`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`________________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v. Case No.
`
`BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LIMITED, IPR2022-00722
`
` Patent Owner. Patent 7,041,786
`
`________________________________
`
` VIDEOCONFERENCE HEARING
`
`DATE: Thursday, July 28, 2022
`
`TIME: 2:00 p.m.
`
`BEFORE: Honorable Judge Scott Valek
`
`LOCATION: Remote Proceeding
`
` Washington, DC 20005
`
`REPORTED BY: Timothy Guevara, Notary Public
`
`JOB NO.: 5348387
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`MYLAN EXHIBIT - 1056
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland, Ltd. - IPR2022-00722
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.:
`
` JAD A. MILLS, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)
`
` RICHARD TORCZON, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)
`
` GRACE A. WINSCHEL, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)
`
` Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rossati
`
` 1700 K Street Northwest, 5th Floor
`
` Washington, DC 20006
`
` jmills@wsgr.com
`
` rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
` gwinschel@wsgr.com
`
` 206-883-2500
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND
`
`LIMITED:
`
` JUSTIN HASFORD, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)
`
` JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)
`
` KYU YUN KIM, ESQUIRE (by videoconference)
`
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`
` Dunner LLP
`
` 901 New York Avenue Northwest
`
` Washington, DC 20001-4412
`
` justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
` joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
` kyuyun.kim@finnegan.com
`
` 202-408-4000
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Judge Hardman [ph] (by videoconference)
`
` Judge Hulse (by videoconference)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
`NO. DESCRIPTION ID/EVD
`
`Page 4
`
` (None marked.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` THE COURT: -- -00722.
`
` This is Judge Valek, and I have Judges
`
`Hulse and Hardman [ph] on the line with me.
`
` Let's start off with having counsel for
`
`both parties introduce themselves, beginning with the
`
`petitioner.
`
` MR. MILLS: Hello, Your Honor. This is
`
`Jad Mills representing the petitioner. With me, I
`
`believe also on the call, I have Richard Torczon and
`
`Grace Winschel.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. Who do we have for
`
`patent owner?
`
` MR. HASFORD: Good afternoon, Your
`
`Honor. This is Justin Hasford. I'm representing
`
`Patent Owner. I also have on the call with me my
`
`colleagues Josh Goldberg and Kyu Yun Kim.
`
` THE COURT: All right. Is there a
`
`court reporter on the line?
`
` THE REPORTER: Yes, Your Honor. This
`
`is Timothy Guevara, the court reporter.
`
` THE COURT: All right. So since we
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`have a court reporter will you please file a
`
`transcript -- I don't know who hired the court
`
`reporter, but will somebody please file the transcript
`
`in due course once we get done?
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` THE COURT: Thank you.
`
` So we're here today regarding two
`
`issues. First we have Patent Owner's request for
`
`authorization to move to strike Paper 9, which is
`
`Petitioner's updated mandatory notices. Then we also
`
`have Petitioner's request for a five-page reply to the
`
`preliminary response.
`
` We'll begin with the first issue -- and
`
`this is for Patent Owner -- will you please give us a
`
`brief explanation why, in your view, the updated
`
`notices failed to comply with Rule 42.8.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Certainly, Your Honor.
`
` So as you're aware, Rule 42.8, in
`
`particular Section (a)(3), requires that a mandatory
`
`change of information notice be filed within 21 days
`
`of any such change in information.
`
` So taking a bit of a step back here,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Petitioner Mylan specifically sought authorization,
`
`sought consent from us to correct what they referred
`
`to as ministerial issues with these three exhibits
`
`that they filed in connection with their petition.
`
`And they stated that these exhibits had image problems
`
`with the PDFs. And so we had no issue with that. We
`
`consented to their filing of these corrected exhibits.
`
` The problem is when they filed those
`
`corrected exhibits they, at the same time, filed this
`
`updated change of information notice without seeking
`
`our agreement or without the Board's authorization.
`
` And the information they've included,
`
`Your Honor, in this updated change of information
`
`notice Mylan has known about for a long time;
`
`certainly more than 21 days. And we believe, Your
`
`Honor, that they are trying -- that Mylan is trying to
`
`add this information for an improper purpose to shore
`
`up what we believe is a deficient real party-in-
`
`interest position.
