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 1
`
` 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.
` --------------------------------
` IPR2018-01679 Patent No 8,882,486
` IPR2018-01680 Patent No. 9,526,844
` IPR2018-01682 Patent No. 9,526,844
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
` June 19, 2019
`
`Reported by:
`Randi J. Garcia, RPR
`Job No. 162983
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 1
`
` 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.
` --------------------------------
` IPR2018-01679 Patent No 8,882,486
` IPR2018-01680 Patent No. 9,526,844
` IPR2018-01682 Patent No. 9,526,844
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
` June 19, 2019
`
`Reported by:
`Randi J. Garcia, RPR
`Job No. 162983
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`
`June 19, 2019
`1:00 p.m.
`
`Telephonic Conference held before
`the Honorable PTAB Administrative Judges BART
`A. GERSTENBLITH, HYUN J. JUNG and JAMES A.
`TARTAL on June 19, 2019, held before Randi J.
`Garcia, RPR and Notary Public.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` PROCEEDINGS
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`BY: RICHARD TORCZON, ESQ.
`NICOLE STAFFORD, ESQ., WES DERRYBERRY, ESQ.
`ELLIE STEINER, ESQ.,
`TASHA THOMAS, ESQ.
`
`WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10153
`BY: ELIZABETH WEISWASSER, ESQ.
`BRIAN CHANG, ESQ.
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`601 Lexington Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10022
`CARL RENNER, JOHN GOETZ, JOSHUA
`GRISWOLD, ESQ. and KENNETH DARBY, ESQ.
`
`Also Present: Jovial Wong, Esq., Pfizer
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`78
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: This is
`IPR 2018-01670, 1676, 1678, 1679, 1682.
` THE REPORTER: Judge, can I have your
`name, please.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: This is
`judge Jung. J-U-N-G.
` And the last thing we will talk about
`is 1680 between Mylan Pharmaceuticals and
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland.
` With me is Judge Gerstenblith and
`Judge Tartal.
` Counsel for petitioner, please
`introduce yourselves.
` MR. TORCZON: Good afternoon, your
`Honor, this is Richard Torczon for
`petitioner Mylan.
` As you can tell, we have a court
`reporter on the line and we plan to file a
`transcript promptly.
` Also, from Mylan is Nicole Stafford,
`Wes Derryberry, Tasha Thomas and Ellie
`Steiner. And counsel for Pfizer has also
`called in Jovial Wong.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Thank
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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, Mr. Torczon. Make sure you file this
`transcript only in the cases I enumerated
`at the beginning. Is that understood?
` MR. TORCZON: Yes, your Honor.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Counsel
`for Patent Owner, please introduce
`yourselves.
` MS. WEISWASSER: Good afternoon,
`your Honor, this is Elizabeth Weiswasser.
`I'm at Weil. I'm lead counsel for the
`Patent Owner.
` And with me on the line also from
`Weil is backup counsel Brian Chang. I'm
`also joined on the call by a number of
`attorneys from the Fish & Richardson firm,
`who are also counsel for Patent Owner,
`will be handling the contingent motion to
`amend. And those attorneys are Carl
`Renner, John Goetz, Josh Griswold and Ken
`Darby.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Thank
`you, Ms. Weiswasser.
` The Panel appreciates the parties
`were able to propose additional dates and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`times for this conference. However, we
`were not able to meet last week. And the
`purpose of this conference will be, one,
`to satisfy Patent Owner's conference
`requirements before filing a motion to
`amend in, I believe it's cases
`IPR201801679, 1680 and 1682.
` And number two, to discuss Patent
`Owner's request to file a limited number
`of physical exhibits and cases,
`IPR201801670, 1676, 1678 and 1682.
` The Panel did receive a message from
`Petitioner also requested to discuss a
`pending motion for joinder. However, as
`of this Monday, the Panel has not been
`assigned to those cases, so the board is
`not ready to discuss those motions on this
`conference.
` And when the Panel is assigned the
`board will reach out to the parties for
`that conference.
` All right. So any questions about
`what we are going to discuss on this
`conference call, Mr. Torczon?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
` MR. TORCZON: No, your Honor.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: All
`right.. Ms. Weiswasser?
` MS. WEISWASSER: No questions, your
`Honor. Thank you.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: We will
`turn to the motion to amend first.
` All these cases are instituted either
`on April 2nd or April 3rd, the new pilot
`program for motions to amend applied to
`these cases. As you may already know, the
`pilot program affects cases instituted on
`or after March 15 --
` THE REPORTER: Judge, you're breaking
`up.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: -- which
`is the date that notice of the pilot
`program was published in the federal
`register.
