Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1922
`
`
`
`April 24, 2018
`
`Arnold B. Calmann
` (973) 645-4828
` abc@saiber.com
`
`
`VIA ECF
`The Honorable Cathy L Waldor
`United States Magistrate Judge
`District of New Jersey
`Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse
`50 Walnut Street, Court Room: 4C
`Newark, New Jersey 07101
`
`
`Re: Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. v. Mylan GmbH
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-9105-SRC-CLW
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Waldor:
`
`
`
`We, along with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, represent defendant Mylan GmbH in
`the above matter. We write to Your Honor in response to the letter filed by Plaintiffs1 on April
`18, 2018 (ECF No. 89) to address Sanofi’s allegations about Mylan GmbH’s document
`productions and invalidity contentions and to oppose Sanofi’s request that the case schedule
`undergo a “temporary suspension” of unspecified duration. Mylan GmbH’s invalidity
`contentions and document productions fully comply with the Local Patent Rules and there is no
`justification for Sanofi’s request to delay the entire case schedule.
`
`As we were finalizing this letter this morning, however, Sanofi sent Mylan GmbH its
`latest proposed schedule. Sanofi’s new proposal takes a piecemeal approach, includes
`unnecessary delays, and unjustifiably seeks to delay the entire case by over four months. The
`proposal is especially egregious because Sanofi agreed last week to modest adjustments to the
`schedule that kept the case on track for a Markman hearing in September, while the new
`proposed schedule takes the Markman hearing off calendar entirely. See Ex. A at 2.
`
`Mylan GmbH respectfully submits that the case should continue to move forward in an
`efficient manner (for example, according to the schedule that Sanofi agreed to last week). See,
`e.g., Ex. B at 1-2. As the Court is aware from discussions at the Rule 16 Conference, this case
`presents a unique timing issue that requires diligent adherence to litigation timelines sufficient to
`allow the Court plenty of time to issue a decision prior to the expiration of the FDA’s 30-month
`stay. The issues recently raised by Sanofi can be resolved or ameliorated without any disruption
`to the overall pretrial schedule. To address this shared goal, Mylan GmbH respectfully requests
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs are Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, and Sanofi
`Winthrop Industrie.
`
`
`
`
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.001
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90 Filed 04/24/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1923
`
`Honorable Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.
`April 24, 2018
`Page 2
`
`that the status conference presently scheduled for May 2, 2018, be held this week if the Court’s
`availability permits.
`
`Sanofi is correct that the parties were conferring regarding proposed changes to the claim
`construction schedule. While Mylan GmbH disagrees with the characterizations of “additional”
`issues that Sanofi’s letter raises, and regrets the fact that the parties were unable to finalize a joint
`submission, the pertinent fact is that the parties had already agreed in principle to a modified
`schedule, pending approval by the Court. See, e.g., id.
`
`Mylan GmbH provided substantive edits to Sanofi’s proposal on April 18, as Sanofi’s
`letter states. Those edits, however, must be viewed in the proper context. Scheduling
`discussions initially began with Sanofi’s letter to Mylan GmbH on the evening of Thursday,
`April 12. Mylan GmbH made itself available to meet and confer the very next day and worked
`over the weekend to provide a revised proposed schedule to Sanofi on Sunday, April 15. As
`stated above, on Monday, April 16, the parties had an agreement in principle regarding a
`modified schedule.2
`
`One minute before a meet and confer teleconference on Tuesday, April 17, however,
`Sanofi proposed new language for the joint letter that Mylan GmbH could not agree to for
`several reasons and which left the door open for yet further, unspecified modifications to the
`schedule that would result in further delay. As a result, there is some irony that Sanofi’s letter
`states that “Mylan’s proposed revisions interject[ed] completely new and unrelated issues, are
`unacceptable to Sanofi, and have thus caused a breakdown in negotiations,” because Sanofi itself
`contributed to the fizzled negotiations by first injecting unrelated3 issues into the joint letter on
`April 17th. Irrespective of this factual history, however, Mylan GmbH proposes that the focus
`now should be on a sensible path forward.