`
` As Your Honor is aware, we challenged
`
`real party-in-interest in our Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response. It's our position that the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Petitioner failed here to disclose all the real
`
`parties-in-interest, at least because Mylan didn't
`
`disclose two other entities that we believe are real
`
`parties-in-interest. Those are Viatris Inc. and
`
`Mylan Inc.
`
` And now they are trying to add
`
`information, although not in a sense of identifying
`
`those real parties-in-interest. They're just trying
`
`to add additional information in this updated change
`
`of information notice, in our view, to try to shore up
`
`this deficient real party-in-interest position,
`
`despite the fact that -- they filed this on July 11th
`
`despite the fact that they've known about this
`
`information for years.
`
` The petitioner did not identify
`
`Viatris Inc. or Mylan Inc. as real parties-in-interest
`
`in their petition. In our view they still have not
`
`identified them properly as real parties-in-interest
`
`in this updated change of information notice. They
`
`merely state that Viatris Inc. and Mylan Inc. are
`
`parent companies. They did not state they're real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
` They have done this -- they have stated
`
`those two entities are real parties-in-interest in
`
`other IPRs. For example, in IPR 2021-880 [sic], which
`
`is Mylan v. Regeneron; they've done it in 2021-881
`
`[sic]; they've done it in 2022-517 [sic] against
`
`Bayer. They did not do that here. And it's our
`
`position, Your Honor, that Mylan is engaging in
`
`gamesmanship.
`
` They were required to identify all real
`
`parties-in-interest in their petition; they failed to
`
`do so. And in our view, as we stated in our
`
`preliminary patent owner response, this deficiency
`
`warrants denial of institution.
`
` Now they're trying to, apparently, add
`
`this information through this updated change of
`
`information notice. We don't believe that they should
`
`be able to do so. We don't believe that it requires
`
`-- that it complies, rather, with 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(3)
`
`and, therefore, we believe that it should be stricken.
`
` They also put additional information in
`
`this updated change of information notice that we also
`
`believe is deficient. For example, they identified a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`co-pending district court case in New Jersey involving
`
`the same patent that was filed more than a year ago
`
`and in the Western District of Pennsylvania that
`
`involved the same petitioner that was administratively
`
`closed back in April.
`
` That's old information, far more than
`
`21 days prior, and we, therefore, for all these
`
`reasons, respectfully request authorization to move to
`
`strike what we view as an improper paper.
`
` THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you
`
`a follow-up on that, Counsel. Does Patent Owner
`
`contend that Viatris Inc. or Mylan Inc. would be time
`
`barred or estopped from seeking in inter partes review
`
`here?
`
` MR. HASFORD: Absolutely, Your Honor.
`
`The one-year date under 35 U.S.C. Section 315(b), in
`
`our view, would be July 22, 2022. So last week. And,
`
`yes, they would be time barred.
`
` THE COURT: Let me ask it a different
`
`way. If the amendment were allowed -- and so they've
`
`got the date that they were identified as RPIs as of
`
`the date the petition was filed, does Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`contend that Viatris Inc. or Mylan Inc. would be time
`
`barred?
`
` MR. HASFORD: We would contend they're
`
`still time barred, Your Honor, because if this paper
`
`were allowed to be entered, it actually still does not
`
`identify Viatris Inc. or Mylan Inc. as real parties-
`
`in-interest. It initially stated Petitioner Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a co-defendant with Mylan
`
`Laboratories Ltd., Agila Specialties Inc., Mylan API
`
`US LLC, Mylan Inc., and Viatris Inc. in parallel
`
`litigation.
`
` We pointed out in our preliminary
`
`Patent Owner response pursuant to the relevant case
`
`law why that is not sufficient as a real party-in-
`
`interest identification. Now they simply add that
`
`Viatris Inc. and Mylan Inc. are parent companies of
`
`Mylan. They still do not identify them or state that
`
`they are real parties-in-interest. They have so
`
`stated this in other IPRs.
`
` THE COURT: Let me just interrupt you.
