Page 1
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
` MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` V.
` SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
` Patent Owner.
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
` Case No. IPR2018-01675
` Case No. IPR2018-0122
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
` TELECONFERENCE
` February 13, 2019
` HELD BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
` BART A. GERSTENBLITH, JAMES MAYBERRY and
` HYUN J. JUNG
`
` ** REVISED **
`
` REPORTED BY: Ronda J. Thomas, RPR, CRR
` JOB NO.: 155589
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
` MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
` Petitioner,
` V.
` SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
` Patent Owner.
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
` Case No. IPR2018-01675
` Case No. IPR2018-0122
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
` TELECONFERENCE
` February 13, 2019
` HELD BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
` BART A. GERSTENBLITH, JAMES MAYBERRY and
` HYUN J. JUNG
`
` ** REVISED **
`
` REPORTED BY: Ronda J. Thomas, RPR, CRR
` JOB NO.: 155589
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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 2
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` February 13, 2019
` 2:02 p.m.
` A telephone conference was held before
` the Honorable Bart A. Gerstenblith, JAMES Mayberry
` and Hyun J. Jung. Held also before Ronda J.
` Thomas, Registered Professional Reporter,
` Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public for
` the District of Columbia and the State of
` Maryland.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` APPEARANCES:
` ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` RICHARD TORCZON, ESQUIRE
` WESLEY DERRYBERRY, ESQUIRE
` ELHAM STEINER, ESQUIRE
` Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
` 1700 K Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20006
`
` ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
` BRIAN CHANG, ESQUIRE
` ANISH DESAI, ESQUIRE
` ADRIAN PERCER, ESQUIRE
` Weil, Gotshal & Manges
` 201 Redwood Shores Parkway
` Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Good afternoon,
` everyone. This is Judge Gerstenblith. With
` me on the line are Judges Jung and Mayberry.
` This is a conference call in several
` related cases with Mylan v. Sanofi. I'm not
` going to list out all the numbers because I
` think it's fairly flexible, but we'll --
` we'll try to list them at the end depending
` on how many different cases we discuss from
` the family. It covers at least those related
` to IPR2018-01675.
` With that, let's do a roll call. Who do
` we have on the line for petitioner, please?
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, you have
` Richard Torczon from Mylan. I believe also
` on the line are Wes Derryberry and Ellie
` Steiner.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Will you be
` speaking on behalf of petitioner?
` MR. TORCZON: I will, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Thank you.
` And who do we have on the line for
` patent owner?
` MR. CHANG: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` You have Brian Chang on the line for patent
` owner, and also on with me are Anish Desai
` and Adrian Percer.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Will you be
` speaking on behalf of patent owner,
` Mr. Chang?
` MR. CHANG: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: I believe -- but
` please correct me -- was it petitioner who
` arranged for a court reporter?
` MR. TORCZON: We did, Your Honor. She
` is on the line, and we will submit a
` transcript as soon as it's prepared and we've
` had a chance to check with Sanofi on its
` correctness.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Perfect. Thank you
` very much.
` I have a list of three things to discuss
` amongst the cases, and I have written them
` out with each case number; but please tell
` me, as we go through, if you identify that
` I've only mentioned one case and it has
` applications in more than one, please don't
` be afraid to interrupt me. I will certainly
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` not hold it against you. I want to make sure
` that the transcript is as clear as possible
` now that we have multiple things happening in
` at least five cases.
` To start, I want to start with
` petitioner's motion to correct the petition.
` And my understanding is that petitioner was
` authorized to file two motions, one in
` IPR2018-01675 and a second in IPR2019-00122.
` Am I right about that so far,
` Mr. Torczon?
` MR. TORCZON: You are, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: And there was no
` other case that that happened in, right?
` MR. TORCZON: We checked, Your Honor.
` Those were the only two.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Let me ask a
` question with the second case, 00122,
` because -- I'm sorry. I'm looking at my
` emails as we discuss this. I apologize.
` Hang on for one second. I apologize.
` Okay. That's what I wanted to check.
` So, Mr. Chang, patent owner has not yet
` filed a response to Mylan's motion to correct
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` in the 00122 case; is that right?
` MR. CHANG: That's correct, Your Honor.
