`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`KASHIV PHARMA, LLC, )
`
` )
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` ) Case Nos.
`
` vs. ) IPR2018-00625
`
` ) IPR2018-00717
`
`PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE )
`
`P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., ) Patent No.
`
`and PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS ) 9,492,393 B2
`
`L.P., )
`
` )
`
` Patent Owners. )
`
`-------------------------- )
`
` PTAB CONFERENCE CALL
`
` Thursday, June 7, 2018
`
`Reported by:
`
`Stacey L. Daywalt
`
`JOB NO. 143292
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`REDACTED
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`1 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` Thursday, June 7, 2018
`
` 1:30 p.m.
`
` PTAB Conference Call, held before
`
`Administrative Patent Judges Christopher G.
`
`Paulraj, Jacqueline T. Harlow and Kristi R.
`
`Sawert, before Stacey L. Daywalt, a Court
`
`Reporter and Notary Public of the District of
`
`Columbia.
`
`1 2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`2 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`(All appearances are telephonic)
`
` LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
`
` KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
`
` Attorneys for Petitioner
`
` 600 South Avenue West
`
` Westfield, New Jersey 07090
`
` BY: TEDD VAN BUSKIRK, ESQ.
`
` NICHOLE VALEYKO, ESQ.
`
` JONES DAY
`
` Attorneys for Patent Owners
`
` 250 Vesey Street
`
` New York, New York 10281
`
` BY: GASPER LAROSA, ESQ.
`
` LISAMARIE LOGIUDICE, ESQ.
`
` JOHN NORMILE, ESQ.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`3 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Good
`
`afternoon. This is a conference call in
`
`IPR2018-00625 and -00717.
`
` This is Judge Paulraj. And with me
`
`on the call I have Judges Harlow and Sawert.
`
` Can we get roll call, starting with
`
`Patent Owners' side and then Petitioner's
`
`counsel?
`
` MR. LAROSA: Definitely, Your Honor.
`
`This is Gasper LaRosa from Jones Day on behalf
`
`of the Patent Owner.
`
` I believe Lisamarie LoGiudice and
`
`John Normile are also on the phone from
`
`Jones Day on behalf of the Patent Owner.
`
` I'd also just like to advise the
`
`Court that we have a court reporter on the line
`
`today.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`
`right. Thank you, Mr. LaRosa.
`
` Will you be speaking on behalf of
`
`Patent Owner?
`
` MR. LAROSA: I will, Your Honor.
`
`Thank you.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`4 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
` Petitioner's counsel?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Hi, good
`
`afternoon, Your Honors. This is Tedd
`
`Van Buskirk of the Lerner David firm. And I
`
`have my colleague Nichole Valeyko here as well
`
`for the Petitioner Kashiv.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`
`right. Thank you, Mr. Van Buskirk.
`
` Do you have a court reporter as
`
`well, or is it just Patent Owner?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: It's just Patent
`
`Owner, Your Honor.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`
`right.
`
` So since we do have a court
`
`reporter, at the end of this call, whenever we
`
`do have a final transcript, I'll ask Patent
`
`Owner to go and file that as an exhibit.
`
` Is that okay?
`
` MR. LAROSA: Yes, Your Honor. Thank
`
`you.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`
`right. Thanks.
`
` So the purpose of this call was a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`5 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`request for a motion for discovery raised by
`
`Patent Owner.
`
` So Mr. LaRosa, I'll let you start.
`
` MR. LAROSA: Thank you, Your Honors.
`
` As you mentioned, we're seeking a
`
`leave to file a motion for discovery regarding
`
`the real party in interest issues in this case,
`
`the -- in particular, that it's our contention
`
`that Petitioner failed to name Amneal
`
`Pharmaceutical as a real party in interest in
`
`this proceeding.
`
` Amneal is an affiliate of the
`
`Petitioner Kashiv companies, which are commonly
`
`owned and controlled. Amneal has been involved
`
`in litigation with the Patent Owner for three
`
`years concerning patents covering the same
`
`technology.