`
`I think I -- Counsel, just for a moment. Of course,
`
`that wouldn't be a time bar. That would just be, in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`your view, they haven't properly identified them as
`
`RPIs. How, if they were entitled to have their
`
`amendment as of the date the petition was filed, would
`
`Viatris and Mylan Inc. be time barred?
`
` The reason I'm asking -- I think more
`
`specifically what I'm asking is have these entities
`
`previously been sued or in some other way -- something
`
`that would give rise to that 315(b) time bar clock
`
`starting to tick a little bit earlier than for the
`
`other entities named in the original petition?
`
` MR. HASFORD: Absolutely, Your Honor.
`
`They were all sued as of, I believe, late March or
`
`early April of 2021 in the District of New Jersey.
`
`Service was waived for all of these entities -- for
`
`all six of those entities -- but including for
`
`Viatris Inc. and Mylan Inc. service was waived as of
`
`July 22, 2021.
`
` There has been a great deal of
`
`procedural wrangling and so the case ultimately was
`
`transferred from the District of New Jersey to the
`
`Northern District of West Virginia. But the service
`
`was effectuated -- there's no question that the waiver
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`of service was -- on behalf -- was signed by one of
`
`the attorneys of record, Nicole Stafford here -- was
`
`signed on July 22, 2021. It was filed in U.S.
`
`District Court for District of New Jersey that very
`
`same day. It's on Pacer, publicly available.
`
` And that would be the day as to which
`
`their one-year time bar would run. Their one-year
`
`time bar would be July 22, 2022. And that date has
`
`passed.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. But the petition was
`
`filed on, looks like, March 17th of this year.
`
` MR. HASFORD: I believe that's correct,
`
`Your Honor.
`
` THE COURT: And so if in fact they were
`
`allowed to amend their notices and so -- and all of
`
`these parties, including Mylan Inc. and Viatris Inc.,
`
`were identified as RPIs as of that date, there
`
`wouldn't be a time bar for any of these entities. Is
`
`that correct?
`
` MR. HASFORD: Well, sure, if Your Honor
`
`found and allowed them effectively -- as I understand
`
`Your Honor's question, if Your Honor allowed them to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`retroactively amend their notices such that they would
`
`be deemed real parties-in-interest as of the March
`
`filing date of this petition, that is correct, they
`
`would then be within the law.
`
` THE COURT: All right. Let's let
`
`Petitioner have a chance to respond.
`
` And, Petitioner, I'd like you to tell
`
`us, if you can, whether the revision to the real
`
`party-in-interest section, the identification of these
`
`two entities, I guess as corporate parents, reflects
`
`some sort of change that's occurred within 21 days of
`
`filing the Paper 9.
`
` MR. MILLS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`This is Jad Mills for the Petitioner.
`
` So if I can just back up briefly. The
`
`updates to the mandatory notices were filed on
`
`July 11, 2022. One of the most important issues that
`
`was mentioned in that update is the setting of the
`
`trial date by the district court. And that trial date
`
`was set on June 30, 2022.
`
` So we filed within 21 days of that
`
`noting the update to the trial date. And our
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`action -- doing that actually resulted in the Patent
`
`Owner withdrawing their Fintiv arguments.
`
` The Patent Owner raised in their
`
`preliminary response filed the day before the trial
`
`date was set on June 29th an allegation that our --
`
`the RPI listing in the petition, which indisputably
`
`identified every single entity that they now allege
`
`should have been identified -- but they said that the
`
`disclosure was deficient for needing to state that
`
`Viatris Inc. and Mylan Inc. are parent companies of
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
` So within 21 days of becoming aware of
`
`the Patent Owner's concern about that issue, which
`
`they admit in their papers that the Board was already
`
`aware of -- but within 21 days of becoming aware that
`
`they were going to be making this argument -- which in
`
`a moment I'll explain why we believe the argument is
`
`actually frivolous.
`
` But within 21 days of becoming aware
`
`that they were making the argument we included that
`
`information in our mandatory notices in an effort to
`
`avoid needless costs and time and expense from the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`parties in between the Board.
`
` THE COURT: Let me follow up on that,
`
`Counsel.
`
` So did the ownership -- the corporate
`
`ownership change such that at the time you filed the
`
`petition Viatris and Mylan Inc. weren't parent
`
`companies of -- I think it's Mylan Pharmaceuticals
`
`Inc., or has that changed?
