Anstaett, David L. (Perkins Coie)
`J. Steven Baughman; White, Brandon (Perkins Coie)
`White-ptab@perkinscoie.com; Beel, Bryan D. (Perkins Coie); Greb-ptab@perkinscoie.com; prochnow-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com; jones-ptab@perkinscoie.com; tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com; lembo-ptab@perkinscoie.com;
`Bloodworth, Shannon (Perkins Coie); kelley_nathan-ptab@perkinscoie.com; RSwartz@perkinscoie.com;
`Semaglutide-Ozempic@perkinscoie.com; Wong, Jovial (jwong@winston.com); Border, Scott; slin@winston.com;
`Sodikoff, Brian; West, Christopher W.; Ferenc, Christopher B.; Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com
`RE: IPR2023-00724 - Service of draft proposed motion for sanctions
`Tuesday, July 2, 2024 1:15:14 PM
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Steve,
`
` Your email is most notable for its failure to address any of the many deficiencies we
`identified in Patent Owner’s frivolous draft sanctions motion when the parties conferred on
`June 14.
`
` First, despite our repeated requests, Patent Owner has still not identified any case in
`which the Board has authorized the filing of a sanctions motion or ordered any sanctions—
`much less the kind of terminating sanctions you have demanded—for an alleged violation of a
`Sand Revolution stipulation, or even a Sotera stipulation. In your draft motion, you accuse us
`of engaging in “breathtaking misconduct” warranting terminating sanctions and attorney fees.
`Professionals do not level such serious allegations against their colleagues lightly, and
`certainly not without citing relevant authority. The fact that your draft motion fails to cite
`even a single case authorizing or granting the relief you seek in this context, and that you have
`still failed to cite any relevant authority in response to our subsequent repeated requests, is
`disturbing to say the least.
`
` Second, and by contrast, we noted on our call that it took little time for us to find
`multiple cases in which the Board denied the type of relief Patent Owner seeks, finding that
`any alleged stipulation violation should be raised in the district court. You complain in your
`email that we refused to identify such authority on the parties’ meet-and-confer call. But it is
`Patent Owner who has baselessly leveled the most extreme threat available against Petitioner
`—not the other way around. On the call, we asked repeatedly whether, before sending
`Petitioner your motion, you had conducted legal research or were otherwise aware of authority
`contrary to your position. We pointed out that you have an affirmative duty of candor to the
`Board to cite such authority and at least attempt to distinguish it. You refused to say whether
`your research turned up any such cases and instead asked us to point you to relevant law.
`
`It defies credulity that Patent Owner is unaware of authority contrary to its draft
`motion, as you contend in your email. See, e.g., Google v. Hafeman, IPR2022-01188, EX3001
`(Mar. 20, 2023) (“[A]ny dispute regarding the scope or alleged violation of [Sotera]
`stipulations should be addressed in the district court proceedings in which such stipulations are
`to have effect”); id., Paper 31 at 29-31 (noting “there’s never been a board decision that
`terminated a case because of a Sotera stipulation”); Lightspeed Commerce Inc. v.
`Cloudofchange, LLC, IPR2022-00779, IPR2022-00997, IPR2022-01143, Paper 23, (July 25,
`2023) (denying Patent Owner request to file sanctions motion for alleged violation of Sotera
`stipulation) (“We decline Patent Owner’s invitation for us to determine how a district court
`should interpret stipulations before it.”); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00639,
`IPR2022-00711, IPR2022-00996, IPR2022-00999, Pap.26, (Jan. 18, 2023) (“Any dispute
`regarding the scope or alleged violation of [Sotera] stipulations proffered by a party should be
`addressed in the district court proceedings in which such stipulations are to have effect. Trials
`have been instituted and will proceed in the manner set forth in the scheduling orders for these
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`proceedings.”); Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2020-00204, Paper 21, (Dec. 15, 2020) (where
