`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` _________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` __________________________
`
`Page 1
`
` MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
` MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD.,
` and MSN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
` Petitioners,
` v.
` BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LIMITED,
` Patent Owner.
`
` ___________________________
` Case No. IPR 2022-00722
` Patent 7,041,786
`
` _____________________________
`
` Telephone Conference held on:
` August 17, 2023
` 3:02 p.m.
`
` Before:
` Judge Michael Valek
` Judge Tina Hulse
` Judge Cynthis Hardman
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`MYLAN EXHIBIT - 1076
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland, Ltd.
`IPR2022-00722
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER: JAD A. MILLS, Esquire
`
` Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosatio
`
`Page 2
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER: JUSTIN HASFORD, Esquire
`
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
` Garrett & Dunner
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 3
`
` P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
` JUDGE VALEK: I'd like to have parties introduce
`
`themselves beginning with the petitioner.
`
` MR. MILLS: This is Jad Mills from Wilson Sonsini on
`
`behalf of Petitioner Mylan. On the call we have Rick Torczon
`
`and Tasha Thomas.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Okay. Who is on the line for patent
`
`owner.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Your Honor, for patent owner, this is
`
`Justin Hasford of Finnegan here and I'm also joined by my
`
`partner, Joshua Goldberg.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Okay. Well, we're here today regarding
`
`patent owner's request to submit supplemental information.
`
` Mr. Hasford, before you get into the substance of your
`
`argument, can you just briefly identify what it is you're
`
`seeking to submit as supplemental information in this
`
`proceeding.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Certainly, Your Honor. We're seeking to
`
`submit the expert report of Dr. Sunny Zhou that we contend sets
`
`forth position. Looks like the report was served by Mylan in
`
`parallel district court with the issue involving the same
`
`parties and the same active pharmaceutical ingredient that's at
`
`issue here. And it's our position that this expert report of
`
`Dr. Zhou sets forth positions that contradict Mylan's arguments
`
`in this IPR proceeding.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 4
`
` JUDGE VALEK: When was Dr. Zhou's report served on
`
`patent owner?
`
` MR. HASFORD: It was served July 14th, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: And Dr. Zhou is not currently a witness
`
`in this IPR proceeding, is that correct?
`
` MR. HASFORD: That is correct, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: So, it kind of goes without saying, but
`
`patent owner's request for supplemental information comes very
`
`late in this proceeding. But, Mr. Hasford, you can have a few
`
`minutes to explain why patent owner believes it is in the
`
`interest of justice to allow this information into the record at
`
`this point.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Certainly, Your Honor. Specifically, in
`
`this IPR proceeding, Mylan is arguing obviousness of the 786
`
`patent claims. And Mylan and it's IPR expert, Dr. Blake
`
`Peterson have argued that topoisomerism was not a problem that
`
`would have persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art from
`
`selecting human uroguanylin, a unique compound, and modifying it
`
`to make the claimed Plecanatide compound with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success.
`
` And point out, Your Honors, that Dr. Peterson presents
`
`his opinion throughout Section 3(b) of his second declaration.
`
`More specifically, in paragraph 31 of his second declaration,
`
`Dr. Peterson opines that with respect to topoisomerism
`
`associated with human uroguanylin, quote, a person of ordinary
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 5
`
`skill in the art would not expect this to have a materially
`
`adverse impact of its efficacy, end quote.
`
` And Mylan repeatedly cites this opinion from Dr.
`
`Peterson in its reply brief, Your Honor, and in the final oral
`
`hearing, Mr. Mills on behalf of Mylan stated, quote,
`
`topoisomeric interconversion is not a credible concern, end
`
`quote.
`
` Now, however, Your Honor, in the parallel district
`
`court case, Mylan and Dr. Zhou just argued that topoisomerism in
`
`fact was a long known property with human uroguanylin, because
`
`one topoisomer of human uroguanylin was, quote, practically
`
`inactive, end quote.
`
` This is exactly the opposite of Mylan's and Dr.
