`
` 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S.LLC, ET AL,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` vs. CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 1:17CV181
`
`MYLAN N.V. ET AL,
`
` Defendant.
`
`- - -
`
`Proceedings had in the Motion/Scheduling Conference of
`
`the above styled action on January 3, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.,
`
`before The Honorable Irene M. Keeley, Senior Judge, at
`
`Clarksburg, West Virginia.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`FRANK E. SIMMERMAN, JR., ESQUIRE
`CHAD L. TAYLOR, ESQUIRE
`Simmerman Law Office PLLC
`254 E. Main Street
`Clarksburg, West Virginia 26301
`304-623-4900
`
`ELIZABETH WEISWASSER, ESQUIRE
`PRIYATA PATEL, ESQUIRE
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10153
`212-310-8022
`
`Proceedings recorded by stenomask, transcript produced by
`official court reporter.
`
`LINDA L. BACHMAN, CCR, CVR-M, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`P.O. BOX 969, CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA 26302-0969
`304-282-0395
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.001
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 1452
`
` 2
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`
`ROBERT T. VLASIS, III, ESQUIRE
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW - Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005-3314
`202-682-7000
`
`JEFFREY A. KIMBLE, ESQUIRE
`E. RYAN KENNEDY, ESQUIRE
`Robinson & McElwee, PLLC
`P.O. Box 128
`Clarksburg, West Virginia 26302
`304-622-5022
`
`DOUGLAS H. CARSTEN, ESQUIRE
`ELHAM F. STEINER, ESQUIRE
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, California 92130
`858-350-2300
`
`LINDA L. BACHMAN, CCR, CVR-M, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`P.O. BOX 969, CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA 26302-0969
`304-282-0395
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.002
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 1453
`
` 3
`
`I N D E X
`
`WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
`
`(No Witnesses Called)
`
`
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.003
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 1454
`
` 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
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(01-03-2018, 10:00 o'clock a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Good morning to all. Would the Clerk
`
`please call the case?
`
`THE CLERK: This is the case of Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
`
`LLC, et al versus Mylan N.V. et al, Civil Action 1:17CV181.
`
`Will counsel please note their appearance?
`
`MR. SIMMERMAN: Good morning, Your Honor, may it
`
`please the Court. Frank Simmerman and Chad Taylor on behalf
`
`of Sanofi. If I may introduce respectively the Weil team.
`
`To my right is Elizabeth Weiswasser, I want to say
`
`Weiswasser but in any event--
`
`THE COURT: We're in the States, not in Germany.
`
`MR. SIMMERMAN: That's right.
`
`THE COURT: Or Austria, as the case may be.
`
`MR. SIMMERMAN: Seated behind me is Robert Vlasis,
`
`Your Honor, and also Priyata Patel. They've all been
`
`admitted pro hac and also with us today is Stephanie
`
`Donahue, U.E. Ms. Donahue is the Senior Director of Patent
`
`Litigation at Sanofi.
`
`THE COURT: Well, good morning to all of you to
`
`freezing West Virginia, but not too much different from
`
`where you probably came from.
`
`All right. Good morning to Mylan's counsel. Who's
`
`leading?
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.004
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 1455
`
` 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
`
`MR. KIMBLE: Good morning, Your Honor, Jeff Kimble
`
`and Ryan Kennedy from Robinson McElwee Clarksburg here for
`
`Mylan and also seated to my left, the far left is Elham
`
`Steiner and to my direct left is Doug Carsten, both with the
`
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati firm in San Diego,
`
`California.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Good morning to all of you
`
`as well. The hearing this morning is scheduled for several
`
`purposes but I think initially we'd better move directly to
`
`the motion to stay. Is that how you all saw this this
`
`morning, to handle the motion to stay first?
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: All right. I'll be happy to hear
`
`counsel on that and I have read the briefs.
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: You can move that microphone so you
`
`don't have to lean over. Thank you.
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Thank you to my colleague Frank
`
`Simmerman for introducing me this morning. As he said my
`
`name is Elizabeth Weiswasser. I'm at Weil Gotshal & Manges
`
`in New York City. It's a privilege to be before Your Honor
`
`this morning on behalf of Sanofi.
`
`We recognize that Your Honor has read the stay briefing.
`
`As you know we filed, on behalf of Sanofi, our lead action
`
`in New Jersey. The New Jersey case is assigned to Judge
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.005
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 1456
`
` 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
`
`Chesler and Magistrate Judge Waldor. The case is moving
`
`along actively on the merits. We had a scheduling
`
`conference with Judge Waldor in the middle of December.
`
`We have a schedule that we have provided to Your Honor
`
`that takes the parties through the claim construction
`
`proceedings.
`
`We have exchanged our initial disclosures.
`
`We have served merits discovery and Mylan will be
`
`providing its contentions in two weeks and Sanofi will be
`
`responding to those contentions in the beginning of March.
`
`The case is moving well along on the merits.
`
`THE COURT: There's been no ruling on the venue
`
`motion?
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: No, the merits proceeding is
`
`moving along in parallel with the venue briefing.
`
`As Your Honor--
`
`THE COURT: Who has the venue motion?
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Judge Chesler and he will be
`
`ruling on the venue motion. The only thing that remains is
`
`Mylan will be filing its reply brief, I believe it is this
`
`Friday and then--
`
`THE COURT: The motion will be ripe at the end of
`
`this week?
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: It will be ripe at the end of this
`
`week. Judge Chesler will either have an oral hearing or not
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.006
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 1457
`
` 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
`
`on the venue motion. We do expect that there will be a
`
`decision at some time in the near future.
`
`I did want to let you know, and I believe this was in
`
`our 26(f) report, it's probably about a month ago now, we
`
`had proposed a stipulation to Mylan that in our view would
`
`effectively eliminate the need for any venue dispute in New
`
`Jersey. We had proposed that we would dismiss the three
`
`Mylan entities that have not submitted the FDA application
`
`and what that would leave is one Mylan entity that is a
`
`foreign entity. It is not incorporated in the U.S. and in
`
`our view, and I know that Mylan disputes this, but in our
`
`view it's very clear under Heartland and Brunette and also
`
`under Mylan's position they've taken in another case that
`
`venue is appropriate in any--in any court against a foreign
`
`entity, but we have proposed that stipulation to them that
`
`would remove the two domestic entities and the other Mylan
`
`entity as long as they would agree to be bound by any final
`
`ruling and to provide discovery to us.
`
`We sent that to them about a month ago and then after we
`
`talked about that with Judge Waldor in New Jersey at the
`
`scheduling conference and she seemed certainly very
`
`interested in the streamlining that would provide and also
`
`eliminate the need for any venue discovery, we had
`
`re-proposed that to Mylan but we just haven't heard from
`
`them.
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.007
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 1458
`
` 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
`
`All of that said, Your Honor, everything is moving in
`
`parallel. As I said the venue dispute will be fully briefed
`
`as of Friday. We expect a decision in the relative near
`
`term but most importantly everything is proceeding on the
`
`merits and we have a scheduling order.
`
`THE COURT: Your scheduling order does not include
`
`a trial date however, correct?
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Yes, it does not, and that really
`
`goes to Judge Chesler's practice. What he does is he will
`
`typically, and that is the case here, provide a schedule
`
`that takes the parties through the claim construction
`
`proceedings and that's what we see here where claim
`
`construction briefing will be complete by the end of the
`
`summer. Sometimes he will hold an oral claim construction
`
`hearing. Sometimes he will decide just to make a decision
`
`on the papers. What he has done is he has set aside the
`
`week of September 10th of this year for a Markman hearing if
`
`he decides he would like to have one and also subject to the
`
`Court's availability.
`
`What's important about that date though, it's right now
`
`the same tentative goal date that is in the related
`
`litigation that Sanofi has pending against Merck--
`
`THE COURT: In Delaware?
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: No, in New Jersey.
`
`THE COURT: Oh, in New Jersey. Okay. Oh, that's
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.008
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 1459
`
` 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
`
`right. Yeah.
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Yeah. There are two different
`
`cases against Merck right now. One is before Judge Andrews
`
`in Delaware and that case is going to trial this May.
`
`THE COURT: That's only on two of the patents?
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: No. That is actually on eight
`
`patents, the one in Delaware.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: That--Your Honor, that case
`
`involves a pen product and that's why there are both device
`
`patents and formulation patents asserted in Delaware.
`
`In New Jersey the Merck case is on a vial product and
`
`that only involves two of the patents, the two formulation
`
`patents. We are asserting the same two formulation patents
`
`here and Mylan has vial and pen products.
`
`Getting back to your question about a trial date. So
`
`what Judge Chesler does, and what you'll see reflected on
`
`the scheduling order, is he then cues the dates up through
`
`the trial off of the issuance of the claim construction
`
`ruling and that's more efficient because it allows for
`
`expert discovery and disclosures based on the claim
`
`construction rulings.
