Chan. I'm
`
`also on the call on behalf of the Tribe.
`
` THE COURT: Thank you.
`
` Is there anybody else on the call?
`
` MR. SPEIER: Your Honor, this is Gary
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`Speier on behalf of Teva.
`
` MR. DZWONCZYK: Your Honor, this is
`
`Mike Dzwonczyk on behalf of Akorn.
`
` THE COURT: And anyone else?
`
` MS. YOUNGBRIGHT: Your Honor, this is
`
`Rivka Jungries on behalf of Teva.
`
` THE COURT: I will keep asking until I
`
`get silence.
`
` Anyone else?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, this is
`
`Richard Torczon. If counsel are all done, you
`
`should be aware there are two court reporters on
`
`the call. Each side has requested to have a court
`
`reporter present.
`
` THE COURT: Thank you for that
`
`information. And if you could, both parties
`
`should file their transcript following this call.
`
` Okay, I think with that we will begin.
`
` Mr. Shore, would you like to begin?
`
` MR. SHORE: Yes, Your Honor. I will
`
`pick this phone up off speaker so this part of the
`
`call will be easier for the court reporters to
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`hear.
`
` Thank you for taking this call today,
`
`Your Honor. For the record, my name is Michael W.
`
`Shore and I represent the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
`
`I do not represent Allergan, and I do not speak
`
`for Allergan on this call. I only speak on behalf
`
`of the St. Regis Tribe.
`
` Patent Owner, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe,
`
`which I am going to refer to as Tribe for the
`
`remainder of my discussion today for the court
`
`reporters, hereby makes a special appearance
`
`before the Board to protect its sovereignty. No
`
`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 and 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, 8,642,556, 8,633,162, 8,648,048,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`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 requested should remain in
`
`place pending the 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 36 in IPR2016-01127. 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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`discretionary, because sovereign immunity is by
`
`nature 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. 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.
`
` 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
`
`merely a liability defense, it's an immunity from
`
`suit that would effectively be lost if IPRs are
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`permitted to go 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 its
`
`immunity, the Tribe has a right to an immediate
`
`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 proceeding 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
`
`an opportunity to fully consider the Tribe's of
`
`sovereign immunity, and if the Board acts
`
`adversely, await a decision on the application of
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`the Tribe's immunity at the Federal Circuit, that
`
`the Tribe would pursue its right to an 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, can be extended under
`
`37 C.F.R. Section 42.100(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 the
`
`extension of the deadlines.
`
` The Tribe requests 15 days to prepare
`
`and file its Motion to Dismiss the IPRs, and
`
`understanding that the 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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`request it, and the Tribe would then ask for 15
`
`days after their filing to file a reply brief.
`
` So unless the Board has any other
`
`questions for me, I believe I have stated the
`
`Tribe's position. I understand this call is not
`
`normally the place to argue case law, but I have
`
`at my disposal citations to cases that back every
`
`factual and legal statement I have made, so if the
`
`Board would like a reference to anything on this
`
`call I can provide it.
`
` 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: Thank you, Mr. Shore. I
`
`think we understand the nature of your request.
`
` I will 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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`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 is little reason to believe that there would
`
`be success on the merits as a further assurance for
`
`not moving the date.
`
` The objections to the call, there was
`
`no meet and confer. This is a concern for several
`
`reasons. In this case, particularly at this
`
`juncture, we are seeing a lot of push on both the
`
`Petitioners and on the Board to act hastily in
`
`this particular case because 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 surreply 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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`confer this morning, but I mean a meet and confer
`
`before the call was set.
`
` The second point of objection is we
`
`were given less than one business day to prepare
`
`for this. The Tribe has known about this since
`
`April, they have been telling the media that, and
`
`so there is really no basis for hurry in this
`
`case. They have had plenty of time to consider
`
`what they were doing. They waited until the last
`
`possible moment. The only construction that can
`
`go with that is intentional prejudice to the
`
`Petitioner, 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 are going to authorize a
`
`motion to delay the hearing and authorize a Motion
`
`to Dismiss. Again, we have had so little time to
`
`prepare to address the merits we are really not
`
`prepared at this juncture to address the substance
`
`of all of those things.
`
` Having gone through the objections, I
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`would like to address the hearing date. As the
`
`Board knows, it's 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 would justify
`
`such an extension. The briefing has all been
`
`timely. The briefing has all been completed. 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 of the office and the ability of
`
`the office to timely complete its proceedings,
`
`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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 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
`
`Motion to Dismiss, but if it is it should proceed
`
`in parallel, not to the exclusion of consideration
`
`of the merits.
`
` We have been told that there is no
`
`precedent for delay. Quite to the contrary, in
`
`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 Neochord versus Maryland decision,
`
`IPR2016-00208, Paper 28.
`
` We have been told in this proceeding,
`
`or in this call, that the -- that if the Board
`
`doesn't stay there is an immediate appeal. We
`
`know that's not true. The first time we heard
`
`about this 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 a statute 28 U.S.C. 1291, only applies
`
`to district court proceedings and it is applied
`
`very, very stringently even in those proceedings.
`
`There is nothing that they have cited to suggest
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that it applies in an administrative context.
`
`There is nothing to suggest it overrules the
`
`finality doctrine that applies under the APA. And
`
`in any case we know from IPR-specific case law
`
`that there is no interlocutory appeal, so that is
`
`simply a misplaced assumption on opposing
`
`counsel's part.