`
`Peterson's argument in this IPR proceedings, Your Honors. And
`
`it's consistent with patent owner's and Dr. Davies' position
`
`that human uroguanylin would not have been a suitable choice and
`
`a lead compound for drug development. Dr. Zhou presents this
`
`opinion, at least, six times in his expert report in the
`
`district court case, Your Honors, and Dr. Zhou relies on some of
`
`the same prior art, including the Chino reference that Mylan and
`
`Dr. Peterson address at this IPR proceeding.
`
` Mylan served the expert report of Dr. Zhou a full
`
`month after final oral hearing in this IPR proceeding. Patent
`
`owner could not obtain this new concession from Mylan earlier,
`
`Your Honors, and respectfully submits the Board's consideration
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 6
`
`of this information would be in the interest of justice. And we
`
`therefore seek authorization to submit this information to the
`
`Board in accordance with Section 42.123.
`
` Specifically, Your Honors, we respectfully request a
`
`five-page submission due no later than one week from today, on
`
`August 24th and we would not oppose a five-page responsive
`
`submission from Mylan one week later on August 31st.
`
` And we note, Your Honors, the Board granted a similar
`
`request in SZ DJI Technology v. Autel Robotics in IPR 2019-343
`
`where they received inconsistent testimony provided by the
`
`petitioner's expert in a parallel ITC proceeding where the
`
`patent owner could not attain to it.
`
` Thank you very much for entertaining our request, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Sure. I have a couple questions before
`
`I allow the petitioner to respond.
`
` What is your explanation for why you waited from the
`
`time you received the report in middle of July, I believe, until
`
`last week to bring this request to the Board? The reason I'm
`
`asking is because you know that we have a statutory deadline in
`
`this case. And, so, yeah, even if it's just two weeks or three
`
`weeks, that's a lot of time at this point in the proceeding,
`
`because we're less than a month out from that statutory
`
`deadline.
`
` MR. HASFORD: We understand and certainly appreciate
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 7
`
`that, Your Honor.
`
` Mylan served hundreds of pages of expert reports on us
`
`in the district court case encompassing well over a thousand
`
`total paragraphs. It took a long time to go through those
`
`reports with our experts.
`
` So, within two or so weeks after we received those
`
`expert reports, we contacted -- we reached out to Mylan. We
`
`asked that they meet and confer. They asked for additional
`
`information before meeting and conferring with us. We provided
`
`that additional information. Met and conferred approximately a
`
`week later. And then shortly after the meet and confer, we
`
`submitted the request to Your Honors. That was last week and
`
`then, of course, got on the phone today.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Okay. And these five-page submissions
`
`that you're referring to, are those -- is that a motion for
`
`supplemental information or is that additional briefing
`
`regarding the import of Dr. Zhou's expert report in the other
`
`proceeding.
`
` MR. HASFORD: We, of course, would defer to Your
`
`Honors as to what procedurally you would like us to do, but
`
`we're happy to provide substantive input in those five pages,
`
`unless Your Honor prefers that we submit a preliminary motion to
`
`seek the authorization. We're effectively seeking the
`
`authorization here.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Okay. And you're seeking authorization
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 8
`
`to submit the supplemental information on this call. And the
`
`submission that you're proposing would be a submission
`
`addressing the application of Dr. Zhou's expert report to the
`
`issues in this proceeding? Is that it?
`
` MR. HASFORD: That's exactly correct, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Okay. Are there any other questions
`
`from the panel before we pass this to the petitioners to hear
`
`their point of view?
`
` Okay.
`
` JUDGE HARDMAN: This is Judge Hardman, no.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: All right. Thank you, Mr. Hasford.
`
`Let's hear from Mr. Mills.
`
` MR. MILLS: This is Jad Mills. If I could, I'd like
`
`to address first the, that the request is not in the interest of
`
`justice; that the patent owner has not demonstrated that --
`
` There is no inconsistent sworn testimony by anyone,
`
`certainly not by a trial witness. And there has been no basis
`
`identified for admission of the document, much less
`
`demonstration of an actual contradiction.
`
` The patent owner is already asking -- inviting the
`
`Board to participate in legal error that's predicated on the
`
`idea that there cannot be a motivation to modify unless there is
`
`a teaching away.