`
`I think what's most important for Your Honor's purposes
`
`is that Judge Chesler has--he has presided over, I think
`
`it's about fifty Hatch-Waxman cases. He is cognizant of the
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.009
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 1460
`
`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
`
`unique posture of these cases, the importance of resolving
`
`them well in advance of expiration of the thirty month stay.
`
`And during the hearing that Judge Waldor had with the
`
`parties in New Jersey in the middle of December she did
`
`repeatedly recognize, and it's reflected on her order, that
`
`the Court will be mindful of expiration of the stay. She
`
`will have periodic check ins with the party and in fact
`
`our first one is scheduled now for March 1st when she wants
`
`to talk with the parties, make sure that everything is
`
`moving along with the aim of having this case trial ready
`
`sufficiently in advance of expiration of the thirty month
`
`stay so that there won't be any issue as to whether Judge
`
`Chesler will have resolved the merits issues well in advance
`
`of the thirty month stay.
`
`THE COURT: All right. If I look at the dates that
`
`have been provided to me and your proposed dates in this
`
`case, for example, a bench trial date in November or
`
`December of 2019, the--the change in the statute takes place
`
`in March of 2020?
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Yes, March 23rd.
`
`THE COURT: It's a major point in Mylan's briefs
`
`that I think is well taken--
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Uh-huh (yes).
`
`THE COURT: --which you haven't addressed yet, and
`
`I assume that it was addressed by Judge Chesler?
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.010
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 1461
`
`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
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: What she--let me give you--
`
`THE COURT: Judge Waldor, excuse me.
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Yeah. Judge Waldor. So first of
`
`all, the trial date that Sanofi is proposing for New Jersey
`
`is in October of 2019 and that's five months before
`
`expiration of the thirty month stay and we would propose a
`
`conditional trial date here maybe about a month after that
`
`in November of 2019.
`
`Let me explain the transition date. First of all, it is
`
`our view that this is not the fire drill at all that Mylan
`
`has identified it to be. What the transition date is, and
`
`it's March 23rd of 2020, it is the date when the FDA will
`
`start looking at insulin as a biologic and so it will no
`
`longer be governed by the Hatch-Waxman Act.
`
`So import--
`
`THE COURT: My understanding was from reviewing the
`
`regs and reading the briefs, and I don't mean to interject
`
`but it is a main question I have, what--what I understood is
`
`there will be--any case in process--any NDA case in process
`
`will simply die on the vine.
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Right. And so--
`
`THE COURT: It did sound like a bit of a fire drill
`
`to me as a consequence.
`
`MR. WEISWASSER: Let me explain to you why it is
`
`not a fire drill. Okay. So, first of all there are two
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.011
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 1462
`
`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
`
`issues with obtaining final FDA approval in advance of the
`
`transition date. One are the patent issues. That's what
`
`this case is about. The other one are regulatory issues
`
`that have nothing to do with anything here.
`
`THE COURT: The FDA issues.
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: With the FDA and that's Mylan's
`
`back and forth with the FDA to make sure that they have
`
`everything together such that the FDA is comfortable
`
`approving it for regulatory reasons.
`
`When the thirty month stay expires, there is no
`
`longer--as a matter of law under the statute, there is no
`
`longer any patent related barrier to approval. That stay
`
`expires on March 18th of 2020.
`
`Now what Mylan has said, and will tell you, is that it's
`
`not doable for them to get this conversion in that two day
`
`business day period, which they will say, or five day
`
`period, but that--that is not the reality of how this is
`
`going to play out. Okay.
`
`First of all, we are proposing and we understand Judge
`
`Chesler is committed to, not resolving this case on the very
`
`last day that the stay expires. He's committed to, and his
`
`practice has been, to get this case resolved in advance of
`
`the thirty month stay and we're proposing October 2019 as
`
`the trial date so that that is doable. Okay. So that's the
`
`patent side of it.
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.012
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 1463
`
`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
`
`The regulatory side of it, that transition date is
`
`twenty-seven months from now. It is really on Mylan to work
`
`with the FDA, and our understanding is that the FDA wants to
`
`do this, that it's its regular practice to work with ANDA or
`
`505(b)(2) applicants to make sure that the regulatory issues
`
`are addressed well in advance of expiration of the thirty
`
`month stay. Mylan now has over two years to work with the
`
`FDA to secure what we will call the tentative approval and
`
`the way that works is that once the FDA concludes that all
`
`of the regulatory requirements for obtaining approval, safe,
`
`effective, et cetera, are met it will issue what's called a
`
`tentative approval. All that remains than to secure the
`
`final approval is resolution of the patent issues. They
`
`have twenty-seven months between now and then to secure that
`
`tentative approval. As a practical matter we're not saying
`
`that the patent issues won't be resolved until two business
`
`days before the--before the transition date. We're
`
`proposing to get it resolved five months before.