` And we -- I believe it was actually indicated
` to the board in the initial email from
` petitioner that patent owner did not oppose
` the correction in that case. So we don't
` intend on filing a response unless the board
` would like us to file a paper simply stating
` that we don't oppose.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. I did not
` examine that case in full to compare it to
` 1675 case. Sorry. That's 1675. But I don't
` need to delve into the reason or not that
` patent owner either does or does not oppose
` the correction. But it does, I guess,
` understanding what patent owner's position
` is, either allows me to talk about the motion
` or I would wait.
` So do we have -- do I understand
` correctly, Mr. Chang, that you're
` representing right now that patent owner does
` not oppose the motion in 00122?
` MR. CHANG: That's correct, Your Honor.
` And to the extent that it is helpful, the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` reason that we don't oppose in 00122 but did
` in 1675 is that in 00122 we were given notice
` of the intended correction before we filed
` our patent owner preliminary response, and we
` felt that we were sufficiently able to
` address it in that response.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Thank you
` very much. That actually explains a lot and,
` I think, sort of confirms the panel's finding
` with respect to the motion to correct the
` petition in both cases but also in 1675.
` So the panel is going to grant the
` motion to correct. And the question -- and
` just to explain a little bit of the thought
` process -- which all this will be detailed in
` the order, but the order may not contain
` additional detail. It may, but I make no
` promises.
` It appeared to the panel uncontested
` that this error was a typo. And our rule
` contemplates specifically this type of
` situation, unlike some of the other cases
` that may or may not have been cited in
` different papers with respect to the motions
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` to correct, that it is acknowledged by both
` parties that this appears to be a typo.
` So the question for us is what is the
` broader implication on both the case,
` schedule, and on patent owner? At least
` those two. I don't mean to suggest there may
` not be others, but for us those were the two
` primary things.
` For the case, we're still early enough
` in the case that we did not feel there would
` be a potential prejudice to anybody just
` based on the timing of the case. That being
` said, there was an obvious issue with respect
` to the timing of patent owner's response in
` the 01675 case, and that's exactly the point
` that Mr. Chang just made with respect to the
` 00122 case, which is that there is no problem
` with timing because patent owner filed its
` preliminary response after having noticed
` that Mylan had a typo and sought correction.
` So we are going to grant the motion.
` Motion is granted.
` Second issue is how do we now
` accommodate patent owner filing a new
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` preliminary response in the 1675 case?
` So, Mr. Chang, what did you have in mind
` there?
` MR. CHANG: So our proposal there was
` simply that we would file an amended
` preliminary response with the amendments
` limited to addressing the impact of the new
` citation. Effectively, we would strip out
` the language that was in the already filed
` response where we had asserted that the
` citation didn't stand for what it was
` purported to stand for and insert our
` response to the new citation.
` The rest of the preliminary response
` would not be changed; and, if it would be,
` you know, helpful, we could submit as an
` exhibit with it a redline showing exactly
` what is changed. I imagine we can do that in
` fairly short order, potentially by the end of
` the week.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: That was going to
` be my second question, which was the timing,
` understanding that Monday is a holiday. So
` I'm not looking to put added pressure on
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` anybody.
` So what do you think is reasonable for
` when you would have this filed?
` MR. CHANG: I think if we could get
` until Tuesday, so essentially three business
` days, I think we could definitely get it done
` in that time.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Does that mean that
` everybody's gonna be working on the holiday?
` MR. CHANG: No, I would --
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Or should we make
` it the 20th?
` MR. CHANG: If the board is willing to
` accommodate the 20th, we'll take it. I think
` that should be plenty of time.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. With the
` caveat then we're not looking to have
` everybody work on the holiday, right?
` MR. CHANG: Correct.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: All right.
` Mr. Torczon, is there anything that
` petitioner would like to share with or
` questions about what we discussed with the
` motion to correct or any objection to patent
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` owner's proposal to file an amended
` preliminary response by February 20?
` MR. TORCZON: No, Your Honor. All
` along, our concern has mostly been about
` scope and clarity of the changes. I think
` the changes that they made in the 122 IPR,
` you know, satisfy our concerns about scope.
` So we're happy to proceed as you propose.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. So let me
` make sure that there's no questions.
` Patent owner will file an amended
` preliminary response in the 01675 case by
` Wednesday, February 20.
` Any questions anymore about the motion
` to correct from petitioner?
` MR. TORCZON: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: From patent owner?
` MR. CHANG: Just to clarify, does the
` board also want filed with the amended
` preliminary response the redline, or would
` the amended document itself be sufficient?
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: The amended
` document is sufficient.
` MR. CHANG: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Essentially --
` well, I can speak for myself, but my
` colleagues may be curious. When I review it
` all in detail, I won't even be looking at the
` one that was already filed.