`
` In the IPR proceedings, we argued repeatedly that
`
`topoisomerism could be and would be identified. The topoisomers
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 9
`
`routinely separated as characterized, and Dr. Zhou's report is
`
`consistent with that.
`
` In addition to the patent owner failing to demonstrate
`
`that there's an inconsistency in sworn testimony, there's a real
`
`risk of confusion, undue prejudice and this is a large document
`
`that the patent owner is attempting to take out of context.
`
`It's addressing various patents, including the testimony (sic)
`
`at issue in addressing patents with a later priority date and
`
`have different claims and different claim scope.
`
` And indeed, Dr. Zhou's testimony supports the position
`
`in the IPR and, in fact, provides evidence that contradicts
`
`Bausch's own unexpected results arguments. And there are
`
`references that Dr. Zhou relies upon in there that do that.
`
` And so, if this document is submitted, then we believe
`
`that opens the door for us to provide briefing explaining how
`
`Dr. Zhou's opinion supports the IPR positions, as well as to
`
`submit that additional evidence that he relies upon.
`
` To the extent that the Board thinks the patent owner
`
`has satisfied its burden or potentially even could have
`
`satisfied its burden, one option for the Board to consider is to
`
`perform an in camera review of the document, rather than fully
`
`submitting it.
`
` Now, if I could briefly address the untimeliness. The
`
`patent owner has mentioned the July 14th submission of the
`
`document. They waited two weeks, more than two weeks until
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 10
`
`August 1st to reach out to us. When they reached out to us, the
`
`information they gave us was very terse. We had to repeatedly
`
`ask for more information to understand the nature of the
`
`request.
`
` And then once we investigated the request that they
`
`made, we discovered that the things that they're pointing to are
`
`almost word for word identical to statements that were made in
`
`the invalidity contention that we served on them almost one year
`
`ago on August 18th, 2022, and the supplemental invalidity
`
`contention on November 17th, 2022. And for that additional
`
`reason, we believe that they have not made the requisite showing
`
`here. Thank you.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Just a few additional questions for
`
`patent owner.
`
` How long about is the expert report that you're trying
`
`to submit?
`
` MR. HASFORD: I believe the expert report itself is
`
`several hundred paragraphs. So, I think it's roughly couple
`
`hundred pages, several hundred paragraphs.
`
` However, we would point to a specific -- certain
`
`specific sections of that expert report. I mean, a lot of that
`
`expert report will be dealing with other issues that wouldn't
`
`directly address this issue, but there are at least six
`
`occasions in that expert report in which Dr. Zhou provide the
`
`opinion that the one topoisomer of human uroguanylin is
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 11
`
`practically inactive.
`
` And so, we can certainly point the Board very easily
`
`to those specific sections such that the Board wouldn't need to
`
`necessarily consider other portions of the report that, perhaps,
`
`didn't speak to this issue.
`
` And I have a couple of other items to respond to, but
`
`I'll ask Your Honor, does that satisfactorily answer your
`
`question? Do you have further questions that I can address on
`
`the other issues Mr. Mills raised?
`
` JUDGE VALEK: That answers that question, but I do
`
`have another question.
`
` Does patent owner contend that this multi-hundred page
`
`document you want to submit relates to any issue in the IPR,
`
`other than the lead compound analysis.
`
` MR. HASFORD: The issue that it predominately relates
`
`to is lead compound analysis and we would be submitting it for
`
`that purpose. We would not be submitting it for a different
`
`purpose within the IPR. So, if that answers your question,
`
`Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: And the particular opinion that you're
`
`pointing to from Dr. Zhou is that one of the two topoisomers of,
`
`I guess, human uroguanylin is practically inactive is how you
`
`characterized it, is that right?
`
` MR. HASFORD: That's exactly correct. Those are the
`
`words he used, practically inactive.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 12
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Let me ask this question for the
`
`petitioner. Is that even a disputed fact in this case?
`
` MR. MILLS: Thank you for that question, Your Honor.