`
`What they're asking Your Honor to do now is to run
`
`everything in parallel with the schedule that's already in
`
`place and moving along in New Jersey and give them a trial
`
`date a year from this April. Okay. That's fifteen months
`
`from now.
`
`First of all, this is an eighteen patent case. It's
`
`complicated. I think it would be highly prejudicial to us
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.013
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 1464
`
`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
`
`to even get this case ready for trial by a year from April,
`
`but putting that aside, that is not necessary, that kind of
`
`prejudice. There's no reason to try this case in fifteen
`
`months. We propose to get it done and I think the New
`
`Jersey court is committed to doing it, by October of next
`
`year.
`
`Now let me just say this. What we're proposing today is
`
`not that you stay the case for all time. What we're
`
`proposing is that for efficiency reasons we let Judge
`
`Chesler and Judge Waldor continue to move this forward. We
`
`stay the case. We can set a conditional trial date, until
`
`we see what Judge Chesler does on venue. Okay. And we'll
`
`report to you when there is a decision. We'll do periodic
`
`status updates, whatever it is that would make you
`
`comfortable, just to make sure that everything is proceeding
`
`and what we would propose to do is let Judge Chesler decide
`
`whether he has venue or not. If he concludes, as we believe
`
`he will, but it's within his own purview to make the
`
`decision, that venue is appropriate in New Jersey, at that
`
`point we will continue it forward and we'll resolve the case
`
`and he's perfectly experienced and capable of doing that.
`
`If he concludes, however, that he does not have venue,
`
`this is not a situation where that case is stagnant, that
`
`nothing is getting done. What Your Honor can be comfortable
`
`with, we would respectfully submit, is that merits
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.014
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 1465
`
`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
`
`discovery, contentions, claim construction, it's moving
`
`forward and so if Judge Chesler ultimately concludes he does
`
`not have venue, we can take all the good work that's being
`
`done in New Jersey and move it to this court and then
`
`continue and move toward a trial date that we would propose
`
`for October or November of 2019 and resolve this case
`
`responsibly well in advance of the thirty month stay.
`
`And in the meantime, during all of these months, Mylan
`
`has its own job to do with the FDA to make sure that it gets
`
`its tentative approval so that it can work responsibly with
`
`the FDA, that when the patent issues are resolved, and
`
`again, they will be before the thirty month stay expires,
`
`they can then move to their final approval and this will all
`
`be in advance of the transition date.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.
`
`MS. WEISWASSER: Sure.
`
`THE COURT: Mylan's counsel.
`
`MR. CARSTEN: Good morning, Your Honor. May it
`
`please the Court. My name is Doug Carsten from Wilson
`
`Sonsini in San Diego.
`
`First, let me just thank the Court for moving the
`
`scheduling conference up by three weeks in response to our
`
`request to do so.
`
`THE COURT: I thought you might have had buyer's
`
`remorse when you saw the weather.
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.015
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 16 of 39 PageID #: 1466
`
`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
`
`MR. CARSTEN: I may well have and I thought I had
`
`some extra room in my carry-on to bring some sunny weather
`
`from San Diego but it turns out I didn't.
`
`Your Honor, you're absolutely right, when you say that
`
`this is a bit of a fire drill. This is not your--
`
`THE COURT: No, no, you all said it. She said it's
`
`not. I said I thought it kind of looked like one but it's
`
`up to you all to convince me that it is.
`
`MR. CARSTEN: Fair enough. Well, let me do my best
`
`to do that. This is not your typical Hatch-Waxman case
`
`where we usually have the thirty month stay that everyone's
`
`concerned about and Ms. Weiswasser talked a fair bit about
`
`securing tentative approval and rest assured Mylan is doing
`
`everything it can to secure that tentative approval but here
`
`we have a bit of a sword of Damocles hanging over our head
`
`that's beyond the thirty month stay and that is the March
`
`23rd date.
`
`On March 23rd, if we have tentative approval, according
`
`to what the FDA has been telling us thus far, we have
`
`nothing. It will be a--I think you said it dies on the
`
`vine. Our application would, in theory, die on the vine if
`
`the FDA maintains the position it's taken to date. A
`
`tentative approval doesn't get us there. We would have to
`
`have a final approval.