`
` There has already been delay in this
`
`case. We have 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 would 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 commensurate to the
`
`month-long preparation they have 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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`insisting that the Board act immediately,
`
`affecting its immunity in this case, they have
`
`told -- they have told 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 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 have involved
`
`substantial investment toward launching a product
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that now would be delayed.
`
` The Tribe's media-reported royalty for
`
`delay works out to about $41,000 a day. That's
`
`just the Tribe's fraction of the royalties
`
`involved here, 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.
`
` Allergan's delay in making the request
`
`waives any equity it has on this. Allergan has
`
`controlled the timing. It has timed things to
`
`maximize the prejudice to the Board and Mylan.
`
`There is no prejudice to Allergan. Allergan can
`
`appear for the oral argument, or not, at its
`
`discretion. If it does appear it won't waive it's
`
`right anymore than it already has, so that
`
`argument is specious. If Allergan remains, the
`
`Tribe can be dismissed in the proceeding and
`
`continue without it.
`
` There is actually precedent from the
`
`Board. Again, the most on point precedent is the
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`case of Reactive Surfaces versus Toyota in which
`
`the state entity was dismissed and the proceeding
`
`continued with the other interested party.
`
` On the likelihood of the motion to
`
`succeed on the merit, I would like to point out they
`
`haven't cited any authority directly on point to
`
`this situation. Counsel has just told us that
`
`there are a lot of cases out there, but we know
`
`for a fact that there is not a single IPR tribal
`
`immunity case. They would like us to 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
`
`is any doubt, there are multiple supreme court
`
`cases that say that. Instead, tribal immunity is
`
`a common law privilege. It doesn't control any
`
`congressionally mandated scheme. There is ample
`
`Supreme Court and appeals court authority for
`
`that. 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 are a
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`lot of reasons for concern 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 dollars 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
`
`there is a federal prosecution that is being
`
`pursued on racketeering charges in these sort of
`
`circumstances. So basically this transaction is a
`
`sham. There is no reason to believe that it will
`
`lead to any success.
`
` But in any case, there is an
`
`unequivocal waiver here. Mylan expects to have a
`
`lot of arguments on the merits, but you should have
`
`confidence 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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the forum. And even the Board did not drag them
`
`into this forum. Rather, by their own admissions
`
`to the press, the press releases, 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 are at risk of cancellation and they
`
`are offering this protective service. They are
`
`explicitly selling immunity.
`
` So this is not -- this is totally not
`
`analogous to any of the 11th Amendment cases, even
`
`if those sorts of cases applied, because in all of
`
`those cases the state entity was the preexisting
`
`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
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`proceeding against its will. It has deliberately
`
`by its own admission targeted these proceedings
`
`for exactly this kind of revenue-generating
`
`opportunity, so there can be no question that
`
`there is waiver under these circumstances. If
`
`waiver had any meaning in any context, the Tribe
`
`has waived in this circumstance.
`
` I will also point out there is
`
`statutory waiver under 35 U.S.C. 261. When you
`
`accept a patent you accept it with strings
`
`attached. Congress did not create unlimited
`
`property. Under 261, which is the only thing 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
`
`went into this with eyes open. They are stuck
`
`with it. They have waived it statutorily. They
`
`have waived it equitably.
`
` Finally, I would like to point out
`
`that the director of the PTO has policy guidance
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`and management supervision duties under 35 U.S.C.
`
`3(a)(2)(A). Sovereignty is clearly a policy issue.
`
`Destroying IPRs with sham transactions is a policy
`
`matter. 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 they are extending
`
`this protection service to. So this is just the
`
`tip of the iceberg.
`
` The effect 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, SOP 1 actually in Section III.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 policy role and speak on how the
`
`Director institution powers would be used in
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`this context.
`
` MR. SHORE: Your Honor, this is
`
`Michael Shore, if I may quickly respond. I
`
`apologize, I'm sure that my opponent was speaking
`
`with relatively little preparation so I will
`
`forgive him for his lack of understanding of
`
`tribal immunity.
`
` THE COURT: Mr. Torczon, are you
`
`finished?
`
` MR. TORCZON: I am, Your Honor. I am
`
`willing to hear what Mr. Shore says. I would like
`
`an opportunity to respond, though.
`
` MR. SHORE: First, tribal sovereign
`
`immunity is broader, not narrower, than the 11th
`
`Amendment immunity. And it is clearly established
`
`in the case law that a sovereign entity does not
`
`waive its sovereign immunity through the acts
`
`succedent to a corporation as either not entitled
`
`to sovereign immunity or that it has waived
`
`sovereign immunity. There is a whole slew of
`
`cases on that, that sovereign immunity attaches
`
`under, acquires the assets. It doesn't matter
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 11, 2017
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`where the asset is or how the asset was positioned
`
`before the acquisition. I think the Seminole case
`
`on that that came out of Puerto Rico out of the
`
`First Circuit. That case has been followed many,
`
`many times, but that is not an issue.
`
` Second, some of the statements he made
`
`were just wrong. This transaction has not been
`
`contemplated since April. Allergan and the
`
`St. Regus 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 has not
`
`been something that anyone has been sitting on
`
`their hands about at all.
`
` There is no waiver by a

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket