throbber
Conference Call - September 26, 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 No. IPR2016-01127
` Patent No. 8,685,930 B2
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01128
` Patent No. 8,629,111 B2
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01129
` Patent No. 8,642,556 B2
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01130
` Patent No. 8,648,048
`
` Case No. IPR2016-01132
` Patent No. 9,248,191
`
` _____________
`
` TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL
` September 26, 2017
`
`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
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`MYLAN - EXHIBIT 1143
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131, -01132
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` (All appearances telephonically)
`
`PRESIDING:
` MR. SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN
` Administrative Patent Judge
`
` MS. TINA E. HULSE
` Administrative Patent Judge
`
` MR. CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ
` Administrative Patent Judge
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.:
`
` WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
` BY: MR. STEVEN W. PARMELEE, ESQ.
` MR. JAD A. MILLS, ESQ.
` 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
` Seattle, WA 98104
` (206)883-2542
` e-mail: sparmelee@wsgr.com
` AND
` WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
` MR. RICHARD TORCZON
` MS. TASHA THOMAS
` 1700 K Street, N.W., 5th Floor
` Washington, D.C. 20006
` (202) 973-8811
` e-mail: rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
`INC.:
` CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH, LINDQUIST &
` SCHUMAN, P.A.
` BY: MR. GARY SPEIER
` 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` (612) 436-9600
` e-mail: gspeier@carlsoncaspers.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
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 2017
`
`Page 3
`
` APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER AKORN, INC.:
`
` SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
` BY: MR. TRAVIS RIBAR
` 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20037
` (202) 293-7060
` e-mail: tribar@sughrue.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF ALLERGAN, INC.:
`
` Fish & Richardson, P.C.
` BY: MS. DOROTHY P. WHELAN
` MR. MICHAEL KANE
` 3200 RBC Plaza
` 60 South Sixth Street
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
` (612) 335-5070
` e-mail: PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE:
`
` SHORE, CHAN, DePUMPO, LLP
` BY: MR. MICHAEL W. SHORE
` MR. CHRISTOPHER EVANS
` MS. MARSHA SCHMIDT (pro hac vice)
` 901 Main Street, Suite 3300
` Dallas, Texas 75202
` (214) 593-9110
` e-mail: mshore@shorechan.com
` cevans@shorechan.com
` marsha@mkschidtlaw.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
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 2017
`
`Page 4
`
` APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`ON BEHALF OF MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.:
`
` PERKINS COIE, LLP
` BY: MR. BRANDON M. WHITE
` MS. SHANNON M. BLOODWORTH (pro hac vice pending)
` MR. CHARLES G. CURTIS, JR. (pro hac vice pending)
` 700 13th Street, N.W., Suite 600
` Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
` (202) 654-6200
` e-mail: BMWhite@perkinscoie.com
` SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com
` CCurtis@perkinscoie.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
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
` THE COURT: Good afternoon. This is
`
`Judge Snedden.
`
` I have on the line with me Judges Hulse
`
`and Paulraj.
`
` Mr. Torczon, are you on the line?
`
` MR. TORCZON: I am, your Honor.
`
` THE COURT: All right.
`
` And do we have anyone from the Tribe
`
`present?
`
` MR. EVANS: Yes, your Honor, Christopher
`
`Evans and Marcia Schmidt are here representing the
`
`Tribe.
`
` THE COURT: Allergan?
`
` MS. WHALEN: Dorothy Whelan and Michael
`
`Kane representing Allergan.
`
` THE COURT: And who else do we have on
`
`the line?
`
` MR. SHORE: Michael Shore is on the line
`
`as well.
`
` MR. RIBAR: Travis Ribar representing
`
`Akorn.
`
` MR. SPEIER: Gary Speier on behalf of
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`Teva.
`
` THE COURT: I understand we have a court
`
`reporter.
`
` MR. TORCZON: We do, your Honor.
`
` I also believe we have Brandon White,
`
`Shannon Bloodworth, and Charles Curtis of Perkins Coie
`
`for Mylan.
