1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., )
`
` )
`
` )
`
` Petitioner; )
`
` )
`
` )
`
` -vs- ) Case IPR2021-00881
`
` )
`
` ) Pat. No. 9,254,338 B2
`
` REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC)
`
` )
`
` )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
` ------------------------------)
`
` REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS from the
`
` Teleconference taken by Paul W. O'Connor, a CSR within
`
` and for the State of Illinois, pursuant to the
`
` provisions of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure and
`
` Rules of the United State Patent and Trademark Office,
`
` commencing at 12:30 p.m. on September 8, 2021.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 1
`
`

`

` APPEARANCES:
`
`Page 2
`
` RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI & SIWIK LLP
`
` 6 West Hubbard Street
`
` Chicago, Illinois, 60654
`
` By: MR. HEINZ J. SALMEN and
`
` MR. NEIL McLAUGHLIN
`
` Hsalmen@rmmslegal.com
`
` Nmclaughlin@rmmslegal.com
`
` Appearing on behalf of the Petitioner;
`
` ARNOLD & PORTER
`
` 3000 El Camino Real, #500
`
` Palo Alto, California, 94304
`
` By: MS. DEBORAH E. FISHMAN and
`
` MS. AMANDA ANTONS and
`
` MS. ALICE HO
`
` Deborah.fishman@arnoldporter.com
`
` Appeared on behalf of the Patent Owner.
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`1
`
`2 3 4 5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 2
`
`

`

` I N D E X
`
`Page 3
`
` WITNESS PAGE
`
` None
`
` EXHIBITS:
`
` None
`
` OTHER:
`
` Arguments on Inter Partes Review Petitions 4
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`1
`
`2 3 4 5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
` JUDGE NEW: Please identify yourselves.
`
` MR. SALMEN: Yes, your Honor. My name is Heinz
`
`Salmen from the law firm Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik on
`
`behalf of Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. With me
`
`on the call is Neil McLaughlin also from the Rakoczy
`
`firm.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Salmen.
`
` MR. SALMEN: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` MS. FISHMAN: This is Deborah Fishman of the law
`
`firm Arnold & Porter on behalf of patent owner Regeneron.
`
`And with me today on the call are my colleagues Amanda
`
`Antons and Alice Ho, also of the Arnold & Porter firm.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Thank you very much. Do either party
`
`have a court reporter.
`
` I believe we have three items to talk
`
`about today on our agenda according to the e-mail we
`
`received. The very first one concerns the -- there
`
`doesn't seem to be much dispute between the parties on
`
`this one. Particularly in light of the view, in view of
`
`the fact patent owner has confirmed it will not oppose
`
`Petitioner's motion to update its mandatory notice if
`
`needed. Do I understand that correctly?
`
` MR. SALMEN: Yes.
`
` MS. FISHMAN: Yep.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
` JUDGE NEW: So there's no issue there for us to
`
`resolve. With respect to the second issue, that is with
`
`respect to the word counts in the petition and in the
`
`preliminary response, because the word count is
`
`prescribed by 35 USC 324, I don't know that the parties
`
`can actually stipulate to increasing that so what I'd
`
`like to do is solicit from you now a request that you
`
`both be allowed to extend your briefs by the word count
`
`set forth in the e-mail, that is to say 128 words for the
`
`patent owner and I'm sorry, 128 words for the patent
`
`owner and 137 words in the patent owner response, and
`
`that's in 880 and 881.
`
` Would patent owner care to make a request
`
`to that effect?
`
` MS. FISHMAN: Certainly your Honor. In lieu of
`
`seeking dismissal, patent owner would request an
`
`additional 128 words in the 881 IPR for its POR should it
`
`be instituted. And an additional 137 words in the 880
`
`IPR for its POR should that IPR be instituted.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Is there any objection to that on the
`
`part of Petitioner?
`
` MR. SALMEN: Your Honor, I have no objection on
`
`behalf of Petitioner. However, I believe patent owner
`
`may have gotten the word number reversed.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
` My notes here we had calculated and I
`
`believe it's reflected in patent owner's preliminary
`
`response that the additional word would be 128 words in
`
`the response in IPR 2021-00880. And additional 137 words
`
`in matter number 2021-00881.
`
` JUDGE NEW: The e-mail that was sent to us,
`
`Miss Fishman --
`
` MS. FISHMAN: I'm looking right now in the POPR
`
`just to confirm. So I believe it's 137 words in the 880,
`
`I think I had it right.
`
` JUDGE NEW: That's not what the e-mail says. The
`
`e-mail says 128 words in the PO response in the 880
`
`petition, and 137 words in the PO response in 881.
`
` MS. FISHMAN: Think that's backwards. I didn't
`
`draft that request.
`
` I believe the proposal, the compromise
`
`proposal that Petitioner was offering was to offer
`
`commensurate additional words in the patent owner
`
`response. As reflected in, you know, essentially
`
`corresponding to their overage in the petition.
`
` I'm looking now at the base document which
`
`is our patent owner preliminary response. I guess maybe
`
`Heinz, could you just pull that that up.
`
` MR. SALMEN: I just pulled it up and my apologies,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
`your Honor. The e-mail was reversed. Miss Fishman is
`
`correct. It is 128 words in matter number 881. And
`
`137 words in matter number 880.
`
` JUDGE NEW: All right. No problem. No need to
`
`apologize. So but there's no objection to the Petitioner
`
`in -- 881 PO response, and 137 words on the 880 response,
`
`is that correct.
`
` MR. SALMEN: That is correct, your Honor, we do not
`
`oppose or object to those additional words.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Whoever is on the panel discussed this
`
`item prior to our meeting today and we are prepared to
`
`authorize that. So that should be okay.
`
` MR. SALMEN: Thank you.
`
` MS. FISHMAN: Thank you.
`
` JUDGE NEW: So let's move on to issue number three,
`
`and that is the request for additional briefing. On the
`
`matter of 35 USC 325(D). Mr. Salmen, why don't you
`
`begin. Why should we authorize this.
`
` MR. SALMEN: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` So Petitioner does not believe that
`
`discretionary denial is warranted here. And further
`
`believes that its petition contain ample support for that
`
`conclusion.
`
` However, in view of patent owner's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`responses, we respectfully request that the Board's
`
`permission to submit those replies to address three
`
`particular items, the Becton, Dickinson Factors,
`
`cumulativeness and the patent owner's assertions that not
`
`addressing those factors in our petition warrants denial.
`
` Specifically your Honor, we ask for reply
`
`to illustrate how patent owner's preliminary responses do
`
`not present a fair interpretation of either our petitions
`
`or the relevant facts and law here.
`
` It is our position that under the facts of
`
`these patents and the respective file histories as we
`
`point out in our petition, the Board's decision in
`
`Advanced Bionics would control. That our art and our
`
`arguments are not cumulative of anything the examiner
`
`asserted or evaluated.
`
` And for this reason, we could not have
`
`anticipated patent owner's heavy reliance on those
`
`Becton, Dickinson Factors as a basis for denying
`
`institution. The issues in both IPRs -- sorry.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Mr. Salmen, the issue I have here is
`
`that nowhere in the petition is there any allegation by
`
`the Petitioner that the examiner made any sort of
`
`material error during examinations. In effect, the
`
`weight of the document in your petition. And I'm
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`skeptical as to whether we should permit a new argument
`
`or additional argument in this respect, having
`
`essentially not addressed it at all in the petition.
`
` MR. SALMEN: Respectfully, your Honor, we don't
`
`believe that we even get to part -- component two of the
`
`Advanced Bionics criteria, which is whether the examiner
`
`materially erred because we do not believe that the
`
`references that patent owner has raised qualify or were
`
`ever considered or evaluated by the examiner. And there
`
`are some specific factual issues that I can present on
`
`this call, if your Honor would allow, that illustrate how
`
`we would not have anticipated having to raise an argument
`
`that the examiner erred because those references were not
`
`actually at issue or had not been evaluated by the
`
`examiner in either of the prosecutions.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Briefly, Mr. Salmen, if you want to
`
`address those factual issues.
`
` MR. SALMEN: Sure. So in the 880 matter which
`
`pertains to the '069 Patent, patent owner alleges that
`
`our reference to Dixon was considered by the examiner.
`
`We obviously dispute that and disagree.
`
` Dixon was merely cited in an IDS that was
`
`presented after all substantive prosecution had been
`
`presented to the examiner. The examiner issued a single
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`office action, focusing entirely on obviousness type
`
`double patenting. No other references were asserted,
`
`including Dixon. And Dixon was not even of record at
`
`that time when the examiner issued its office action.
`
` It wasn't until afterward in its response
`
`when patent owner presented a terminal disclaimer to one
`
`of the patents and secondary considerations of non
`
`obviousness to traverse the examiner's rejections.
`
` Simultaneously, the patent owner had
`
`presented a IDS that identified Dixon. And five weeks
`
`later the examiner issued a notice of allowance.
`
` So it's our position, your Honor, that
`
`Dixon was not considered or evaluated and the substance
`
`of Dixon that we rely upon was not presented in the
`
`prosecution.
`
` We particularly rely on Dixon for its
`
`disclosure of the exact dosing regimens that are claimed
`
`in the '069 Patent. The examiner didn't focus on dosing
`
`regimens. The examiner actually stated that the dosing
`
`schedules were not disclosed in his asserted references
`
`and that it's a matter of routine experimentation to
`
`optimize those dosing schedules.
`
` So the examiner had a completely different
`
`perspective and approached the examination from a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
`completely different angle than we are presenting in our
`
`petitions. That's why we believe that you don't even get
`
`over the number one, the first prong of Advanced Bionics
`
`to then determine for us to make an argument that the
`
`examiner materially erred in its evaluation of these
`
`claims.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Miss Fishman, your response to that.
`
` MS. FISHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.
`
` We oppose the request for reply because we
`
`do not believe the Petitioner has demonstrated a good
`
`cause for a reply to the preliminary response. You know,
`
`you confer Petitioner cited no new authority or change in
`
`facts that would warrant a reply. The arguments that we
`
`made in both petitions as it relate to 325(D) were
`
`entirely foreseeable.
`
` You know, as Petitioner counsel just
`
`pointed out for example in the 0880 IPR, IPR 2021-0880,
`
`Petitioner's central anticipation reference, which is
`
`Dixon, which it relied upon in two of its 102 grounds and
`
`its obviousness grounds, and it's listed on the face of
`
`the patent. It was cited in IDS and it was marked by the
`
`examiner.
`
` And Advanced Bionics, which Petitioner's
`
`counsel argued here has been the law of the land since
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
`February of 2020, been cited in literally hundreds of
`
`institution petitions including, you know, more than 50
`
`institution decisions denying institution. And it makes
`
`it very clear the previously-presented art includes art
`
`made of record by the examiner, including in an IDS. And
`
`Petitioner did nothing to address this issue in either of
`
`its petitions, to anticipate this position in the
`
`petition.
`
` Finally, I point out that patent owner
`
`made a very similar 325(D) argument in a related patent
`
`challenge and PGR in a related patent based on Advanced
`
`Bionics. And that paper was cited by Petitioner in both
`
`of the petitions here.
`
` And in that, they cited for claim
`
`construction, but it's not just that Petitioner should
`
`have been aware of the legal landscape and should have
`
`identified and addressed art of record, and
`
`cumulativeness, but patent owner laid out very similar
`
`arguments with the same authority in a related patent in
`
`its preliminary patent owner response in PGR2021-00035.
`
`Which Petitioner cites for claim construction, but fails
`
`to then take on for purposes of 325(D).
`
` So respectfully your Honor, it's patent
`
`owner's position that Petitioner does not meet the good
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`cause standard and as the Board has previously explained,
`
`the fact that Petitioner disagrees with the legal
`
`analysis set forth in the preliminary response or how the
`
`facts should be applied under either Becton, Dickinson or
`
`Advanced Bionics, is not good cause to file a reply to
`
`patent owner's preliminary response.
`
` And I can provide your Honor with at least
`
`two decisions of the Board that has come forward and said
`
`that if that's helpful. There's 37 --
`
` JUDGE NEW: That's not necessary. Thank you,
`
`Miss Fishman.