` MR. CHANG: Yes, Your Honor. That's
` what we intended by proposing that we just
` file an amended document as well.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: And I look at it --
` and maybe I'm incorrect, but I had to learn
` this kind of the hard way that, when there's
` something amended, it should supersede what
` was filed before; but, when there's a
` supplemental, it essentially adds rather than
` supersedes. But it's always good to clarify.
` I think I heard somebody ask a question.
` MR. TORCZON: This is Richard Torczon,
` Your Honor, from Mylan. I was going to
` propose -- it's fine that they put in the
` substitute response. I was wondering if it
` would be appropriate just to have them mark
` the changes, just so it's clear where the
` changes are, just because it will help us be
` sure we understand the scope of the change.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` So underlining or highlighting or
` something like that.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Then so be
` it. So let's do this. You know, if we're
` gonna do that, I guess we need -- I guess we
` need an exhibit, you know, with the redline
` changes.
` Does that sound legitimate, Mr. Chang?
` MR. CHANG: Yes, we can do that.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. But not as a
` paper. Just the paper -- just, you know, the
` amended document.
` MR. CHANG: Understood.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Any other
` questions about the motion to correct?
` MR. TORCZON: I have a question, Your
` Honor. This is Richard Torczon again.
` We simply filed an exhibit. Based on
` what you just said, I'm wondering if you
` wanted us to file a substitute petition. I
` don't think it's necessary, but to the extent
` the panel wants one, we're happy to do it.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: So I think that the
` scope of the change is such that it's no
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` problem to leave it as is. My recollection
` was that, when we talked about the motion, we
` thought it was sufficient because it was just
` a line-cite change that it be sort of filed
` the way that you did, which I think -- I
` think it was just an exhibit to the motion.
` MR. TORCZON: Yes.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Is that right?
` MR. TORCZON: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: I guess the panel
` would say that it's, you know, sort of
` petitioner's choice. I think we're fine the
` way it is. It will clearly be stated
` otherwise, and we've talked about it so much
` that I don't think somebody reviewing this
` would be confused based on the record we've
` set.
` But, if you want to discuss with your
` client and you decide that you would like to
` file a corrected petition, I think the panel
` would be okay with that.
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, Mylan is
` trying to keep these proceedings from getting
` overcomplicated. That's been our goal all
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` along. So if you were happy with the
` exhibit, we are happy to rest with the
` exhibit.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Sounds good.
` So let me -- I'm always hesitant to say it,
` but any other questions on the motion to
` correct?
` MR. CHANG: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Sounds good.
` So the second item that I have on my
` list is just following up on the housekeeping
` of the record. And I apologize. It sounded
` like there was some confusion just in the
` email, and that's completely my fault. I am
` talking about now two cases, IPR2018-01675
` and IPR2018-01680.
` On our last call we talked about 1675
` and specifically that there were -- or I
` should say are three different papers
` identified as the petition, and we asked that
` the petitioner let us know which one should
` be kept and which ones we don't need. We
` received your email which indicated in 1675
` that papers 3 and 4 are duplicates of paper 2
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` and that we could expunge papers 3 and 4.
` The question back was that, you know,
` whenever we're talking about something
` happening with the record in general or
` taking a certain action, we want both sides
` to speak on the issue.
` So we didn't mean to come across in an
` unusual way, but in any communication to us
` the ideal situation, unless there is some
` all-out emergency, is that one side sends an
` email to the other side, "Hey, we're gonna
` write to the board, and we're gonna say this.
` Do you want to add something?" And, if so,
` take what they're adding, and you guys agree.
` And then one person sends it, and you can
` have both sides' views, you know, direct
` copy-and-paste in the same email.
` So we don't have to have a
` back-and-forth between us and you, back and
` forth, who's ready at this time? And we
` don't have to receive multiple emails from
` everybody on the same point. That is all in
` one email. That satisfies the meet and
` confer requirement and also makes it easier
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` just from a keeping-things-together
` perspective.
` So I'm just going to ask patent owner,
` Mr. Chang or otherwise, does patent owner
` object to expunging papers 3 and 4 from Case
` 01675?
` MR. CHANG: We have no objection to
` that, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. And does
` patent owner object -- so in the -- I
` apologize. I'm going to restart that second
` part, but the transcript keeps going. So I'm
` stuck.
` In 01680, we were told by petitioner
` that paper 3 is a duplicate of paper 2. And
` I'm just clicking over to that case, 1680.
