Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`Case IPR2017-00854
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`---------------------------------------X
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., and,
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
` Petitioners,
`
` - v -
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
` Patent Owner.
`---------------------------------------X
` Teleconference
` February 21, 2018
` 3:00 p.m.
`
` Transcript of Proceedings
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`Apotex v. Novartis
`IPR2017-00854
`NOVARTIS 2094
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 4
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 HON. POLLOCK: Good afternoon.
`3 This call is in relation to IPR 2017-00854,
`4 the e-mail from Pat Dolan dated February
`5 20th, 2018. I'm Judge Pollock and I have
`6 with me Judges Green and Kaiser.
`7 Let's start with the roll call.
`8 Who do I have for Petitioner Apotex?
`9 MR. PARMALEE: Steve Parmalee,
`10 your Honor.
`11 HON. POLLOCK: Petitioner
`12 Argentum?
`13 MS. LENTZ: Yes, your Honor, it
`14 is Shannon Lentz.
`15 HON. POLLOCK: Petitioner Teva
`16 Actavis?
`17 MR. SPRINGSTED: Gregory
`18 Springsted, your Honor.
`19 HON. POLLOCK: I'm sorry, I
`20 didn't catch the name.
`21 MR. SPRINGSTED: Gregory
`22 Springsted, your Honor.
`23 HON. POLLOCK: Good afternoon.
`24 Petitioner Sun Pharma?
`25 MR. PARK: Samuel Park on
`
`Page 5
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 behalf of Sun.
`3 HON. POLLOCK: And who is on
`4 the line for Patent Owner Novartis?
`5 MR. TRENCHARD: Good afternoon,
`6 your Honor. It is Robert Trenchard and
`7 Jane Love from Gibson Dunn, and I believe
`8 we should also have a court reporter on for
`9 the benefit of the Board.
`10 HON. POLLOCK: Is the court
`11 reporter there?
`12 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir.
`13 I'm on the line.
`14 HON. POLLOCK: Thank you.
`15 Mr. Trenchard, did you engage the court
`16 reporter today?
`17 MR. TRENCHARD: We did, you
`18 Honor.
`19 HON. POLLOCK: Please submit a
`20 copy of the transcript as an exhibit when
`21 it becomes available.
`22 MR. TRENCHARD: Absolutely,
`23 your Honor.
`24 HON. POLLOCK: Novartis has
`25 requested this call seeking opposition to
`2 (Pages 2 - 5)
`
`12
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`3 Presiding:
`4 The Honorable ROBERT A. POLLOCK,
` Administrative Patent Judge
`
`56
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apotex:
`7 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`8 Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
`BY: STEVEN W. PARMELEE, ESQ.
`9 sparmellee@wsgr.com
`10
`11
`12 Attorneys for Patent Owner Novartis AG:
`13 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`14 New York, New York 10166-0193
`BY: JANE M. LOVE, PhD, ESQ.
`15 jlove@gibsondunn.com
` ROBERT TRENCHARD, ESQ.
`16 rtrenchard@gibsondunn.com
`17
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Argentum
`18 Pharmaceuticals:
`19 CROWELL & MORING LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`20 Washington, D.C. 20004-2595
`BY: SHANNON M. LENTZ, ESQ.
`21 slentz@crowell.com
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued)
`3 Attorneys for Petitioner Sun
`Pharmaceutical:
`
`4
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`5 Metlife Building
`200 Park Avenue
`6 New York, New York 10166
`BY: SAMUEL PARK, ESQ.
`7 spark@winston.com
`
`89
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Teva Actavis:
`
`KIRLAND & ELLIS LLP
`11 601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`12 BY: GREGORY SPRINGSTED, ESQ.
` gregory.springsted@kirkland.com
`
`10
`
`13
`14
`15
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`16
`
` JUDGE LORA M. GREEN
`17 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER N. KAISER
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`Page 6
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 file a motion to strike petitioner's reply
`3 or, in the alternative, submit surreply
`4 arguments in its March 16th, 2018 reply to
`5 Petitioner's Opposition to Motion to Amend
`6 Along With Supporting Evidence.
`7 Mr. Trenchard, I understand
`8 your request stems from Petitioner's
`9 reliance on a new expert, Dr. Benet.
`10 Before explaining why this necessitates any
`11 relief, would you please address whether
`12 you met and conferred with Petitioners in
`13 this matter.