`
` THE COURT: Mr. Torczon, you requested
`
`the call, I will let you begin.
`
` MR. TORCZON: Thank you very much, your
`
`Honor. Thank you for scheduling this call.
`
` Our request falls basically into two
`
`parts. There was originally ordered production we
`
`believe is incomplete, and there is also additional
`
`discovery related to that that we believe we should be
`
`entitled to. It will be limited to discovery
`
`regarding the immunity claim.
`
` On the first point the Tribe voluntarily
`
`filed a short form agreement which referred to the
`
`long form agreement. The board ordered the patent
`
`owner and Tribe to produce the long form agreement.
`
` The long form agreement itself
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`incorporates additional agreements that are used to
`
`define Allergan's powers and responsibilities.
`
` We don't believe the agreement is fully
`
`comprehensible without this. We believe that they are
`
`within the scope of the originally ordered discovery
`
`or production and Allergan should have all of it in
`
`its possession.
`
` Allergan disagrees with our position that
`
`it is within the scope of the original discovery, and
`
`the Tribe has indicated that it doesn't have to
`
`produce anything.
`
` We would like the board to consider the
`
`issue and immediately order production of those
`
`documents. Failing that we believe that it is
`
`certainly within the scope of any additional
`
`discovery.
`
` Along the same lines, it is important to
`
`note that Mylan disagrees that the Tribe has
`
`established that it is the owner--it believes the
`
`assignment is a sham--and Mylan believes that Allergan
`
`has retained all effective rights.
`
` The Tribe's residual interest is
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`insufficient for to be a necessary party. So we
`
`believe in support of that we should be able to get
`
`all agreements and understandings between Allergan and
`
`the Tribe regarding patents so that we can determine
`
`who actually owns the rights, holds the rights and
`
`whether the agreements are valid.
`
` We would note that any discovery against
`
`nonparty participants does not implicate tribal
`
`sovereign immunity. Even where tribal sovereign
`
`immunity is implicated, the burden is on the Tribe to
`
`establish it is entitled to it in these situations.
`
` We note that the federal government,
`
`which is a full-fledged sovereign, regularly has to
`
`provide discovery. We are happy to cite cases on that
`
`point.
`
` We note that decision, Finn versus Great
`
`Plains, which we already pointed out to the board,
`
`showed the same concept applies to Tribe. They are
`
`not a full-fledged sovereign, they are domestic
`
`sovereign, and their rights are correspondingly less.
`
` Similar concerns to the one the Tribe has
`
`already raised and also has concerns similar to ours,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`such as control by non-tribal entity, benefits
`
`allocated to a non-tribal entity, action to evade
`
`regulatory review, prejudice no production to the
`
`requester and defined set of fact issues that will
`
`help target the discovery.
`
` We note in the foreign sovereign immunity
`
`context, again, full-fledged sovereign, Finn cites to
`
`the Hansen case, which says that such -- that
`
`requester should have ample opportunity to secure and
`
`present evidence on this issue. We believe the Tribe
`
`has expressly waived immunity for the purposes of
`
`contesting immunity, and that would include --
`
`necessarily include discovery on that assertion.
`
` The Tribe has already voluntarily
`
`produced one agreement and complied with an order to
`
`produce another agreement.
`
` The Tribe and Allergan control all of
`
`material facts here: that has often been considered an
`
`important factor in ordering such discovery. We are
`
`really not asking for anything that is any broader
`
`than what the board would require in the case of the
`
`settlement, which is all agreements and understandings
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`underlying this transaction.
`
` The Tribe has the burden of production in
`
`fact. There is the California case Owen versus Miami
`
`Nations. It says that in a context like this where
`
`there is an assertion of immunity and the party -- the
`
`Tribe controls fact or the party asserting immunity
`
`controls the fact, the burden is on them to produce.
