`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., )
`
` )
` Petitioner, )
`
` ) Case No. IPR2020-00040
` vs. )
`
` ) U.S. Patent
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., ) No. 7,326,708
`
` )
` Patent Owner.)
`
`________________________________)
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
` July 15, 2020
`
` REPORTED BY: STEPHANIE WHITEHEAD, RDR, RMR, CRR,
`
` CSR No. 10093
`
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
`
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
`
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 1
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`Page 2
`
`APR JUDGES: SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN
`
` ROBERT A. POLLOCK
`
` TIMOTHY G. MAJORS
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
` Katten Muchin
`
` BY: JITENDRA MALIK, Ph.D, ESQ.
`
` 550 South Tryon Street
`
` Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
`
` 704.344.3185
`
` jitty.malik@katten.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
` Williams & Connolly
`
` BY: STANLEY FISHER, ESQ.
`
` 725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
` 202-434-5289
`
` sfisher@wc.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT: ELISE BAUMGARTEN, BRUCE GENDERSON
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 2
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 3
`
` On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 commencing at the hour
`
`of 1:00 p.m. (EDT), the following proceedings were had
`
`telephonically before me, Stephanie L. Whitehead, Certified
`
`Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California.
`
` Wednesday, July 15, 2020; 1:00 p.m.
`
` (The following telephonic hearing was
`
` reported, and the record may reflect
`
` failures in transmission or speaker
`
` identification if clarification may
`
` not be feasible.)
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: All right. This is Judge Majors.
`
`Online with me are Judges Pollock and Sneddon. I know we
`
`have Mr. Malik on and Mr. Fisher on for the petitioner in
`
`IPR2020-00040 and -- Mr. Malik on for petitioner, and
`
`Mr. Fisher on for patent owner in that case as well as the
`
`court reporter.
`
` Is there anybody else on the line?
`
` MR. MALIK: No one else for petitioner, your
`
`Honor.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 3
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 4
`
` MR. GENDERSON: Your Honor --
`
` MS. BAUMGARTEN: -- Baumgarten.
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. I didn't get that
`
`last appearance.
`
` MS. BAUMGARTEN: Apologies. This is Elise
`
`Baumgarten on behalf of patent owner as well.
`
` THE REPORTER: Thank you.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Hi, Ms. Baumgarten.
`
` MR. GENDERSON: Bruce Genderson on behalf of
`
`patent owner.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: All right. Mr. Fisher and
`
`Mr. Malik, are you going to be speaking today on behalf of
`
`your respective clients?
`
` MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honor.
`
` MR. MALIK: Yes, your Honor.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Okay. Do either of you know --
`
`just guessing, but are the other -- the other petitioners
`
`for which the joinder motion, they're not going to be on
`
`this call; is that right?
`
` MR. MALIK: To the best of petitioner's
`
`knowledge that's the case, yes.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Okay. All right. Why don't we
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 4
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 5
`
`get going then. As I said, this is a conference call in
`
`IPR2020-00040. We're here to address a request by patent
`
`owner, which we'll start with that. And, Mr. Malik, we
`
`saw that you had sent in an e-mail of your own on behalf
`
`of petitioner.
`
` But why don't we start then with Mr. Fisher.
`
`We've read your e-mail; you can outline patent owner's
`
`position. And then, Mr. Malik, you'll have an opportunity
`
`to respond.
`
` MR. FISHER: Sure, your Honor. This is Stan
`
`Fisher for patent owner Merck. We thought it prudent to
`
`reach out to your Honors to request permission to file a
`
`motion to adjust the scheduling order in Mylan IPR. In
`
`light of the pending joinder motions in IPR2020-01045,
`
`-0160, and -0172, we understand that Mylan likely or does
`
`oppose any adjustment to the schedule.
`
` Briefly, your Honor, we think that schedule
`
`adjustment will give the Board and the parties time to
`
`sort out a number of issues raised by the joinder motions
`
`and highlighted in our opposition papers which were filed
`
`in the new cases that I just identified.
`
` Based on the present schedule in the Mylan IPR,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 5
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 6
`
`a reply briefing on a joinder won't be submitted by --
`
`I'll call them the new petitioners until the week leading
`
`up to our patent owner response being due. We're of
`
`course then unsure when a decision on joinder might be
`
`issued by the Board.
`
` If joinder's granted, as discussed in our
`
`opposition there's party discovery on the new joinder
`
`plaintiffs relating to some inconsistent statements and
`
`positions we believe they've taken, we'd like the
`
`opportunity to speak to discovery. We understand that it
`
`may be opposed, and we may need to come to the Board, to
`
`your Honors, to address those issues.