`
`Case Schedule. The schedule should not be “temporarily suspen[ded],” as Sanofi
`requests because there is no justified need to do so. As referenced in Sanofi’s letter, Mylan
`GmbH seeks leave to amend its non-infringement and invalidity contentions. As a courtesy to
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Ex. B at 2 (Apr. 15, 2018 Email from C. Gannon stating that “Sanofi will agree to
`Mylan’s proposed amended schedule, except as to the deadline for the responsive Markman
`briefs; as noted in the chart below, Sanofi proposes an August 3, 2018 deadline for responsive
`Markman briefs.”); id. at 1 (Apr. 16, 2018 Email from A. Dykhuis stating that “Mylan agrees to
`the proposed schedule below[.]”); id. (Apr. 16, 2018 Email from C. Gannon recognizing the
`agreement, stating, “Thank you for letting us know we are in agreement on the schedule[.]”).
`3 To that point, the joint letter being negotiated between the parties addressed proposed
`amendments to Mylan GmbH’s non-infringement and invalidity contentions and a forthcoming
`document production from Sanofi that was expected to include materials from related Sanofi
`litigations that Mylan GmbH contends are highly relevant to claim construction, non-
`infringement, and invalidity. Sanofi’s proposed addition to the joint letter, however, addressed
`the unrelated topic of Mylan GmbH’s production of correspondence with the FDA.
`
`
`
`
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.002
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90 Filed 04/24/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1924
`
`Honorable Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.
`April 24, 2018
`Page 3
`
`Sanofi, Mylan GmbH has already provided its proposed amended non-infringement contentions
`to Sanofi and requested Sanofi’s consent to the amendments pursuant to L. Pat. R. 3.7. To the
`extent Sanofi is unwilling to provide consent, Mylan GmbH will be compelled to file an
`appropriate application for leave to amend. As of April 16, the parties had agreed to a process to
`facilitate Mylan GmbH’s proposed amendments:
`
` April 20, 2018 – date for Mylan GmbH to provide redlined amended contentions
`for Sanofi’s review
` April 26, 2018 – Sanofi to tell Mylan GmbH whether it would agree to a consent
`application regarding the proposed amendments
` May 2, 2018 – Mylan GmbH to file a consent application with the Court or, if
`Sanofi withholds its consent, file a disputed motion for leave to amend
`
`The parties had also agreed to propose to the Court the following schedule regarding
`claim construction:
`
`Event
`Parties to exchange identification of supporting
`evidence pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.2(c)
`Parties to meet and confer regarding preparation
`of a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement
`Parties to file Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.3
`Completion of fact discovery relating to claim
`construction pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.4 (if
`needed)
`Parties to file Opening Markman submissions
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(a)
`Deadline to amend pleadings without leave of
`the Court
`Completion of Expert Discovery Relating to
`Opening Markman submissions pursuant to L.
`Pat. R. 4.5(b)
`Parties to file Responsive Markman
`submissions pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(c)
`
`Current Deadline
`April 17, 2018
`
`Amended Deadline
`May 9, 2018
`
`April 19, 2018
`
`May 11, 2018
`
`April 24, 2018
`
`May 16, 2018
`
`May 22, 2018
`
`June 6, 2018
`
`June 5, 2018
`
`June 20, 2018
`
`June 29, 2018
`
`No change
`
`July 10, 2018
`
`July 18, 2018
`
`August 2, 2018
`
`August 3, 2018
`
`This schedule was already agreed-to by Sanofi, allows for amended contentions before
`claim construction continues, and keeps the case schedule on track.
`
`Despite the agreed schedule above, Sanofi just today proposed a new schedule throwing
`the entire case timeline into question. Sanofi’s latest proposal completely abandons its prior
`agreement, takes the Markman hearing off calendar entirely, and even adjusts dates unrelated to
`claim construction, such as the close of fact discovery. Indeed, Sanofi’s proposal confirms
`
`
`
`
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.003
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90 Filed 04/24/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1925
`
`Honorable Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.
`April 24, 2018
`Page 4
`
`Mylan GmbH’s worst fears about Sanofi’s motives. Despite the facial unreasonableness of
`Sanofi’s proposal, however, Mylan GmbH will confer with counsel for Sanofi to see if the
`parties can renew their agreement on a proposed schedule and provide the Court a submission
`regarding the same.
`
`Disagreements. There are still two substantive issues raised in Sanofi’s letter that need
`to be addressed.
`
`First, Mylan GmbH’s invalidity contentions fully comply with the Local Rules.
`Nonetheless, in order to avoid burdening the Court with an unnecessary dispute, Mylan GmbH
`recently agreed to clarify some of its positions. Mylan GmbH does not expect Sanofi to
`withhold consent to amendments to the invalidity contentions that Sanofi itself requested. Mylan
`GmbH also intends to seek leave to amend its invalidity contentions in view of the unforeseeable
`positions Sanofi took in its infringement contentions and responses to invalidity contentions.
`
`To facilitate amending its contentions and consistent with the above schedule, Mylan
`GmbH served proposed amended non-infringement contentions on Sanofi within minutes of
`midnight on Friday, April 20. Having now received Sanofi’s April 20 document production—
`which contained some, but not all, of the documents highly relevant to invalidity positions from
`related Sanofi cases involving the same patents-in-suit4— Mylan GmbH now intends to provide
`proposed amended invalidity contentions to Sanofi based on the new information we have
`received and consistent with the foregoing process (i.e., by seeking Sanofi’s consent to the
`amendments) no later than Wednesday, April 25.
`
`Second, Mylan GmbH has fully satisfied its obligations under Local Patent Rule 3.6.
`While we disagree with Sanofi on the substance, this issue is moot. Mylan GmbH produced its
`NDA on November 13, 2017 and, in the spirit of cooperation, expedited its production of FDA
`correspondence at Sanofi’s request and produced the materials in question on April 16. Mylan
`GmbH’s production of FDA correspondence should not affect the schedule because the core
`document governing the infringement inquiry (the NDA) was produced long ago, leaving no
`reason for Sanofi to need to amend its infringement contentions.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, suspension of the schedule is not an appropriate path
`forward. The parties had already agreed to a schedule, and there are far better ways to address
`any theoretically appropriate amendments to Sanofi’s infringement contentions than having no
`schedule at all, as Sanofi now proposes (contrary to their prior agreement).
`
`
`4 While Mylan GmbH did receive some information that directly affects Mylan GmbH’s
`invalidity contentions, there is additional information that remains in dispute that Sanofi has not
`yet produced. If we cannot resolve this issue amicably with Sanofi, we will seek the Court’s
`assistance.
`
`
`
`
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.004
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90 Filed 04/24/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1926
`
`Honorable Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.
`April 24, 2018
`Page 5
`
`
`We thank the Court for its consideration in this matter, and we look forward to speaking
`with Your Honor during the upcoming telephone conference. Mylan GmbH will also make itself
`available if the Court prefers to hear from the parties on an earlier date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Arnold B. Calmann
`
`
`cc: Counsel of record (by CM/ECF)
`
`
`
`
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.005
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1927
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.006
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`
` Event
`Amended Deadline
`Current Deadline
`April 26, 2018
`N/A
`Mylan to provide good cause and
`diligence required under Local Patent
`Rule 3.7 as well as the supporting
`authority
`April 26, 2018
`N/A
`Mylan to provide redline invalidity
`
`contentions
`May 17, 2018
`N/A
`Sanofi to decide whether to oppose
`amended invalidity and non-
`infringement contentions
`May 24, 2018
`N/A
`Mylan to move for leave to amend
`contentions
`June 21, 2018
`N/A
`Sanofi to provide amended infringement
`and validity contentions1
`June 28, 2018
`N/A
`Parties to exchange any new claim terms
`to be construed
`July 12, 2018
`
`Parties to exchange “Preliminary Claim Constructions” for any new claim terms N/A
`July 12, 2018
`Parties to identify all intrinsic evidence
`N/A
`that supports preliminary proposed
`constructions for any new claim terms
`and designate any supporting extrinsic
`evidence
`July 26, 2018
`Parties to exchange identification of
`April 17, 2018
`supporting evidence pursuant to L. Pat.
`R. 4.2(c)
`August 9, 2018
`Parties to meet and confer regarding
`April 19, 2018
`preparation of a Joint Claim
`Construction and Prehearing Statement
`August 23, 2018
`Parties to file Joint Claim Construction
`April 24, 2018
`and Prehearing Statement pursuant to L.
`Pat. R. 4.3
`September 27, 2018
`Completion of fact discovery relating to
`May 22, 2018
`claim construction pursuant to L. Pat. R.