` In that case we have two documents identified
` as the petition. So we said that we could
` expunge paper 3, the duplicate of paper 2.
` Mr. Chang, does patent owner object to
` that?
` MR. CHANG: Also no objection.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Mr. Torczon,
` is there anything else we should talk about
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` about expunging the papers, or are we good to
` proceed?
` MR. TORCZON: I think you're good to
` proceed, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Perfect.
` Now I have the third issue on the list
` for our discussion is -- and we got a
` second -- I believe two emails on this, the
` second one came in this morning. This is
` about Case IPR2019-00122. And specific to
` this case is the request by petitioner to
` file a reply to patent owner's preliminary
` response to respond to arguments made with
` respect to discretionary basis for denying
` institution under 314, which is similar to
` the issue that we already addressed in the
` four related cases where we authorized
` petitioner to file a 12-page reply and for
` patent owner to file a sur-reply, and it
` looks like we limited each sur-reply to five
` pages.
` Anything I said inaccurate about that,
` Mr. Torczon, so far?
` MR. TORCZON: So far, so good, Your
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Mr. Chang,
` anything I said that's inaccurate so far?
` MR. CHANG: Not so far, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. I'm assuming
` that both sides got to discuss this. And I'm
` assuming there was a disagreement based on
` the emails. The disagreement was about the
` number of pages.
` So I looked at the situation. And what
` it looks like -- and I'm not here to make the
` arguments for you, but I hope we can narrow
` this a little. It looks like petitioner
` would like to have more pages, specifically,
` I guess, in discussions, asked about 24
` pages -- that's two, four -- because patent
` owner, in its preliminary response in the
` 00122 case, responded to arguments that
` petitioner made in its replies from, say, at
` least the 01675 case, which then resulted in
` patent owner's 314 arguments being
` substantially longer than those that were
` made in the other preliminary responses. And
` so petitioner would like to have more pages
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` because the argument spans more pages.
` And I understand from the emails today
` that patent owner would like to keep
` petitioner's reply to the same contours as
` what we had in the other four cases, which
` would be 12 pages.
` Mr. Torczon, what am I missing, if
` anything?
` MR. TORCZON: I think that's
` substantially right. I mean, I think we can
` get a little color to it. As you indicated,
` there seems to be sort of progressive
` briefing going on here, sort of an
` unfortunate consequence of the way the cases
` got docketed. These cases have been all
` spread out. And so, as Your Honor pointed
` out, Sanofi essentially has put in its
` sur-reply in its preliminary response.
` The problem from our perspective is not
` only did they essentially double the number
` of pages, there are new arguments, there are
` eight new exhibits. That seems to us to be a
` significant increase and expansion of what
` was previously presented.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` So it's going to be hard to address all
` of that in the 12 pages. It seems to us
` that, given the doubling and the significant
` increase overall, a doubling of our pages
` would be appropriate. If not, if we're going
` to be kept to 12 or something approaching 12,
` I think there would be two consequences.
` One is, despite our efforts to try to
` maintain unity across the cases, we're going
` to have to slice and dice and compact stuff
` from the earlier replies in order to fit in
` the new argument.
` I also think it raises a question of
` whether a sur-reply is even appropriate at
` that point given that Sanofi will have
` already had a chance to put in a sur-reply.
` So I think that, because of the way the
` briefing has developed, it complicates the
` issues. But I think the -- because of that
` change, the original solution's no longer
` appropriate. We'd be happy to go with 24.
` If the panel wants a sur-reply, that's fine
` too.
` But if it's less than that, I really
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` think, one, the quality of the briefing will
` suffer; but, two, it raises a serious
` question about whether a sur-reply is
` appropriate.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Let me turn
` the floor to Mr. Chang if there's anything to
` add from patent owner's perspective.
` MR. CHANG: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
` I think, from our perspective, what was
` really happening here is that the petitioner
` is requesting the 12-page reply that they've
` gotten in the other proceedings and what is
` effectively a 12-page sur-reply, as Your
` Honor pointed out, to respond to our
` responses to the arguments that we were on
` notice of at the time that we filed this
` preliminary response.
` And that's really why we put in the
` increased -- the additional arguments that
` increased pages, because we understand that
` the normal practice before the board is that
` the parties should use their principal paper
` to address, you know, any potential
` counterarguments of which they had notice.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` So, in this particular instance, because
` of the circumstances, granting the petitioner
` twice as many pages for reply would
` essentially be giving them a response to the
` sur-reply arguments as opposed to just
` providing them the reply that they had in the
` other proceeding.