`
` And, finally, along those lines we note
`
`that there has actually been no representation to date
`
`that all of the agreements between them regarding
`
`these or any other patents, you know, like an umbrella
`
`agreement that would cover any patent agreements
`
`between them, have been produced. And even if we get
`
`a representation to that effect today, it won't be
`
`evidence, it would be a bare representation.
`
` A lot of inconsistencies that justify
`
`discovery and jurisdictional issues, the parties --
`
`the Tribe and Allergan having engaged in actions that
`
`are contrary to the agreements. Allergan is supposed
`
`to be responsible for the litigation, yet we have
`
`recently seen the Tribe telling Allergan what it can
`
`and can't do. The license appears to require Allergan to
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`perform statutory functions that are reserved for the
`
`owner.
`
` Allergan and the Tribe each say the other
`
`side initiated the agreements, which suggest that
`
`there is some confusion about what actually happened
`
`in what order. The order of the transaction could be
`
`significant here.
`
` One of the things is: it is facially
`
`improbable that Allergan would surrender rights to such
`
`valuable patents, patents that are bringing in
`
`millions of dollars a day, without some blanket
`
`understanding or agreement to agree or something like
`
`that in place.
`
` The Tribe's webpage when it explains
`
`these agreements to its members has indicated that
`
`additional agreements provide protection in the event
`
`that they lose infringement suit, protections that
`
`aren't readily apparent from the agreements that have
`
`been produced so far.
`
` So if we apply the factor here we see
`
`that there is more than a possibility that there is
`
`additional evidence. We see that there is not any
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`possibility that we are seeking underlying litigation
`
`bases, the trial is over. We don't have to worry
`
`about -- I am sorry, there is no other way we can
`
`generate relevant information because necessarily the
`
`information is only in the hands of these parties.
`
` As far as easily understandable
`
`instructions, that is something we can commit to
`
`providing.
`
` As far as the request not being
`
`burdensome, the Tribe has represented that all
`
`activity in this case has occurred between August and
`
`September. All of these documents should be readily
`
`at hand.
`
` Again, we are really not requesting
`
`anything beyond what they would be expected to produce
`
`for a settlement agreement, so it is -- it can't be an
`
`unreasonable request.
`
` Specifically what we would be looking for
`
`is all agreements incorporating references to Allergan
`
`license grants, any side agreements, supplemental
`
`agreements, agreements to agree, term sheets,
`
`documents sufficient to show all drafts of the
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`assignment, license agreement, documents sufficient to
`
`show communications between Allergan and the Tribe or
`
`the Tribe's attorneys regarding IPRs or patents
`
`including any marketing material.
`
` We also would like any documents showing
`
`good and valuable consideration that the Tribe gave to
`
`Allergan as part of this transaction.
`
` We would also request that any --
`
` THE COURT: It is your position that
`
`there are agreements that are necessary for you to
`
`establish that Allergan is a party with substantial
`
`interests in these patents?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Our position is that we
`
`have received a couple documents that the Tribe and
`
`Allergan have chosen to present here. We never
`
`received any representation that that represents the
`
`sum total of the documents. They're inconsistencies
`
`in the behaviors of the parties and their public
`
`statements compared to what is said in the documents.
`
` And, as analysts and others have noted,
`
`it seems very unlikely that Allergan would have given
`
`up such significant rights without some overarching
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`agreement to ensure that it would get the license
`
`back. So --
`
` THE COURT: What is the legal position
`
`that you are trying to support with this?
`
` MR. TORCZON: I am sorry, yes, okay, so
`
`there are at least a couple of lines that are involved
`
`here.
`
` One is the question of whether in fact
`
`the Tribe is the owner.
`
` And the other would be whether the --
`
`whether Allergan has retained enough rights and
`
`whether the Tribe has retained enough rights such that
`
`either Allergan can proceed alone or the Tribe is not
`
`a necessary party.
`
` So all of these are factors that have
`
`been considered as relevant to sovereign immunity,
`
`several of them have come up indeed in past board
`
`decisions regarding state sovereign immunity, so these
`
`are squarely within the scope of what we would expect
`
`to be able to discover.