`
`The reference that Dr. Zhou is quoting from in that section of
`
`the report is a reference that's already in the record. It's in
`
`the Chino reference. And so, the text of the Chino reference is
`
`not in dispute in the IPR.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: I didn't understand and maybe I missed
`
`it somewhere, but I didn't understand petitioner to be arguing
`
`that both of the topoisomers of human uroguanylin are active or
`
`known to be active.
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes. So whether it is completely inactive
`
`or whether there some level of activity, I don't know that we
`
`specifically addressed that. The statement in Chino, the patent
`
`owner is referring to is already in the record in the case and
`
`we have not argued that that statement is inaccurate.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: So, let me go back to Mr. Hasford for a
`
`moment.
`
` Mr. Hasford, how is it that Dr. Zhou's opinion in this
`
`expert report is not cumulative of the evidence that's already
`
`in the record in the IPR proceeding? I'm failing to see why it
`
`matters.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Because Dr. Peterson, Your Honor,
`
`opines, specifically, quote, with respect to the topoisomers
`
`associated with human uroguanylin. He stated, quote, a person
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 13
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not expect this to have a
`
`materially adverse impact on its efficacy.
`
` So, Dr. Peterson is opining the topoisomers that are
`
`present, that's set forth in the prior art would not be expected
`
`to impact the efficacy of human uroguanylin. And Dr. Zhou in
`
`contrary fashion says that it was long known that there was this
`
`problem of human uroguanylin with respect to its efficacy, the
`
`inactive topoisomer or this topoisomer rather was both
`
`practically inactive. So, that's the problem here, that's the
`
`inconsistency.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: But as I understand Mr. Mills' position,
`
`you already have the Chino reference which is one of the
`
`exhibits of record that says the same thing is what you're
`
`saying is important from Dr. Zhou's expert report. And so, I
`
`don't understand why you need supplemental information of the
`
`same thing so late in the game.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Respectfully, Your Honor, I think
`
`there's a little bit more to it with Dr. Zhou. He is opining
`
`that the topoisomers in the human uroguanylin was a long known
`
`problem.
`
` So, his opinion, and I can pull it up here,
`
`specifically, is over a decade before priority date those of the
`
`art knew and scientist understood this. He sets it up as a long
`
`known problem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have had to address. And that is inconsistent, in our view,
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 14
`
`entirely with Dr. Peterson's opinion. So, it's more than simply
`
`seeing the Chino reference that's already in the record.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: But what he cites for that statement is
`
`Chino, correct?
`
` MR. HASFORD: He is citing Chino for that statement.
`
`That is correct, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: I have another question for you.
`
` Is it true that you've known about these positions
`
`since the invalidity contentions that were served? So even
`
`though the expert report was served in mid-July, you had
`
`invalidity contentions that that petitioner says are nearly word
`
`for word in your possession for over a year now. Is that true?
`
` MR. HASFORD: I'm happy to address that, Your Honor.
`
` So, respectfully, Mylan's contentions constituted
`
`hundreds and hundreds of pages of attorney prepared arguments.
`
`Those are not evidence and no expert or any other witness for
`
`that matter provided these opinions on behalf Mylan until the
`
`middle of last month, one month after the final oral hearing in
`
`the IPR proceeding.
`
` So, we respectfully submit that even if Mylan, in
`
`fact, included some of these issues in attorney argument
`
`contentions to us in the district court case, we of course had
`
`no way of knowing what opinions any of their experts were going
`
`to provide until they actually provide us with expert reports,
`
`and that was last month.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 15
`
` JUDGE VALEK: But the expert reports aren't evidence
`
`either. They are just a summary of what the expert is intending
`
`to testify about at trial. And as I understand it, you want to
`
`offer the expert report here to impeach the position that the
`
`petitioner's expert has taken. You could have done the same
`
`thing with the invalidity contentions, right?