`
` Your Honor will remember that we
`
`were before you. Mr. Van Buskirk was
`
`representing Amneal --
`
` THE REPORTER: I apologize for
`
`interrupting, but I can barely hear you.
`
` This is the court reporter.
`
` MR. LAROSA: Is that better?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`6 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
` THE REPORTER: Yes.
`
` The last thing I heard was "Mr. Van
`
`Buskirk was."
`
` MR. LAROSA: Mr. Van Buskirk was
`
`representing Amneal Pharmaceuticals in those
`
`prior proceedings, IPR2016-1027, for example.
`
`And in those proceedings, Kashiv was named as a
`
`real party in interest.
`
` So the -- in these cases, Kashiv is
`
`the Petitioner, and it is our contention that
`
`the reason for that is, earlier this year,
`
`Amneal Pharmaceutical had entered into a merger
`
`agreement with another company called Impax
`
`pharmaceutical. And that created a problem for
`
`Amneal with respect to challenging these
`
`patents, in that Impax had a prior agreement
`
`not to challenge these patents.
`
` And in fact, what has happened here
`
`is Amneal is using its affiliate Kashiv to do
`
`what it is not able to do itself, which is
`
`challenge these patents.
`
` So we had -- there was two things we
`
`were seeking when we first sought the call.
`
` In the District Court cases, Amneal
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`7 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`and Kashiv have produced certain documents to
`
`us that we would like to use in these
`
`proceedings.
`
` During a call yesterday, Kashiv's
`
`counsel informed us that neither Amneal or
`
`Kashiv would object to us using those documents
`
`in this proceeding, so I believe that dispute
`
`has been resolved.
`
` What remains is our request to seek
`
`two depositions. The first is of Chirag Patel,
`
`who is an owner of both Amneal and Kashiv. And
`
`we're seeking his testimony concerning the
`
`influence and control Amneal has over its
`
`affiliate Kashiv.
`
` His testimony is particularly
`
`important because the documents that we're
`
`aware of that have been produced to us that
`
`we'd like to use in this case and plan to use
`
`show that Kashiv is owned by
`
`. And this is very
`
`much a black box. We don't know who owns or
`
`controls
`
` other than that contact
`
`with respect to
`
` can be made
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`8 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`through
`
`, so we want to question
`
` concerning the control
`
` exerts
`
`over Kashiv and its management.
`
` The second person we'd like to
`
`depose is Dr. Shah. He is the sole individual
`
`at Kashiv who's responsible for the management
`
`of that company. He has a longstanding
`
`relationship with Amneal, and Chirag Patel in
`
`particular, and we believe his testimony will
`
`show that he continues to report to Amneal
`
`management, and in particular Chirag Patel.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: So who
`
`was that second individual again, Mr. LaRosa?
`
` MR. LAROSA: Navnit Shah.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`
`Thank you.
`
` MR. LAROSA: And so the information
`
`we have is that Kashiv works exclusively for
`
`Amneal, and we will seek testimony from Kashiv
`
`and from him that Kashiv is operating under the
`
`direction, supervision and control of Amneal
`
`management.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`
`And before I turn it over to Mr. Van Buskirk, I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`9 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`did want to ask you how soon were you
`
`anticipating taking these depositions, because
`
`I did note that I believe your Patent Owner
`
`preliminary response is due June 22nd. Is that
`
`right?
`
` MR. LAROSA: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` We can be ready to take the
`
`depositions as soon as the witnesses can be
`
`made available.
`
` We do understand that the board
`
`likes to address these issues as soon as
`
`possible, so we can be prepared to take them as
`
`soon as the witnesses can be made available.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`
`right.
`
` And is the real party in interest
`
`issue tied to a time bar issue?
`
` You may have said that already. I
`
`may have missed it.
`
` But is that --
`
` MR. LAROSA: I believe it is, Your
`
`Honor, in that the date by which -- they no
`
`longer will be able to get a filing date that
`
`would allow them to meet the statutory
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`10 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`deadline.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`
` With that, let me turn it over to
`
`Mr. Van Buskirk.