`
` MR. MILLS: We are not asserting that
`
`Viatris and Mylan Inc. were not parent companies of
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals at the time the petition was
`
`filed.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. And are Viatris Inc.
`
`and Mylan Inc. real parties-in-interest? I mean,
`
`they're disclosed in this amended notice and disclosed
`
`in the real parties-in-interest section.
`
` MR. MILLS: Right. We are not
`
`disputing in this proceeding that Viatris Inc. and
`
`Mylan Inc. were real parties-in-interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
` THE COURT: What is --
`
` MR. MILLS: Your Honor --
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
` THE COURT: Oh, sorry. Go ahead,
`
`Counsel.
`
` MR. MILLS: As Your Honor mentioned,
`
`there is no allegation that there is a time bar or an
`
`estoppel that was in effect at the time that these
`
`entities were identified in the real party-in-interest
`
`section of the mandatory notices when the petition was
`
`filed.
`
` In fact, the allegation that there's
`
`any time bar violation is new. It's not in the
`
`preliminary response, it was not raised through our
`
`meet and confer, and it was not raised in the e-mail
`
`to the Board. But there indisputably was no time bar.
`
` The entities were identified in the
`
`mandatory notices section; thereby fulfilling the
`
`purposes of the section which is to provide the Board
`
`with notice so that they can perform their conflict --
`
`and also to provide the Patent Owner with notice so
`
`that they can determine whether any party or any real
`
`party-in-interest or potential party-in-interest is
`
`subject to a time bar, which they indisputably were
`
`not subject to a time bar at the time the petition was
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`filed.
`
` THE COURT: Let me ask another
`
`question. What is Petitioner's explanation for why
`
`these entities, Viatris Inc. and Mylan Inc., were not
`
`identified as parent companies of Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals in your original notices once you
`
`filed the petition?
`
` MR. MILLS: Your Honor, under the
`
`precedential Board decision, SharkNinja v. iRobot --
`
`it's IPR 2020-00743, April 11 -- the Board made clear
`
`that the parties and the Board do not need to engage
`
`in lengthy, possibly, exercises regarding the
`
`identification of RPIs so long as there is no estoppel
`
`or statutory bar in place.
`
` THE COURT: Sure. Sure. I understand.
`
`I understand SharkNinja and what you're getting at,
`
`but I guess my question is a little different. Since
`
`you're not contesting that Viatris and Mylan Inc. are
`
`parent companies and they are RPIs, why weren't they
`
`identified in the notices in the original petition?
`
` Was it just a ministerial oversight,
`
`someone make a mistake? What's the reason why they
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`weren't in there?
`
` MR. MILLS: So Your Honor, to be clear,
`
`they are listed in the RPI section. As Your Honor --
`
`why there wasn't the lengthy explication of the
`
`corporate relationships or a variety of other factors
`
`that the Patent Owner, you know, need to cite to raise
`
`at some point. For the purposes of the real party-in-
`
`interests requirement for the petition we provided the
`
`identification.
`
` There was no intent, you know, to keep
`
`anything from the Board. The intent was to provide a
`
`straight-forward identification of the potential RPIs
`
`so that the Board could perform its conflicts check
`
`and so that the patent owner could satisfy themselves
`
`that none of those entities were subject to a time
`
`bar.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. I think we have --
`
`actually, Counsel, you said that you were going to
`
`talk a little bit about the RPI issue itself. And I
`
`believe that Patent Owner had a chance to address
`
`that. Do you have anything else you want to say about
`
`that before we move on to the next issue?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes. So if I could just
`
`briefly. I mentioned the purposes of the RPI listing.
`
`There are several cases where the Board has discussed
`
`that. One of the cases is NRG v. Midwest Energy, IPR
`
`2020-00832, Paper 17, where the listing of RPIs as
`
`well as potential RPIs is not a violation.
`
` Even in that case there were dozens of
`
`RPIs that were listed, and the key is whether the
`
`entities are listed, whether they're identified or
`
`should provide notice to the Board so that they can
`
`evaluate whether there's any conflicts of interest
`
`which was satisfied here as well as to evaluate
`
`whether any of those entities are time barred.