`
` And, you know, I think the bottom line is we'd
`
`like the opportunity to sort out joinder, to sort out the
`
`central sequencing of the schedule and, if joinder's
`
`granted, to allow for some discovery or at least our
`
`ability to seek some discovery all before we need to
`
`depose what would then be a joint expert and to
`
`potentially -- you know, and then to submit our patent
`
`owner response.
`
` You know, I think that the bottom line here is
`
`we'd like to have some certainty regarding the parties
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 6
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 7
`
`and, you know, what potential discovery and evidence might
`
`be part of a trial before we need to proceed and, you
`
`know, exercise various judgments concerning strategy for
`
`the expert deposition and our patent owner response.
`
`Which petitioners are in the trial, what discovery or
`
`evidence may be part of the trial affects those strategy
`
`decisions. And in that regard, it would be helpful to
`
`have a schedule adjustment to allow the Board to sort out
`
`these issues and to have some certainty before we need to,
`
`you know, make decisions and take positions that will, you
`
`know, affect Merck's rights throughout the rest of the
`
`trial.
`
` You know, I think your Honors know the very
`
`standard, and we'd like the opportunity to submit, you
`
`know, a brief. It need not be long; many of these
`
`positions are already outlined in our opposition papers in
`
`the other case. But the opportunity to put in writing in
`
`this case a motion to adjust the schedule so that, you
`
`know, depending on what happens with the joinder issues we
`
`can proceed in due course.
`
` So I'm happy to answer any questions on that or
`
`to respond to anything Mr. Malik has to say.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 7
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 8
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Mr. Malik, why don't you go
`
`first, and then we may have a few questions for one or
`
`both of you.
`
` MR. MALIK: Sure. Thank you, your Honors.
`
` So first of all, this dispute has nothing to do
`
`with Mylan. It has to do with the uninstituted joinder
`
`petition dealing with ancillary issues as detailed out in
`
`Merck's opposition regarding some inconsistent statements.
`
`And to be honest, Mylan isn't even sure what the nature of
`
`the inconsistent statements are. All it says in their
`
`opposition brief -- I'm looking at the Watson brief -- is
`
`they have a good faith belief that they can discover
`
`something.
`
` And, you know, generally discovery
`
`pre-institution from an uninstituted petitioner are
`
`extremely rare outside the context of many RPI issues.
`
`And, you know, the truth of the matter is discovery may
`
`not even be necessary of the joinder petitions because if
`
`the PTAB denies further --
`
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, Mr. Malik. I'm sorry
`
`to interrupt. I can't hear you after "because if the PTAB
`
`denies." And if you could slow down a tad.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 8
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 9
`
` MR. MALIK: Sure.
`
` If the PTAB denies the joinder motion, then
`
`essentially this becomes an academic exercise. If you
`
`take a look at their opposition, there's a host of issues
`
`they object on, not just the discovery issue.
`
` We do cite a couple cases about adjusting the
`
`schedule on page 9 of the opposition to Watson.
`
`Obviously, I am not counsel for Watson. In both those
`
`cases, the Clear-vu Lightning case, that had to do with a
`
`time bar issue and RPI issue as to whether or not the
`
`party was time barred. The Finjan case, the again RPI
`
`issue, and in that case discovery was actually agreed upon
`
`by the parties.
`
` In the -- what Merck essentially wants to do is
`
`derail this whole schedule right now for an ancillary
`
`issue. And I mean, let's just -- if you think about what
`
`Merck wants to do, they effectively want to file a motion
`
`to adjust the schedule, and let's just say they take a
`
`month to resolve, and then assuming the PTAB grants their
`
`request, we then have a Garmin dispute between the joinder
`
`petitioners not involving Mylan.
`
` And let's just say that it takes two to three
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 9
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 10
`
`months to resolve because we don't even know how it
`
`resolves. First of all, the PTAB may deny the request,
`
`despite actors [phonetic] and then we have to produce
`
`those documents. I mean, we're essentially going to be
`
`held in abeyance for almost two to three months after that
`
`fact.
`
` And within that time period we also have
`
`multiple PORPs at Merck's option. We have oppositions
`
`from the -- from the -- I assume replies for the joinder
`
`petition, et cetera, et cetera.
`
` What we think the better way to handle this
`
`is -- this is not an exceptional case. In fact, recently
`
`in the Apple Fintiv decision that was informative just two
`
`days ago, you know the Board made a point that, you know,
`
`absent an exceptional case it's going stick to the
`
`one-year bar. And so what I would suggest is we simply
`
`look at how the PTAB has dealt with this before in joinder
`
`cases.