`
` But it does bother me, Mr. Salmen, as
`
`Miss Fishman said, that the examiner of Dixon as having
`
`been considered and our jurisprudence seems to say that
`
`puts it squarely, you know, it's fair game for a 325(D)
`
`argument. And also I think her point is very well taken
`
`that Petitioner was obviously aware of this related PGR
`
`where they made, where you made very similar arguments
`
`and could have reasonably anticipated there would be a
`
`325(D) argument in the patent owner's preliminary
`
`response.
`
` MR. SALMEN: If I may respond to that, your Honor.
`
`First to your last point just to clarify. It was not
`
`Mylan. I don't believe that was the PGR filer in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`matter that counsel was referring to.
`
` But more to the point, your Honor, with
`
`respect to whether or not this is a 325 issue, the Board
`
`has stated in the past that a reference that was neither
`
`applied against the claims nor discussed by the examiner
`
`does not weigh in favor of exercising the Board's
`
`discretion under 325 to deny institution. That's from
`
`Amazon. And there's several other decisions by the Board
`
`that fall squarely in line with that rationale and
`
`interpretation of whether or not citation on an IDS meets
`
`the threshold that's set forth in Advanced Bionics, in
`
`the first prong of Advanced Bionics.
`
` And we represent that given the fact
`
`pattern in this specific case, which we would like to
`
`describe in more detail in our reply brief, the examiner
`
`clearly did not consider the disclosures in Dixon and
`
`more specifically, the disclosures regarding the dosing
`
`regimen in Dixon. Because the examiner actually
`
`affirmatively stated to the applicant that the dosing
`
`regimen was not disclosed in the prior art. And that the
`
`dosing regimen was simply the product of routine
`
`optimization. That's the exact opposite of what we see
`
`in Dixon.
`
` So as I mentioned, we believe the examiner
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
`simply approached this from a different perspective and
`
`that was the basis for us not alleging error at the time.
`
`Dixon was not being considered so it didn't get to the
`
`second prong of Advanced Bionics to identify and explain
`
`the materialness of the examiner's position in that
`
`regard.
`
` Your Honor, there is, the 338 Patent, the
`
`matter number 881 has a separate factual distinction here
`
`that I do believe is relevant that if permitted, I would
`
`like to illustrate to your Honor.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Very briefly, please.
`
` MR. SALMEN: Yes. So your Honor, it's a very
`
`similar argument that patent owner presents there.
`
` However, in that response patent owner
`
`relies on a particular reference, a Thomson Reuters
`
`article as the basis for its argument that our asserted
`
`art is cumulative to what was presented to the examiner.
`
` And there your Honor, it's important to
`
`point out that the Thomson Reuters article is not the
`
`2008 Regeneron press release that patent owner presents
`
`it as throughout its preliminary responses. It's
`
`actually a 2012 summary of the 2008 Regeneron press
`
`release. So arguably that particular document does not
`
`predate the patent here.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
` The earliest filing date of the 338 Patent
`
`is November 2011. So at least in that regard your Honor,
`
`we clearly could not have anticipated that the patent
`
`owner would argue that our references, our prior art
`
`2008, 2009 references were cumulative of a post art 2012
`
`article that summarizes a Regeneron press release.
`
` And in that regard your Honor, at least we
`
`would ask permission to file a reply to set forth those
`
`factual details and analyses and provide the law that
`
`supports our position in that regard.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Doesn't the 2012 summary which cites
`
`and basically says is an explanation of or recapitulation
`
`of the 2008 article, put Petitioner on notice that that
`
`article is already out there?
`
` MR. SALMEN: Well your Honor, respectfully I don't
`
`believe the question is whether that put the Petitioner
`
`on notice; it's whether it put the examiner on notice.
`
` The examiner was presented with a 2012
`
`summary. The examiner was not presented with a 2008
`
`Regeneron press release. There's no evidence in the
`
`intrinsic record that either the -- this is a print-out
`
`of a website -- that either that was, the Thomson Reuters
`
`was in the public domain, or that the 2008 Regeneron
`
`press release was in the public domain at the time it was
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`presented in 2015 I believe.
`
` So I don't believe that puts the
`
`Petitioner on notice that patent owner would make an
`
`argument that our 2008 and 2009 references, which are
`
`clearly prior art, would have somehow been cumulative to
`
`a document that postdated the filing date of the earliest
`
`filing dates of the patent application.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Thank you. Miss Fishman, your brief
`
`response to that?