`Patent Owner alleged violation of Sand Revolution-style stipulation to not rely on prior art in
`district court litigation, holding that “to the extent Patent Owner believes Petitioner has
`violated the letter or spirit of its stipulation in the underlying litigation, Patent Owner could
`seek relief in the district court”).
`
`Third, the district court expert reports that are at the heart of Patent Owner’s motion
`were filed in March 2024. Yet Patent Owner waited three months before raising this issue and
`then did so by sending Petitioner a lengthy sanctions motion seeking to terminate this IPR.
`That is gamesmanship. Patent Owner cannot manufacture a purported injury, sit on it for three
`months, and then assert it only once it concludes that this proceeding is going badly for it. If
`Patent Owner was truly concerned about what defenses Mylan intends to rely on in the district
`court, it could have picked up the phone and conferred in March. More pertinently, Patent
`Owner’s district court counsel could have raised the issue—something they have not done
`even to this day.
`
`Petitioner, by contrast, has expressly written Patent Owner’s district court counsel
`reiterating that Mylan will not pursue by motion or at trial in the district court litigation any
`ground of invalidity instituted in the IPR against the originally-issued claims of the ’462
`patent, unless a change in law otherwise permits. You complain that Mylan submitted expert
`reports “asserting” the three instituted grounds “on Mylan’s own behalf.” But as we informed
`you when we conferred, the reports were submitted on behalf of a joint defense group and
`Mylan is more than willing to include a footnote in those reports consistent with its stipulation
`and with the letter we sent district court litigation counsel—although in view of those
`commitments it is unclear why a footnote is necessary. Moreover, Mylan’s stipulation was
`expressly conditioned on there being no change in the law that would otherwise permit
`reliance in the district court on the instituted grounds. For that condition to have any meaning,
`the instituted grounds must be preserved in expert reports. But absent a change in law, Mylan
`will not pursue those grounds via motion or at trial.
`
`Your related claim that Mylan is seeking to “rewrite” its Sand Revolution stipulation is
`meritless. You cite nothing for the proposition that Mylan’s pledge not to pursue by motion or
`at trial any invalidity ground instituted in the IPR somehow alters the stipulation. Nor have
`you cited any authority (and we are aware of none) suggesting that the sharing of experts is in
`any way improper. Indeed, your draft motion and subsequent email allege that Petitioner’s IPR
`reports and the district court reports are “verbatim or near verbatim” and resulted from the
`experts “copy[ing] vast swaths of their IPR declarations.” When we conferred, we pointed out
`that the IPR expert reports were publicly available when the district court reports were served.
`And because when the district court reports were served there were (and still are) defendants
`in the district court who have not joined the IPR, it is hardly surprising that the instituted
`grounds are included in the reports. In light of that, we asked how Patent Owner was
`prejudiced or subject to “wasteful, duplicative litigation.” Here too, you provided no answer.
`
`Fourth, as noted in our letter to Patent Owner’s district court counsel—with which you
`have been provided a copy—Patent Owner forced Mylan, via the MDL process, out of the
`Northern District of West Virginia and into the District of Delaware, where Mylan would be
`bound to jointly litigate the validity of the ’462 patent with multiple co-defendants. In doing
`so, Patent Owner argued that the defendants “are expected to pursue similar invalidity
`arguments” and engage in “common fact and expert discovery,” and that Patent Owner
`“anticipated overlapping expert witnesses for the generics.” And after the IPR was instituted,
`Novo stipulated that Mylan would remain in Delaware for a joint trial, with other defendants
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00002
`
`