`
` And the cases that I would basically tell you is
`
`IPR2019-00207 which dealt with lead petitioner Amneal and
`
`then the silent joinder petition with Mylan it's
`
`2019-10095. And in the interest full disclosure, I was
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 10
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 11
`
`lead counsel for Mylan at the time, as I still am.
`
` Basically Mylan was joined on November and a
`
`discovery dispute effectively erupted, and the PTAB made
`
`its decision on the discovery issue after the entire case
`
`had effectively been ended. All depositions had been
`
`taken, the patent owner and petitioner had given all their
`
`papers, and on December 31, 2019, well after Mylan was
`
`joined, well after everything was closed, a dispute
`
`erupted about whether or not an inventor, in this case,
`
`Dr. Warner, was going to be deposed. And the PTAB had
`
`enough time in that joinder case to order additional
`
`depositions and order additional briefing. That is paper
`
`39 in IPR2019-207.
`
` And so this isn't an exceptional case that
`
`requires us to completely stop the schedule right now but
`
`routine and has been dealt with before. In our view,
`
`Mylan's view, that's the better view, the better approach.
`
` Well, first, you know, the panel have dealt with
`
`this before. No need to derail the schedule. And then
`
`more importantly, there are going to be other disputes
`
`that are going to occur in this IPR. In fact, so much so
`
`that in the institution decision on page 27 you actually
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 11
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 12
`
`noted that to the extent patent owner Presagia has
`
`potential discovery disputes, they could be handled.
`
` So if we look at Merck's approach, they want to
`
`deal with these things in sequence up front using up any
`
`excess time that we may have at the end of the schedule.
`
`Where the approach that we suggest, Mylan suggests, is we
`
`bring all the disputes at the end -- and I'm sure there's
`
`going to be more. This is a very complex IPR; we could
`
`have anywhere between one and four petitioners -- and then
`
`we can deal with everything in parallel at the end rather
`
`than doing the sequential approach that Mylan says.
`
` And, you know, that includes any depositions,
`
`any associated briefing, just like the joinder Dapsone
`
`matter. And just like the joinder Dapsone matter, that
`
`panel eventually did issue a order adjusting the schedule
`
`for the final written decision by one month. That's the
`
`paper 30 -- 56 in that particular thing.
`
` So we think that the more efficient way, the one
`
`that allows any flexibility in the schedule to remain,
`
`is -- is the way to basically hold these things in
`
`abeyance, and then we'll deal with them at the end. I
`
`mean, the main IPR can go forward. And, most importantly,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 12
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 13
`
`just like the Dapsone matter where the PTAB had to decide
`
`how they wanted to extend the schedule in light of the
`
`underlying District Court cases. There were two -- one
`
`was in West Virginia -- Mylan was in west Virginia. I
`
`think Amneal was in the District of New Jersey.
`
` The PTAB made a point in its final written -- I
`
`mean, its institution decision in this matter on page 27
`
`that it's going to have to consider basically balancing
`
`any -- you know, the time of the final written decision,
`
`vis-a-vis the time of the District Court.
`
` And so if we deal with these issues at the end,
`
`you know, in connection with it, the PTAB can also
`
`consider if an extension is needed, whether the existing
`
`schedule deal with all the issues in parallel, and how
`
`much of an extension is actually needed if at all by the
`
`PTAB based on the District Court action.
`
` So you know, it seems to me that if we just look
`
`at how the PTAB has dealt with joinder cases in the past,
`
`this is -- I don't understand what the big deal is, why we
`
`have to deal with it right now.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Okay. Mr. Fisher, just briefly,
`
`what's -- can you just outline -- we understood from your
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 13
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 14
`
`statement that there's an opposition that's been filed,
`
`and I see that but haven't studied that paper.
`
` What's the general gist if you can let us know?
`
` MR. FISHER: Sure, your Honor. Yes, so an
`
`opposition has been filed in the three cases that have
`
`requested joinder where there are new petitions and
`
`joinder requests. We sought to confirm over a couple-week
`
`period with new petitioners and Mylan regarding procedure
`
`on a number of fronts. You know, there are, I would say,
`
`two major issues: One is that these particular
`
`petitioners have party discovery that, if they were
`
`joined, we believe we're entitled to as a matter of right.
`
`It isn't even a discretionary ask; that it relates to
`
`inconsistent positions.