` All right. Mr. Renner, since you
`will be writing or drafting the motion to
`amend, do you have experience in drafting
`and arguing in support of a motion to
`amend in a previous IPR?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, I have not
`submitted. We instead defended against
`motions to amend, but through that process
`I have some experience and, yet, the new
`rules, as we all know, are new rules. So
`I appreciate the question.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`I'll just briefly discuss motions to amend
`and then I will turn to the pilot program.
` So what goes into a motion to amend
`has not been changed by the pilot program,
`but the Patent Owner will propose a
`reasonable number of substitute claims,
`and proposed substitute claims may not
`enlarge the scope of the claims or
`introduce new matter.
` The Patent Owner must indicate where
`in the original disclosure or at earlier
`filed disclosure support can be found for
`a claim added or amended. And the
`proposed amendments must respond to
`grounds of patentability.
` There is a new precedential decision
`regarding motions to amend that can be
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`found on our website. The caption of that
`case is Lectrosonics versus Zaxcom.
` S-O-N-I-C-S versus Z-A-X-C-O-M. That
`is paper 15, 15, in IPR201801129.
` And I think everyone already knows
`the governing statute is Section 316 and
`Rule 121 applies to motions to amend. And
`further guidance can be found in our trial
`practice guide and the trial practice
`guide updates.
` With that said, Mr. Renner, did you
`have any questions about specific to the
`contents in a motion to amend at this
`point?
` MR. RENNER: Thank you, your Honor.
`Just two points of clarification, maybe.
`They do relate to the motion to amend
`themselves and pieces that would be, I
`think, governed by the aspects that
`preceded the new pilot program.
` Additionally, I did want to offer our
`intention to, under the pilot program,
`solicit preliminary guidance along with
`our motion to amend submission. I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`understand that needs to go in with the
`submission, but would welcome any further
`guidance on that as well.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`Your question's specific to the contents.
`Then I will turn to the pilot program and
`your request for preliminary guidance.
` MR. RENNER: Sounds great.
` On the two questions relating to the
`amendments. The first relates to
`identification of written description
`support. Again, something that we are
`familiar with and need to identify written
`description support, we're mindful of the
`page limit of 25 pages in the motion to
`amend. And in this case, you may have
`noticed there's a quite an extensive
`priority chain.
` So our question or intention, just to
`offer, and then to ask for any guidance
`that would be helpful, is instead of
`citing to specifically the lines in
`particular reproduced text for every one
`of the cases in the chain, we thought
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`efficiency be served by citing to the
`original oldest priority and then simply
`making the affirmative representation of
`that same material that is present in each
`of the claims in the chain.
` Again, we are trying to be efficient
`here with everybody's time and energy, and
`of course, observe the 25-page limit. If
`it were necessary to make a more
`extensive, if you will, citation to
`specific instances of the same language in
`each of the different priority cases,
`then, of course, that might affect our
`ability to get under the page limit.
` We just wanted to offer that and then
`ask for any guidance you may have as it
`relates to this.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Okay. I
`believe a lot of these challenged patents
`are continuation with one another. So if
`you want to maintain that claims priority
`to that earliest file disclosure, you will
`have to identify in the earliest
`disclosure where support is for your
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`amended claims.
` If you run into a problem with the
`page -- number of pages identified on the
`relevant places, I would like you to
`confer with the counsel on the other side
`and try to come to an agreement on how
`many additional pages would be required to
`cover all the additional requirements and
`then contact the board.
` If the parties are able to make an
`agreement as to how many additional pages
`they will be need, then the Panel will
`probably approve that request in an order.
` Any other questions about the motion
`to amend in particular?
` MR. RENNER: Sure. Just one follow
`up on that and then a different question
`on the amendment itself.
` Our concern there isn't the
`identification of the subject matter in
`the original priority case. We think that
`is a doable proposition to the page count.
`It is all the intervening cases. It
`really is the question of is it sufficient
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`to, given that these are continuations,
`not continuations in part, make the
`representation that the same subject
`matter appears throughout the priority
`chain, rather than going through the
`laborious task of line by line identifying
`the same subject matter that does indeed
`appear.
` We just want to make sure we are
`within -- we don't want to want run afoul
`of any expectation by the Board that we
`would make that more laborious showing on
`the intervening cases, and instead we
`would be consistent with rules in
`identifying the material in the earliest
`priority cases.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: I believe
`I would be satisfied if you were able to
`identify the supporting written
`description in the file document and then
`in the application at issue. For example,
`in this first case, identify and then make
`the representation that that same subject
`matter appears in all the intervening
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`applications. That would be sufficient
`for me.