`

`who could assert any available invalidity defense, rather than returning to West Virginia for
`trial after discovery closed.
`
`Fifth, you cite no authority for your argument that Mylan may “fund[] and shar[e]
`experts only on permissible topics,” and offer no explanation as to how exactly that would
`work in practice or what, exactly, is a “permissible topic[].” As only one example, the
`instituted grounds share references (e.g., WO421) with combinations asserted in the district
`court that are not at issue in the IPR. Apparently Patent Owner believes Mylan must parse and
`divide expert bills according to whether an expert was reading WO421 with one ground in
`mind or another or was describing it generally or in the context of certain grounds but not
`others. Patent Owner also appears to believe, for example, that when the district court
`defendants prepare an expert for deposition, Mylan may discuss WO421 with the expert for
`some purposes but not others. As these examples illustrate, at no point have you attempted to
`explain how your unsupported position could be carried out in practice, much less cited any
`authority supporting your position. Your reference to the Sotera stipulations entered by Sun
`and DRL are beside the point because those stipulations are broader than Mylan’s and cover
`not just the instituted grounds, but also any grounds that could have been raised. Mylan is
`under no such restriction and is therefore entitled to litigate in the district court the additional
`defenses available to it.
`
`Finally, we reaffirm our reservation of all rights to pursue sanctions against Patent
`Owner if it proceeds with its baseless motion. Please confirm your draft sanctions motion has
`not changed since it was sent to us. We will respond separately with our availability and our
`additions to your email to the Board.
`Regards,
`Dave
`
`David Anstaett | Perkins Coie LLP
`PARTNER
`33 East Main Street Suite 201
`Madison, WI 53703-3095
`D. +1.608.663.5408
`F. +1.608.663.7499
`E. DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com
`
`From: J. Steven Baughman <steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:23 PM
`To: White, Brandon (WDC) <BMWhite@perkinscoie.com>
`Cc: *White-ptab <White-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Beel, Bryan D. (POR) <BBeel@perkinscoie.com>;
`*Greb-ptab <Greb-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *prochnow-ptab <prochnow-ptab@perkinscoie.com>;
`*Jones-ptab <jones-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *tietz-ptab <tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *lembo-
`ptab <lembo-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Bloodworth, Shannon (WDC)
`<SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com>; *Kelley_Nathan-ptab <kelley_nathan-ptab@perkinscoie.com>;
`Swartz, Rodney (POR) <RSwartz@perkinscoie.com>; *Semaglutide-Ozempic <Semaglutide-
`Ozempic@perkinscoie.com>; Wong, Jovial (jwong@winston.com) <jwong@winston.com>; Border,
`Scott <SBorder@winston.com>; slin@winston.com; Sodikoff, Brian <brian.sodikoff@katten.com>;
`West, Christopher W. <christopher.west@katten.com>; Ferenc, Christopher B.
`<christopher.ferenc@katten.com>; Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com; Anstaett, David L.
`(MSN) <DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2023-00724 - Service of draft proposed motion for sanctions
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00003
`
`

`

`
`Brandon,
`
`We are, first, surprised by Mylan’s conspicuous attempt to alter and limit Mylan's
`commitment to the Board to pursuing the instituted grounds only “by motion or at
`trial.” As you know, in its petition Mylan explicitly promised it would not pursue those
`instituted grounds in district court litigation at all upon institution (Pet.66):
`
`
`In addition, Petitioner stipulates that if the Board institutes, Petitioner will not
`pursue in the district court any instituted grounds against the originally-issued
`claims unless a change in law otherwise permits. This further weighs in favor of
`institution.
`
`
`Far from “reaffirm[ing]” or “reiterat[ing]” its promise, Mylan now tries to rewrite it going
`forward—all the while refusing to answer any questions in the IPR about what Mylan has
`already done.
`
`There is no basis for Mylan’s suggestion that, so long as it stops short of doing so in a
`“motion or… trial,” Mylan is somehow entitled to pursue these foresworn grounds in
`litigation in other ways—such as by submitting reports asserting and detailing those
`improper grounds on Mylan’s own behalf and on behalf of its co-defendants (organized
`and prepared by Mylan to carry on even if Mylan is eventually forced, going forward, to
`follow Mylan’s petition stipulation). Indeed, the point of making a Fintiv-related
`stipulation like Mylan’s is to assure the Board that wasteful, duplicative litigation by the
`petitioner will stop in full and immediately at institution—not at some future time or only
`in pre-trial motions or arguments at trial.
`
`Mylan’s attempt to recast its promise also calls into question what Mylan now concedes
`it won’t do, going forward, at trial or in motion practice. It is apparent that Mylan, after
`institution, agreed to share with its litigation co-defendants Mylan’s three IPR experts,
`who not only copied vast swaths of their IPR declarations but also, with Mylan’s
`apparent sponsorship and participation, included further additional opinions responding
`to specific arguments raised by Patent Owner in the IPR. Mylan then formally submitted
`these three reports to Patent Owner in litigation on behalf of Mylan and all of its
`codefendants. This is certainly an example of Mylan “pursu[ing] in the district court [the
`three] instituted grounds,” contrary to its stipulation. Does Mylan agree that, going
`forward, it will not pursue these grounds, whether alone or in collaboration (openly or
`“behind the scenes”) with its codefendants? Or, is it Mylan’s position that Mylan need
`only refrain from officially signing on to arguments Mylan helps to prepare on those
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00004
`
`