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you very
`
`much, Your Honor. I'd first like to note that
`
`this same request to depose these two
`
`individuals has been pending before the
`
`District Court in Delaware in the parallel
`
`litigation since February, and we think that,
`
`to the extent there is any issue, we should
`
`allow the District Court to handle that; and if
`
`there's something there, maybe there's
`
`something there.
`
` The second point though is, we, as
`
`Mr. LaRosa pointed out, agreed to produce these
`
`585 pages, or not necessarily produce. They
`
`already had them. We are allowing them to use
`
`them for whatever argument they want to make
`
`here.
`
` But if they can't make a case out of
`
`585 pages of documents, which include all the
`
`agreements between Kashiv and Amneal, as well
`
`as deposition transcripts of two Kashiv
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`11 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`employees, numerous written discovery responses
`
`provided by Kashiv, Amneal and the very two
`
`executives who they wish to depose now, we
`
`would submit that there's no case to be made.
`
` Mr. LaRosa also pointed out that
`
`Dr. Shah is the sole decision maker at Kashiv.
`
`That's what the documents show. There's
`
`nothing more to be had there.
`
` If he's the decision maker, this
`
`entire idea that somehow Amneal is pulling the
`
`strings or behind the curtain is nothing more
`
`than speculation.
`
` We have provided an entire body of
`
`documents that tell the entire story. Purdue
`
`doesn't want to believe that story and is
`
`seeking to go on a fishing expedition.
`
`Purdue's trying to paint a picture that there's
`
`some sham going on, but they don't have any
`
`basis for that beyond mere speculation.
`
` Kashiv was, and is, the real party
`
`in interest here. It owns the oxycodone
`
`product at issue. It owns the ANDA for it, and
`
`it has and continues to direct and control and
`
`fund these IPRs.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`12 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
` So we would respectfully ask the
`
`board to deny any request for additional
`
`discovery and let this case proceed forward on
`
`the merit.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Now,
`
`Mr. Van Buskirk mentioned a prior lawsuit
`
`involving Amneal. And I know the parties were
`
`here, or lead counsel was here, in a prior set
`
`of IPRs involving Amneal.
`
` But I guess I'm trying to get a
`
`sense of the picture as to who's being sued as
`
`to these particular patents or is there a
`
`lawsuit to these particular patents involving
`
`either Amneal and/or Kashiv.
`
` MR. LAROSA: Yes, Your Honor. This
`
`is Gasper LaRosa.
`
` With respect to these particular
`
`patents, there's a lawsuit currently pending
`
`between Purdue and Kashiv.
`
` I would like to address, however,
`
`the point that Mr. Van Buskirk made, which is
`
`that somehow this discovery is currently
`
`pending in a related litigation. So --
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Hold
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`13 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`on, Mr. LaRosa. Let me -- and I appreciate you
`
`answering my question.
`
` Let me make sure Mr. Van Buskirk is
`
`done before I turn it back to you. And I will
`
`give you the chance to briefly rebut the points
`
`Mr. Van Buskirk said.
`
` So first of all, Mr. Van Buskirk,
`
`did you have anything further on what you
`
`wanted to respond to Mr. LaRosa's initial
`
`points?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Other than to
`
`state that I don't think any of the Garmin
`
`factors are met here, Your Honor, I will let
`
`Mr. LaRosa proceed and address your question
`
`and any others you may have.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`
` So before I do that, one question I
`
`had is: In the event that we were to order the
`
`two depositions that Patent Owner is seeking --
`
`and it appears that that's the extent to which
`
`they're seeking discovery, since the documents
`
`have already been produced -- is there a time
`
`frame when these two individuals can be made
`
`available? Because we are facing a deadline,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`14 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`and so I am concerned about that.
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Your Honor, I have
`
`no idea about the availability of either
`
`Dr. Shah or Mr. Patel.