`
` I think the best example of this is that new
`
`petitioner Teva who seeks to, you know, join in on this
`
`IPR and of course adopt Mylan's position has, you know,
`
`taken the position in prior proceedings and has generated
`
`a significant amount of data relating to one of the issues
`
`in the instituted trial whether the particular prior art
`
`reference, the '871 patent, which is the primary patent
`
`that's being relied upon for anticipation and obviousness,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 14
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 15
`
`whether that particular patent inherently discloses a
`
`1:1 hydrogen phosphate salt. There's been quite a bit of
`
`data generated as to whether or not it is possible using
`
`reasonable conditions to make a non 1:1 salt.
`
` And the "me too" declaration they filed was by a
`
`gentleman named Dr. Len Chyall. He, as a declarant in
`
`this case, obviously filed a "me too" declaration, but he
`
`was the one in those prior proceedings that generated all
`
`this data that we would like to have made part of this
`
`proceeding because we believe it does bear on an issue
`
`that is already in this proceeding, whether this 1:1 salt
`
`is inherently --
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Okay.
`
` MR. FISHER: -- anticipated.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Okay. So let me -- let me catch
`
`up.
`
` So one part of it is Merck, patent owner, would
`
`like to take some party discovery, if and when the parties
`
`are joined. And I'm not saying whether they will or
`
`won't, but that's part one.
`
` MR. FISHER: Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean,
`
`it's not right for us to take that discovery unless and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 15
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 16
`
`until they're joined in.
`
` There are some related issues for the other two
`
`joinder petitioners that we would like to take party
`
`discovery on. So we still have to have a process, your
`
`Honor, where we could, once joinder was ordered, have time
`
`to take the discovery or, if needed, you know, litigate
`
`the issue and have that discovery be part of the
`
`proceeding such that it could be used in a deposition with
`
`who would, I guess, be the joint expert of the parties.
`
` It seems to me to really get things quite out of
`
`sort if you're dealing with, you know, the discovery
`
`issues at the end after the record is essentially closed
`
`and you've deposed all the experts who, you know, won't
`
`have an opportunity to consider it unless, you know,
`
`extreme measures are taken. So that was one issue.
`
` You know, related to that was how do we -- how
`
`do we sequence that discovery such that it can be taken
`
`before our patent owner response is due on the current
`
`schedule. The other had to do with, you know, the
`
`understudy role of the various petitioners. And, you
`
`know, there's been a long line of cases that develop, you
`
`know, various concessions that newly joined petitioners
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 16
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`typically make about the way the proceeding would work.
`
`And we were able to reach agreement on some but not all of
`
`the typical concessions that we see, so that was, you
`
`Page 17
`
`know, the other aspect.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: So, like, what type of issues?
`
`What type of issue do you contend or patent owner contends
`
`the other petitioners are not willing to agree to?
`
` MR. FISHER: Well, you know, I think one thing,
`
`your Honor, is that there is going to be, you know,
`
`discovery relating to who gets the chance to weigh in and
`
`when. Those are issues that, for example, Mylan has taken
`
`the position that it has an opportunity to weigh in if
`
`we're going to be dealing with a party discovery issue in
`
`addition to whatever, you know, party it is.
`
` You know, so some of it does relate to the
`
`discovery issues that we've raised. And then there's a
`
`host of things like HMS [phonetic] and, you know, not
`
`filing additional papers and things of that nature which
`
`we've outlined in our opposition papers that typically are
`
`agreed to but haven't been here.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Right. Patent owner's not taking
`
`the position though that -- a hypothetical: So patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 17
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 18
`
`owner wants to take some discovery and maybe the argument
`
`is it's routine. Maybe the argument is it's additional,
`
`however that may be framed. You're not taking the
`
`position though -- or patent owner is not taking the
`
`position that as an understudy that the joined
`
`petitioners, assuming we were to join, that they -- they
`
`would get a chance to response to the requested discovery,
`
`right? I mean, even though it is in a "me too" sense,
`
`they're not going to get a substantive brief, at least in
`
`the traditional model that the Board has allowed in the
`
`"me too" petition.
`
` MR. FISHER: Absolutely, your Honor. Of course
`
`they should be able to weigh in and certainly, you know,
`
`have an opportunity to object if that's their -- if that's
`
`what they want to do. You know, our -- I think the whole
`
`tenor of our opposition is we understand that in a case
`
`like this it may make sense to have these "me too"
`
`petitions joined. But there were some procedural aspects
`
`of that that we were unable to work out with the joinder
`
`petitioners and Mylan that, having not worked them out, we
`
`feel have prejudiced Merck's ability to litigate this
`
`trial in a way that's fair to Merck and enables Merck to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 18
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`present all the issues in a way that -- that it deems best
`
`fit and on a schedule that's workable. Because you know
`
`this whole joinder thing is quite a distraction in its own
`
`Page 19
`
`right.