`
` THE COURT: And it is your position that
`
`you can't make -- it is not possible to make the
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`determination or make the arguments to support that
`
`allegation based on the license and the agreements
`
`that are already of record?
`
` MR. TORCZON: Precisely, because we've
`
`only seen the parts of the agreement that the Tribe
`
`and Allergan have chosen to let us see.
`
` This comes up regularly in the case law.
`
`For instance, in some of the federal sovereign
`
`immunity cases the agencies have actually presented
`
`documents, there was reason to believe that more was
`
`going on or more should have been going on.
`
` THE COURT: Can you walk me through the
`
`license agreement and tell me why, tell me what
`
`language it is and why you believe what is of record
`
`is --
`
` MR. TORCZON: So, for instance, I don't
`
`have the agreement open in front of me, but an example
`
`would be that patent term extensions, Allergan is --
`
` THE COURT: Hold on a second, I just
`
`noticed that these agreements are --
`
` MR. TORCZON: You are right, your Honor,
`
`I am sorry.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
` THE COURT: This is okay, we can submit
`
`this transcript as parties and board only.
`
` MR. TORCZON: I believe everybody on the
`
`call is either already of record -- at least on our
`
`side, on the Petitioner's side, I believe everybody is
`
`either of record or has a pending pro hac vice motion,
`
`and I believe everybody on the Petitioner's side has
`
`filed or has signed a protective order.
`
` THE COURT: I think it will be useful for
`
`us to do that, if you can file the transcripts of the
`
`parties on board, that will be helpful.
`
` MR. TORCZON: And, also we can point out, if you
`
`authorize the motion, we can do this in specific
`
`detail.
`
` But just a general example, who controls
`
`the litigation, we are seeing behavior that is
`
`inconsistent with that: patent term extension, the
`
`patent owner's responsibility, we see Allergan doing that. So
`
`it is things like that that suggest there is something
`
`else going on.
`
` As I said, the Tribe has indicated to its
`
`constituents that there are agreements in place that
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`protect it in the case that it loses infringement
`
`suit. We are not seeing a basis of that in the
`
`agreement. So there are inconsistencies like that.
`
` As I said, it also just logical
`
`conclusion that there must have been a term sheet or
`
`an agreement to agree or something that was in place
`
`before Allergan would take the remarkable step of
`
`signing over rights to the Tribe in the hope that
`
`exclusive license would somehow come off and come back
`
`to them.
`
` So there are a lot of reasons to suspect
`
`that there is additional agreements out there. To the
`
`extent there aren't, it is no burden at all to the --
`
` THE COURT: There might be other
`
`agreements, we are trying to understand why they might
`
`be useful to this case.
`
` I mean, these agreements, I understand,
`
`were entered into for before the Tribe came about, got
`
`involved, so the answer is -- the question is why are
`
`those -- why are those agreements useful for this
`
`particular -- is it a mere allegation or --
`
` MR. TORCZON: Those --
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
` THE COURT: It sounds like a mere
`
`allegation, more than a mere allegation.
`
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, in terms of the
`
`long -- in terms of the things that we believe are
`
`already within the scope, in each of those cases those
`
`agreements are used to define Allergan rights and
`
`responsibilities, and so for us to know what it is
`
`that Allergan -- what powers and responsibilities
`
`Allergan has under the agreement and therefore
`
`understand the scope of how much control they have
`
`versus how much control the Tribe has, we need to see
`
`what those agreements are. We are not the ones who
`
`structured the agreement between the Tribe and
`
`Allergan to include these other agreements, but they
`
`are effectively incorporated by reference. And so we
`
`should get those even without additional discovery.
`
` THE COURT: Okay, let me ask one
`
`question. I know you might not be -- who is speaking
`
`for Allergan today?
`
` MR. SHORE: This is Michael Shore, this
`
`is Michael Shore, and I am only speaking for the
`
`Tribe.