`
` Dr. Shah is the president and chief
`
`scientific officer of Kashiv.
`
` Chirag Patel is a cofounder and a
`
`cochairman of Amneal, although since this
`
`merger, he has stepped away from any day-to-day
`
`decision-making.
`
` I don't know their whereabouts. I
`
`don't know their schedule. What I can tell you
`
`is -- and I'm sure you're aware and
`
`appreciate -- getting high-level management
`
`executives like this is not an easy thing to
`
`do.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE:
`
`Understood.
`
` But I am a little concerned that
`
`you're saying you don't know their whereabouts
`
`and don't know their schedule. That's
`
`something that I think as their -- you know,
`
`since they do appear to be officers of your
`
`clients, I would expect you to reach out and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`15 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`try to at least make that determination.
`
` And, you know, I understand we
`
`haven't decided whether or not to order that
`
`deposition, but I would ask you to at least
`
`look into their availability in the event that
`
`we do order a deposition. So let me put that
`
`out there.
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: I can certainly do
`
`that, Your Honor. And I wasn't -- I only
`
`received these documents myself yesterday.
`
` Obviously, Mr. LaRosa is far more
`
`familiar with this, because he is also counsel
`
`in litigation. So I'm a little bit behind the
`
`eight ball here. I will look into it as far as
`
`Kashiv.
`
` I'd like to point out that I don't
`
`represent Amneal, and Amneal isn't the party
`
`here.
`
` Mr. LaRosa made the point that we
`
`agreed to produce the documents on behalf of
`
`Kashiv and Amneal. I don't represent Amneal in
`
`this proceeding, and I didn't represent to him
`
`that I was.
`
` I'd just like that clarification,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`16 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`please.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: So to
`
`be clear, you did represent Amneal in the prior
`
`set of IPRs that were before us, but not in
`
`this proceeding?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: That's correct.
`
`Amneal is not a party here.
`
` I know that that's the whole point
`
`of where Mr. LaRosa is going. But again, we
`
`submit that Kashiv was and is the real party in
`
`interest for purpose of these IPRs.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`
` And I think more to the point, would
`
`you be able to -- so going to Mr. Patel and
`
`Mr. Shah, is one an employee of Kashiv and
`
`one's an employee of Amneal?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Dr. Shah is the
`
`president and chief science officer of Kashiv,
`
`and the papers show that he is the sole
`
`decision maker for Kashiv.
`
` Mr. Patel, I don't know whether he's
`
`considered an employee, but he was the
`
`cofounder and cochairman of Amneal.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: What's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`17 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`his relationship to Kashiv right now?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: None that I'm
`
`aware of, Your Honor.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: In the
`
`event that we were to require a deposition of
`
`Dr. Shah, are you the person to go through in
`
`order to be able to obtain his deposition or is
`
`there a third party counsel involved?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: I would -- there
`
`is additional counsel from the litigation who
`
`is more familiar with the circumstances than I.
`
` But between myself and other
`
`counsel, we can figure out how to get Dr. Shah,
`
`if needed.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`
` Mr. LaRosa, let me turn it back to
`
`you. I think you wanted to respond to
`
`Mr. Van Buskirk's point.
`
` MR. LAROSA: Sure, Your Honor. I
`
`appreciate that.
`
` First, I'll just point out that
`
`Mr. Van Buskirk indicated he didn't get these
`
`documents till yesterday.
`
` I can say we copied him on May 25th
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`18 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`in our request to use these documents that we
`
`sent to litigation counsel. So he has been
`
`aware that these -- that this issue was out
`
`there for some time.
`
` Separate and apart from that, I'll
`
`just say that, as he mentioned, the request for
`
`discovery in the District Court has been
`
`pending since February.
`
` We don't -- we had hoped that that
`
`would be resolved and we would have the
`
`depositions we requested well in advance of
`
`putting in our Patent Owner response. But it
`
`is abundantly clear now that that's not going
`
`to be the case, and that's why we are here.