`4.4 (if needed)
`October 11, 2018
`Parties to file Opening Markman
`June 5, 2018
`1 Sanofi will respond on this date to any Mylan amended contentions that Sanofi does not oppose. To the extent
`the Court grants Mylan leave to amend contentions over Sanofi’s objections, the parties will negotiate a schedule
`for Sanofi to respond to such amendments following the Court’s order. Sanofi will also provide on this date
`amended infringement contentions based on Mylan’s late production of NDA materials.
`
`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1928
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.007
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

` submissions pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(a)
`October 25, 2018
`June 29, 2018
`Deadline to amend pleadings without
`leave of the Court
`November 15, 2018
`July 10, 2018
`Completion of Expert Discovery Relating
`to Opening Markman submissions
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(b)
`November 30, 2018
`August 1, 2018
`Substantial completion of document
`production
`December 6, 2018
`August 2, 2018
`Parties to file Responsive Markman
`submissions pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(c)
`December 13, 2018
`August 10, 2018
`Parties to submit proposed Claim
`Construction Hearing schedule pursuant
`to L. Pat. R. 4.6
`December 13, 2018
`August 13, 2018
`Deadline for motion to amend pleadings
`or to add parties
`TBD
`Week of September 10,
`Markman Hearing
`2018, subject to Court’s
`availability
`April 11, 2019
`December 7, 2018
`Close of Fact Discovery
` Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1929
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.008
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90-2 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1930
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.009
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90-2 Filed 04/24/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1931
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Christine Gannon <CGannon@walsh.law>
`Monday, April 16, 2018 2:01 PM
`Dykhuis, Arthur; Arnie Calmann; Jeffrey Soos; Katherine A. Escanlar; Carsten, Douglas;
`Steiner, Ellie; Litoshyk, Alina; Scharn, Nathan; Stephens, James; Dimler, Taylor
`Liza Walsh; Mary Hogan; SanofiMylanLantus@weil.com; Katelyn O'Reilly
`RE: Sanofi v Mylan - 17-9105
`
`Art,  
` 
`Thank you for letting us know we are in agreement on the schedule and for updating us on the status of Mylan’s review 
`of the draft letter. We look forward to hearing from you again. 
` 
`Best, Christine  
` 
`From: Dykhuis, Arthur <adykhuis@wsgr.com>  
`Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:55 PM 
`To: Christine Gannon <cgannon@walsh.law>; Arnie Calmann <ACalmann@saiber.com>; Jeffrey Soos 
`<JSoos@saiber.com>; Katherine A. Escanlar <KEscanlar@saiber.com>; Carsten, Douglas <dcarsten@wsgr.com>; Steiner, 
`Ellie <esteiner@wsgr.com>; Litoshyk, Alina <alitoshyk@wsgr.com>; Scharn, Nathan <nscharn@wsgr.com>; Stephens, 
`James <jstephens@wsgr.com>; Dimler, Taylor <tdimler@wsgr.com> 
`Cc: Liza Walsh <lwalsh@walsh.law>; Mary Hogan <mhogan@walsh.law>; SanofiMylanLantus@weil.com; Katelyn O'Reilly 
`<koreilly@walsh.law> 
`Subject: RE: Sanofi v Mylan ‐ 17‐9105 
` 
`Christine,  
` 
`Mylan agrees to the proposed schedule below, but we don’t have our client’s sign‐off on the letter yet. We will contact 
`you further as soon as we are able. 
` 
`Thanks, 
` 
`Art 
` 
`Arthur P. Dykhuis ▪ Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC 
`12235 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130‐3002  
`Phone: (858) 350‐2390 ▪ Fax: (858) 350‐2399 
` 
` 
` 
`From: Christine Gannon [mailto:CGannon@walsh.law]
`Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:50 AM
`To: Dykhuis, Arthur; Arnie Calmann; Jeffrey Soos; Katherine A. Escanlar; Carsten, Douglas; Steiner, Ellie; Litoshyk, Alina;
`Scharn, Nathan; Stephens, James; Dimler, Taylor
`Cc: Liza Walsh; Mary Hogan; SanofiMylanLantus@weil.com; Katelyn O'Reilly
`Subject: RE: Sanofi v Mylan - 17-9105
` 
`Art,  
` 
`
`1
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.010
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90-2 Filed 04/24/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1932
`
`I am writing to follow‐up to the below email to see when we can expect Mylan’s response.  Since tomorrow is the first 
`deadline that would be amended we would like to get a submission on file as soon as possible.  To that end, attached is 
`a proposed joint submission.  We would appreciate hearing from Mylan as soon as possible.   