`

`foresworn grounds when they are advanced against Patent Owner in the district court?
`
`While Mylan argues it was “forced… to participate in coordinated and consolidated pre-
`trial proceedings,” Mylan’s characterization of the litigation history (even if it were
`accepted, arguendo) would not absolve Mylan of its obligations to follow its
`commitments to the Board or any other requirements—whether in the interests of
`Mylan’s “convenience” or otherwise. (Notably, Mylan’s reliance on Patent Owner’s
`arguments for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the MDL ignore that these were
`made nearly a year prior to the filing of Mylan’s petition, and that Mylan’s promise came
`after consolidation was ordered and Mylan was fully aware it would be involved in pre-
`trial proceedings with defendants not bound by Mylan’s promise. Similarly, the October
`31, 2023 joint stipulation was entered into after institution was granted and Mylan’s
`promise was in force, and did not relieve Mylan of its promise—"coordinating []
`discovery efforts” does not mean Mylan can substantively assist those other
`defendants.) For example, the suggestion that Mylan is somehow incapable of funding
`and sharing experts only on permissible topics, and not on the grounds Mylan promised
`the Board and Patent Owner it would not pursue, is nonsensical—and it is, of course,
`belied by the conduct of Mylan’s own co-petitioners, Sun and DRL, who (as Sun noted in
`our June 14 meet and confer) have expressly stated they are not joining certain aspects
`of the co-defendants’ shared expert reports following institution of their joined
`petitions. E.g., Responsive Expert Report of Arthur Z. Schwartzbard, M.D., F.A.C.C., at 1
`n.1 (“I understand that Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.,
`Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. do not
`adopt my opinions as they relate to anticipation or obviousness of the ’462 patent.”).
`
`Finally, Mylan’s attempt to rewrite its stipulation to the Board going forward notably
`omits any comment on what Mylan has already done, including in the March 19, 2024,
`expert reports it joined and served for all the defendants months after institution. While
`Mylan has yet to acknowledge it did anything to violate its stipulation, Mylan has not
`explained its conduct or disputed any of the facts presented in our draft motion for
`sanctions, and we intend to seek the Board’s assistance. Notwithstanding Mylan’s
`stated refusal in our meet and confer to consider any discovery on any aspect of this
`matter, we also intend to seek the Board’s permission for related discovery, and will
`follow up on that topic in separate correspondence. But in the meantime, we ask again:
`can Mylan represent to Patent Owner that (other than completed work Mylan had
`already performed solely in connection with the IPR) Mylan had no substantive
`involvement in the preparation, discussion, or other development of the invalidity
`theories in the March 19, 2024 expert reports of Drs. Bantle, Jusko, and Dalby that Mylan
`promised it would not pursue in the district court?
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00005
`
`

`

`
`Regarding Mylan’s repeated threat that—if Patent Owner seeks the Board’s assessment
`of and assistance with Mylan’s conduct here—Mylan will “seek its own sanctions,” we
`respectfully submit this is facially improper and unfounded, as confirmed by Mylan’s
`conduct in our June 14 meet and confer. During that discussion, Mylan’s counsel
`repeatedly suggested he had in mind controlling legal authority that a sanctions motion
`against Mylan would be impermissible and improper—but in response to our repeated,
`explicit requests, he flatly refused to identify any such authority. We are not aware of
`any, and we ask again that Mylan either identify it to us so that we may consider it, or
`cease making improper threats of retaliation.
`
`Respectfully,
`Steve
`
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
`O +1 202-505-5832, M +1 617-378-5548
`steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com
`
`From: White, Brandon (Perkins Coie) <BMWhite@perkinscoie.com>
`Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 10:51 AM
`To: J. Steven Baughman <steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com>
`Cc: White-ptab@perkinscoie.com; Beel, Bryan D. (Perkins Coie) <BBeel@perkinscoie.com>; Greb-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com; prochnow-ptab@perkinscoie.com; jones-ptab@perkinscoie.com; tietz-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com; lembo-ptab@perkinscoie.com; Bloodworth, Shannon (Perkins Coie)
`<SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com>; kelley_nathan-ptab@perkinscoie.com;
`RSwartz@perkinscoie.com; Semaglutide-Ozempic@perkinscoie.com; Wong, Jovial
`(jwong@winston.com) <jwong@winston.com>; Border, Scott <SBorder@winston.com>;
`slin@winston.com; Sodikoff, Brian <brian.sodikoff@katten.com>; West, Christopher W.
`<christopher.west@katten.com>; Ferenc, Christopher B. <christopher.ferenc@katten.com>; Novo-
`Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com; Anstaett, David L. (Perkins Coie)
`<DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2023-00724 - Service of draft proposed motion for sanctions
`
`Steve,
`
`Attached is a copy of a letter provided to counsel in In re Ozempic (Semaglutide) Patent
`Litigation, MDL No. 22-MD-3038 (CFC). MPI reaffirms in this letter that it will not pursue
`by motion or at trial in the district court litigation any grounds of invalidity instituted in Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, No. IPR2023-00724 (PTAB), against the
`originally-issued claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462, unless a change in law otherwise
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00006
`
`