`
` And if they're not in the case, then we plow
`
`ahead with Mylan and, you know, the schedule is what the
`
`schedule is. If joinder happens and, you know, we think
`
`as a matter of right or as a matter of discretion we're
`
`entitled to take the discovery, we want to make sure that
`
`the process is fair and that we have the opportunity to do
`
`it in a sequenced way that is logical.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Let me again just throw something
`
`out because, again, it sounded to me that there's a
`
`scheduling issue relative to the discovery that patent
`
`owner wants. That's issue No. 1.
`
` Issue No. 2, I guess there's some concessions or
`
`stipulations that patent owner is seeking to get from the
`
`other petitioners about the nature of their participation
`
`that at least an agreement has not been provided
`
`satisfactory to patent owner. But in a hypothetical
`
`sense, what if -- what if the Board were to say, okay, the
`
`other parties are joined and they're going to be joined as
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 19
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 20
`
`of next week?
`
` For example, if Merck withdrew their opposition
`
`to the joinder with the caveat that they really have to
`
`play an understudy role -- they're not going to come in,
`
`they don't get their own experts, so on and so forth --
`
`then the discovery could start immediately. And sure,
`
`there may be a dispute, it may take longer than some
`
`people think, but that wouldn't necessarily derail the
`
`schedule from where it is right now. Maybe there would be
`
`some movement around, you know, weeks here or there to
`
`make sure people have enough time for preparation.
`
` Do you follow what I'm saying, Mr. Fisher?
`
` MR. FISHER: I follow what you're getting at,
`
`your Honor. And I think the devil is in the details. I
`
`mean, we're not necessarily asking for major movement
`
`here. I mean, we threw out in our opposition two months.
`
`We're certainly willing to negotiate a schedule that's
`
`workable. You know, if it's two or three weeks, that
`
`would be better in the circumstance than -- than, you
`
`know, the current situation where this -- you know,
`
`whenever the order comes down, we would essentially be in
`
`a rush to, you know, get whatever discovery there is,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 20
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 21
`
`follow up on it, and then have to all right, you know,
`
`prepare to take this one expert and beyond.
`
` So again, the devil is in the details. I mean,
`
`I think what you're describing, you know, if around the
`
`edges there's some flexibility, that would be helpful.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Yeah. And listen, I'm not
`
`suggesting anybody did anything wrong here, but if the
`
`concern was one of timing, at least for my part, I would
`
`have hoped this could have come up earlier and we could
`
`have expedited, for example, the briefing on the joinder
`
`issues and see if we could get this resolved faster so
`
`that patent owner could get the discovery that it thinks
`
`its entitled to.
`
` But it is what it is. So we're here now, and I
`
`guess the schedule as it is right now, patent owner has a
`
`filing due in the middle of next month. And probably, I
`
`gather, you want to take the deposition of petitioner's --
`
`petitioner Mylan's expert before that?
`
` MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honor. And can I briefly
`
`respond to the talking points?
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Sure.
`
` MR. FISHER: You know, we -- this joinder
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 21
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`Page 22
`
`petition came in a little over a month ago. You know, the
`
`issues we've raised for which discovery is sought were not
`
`issues that were readily apparent from the face of the
`
`declarations. I mean, you know, it takes a little time to
`
`dig in and understand, you know, what -- what these
`
`parties bring to the table and what they may have done in
`
`the past, you know?
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Yeah. Okay. Fair. Fair enough.
`
` MR. FISHER: Okay.
`
` JUDGE MAJORS: Just another quick point,
`
`Mr. Fisher. And if your mind is changed, or if your
`
`client's mind is changed, that's fine too. But is patent
`
`owner envisioning filing a POPR, or just would it be along
`
`the lines of -- obviously, you disagree with the merits of
`
`the case and probably the bases on which the Board
`
`instituted. But I'm just trying to get a sense of where
`
`we're heading, or where we think we're heading, relative
`
`to the papers that are going to be filed in the other
`
`proceedings.
`
` MR. FISHER: Fair question, your Honor. I mean,
`
`subject to something happening, we don't anticipate filing
`
`a preliminary patent owner response. I'm glad I'm not the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2020
`
`202-232-6046
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Exhibit 2041
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040 Page 22
`
`
`
`7/15/2020
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Merck Sharp, et al.Telephonic Conference
`
`only one who calls it a "