` And that will put the other side on
`notice that you believe that the same
`written description support appears in
`every intervening application. Then they
`may -- that is enough, I believe, for the
`Petitioner to challenge you on that
`assertion.
` MR. RENNER: Thanks for the
`clarification. Yeah. That will be
`helpful for efficiency sake in mentioning.
`Thank you.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: With the
`answer to that last question, Mr. Torczon,
`do you have a question about that?
` MR. TORCZON: I only would observe
`that there is a benefit challenge at least
`in the 80 case and the 82 case, which
`would be effected by this proposal. So,
`certainly, as long as there is no
`prejudice, because that is on the table
`already. So that is something we think
`that they probably should address. But
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`since it basically says -- the argument is
`basically that there is no support, I'm
`not sure that it really makes a difference
`because the intervening cases wouldn't
`have the support either.
` But I just throw that out there, that
`the problem has been identified as an
`issue in at least those two IPRs.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Thank
`you, Mr. Torczon.
` And now back to Mr. Renner. I cut
`you off before you had a chance to ask
`your other question.
` MR. RENNER: Thank you.
` The other question runs to the
`amendments themselves. In these cases,
`there's obviously a requirement for a
`motion to amend to propose a reasonable
`number of substitute claims. And with
`respect to the '844 patent, the 1680 and
`1682 proceedings they both challenges 10
`claims each. We intend to offer
`conditional amendments to eight of the 10
`claims in them.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
` And our question relates to just one
`of those claims. And that is that we wish
`to offer two conditional amendments that
`are nearly identical to the single claim.
`And they're not believed to impose a new
`burden on the Board or Petitioner, but
`it's a little unusual and it doesn't
`comport perfectly with the presumption of
`one-to-one. So we wanted -- again, I'm --
`I have not seen that before. And I didn't
`want to, you know, assume things or run
`afoul of any guidance or any expectation
`the Board may have on how we could bring
`that into the proceeding or in the motions
`to amend.
` So we really are welcoming any
`feedback guidance on that as well. I can
`go into greater detail, if it is helpful.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: I would
`be open to allowing more than one proposed
`substitute claim for an original claim, if
`you explain why those two substitute
`claims -- I'm open to having two proposed
`substitute claims for one originally filed
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`claim. But Mr. Renner, you must explain
`in your motion to amend why you need two
`proposed substitute claims.
` MR. RENNER: Certainly. That is our
`expectation as well. Thank you.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: All
`right.
` MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, this is
`Richard Torczon. We are in kind of an
`awkward position here. We asked Sanofi to
`identify which claims they are proposing
`to amend, and they hadn't. I think at
`least on this two-for-one proposal it
`would be good to have them specifically
`identify which claim they are talking
`about and then this authorization, this
`limited authorization is specific to that
`claim because it -- I think the transcript
`will make it clear that that is what is
`being proposed and authorized.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: I just
`want to make clear that Mr. Renner's
`motion to amend must make it very clear
`which proposed substitute claim is a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`substitute for one of the original claims
`and under what conditions. So that you,
`Mr. Torczon, will be able to respond to
`his argument as to why one proposed
`substitute claim is patentable over the
`asserted challenges. And why the other
`patent proposed substitute claim that is
`patentable or unpatentable over the
`asserted references.
` MR. TORCZON: Yes, Your Honor. I
`understand that part. I guess my concern
`is, what I'm looking for is guidance on
`whether this is a blanket authorization of
`two claims, potentially two claims for
`every substitute claim or just on the
`specific one that they've identified in
`this call. And preferably, if they would
`actually identify which claim that is, so
`that it's absolutely clear what everyone
`is talking about.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: It sounds
`like Mr. Renner is not clear himself. So
`I would have Mr. Renner and Mr. Torczon to
`confer after this phone call to discuss
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`which claims, you want to propose more
`than one substitute claim for, so it is
`fair to both sides, then come to an
`agreement and let us know. Then we can
`memorialize that in a solid order. Make
`it clear, Mr. Renner.
` MR. RENNER: Thank you. It could be.
`I guess I'm a little confused as to why
`this is -- this additional detail would be
`necessary.
` I heard your Honors to pretty clearly
`articulate that to the extent that we want
`to offer a second substitute claim for any
`original claim, it would have to be very
`clear in articulating what the condition
`is, as well as the change made.
` So soon enough, we will file a motion
`to amend, and we will demonstrate the
`amendments. I guess I don't see a lack of
`clarity that would be needing to be
`resolved here through the request being
`made. I think your direction -- I take it
`as pretty clear what your direction is and
`would ask we leave it as that.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Mr.