`

`permits.
`
`While Novo Nordisk now appears to take issue with the Defendants in the district court
`litigation sharing experts and serving common expert reports, that is exactly what Novo
`Nordisk expected and relied upon before the JPML to force MPI to litigate in Delaware. Novo
`Nordisk understood and expected that there would be overlapping invalidity issues and shared
`experts between the cases it filed in Delaware and the case it filed against MPI in the Northern
`District of West Virginia and leveraged that expectation to compel MPI’s transfer from the
`Northern District of West Virginia to Delaware. Moreover, the Delaware court ordered the
`parties to coordinate discovery in the litigation and Novo expressly agreed that the Mylan case
`should remain in Delaware for trial. Given Novo Nordisk’s expectation of shared experts and
`overlapping invalidity positions on the consolidated Delaware litigation, it is not surprising
`that Novo Nordisk’s Delaware counsel, despite raising other issues concerning the contentions
`and expert reports served in the Delaware litigation, has never suggested that MPI has
`improperly pursued any issue. MPI remains in full compliance with its representations to the
`Board.
`
`Novo’s draft motion for sanctions is baseless, and the discovery it seeks is unwarranted.
`Should Novo Nordisk continue to pursue this motion or this discovery, MPI reserves the right
`to seek its own sanctions.
`
`
`Brandon White | Perkins Coie LLP
`D. +1.202.654.6206
`
`From: Anstaett, David L. (MSN) <DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com>
`Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 8:56 AM
`To: J. Steven Baughman <steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com>
`Cc: White, Brandon (WDC) <BMWhite@perkinscoie.com>; *White-ptab <White-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Beel, Bryan D. (POR) <BBeel@perkinscoie.com>; *Greb-ptab <Greb-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *prochnow-ptab <prochnow-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *Jones-ptab <jones-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *tietz-ptab <tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *lembo-ptab <lembo-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Bloodworth, Shannon (WDC) <SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com>;
`*Kelley_Nathan-ptab <kelley_nathan-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Swartz, Rodney (POR)
`<RSwartz@perkinscoie.com>; *Semaglutide-Ozempic <Semaglutide-Ozempic@perkinscoie.com>;
`Wong, Jovial (jwong@winston.com) <jwong@winston.com>; Border, Scott
`<SBorder@winston.com>; slin@winston.com; Sodikoff, Brian <brian.sodikoff@katten.com>; West,
`Christopher W. <christopher.west@katten.com>; Ferenc, Christopher B.
`<christopher.ferenc@katten.com>; Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com
`Subject: RE: IPR2023-00724 - Service of draft proposed motion for sanctions
`
`Steve,
`
`Please send a dial-in number for a call at 6:30pm EST today.
`
`Regards,
`Dave
`
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00007
`
`

`

`David Anstaett | Perkins Coie LLP
`PARTNER
`33 East Main Street Suite 201
`Madison, WI 53703-3095
`D. +1.608.663.5408
`F. +1.608.663.7499
`E. DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com
`
`From: J. Steven Baughman <steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com>
`Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 8:15 PM
`To: Anstaett, David L. (MSN) <DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com>
`Cc: White, Brandon (WDC) <BMWhite@perkinscoie.com>; *White-ptab <White-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Beel, Bryan D. (POR) <BBeel@perkinscoie.com>; *Greb-ptab <Greb-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *prochnow-ptab <prochnow-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *Jones-ptab <jones-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *tietz-ptab <tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *lembo-ptab <lembo-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Bloodworth, Shannon (WDC) <SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com>;
`*Kelley_Nathan-ptab <kelley_nathan-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Swartz, Rodney (POR)
`<RSwartz@perkinscoie.com>; *Semaglutide-Ozempic <Semaglutide-Ozempic@perkinscoie.com>;
`Wong, Jovial (jwong@winston.com) <jwong@winston.com>; Border, Scott
`<SBorder@winston.com>; slin@winston.com; Sodikoff, Brian <brian.sodikoff@katten.com>; West,
`Christopher W. <christopher.west@katten.com>; Ferenc, Christopher B.
`<christopher.ferenc@katten.com>; Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com
`Subject: RE: IPR2023-00724 - Service of draft proposed motion for sanctions
`
`Dave,
`
`I’m happy to speak to you from Japan, but the two specific hours you offered for a meet and
`confer are 4-6am. If you prefer Friday over Monday, I can talk any time after 6:30pm ET Friday.
`
`(We obviously disagree with your other characterizations, but can address those at an
`appropriate time.)
`
`Best,
`Steve
`
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
`O +1 202-505-5832, M +1 617-378-5548
`steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com
`
`From: Anstaett, David L. (Perkins Coie) <DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com>
`Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 3:37 PM
`To: J. Steven Baughman <steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com>
`Cc: White, Brandon (Perkins Coie) <BMWhite@perkinscoie.com>; White-ptab@perkinscoie.com;
`Beel, Bryan D. (Perkins Coie) <BBeel@perkinscoie.com>; Greb-ptab@perkinscoie.com; prochnow-
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00008
`
`