`
`Given the time frame before the PTAB, we
`
`think -- we thought that we had really no
`
`choice but to now seek the discovery here. So
`
`that's why we're requesting it.
`
` The final thing I'll say is that to
`
`the extent that there is somehow an argument
`
`that, you know, Mr. Patel is not involved in
`
`the Kashiv corporation, I'll just reiterate
`
`that this is the exact reason why we need his
`
`deposition, because they have gone to great
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`19 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`lengths to try to hide the control that the
`
`Patel family has over this Kashiv entity by
`
`couching the ownership in the context of
`
` and not telling us who
`
` is
`
`except to suggest that if we need to contact
`
`, we need to do it through
`
`.
`
` So that's why we need his
`
`deposition, to try to understand exactly -- you
`
`know, this is a company that was under the
`
`control of Amneal for years. They worked
`
`directly with Dr. Shah. They continue to work
`
`with Dr. Shah. And the suggestion that somehow
`
` of Kashiv and they
`
`had nothing to do with that corporation and
`
`nothing to do with the control of these
`
`proceedings, I think at a minimum it should be
`
`a basis upon which we should be able to get a
`
`deposition of these individuals to find out
`
`exactly what's going on.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: I am
`
`concerned generally about the timing.
`
` So let me -- how soon -- if we were
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`20 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`to order a motion for discovery, because I
`
`don't think we can decide the issue just based
`
`on what's been said here.
`
` So how soon could you get a motion
`
`for discovery on file with us?
`
` MR. LAROSA: Certainly by Monday, or
`
`if it needs to be by tomorrow, we could do it.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Okay.
`
` All right. Let me put the parties
`
`on hold and confer with the panel real quick.
`
` (Recess was taken from 1:47 p.m. to
`
`1:52 p.m.)
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE:
`
`Counsel, this is Judge Paulraj again. I
`
`conferred with the other panel members, and
`
`this is what we're going to do.
`
` So we're going to have Patent Owner
`
`file a motion for discovery that's going to be
`
`filed no later than tomorrow. And in that
`
`motion we would definitely want to know what's
`
`currently in the documents that would justify
`
`the additional discovery under Garmin factor 1,
`
`because depositions, as you recognize, are
`
`definitely a big undertaking, especially before
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`21 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`the institution phase. So please highlight
`
`exactly what's in the current documents that
`
`would justify the further depositions that
`
`you're seeking.
`
` And Petitioner will have until
`
`Tuesday, June 12th to file a response.
`
` I know that's a fairly expedited
`
`schedule, but we are concerned about that
`
`June 22nd deadline for the Patent Owner
`
`preliminary response.
`
` So with that, is Counsel okay with
`
`that proposed schedule?
`
` MR. LAROSA: Yeah. I mean, I --
`
`thank you, Your Honor. I think we can make
`
`that schedule work. I think we'd prefer to
`
`have it -- the weekend to put the briefing
`
`together, considering we're going to need to
`
`focus on what you're suggesting.
`
` But if you'd prefer us to have it in
`
`tomorrow, we'll make it happen.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Yeah.
`
`And I understand that, Mr. LaRosa, but
`
`unfortunately I think this is an issue that you
`
`have raised, and I think you'll -- I'm sure you
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`22 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`have plenty of team members that can help you
`
`out with this.
`
` So I understand that this is a
`
`fairly expedited schedule, but yeah, if you can
`
`get it to us tomorrow and then Patent -- or
`
`Petitioner respond by Tuesday, then that will
`
`give the panel enough time to at least consider
`
`the option of -- consider the issue before the
`
`preliminary response.
`
` So in the meantime, I do want to --
`
`and let me turn it to back to Mr. Van Buskirk
`
`real quick.
`
` Is Tuesday an okay time frame for
`
`your response, Mr. Van Buskirk?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: I guess it will
`
`have to be.
`
` If we could have an extra day. As I
`
`said, I'm really trying to get up to speed on
`
`these issues in a way that Mr. LaRosa and his
`
`team had a leg up here.