` 
`Best,  
` 
`Christine 
` 
`From: Christine Gannon  
`Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 7:08 PM 
`To: 'Dykhuis, Arthur' <adykhuis@wsgr.com>; Arnie Calmann <ACalmann@saiber.com>; Jeffrey Soos 
`<JSoos@saiber.com>; Katherine A. Escanlar <KEscanlar@saiber.com>; Carsten, Douglas <dcarsten@wsgr.com>; Steiner, 
`Ellie <esteiner@wsgr.com>; Litoshyk, Alina <alitoshyk@wsgr.com>; Scharn, Nathan <nscharn@wsgr.com>; Stephens, 
`James <jstephens@wsgr.com>; Dimler, Taylor <tdimler@wsgr.com> 
`Cc: Liza Walsh <lwalsh@walsh.law>; Mary Hogan <mhogan@walsh.law>; SanofiMylanLantus@weil.com; Katelyn O'Reilly 
`<koreilly@walsh.law> 
`Subject: RE: Sanofi v Mylan ‐ 17‐9105 
` 
`Art,  
`
`  
`Thanks for providing Mylan’s counterproposal to amend the schedule.  Sanofi will agree to Mylan’s proposed amended 
`schedule, except as to the deadline for the responsive Markman briefs; as noted in the chart below, Sanofi proposes an 
`August 3, 2018 deadline for responsive Markman briefs.  In addition, to ensure the parties are in full agreement as to 
`Mylan’s anticipated amended contentions and any application to the Court regarding the same, in the event that Mylan 
`is granted leave to amend its contentions Sanofi will be entitled to serve responsive contentions on a timeline that the 
`parties will discuss if and when Mylan is granted leave to serve amended contentions.   
`
`  
`Please confirm Mylan’s agreement, and we will prepare the joint submission to the Court. 
` 
`Best, Christine 
`  
`
`Event 
`
`Current 
`Deadline 
`
`Amended 
`Deadline 
`No later than 
`April 20, 2018 
`No later than 
`April 26, 2018  
`(to allow time 
`to meet and 
`confer) 
`May 2, 2018 
`
`  
`
`  
`
`  
`
`Mylan to provide redlined 
`amended contentions 
`Sanofi to convey its position 
`to Mylan 
`
`Mylan to file application with 
`the Court 
`Parties to exchange 
`identification of supporting 
`evidence pursuant to L. Pat. 
`R. 4.2(c) 
`Parties to meet and confer 
`regarding preparation of a 
`Joint Claim Construction and 
`Prehearing Statement 
`
`April 17, 2018  May 9, 2018 
`
`April 19, 2018  May 11, 2018 
`
`2
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.011
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90-2 Filed 04/24/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1933
`
`April 24, 2018  May 16, 2018 
`
`May 22, 2018 
`
`June 6, 2018 
`
`June 5, 2018 
`
`June 20, 2018 
`
`June 29, 2018 
`
`No change 
`
`July 10, 2018 
`
`July 18, 2018 
`
`August 2, 2018 
`
`August 8, 2018 
`August 3, 2018 
`
`  
`
`  
`
`Parties to file Joint Claim 
`Construction and Prehearing 
`Statement pursuant to L. Pat. 
`R. 4.3 
`Completion of fact discovery 
`relating to claim construction 
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.4 (if 
`needed) 
`Parties to file Opening 
`Markman submissions 
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(a) 
`Deadline to amend pleadings 
`without leave of the Court 
`Completion of Expert 
`Discovery Relating to 
`Opening Markman 
`submissions pursuant to L. 
`Pat. R. 4.5(b) 
`Parties to file Responsive 
`Markman submissions 
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(c) 
`  
`  
` 
` 
` 
`From: Dykhuis, Arthur <adykhuis@wsgr.com>  
`Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 1:08 PM 
`To: Christine Gannon <cgannon@walsh.law>; Arnie Calmann <ACalmann@saiber.com>; Jeffrey Soos 
`<JSoos@saiber.com>; Katherine A. Escanlar <KEscanlar@saiber.com>; Carsten, Douglas <dcarsten@wsgr.com>; Steiner, 
`Ellie <esteiner@wsgr.com>; Litoshyk, Alina <alitoshyk@wsgr.com>; Scharn, Nathan <nscharn@wsgr.com>; Stephens, 
`James <jstephens@wsgr.com>; Dimler, Taylor <tdimler@wsgr.com> 
`Cc: Liza Walsh <lwalsh@walsh.law>; Mary Hogan <mhogan@walsh.law>; SanofiMylanLantus@weil.com; Katelyn O'Reilly 
`<koreilly@walsh.law> 
`Subject: RE: Sanofi v Mylan ‐ 17‐9105 
` 
`Christine, 
`
`  
`Thanks for the productive meet and confer Friday.  We have considered your proposal and are not able to simply push 
`“pause” on the schedule.  While we believe that the current schedule is still workable, below is a proposal that 
`addresses your concerns regarding the current claim construction deadlines.  If the proposed modifications are 
`acceptable to you, we can more formally present it to our clients for final approval before filing a joint/agreed 
`submission.  To the extent a call would be helpful, we can be available to discuss. 
`  
`
`Event 
`
`Current 
`Deadline 
`
`Mylan to provide redlined 
`amended contentions 
`Sanofi to convey its position 
`to Mylan 
`
`  
`
`  
`
`Sanofi’s 
`Proposal 
`April 17, 2018 
`
`April 20, 2018 
`
`3
`
`Mylan’s 
`Proposal 
`No later than 
`April 20, 2018 
`No later than 
`April 26, 2018  
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.012
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW Document 90-2 Filed 04/24/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1934
`
`  
`
`April 25, 2018 
`
`April 17, 2018 
`
`April 19, 2018 
`
`April 24, 2018 
`
`May 22, 2018 
`
`June 5, 2018 
`
`June 29, 2018 
`
`July 10, 2018 
`
`  
`
`  
`
`  
`
`  
`
`  
`
`  
`
`  
`
`  
`
`(to allow time 
`to meet and 
`confer) 
`May 2, 2018 
`
`May 9, 2018 
`
`May 11, 2018 
`
`May 16, 2018 
`
`June 6, 2018 
`
`June 20, 2018 
`
`No change 
`
`July 18, 2018 
`
`August 8, 2018 
`
`Mylan to file application with 
`the Court 
`Parties to exchange 
`identification of supporting 
`evidence pursuant to L. Pat. R. 
`4.2(c) 
`Parties to meet and confer 
`regarding preparation of a 
`Joint Claim Construction and 
`Prehearing Statement 
`Parties to file Joint Claim 
`Construction and Prehearing 
`Statement pursuant to L. Pat. 
`R. 4.3 
`Completion of fact discovery 
`relating to claim construction 
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.4 (if 
`needed) 
`Parties to file Opening 
`Markman submissions 
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(a) 
`Deadline to amend pleadings 
`without leave of the Court 
`Completion of Expert 
`Discovery Relating to Opening 
`Markman submissions 
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(b) 
`Parties to file Responsive 
`Markman submissions 
`pursuant to L. Pat. R. 4.5(c) 
` 
` 
`From: Dykhuis, Arthur
`Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 3:14 PM
`To: 'Christine Gannon'; Arnie Calmann; Jeffrey Soos; Katherine A. Escanlar; Carsten, Douglas; Steiner, Ellie; Litoshyk,
`Alina; Scharn, Nathan; Stephens, James; Dimler, Taylor
`Cc: Liza Walsh; Mary Hogan; SanofiMylanLantus@weil.com; Katelyn O'Reilly
`Subject: RE: Sanofi v Mylan - 17-9105
` 
`Christine, I can’t say exactly when we’ll be able to respond, but you are correct that we’re trying to get back to you 
`before Monday. 
`                         
`Thanks, 
` 
`Art 
` 
`From: Christine Gannon [mailto:CGannon@walsh.law]
`Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2018 10:21 AM
`To: Dykhuis, Arthur; Arnie Calmann; Jeffrey Soos; Katherine A. Escanlar; Carsten, Douglas; Steiner, Ellie; Litoshyk, Alina;
`4
`
`August 2, 2018 
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2018.013
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01675
`
`