`
` MS. FISHMAN: Two things, yes. First of all, your
`
`Honor, just to clarify.
`
` On the PGR that I mentioned that
`
`Petitioner had relied upon, I was not trying to suggest
`
`it was a Mylan Petitioner. It was Kanghong, Chendu
`
`Kanghong as Petitioner.
`
` The point I was making is that Mylan
`
`relied on patent owner's preliminary response in that
`
`proceeding in its claim construction arguments in each of
`
`the IPR's we are talking about today. In both the 881
`
`and 880 IPRs it cites to and leverages arguments that
`
`patent owner made in PGR 2021-00035 as it believes might
`
`be helpful for claim construction, but ignored anything
`
`in that POPR having to do with 325(D). Just to clarify.
`
` Then on the issue of through the factual
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`record in the two IPR's at hand. When I had asked in
`
`meet and confer whether or not Petitioner had a different
`
`position on each of the IPRs, he did not. So this is the
`
`first time I'm hearing this position he's put out to the
`
`Board.
`
` But my response would be first of all,
`
`it's not just Dixon. Also obviousness grounds in '069
`
`were marked on the IDS and others are cumulative.
`
` But even in the 338, the 00881 IPR, this
`
`isn't -- essentially Petitioner is using the prosecution
`
`history both as a sword and a shield. It's like trying
`
`to now say because it's cumulative, there's this press
`
`release, but because it's cumulative and wasn't actually
`
`cited in an IDS, it wasn't foreseeable.
`
` However, their argument throughout their
`
`petition is to essentially, not essentially, it is to say
`
`that the phase three view dosing regimen was never before
`
`the examiner. And if they weaponize it, use it as a
`
`sword and it's just untrue.
`
` If you look through the IDS and look at
`
`the Thomson Reuters article that was before the examiner,
`
`the disclosure is the same. So, you know, they comb
`
`through the file history, marshalling what would be
`
`helpful, combed through the file history of the related
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Page 19
`
`European patent to the 338 Patent, but completely
`
`neglects to mention that the dosing regimen was before
`
`the examiner and the facts suggest that it was not.
`
` So this idea that they're somehow
`
`surprised by something in the file history seems
`
`untenable and we don't believe there's good cause for
`
`leave with respect to a reply in either of these
`
`proceedings.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Right. Franklin and Mitchell, if they
`
`have any questions on this point. Does Judge Franklin,
`
`Judge Mitchell, can you hear me?
`
` JUDGE MITCHELL: This is Judge Mitchell. I don't
`
`have any further questions. If Petitioner wants to make
`
`a last point, that would be fine with me.
`
` JUDGE FRANKLIN: This is Judge Franklin. I don't
`
`have additional questions. Thank you.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Okay. Very well. Mr. Salmen, if you'd
`
`like to make a last point on this in respect to Judge
`
`Mitchell's wishes, can you just briefly summarize your
`
`argument.
`
` MR. SALMEN: Yes. I'd like to just quickly respond
`
`to the last couple points that the counsel made.
`
` With respect to the Chengdu Kanghong IPRs,
`
`I think it's important to point out we did try to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
`anticipate Regeneron's arguments in that regard. That's
`
`why we presented the claim construction. But at the same
`
`time I think Regeneron has made an argument in a parallel
`
`IPR suggesting that the Petitioner needs to predict any
`
`and all 325 procedural arguments and to deal with those
`
`in the petition, is not consistent with the statutory
`
`requirements here.
`
` So I just wanted to point out that we did
`
`in fact try to anticipate as much of the arguments that
`
`we foresaw Regeneron would make. But with respect to
`
`Dixon, in the '069 Patent, we did not anticipate that
`
`they would make such a detailed and in depth reliance on
`
`those Becton, Dickinson factors because again, in our
`
`review there's no evidence in the record that the
`
`examiner actually relied on and evaluated those
`
`disclosures. The dosing regimen that's claimed in the
`
`'069 is set forth in Dixon.
`
` And with respect to the 338 Patent, I
`
`dispute counsel's representation that we are relying on
`
`that prosecution history as a sword and a shield. The
`
`Thomson Reuters reference, her argument does not resolve
`
`the fact that is a 2012 publication at best. And not
`
`within the examiner's arsenal to reject the claims.