`14 MR. TRENCHARD: We did not meet
`15 and confer, your Honor, given the
`16 timetables involved and given the fact that
`17 only the Board can modify the schedule, we
`18 thought it best to go straight to the
`19 Board. Our understanding also is that
`20 there is no expectation on these sorts of
`21 issues to meet and confer, and if that was
`22 incorrect, we do apologize for that.
`23 HON. POLLOCK: All right, we
`24 will leave it at that.
`25 Would you explain why you think
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 the Board and the parties have invested a
`3 lot of time and effort in this case so far
`4 and the Board might be reluctant to strike
`5 that submission.
`6 We are accordingly, as your
`7 Honor pointed out, seeking in the
`8 alternative a permission to submit a
`9 surreply and supporting evidence.
`10 Just to set the background a
`11 bit, in the Institution decision for this
`12 Petition the Board defined a person of
`13 skill as a team of individuals, a physician
`14 with an expertise in multiple sclerosis and
`15 a pharmacologist. We had argued in our
`16 preliminary response that the one expert
`17 that the Petitioners had submitted with the
`18 Petition, Dr. Barbara Giesser, did not
`19 satisfy the obligation to provide the
`20 perspective of a complete person of skill
`21 because she was not a pharmacologist, she
`22 was a physician.
`23 The Board agreed to institute
`24 the Petition on the ground that
`25 Dr. Giesser's training and experience made
`
`Page 7
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 relief is necessary.
`3 MR. TRENCHARD: Yes, your
`4 Honor, absolutely, and we appreciate your
`5 Honor setting up the call so promptly.
`6 We really are seeking the
`7 Board's guidance on how to address a
`8 60-page submission from a new witness, as
`9 your Honor pointed out, Dr. Leslie Benet.
`10 The new declaration presents pharmacology
`11 arguments that are new about the references
`12 in the Petition that have been instituted
`13 as well as new arguments about how other
`14 references supposedly support the
`15 instituted grounds, which I will describe
`16 in a moment.
`17 We feel Novartis would be
`18 prejudiced were this material to be
`19 considered by the Board on the current
`20 record. The simplest remedy of course
`21 would be to strike material, and the Trial
`22 Practice Guide of course does say that the
`23 Board normally doesn't parse improper
`24 material in reply and that sort of thing,
`25 but we do understand, of course, that both
`
`Page 9
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 her at least patently familiar with
`3 pharmacology principles, enough to allow
`4 the Petitioners to go forward, and that is
`5 the Institution decision at page 10 is that
`6 reasoning.
`7 We have since cross-examined
`8 Dr. Giesser as well as submitted expert
`9 testimony about the nature of her
`10 expertise, and you can find that in the
`11 Patent Owner's response at 29 to 31 and
`12 also later in the argument section. And we
`13 very strongly and put a lot of pages and a
`14 lot of time with our declarants attacking
`15 Dr. Giesser's pharmacology opinions both as
`16 being issued by somebody who lacked
`17 competence to provide them as well as
`18 substantively incorrect. I think we spent
`19 about six or seven pages in our Patent
`20 Owner's response on that issue and nearly
`21 dozens of paragraphs in the expert
`22 declarations on that issue.
`23 Petitioners filed their reply
`24 papers last Friday, and so far as we could
`25 tell, we have read their brief carefully,
`3 (Pages 6 - 9)
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 we have read Dr. Benet's declaration
`3 carefully, and they appear to contest
`4 neither that a person of skill should
`5 include both a physician and a
`6 pharmacologist or that Dr. Giesser lacks
`7 the competence to provide a
`8 pharmacologist's perspective.
`9 Dr. Benet did nothing to try to
`10 rehabilitate Dr. Giesser's opinions on
`11 pharmacology. He did nothing to stand up
`12 for her. There is no additional
`13 declaration from Dr. Giesser herself. Our
`14 brief summarizes her deposition testimony,
`15 which makes plain what it is, she was very
`16 forthright in saying that she was not a
`17 pharmacologist, which is fine. That
`18 doesn't make her a bad person. She was a
`19 very nice person. But it does make her
`20 unqualified to provide the opinions of a
`21 complete person of skill.
`22 Of course the Petitioners have
`23 the burden of doing that with their
`24 Petition, and without a competent
`25 pharmacology expert the Petition on its
`
`Page 11
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 face must fail. But rather than argue or
`3 try to rehabilitate Dr. Giesser's
`4 testimony, they submitted Dr. Benet. He
`5 offers now the perspective of a
`6 pharmacologist for the first time for the
`7 Petitioners on the references that were
`8 instituted. So he argues about the Kovarik
`9 and Thomson references subject to the first
`10 ground, and the Chiba and Budde references
`11 and the Kappos 2005 in the second ground,
`12 that sort of thing.