`
` A second case is PNC Bank v. United
`
`Services Automobile Association. It's
`
`IPR 2021-01073. It's Paper 20, but it appears in the
`
`top of this Paper 25 in the public version where they
`
`named themselves as an RPI.
`
` The Patent Owner contended that they
`
`should have named another entity involved in the
`
`lawsuit as an RPI, and the Board declined the
`
`SharkNinja case, held that there is no statutory bar
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`and therefore that there was no need to address the
`
`RPI issue.
`
` Also I suppose I would say that to the
`
`extent that the Board thinks that there should be
`
`something additional listed in our RPI section, then
`
`we would ask the Board to permit us to do so and we
`
`would update our notices as appropriate and as
`
`requested by the Board.
`
` THE COURT: I'll follow up on something
`
`since you're quoting so many of our cases. Another
`
`one of our precedential decisions like ShankNinja is
`
`Adello Biologics. And there when the petitioner
`
`needed to identify additional RPIs in their -- from
`
`the one in their petition they asked for authorization
`
`to file amended notice before they actually filed it.
`
` But you didn't do that here. Is there
`
`a reason why you didn't do that here?
`
` MR. MILLS: So in the Adello case,
`
`Your Honor, there was an -- the entity that was simply
`
`not listed, which means that the notice function of
`
`the rule had not been satisfied. And the parties did
`
`request authorization and they were granted
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`authorization.
`
` Our understanding is that the entity
`
`has been identified and that the rule has been
`
`satisfied. And for that reason we, you know, did not
`
`see need to use the court resources to request a
`
`motion. But if the Board believes that a motion would
`
`be desirable, then we're happy to make a motion and we
`
`would ask the Board for authorization for any -- that
`
`the Board deems necessary.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. Let's move on to the
`
`second request since that one is yours. My
`
`understanding from the e-mail is that Petitioner does
`
`not intend to address -- or strike that.
`
` What I meant to say is my understanding
`
`of the e-mail is that you and him to address 325(d) in
`
`the RPI arguments and you won't get into the merits
`
`other than to address the material error prong of the
`
`325(d) analysis. Is that correct, Petitioner?
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes. We would not be
`
`addressing the merits except to the extent that
`
`they're integrated within the 325(d) arguments
`
`themselves.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
` THE COURT: All right. Let me go to
`
`the Patent Owner then. Does Patent Owner oppose the
`
`reply as its so limited and you get a chance to sur-
`
`reply?
`
` MR. HASFORD: I think if its so limited
`
`to those narrow issues, that's correct. I mean -- so
`
`here is our issue, Your Honor. We don't believe that
`
`they should get into the substantive merits of, for
`
`example, lead compound.
`
` As Your Honor is aware, this patent
`
`covers the compound plecanatide that is the active
`
`pharmaceutical ingredient in Trulance. And because
`
`it's a compound patent, under controlling federal
`
`circuit case law you got Otsuka v. Sandoz -- that's
`
`Federal Circuit 2012; Takeda v. Alphapharm, 2007;
`
`Daiichi v. Matrix, 2010.
`
` They were required in their petition to
`
`identify a lead compound in the prior art and show why
`
`there would have been motivation for a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to choose that particular
`
`lead compound over other compounds and also why there
`
`would have been a motivation for a person of ordinary
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`skill in the art to modify that particular lead
`
`compound in such a way over other modifications to
`
`result in the claimed plecanatide compound with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
` And as we point out in our preliminary
`
`patent owner response they engaged in none of that
`
`analysis in their petition. We don't believe that
`
`they should be entitled to use this as a backdoor to
`
`now try to engage in that analysis in response to
`
`325(d).
`
` Really, the only issue as to 325(d), as
`
`Your Honor of course knows, is were the references
`
`before the examiner or were they cumulative. And I
`
`think to the extent they're looking to narrowly do
`
`what Your Honor suggested, I believe that would be
`
`fine. I think we'd have to see what they do and then,
`
`you know, reserve the right to move to strike if they
`
`try to go further.
`
` But that's what we don't want to have
`
`happen, Your Honor, is a full-on -- you know,
`
`effectively going back in the merits here.
`
` THE COURT: May I ask Petitioner, is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`that what you're intending to do? Are you going to
`
`use this as a backdoor to supplement your petition?