`
` So to say that we are relying on that as a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 20
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
`sword and a shield, it's just not consistent.
`
` What would be true is that Dixon, which
`
`was never provided to the examiner in the 338 Patent, is
`
`a 2008 or 2009 publication that sets forth the exact
`
`dosing regimen in the claims. That was never provided to
`
`the examiner so the examiner never had the background
`
`information to submit a rejection based on those prior
`
`art dosing regimens.
`
` JUDGE NEW: Thank you very much, Mr. Salmen. I
`
`think you and Miss Fishman has clarified the issues with
`
`respect to this request.
`
` We will take it under consideration and we
`
`will issue an order concerning your request for leave for
`
`additional briefing in the very near future. Is there
`
`anything else?
`
` MR. SALMEN: One last question, your Honor.
`
`Petitioner Mylan had retained the court reporter for this
`
`conference. Would you like for us to submit the
`
`transcript as an exhibit?
`
` JUDGE NEW: Yes, very much. That would be very
`
`helpful.
`
` (Whereupon, proceedings were
`
` adjourned in this case)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 21
`
`

`

`STATE OF ILLINOIS
`
`COUNTY OF COOK
`
`I, PAUL W. O'CONNOR, do hereby certify
`
`that I
`
`reported in machine shorthand and via real time
`before the PTAB Board on
`
`transcription
`
`the
`
`Hearing
`
`September 8, 2021; and that this
`and accurate
`
`transcript
`
`is a true
`
`of my machine shorthand
`transcription
`notes so taken to the best of my ability,
`at said Hearing.
`all of the
`
`proceedings given
`
`and contains
`
`Paul W O'Connor, CSR
`
`License No. 084.002955
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`v.
`
`Mylan
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`IPR2021-00880
`Regeneron,
`Page 22
`
`

`

`[& - believe]
`
`&
`& 2:5,16 4:10,12
`0
`00881 18:9
`069 9:19 10:18
`18:7 20:11,17
`084.002955 22:15
`0880 11:17
`1
`102 11:19
`128 5:9,10,17 6:3
`6:12 7:2
`12:30 1:24
`137 5:11,18 6:4,9
`6:13 7:3,6
`2
`2008 15:20,22 16:5
`16:13,19,23 17:4
`21:4
`2009 16:5 17:4
`21:4
`2011 16:2
`2012 15:22 16:5,11
`16:18 20:22
`2015 17:1
`2020 12:1
`2021 1:24 22:7
`2021-00035 17:21
`2021-00880 6:4
`2021-00881 6:5
`2021-0880 11:17
`24765 22:14
`3
`3000 2:17
`324 5:5
`325 7:17 11:14
`12:10,22 13:15,20
`14:3,7 17:23 20:5
`
`www.veritext.com
`
`338 15:7 16:1 18:9
`19:1 20:18 21:3
`35 5:5 7:17
`37 13:9
`
`4 3:21
`
`4
`
`5
`
`50 12:2
`500 2:17
`6
`
`6 2:6
`60654 2:7
`8
`8 1:24 22:7
`880 5:12,18 6:9,12
`7:3,6 9:18 17:20
`881 5:12,17 6:13
`7:2,6 15:8 17:19
`9
`9,254,338 1:7
`94304 2:18
`a
`ability 22:9
`accurate 22:8
`action 10:1,4
`additional 5:17,18
`6:3,4,18 7:9,16
`9:2 19:16 21:14
`address 8:2 9:17
`12:6
`addressed 9:3
`12:17
`addressing 8:5
`adjourned 21:24
`advanced 8:13 9:6
`11:3,23 12:11
`13:5 14:11,12
`15:4
`
`affirmatively
`14:19
`afterward 10:5