`Renner, just to be clear. Do you know if
`you're going to propose more than one
`substitute claim for more than one
`original claim or how many claims?
` MR. RENNER: Thanks for asking. No,
`we have no intention to. Our intention
`right now is to ask for one -- in one
`instance doing a single or -- in one
`instance that is as to one of the original
`claims asking for two different
`substitutes that are, like I mentioned,
`very similar.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`Mr. Torczon, as a reminder, I know the
`motion to amend is due next week on the
`25th for all of these cases. So if you
`need more time, stipulate to an extension
`of the first two days, that you have more
`time to file your motion to amend.
` MR. RENNER: Thank you.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: With all
`that said, to the pilot program. Most of
`this discussion will come out of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`federal register.
` So under the pilot program there are
`two new options. The Patent Owner can
`request preliminary guidance from the
`Board. Second one is Patent Owner can
`file a revised motion to amend after
`receiving petitioner's opposition and/or
`receiving the preliminary guidance.
` So turning first to the preliminary
`guidance. As Mr. Renner noted, Patent
`Owner must indicate its request for
`preliminary guidance in the motion to
`amend. I will be on the lookout to make
`sure you have or have not made that
`request because the Panel is sort of on
`the clock as well.
` I would ask you, Mr. Renner, just to
`make it clear that you are requesting or
`not requesting preliminary guidance in
`your motion to amend.
` The preliminary guidance will be
`issued four weeks after the due date for
`the opposition to the motion to amend.
`Let me see, September 17.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
` The preliminary guidance will focus
`on limitations added in the motion to
`amend that will not address patentability
`of the original claims. It will provide
`an initial discussion about whether there
`is a reasonable likelihood of a motion to
`amend each statutory and regulatory
`requirements.
` It will also provide an initial
`discussion about whether Petitioner or the
`record establishes a reasonable likelihood
`that the substitute claims are
`unpatentable. And it will not be binding
`on the Board when drafting a final written
`decision.
` It will also not be considered a
`decision under our rule 71 (d) that is
`rule governing rehearing request. So
`there will be no rehearing request that
`can be filed for a preliminary guidance.
`And obviously it's not a final agency
`action, so it's is not judicially
`reviewable.
` If Patent Owner files a reply in
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`support of its original motion to amend,
`then the case will just proceed like any
`other IPR, according to the scheduling
`order. No changes will be made to the
`scheduling order. However, if Petitioner
`-- sorry, Petitioner may file a reply to
`the preliminary guidance and Patent Owner
`may then file a sur-reply, but neither of
`those can be accompanied with new
`evidence.
` Do you have any questions about the
`preliminary guidance before I turn to the
`filing of a revised motion to amend?
` MR. RENNER: No questions, sir.
`Thank you, your Honor. No questions here.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Mr.
`Torczon?
` MR. TORCZON: None from Mylan, your
`Honor.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Turning
`to the revised motion to amend.
` Instead of filing a reply, in support
`of its original motion to amend, Patent
`Owner may file a revised motion to amend
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`by due date three, which is now
`October 29, 2019. And that revised motion
`to amend has to include one or more of the
`proposed substitute claims in place of
`previously presented substitute claims.
` You can make it contingent on the
`unpatentability of original claims, but
`not one of the proposed substitute claims
`to your original motion amend.
` You can include previous proposed
`substitute claims, arguments of evidence
`from the original motion to amend, but as
`a warning, you cannot incorporate any
`material by reference.
` So if you can have a good argument on
`page 3 of the original motion to amend,
`you cannot just say, see page 3 of the
`original motion to amend, revised motion
`to amend. You have to re-present that
`argument and evidence.
` The new argument into evidence that
`you filed with your revised motion to
`amend must be responsive to Petitioner's
`opposition and/or preliminary guidance.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
` You can't put in amendments,
`arguments and evidence that is unrelated
`to any of the issues in the preliminary
`guidance or the Petitioner's opposition.
`Petitioner may file an opposition to the
`revised motion to amend, then Patent Owner
`will have a chance to file a reply and
`thereafter Petitioner may file a
`sur-reply. All this will require a new
`reply scheduling order.
` So once we see that a revised motion
`to amend has been filed by Patent Owner,
`the Panel will work on issuing a revised
`scheduling order to accommodate all these
`new briefs.
` Then finally, the final written
`decision will address only the claims from
`the revised motion to amend. Whatever you
`proposed in the original motion to amend
`will not be addressed in the final written
`decision.
` Since the reply, sur-reply will be
`scheduled close to the oral hearing date,
`and if there is some evidence that finds
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`that to be improper, then seek
`authorization to file a motion to exclude
`reply or sur-reply evidence after the oral
`hearing or make an oral motion exclude at
`the oral hearing.