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
` THE COURT: I need --
`
` MS. WHELAN: Your Honor, this is Dorothy
`
`Whelan, I am speaking for Allergan, and I am here for
`
`the limited purpose of addressing the issue of whether
`
`Allergan complied with the board's September 8th order
`
`to produce the long form assignment.
`
` THE COURT: Well, I think this question
`
`is relevant anyway, I have not received your request
`
`for Allergan's counsel to withdraw from this case, and
`
`so the question I have is why do you remain a party to
`
`this case and do you deny that you remain in this case
`
`as a party that has substantial interest in these
`
`patents?
`
` MS. WHELAN: Your Honor, actually, we
`
`will -- this is Dorothy Whelan on behalf of Allergan,
`
`we would like to use this call as an opportunity to
`
`seek leave to withdraw from the proceedings because
`
`Allergan is not a patent owner. Allergan is only an
`
`exclusive field of license holder. So we would like
`
`leave to file a motion to withdraw from the
`
`proceedings.
`
` THE COURT: Let me just -- I will confirm
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`with my panel and get back to you on the answer for
`
`that, yes, I understand your question.
`
` Okay, and so, Mr. Shore --
`
` MR. SHORE: Yes?
`
` THE COURT: Do you deny that Allergan
`
`remains a party with substantial rights in these
`
`patents?
`
` MR. SHORE: Under the statute there is
`
`only two proper parties, the requester and the patent
`
`owner. Allergan doesn't fit into either one of those
`
`slots, so by statute they are not a proper party to
`
`the case.
`
` THE COURT: And are there any --
`
`Mr. Shore, are there any agreements between Allergan
`
`and the Tribe relating to -- any other agreements
`
`relating to the challenged patents that are not
`
`already of record?
`
` MR. SHORE: No.
`
` The only agreements that I am aware of,
`
`the only agreements that I know that exist are the
`
`agreements that are of record in the case.
`
` THE COURT: And is Allergan -- under
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`mandatory notice you must identify any real parties of
`
`interest. Is Allergan a real party of interest?
`
` MR. SHORE: No, they are not a patent
`
`owner and they are not a requester.
`
` MS. WHELAN: We are a real party in
`
`interest.
`
` MR. SHORE: I am sorry, you mean someone
`
`who has an interest in the outcome.
`
` MS. WHELAN: Well, we are a real party in
`
`interest under the statute, and that is why the
`
`mandatory notices reflect Allergan as a real party in
`
`interest, but we are not the patent owner.
`
` THE COURT: Understood, all right.
`
` And, Mr. Shore, what about term sheets,
`
`are there any term sheets that have not been
`
`submitted, term sheets that exist that have not been
`
`made of record?
`
` MR. SHORE: There is nothing -- there are
`
`no term sheets, there never were any term sheets in
`
`the case.
`
` MR. TORCZON: Can I respond to some of the
`
`things?
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
` MR. SHORE: Michael Shore on behalf of
`
`St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, simply requesting that before
`
`the panel takes into account what they heard as being
`
`in any way factual or truthfully, it is not.
`
` THE COURT: I understand, Mr. Shore. You
`
`get a chance to speak, I had questions. I am going to
`
`let Mr. Torczon finish and then you can respond.
`
` MR. SHORE: Okay.
`
` THE COURT: Mr. Torczon, are you
`
`finished?
`
` MR. TORCZON: I just wanted to point out
`
`that it varies from the proceeding, there has been
`
`suggestion that delay would be appropriate either for
`
`discovery or I believe now in the context of amicus
`
`briefing.
`
` I just would like to reiterate that the
`
`petitioners believe that delay only helps Allergan, it
`
`hurts everybody else. Specifically it undermines the
`
`integrity of the system, the patent system.
`
` There is uncertainty about whether the
`
`board has power to act, this creates uncertainty for
`
`petitioners. This creates uncertainty for patent
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`owners who are being approached daily by tribes to
`
`know what to do. This actually hurts the board
`
`itself. It has led -- this very proceeding has led to
`
`regular attacks on the integrity of the board.