`
` MR. MILLS: No, that's not what we're
`
`doing. And if I can just briefly respond -- and I
`
`won't go into depth, but we disagree with the patent
`
`owner's characterization and we also disagree with
`
`their arguments that this simply requires the
`
`identification of a single lead compound. But the
`
`purposes of our briefing would be to respond to the
`
`325(d) arguments.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. And one more
`
`question for you, Petitioner. If we were to authorize
`
`you to move to amend your mandatory notices, as was
`
`the case in Adello, to include that additional
`
`information of Viatris and Mylan Inc., would you be
`
`able to brief that motion along with your response to
`
`Patent Owner's RPI argument in a reply?
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes. You're saying within
`
`the five-page limit?
`
` THE COURT: Yeah. And if you need a
`
`little bit more we can give you some more, just we'd
`
`like to keep the number of papers in the schedule kind
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`of on track, is what I'm getting at.
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes, of course. We
`
`certainly can address it in the same time schedule,
`
`and a page or two extra would be appreciated.
`
` THE COURT: Okay.
`
` MR. HASFORD: And Your Honor -- I
`
`apologize. Go ahead.
`
` THE COURT: No, if you want to say
`
`something, go ahead, please.
`
` MR. HASFORD: I mean, the parties
`
`agreed on five pages. We think that all of this can
`
`be addressed in five pages. I mean originally we were
`
`talking about seven pages, but that was when we
`
`thought we were also going to be addressing the Fintiv
`
`arguments, and we did withdraw our Fintiv arguments.
`
` As Your Honor is aware, we submitted
`
`the amended paper or supplemental paper yesterday on
`
`that with those redacted. So we think five pages that
`
`the parties agreed upon are certainly sufficient.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. I think we
`
`understand each side's position. If you would just
`
`stay on the line for a moment while I confer with my
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`colleagues.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` THE COURT: Okay. Can everyone hear
`
`me?
`
` MR. HASFORD: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes.
`
` THE COURT: All right. So I've
`
`conferred with Judges Hulse and Hardman, and we're
`
`going to authorize Petitioner to move to amend its
`
`mandatory notices, and we'll leave Paper 9 in place
`
`pending the outcome of that motion.
`
` Since the updated notices are related
`
`to the RPI issue we'd like Petitioner to include that
`
`motion in its reply brief which we're also going to
`
`authorize. Patent Owner can present any opposition it
`
`may have to Petitioner's motion in its sur-reply.
`
` And we'll allow five pages for the
`
`reply and sur-reply. The reply is going to be due ten
`
`days from tomorrow and a sur-reply ten days after
`
`that.
`
` Does that timeline work for Petitioner?
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes. I do ask whether it's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`ten business days or calendar days.
`
` THE COURT: Calendar days.
`
` MR. MILLS: Okay. Thank you.
`
` THE COURT: And we'll issue an order
`
`preserving all this after the hearing so that you have
`
`firm deadlines for your papers.
`
` Does that timeline also work for Patent
`
`Owner?
`
` MR. HASFORD: I believe that works for
`
`Patent Owner, Your Honor.
`
` So you're authorizing them to move to
`
`amend -- just so I'm clear -- move to amend their
`
`mandatory notices and then we would get to oppose that
`
`in our sur-reply and also respond to the positions
`
`that they're raising in their reply; is that correct?
`
` THE COURT: Yes, that's absolutely
`
`right.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Okay. That's fine with
`
`us.
`
` And it looks like, if I'm looking at my
`
`calendar correctly, ten calendar days from today would
`
`be Sunday, August 7th, to the extent that makes a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`difference.
`
` THE COURT: Yeah. It'll be ten
`
`calendar days from tomorrow. So we'll actually make
`
`it Monday, the 8th --
`
` MR. HASFORD: Got it.
`
` THE COURT: -- and then you'll also be
`
`due, it looks like, 17th; is that correct? 18th.
`
`18th, I'm sorry.
`
` But we'll put this in a written order
`
`so that you have the deadlines in writing so that
`
`everybody is on the same page.
`
` MR. MILLS: That sounds good. Thank
`
`you very much, Your Honor.
`
` THE COU