` All that said, any questions about a
`reply motion to amend? Mr. Renner?
` MR. RENNER: No questions, your
`Honor. Thank you.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Mr.
`Torczon?
` MR. TORCZON: None from Mylan, your
`Honor.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Thank
`you.
` All right. Now we will turn to the
`second request of topics. That was
`physical exhibits.
` Patent Owner requested to file
`certain -- a limited number of physical
`exhibits in cases 1670, 76, 78. So
`starting with the Patent Owner, can you
`please describe briefly what the physical
`exhibits that you wish to file are.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`Either Mr. Renner or Ms. Weiswasser.
` MS. WEISWASSER: Good afternoon,
`your Honor.
` And for the record and the court
`reporter, this is Elizabeth Weiswasser.
` So you are correct as to the four
`noted IPRs in which we are making our
`request for authorization to submit
`certain physical models accompanying our
`Patent Owner responses that are due on the
`25th.
` We are referring to certain physical
`items that cannot be electronically filed.
`For example, like a document or another
`file that could be electronically filed on
`these physical exhibits would need to be
`manually submitted.
` In terms of what specifically we are
`proposing to file, it will be a small
`number of physical models that relate to
`certain devices. As your Honors are
`aware, this case, the patents at issue
`here claim certain injection devices. The
`asserted prior art relates also to various
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`injection devices. And because the design
`and functionality of the claimed devices
`and the prior art devices is so important
`to understanding our view as to the
`non-obviousness and, you know, and novelty
`of the devices that are claimed, we are
`proposing to make available to the Board
`physical models that we believe will be
`very helpful to the Board in understanding
`the differences between what it is that
`the patents claim and what is alleged to
`be part of the prior art. So that is the
`nature of our request, your Honor.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So
`it's fair to say you have models of the
`devices claimed by the various patents
`that are being challenged in these
`proceedings?
` MS. WEISWASSER: Well, they are
`devices that are described as part of the
`prior art and relate to the patentability
`arguments or the claimed devices.
` I would say also, potentially that
`relate to, you know, the devices that are
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`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
`claimed. So it is really just a
`relatively small number of devices that
`will embody the prior art or what is --
`and/or what is claimed, if that makes
`sense.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`Let me just describe the Board's concern
`with physical exhibits.
` Number one, we cannot store physical
`exhibits. Number two, the public will not
`be able to access them when they are
`accessing the files of these various
`cases. So I have a series of questions
`based on those concerns.
` Is it possible to substitute
`photographs or videos in place of other
`physical exhibits themselves?
` MS. WEISWASSER: Well, we probably
`will be making some videos available that
`will explain them. We certainly could
`provide photographs. But here, your
`Honor, the functionality of the various
`devices will be important. For example,
`to demonstrate injection force and other
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`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
`aspects of functionality that we believe
`will be important in distinguishing the
`claimed devices from the prior art. We
`believe the Panel will be benefited from
`having an opportunity to examine and
`operate those devices.
` And I should mention, your Honor,
`that, of course, we would provide a set of
`these physical models to opposing counsel,
`right, so that they can certainly have an
`opportunity to inspect and work with them
`as well, of course. Opposing counsel will
`certainly have an opportunity to depose
`our expert on these. And the Board would,
`of course, have full discretion in making
`a decision as to, you know, whether to
`provide any weight to these exhibits or if
`so, how much weight.
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Okay.
`Are these devices also covered by --
`actually, let me back up.
` So in all of those cases certain
`references are either US patents or US
`patent applications. So are these devices
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`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
`covered by those asserted patent
`applications?
` MS. WEISWASSER: Well, when you say
`covered by, I would understand that, your
`Honor, to be an argument claimed by, I
`think when it comes to the -- when it
`comes --
` ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUNG: Are they
`described by.
` MS. WEISWASSER: Yeah. Right. When
`it comes to the asserted prior art, for
`example, one piece of prior art that
`Petitioner had asserted is the
`Steenfeldt-Jensen patent. That patent
`describes a number of different
`embodiments and Petitioners are making a
`number of arguments as to the impact of
`those claimed embodiments, patentability
`of the challenged claims.
` So, for example, we will -- you know,
`we would propose to submit the physical
`models of certain embodiments that will
`allow the Board to have that
`three-dimensional physical functioning
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Mylan Exhibit - 1042
`Mylan v. Sanofi - IPR2018-01676
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`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
`device that will help the Board understand
`our argument, our expert's position as to
`why, you know, for example, that one or
`more of those embodiments are not
`operative. And that is understood when
`you can have that tactile experience with
`functioning three-dimensional model
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