`
` THE COURT: What we are trying to figure
`
`out here is why -- what information, what useful
`
`information do you expect to obtain from additional
`
`discovery.
`
` MR. TORCZON: Well --
`
` THE COURT: What legal position are you
`
`trying to establish and what evidence is missing.
`
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, this is Richard
`
`Torczon.
`
` Again, if the agreements are shams, that
`
`would go directly to the question of ownership
`
`control, whether the tribes are even a necessary
`
`party, whether they are even an appropriate party to
`
`the proceeding.
`
` I understand that your Honors have asked
`
`Mr. Shore just now whether there are other agreements
`
`and he carefully said to the best of his knowledge
`
`there were not. I note that that is attorney
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`argument, not evidence. And, frankly, in a case that
`
`has this much at stake, both in monetary terms and in
`
`terms of the integrity of the system --
`
` THE COURT: So you would want to
`
`establish that this agreement is a sham. What do you
`
`need to establish that it is a sham? What evidence do
`
`you need?
`
` MR. TORCZON: We believe that it is
`
`almost unbelievable that there aren't additional side
`
`agreements and that those side agreements would tend
`
`to show things like additional license-back provisions
`
`or things to that effect.
`
` Until we have had a chance to see all
`
`such agreements or at least establish as a matter of
`
`evidence that no such agreements exist, we are
`
`fighting blindfolded.
`
` And the only people that have that
`
`evidence is the Tribe and Allergan, and they have got
`
`a legal obligation to produce it. They have only
`
`produced what we have seen so far.
`
` So we need to fully explore this
`
`question, this ample case law for both federal,
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`foreign tribal sovereign immunity claims, that once
`
`you have asserted a claim of sovereign immunity,
`
`discovery to test that claim is perfectly appropriate.
`
` MR. SHORE: Your Honor, may I respond?
`
` THE COURT: One moment, please.
`
` Mr. Shore, you may respond.
`
` MR. SHORE: Your Honor, first, there are
`
`no other agreements. Let me be unequivocal as I
`
`possibly can, there are no side agreements, there are
`
`no license-back agreements, there are no expansion of
`
`license rights agreements. There are no give-back
`
`agreements. There are no agreements at all in any
`
`way, shape, form, or fashion that have not already
`
`been produced in the case, none, zero, nada.
`
` Number two, the Tribe status as a
`
`sovereign is absolutely established as a matter of
`
`law. The cases that get into such sovereignty,
`
`whether sovereignty attaches, is where you have tribes
`
`or foreign sovereigns or states that set up separate
`
`corporations and give them limited powers to do
`
`limited activity. And you can go in, there has been
`
`discovery in cases where you go in and look at how
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

`Conference Call - September 26, 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
`
`those corporations were set up, how those corporations
`
`are managed, whether or not those corporations are
`
`backed fully by the state if the judgment is against
`
`them, et cetera.
`
` That is not the case here. The Tribe
`
`holds the patents directly. There is no intervening
`
`tribal entity to which you might need to look and see
`
`whether or not that tribal entity has been given the
`
`full color of immunity.
`
` All of those cases, including the cases
`
`you cited in the e-mail, have nothing to do with the
`
`situation where the Tribe, the sovereign, the
`
`undisputable sovereign, 100% sovereign Tribe, holds
`
`the asset, in this case the patents.
`
` The only issues in this case are whether
`
`or not the Tribe is sovereign, which is undisputed,
`
`and whether or not sovereign immunity attaches to the
`
`PTAB proceedings, which has already been adjudicated
`
`four times in favor of the sovereigns.
`
` Those are the only issues, those are the
`
`only issues which the Tribe agreed to participate in
`
`this case, have the case dismissed on sovereign
`
`GregoryEdwards, LLC | Worldwide Court Reporting
`GregoryEdwards.com | 866-4Team GE
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`

`

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