`13 And this is the first time we
`14 have testimony from a competent witness
`15 from the other side as to at least half of
`16 what a person of skill is in this case
`17 about those references, and of course we
`18 should be entitled to address that
`19 testimony with affirmative evidence on our
`20 part.
`21 In addition to his testimony
`22 about the instituted references, he offers
`23 new opinions about how the references we
`24 say teach away, he says actually point
`25 towards obviousness. That's an argument
`
`Page 12
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 that if they believe that, they could have
`3 put in the Petition. He makes arguments
`4 about an idea called allometric scaling,
`5 about how one could arrive at the dose
`6 claimed in our patent by using certain
`7 algorithms to extrapolate from animal
`8 models to humans; again, new arguments that
`9 we have not had the chance to address.
`10 As I said, we do appreciate
`11 that striking such testimony is a pretty
`12 severe thing and we do think the Board
`13 should think about it, but probably after
`14 the hearing and the Board has become
`15 immersed in the facts at that point.
`16 For present purposes, we think
`17 the most logical way to go is to allow us
`18 to add pages to a filing that is going to
`19 happen anyway on March 16th in order to
`20 address and rebut what is now new evidence
`21 submitted on reply and then the Board will
`22 have a complete record in our quest to get
`23 to the truth of the matter here rather than
`24 a one-sided presentation from their
`25 pharmacologist.
`
`Page 13
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 HON. POLLOCK: Are you asking
`3 for more pages or only the opportunity to
`4 add your response to the existing reply?
`5 MR. TRENCHARD: Currently we
`6 are entitled to 12 pages to reply on the
`7 Motion to Amend. We ask for an additional
`8 13, essentially the right to submit a
`9 25-page brief with supporting evidence
`10 addressing both the Motion to Amend and
`11 this submission from Dr. Benet. We think
`12 that it is pretty tight. It is also a very
`13 tight timetable to do this. But we think
`14 we can do that in the time and space
`15 provided if we get that sort of
`16 accommodation.
`17 Of course this would not adjust
`18 the schedule at all. It would simply be an
`19 opportunity to respond to really what is
`20 clearly new evidence.
`21 To be sure, Dr. Benet speaks in
`22 terms from time to time of addressing
`23 testimony from our experts, as you would
`24 expect, but that is kind of beside the
`25 point here. The absence of competent
`4 (Pages 10 - 13)
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 pharmacology testimony to suppress the
`3 Petition on its face makes all of the
`4 testimony new evidence, as does -- as do
`5 the new theories that he comes up with
`6 based on the references that are in the
`7 case. And this is one of those instances
`8 in which the substance of the testimony
`9 really demands an affirmative evidentiary
`10 response. Cross-examination observations
`11 alone won't do it. We really are entitled
`12 to have a fair shot at this with expert
`13 testimony and the like in response to this
`14 new pharmacology testimony.
`15 That's the sum and substance, I
`16 believe, of our position, your Honor. Once
`17 we're done with this issue, I also would
`18 like to raise an issue about scheduling the
`19 deposition of Dr. Benet. But first I think
`20 we should probably finish up with this one.
`21 HON. POLLOCK: All right,
`22 Mr. Parmalee, why should we not strike
`23 Mr. Benet's testimony?
`24 MR. PARMALEE: Well, thank you,
`25 your Honor. I find it interesting that
`
`Page 16
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 didn't dispute Patent Owner's attack on the
`3 sufficiency of her background and training.
`4 In fact, I'm quite certain that we
`5 characterized their attack on Dr. Giesser
`6 to be unhinged from the evidence.
`7 But turning to how the
`8 Institution decision addressed the
`9 pharmacokinetic issue, we would point out
`10 that on page 20 of the Institution decision
`11 the Board states that "We do not discern
`12 where this argument" -- that being the
`13 pharmacokinetic argument -- "was raised
`14 during the course of prosecution, nor are
`15 we convinced that this argument is
`16 self-evident based on the art of record.
`17 Accordingly, and contrary to Patent Owner's
`18 contention, we see nothing unfair or
`19 improper in the lack of discussion in the
`20 Petition of the pharmacokinetic data in
`21 Webb, Kahan 2003 and/or Park. We
`22 nevertheless look forward to further
`23 development of this issue at trial," and
`24 that's exactly what the parties have done.