`

`ptab@perkinscoie.com; jones-ptab@perkinscoie.com; tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com; lembo-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com; Bloodworth, Shannon (Perkins Coie) <SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com>;
`kelley_nathan-ptab@perkinscoie.com; RSwartz@perkinscoie.com; Semaglutide-
`Ozempic@perkinscoie.com; Wong, Jovial (jwong@winston.com) <jwong@winston.com>; Border,
`Scott <SBorder@winston.com>; slin@winston.com; Sodikoff, Brian <brian.sodikoff@katten.com>;
`West, Christopher W. <christopher.west@katten.com>; Ferenc, Christopher B.
`<christopher.ferenc@katten.com>; Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com
`Subject: Re: IPR2023-00724 - Service of draft proposed motion for sanctions
`
`Steve,
`
`Given that Patent Owner has accused Petitioner of “breathtaking misconduct,” we are
`surprised to learn that neither you nor anyone on your team is available to confer on
`Friday. Patent Owner’s request for discovery to support its proposed motion, which is
`utterly lacking in any factual or legal basis, even prior to the 21-day period required by
`the rules is frivolous. Regardless, Patent Owner is required to meet and confer before
`bringing such a motion request to the Board. So while I understand from your email that
`it is personally inconvenient for you to meet and confer on Friday, your personal
`inconvenience pales in comparison to the harm Novo’s actions have caused Petitioner.
`And as you were able to send your baseless motion and discovery demand from Japan,
`the need for you to be available to meet and confer while overseas was foreseeable.
`
`We remain available on Friday at anytime you or one of the many members of your team
`is available.
`
`Regards,
`Dave
`
`
`On Jun 13, 2024, at 8:37 AM, J. Steven Baughman
`<steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com> wrote:
`
`B
`
`randon - thanks for your message. I am still in Japan on Friday but could
`talk on Monday afternoon or Tuesday from 3-5pm ET; could you please let
`me know if one of those times works for you?
`
`Thanks,
`Steve
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00009
`
`