`
` MR. HASFORD: Well, what I would say, Your Honor, is
`
`that that wasn't Mylan's own expert saying something that's
`
`completely contrary to what another of their experts said in the
`
`case. I think it's --
`
` Your Honor is correct, an expert report itself is not
`
`evidence. However, we expect that Mylan's expert would testify
`
`at trial in the district court case consistent with what is in
`
`his expert report. And, therefore, we think that that's
`
`important to provide to the Board consistent with the
`
`requirements of Section 42.123.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Okay. Mr. Hasford, do you have anything
`
`else that you'd like to respond to in Mr. Mills' argument?
`
` MR. HASFORD: Briefly, Your Honor. It appears that
`
`Mr. Mills wants to explain away the opinions of Dr. Zhou in the
`
`district court case. What we would respectfully submit to
`
`Your Honors is that this is not a basis to deny our request to
`
`submit supplemental information for Your Honor's consideration.
`
`If Mylan wants to address the substance of Dr. Zhou's opinions,
`
`Mylan can do so in a five-page response on paper.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 16
`
` But in our view, Your Honor, there is not a legitimate
`
`dispute that the opinion of Dr. Peterson in the IPR proceeding
`
`and the opinions of Dr. Zhou parallel in the district court case
`
`are facially inconsistent with each other. And that is exactly
`
`why we are requesting authorization to submit the relevant
`
`information Your Honors and the Court consistent with 42.123.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: I think we understand each side's
`
`positions. Why don't you stay on the line for a moment while I
`
`confer with my colleagues.
`
` MR. HASFORD: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` (Pause in proceedings.)
`
` JUDGE VALEK: This is Judges Valek, Hulse and Hardman,
`
`and we have decided that we are not going to authorize patent
`
`owner's request because we do not believe that it would be in
`
`the interest of judgment to allow this proposed supplemental
`
`information at this point in the proceeding.
`
` It seems like most of the information is already in
`
`the record in the form of this Chino reference and that any
`
`incremental value of the report is outweighed by the actual
`
`prejudice, I suppose, that would be -- that petitioner would
`
`face from us allowing it into the record now at this stage in
`
`the proceeding given that we're less than a month out from the
`
`statutory deadline.
`
` The additional brief you proposed doesn't seem like it
`
`would add much of import to the current record or to the
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 17
`
`resolution of these issues.
`
` We'll, of course, issue a written order confirming
`
`this, but just so the parties can plan, we are not going to
`
`authorize this particular request.
`
` Does either side have any questions before we adjourn?
`
` MR. HASFORD: No questions from patent owner, Your
`
`Honor.
`
` MR. MILLS: Nothing from petitioner.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Okay. Thank you for your time. And
`
`just one thing, make sure that the transcript for the call gets
`
`filed in the record, but do not include Dr. Zhou's report.
`
`That's not authorized, just the transcript of this call.
`
` MR. MILLS: Yes, understood.
`
` JUDGE VALEK: Thank you all. Appreciate it. We're
`
`adjourned.
`
` (The matter concluded at 3:37 p.m.)
`
` * * *
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
` CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER
`
` I, Linda C. Marshall, certify that the foregoing is a
`
`correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the
`
`above-entitled matter.