`25 So Patent Owner had its
`
`Page 15
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 they are asking to strike this testimony
`3 and at the same time asking for his
`4 deposition.
`5 But, anyway, reverting to the
`6 issue on the motion -- the request for a
`7 motion to strike, Patent Owner counsel
`8 referred to the Institution decision from
`9 your Honors and pointed out how the Board
`10 addressed the person of ordinary skill in
`11 the art being part of a multidisciplinary
`12 team, and certainly Dr. Giesser, as the
`13 Board defined it, is part of that
`14 multidisciplinary team because she has an
`15 M.D. with several years of clinical
`16 experience treating multiple sclerosis
`17 patients and is knowledgeable about
`18 multiple sclerosis medical literature, and
`19 I would point out that's on page 9 of the
`20 Institution decision.
`21 Then the Board -- well, first
`22 of all, we really do dispute the argument
`23 in the Patent Owner's mini brief e-mail
`24 that they have submitted and then
`25 Mr. Trenchard's comments here that we
`
`Page 17
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 opportunity to address the Board's comments
`3 in the Institution decision. They put on
`4 three more expert declarations in addition
`5 to the two that were filed with its
`6 Preliminary Patent Owner -- Patent Owner's
`7 Preliminary -- I'm sorry, POPR, and so they
`8 have had five expert declarations and
`9 basically they have made decisions on how
`10 to proceed in this case with their experts,
`11 and we're not attempting to backfill any
`12 deficiencies in our prima facie case by
`13 including Dr. Benet's testimony, and in
`14 fact, as I just noted, the Board said that
`15 there was no reason that this could have
`16 been raised in the Petition because it was
`17 argument not self-evident based on the art
`18 of record.
`19 So responding to that and to
`20 Patent Owner's expert testimony on the
`21 pharmacokinetic interpretation of the
`22 references, which we had not previously
`23 seen or had a chance to reply to, we
`24 prepared our reply and we also engaged
`25 Dr. Benet to assist via his testimony. Our
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 reply brief was carefully drafted to be
`3 responsive to Patent Owner's arguments in
`4 the Patent Owner response and those are the
`5 points that Dr. Benet was asked to address
`6 as well.
`7 So, in fact, Dr. Benet did not
`8 address the Patent Owner's contingent
`9 amendment at all. You will see if you have
`10 the opportunity to review our opposition to
`11 the contingent motion to amend, Dr. Benet
`12 is not cited at all, not quoted at all.
`13 The only expert I believe that we refer to
`14 is Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Lublin, and
`15 the testimony that we elicited from him
`16 during cross-examination regarding the
`17 references that we believe are anticipatory
`18 of their contingent amended claims.
`19 Our reply was carefully crafted
`20 to be responsive to Patent Owner's
`21 arguments in the Patent Owner response,
`22 things that we had not had an opportunity
`23 to respond to previously and their
`24 arguments about teaching away which were
`25 brought up for the first time in that
`
`Page 19
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 paper. So we think it's entirely
`3 appropriate briefing on the issue.
`4 Dr. Benet's testimony is limited to those
`5 issues and has nothing to do with the
`6 contingent Motion to Amend.
`7 What we really don't need is
`8 another round of expert declarations and
`9 briefing. We think it is inappropriate for
`10 them to have more experts. They have
`11 already had five or six of these, four of
`12 them post-Institution, when they knew
`13 exactly what the issues were that the Board
`14 was looking for.
`15 So we think it is inappropriate
`16 to strike our response. Our reply was
`17 entirely appropriate and responsive to
`18 arguments raised in the Patent Owner
`19 response.
`20 HON. POLLOCK: Your arguments
`21 are well taken, Mr. Parmalee. However, the
`22 Panel is sympathetic to Patent Owner's
`23 position.
`24 Before we go on, Mr. Trenchard,
`25 you are seeking not only additional pages
`
`Page 20
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 to address Mr. Benet, but additional
`3 evidence. What other additional evidence?
`4 Are we talking more expert reports?
`5 MR. TRENCHARD: Potentially
`6 short ones, your Honor. My expectation is
`7 that, you know, we had this new testimony
`8 from a pharmacologist for the first time
`9 and, you know, our experts have a view as
`10 to his view of pharmacology and how it
`11 applies in this case. At the very least I
`12 would expect, you know, they would want to
`13 be heard on that and rightly so because
`14 they haven't been heard on Dr. Benet's
`15 testimony yet.