`

`801 17th Street, NW, Suite 1050
`Washington, DC 20006
`O +1 202-505-5832, M +1 617-378-5548
`steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com
`Pronouns: he/his
`
`From: White, Brandon (Perkins Coie) <BMWhite@perkinscoie.com>
`Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 2:12:18 AM
`To: J. Steven Baughman <steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com>; White-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com <White-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Beel, Bryan D. (Perkins Coie)
`<BBeel@perkinscoie.com>; Greb-ptab@perkinscoie.com <Greb-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; prochnow-ptab@perkinscoie.com <prochnow-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; jones-ptab@perkinscoie.com <jones-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com <tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com>;
`lembo-ptab@perkinscoie.com <lembo-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Bloodworth, Shannon
`(Perkins Coie) <SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com>; Anstaett, David L. (Perkins Coie)
`<DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com>; kelley_nathan-ptab@perkinscoie.com <kelley_nathan-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; RSwartz@perkinscoie.com <RSwartz@perkinscoie.com>;
`Semaglutide-Ozempic@perkinscoie.com <Semaglutide-Ozempic@perkinscoie.com>;
`Wong, Jovial (jwong@winston.com) <jwong@winston.com>; Border, Scott
`<SBorder@winston.com>; slin@winston.com <slin@winston.com>; Sodikoff, Brian
`<brian.sodikoff@katten.com>; West, Christopher W. <christopher.west@katten.com>;
`Ferenc, Christopher B. <christopher.ferenc@katten.com>; Novo-Semaglutide-
`IPR@groombridgewu.com <Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2023-00724 - Service of draft proposed motion for sanctions
`
`Steve,
`
`We are available to meet and confer on Patent Owner’s request for discovery between
`noon and 3 pm ET on Friday, June 14.
`
`Brandon White | Perkins Coie LLP
`D. +1.202.654.6206
`
`From: J. Steven Baughman <steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com>
`Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:30 PM
`To: *White-ptab <White-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Beel, Bryan D. (POR)
`<BBeel@perkinscoie.com>; *Greb-ptab <Greb-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *prochnow-
`ptab <prochnow-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *Jones-ptab <jones-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *tietz-ptab <tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; *lembo-ptab
`<lembo-ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Bloodworth, Shannon (WDC)
`<SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com>; Anstaett, David L. (MSN)
`<DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com>; *Kelley_Nathan-ptab <kelley_nathan-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com>; Swartz, Rodney (POR) <RSwartz@perkinscoie.com>;
`*Semaglutide-Ozempic <Semaglutide-Ozempic@perkinscoie.com>; Wong, Jovial
`(jwong@winston.com) <jwong@winston.com>; Border, Scott
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00010
`
`

`

`<SBorder@winston.com>; slin@winston.com; Sodikoff, Brian
`<brian.sodikoff@katten.com>; West, Christopher W. <christopher.west@katten.com>;
`Ferenc, Christopher B. <christopher.ferenc@katten.com>; Novo-Semaglutide-
`IPR@groombridgewu.com
`Subject: IPR2023-00724 - Service of draft proposed motion for sanctions
`
`Counsel-
`
`Please find enclosed for service a draft proposed motion for sanctions in this
`IPR in connection with Petitioner Mylan's failure to abide by its Sand
`Revolution stipulation; because of size constraints, we will separately
`forward a link with the presently-contemplated additional related exhibits.
` This draft is provided pursuant to Rule ​42.11(d)(2), and reflects Patent
`Owner's intent to seek the Board's permission to file such a motion after the
`passage of the 21-day period specified in the Rule. Consistent with the Rule,
`during this period we are prepared to discuss this proposed motion if Mylan
`wishes to do so, including whether Mylan is willing to provide the requested
`relief without the need for a motion. Patent Owner reserves the right to
`revise this motion before any filing with the Board (including, without
`limitation, in response to any discussions with or further conduct by Mylan,
`any additional information obtained, or other changed circumstances).
`
`In connection with Petitioner Mylan's failure to follow its stipulation and this
`intended motion, Patent Owner also intends to seek now the Board's
`authorization for additional discovery from Petitioners into the
`circumstances surrounding Mylan's cooperation and coordination with DRL,
`Sun, and the other litigation co-defendants in the parallel litigation following
`institution of Mylan's IPR on October 4, 2023. In particular, Patent Owner
`intends to ask authorization from the Board to seek the following from all
`Petitioners:
`
`
`1. All documents consisting of or reflecting communications
`(including without limitation any actual or potential agreements,
`drafts, or other documents communicated) between or among Mylan
`and any other litigation co-defendant about the actual or potential
`retention of Mylan's IPR experts, Drs. William Jusko, John Bantle
`and/or Paul Dalby, by any of the co-defendants other than Mylan in
`the parallel Delaware litigation, In re: Ozempic (Semaglutide) Patent
`Litigation, No. 1:22-cv-01040-CFC (D. Del.). To the extent you assert
`any such documents are privileged, please provide a privilege log
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2655
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2023-00724
`Page 00011
`
`

`

`substantiating the basis for your assertion.
`
`2. All documents reflecting any communications (including without
`limitation any drafts or other documents communicated) between or
`among any litigation co-defendant and any of Mylan's IPR experts Drs.
`William Jusko, John Bantle and/or Paul Dalby, relating to or reflecting
`any direction, instruction, or consultation of such expert(s) in
`connection with the parallel Delaware litigation. To the extent you
`assert any such documents are privileged, please provide a privilege
`log substantiating the basis for your assertion.
`
`3. All documents and things relating to or reflecting the retention and
`payment of Mylan's IPR experts, Drs. William Jusko