`
` THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE: Okay.
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: And again, I
`
`realize that you're -- the board is asking to
`
`have this done given the deadline.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`23 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
` I guess we're all presupposing that
`
`Patent Owner is, in fact, going to file a
`
`Patent Owner preliminary response, but we don't
`
`know that for a fact.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Yeah.
`
`At this time, I think we are assuming that
`
`Patent Owner is going to file a preliminary
`
`response, especially since it's raising an RPI
`
`issue, and that that's at least going to be
`
`part of the preliminary response.
`
` I'll tell you what. I will give you
`
`an extra day. I think I'm a little more
`
`sympathetic to the fact that this issue is not
`
`your issue. It's something that Patent Owner
`
`has raised. So frankly, I think Patent Owner
`
`should have at least the outline for a motion
`
`already prepared, if they already requested a
`
`motion before us.
`
` So I'll give until the 13th for
`
`Petitioner to file a response. But the motion
`
`and the response will be limited to 15 pages.
`
`We're not going to authorize any reply.
`
` In the meantime, I am also going to
`
`order the parties to confer. And
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`24 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`Mr. Van Buskirk, specifically you to determine
`
`the availability of these witnesses for a
`
`deposition, and if need be, a deposition that
`
`will occur as soon as possible, preferably
`
`before the 22nd deadline.
`
` So if that's not a feasible option,
`
`I would like to get an explanation in your
`
`response as to when a deposition would be
`
`feasible, if we were to order one.
`
` In terms of timing, I am, again,
`
`very concerned about how soon we can get all
`
`this done, given the statutory deadlines that
`
`are coming up.
`
` So is that clear?
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: It is, Your Honor.
`
`Thank you.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`
`right.
`
` Let me put the parties on hold, and
`
`if the panel has anything else, we'll get back
`
`to you.
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Actually, Judge
`
`Paulraj, one further thing, if I may?
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Yes?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`25 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Given that these
`
`documents from the litigation were produced
`
`under a protective order and marked highly
`
`confidential, I believe we will need a
`
`protective order in place here in the IPR to
`
`similarly protect these documents.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: That's
`
`reasonable.
`
` So the parties shall confer, and if
`
`it's going to be the standard protective order
`
`set forth in our Trial Practice Guide, that's
`
`fine.
`
` If you want to confer on a modified
`
`protective order, you can do that. And then
`
`any document that should be filed shall be
`
`filed or an exhibit that's under District Court
`
`protective orders can be filed under seal in
`
`this proceeding.
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Very good. Thank
`
`you.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: All
`
`right.
`
` And let me put the parties on hold.
`
` (Recess was taken from 1:58 p.m. to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`26 of 28
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
` PTAB Conference Call
`
`1:58 p.m.)
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE:
`
`Counsel, the panel has nothing further.
`
` So again, we have our schedule for
`
`the motion and the response.
`
` And if you could file the transcript
`
`for this call, that will serve as our record of
`
`this call.
`
` So I think the panel has nothing
`
`else, so we'll adjourn. Thank you.
`
` MR. LAROSA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you, Your
`
`Honors.
`
` ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE: Thank
`
`you, Counsel.
`
` (Time Noted: 1:59 p.m.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`27 of 28
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 28
`
`District of Columbia, to wit:
`
` I, Stacey L. Daywalt, a Notary
`
`Public of the District of Columbia, do hereby
`
`certify that the proceedings were recorded
`
`stenographically by me and this transcript is a
`
`true record of the proceedings.
`
` I further certify that I am not of
`
`counsel to any of the parties, nor an employee
`
`of counsel, nor related to any of the parties,
`
`nor in any way interested in the outcome of
`
`this action.
`
` As witness my hand and Notarial Seal
`
`this 14th day of June, 2018.
`
` _________________________________________
`
` Stacey L. Daywalt, Notary Public
`
` My Commission Expires: 4/14/2021
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Purdue - IPR2018-00625; IPR2018-00717, Ex. 2017
`28 of 28
`
`