`1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
`P.O. BOX 1347
`
`“VILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899—1347
`
`
`JAth.Bunmlmn
`(3021 351—9291
`Jblumenfeld®uumcom
`
`(302) 658—9200
`(302) 658—3989 FAX
`
`September 24, 2018
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`United States District Comt for the District of
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL —
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Delaware
`
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Re:
`
`Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Tare Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
`C .A. No. 17-462 (RGA)
`
`Dear Judge Andrews:
`
`I write in response to Mylan’s September 21, 2018 letter, D.I. 121, submitted in response
`to Plaintiffs’ September 18 letter, D.I. 120, concerning the recent claim construction dispute that
`has arisen between the parties.
`
`Plaintiffs brought this dispute to the Corut’s attention now to avoid a situation where the
`issue is first disclosed to the Court at trial, and sought guidance as to the Court’s preference
`concerning whether to fluther brief the issue now, or instead to address it at trial. In its response,
`Mylan asserts that additional claim construction briefnig would be “a waste of the parties’ and
`the Comt’s time and resources.” D.I. 121 at 1. However, Mylan then proceeds to present
`detailed arglunents with citations to case law as to why its claim construction position is correct.
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully submit that either the parties should be permitted to brief the issue
`now, or it should be addressed at trial, whichever the Court prefers. Plaintiffs wish to point out,
`however,
`that Mylan’s arglunents concerning the claim construction issue are misplaced.
`Contra
`to M lan’s new assertion, there was no need for the Court’s construction to s eci
`that
`
`
`
`Although Mylan asserts that its IPR
`
`
`Petition is somehow consistent with its crurent position, D.I. 121 at 2, its submission to the PTO
`reflects that this is not the case.
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2018-01 143
`
`MYLAN — EXHIBIT 1068
`
`
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`September 24, 2018
`Page 2
`
`As Plaintiffs
`
`pomte out in t en‘ c aim construction rie , t e ’218 patent mcorporates y reference PCT
`04/012897. D.I. 82 at 5 & n.3 (published as WO 2005/060940: English translation in CA 2 547
`113, see D.I. 82 at 5 & n.4; D.I. 58-1 at Exs. B-C.) That application, in turn, defines “rapid-
`release tablets” in a manner identical to the ’218 patent.1 D.I. 82 at 5—6; D.I. 58—1, Ex. C at 5:3-7.
`The defmition in that application also refers to chapter 5.2.2 of its specification as an example of
`what constitutes a rapid-release tablet.
`Id. Chapter 5.2.2 contains a table showing that “[t]he
`amounts of active comporuld released” after 30 minutes in the tablets studied were 92% and 95%
`'
`
`. D.I. 58-1, Ex. C at 1021-6 & Table 1.
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court’s guidance on how to proceed. We are available
`to discuss this issue further at the Corut’s convenience.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/jacR,@. (Bfumenfillf
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`JBB/bac
`
`cc:
`
`Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
`Cormsel of Record Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (via electronic mail)
`
`1 As the Court observed in its Markman opinion, Mylan never even responded to this argument
`in its claim construction briefmg. D.I. 91 at 2 n. 1.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