`
` <%28729,Signature%>
`
` _________________________
`
` Linda C. Marshall, RPR
`
` Official Court Reporter
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`[& - burden]
`
`&
`& 2:2,5
`1
`14th 4:3 9:24
`17 1:16
`17th 10:10
`18th 10:9
`1st 10:1
`2
`2019-343 6:9
`2022 10:9,10
`2022-00722
`1:12
`2023 1:16
`24th 6:6
`28729 18:7
`3
`
`3 4:22
`31 4:23
`31st 6:7
`3:02 1:16
`3:37 17:16
`4
`42.123. 6:3
`15:16 16:6
`7
`7,041,786 1:12
`786 4:14
`a
`above 18:4
`accordance 6:3
`
`active 3:22
`12:10,11
`activity 12:13
`actual 8:19
`16:19
`actually 14:24
`add 16:25
`addition 9:3
`additional 7:8
`7:10,16 9:17
`10:10,13 16:24
`address 5:21
`8:14 9:23
`10:23 11:8
`13:25 14:13
`15:24
`addressed
`12:14
`addressing 8:3
`9:7,8
`adjourn 17:5
`adjourned
`17:15
`admission 8:18
`adverse 5:2
`13:2
`ago 10:9
`allow 4:11 6:16
`16:15
`allowing 16:21
`analysis 11:14
`11:16
`answer 11:7
`answers 11:10
`11:18
`
`appeal 1:3
`appearances
`2:1
`appears 15:19
`application 8:3
`appreciate 6:25
`17:14
`approximately
`7:10
`argued 4:16 5:9
`8:24 12:16
`arguing 4:14
`12:9
`argument 3:15
`5:14 14:21
`15:18
`arguments
`3:24 9:12
`14:15
`art 4:17 5:1,20
`13:1,4,23,24
`asked 7:8,8
`asking 6:20
`8:20
`associated 4:25
`12:25
`attain 6:12
`attempting 9:6
`attorney 14:15
`14:21
`august 1:16 6:6
`6:7 10:1,9
`autel 6:9
`authorization
`6:2 7:23,24,25
`
`Page 1
`
`16:5
`authorize
`16:13 17:4
`authorized
`17:12
`
`b
`
`b 4:22
`back 12:17
`basis 8:17
`15:22
`bausch 1:9
`bausch's 9:12
`beginning 3:3
`behalf 3:5 5:5
`14:17
`believe 6:18
`9:14 10:11,17
`16:14
`believes 4:10
`bit 13:18
`blake 4:15
`board 1:3 6:3,8
`6:19 8:21 9:18
`9:20 11:2,3
`15:15
`board's 5:25
`brief 5:4 16:24
`briefing 7:16
`9:15
`briefly 3:15
`9:23 15:19
`bring 6:19
`burden 9:19,20
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`[c - dr]
`
`c
`c 3:1 18:2,8
`call 3:5 8:1
`17:10,12
`camera 9:21
`case 1:12 5:9
`5:19 6:21 7:3
`12:2,15 14:22
`15:10,13,21
`16:3
`certain 10:20
`certainly 3:18
`4:13 6:25 8:17
`11:2
`certificate 18:1
`certify 18:2
`characterized
`9:1 11:23
`chino 5:20 12:6
`12:6,14 13:12
`14:2,4,5 16:18
`choice 5:16
`cites 5:3 14:3
`citing 14:5
`claim 9:9
`claimed 4:19
`claims 4:15 9:9
`colleagues 16:9
`comes 4:8
`completely
`12:12 15:9
`compound 4:18
`4:19 5:17
`11:14,16
`
`concern 5:6
`concession 5:24
`concluded
`17:16
`confer 7:8,11
`16:9
`conference
`1:15
`conferred 7:10
`conferring 7:9
`confirming
`17:2
`confusion 9:5
`consider 9:20
`11:4
`consideration
`5:25 15:23
`consistent 5:15
`9:2 15:13,15
`16:6
`constituted
`14:14
`contacted 7:7
`contend 3:19
`11:12
`contention 10:8
`10:10
`contentions
`14:9,11,14,22
`15:6
`context 9:6
`contradict 3:24
`contradiction
`8:19
`
`contradicts
`9:11
`contrary 13:6
`15:9
`correct 4:5,6
`8:5 11:24 14:4
`14:6 15:11
`18:3
`couple 6:15
`10:18 11:6
`course 7:13,19
`14:22 17:2
`court 3:21 5:9
`5:19 7:3 14:22
`15:13,21 16:3
`16:6 18:1,8
`credible 5:6
`cumulative
`12:20
`current 16:25