`16 Keep in mind, your Honor, you
`17 know, just to address some of the things
`18 that Mr. Parmalee was just saying, I didn't
`19 hear a dispute or a denial that
`20 Dr. Giesser, the expert they submitted with
`21 the Petition, lacks the competence to
`22 provide pharmacology testimony. The
`23 rhetoric about unhinged attacks, as I
`24 understand it, went to a separate issue,
`25 which is we think that Dr. Giesser was
`
`Page 21
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 improperly limited in how she looked at the
`3 prior art because she was handed the
`4 references to look at rather than doing her
`5 own review.
`6 Dr. Giesser in her declaration
`7 addressed the references that are in the
`8 Petition that are mostly not pharmacology.
`9 That is why the Board in the Petition
`10 decision found that it would be useful to
`11 have a pharmacologist to look at this stuff
`12 because the references that the Petitioner
`13 had already put in were largely about
`14 pharmacology, not entirely, but largely
`15 about pharmacology, and any other reference
`16 that is at issue, the most important one
`17 being this Webb 2004 reference, is on the
`18 face of the patent. So none of this is a
`19 surprise.
`20 And the fact is that
`21 Dr. Giesser tried to make pharmacology
`22 arguments. If you look at paragraph 28 of
`23 her declaration, she cites, very strangely,
`24 a pediatric textbook for pharmacology
`25 principles and tries to make an argument.
`6 (Pages 18 - 21)
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 In our response to that we point out that
`3 the textbook is wrong and it is very
`4 strange she would look at a pediatrics
`5 textbook and that she lacks the competence
`6 to interpret the equation, and that is just
`7 further evidence of why she is not a
`8 competent pharmacologist. But she tried to
`9 make those arguments.
`10 So the Petitioners knew that
`11 these issues were in the case, as they have
`12 put them in the case, and they chose not to
`13 go with a pharmacologist, just with an M.D.
`14 You know, this is why it is
`15 important that we actually have a
`16 substantive opportunity to be heard with
`17 our experts in response to their new
`18 expert's testimony. So, you know, I can
`19 guarantee your Honor that those expert
`20 reports are going to be an awful lot
`21 shorter, whatever they may be, I don't know
`22 what they are going to be yet, because we
`23 are still analyzing it, an awful lot
`24 shorter than the ones that are currently in
`25 the record.
`
`Page 23
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 But yes, I think it is fair and
`3 appropriate, indeed I think it is required
`4 that our experts have the opportunity to
`5 address their case so that we can rebut it.
`6 I think that the Board's rules envision
`7 that. I think that the Administrative
`8 Procedure Act envisions that. I think Bell
`9 v. Burke envisions that. I really think
`10 that is the only way that the Board is
`11 going to get at the truth of the matter
`12 here, which of course is everybody's
`13 ultimate goal.
`14 HON. POLLOCK: All right,
`15 Counsel, I'm going to put you on hold and
`16 confer with the Panel. Excuse us.
`17 (Pause in the proceedings.)
`18 HON. POLLOCK: This is Judge
`19 Pollock. We are back on the record.
`20 Mr. Parmalee, are you there?
`21 MR. PARMALEE: Yes, I am, your
`22 Honor.
`23 HON. POLLOCK: Mr. Trenchard?
`24 MR. TRENCHARD: I am, your
`25 Honor.
`
`Page 24
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 HON. POLLOCK: The Panel has
`3 convened and we are going to take this
`4 under advisement for the moment and an
`5 order will issue shortly.
`6 Is there something else that we
`7 were going to discuss today about
`8 depositions?
`9 MR. TRENCHARD: Yes, your
`10 Honor. We just have, and it is related to
`11 this question on the surreply, as well as
`12 our reply on our Motion to Amend. We are
`13 trying to schedule the deposition of
`14 Dr. Benet, or Benet, I don't know exactly
`15 how his name is pronounced, I apologize if
`16 I'm getting it wrong, and we have offered
`17 some days in March. The counteroffer right
`18 now is a date that is well after the
`19 current March 16th date when our papers are
`20 due.