`
`THE COURT: I was--I was wondering with regard to
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.016
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 17 of 39 PageID #: 1467
`
`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
`
`those, I don't know that they're the final regs. Are those
`
`draft regulations that are out for comment or are those in
`
`fact the FDA's final regs on all of this?
`
`MR. CARSTEN: I believe, Your Honor, that they are
`
`the draft guidances and we have--
`
`THE COURT: Well they called it guidance so I
`
`wasn't sure from the administrative law side of this whether
`
`they are subject to comment, are they subject to further
`
`drafting or editing or is this the guidance that you all
`
`should rely on because it is not going to change?
`
`MR. CARSTEN: That's a great question, Your Honor,
`
`and I don't know that I have the final answer on that. I
`
`certainly know that Mylan is behaving as if this is thus far
`
`the last word.
`
`There was an opportunity for comment and I believe that
`
`in Sanofi-Aventis' reply brief at Exhibit 1 they provided
`
`the Mylan letter as Exhibit 1 to the reply brief that we had
`
`provided to the FDA in which we told the FDA that this kind
`
`of draconian drop dead date or what we call the transition
`
`date, would be devastating to our ongoing development
`
`efforts. I think we said that in--sometime in 2016, so
`
`we've been fighting that fight as well.
`
`But here we sit with an application that we've prepared
`
`and submitted to the FDA as timely as we could and now we're
`
`looking at a date that's--with a potential transition date,
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.017
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 18 of 39 PageID #: 1468
`
`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
`
`you know, five days or really two business days after the
`
`expiration of the thirty month stay.
`
`Now, Your Honor, I understand that Ms. Weiswasser has
`
`said, well look, Mylan, you can do all you can to sort of
`
`work the system in the twenty odd months you've got between
`
`now and then and sure we're doing that.
`
`But the FDA, God bless their souls, they're a big
`
`organization and to expect that the FDA is going to turn on
`
`a dime and convert a tentative approval to a final approval
`
`within two business days or even more generously under their
`
`schedule or proposal, assuming that we get a decision from
`
`Judge Chesler some time a month or so before then, that in
`
`that month the FDA's going to do that, I don't want to put
`
`my chips in--on that table the way it is.
`
`THE COURT: Well in the letter it talks about a
`
`regulatory dead zone as opposed to the fire drill and you
`
`all are suggesting in this letter to the FDA that that
`
`could--that is a dead zone that could last anywhere from two
`
`to four years and it's--there's a footnote. If the
`
`regulatory dead zone extends four years prior to March 23rd,
`
`2020, it would've started on March 23rd, 2016, approximately
`
`a week after FDA issued the draft guidance.
`
`So I was trying to kind of fit the puzzle together to
`
`see whether candidly you have any hope at all of meeting
`
`these deadlines.
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.018
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 19 of 39 PageID #: 1469
`
`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
`
`MR. CARSTEN: I think we do, Your Honor, and
`
`certainly one way to do it is, as Ms. Weiswasser suggested,
`
`was to go ahead and do all we can on the regulatory side to
`
`get to a period of tentative approval and then resolve the
`
`patent issues as rapidly as we can. Because remember now,
`
`Your Honor, the thirty month stay, it's up to thirty months
`
`so it's up to thirty months or until we have a judgment on
`
`the merits.
`
`At that point then, Your Honor, we're not looking at a
`
`two business day or a month of time to try to convert that
`
`tentative approval to a final. We have four months or six
`
`months and, Your Honor, that's why I think it's so critical
`
`here that we come out today with a trial date that is akin
`
`to what this Court typically does in Hatch-Waxman cases or
`
`patent cases, which according to the information that we've
`
`looked at, looks like it's on the order of nineteen months
`
`from--from time of filing. I think that we can all operate
`
`under a schedule that is designed to get us there.
`
`It seemed to me that Sanofi was being fairly reasonable
`
`frankly in saying that the discovery that applies in one
`
`case applies in the other and I agree wholeheartedly with
`
`that.
`
`I would submit, Your Honor, that we proceed with setting
`
`a trial schedule here and setting dates and then proceeding
`
`under that schedule and we see what the District Court in
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.019
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 20 of 39 PageID #: 1470
`
`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
`
`New Jersey with Judge Chesler does.