`currently 4:4
`cynthis 1:20
`d
`
`d 3:1
`date 9:8 13:22
`davies 5:15
`deadline 6:20
`6:24 16:23
`dealing 10:22
`decade 13:22
`decided 16:13
`declaration
`4:22,23
`defer 7:19
`
`Page 2
`
`demonstrate
`9:3
`demonstrated
`8:15
`demonstration
`8:19
`deny 15:22
`development
`5:17
`different 9:9,9
`11:17
`directly 10:23
`discovered
`10:6
`dispute 12:7
`16:2
`disputed 12:2
`district 3:21
`5:8,19 7:3
`14:22 15:13,21
`16:3
`dji 6:9
`document 8:18
`9:5,14,21,25
`11:13
`door 9:15
`dr 3:19,24 4:1,4
`4:15,21,24 5:3
`5:9,13,15,17,19
`5:21,22 7:17
`8:3 9:1,10,13
`9:16 10:24
`11:21 12:4,19
`12:23 13:3,5
`13:14,18 14:1
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`[dr - impact]
`
`15:20,24 16:2
`16:3 17:11
`drug 5:17
`due 6:5
`dunner 2:5
`e
`
`e 3:1,1
`earlier 5:24
`easily 11:2
`effectively 7:23
`efficacy 5:2
`13:2,5,7
`either 15:2 17:5
`encompassing
`7:3
`entertaining
`6:13
`entirely 14:1
`entitled 18:4
`error 8:21
`esquire 2:2,4
`evidence 9:11
`9:17 12:20
`14:16 15:1,12
`exactly 5:13 8:5
`11:24 16:4
`exhibits 13:13
`expect 5:1 13:1
`15:12
`expectation
`4:20
`expected 13:4
`expert 3:19,23
`4:15 5:18,22
`6:11 7:2,7,17
`
`8:3 10:15,17
`10:21,22,24
`12:20 13:14
`14:10,16,24
`15:1,2,4,5,8,11
`15:12,14
`experts 7:5
`14:23 15:9
`explain 4:10
`15:20
`explaining 9:15
`explanation
`6:17
`extent 9:18
`f
`face 16:21
`facially 16:4
`fact 5:10 9:11
`12:2 14:21
`failing 9:3
`12:21
`farabow 2:4
`fashion 13:6
`filed 17:11
`final 5:4,23
`14:18
`finnegan 2:4
`3:10
`first 8:14
`five 6:5,6 7:14
`7:21 15:25
`foregoing 18:2
`form 16:18
`forth 3:20,24
`13:4
`
`full 5:22
`fully 9:21
`further 11:8
`g
`
`g 3:1
`game 13:16
`garrett 2:5
`given 16:22
`go 7:4 12:17
`goes 4:7
`going 14:23
`16:13 17:3
`goldberg 3:11
`goodrich 2:2
`granted 6:8
`guess 11:22
`h
`happy 7:21
`14:13
`hardman 1:20
`8:10,10 16:12
`hasford 2:4 3:9
`3:10,14,18 4:3
`4:6,9,13 6:25
`7:19 8:5,11
`10:17 11:15,24
`12:17,19,23
`13:17 14:5,13
`15:7,17,19
`16:10 17:6
`health 1:9
`hear 8:7,12
`hearing 5:5,23
`14:18
`
`Page 3
`
`held 1:15
`henderson 2:4
`honor 3:9,18
`4:3,6,13 5:4,8
`6:14 7:1,22 8:5
`11:7,19 12:3
`12:23 13:17
`14:6,13 15:7
`15:11,19 16:1
`16:10 17:7
`honor's 15:23
`honors 4:21
`5:14,19,25 6:4
`6:8 7:12,20
`15:22 16:6
`hulse 1:19
`16:12
`human 4:18,25
`5:10,11,16
`10:25 11:22
`12:10,25 13:5
`13:7,19
`hundred 10:18
`10:19,19 11:12
`hundreds 7:2
`14:15,15
`i
`idea 8:22
`identical 10:7
`identified 8:18
`8:25
`identify 3:15
`impact 5:2 13:2
`13:5
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`[impeach - modifying]
`
`impeach 15:4
`import 7:17
`16:25
`important
`13:14 15:15
`inaccurate
`12:16
`inactive 5:12
`11:1,22,25
`12:12 13:8,9
`include 17:11
`included 14:21
`including 5:20
`9:7
`inconsistency
`9:4 13:10
`inconsistent
`6:10 8:16
`13:25 16:4
`incremental
`16:19
`information
`3:13,16 4:8,11
`6:1,2 7:9,10,16
`8:1 10:2,3
`13:15 15:23
`16:6,16,17
`ingredient 3:22
`input 7:21
`intending 15:2
`interconversi...