`21 We just think that as a matter
`22 of efficiency we could address -- we should
`23 be able to take his deposition before we
`24 file our papers on March 16th, be they
`25 merely the opposition of a motion to reply,
`Page 25
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 the Motion to Amend, or also including a
`3 surreply, in order to address the output of
`4 that testimony in one place rather than
`5 have it come in piecemeal there and then
`6 later an observation and that sort of
`7 thing. So we were hoping that we could
`8 have your Honor's good offices to broker
`9 some deal that we can get that allows us to
`10 depose Dr. Benet sometime between March 5th
`11 and maybe March 10th, that's the week we
`12 offered.
`13 We do understand, Mr. Parmalee
`14 has told us he is tied up with the Federal
`15 Circuit that week but there are about ten
`16 lawyers for four different petitioners here
`17 that could defend depositions. So we are
`18 hoping that we can see our way clear to
`19 finding a date that frankly just reduces
`20 the amount of paperwork that the Board is
`21 going to get in what everyone agrees is a
`22 pretty voluminous record.
`23 HON. POLLOCK: I believe the
`24 parties are free to modify due date 3. Has
`25 that been discussed?
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

` C E R T I F I C A T I O N
`
`Page 28
`
` I, TODD DeSIMONE, a Registered
`7 Professional Reporter and a Notary Public,
`8 do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
`9 true and accurate transcription of my
`10 stenographic notes.
`11 I further certify that I am not
`12 employed by nor related to any party to
`13 this action.
`14
`15
`16
`17 <%Signature%>
`18 TODD DeSIMONE, RPR
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`3456
`
`Page 26
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 MR. PARMALEE: Your Honor, this
`3 is Steve Parmalee. We have just begun the
`4 process of exploring dates for Dr. Benet,
`5 and I would point out that the March 5th
`6 and 6th dates, not only are we tied up with
`7 the Federal Circuit, but those are prior to
`8 the testimony period opening, and the date
`9 we have offered Dr. Benet, March 27th, is
`10 prior to the testimony period closing. So
`11 it is well within the period and if that
`12 date is not open to Patent Owner, then we
`13 can explore a couple of other dates.
`14 His concern is trying to get
`15 this testimony, this cross-examination
`16 testimony, before they have to file their
`17 reply to the opposition to the Motion to
`18 Amend. And as I said earlier, Dr. Benet
`19 didn't even testify on that motion to the
`20 opposition to the Motion to Amend. So why
`21 should he be deposed on something he hasn't
`22 testified to? I think that's clearly
`23 inappropriate. We were very careful to not
`24 have him offer testimony, and this is
`25 exactly what they are seeking now.
`
`Page 27
`
`1 TELECONFERENCE
`2 HON. POLLOCK: Again, we will
`3 address this in an order. I think that's
`4 enough for now.
`5 MR. TRENCHARD: Thank you, your
`6 Honor. We appreciate it.
`7 MR. PARMALEE: Thank you, your
`8 Honors.
`9 HON. POLLOCK: Good day,
`10 Counsel.
`11 (Time noted: 3:27 p.m.)
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 28)
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

`[& - benefit]
`
`&
`& 2:7,13,19 3:4,10
`1
`
`10 9:5
`1001 2:19
`10022 3:11
`10166 3:6
`10166-0193 2:14
`10th 25:11
`12 13:6
`13 13:8
`16th 6:4 12:19
`24:19,24
`2
`20 16:10
`200 2:13 3:5
`20004-2595 2:20
`2003 16:21
`2004 21:17
`2005 11:11
`2017-00854 4:3
`2018 1:16 4:5 6:4
`20th 4:5
`21 1:16
`25 13:9
`27th 26:9
`28 21:22
`29 9:11
`
`3
`
`3 25:24
`31 9:11
`3:00 1:16
`3:27 27:11
`5
`5100 2:7
`5th 25:10 26:5
`
`6
`
`60 7:8
`601 3:11
`6th 26:6
`7
`
`701 2:7
`
`9
`
`9 15:19
`9,187,405 1:5
`98104-7036 2:8
`a
`able 24:23
`absence 13:25
`absolutely 5:22
`7:4
`accommodation
`13:16
`accurate 28:9
`act 23:8
`actavis 3:9 4:16
`action 28:13
`add 12:18 13:4
`addition 11:21
`17:4
`additional 10:12
`13:7 19:25 20:2,3
`address 6:11 7:7
`11:18 12:9,20
`17:2 18:5,8 20:2
`20:17 23:5 24:22
`25:3 27:3
`addressed 15:10
`16:8 21:7
`addressing 13:10
`13:22
`adjust 13:17
`administrative 2:4
`23:7
`advisement 24:4
`
`affirmative 11:19
`14:9
`afternoon 4:2,23
`5:5
`ag 1:13 2:12
`agreed 8:23
`agrees 25:21
`algorithms 12:7
`allometric 12:4
`allow 9:3 12:17
`allows 25:9
`alternative 6:3 8:8
`amend 6:5 13:7,10
`18:11 19:6 24:12
`25:2 26:18,20
`amended 18:18
`amendment 18:9
`amount 25:20
`analyzing 22:23
`animal 12:7
`anticipatory 18:17
`anyway 12:19
`15:5
`apologize 6:22
`24:15
`apotex 1:6,6 2:6
`4:8
`appeal 1:3
`appear 10:3
`applies 20:11
`appreciate 7:4
`12:10 27:6
`appropriate 19:3
`19:17 23:3
`argentum 1:7 2:17
`4:12
`argue 11:2
`argued 8:15
`argues 11:8
`argument 9:12
`11:25 15:22 16:12
`
`Page 1
`
`16:13,15 17:17
`21:25
`arguments 6:4
`7:11,13 12:3,8
`18:3,21,24 19:18
`19:20 21:22 22:9
`arrive 12:5
`art 15:11 16:16
`17:17 21:3
`asked 18:5
`asking 13:2 15:2,3
`assist 17:25
`attack 16:2,5
`attacking 9:14
`attacks 20:23
`attempting 17:11
`attorneys 2:6,12
`2:17 3:3,9
`available 5:21
`avenue 2:7,13,19
`3:5,11
`awful 22:20,23
`b
`
`b2 1:5
`back 23:19
`backfill 17:11
`background 8:10
`16:3
`bad 10:18
`barbara 8:18
`based 14:6 16:16
`17:17
`basically 17:9
`begun 26:3
`behalf 5:2
`believe 5:7 12:2
`14:16 18:13,17
`25:23
`bell 23:8
`benefit 5:9
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

`[benet - dunn]
`
`benet 6:9 7:9 10:9
`11:4 13:11,21
`14:19 17:25 18:5
`18:7,11 20:2
`24:14,14 25:10
`26:4,9,18
`benet's 10:2 14:23
`17:13 19:4 20:14
`best 6:18
`bit 8:11
`board 1:3 5:9 6:17
`6:19 7:19,23 8:2,4
`8:12,23 12:12,14
`12:21 15:9,13,21
`16:11 17:14 19:13
`21:9 23:10 25:20
`board's 7:7 17:2
`23:6
`brief 9:25 10:14
`13:9 15:23 18:2
`briefing 19:3,9
`broker 25:8
`brought 18:25
`budde 11:10
`building 3:5
`burden 10:23
`burke 23:9
`c
`c 2:2 3:2 28:2,2
`call 4:3,7 5:25 7:5
`called 12:4
`careful 26:23
`carefully 9:25
`10:3 18:2,19
`case 1:4 8:3 11:16
`14:7 17:10,12
`20:11 22:11,12
`23:5
`catch 4:20
`certain 12:6 16:4
`
`certainly 15:12
`certify 28:8,11
`chance 12:9 17:23
`characterized
`16:5
`chiba 11:10
`chose 22:12
`christopher 3:17
`circuit 25:15 26:7
`cited 18:12
`cites 21:23
`claimed 12:6
`claims 18:18
`clear 25:18
`clearly 13:20
`26:22
`clinical 15:15
`closing 26:10
`come 25:5
`comes 14:5
`comments 15:25
`17:2
`competence 9:17
`10:7 20:21 22:5
`competent 10:24
`11:14 13:25 22:8
`complete 8:20
`10:21 12:22
`concern 26:14
`confer 6:15,21
`23:16
`conferred 6:12
`considered 7:19
`contention 16:18
`contest 10:3
`contingent 18:8,11
`18:18 19:6
`continued 3:2
`contrary 16:17
`convened 24:3
`
`convinced 16:15
`copy 5:20
`corp 1:6
`counsel 15:7 23:15
`27:10
`counteroffer
`24:17
`couple 26:13
`course 7:20,22,25
`10:22 11:17 13:17
`16:14 23:12
`court 5:8,10,12,15
`crafted 18:19
`cross 9:7 14:10
`18:16 26:15
`crowell 2:19
`crowell.com 2:21
`crutcher 2:13
`current 7:19 24:19
`currently 13:5
`22:24
`
`d
`d.c. 2:20
`data 16:20
`date 24:18,19
`25:19,24 26:8,12
`dated 4:4
`dates 26:4,6,13
`day 27:9
`days 24:17
`deal 25:9
`decision 8:11 9:5
`15:8,20 16:8,10
`17:3 21:10
`decisions 17:9
`declarants 9:14
`declaration 7:10
`10:2,13 21:6,23
`declarations 9:22
`17:4,8 19:8
`
`Page 2
`
`defend 25:17
`deficiencies 17:12
`defined 8:12 15:13
`demands 14:9
`denial 20:19
`depose 25:10
`deposed 26:21
`deposition 10:14
`14:19 15:4 24:13
`24:23
`depositions 24:8
`25:17
`describe 7:15
`desimone 28:6,18
`development
`16:23
`different 25:16
`discern 16:11
`discuss 24:7
`discussed 25:25
`discussion 16:19
`dispute 15:22 16:2
`20:19
`doing 10:23 21:4
`dolan 4:4
`dose 12:5
`dozens 9:21
`dr 6:9 7:9 8:18,25
`9:8,15 10:2,6,9,10
`10:13 11:3,4
`13:11,21 14:19
`15:12 16:5 17:13
`17:25 18:5,7,11,14
`19:4 20:14,20,25
`21:6,21 24:14
`25:10 26:4,9,18
`drafted 18:2
`due 24:20 25:24
`dunn 2:13 5:7
`
`212-279-9424
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`212-490-3430
`
`

`

`[e - important]
`
`e
`e 2:2,2 3:2,2 4:4
`15:23 28:2
`earlier 26:18
`efficiency 24:22
`effort 8:3
`elicited 18:15
`ellis 3:10
`employed 28:12
`engage 5:15
`engaged 17:24
`entirely 19:2,17
`21:14
`entitled 11:18 13:6
`14:11
`envision 23:6
`envisions 23:8,9
`equation 22:6
`esq 2:8,14,15,20
`3:6,12
`essentially 13:8
`everybody's 23:12
`evidence 6:6 8:9
`11:19 12:20 13:9
`13:20 14:4 16:6
`20:3,3 22:7
`evident 16:16
`17:17
`evidentiary 14:9
`exactly 16:24
`19:13 24:14 26:25
`examination 14:10
`18:16 26:15
`examined 9:7
`excuse 23:16
`exhibit 5:20
`existing 13:4
`expect 13:24 20:12
`expectation 6:20
`20:6
`
`experience 8:25
`15:16
`expert 6:9 8:16
`9:8,21 10:25
`14:12 17:4,8,20
`18:13,14 19:8
`20:4,20 22:19
`expert's 22:18
`expertise 8:14
`9:10
`experts 13:23
`17:10 19:10 20:9
`22:17 23:4
`explain 6:25
`explaining 6:10
`explore 26:13
`exploring 26:4
`extrapolate 12:7
`f
`
`f 28:2
`face 11:2 14:3
`21:18
`facie 17:12
`fact 6:16 16:4
`17:14 18:7 21:20
`facts 12:15
`fail 11:2
`fair 14:12 23:2
`familiar 9:2
`far 8:3 9:24
`february 1:16 4:4
`federal 25:14 26:7
`feel 7:17
`fifth 2:7
`file 6:2 24:24
`26:16
`filed 9:23 17:5
`filing 12:18
`find 9:10 14:25
`finding 25:19
`
`fine 10:17
`finish 14:20
`first 11:6,9,13
`14:19 15:21 18:25
`20:8
`five 17:8 19:11
`foregoing 28:8
`forthright 10:16
`forward 9:4 16:22
`found 21:10
`four 19:11 25:16
`frankly 25:19
`free 25:24
`friday 9:24
`further 16:22 22:7
`28:11
`
`g
`getting 24:16
`gibson 2:13 5:7
`gibsondunn.com
`2:15,16
`giesser 8:18 9:8
`10:6,13 15:12
`16:5 20:20,25
`21:6,21
`giesser's 8:25 9:15
`10:10 11:3
`given 6:15,16
`go 6:18 9:4 12:17
`19:24 22:13
`goal 23:13
`going 12:18 22:20
`22:22 23:11,15
`24:3,7 25:21
`good 4:2,23 5:5
`25:8 27:9
`goodrich 2:7
`green 3:16 4:6
`gregory 3:12 4:17
`4:21
`
`Pag