` And I think it's also worth pointing out
` that there are still four additional
` proceedings between these parties in which
` patent owner preliminary responses have not
` been filed yet. So if petitioner gets the
` 24-page reply that they're seeking now, then
` that's going to put us on notice of
` additional arguments that we'll have to
` address in our next preliminary response
` which -- you know, that would just increase
` the pages more and potentially result in us
` winding up back here a couple weeks down the
` road talking about whether the petitioner
` should get a 30-page reply.
` So I think our proposal is that we
` should keep the replies and sur-replies
` within the same contours as has already been
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` granted since we need to keep the -- to
` prevent the briefing schedule in these
` proceedings from spiraling out of control.
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, if I may?
` Your Honor, may Mylan reply?
` JUDGE MAYBERRY: This is Judge Mayberry.
` We're having a slight technical problem. If
` you'll bear with us for a moment, we'll be
` right back on.
` MR. TORCZON: Will do, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Hi, everyone.
` Apologies. Can anybody hear me?
` MR. TORCZON: Yes, Your Honor. This is
` Richard Torczon from Mylan. We can hear you.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Sorry about that.
` This is Judge Gerstenblith. My phone
` literally died, Mr. Chang, in the middle of
` what you were saying about 35 seconds ago.
` Let me just tell you the last thing I heard,
` and I apologize for asking you to repeat
` yourself.
` MR. CHANG: No problem.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: What I heard was
` that there were four -- and maybe this is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` just for elaboration also -- that there are
` four other cases that we haven't even been
` talking about so far today, to my
` understanding, that are in a similar
` situation as 00122; meaning, patent owner has
` not yet filed a preliminary response,
` although, in 00122, patent owner has just
` literally -- I believe it was two days ago,
` if I'm right.
` MR. CHANG: Yes.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Can you continue
` from that point -- I apologize -- with the
` general idea of what you were saying.
` MR. CHANG: Yes, Your Honor.
` The idea there is that, you know, I
` think we have preliminary responses due in
` those other four proceedings, you know,
` several weeks to a month from now. And if
` we're in a situation here where the
` petitioner is now going to get a 24-page
` reply brief to introduce arguments that are
` responsive to what was in the 00122
` preliminary response, you know, that is, in
` turn, going to put us on notice of additional
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` arguments that we will need to address in
` those subsequent preliminary responses, which
` will further increase the number of pages
` that we devote to this issue.
` And our concern is just that, if that
` happens, that we're just going to end up back
` here on the phone with the board down the
` road discussing whether authorization is
` appropriate for a 30-page reply or a 36-page
` reply. And, you know, to head that off, we
` think that the 12-page reply and 5-page
` sur-reply that were authorized in the other
` proceedings is the appropriate scope of the
` briefing and that sticking to those contours
` will prevent the briefing in the subsequent
` matters from getting out of hand.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: So let me just tell
` you that this is a very interesting issue
` from a scheduling perspective as well as a
` legal perspective of sorts, the obvious
` scheduling problem being that these cases are
` very staggered. The legal perspective
` being -- you know, I'm not going to sit here
` and pick, you know, which came first, so to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` speak, the chicken or the egg.
` In other words, you have additional
` information. Should you or should you not
` include it in a paper or not? I'm certainly
` not going to say one way or the other right
` now.
` I will point out an obvious -- excuse
` the pun in patent law -- but an obvious --
` the obvious reason that we are in this spot
` right now -- and, again, I'm not looking to
` say -- to point fingers as to whether it's
` right or wrong -- just a point of fact is
` that, in the 00122 case, patent owner has
` made different arguments than what was on
` that issue in the other cases.
` So what patent owner is asking us is to
` tell petitioner, hey, I know patent owner
` made a bunch more arguments, but you know
` what? You're not allowed to talk about them
` until, you know, I don't know when -- when,
` if ever. And you can't talk about them,
` petitioner, because we didn't talk about them
` in the other cases.
` They didn't have a brief, right?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1039
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01675
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`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
`
` PROCEEDINGS
` So we're in this spot because there's
` something different. So the question is, do
` we allow and accommodate for that difference
` and what ramifications it has? Or do we try
` to go back to a point where there isn't a
` difference and go from there?
` So we want to be very mindful of
` fairness to everybody, right? But also
` understand that th
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