`agenda 4:16
`alice 2:21 4:12
`allegation 8:21
`alleges 9:19
`alleging 15:2
`allow 9:11
`allowance 10:11
`allowed 5:8
`alto 2:18
`amanda 2:20 4:11
`amazon 14:8
`ample 7:22
`analyses 16:9
`analysis 13:3
`angle 11:1
`anticipate 12:7
`20:1,9,11
`anticipated 8:17
`9:12 13:19 16:3
`anticipation 11:18
`antons 2:20 4:12
`apologies 6:24
`apologize 7:5
`appeal 1:2
`appearances 2:1
`appeared 2:23
`appearing 2:12
`applicant 14:19
`application 17:7
`applied 13:4 14:5
`approached 10:24
`15:1
`arguably 15:23
`argue 16:4
`argued 11:24
`argument 9:1,2,12
`11:4 12:10 13:16
`13:20 15:13,16
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`
`Page 1
`
`17:4 18:15 19:20
`20:3,21
`arguments 3:21
`8:14 11:13 12:19
`13:18 17:18,20
`20:1,5,9
`arnold 2:16 4:10
`4:12
`arnoldporter.com
`2:22
`arsenal 20:23
`art 8:13 12:4,4,17
`14:20 15:17 16:4
`16:5 17:5 21:8
`article 15:16,19
`16:6,13,14 18:21
`asked 18:1
`asserted 8:15 10:2
`10:20 15:16
`assertions 8:4
`authority 11:12
`12:19
`authorize 7:12,18
`aware 12:16 13:17
`b
`
`b2 1:7
`background 21:6
`backwards 6:14
`base 6:21
`based 12:11 21:7
`basically 16:12
`basis 8:18 15:2,16
`becton 8:3,18 13:4
`20:13
`behalf 2:12,23 4:4
`4:10 5:23
`believe 4:15 5:23
`6:2,9,16 7:20 9:5
`9:7 11:2,10 13:24
`14:24 15:9 16:16
`17:1,2 19:6
`
`888-391-3376
`
`Mylan Exhibit 1086
`Mylan v. Regeneron, IPR2021-00880
`Page 23
`
`

`

`[believes - document]
`
`believes 7:22
`17:21
`best 20:22 22:9
`bionics 8:13 9:6
`11:3,23 12:12
`13:5 14:11,12
`15:4
`board 1:2 13:1,8
`14:3,8 18:5 22:6
`board's 8:1,12
`14:6
`bother 13:12
`brief 14:15 17:8
`briefing 7:16
`21:14
`briefly 9:16 15:11
`19:19
`briefs 5:8
`c
`calculated 6:1
`california 2:18
`call 4:5,11 9:11
`camino 2:17
`care 5:13
`case 1:6 14:14
`21:24
`cause 11:11 13:1,5
`19:6
`central 11:18
`certainly 5:15
`certify 22:4
`challenge 12:11
`change 11:12
`chendu 17:14
`chengdu 19:23
`chicago 2:7
`citation 14:10
`cited 9:22 11:12
`11:21 12:1,12,14
`18:14
`
`cites 12:21 16:11
`17:20
`civil 1:20
`claim 12:14,21
`17:18,22 20:2
`claimed 10:17
`20:16
`claims 11:6 14:5
`20:23 21:5
`clarified 21:10
`clarify 13:23
`17:11,23
`clear 12:4
`clearly 14:16 16:3
`17:5
`code 1:20
`colleagues 4:11
`comb 18:22
`combed 18:24
`come 13:8
`commencing 1:24
`commensurate
`6:18
`completely 10:23
`11:1 19:1
`component 9:5
`compromise 6:16
`concerning 21:13
`concerns 4:17
`conclusion 7:23
`confer 11:12 18:2
`conference 21:18
`confirm 6:9
`confirmed 4:20
`consider 14:16
`consideration
`21:12
`considerations
`10:7
`considered 9:9,20
`10:13 13:14 15:3
`
`Page 2
`
`demonstrated
`11:10
`denial 7:21 8:5
`deny 14:7
`denying 8:18 12:3
`depth 20:12
`describe 14:15
`detail 14:15
`detailed 20:12
`details 16:9
`determine 11:4
`dickinson 8:3,18
`13:4 20:13
`different 10:23
`11:1 15:1 18:2
`disagree 9:21
`disagrees 13:2
`disclaimer 10:6
`disclosed 10:20
`14:20
`disclosure 10:17
`18:22
`disclosures 14:16
`14:17 20:16
`discretion 14:7
`discretionary 7:21
`discussed 7:10
`14:5
`dismissal 5:16
`dispute 4:1