`
`THE COURT: Well if we have a concept of judicial
`
`efficiency and economy in mind, let me start with the
`
`argument that Sanofi opened with on the stipulation that it
`
`was offered to Mylan and that there's been no response
`
`because candidly, in our review of the briefs in New Jersey,
`
`it looks like, you know, the big argument, not that it was
`
`raised here and it need not be, but it really depends on a
`
`different venue statute then the patent venue statute,
`
`right?
`
`MR. CARSTEN: Well--
`
`THE COURT: I'm just saying that you've got what,
`
`four Mylan entities in the New Jersey case?
`
`MR. CARSTEN: There are four Mylan entities that
`
`Sanofi has sued in New Jersey and here, Your Honor. Yes,
`
`that's correct.
`
`THE COURT: Right. And the applicant for the ANDA
`
`or the A-N-D-A, is the foreign entity?
`
`MR. CARSTEN: It is. Mylan GMBH, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: GMBH. And so if--if we're waiting to
`
`hear from Judge Chesler on that issue, which does sound like
`
`a very interesting issue and I would assume knowing Judge
`
`Chesler's reputation, he'll get to that pretty quickly once
`
`it's fully briefed, are we wasting our time here today to go
`
`ahead and start scheduling here before we know whether in
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.020
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 21 of 39 PageID #: 1471
`
`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
`
`fact anything will show up here?
`
`MR. CARSTEN: I don't believe so, Your Honor, at
`
`all. I think the--the schedule--I actually think the
`
`scheduling order in New Jersey demonstrates exactly what
`
`we've been talking about and why we think it's critical that
`
`we do secure a trial date with Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Well, are you all the ones briefing the
`
`issue in New Jersey?
`
`MR. CARSTEN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So what is your expectation? Do
`
`you think Judge Chesler is going to have oral argument on
`
`the question? I mean it's not a--it's not a foursquare TC
`
`Heartland question.
`
`MR. CARSTEN: It is not, Your Honor. In fact
`
`there's sort of a pregnant piece of dicta in TC Heartland
`
`which says that it is not addressing the question of venue
`
`in patent cases over foreign defendants because of the--in
`
`part, having noted that the Brunette case was decided under
`
`a different statute. The statutory language had changed so
`
`I think it is an interesting issue and I don't believe that
`
`TC Heartland--I think TC Heartland certainly opened the door
`
`to a change in the patent venue for domestic and I think
`
`that it foretold that there may well be a change coming
`
`on--on international and non-U.S. resident entities as well.
`
`So that is an interesting issue.
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.021
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 22 of 39 PageID #: 1472
`
`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
`
`I would assume that Judge Chesler would hear oral
`
`argument. I know that Sanofi has requested discovery on
`
`this and in fact had told us that they were going to--that
`
`they were not going to file their opposition brief to our
`
`motion until they had discovery, then went ahead and filed
`
`their opposition, perhaps because of the motion to stay and
`
`so forth here, but they have reiterated--and before Judge
`
`Waldor their interest in taking venue discovery on these
`
`entities. They did put forth the stipulation but the
`
`stipulation would be you're in discovery, you're--you're
`
`actually--the entity GMBH would be in New Jersey, subject to
`
`the New Jersey thirty plus months standard time to trial
`
`that we're seeing and that just doesn't work in this case.
`
`THE COURT: I was a little interested in that
`
`statistic. Is that solely patent cases or is that all civil
`
`litigation?
`
`MR. CARSTEN: That's the--we provided Your Honor
`
`the citation to that. I believe it's all patent cases and I
`
`know that Judge Chesler is a very savvy judge when it comes
`
`to Hatch-Waxman cases. He hears them regularly, as do you,
`
`Your Honor. You've got your--more than your fair share of
`
`Hatch-Waxman cases as well. But I would submit that neither
`
`you, Your Honor, nor Judge Chesler has ever had a case where
`
`this particular transition date BPCIA issue has been raised
`
`and so to say that just because Judge Chesler is familiar
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2024.022
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00181-IMK Document 64 Filed 01/10/18 Page 23 of 39 PageID #: 1473
`
`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
`
`with--with trying or moving along Hatch-Waxman cases makes
`
`him the perfect candidate for this case, I don't--I don't
`
`think that necessarily follows, Your Honor.
`
`I actually think, and I would submit, with respect, that
`
`Your Honor, who has in the past when plaintiffs have come to
`
`you saying we need a stay and Mylan, for one reason or
`
`another, often times we agree. Okay, it's fine to stay it
`
`if we can get a conditional trial date et ce