`5:6
`interest 4:11
`6:1 8:14 16:15
`
`introduce 3:2
`invalidity 10:8
`10:9 14:9,11
`15:6
`investigated
`10:5
`inviting 8:20
`involving 3:21
`ipr 1:12 3:25
`4:5,14,15 5:14
`5:21,23 6:9
`8:24 9:11,16
`11:13,18 12:7
`12:21 14:19
`16:2
`ireland 1:9
`issue 3:21,23
`9:8 10:23 11:5
`11:13,15 17:2
`issues 8:4 10:22
`11:9 14:21
`17:1
`itc 6:11
`items 11:6
`j
`jad 2:2 3:4 8:13
`joined 3:10
`joshua 3:11
`judge 1:19,19
`1:20 3:2,7,12
`4:1,4,7 6:15
`7:14,25 8:6,10
`8:10,11 10:13
`11:10,20 12:1
`12:8,17 13:11
`
`14:3,7 15:1,17
`16:7,12 17:9
`17:14
`judges 16:12
`judgment
`16:15
`july 4:3 6:18
`9:24 14:10
`justice 4:11 6:1
`8:15
`justin 2:4 3:10
`k
`kind 4:7
`knew 13:23
`know 6:20
`12:13
`knowing 14:23
`known 5:10
`12:11 13:6,19
`13:24 14:8
`l
`laboratories
`1:6
`large 9:5
`late 4:9 13:16
`lead 5:17 11:14
`11:16
`legal 8:21
`legitimate 16:1
`level 12:13
`limited 1:9
`linda 18:2,8
`line 3:7 16:8
`
`Page 4
`
`little 13:18
`long 5:10 7:4
`10:15 13:6,19
`13:23
`looks 3:20
`lot 6:22 10:21
`m
`made 10:6,7,11
`make 4:19
`17:10
`marshall 18:2,8
`materially 5:1
`13:2
`matter 14:17
`17:16 18:4
`matters 12:22
`mean 10:21
`meet 7:8,11
`meeting 7:9
`mentioned 9:24
`met 7:10
`michael 1:19
`mid 14:10
`middle 6:18
`14:18
`mills 2:2 3:4,4
`5:5 8:12,13,13
`11:9 12:3,12
`13:11 15:18,20
`17:8,13
`minutes 4:10
`missed 12:8
`modify 8:22
`modifying 4:18
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`
`
`[moment - point]
`
`moment 12:18
`16:8
`month 5:23
`6:23 14:18,18
`14:25 16:22
`motion 7:15,22
`motivation
`8:22
`msn 1:6,6
`multi 11:12
`mylan 1:5 3:5
`3:20 4:14,15
`5:3,5,9,20,22
`5:24 6:7 7:2,7
`14:17,20 15:24
`15:25
`mylan's 3:24
`5:13 14:14
`15:8,12
`n
`
`n 3:1
`nature 10:3
`nearly 14:11
`necessarily
`11:4
`need 11:3 13:15
`new 5:24
`note 6:8
`november
`10:10
`
`o
`
`o 3:1
`obtain 5:24
`
`obviousness
`4:14
`occasions 10:24
`offer 15:4
`office 1:1
`official 18:8
`okay 3:7,12
`7:14,25 8:6,9
`15:17 17:9
`once 10:5
`opens 9:15
`opines 4:24
`12:24
`opining 13:3,18
`opinion 4:22
`5:3,18 9:16
`10:25 11:20
`12:19 13:21
`14:1 16:2
`opinions 14:17
`14:23 15:20,24
`16:3
`oppose 6:6
`opposite 5:13
`option 9:20
`oral 5:4,23
`14:18
`order 17:2
`ordinary 4:17
`4:25 13:1,24
`outweighed
`16:19
`own 9:12 15:8
`owner 1:9 2:4
`3:8,9 4:2,10
`
`5:24 6:12 8:15
`8:20 9:3,6,18
`9:24 10:14
`11:12 12: