in the united states district court for the eastern … · claire abernathy henry state bar no....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ALLERGAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1455 WCB LEAD

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED MOTION TO JOIN PARTY PURSUANT TO

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 25(c)

Allergan hereby moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 25(c) to join

patent owner, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, as a party to this case. For the reasons set forth in the

accompanying Memorandum In Support of Its Motion to Join the Tribe As A Party Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) and Response to Court’s October 6, 2017 Order (Dkt.

503), Allergan respectfully requests that its Motion be granted and the Tribe be joined as a co-

plaintiff in the case. Allergan conferred with counsel for Defendants, and they oppose this

Motion.

Dated: October 13, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ Susan E. Morrison

Jonathan E. Singer

(CA Bar No. 187908, MN Bar No. 283459)

LEAD ATTORNEY

[email protected]

Juanita R. Brooks (CA Bar No. 75934)

[email protected]

12390 El Camino Real

Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517 Filed 10/13/17 of 3 PageID #: 25787

2

San Diego, CA 92130

Telephone: 858-678-5070

Facsimile: 858-678-5099

Michael J. Kane (MN Bar No. 0247625)

[email protected]

Deanna J. Reichel (MN Bar No. 0326513)

[email protected]

Joseph A. Herriges (MN Bar No. 390350)

[email protected]

60 South Sixth Street, #3200

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Telephone: (612) 335-5070

Facsimile: (612) 288-9696

Douglas E. McCann (DE Bar No. 3852)

[email protected]

Susan Morrison (DE Bar No. 4690)

[email protected]

Robert M. Oakes (DE Bar No. 5217)

[email protected]

222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Telephone: (302) 652-5070

Facsimile: (302) 652-0607

J. Wesley Samples (OR Bar No. 121784)

[email protected]

901 15th Street, N.W., 7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone: (202) 783-5070

Facsimile: (202) 783-2331

T. John Ward, Jr.

State Bar No. 00794818

E-mail: [email protected]

Wesley Hill



Claire Abernathy Henry



Andrea L. Fair



WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC


3

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

Telephone: (903) 757-6400

Facsimile: (903) 757-2323

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

ALLERGAN, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies that counsel have met and conferred by both email and telephone

regarding the above issue and have been unable to come to an agreement. Therefore, the motion

is opposed by Defendants.

/s/ Susan E. Morrison

Susan E. Morrison

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of

record by email this 13th day of October, 2017.

/s/ Susan E. Morrison

Susan E. Morrison


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ALLERGAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1455 WCB LEAD

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PURSUANT TO

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 25(c)

The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion to join the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe as

a co-plaintiff in this litigation, hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.

Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 25790

Exhibit 1


Home (/) Jobs (/employment) News (/news) Events (/events) Publications (/publications) About (/about-the-tribe) Contact (/contact) Intranet (/intranet)

� (/search)

About the TribeSka’tne ionkwaio’te ón:wa wenhniserá:te ne sén:ha aioianerénhake ne enióhrhen’ne

Working Together Today to Build a Better Tomorrow

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Council is the duly elected and recognized government of the

Mohawk people. Both New York State and the United States deal exclusively with the Tribal Council

Chiefs in a government-to-government relationship.

Mission:

• Accountable government & professional organization that benefits the community

• Building the path through which community development can be fully realized now and in the

future

• Exercising tribal sovereignty and all the tools of government

• Developing its capacity as a service delivery organization

• Engaging in collaborative partnerships that expand its impact

Vision:

A healthy and prosperous Mohawk environment where every member has the opportunity to

succeed at home and in the global community.

Principles:

• Strengthening Mohawk Culture and Identity

• Advocating Rights

• Sustaining Opportunity

• Pursuing Continuous Improvement

• Being Respectful

• Being Proactive

• Embracing Diversity

Core Strategies:

• Enhancing the effectiveness of Tribal Government

• Continuing to develop the Tribe as a professional program & service delivery organization

• Planning program and service growth on our own terms

• Supporting a sustainable revenue generation capacity

• Engaging in collaborative community development

Download the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Strategic Plan 2017-2027 (https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/_uploads/site_files/TCR_2016-94_Strategic_Plan_170519_204010.pdf)

(https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/)

Enterprises (/enterprises) Oversight Bodies (/committees)Tribal Council Programs Support Services Independent Officials

Page 1 of 3About the Tribe | Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

10/12/2017https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/about-the-tribe


(https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/culture_and_history)

History of Tribal Government

(https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/culture_and_history)

(https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/cultural_preservation)

Cultural Preservation

(https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/cultural_preservation)

(https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/saint_kateri_tekakwitha)

Saint Kateri Tekakwitha

(https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/saint_kateri_tekakwitha)

(https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/about_our_logo)

About our Logo (https://www.srmt-

nsn.gov/about_our_logo)

The logo of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

Working Together Today to Build a Better

Tomorrow

Ska’tne ionkwaio’te ón:wa wenhniserá:te ne sén:ha

aioianerénhake ne enióhrhen’ne

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

412 State Route 37

Akwesasne, NY 13655

Phone: 518-358-2272 Fax: 518.358.3203

Saint Regis Mohawk Health Service

Phone: 518.358.3141 Fax: 518.358.6245

�(https://www.facebook.com/SaintRegisMohawkTribe/)

� (https://twitter.com/srm_tribe)

�(https://www.instagram.com/srmtribe/)

�(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMOdZi7JqbaqwqYrf1uhawQ)




Copyright Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. Site by GARRANT (https://www.garrant.com).




Exhibit 2


• • •

Search NCAI

“The power to tax transactions occurring on trust lands and

signi cantly involving a tribe or its members is a fundamental

attribute of sovereignty.” - Washington v. Confederated Tribes of

Colville Indian Reservation, U.S. Supreme Court (1980).

In order to fully participate as members of the American family of

governments, to build a better future for tribal nations, and positively

impact rural and regional economies, tribal governments need tax

revenue. Exactly like other governments, tax revenue is essential to

sustained tribal investments in education, law enforcement, health

care, and other government functions. However, in the area of tribal

taxation at the local level, state governments have steadily

encroached upon tribal jurisdiction. At the same time, tribes have

continually worked to develop new tax models to support their

communities (e.g., instituting hotel excise taxes, severance taxes,

gasoline taxes, etc. and creating tribal tax codes and tax

commissions).

Often, these two approaches have come into con ict with one

another. Because of this power struggle, Indian tax law is primarily

the result of judicial decisions, as well as agreements and/or compacts

made at the state and local level.

Focusing speci cally on these taxation issues, NCAI, in conjunction

with a group of tribal leaders and technical experts, has developed a

tribal taxation strategy that af rms tribal sovereignty and seeks to

place tribes in a more favorable position to pursue economic and

community development projects.

In general, tribal governments lack parity with states, local

governments, and the federal government in exercising taxing

authority. For example, tribes are unable to levy property taxes

because of the trust status of their land, and they generally do not

levy income taxes on tribal members. Most Indian reservations are

plagued with disproportionately high levels of unemployment and

poverty, not to mention a severe lack of employment opportunities.

As a result, tribes are unable to establish a strong tax base structured

around the property taxes and income taxes typically found at the

local state government level. To the degree that they are able, tribes

use sales and excise taxes, but these do not generate enough revenue

to support tribal government functions.

Compounding tribes’ inability to establish a strong tax base, current

federal policy makes it dif cult for tribes to utilize tax-exempt

i i ll il bl f d h

Community & Culture(/policy-issues/community-and-culture)

Economic Development& Commerce (/policy-issues/economic-development-commerce)

Education, Health &Human Services(/policy-issues/education-health-human-services)

Land & NaturalResources (/policy-issues/land-natural-resources)

Tribal Governance(/policy-issues/tribal-governance)

Budget and Approprations(/policy-issues/community-and-culture/budget-appropriations)

Census (/policy-issues/economic-development-commerce/census)

Consultation (/policy-issues/tribal-governance/consultation/consultation)

Emergency Management(/policy-issues/tribal-governance/emergency-management)

Federal Recognition(/policy-issues/tribal-governance/federal-recognition)

Homeland Security(/policy-issues/tribal-governance/homeland-security)

International Issues(/policy-issues/tribal-governance/international-issues)

Public Safety and Justice(/policy-issues/tribal-governance/public-safety-and-justice)

Taxation (/policy-issues/tribal-governance/taxation)

State Tribal Relations(/policy-issues/tribal-governance/state-tribal-relations)

Home Policy Issues Tribal Governance Taxation

Taxation

Tribal Directory (/tribal-directory) About Tribes (/about-tribes) Get Involved (/get-involved) Policy Research Center (/policy-research-center)

SRMT 2102 - Pg. 1 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN

IPR2016-01127


Resolutions

Equitable Treatment for TribalNations in Congressional TaxReform(/resources/resolutions/equitable-treatment-for-tribal-nations-in-congressional-tax-reform)

Jun 15, 2017

Requesting Agencies to Complywith the Tribal General WelfareExclusion Act, PL 113-168, byRecognizing the Treatment ofIncome for Purposes of Bene tsEligibility(/resources/resolutions/requesting-agencies-to-comply-with-the-tribal-general-welfare-exclusion-act-pl-113-168-by-recognizing-the-treatment-of-income-for-purposes-of-bene ts-eligibility)

Jun 15, 2017

Support for Passage by Congressof HR 4943, Tribal Tax andInvestment Reform Act of 2016,or Passage of Similar Legislationin the 115th Congress(/resources/resolutions/support-for-passage-by-congress-of-hr-4943-tribal-tax-and-investment-reform-act-of-2016-or-passage-of-similar-legislation-in-the-115th-congress)

Sep 16, 2016

News

NCAI President Keel's PreparedRemarks at 2011 NCAI Mid YearConference(/news/articles/2011/06/15/ncai-president-keel-s-prepared-remarks-at-2011-ncai-mid-year-conference)

Jun 15, 2011

nancing options generally available to states to fund the

construction of government infrastructure. In addition, other federal

tax incentives meant to promote economic development projects on

tribal lands seem to bene t non-Indian businesses already doing

business in Indian country, while doing little to attract new businesses

or to bene t tribally owned businesses. These policies negatively

impact economic growth in Indian Country and the effect is felt by

entire regional economies.

View All

(/policy-

issues/tribal-

governance/taxation/resolutions)

View All

(/policy-

issues/tribal-

governance/taxation/news)

Policy Issues (/policy-issues)

About Tribes (/about-tribes)

Resources (/resources) Native Youth (/native-youth)Conferences & Events

(/conferences-events) About NCAI (/about-ncai)Initiatives (/initiatives)Membership(/membership)

Contact Us (/feedback-form/form)

Privacy Policy(/privacy-policy)

Terms of Use (/terms-of-use)

NCAI Links National Congress of American Indians(NCAI)Embassy of Tribal Nations 1516 P Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 466-7767, Fax: (202) 466-7797

Copyright © 2001-2017 National Congress of American Indians. Website made possible by the generous support of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (http://www.wkkf.org/). Learn more about our supporters(/about-ncai/our-supporters).

Follow us on (http://www.facebook.com/ncai1944)

(http://twitter.com/#!/NCAI1944)

RT @NCAIPRC: SDPI outcomes -winning strategy in the fight againstdiabetes - reauthorize now!#SDPI2017 https://t.co/wwSb9wL31mabout 19 hours ago

SRMT 2102 - Pg. 2 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN

IPR2016-01127


Exhibit 3


Kenténha/October 12, 2017

Hon. Charles Grassley

Chairman

Senate Judiciary Committee


Hon. Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member

Senate Judiciary Committee


Tekwanonhwerá:tons/Greetings Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein,

On behalf of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“SRMT” or “the Tribe”), we are writing to clarify certain

claims and misperceptions made in recent media coverage and in a September 27th letter from Senator

Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Senator Richard

Blumenthal (D-CT) requesting that the Senate Judiciary Committee investigate the Tribe’s purchase of the

Orange-Book patents for RESTASIS® (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) from Allergan, Plc.

Background on the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is a federally recognized tribal government located in our traditional

Territory of Akwesasne, an economically depressed region of Northern New York State. The Tribe consists

of over 15,600 enrolled tribal members, with approximately 8,000 tribal members living on the Territory.

As one of the primary employers in the region, we take pride in our commitment to promoting and

strengthening our region’s economy. The Tribe and its tribally owned enterprises—Akwesasne Mohawk

Casino Resort, Mohawk Networks, and Akwesasne TV—provide much-needed employment opportunities

for more than 1,600 residents of Northern New York and devotes more than $52 million in salaries annually.

Additionally, SRMT provides a number of essential services to tribal members and our neighbors, including

public safety, economic development, and broadband. Despite our efforts, critical budget shortfalls remain.

To ensure the strength and vigor of our regional economy and to protect against persistent threats to our

tribal general fund and federal funding, we have been forced to diversify our investment strategies. For

example, in recent years, our gaming revenue has leveled off. This coupled with inflation, rising costs of

living and healthcare, additional pressure of persistent budget cuts, sequestration, elimination of federal

programs, increased competition, the Tribe’s inability to tax, and limited economic development

opportunities due to our rural location, have further strained our extremely limited budget. While we do the

best we can to augment shortfalls in federal funding for the health, public safety, housing, environment,

and educational services, we consistently run into roadblocks when attempting to access capital that is

essential to promoting the health and wellbeing of our members, employees, and neighboring non-Native

communities. This transaction with Allergan is thus, specifically intended to supplement our current

funding in order to more adequately exercise and fulfill our essential governmental obligations to our

members.

Chief Eric Thompson Chief Beverly Cook

Chief Michael Conners Sub-Chief Cheryl Jacobs Sub-Chief Shelley Jacobs Sub-Chief Agnes Jacobs


2

In addition to financial barriers, our surrounding environment has been polluted in a way that is causing the

Tribe’s healthcare costs to sky rocket. For the past sixty years, our Territory has been polluted by hazardous

polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aluminum, fluoride, cyanide, and

other volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) from (i) the General Motors (Central Foundry Division)

Superfund Site, (ii) the Alcoa West – Grasse River Superfund Site, and (iii) Alcoa East (formerly owned

by the Reynolds Metals Company) – all of which are located directly upstream and upwind from where our

community draws its drinking water and permanently resides. While the industries and associated jobs

causing the pollution have come and gone, the pollutants remain and continue to contaminate our water,

land, and air. This greatly compromises the health of our tribal members at devastatingly disproportionate

rates.

Despite years of SRMT engagement with the EPA, New York, and Congress, mitigation plans that have

been put into place are drastically underfunded and insufficient. New research also demonstrates that the

EPA’s mitigation methods are further exposing our community to additional pollutants. The lack of

adequate federal funding to completely mitigate these Superfund Sites is polluting our entire Territory with

hazardous PCBs and other VOCs, creating a cycle of pollutant-based health issues, and negatively

impacting the traditional practices that are essential to the preservation of our culture.

Preserved as a part of the 1796 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada to use the river “unhindered”, our

Tribe once lived a traditional subsistence lifestyle, relying on many of the natural resources and wildlife

along the St. Lawrence and Grasse Rivers. However, 60 years of toxic pollution have forced us to turn away

from our subsistent lifestyles. In the 1990s, the New York State Department of Health issued a health

advisory warning residents not to consume any fish from the Grasse River. Unfortunately, this advisory

warning came decades after our tribal members had been exposed to these contaminants. This has plagued

our community with a disproportionately high prevalence of diabetes, thyroid disorders, asthma, arthritis,

autoimmune disease, heart disease and cancers. Newly conducted research also suggests that PCBs may be

transferred through breast milk and inhibit the ability of our young women to conceive. Thus, even if our

children no longer consume wildlife from the St. Lawrence and Grasse Rivers, they consume the milk from

their mother who has been exposed to decades of contaminants, passing on a toxic legacy to the next

generation of tribal members.

The fact that we are being attacked for diversifying our economy and obtaining a revenue source that could

remedy the current environmental disaster that is polluting our community and endangering our well-being,

while also offsetting healthcare costs is, at best, another sad example of colonial paternalism. For many of

our tribal members, the backlash directed at the Tribe – and not other sovereigns involved in the very same

business – cannot be reconciled with the government’s repeated statements of support for tribal sovereignty

and the advancement of true Indian self-determination.

The Tribe is particularly frustrated because we have been working with Congress, EPA, and various

Administrations for decades to address the government’s failure to warn us of the pollution and to protect

us from being poisoned. We will no longer sit back and wait for the government to figure this out nor

will we excuse the government’s inability to provide an important remedy that protects our health

and well-being. Our tribal members need adequate healthcare services and we will do everything we can

to provide them with those essential services.

On top of this, as members of Congress criticize the Tribe for our actions, each of the individual states own

hundreds, if not thousands, of patents. And to be clear, 20-25 percent of these patents were developed by

private parties and subsequently transferred to state entities – the exact fact pattern here. The hypocrisy on

top of the government’s failure to uphold the federal trust responsibility, pass meaningful legislation,

maintain important programs, and pay for environmental damages is leaving the Tribe in a perpetual

standing of uncertainty regarding our ability to provide desperately needed services for our members. True

fulfillment of the federal trust responsibility to tribal governments should not force Indian Country


3

to bear the consequences of partisan disagreements about how to control drug prices and deliver

affordable healthcare.

Recommendations as the Committee Moves Forward

As you move forward in your review of our ownership of this patent and the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)

proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), we ask that you keep the following

considerations in mind:

1. Maintain Parity for Tribal Governments with States and Public Universities.

Tribal governments, like the SRMT, possess the same sovereign authority exercised by state governments

and public universities to partner with companies to bring products to the market, while retaining title of

intellectual property developed. As you begin your review of the transaction, we encourage you to look at

the practices of your own states and the positive impacts of state and public university ownership of Orange

Book-listed patents are having on your constituents.

According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), in 2012, every state had at least one

university, foundation, or other institution that owned a patent. In fact, roughly 4,797 Orange Book-listed

patents, were acquired by states and their public universities. This is roughly a 1.5 percent increase from

1985, more than 25 years ago, when U.S. colleges and Universities owned less than one percent of all

patents. Despite this increase in patent ownership, state and public university patent acquisitions have not

been questioned as to whether their sovereign immunity is at fault for rising drug prices and the declining

U.S. patent system.

According to USPTO, in 2012 the four states represented by the Senators who objected to the deal owned

over 7,000 patents combined. In Senator Hassan’s state, Dartmouth College and the University of New

Hampshire owned a total of 257 patents, with 27 acquired in 2012.

In Senator Casey’s state, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, Penn State Research

Foundation, Carnegie Mellon University, Thomas Jefferson University, Temple University, Drexel

University, Lehigh University, Duquesne University, Philadelphia Health and Education Corp.,

Pennsylvania Research Corp., Penn State University, Drexel University College of Medicine, Allegheny

University of the Health Sciences, University of Scranton, Villanova University, Bryn Mawr College,

University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia College of

Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science, Philadelphia University, University

of Pittsburg Medical Center, Widener College, Franklin and Marshall College, Lehigh University and

Northeast Benjamin Franklin, Technology Center of PA, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, St. Francis University, Slippery Rock University,

University of the Arts, and Widener University owned a total of 3686 patents with 251 acquired in 2012.

In Senator Brown’s state, Ohio State University, Case Western Reserve University, University of Akron,

University of Cincinnati, Ohio State University Research Foundation, University of Dayton, University of

Toledo, Kent State University, Ohio University, Wright State University, Cleveland State University, the

Medical College of Ohio, Bowling Green State University, Miami University, Northeastern Ohio

Universities College of Medicine, Ohio University Edison Animal Biotechnology Institute, Ohio

Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio Northern University, and Antioch College owned a

total of 2267 patents, with 149 acquired in 2012.

In Senator Blumenthal’s state, Yale University, the University of Connecticut, University Patents Inc.,

University of Connecticut Health Center, University of Hartford, Fairfield University, University of

Connecticut Research and Development Corp., University of Connecticut – Center for Science and


4

Technology Commercialization, Connecticut College, and owned a total of 1066 patents, with 51 acquired

in 2012.

Your own states, Iowa and California, have also been long-time Orange-book patent owners. In Iowa, the

University of Iowa, Iowa State University, Iowa State University Research Foundation Inc., University of

Iowa Research Foundation, the University of Iowa Foundation, and Kirkwood Community College owned

a total of 1,515 patents, with 46 acquired in 2012.

In California, UC Berkley, Stanford University, Stanford University Medical Center, California Institute of

Technology, University of Southern California, Scripps Research Institute, Scripps Clinic and Research

Foundation, Loma Linda University Medical Center, University of California Office of Technology

Transfer, Alfred E. Mann Institute for Biomedical Engineering at the University of South California, Loma

Linda University, San Diego State University, Research and Education Institute – UCLA Medical Center,

Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor UCLA Medical Center, California Institute Research

Foundation, California Polytechnic State University Foundation, California Polytechnic State University

Corporation, Keck Graduate Institute, Cal State Fresno Foundation, Research and Education Institute Inc.,

Ambassador College, Cal State Fullerton Foundation, Harvey Mudd College, San Diego State University

Research Foundation, San Jose State University Foundation, San Jose State University Foundation,

University of the Pacific, Western University of Health Sciences, California State University, Humboldt

State University Foundation, Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center, The University

Foundation – California State University, USC Stevens Center for Innovation, Art Center College of

Design, California Institute of Technology – Jet Propulsion Lab, Chapman College, Charles R. Drew

University of Medicine and Science, Jesuit Community at Loyola University, Pepperdine University, San

Diego State College Foundation, and USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center.

For more information on other states’ rates of Orange Book-listed patents, please the attached documents

(U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Data concerning U.S. Colleges and Universities Utility Paten Grants

Calendar Years 1969-2012, our analysis of this data by state, and a list of companies who have transferred

their patents to state universities in the same manner the Tribe has done).

2. Protect a Revenue Stream that Directly Benefits Tribal Citizens and Augments Lack of

Adequate Federal Funding and Limited Economic Development Opportunities

The Tribe’s partnership with Allergan opens a new revenue stream that will help offset budget shortfalls

for housing, healthcare, eldercare, education and language preservation services due to inadequate annual

funding levels, sequestration, the inability to tax, and limited economic development opportunities due to

its rural location. The Tribe will receive $13.75 million upon execution of the agreement and will be eligible

to receive $15 million in annual royalties. The Tribe will use this revenue to address the following shortfalls:

Housing: The Tribe faces a critical housing shortage. As its population expands, its territory has not.

Despite nearly 40 years of litigation with respect to returning Mohawk tribal lands, some local communities

still have not agreed to the settlement forcing the Tribe to purchase additional lands from willing sellers at

a great cost. Additionally, the Tribe’s housing program lost a quarter of a million dollars this year forcing

a reduction in the workforce by three employees and several key staff transitioned to part-time to maintain

operations. Working under these constraints makes it difficult to provide much needed housing for our

members.

Healthcare and Environment: The SRMT community is plagued with chronic illness and has

disproportionately high rates of diabetes and cancer as a result of the environmental pollutants from three

superfund sites located upstream and upwind from the territory. In 2016, SRMT’s total healthcare budget

was $18.2 million. Despite receiving health dollars from federal appropriations, and $1 million in Medicaid,

the Tribe had to heavily subsidize the remaining budget shortfall with its already limited resources.


5

Sequestration and elimination of certain EPA programs have also hindered the Tribes’ ability to mitigate

the impacts of these environmental health hazards, fully remediate the Superfund sites, and adequately

monitor air quality, which further adds costs to the already insufficient healthcare budget.

Eldercare: Like the surrounding non-Indian communities, as the Akwesasne community ages, the need for

greater eldercare continues to strain the Tribe’s budget. A recent referendum highlighted the community’s

concern about the need of the Tribal Government to provide more resources and assistance to elders living

on fixed incomes.

Language Preservation: Like many indigenous languages, the Mohawk language is endangered and faces

the risk of extinction unless the Tribe continues to subsidize and support strong language programs, such

as the full language immersion Akwesasne Freedom School and other intensive programs necessary to

preserve and pass down the Mohawk language.

3. Understand the Role the Tribe is Playing

A major concern raised is that the Tribe is merely a shell company. This could not be further from the truth.

The Tribe has created an Office of Technology Research and Patents that will be an active

participant in any proceedings to protect tribal ownership of all its intellectual property. As a sovereign

government, the Tribe has a duty to its citizens to protect its investments and cannot responsibly rely on its

partners to enforce its sovereign rights.

Finally, in its role as a government, the Tribe has been seeking opportunities that allow it to gain more

knowledge on business models and the regulatory framework that protects intellectual property –

specifically keeping in mind how the Tribe can use this framework to protect its own traditional ecological

knowledge and other innovations.

4. It is Not in the Best Interest of its Tribal Members to Delay Access to Generic Drugs or to

Raise Drug Prices

Some commentators fear the patent agreement between Allergan and the Tribe will delay access to generic

drugs for the American public, insulate pharmaceutical patents from review, and take advantage of

consumers. These concerns reflect a misunderstanding of the federal statutes that govern tribal sovereignty

and market entry of generic drugs.

It is the Tribe’s job, as a sovereign government, to provide healthcare services to its community members

and it is acutely aware of the cost of pharmaceutical drugs and the financial challenges faced by so many

families. Currently, 10 percent of the Tribe’s overall healthcare budget is dedicated to pharmacy costs. To

suggest the Tribe would engage in price-gouging or hinder access to medicine is a complete opposition of

the core values of the Tribe and its own financial interest. Furthermore, generic drugs have already saturated

the market. In 2016, nearly 90 percent of prescription drugs dispersed were generic drugs. In addition, new

research is finding that the cost of generic drugs is rising, not due to state or public university involvement

in the sector, but due to below cost pharmacy reimbursements, low maximum allowable cost prices,

difficulty sourcing alternative medications to fit patients’ budgets, medication non-adherence costs, and

inaccurate price forecasts.

5. Like Public Universities Who Own Patents, Tribal Governments Will Not Cause a Rush of

Companies Moving their Patents to Tribes Nor will it Result in Patents Evading Review

The accusation that deals between private pharmaceutical companies and tribal governments will cause a

rush of companies moving their patents to tribal governments to evade pharmaceutical patents review is

factually incorrect. First and foremost, in 2012 states and public universities owned a total of 75,353 patents


6

with 4,797 acquired that year. During this same year, roughly 70 percent of prescription drugs were generic

drugs. Today, that percentage is even higher.

Secondly, ownership of Orange Book-listed patents by sovereign entities will not affect the ability of

generic drug companies to mount a full and fair patent challenge in federal court. Through 1984 Hatch

Waxman Act (“HWA”) litigation, generic companies can bring their affirmative defenses and

counterclaims that arise from the underlying dispute, unaffected by sovereign immunity. It is incorrect to

say that a sovereign patent owner could use its patents to sue for infringement, but then use its immunity to

block counter-arguments that these patents are invalid.

6. Recognize the Current System is Not Working

Additional accusations contend that the purpose of the IPR proceedings is to ensure generic drug

companies have efficient access to patent review proceedings, to increase access to important medicines,

and to keep drug prices low. In reality, IPR proceedings were established in the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office in 2012 in response to concerns from the high-technology sector. IPR proceedings were intended to

be a cheaper and quicker alternative to federal court litigation over frivolous patent claims. Today, roughly

80 percent of patents are reviewed through IPR proceedings. While it has proven efficient for tech patents,

it has become controversial for pharmaceutical patents, which were never discussed when the IPR system

was created.

For Orange Book-listed patent owners, IPR proceedings allow repetitive attacks on patents, lack finality

and due process, and use legal standards that are systematically unfavorable to patentees. IPR is often used

together with district court litigation for multi-pronged attacks on the same patents in different forums. For

patent challengers IPR can be an effective form of answer-shopping. For patentees, they are a form of

double jeopardy.

For decades prior to the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), HWA ensured that all duly issued

U.S. patents protected by the presumption of validity, a clear and convincing evidence standard and the

right to a trial before a jury overseen by an Article III judge on the issue of validity. As a result of the IPR

abuses, where a federal district court typically invalidates about 28 percent of patents, IPRs have invalidated

76 percent. Because there is no limit on the number of IPRs that can be filed against a patent, challengers

can keep filing IPRs until they win. Since passage of the AIA, the U.S. has fallen from 1st to 10th in the

ranking of the strength of its intellectual property system.

Finally, the Supreme Court is set to review the constitutionality of the America Invents Act (AIA) in Oil

States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, including the constitutionality of the IPR

proceedings. Thus at the very least, consideration of important questions surrounding the Hatch Waxman

Act, the America Invents Act and the intersection of sovereign immunity should benefit from the Supreme

Court's guidance on this issue.

We thank you for your leadership on this matter and appreciate your consideration of our request. We hope

that we can continue working, as governmental partners, to seek important opportunities that allow us to

provide our constituents, with the resources and services they need.

Skén:nen | In peace,

THE SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBAL COUNCIL


ALL U.S. UNIVERSITIES - U.S. University Utility Patents, CY 1969 - 2012, By Organizational Name and issue_date

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/org_gr/all_univ_ag.htm[10/5/2017 11:20:23 AM]

Home > PTMT Listing of Viewable Reports > University Report Table of Contents > University Listing > This Page

U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEPatent Technology Monitoring Team (PTMT)

U.S. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES-UTILITY PATENT GRANTS,

CALENDAR YEARS 1969-2012- this report was created with support from the National Science Foundation -

BREAKOUT BY UNIVERSITY ASSIGNEE - PATENTS DISTRIBUTED BY CALENDAR YEAR OF GRANT

NUMBER OF UTILITY PATENTS ASSIGNED ANNUALLYTO U.S. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

- Explanation of Data -

Rank Ordered Listing of Assignee Names Receiving 1 or More Utility Patents During the Period

This Table Provides a Detail Breakout with Separate Countsfor Each Identified Assignee Name Associated With:

ALL U.S. UNIVERSITIES

( count of patent grants, as distributed by calendar year of grant ) ( patent ownership is determined by the first-named assignee listed on a patent )

Annual patent counts for the university.Counts of granted patents are distributed by the year of patent grant.

Multiple assignee names may be associated with a university.

Organizational Identifier State PRE_1992 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total

UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA, THE REGENTSOF

CA 831 79 112 154 203 255 264 386 434 432 401 430 437 422 388 410 333 237 251 349 323 357 7488

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTEOF TECHNOLOGY MA 1210 125 112 99 104 119 102 138 142 113 125 135 127 132 136 139 141 134 134 174 160 216 4017

STANFORD UNIVERSITY CA 472 42 50 62 54 55 64 79 83 103 84 102 85 75 90 98 85 120 110 155 153 182 2403

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY CA 446 32 29 46 37 24 46 93 99 103 124 110 139 135 101 115 116 96 93 134 111 136 2365

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TX 308 73 86 97 89 87 81 96 91 89 89 91 94 99 89 107 90 79 98 122 125 141 2321

WISCONSIN ALUMNIRESEARCH FOUNDATION WI 381 39 53 48 44 64 62 83 86 64 72 80 84 64 77 101 91 90 115 136 144 155 2133

JOHNS HOPKINSUNIVERSITY MD 239 20 33 23 28 27 47 79 97 72 80 81 70 94 71 91 62 66 56 71 70 79 1556

CORNELL RESEARCH NY 282 41 35 39 36 52 50 64 64 49 61 35 59 40 41 61 54 50 52 74 51 33 1323


http://www.uspto.gov/

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htm

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/univ_toc.htm

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/org_gr/universities_g.htm

http://www.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/exitconf/internet_exitconf.pl?target=www.nsf.gov

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/org_gr/explan.htm



FOUNDATION INC.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MI 132 21 19 28 30 25 53 50 51 69 51 47 63 67 71 69 47 66 54 78 79 97 1267

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY NY 80 17 17 18 18 33 35 55 55 51 58 46 61 52 57 54 55 54 46 82 76 78 1098

UNIVERSITY OFPENNSYLVANIA PA 89 26 34 37 25 45 55 69 59 31 52 45 29 32 43 47 39 45 38 77 59 78 1054

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA,THE REGENTS OF MN 290 31 28 28 25 31 32 43 49 46 38 41 39 43 36 36 31 27 34 34 37 38 1037

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATIONINC.

IA 371 23 28 37 37 38 36 53 44 34 28 19 26 25 13 24 22 12 31 25 16 14 956

RESEARCH FOUNDATION OFSTATE UNIVERSITY OF NEWYORK

NY 66 29 28 34 30 37 45 51 54 52 40 54 34 37 24 42 29 39 57 61 43 46 932

GEORGIA TECH RESEARCHCORP. GA 125 16 16 20 21 22 16 17 33 37 32 36 43 37 42 54 50 42 41 67 69 80 916

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS IL 63 10 13 14 12 16 17 21 29 26 34 31 39 58 34 51 45 47 65 85 90 85 885

UNIVERSITY OFWASHINGTON WA 49 11 11 13 17 25 37 47 47 59 43 41 36 31 32 37 39 42 51 74 45 70 857

HARVARD COLLEGE,PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS MA 114 16 17 16 14 32 28 49 41 26 32 48 40 41 26 34 43 43 34 47 56 52 849

MICHIGAN STATEUNIVERSITY MI 67 19 13 21 15 32 41 59 53 42 39 49 49 28 24 32 35 46 42 39 33 30 808

DUKE UNIVERSITY NC 66 8 12 29 20 37 21 28 33 32 55 38 40 26 25 51 29 33 32 42 39 41 737

NORTH CAROLINA STATEUNIVERSITY NC 61 24 27 32 30 26 24 26 23 24 31 33 44 42 39 34 31 34 25 34 38 38 720

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA CA 105 18 13 15 6 15 18 16 13 15 20 31 27 31 25 35 25 39 38 60 54 83 702

SCRIPPS RESEARCHINSTITUTE CA 0 9 28 24 36 27 26 58 42 36 55 32 28 19 29 40 32 42 32 33 29 32 689

PURDUE RESEARCHFOUNDATION IN 211 5 6 11 10 12 24 20 18 10 13 23 21 23 25 24 32 21 41 51 41 42 684

RESEARCH CORPORATION NY 669 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 670

NORTHWESTERNUNIVERSITY IL 94 8 8 12 17 10 27 35 23 17 33 27 21 18 18 19 24 27 35 58 64 70 665

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MD 19 14 20 14 21 20 15 24 32 24 24 25 31 29 22 40 29 31 33 52 52 61 632

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY NY 76 11 19 15 14 18 21 22 23 24 29 19 22 23 14 26 41 20 37 59 49 46 628

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDARESEARCH FOUNDATION,INCORPORATED

FL 6 6 5 8 10 21 18 26 22 14 15 21 15 20 40 60 57 43 51 42 54 70 624

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FL 187 36 29 18 21 15 25 26 28 50 36 21 44 21 24 19 5 2 3 1 0 0 611

UNIVERSITY OFPITTSBURGH PA 91 10 10 10 13 11 17 31 39 38 38 22 22 24 18 23 18 30 25 30 30 43 593




PENN STATE RESEARCHFOUNDATION, INC. PA 0 0 4 10 16 20 19 26 35 37 50 47 51 38 29 29 27 27 29 39 27 32 592

UNIVERSITY OF UTAHRESEARCH FOUNDATION UT 34 5 10 16 13 24 22 32 30 17 38 24 14 21 17 22 27 25 27 47 45 79 589

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHCAROLINA NC 29 11 14 13 21 22 39 29 43 27 36 22 29 24 30 21 30 24 20 39 26 39 588

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHFLORIDA FL 12 5 7 4 6 13 14 18 18 20 15 19 11 30 18 32 28 34 35 83 86 79 587

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY MO 68 17 18 19 21 18 22 40 50 36 37 19 22 20 15 19 17 15 15 22 29 25 564

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRALFLORIDA FL 1 0 4 4 6 9 14 12 14 11 19 16 26 29 23 32 31 40 53 60 67 72 543

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY NJ 34 4 11 7 12 13 16 24 30 28 39 36 31 21 32 23 29 30 27 28 37 24 536

UNIVERSITY OF IOWARESEARCH FOUNDATION IA 82 7 11 9 17 11 14 25 29 16 38 25 30 17 16 28 26 22 21 32 25 31 532

MAYO FOUNDATION FORMEDICAL EDUCATION ANDRESEARCH

MN 11 9 9 4 6 12 17 20 28 18 27 26 29 28 27 26 25 29 23 60 41 48 523

TEXAS A AND MUNIVERSITY TX 67 14 22 20 16 14 14 21 23 19 25 29 19 24 24 24 26 15 18 26 19 34 513

YALE UNIVERSITY CT 56 12 14 13 16 7 20 34 28 29 29 25 28 19 23 21 16 7 24 27 34 24 506

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY NJ 28 12 15 18 20 18 21 26 31 25 21 35 24 21 18 31 21 24 11 20 23 28 491

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY OH 190 17 8 5 10 9 13 11 13 22 11 13 13 23 21 22 10 6 9 16 14 17 473

ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY NY 69 23 23 13 9 8 20 35 34 42 25 32 13 15 5 21 3 19 17 11 17 15 469

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKYRESEARCH FOUNDATION KY 91 7 4 3 11 13 14 19 25 24 19 31 22 17 19 23 13 19 22 30 20 23 469

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO IL 29 0 6 13 16 13 22 22 25 16 27 28 27 41 24 37 19 15 15 14 16 14 439

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER NY 112 10 11 10 6 3 5 15 7 12 16 19 18 15 15 25 19 19 27 20 22 27 433

CARNEGIE-MELLONUNIVERSITY PA 36 10 4 8 10 13 9 26 27 33 12 19 25 25 7 30 15 13 10 26 21 36 415

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA,THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF NE 39 4 10 16 21 29 24 25 23 27 18 24 18 20 12 18 14 18 8 16 10 12 406

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI MO 79 9 8 7 10 8 16 13 16 6 12 14 17 18 8 20 15 11 16 26 27 35 391

LOUISIANA STATEUNIVERSITY LA 39 20 16 11 14 14 20 37 15 20 34 19 17 11 15 13 14 15 5 10 12 17 388

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AR 19 16 8 10 5 6 8 9 30 18 28 17 25 16 17 23 16 14 16 26 26 34 387

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY TN 38 4 7 6 9 6 11 16 14 21 20 20 21 21 16 22 17 16 17 19 30 32 383

BOSTON UNIVERSITY MA 66 22 14 14 14 16 20 19 15 16 18 14 15 10 10 8 13 10 11 19 13 24 381

UNIVERSITY OFMASSACHUSETTS MA 8 0 0 1 1 2 1 14 39 11 11 11 15 15 9 16 14 23 36 50 47 54 378

THOMAS JEFFERSONUNIVERSITY PA 50 8 9 13 14 15 25 29 26 26 36 29 21 10 8 5 9 4 7 14 2 5 365




EMORY UNIVERSITY GA 22 6 14 5 11 12 12 35 26 20 18 28 22 17 11 19 13 10 10 23 11 9 354

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIAALUMNI PATENTSFOUNDATION

VA 56 9 6 5 9 13 12 15 15 10 15 9 20 6 9 11 13 21 14 27 28 28 351

CASE WESTERN RESERVEUNIVERSITY OH 39 9 6 8 8 6 9 15 28 18 18 22 14 10 11 11 6 9 16 19 28 33 343

VIRGINIA TECHINTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES,INC.

VA 22 16 7 14 3 11 16 16 20 13 9 10 13 13 12 24 28 13 27 23 11 13 334

UNIVERSITY OFCONNECTICUT CT 21 9 9 2 8 9 13 11 17 13 7 13 13 10 18 28 19 21 17 23 20 25 326

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIARESEARCH FOUNDATION,INC.

GA 43 10 18 7 10 12 11 18 10 18 18 20 12 8 11 5 7 7 13 18 19 29 324

BAYLOR COLLEGE OFMEDICINE TX 53 6 9 9 4 15 15 27 19 26 12 17 15 13 7 14 12 16 6 10 8 6 319

UAB RESEARCHFOUNDATION AL 2 4 4 4 6 5 13 18 31 22 25 21 41 31 13 14 15 4 11 9 10 12 315

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA OK 26 7 13 7 11 9 16 9 15 17 20 8 10 3 6 22 22 11 18 26 17 11 304

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE DE 133 10 5 4 5 5 4 6 2 3 5 9 7 9 6 5 10 12 14 20 12 16 302

UNIVERSITY OF AKRON OH 74 11 9 17 11 12 5 9 12 11 13 11 9 14 8 7 7 7 6 10 11 20 294

WILLIAM MARSH RICEUNIVERSITY TX 2 0 2 2 0 4 2 1 2 2 6 9 6 21 20 31 24 25 23 34 34 35 285

FLORIDA STATEUNIVERSITY FL 9 2 9 5 10 8 6 13 9 14 7 19 12 9 11 13 13 7 14 35 23 32 280

RENSSELEAR POLYTECHNICINSTITUTE NY 40 2 7 7 7 12 6 4 5 9 8 6 14 13 14 17 26 10 17 23 9 16 272

ARIZONA STATEUNIVERSITY AZ 35 6 2 5 7 17 8 5 7 6 8 9 6 11 12 15 11 14 14 15 17 34 264

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO,THE REGENTS OF CO 5 0 0 2 8 14 20 16 7 2 3 3 14 13 11 20 12 21 15 24 27 23 260

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH UT 169 8 10 6 4 8 9 5 4 3 5 5 5 3 1 0 2 2 1 3 1 6 260

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY MI 53 16 12 14 9 8 8 10 10 8 12 11 5 6 8 13 8 5 10 7 12 13 258

OREGON HEALTH SCIENCESUNIVERSITY OR 16 5 5 6 10 12 16 13 13 21 13 14 8 11 6 8 9 11 11 11 16 13 248

ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGEOF MEDICINE OF YESHIVAUNIVERSITY

NY 27 1 4 3 3 11 6 14 10 17 17 15 11 14 9 13 5 9 6 19 11 13 238

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI OH 44 7 8 7 8 7 10 5 5 16 16 12 9 8 7 8 8 7 4 15 14 9 234

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEERESEARCH CORPORATION TN 76 12 3 5 14 8 12 9 12 16 22 31 4 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 234

TUFTS UNIVERSITY MA 19 7 9 6 3 7 4 10 6 9 12 12 11 11 8 15 8 6 13 13 16 26 231




DARTMOUTH COLLEGE NH 20 1 4 4 3 4 2 9 8 11 7 8 9 10 7 16 16 9 11 17 21 24 221

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PA 65 14 9 9 11 7 9 6 5 4 6 8 12 8 5 7 4 3 7 2 7 11 219

UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINEAND DENTISTRY OF NEWJERSEY

NJ 28 6 1 4 5 3 7 15 9 5 14 5 12 8 4 18 9 9 10 15 17 14 218

UNIVERSITY PATENTS, INC. CT 201 9 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215

THE OHIO STATEUNIVERSITY RESEARCHFOUNDATION

OH 1 4 2 5 7 13 14 13 9 4 9 6 6 11 8 8 8 9 12 19 23 23 214

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATION KS 65 7 8 20 11 9 4 7 12 8 9 8 7 9 2 2 3 3 2 7 4 5 212

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY DC 34 5 5 7 6 7 8 11 8 13 8 8 12 9 1 8 8 5 8 7 11 12 201

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY SC 33 10 4 10 8 7 9 8 2 3 6 7 13 10 11 13 9 7 5 16 2 1 194

NORTHEASTERNUNIVERSITY MA 22 11 10 15 16 11 12 11 9 15 6 4 2 8 8 4 4 3 3 8 4 8 194

RESEARCH TRIANGLEINSTITUTE NC 45 4 7 7 7 2 4 6 10 10 8 5 13 7 6 11 7 3 6 4 12 6 190

UNIVERSITY OF NEWMEXICO NM 37 11 5 9 15 8 13 12 15 23 13 14 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 184

UCHICAGO ARGONNE LLC IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 25 37 23 32 31 31 182

NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY NJ 4 2 0 1 2 2 6 6 8 9 4 6 5 7 0 6 7 11 13 20 28 34 181

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYCORPORATION ATUNIVERSITY OF NEWMEXICO

NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 13 12 8 10 13 16 20 31 38 179

BROWN UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATION RI 17 5 1 4 6 6 9 18 18 12 19 7 13 8 8 8 4 6 1 2 2 2 176

BRIGHAM YOUNGUNIVERSITY UT 45 9 13 3 3 2 5 2 2 4 2 6 2 7 3 11 12 5 9 12 1 13 171

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY NC 8 0 3 4 1 6 6 6 9 11 11 6 8 13 3 8 9 6 5 15 11 22 171

AUBURN UNIVERSITY AL 1 4 0 2 2 1 3 6 9 8 8 8 5 9 11 10 14 8 16 15 10 14 164

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI FL 49 5 2 5 5 5 14 3 2 3 3 6 8 3 3 2 5 4 4 4 3 21 159

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AZ 5 1 3 6 5 4 10 8 7 5 3 8 6 8 3 10 14 10 6 11 18 7 158

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY OR 17 9 5 11 6 3 7 8 3 2 8 6 5 9 6 7 6 4 5 6 8 12 153

WASHINGTON STATEUNIVERSITY RESEARCHFOUNDATION

WA 31 3 2 4 3 2 5 5 9 9 13 7 7 6 7 4 3 8 1 7 9 8 153

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AL 49 3 2 3 3 8 6 9 6 4 7 8 1 8 4 2 3 6 4 1 7 7 151

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII HI 24 5 8 6 7 6 5 6 8 10 4 6 6 4 6 10 7 7 6 5 2 3 151

DREXEL UNIVERSITY PA 13 2 5 6 4 1 2 5 4 4 5 7 3 5 1 1 4 7 10 18 19 20 146




VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTHUNIVERSITY VA 3 3 6 2 2 4 7 6 18 18 9 9 11 4 1 5 8 5 5 7 4 7 144

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON OH 42 1 3 2 4 4 2 7 7 5 5 6 2 4 1 5 7 3 4 11 7 8 140

UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO OH 25 4 7 6 14 7 9 6 5 4 5 4 3 5 2 4 2 4 1 5 7 11 140

INDIANA UNIVERSITYFOUNDATION IN 75 6 1 7 6 8 11 11 4 5 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 138

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOISFOUNDATION IL 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135

MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICALUNIVERSITY MI 64 6 3 3 2 3 0 0 2 3 1 3 2 5 6 5 8 2 4 5 5 2 134

COLORADO STATEUNIVERSITY RESEARCHFOUNDATION

CO 22 1 4 1 1 6 2 8 5 4 4 11 5 4 2 3 5 6 4 9 9 14 130

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS KS 8 7 3 2 2 3 1 5 8 4 3 9 6 4 3 0 4 5 13 9 3 23 125

SCRIPPS CLINIC ANDRESEARCH FOUNDATION CA 91 12 10 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEERESEARCH FOUNDATION TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 7 12 13 9 14 23 19 13 117

TULANE EDUCATIONALFUND LA 21 5 6 6 4 7 4 9 2 6 5 6 7 2 0 3 3 7 3 4 1 5 116

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY OH 6 2 3 3 4 4 3 5 5 5 6 2 3 2 8 7 6 5 3 13 8 12 115

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHCAROLINA SC 16 6 2 3 0 3 4 1 4 1 5 2 3 2 2 7 4 3 3 5 14 25 115

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY IL 4 1 4 0 7 3 4 4 4 1 4 7 7 4 5 6 8 6 4 8 7 14 112

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY MA 22 4 2 2 3 6 4 9 6 4 1 2 9 4 1 5 3 2 5 4 5 4 107

COLD SPRING HARBORLABORATORY NY 4 0 0 1 2 4 5 5 20 13 8 6 8 2 4 1 3 2 3 3 5 8 107

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY NY 28 5 5 3 1 2 9 7 4 3 0 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 4 8 6 8 106

LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITYMEDICAL CENTER CA 6 1 2 2 7 5 1 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 2 7 7 5 3 6 9 11 104

UNIVERSITY OF IDAHORESEARCH FOUNDATION,INC.

ID 20 5 8 4 5 7 6 5 2 5 6 4 4 1 2 9 1 3 3 3 0 0 103

OKLAHOMA STATEUNIVERSITY OK 27 2 0 0 3 2 0 2 5 3 1 5 3 7 7 3 6 4 4 4 4 10 102

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON TX 5 0 2 2 6 4 4 4 2 9 6 4 12 2 4 1 3 4 7 3 10 8 102

HARBOR BRANCHOCEANOGRAPHICINSTITUTE, INC.

FL 51 5 4 4 4 2 2 1 1 4 3 6 4 3 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 100

ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES,INC. DC 19 5 5 14 12 12 13 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 96

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY PA 29 6 4 3 1 1 0 2 2 4 3 3 4 1 3 1 1 2 5 3 6 6 90




MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OFMEDICINE OF THE CITYUNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

NY 34 3 3 2 3 8 10 10 6 4 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 90

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEWYORK NY 74 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 90

OHIO UNIVERSITY OH 6 1 3 3 5 3 1 6 2 3 2 3 6 2 3 3 5 2 5 7 11 7 89

UNIVERSITY OF NOTREDAME IN 26 1 2 3 0 2 2 4 0 1 2 3 1 2 5 1 6 1 4 5 8 10 89

ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY MO 9 1 0 0 1 1 2 3 10 2 5 7 4 3 5 3 2 1 5 9 7 8 88

ADVANCED RESEARCH ANDTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE,INC.

IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 8 18 14 16 8 3 4 1 2 0 1 1 0 87

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY UT 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 5 4 2 2 4 1 5 2 5 6 12 10 8 11 85

UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGYCORPORATION CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 18 16 17 14 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 84

UNIVERSITY CORPORATIONFOR ATMOSPHERICRESEARCH

CO 3 1 8 3 5 7 4 4 2 3 2 4 6 11 0 3 2 2 2 4 4 2 82

ARIZONA BOARD OFREGENTS AZ 0 0 1 1 4 2 3 1 4 1 6 9 3 7 7 8 6 1 5 1 5 5 80

MISSISSIPPI STATEUNIVERSITY MS 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 3 5 5 5 9 3 5 7 7 6 4 2 2 2 3 76

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADOFOUNDATION CO 19 19 7 12 10 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLANDBIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 2 9 6 14 6 5 4 5 7 6 4 0 0 76

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONTAND STATE AGRICULTURALCOLLEGE

VT 8 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 3 5 4 1 3 2 6 7 6 10 7 4 76

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLERESEARCH FOUNDATIONINCORPORATED

KY 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 5 3 4 6 7 17 17 73

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MS 22 1 2 0 1 4 2 0 3 4 1 3 0 3 1 3 4 8 1 4 4 0 71

POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OFNEW YORK NY 16 1 1 0 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 5 4 1 3 6 5 3 0 2 6 1 69

STEVENS INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY NJ 7 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 6 5 3 3 1 5 4 2 3 2 4 3 4 10 69

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERNMISSISSIPPI MS 17 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 6 5 5 1 3 3 7 2 2 3 0 4 3 1 69

GEORGE WASHINGTONUNIVERSITY DC 5 0 2 0 0 3 3 3 2 7 3 7 3 0 1 2 2 1 6 3 7 8 68

RESEARCH FOUNDATION,THE CITY UNIVERSITY OFNEW YORK

NY 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 4 6 5 5 4 4 7 5 3 8 3 6 68




SOUTHERN ILLINOISUNIVERSITY IL 24 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 7 2 4 6 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 4 68

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA NV 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 5 9 6 15 14 68

MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OFMEDICINE OF NEW YORKUNIVERSITY

NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 19 2 7 4 1 8 8 7 2 0 66

DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY OFTHE HOLY GHOST PA 0 1 0 1 3 4 1 5 9 5 4 7 3 4 1 2 0 0 2 0 6 7 65

UNIVERSITY OFMASSACHUSETTS ATLOWELL

MA 5 3 2 2 8 3 5 3 4 4 2 2 0 2 1 2 3 2 4 4 0 3 64

WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY OH 34 1 4 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 2 3 3 3 64

SOUTHEASTERNUNIVERSITIES RESEARCHASSOCIATION, INC.

VA 1 2 0 1 2 2 4 4 10 1 3 7 6 8 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 63

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON OR 6 3 2 1 2 4 0 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 5 6 1 8 4 62

UNIVERSITY OFMASSACHUSETTS MEDICALCENTER

MA 6 2 2 1 2 10 9 7 6 3 3 2 1 1 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 61

MT. SINAI SCHOOL OFMEDICINE NY 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 4 6 3 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 5 0 5 11 8 60

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING WY 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 5 3 0 2 4 3 3 3 3 9 1 4 4 5 3 60

FLORIDA ATLANTICUNIVERSITY FL 2 0 3 3 1 0 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 4 2 3 5 4 59

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OFSOUTH CAROLINA SC 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 5 5 6 2 5 3 3 5 2 0 2 0 2 7 2 57

CLEMSON UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATION SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 14 4 1 0 0 1 1 1 15 4 13 56

INDIANA UNIVERSITYRESEARCH ANDTECHNOLOGYCORPORATION

IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 7 3 2 13 11 8 56

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAOFFICE OF TECHNOLOGYTRANSFER

CA 0 0 1 8 10 11 11 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 56

UNIVERSITY OF MAINE ME 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 5 1 5 2 5 1 9 6 2 56

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY WV 7 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 4 10 2 0 2 2 3 5 7 2 3 56

NEW YORK INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY NY 49 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55

INSTITUTE OF PAPERSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,INC.

GA 2 1 2 4 0 4 3 9 4 3 6 12 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY NY 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 6 4 3 1 9 3 3 1 8 6 53

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC




INSTITUTE MA 2 4 1 2 3 0 0 3 0 3 3 1 3 1 3 4 6 2 1 2 4 5 53

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA VA 33 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 52

EAST CAROLINAUNIVERSITY NC 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 3 5 1 3 3 3 2 4 1 3 5 3 2 3 51

NORTH DAKOTA STATEUNIVERSITY RESEARCHFOUNDATION

ND 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 0 1 2 6 11 6 51

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY TX 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 5 12 2 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 48

COLORADO SCHOOL OFMINES CO 0 1 1 1 2 0 3 0 3 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 3 1 2 4 7 7 47

MEDICAL COLLEGE OFGEORGIA RESEARCHINSTITUTE, INC.

GA 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 11 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 4 9 45

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 8 2 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 42

ALFRED UNIVERSITY NY 12 5 6 4 3 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 41

CLEVELAND STATEUNIVERSITY OH 0 3 4 3 0 6 1 2 1 1 0 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 2 7 1 41

CORNELL UNIVERSITY NY 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 9 21 41

POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OFNEW YORK UNIVERSITY NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 15 14 41

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO IL 3 1 3 1 2 2 4 2 4 3 3 1 3 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 40

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITYFOUNDATION UT 22 2 2 2 5 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40

ALBANY MEDICAL COLLEGE NY 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 4 2 4 0 2 5 0 0 2 1 2 2 6 2 39

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTONSYSTEM TX 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 8 3 10 39

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY TX 2 0 0 1 3 2 3 0 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 4 3 38

UNIVERSITIES RESEARCHASSOCIATION, INC. DC 6 3 3 4 1 4 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 38

UNIVERSITY OF KANSASMEDICAL CENTER KS 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 4 11 3 7 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 38

MONTANA STATEUNIVERSITY MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 7 5 4 3 5 5 37

MEDICAL COLLEGE OFWISCONSIN RESEARCHFOUNDATION, INC.

WI 7 0 0 2 4 1 2 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 2 3 1 36

UNIVERSITY OF NEWHAMPSHIRE NH 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 4 3 36

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTORICO PR 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 5 2 7 1 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 5 36

BOSTON COLLEGE MA 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 3 4 6 3 6 1 3 34




BROWN UNIVERSITY RI 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 4 8 7 3 2 34

LOUISIANA TECHUNIVERSITY FOUNDATION,INC.

LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 2 5 4 7 5 5 34

RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE,INC. AT MONTANA STATEUNIVERSITY

MT 12 1 0 4 2 3 1 1 5 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34

NEW MEXICO TECHRESEARCH FOUNDATION NM 5 1 0 3 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 3 3 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 2 33

PHILADELPHIA, HEALTHAND EDUCATIONCORPORATION

PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 4 1 4 6 3 8 33

WISYS TECHNOLOGYFOUNDATION, INC. WI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 2 4 1 4 4 3 5 33

CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY NE 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 4 32

NEW MEXICO STATEUNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGYTRANSFER CORPORATION

NM 1 0 1 4 0 1 3 2 4 3 2 2 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA MT 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 2 3 1 3 0 2 0 4 2 0 1 0 4 2 0 32

UNIVERSITY OF RHODEISLAND RI 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32

ALFRED E. MANN INSTITUTEFOR BIOMEDICALENGINEERING AT THEUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA

CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 3 8 2 5 0 1 2 31

MEDICAL COLLEGE OF OHIO OH 13 0 0 0 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 31

NORTHERN ILLINOISUNIVERSITY IL 2 0 2 2 1 1 3 0 5 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 4 3 31

PENNSYLVANIA RESEARCHCORPORATION PA 11 7 6 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMINGRESEARCH CORPORATION WY 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 2 1 4 3 3 5 31

SOUTHERN METHODISTUNIVERSITY TX 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 5 4 0 0 1 3 1 30

WOODS HOLEOCEANOGRAPHICINSTITUTION

MA 7 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 2 3 30

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHDAKOTA ENERGY ANDENVIRONMENT RESEARCHCENTER FOUNDATION

ND 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 4 9 29

EASTERN VIRGINIAMEDICAL SCHOOL VA 3 1 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 28

GEORGIA STATE




UNIVERSITY RESEARCHFOUNDATION

GA 2 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 2 5 28

MEDICAL COLLEGE OFWISCONSIN, INC. WI 22 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 28

BAYLOR RESEARCHINSTITUTE(FORMERLYBAYLOR RESEARCHFOUNDATION)

TX 2 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 3 4 5 27

LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY CA 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 1 6 0 4 2 1 0 1 27

NEW YORK MEDICALCOLLEGE NY 7 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 4 27

NORTH DAKOTA STATEUNIVERSITY ND 4 1 3 0 3 3 4 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 27

FSU RESEARCHFOUNDATION, INC. FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 6 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 26

OREGON GRADUATECENTER FOR STUDY ANDRESEARCH

OR 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT VT 6 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 26

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OFAMERICA DC 0 0 1 3 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 25

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHTEXAS TX 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 5 1 4 3 25

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHALABAMA AL 7 0 4 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 25

BOWLING GREEN STATEUNIVERSITY OH 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 5 4 3 24

PORTLAND STATEUNIVERSITY OR 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 3 2 4 3 24

SOUTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OFMINES AND TECHNOLOGY SD 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 3 5 1 24

MIAMI UNIVERSITY OH 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 5 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 23

RESEARCH FOUNDATION OFCITY COLLEGE OF NEWYORK

NY 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 5 4 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23

SAN DIEGO STATEUNIVERSITY CA 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 23

GEORGE MASONUNIVERSITY VA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 3 3 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 22

NEW YORK UNIVERSITYMEDICAL CENTER NY 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 22

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA AK 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 22

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY KY 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 22

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC




INSTITUTE AND STATEUNIVERSITY

VA 2 2 5 2 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 22

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 6 21

COLORADO SEMINARY CO 3 0 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 21

UNIVERSITY OF NEWORLEANS RESEARCH &TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION

LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 5 3 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 21

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA OK 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 0 0 3 4 1 0 21

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THEUNIVERSITY ANDCOMMUNITY COLLEGESYSTEM OF NEVADA

NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 5 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 20

NORTHEASTERN OHIOUNIVERSITIES COLLEGE OFMEDICINE

OH 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 20

PENNSYLVANIA STATEUNIVERSITY PA 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 1 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 19

RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONINSTITUTE, INC. HARBOR -UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

CA 7 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-UNIVERSITY PARK TX 7 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

ALFRED UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATIONINC.

NY 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18

BOARD OF REGENTS FORTHE OKLAHOMAAGRICULTURAL ANDMECHANICAL COLLEGEACTING FOR AND ONBEHALF OF OKLAHOMASTATE UNIVERSITY

OK 15 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18

COLLEGE OF WILLIAM ANDMARY VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 4 1 2 2 0 3 18

HOWARD UNIVERSITY DC 0 0 2 0 3 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 18

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONAFOUNDATION AZ 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18

UNIVERSITY OF KANSASENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION KS 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18

WASHINGTON STATEUNIVERSITY WA 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 3 2 18

WESTERN MICHIGANUNIVERSITY MI 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18

FLORIDA INTERNATIONALUNIVERSITY FL 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 17

LOS ANGELES BIOMEDICAL




RESEARCH INSTITUTE ATHARBOR UCLA MEDICALCENTER

CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 4 1 3 4 17

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY WI 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 17

MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OFMEDICINE GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 10 4 17

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITYRESEARCH CORPORATION NY 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTERESEARCH FOUNDATION CA 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16

FLORIDA AGRICULTURALAND MECHANICALUNIVERSITY

FL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 6 16

RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICALCENTER IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 3 2 2 16

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHDAKOTA ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 5 2 2 2 16

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERNIOWA FOUNDATION IA 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 16

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSASFOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 6 2 1 0 0 0 15

UNIVERSITY OFMASSACHUSETTS ATAMHERST

MA 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 15

CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNICSTATE UNIVERSITYFOUNDATION

CA 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 14

DREXEL UNIVERSITYCOLLEGE OF MEDICINE PA 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

MEDICAL COLLEGE OFHAMPTON ROADS VA 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 3 2 14

COLORADO SCHOOL OFMINES RESEARCHINSTITUTE

CO 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

FLORIDA INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY FL 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 13

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITYHEALTH SCIENCES CENTER TX 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

THE UWM RESEARCHFOUNDATION, INC. WI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 13

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHTEXAS HEALTH SCIENCECENTER

TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 13

ARGONNE NATIONAL




LABORATORIES/UNIVERSITYOF CHICAGO DEVELOPMENTCORP.

IL 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICALCENTER NC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12

NORTH CAROLINA A&TSTATE UNIVERSITY NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 12

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATION VA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 4 12

UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 12

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPIMEDICAL CENTER MS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 12

CLARKSON UNIVERSITY NY 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 1 11

DESERT RESEARCHINSTITUTE NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 11

MISSISSIPPI STATEUNIVERSITY RESEARCH ANDTECHNOLOGYCORPORATION (RTC)

MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 11

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY VA 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 11

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE KY 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 11

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHCAROLINA RESEARCHFOUNDATION

SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11

AUBURN RESEARCHFOUNDATION AL 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

CENTRAL MICHIGANUNIVERSITY BOARD OFTRUSTEES

MI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 10

HAMPTON UNIVERSITY VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 10

OHIO UNIVERSITY EDISONANIMAL BIOTECHNOLOGYINSTITUTE

OH 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

OREGON GRADUATEINSTITUTE OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY

OR 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNICSTATE UNIVERSITYCORPORATION

CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 2 9

GMI ENGINEERING &MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE MI 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

OHIO AGRICULTURALRESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENT CENTER

OH 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

PITTSBURG STATE KS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 9




UNIVERSITY

THE COOPER UNION FORTHE ADVANCEMENT OFSCIENCE AND ART

NY 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 9

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITYRESEARCH CORPORATION WV 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 9

ALLEGHENY UNIVERSITY OFTHE HEALTH SCIENCES PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

EASTERN MICHIGANUNIVERSITY MI 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8

MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OFENGINEERING WI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8

NEW MEXICO STATEUNIVERSITY NM 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

ROSALIND FRANKLINUNIVERSITY OF MEDICINEAND SCIENCE

IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 2 8

UNIVERSITY OFCONNECTICUT HEALTHCENTER

CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 8

UNIVERSITY OFMASSACHUSETTS MEDICALSCHOOL

MA 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 8

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHDAKOTA SCHOOL OFENGINEERING & MINESFOUNDATION (UND-SEMFOUNDATION)

ND 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHFLORIDA FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 8

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE WI 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

UT SW MEDICAL CTR ATDALLAS TX 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

WESTERN KENTUCKYUNIVERSITY KY 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 8

WICHITA STATEUNIVERSITY KS 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 8

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY IN 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7

BELOIT COLLEGE WI 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 7

IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 7

KECK GRADUATE INSTITUTE CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 7

MARSHALL UNIVERSITY




RESEARCH CORPORATION WV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 7

ROANOKE COLLEGE VA 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANAAT LAFAYETTE LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 7

UNIVERSITY OF SCRANTON PA 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 7

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY PA 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY NY 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

CALIFORNIA STATEUNIVERSITY FRESNOFOUNDATION

CA 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6

ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY IL 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6

JAMES MADISONUNIVERSITY VA 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

MOUNT SINAI RESEARCHFOUNDATION, INC. NY 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

NEW YORK UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF MEDICINE NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 6

RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONINSTITUTE, INC. CA 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

RUTGERS RESEARCH ANDEDUCATIONALFOUNDATION

NJ 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

SALISBURY UNIVERSITY MD 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 6

SPELMAN COLLEGE GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6

THE CORPORATION OFMERCER UNIVERSITY GA 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 6

UNIVERSITIES SPACERESEARCH ASSOCIATION MD 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6

UNIVERSITY OF HEALTHSCIENCES/THE CHICAGOMEDICAL SCHOOL

IL 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6

UNIVERSITY OF KANSASCENTER FOR RESEARCH KS 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

UNIVERSITY OFMASSACHUSETTSWORCESTER

MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN WI 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

AMBASSADOR COLLEGE CA 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

ARKANSAS STATEUNIVERSITY AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 5




EAST TENNESSEE STATEUNIVERSITY TN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5

JORDAN COLLEGE MI 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

LOUISIANA STATE UNIV.MEDICAL CENTERFOUNDATION

LA 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

MAYO FOUNDATION MN 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDSUNIVERSITY NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 5

OREGON STATE BOARD OFHIGHER EDUCATION, ANAGENCY OF THE STATE OFOREGON

OR 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

SAGINAW VALLEY STATEUNIVERSITY MI 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5

ST. JOHN S UNIVERSITY NY 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

TEXAS CHRISTIANUNIVERSITY TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5

UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND OR 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5

UNIVERSITY PATENTS, INC.OF ILLINOIS IL 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

UNIVERSITY RESEARCHFOUNDATION MD 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5

ARIZONA BOARD OFREGENTS, ACTING FOR ANDON BEHALF OF NORTHERNARIZONA UNIVERSITY

AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 4

BRYN MAWR COLLEGE PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

CALIFORNIA STATEUNIVERSITY FULLERTONFOUNDATION

CA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

ENDOWMENT ANDRESEARCH FOUNDATION ATMONTANA STATEUNIVERSITY

MT 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

INDIANA UNIVERSITY IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY IA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

JACKSON STATEUNIVERSITY MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4

LAWRENCETECHNOLOGICALUNIVERSITY

MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 4

LEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE OR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 4

MISSISSIPPI STATEUNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT MS 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4




FOUNDATION INC.

MISSISSIPPI STATEUNIVERSITY: FORESTPRODUCTS LABORATORY

MS 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

NORTH CAROLINA CENTRALUNIVERSITY NC 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

OAK RIDGE ASSOCIATEDUNIVERSITIES TN 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

OAKLAND COMMUNITYCOLLEGE MI 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY MO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTEOF TECHNOLOGY IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 4

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

SOUTH DAKOTA STATEUNIVERSITY SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4

TULANE UNIVERSITY LA 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

UNIV. OF TX MD ANDERSONCANCER CENTER TX 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4

UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 4

UNIVERSITY OFSOUTHWESTERN LOUISIANA LA 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE TN 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

UNIVERSITY OF THESCIENCES IN PHILADELPHIA PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITYHEALTH SCIENCE NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 4

WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY UT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

ADELPHI UNIVERSITY NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3

BRADLEY UNIVERSITY IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3

CLARK UNIVERSITY MA 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

CORPORATION OF GONZAGAUNIVERSITY WA 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

FLORIDA ATLANTICUNIVERSITY RESEARCHCORP.

FL 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE CA 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

INDIANA UNIVERSITYADVANCED RESEARCH &TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

KETTERING UNIVERSITY MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3




MEHARRY MEDICALCOLLEGE TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3

NORTH DAKOTA STATEUNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENTFOUNDATION

ND 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

NOVA SOUTHEASTERNUNIVERSITY FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3

PURDUE RESEARCHFOUNDATION OFFICE OFTECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

PURDUE UNIVERSITY IN 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

SAM HOUSTON STATEUNIVERSITY TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3

SAN DIEGO STATEUNIVERSITY RESEARCHFOUNDATION

CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3

SAN JOSE STATEUNIVERSITY FOUNDATION CA 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

SOUTHWEST MISSOURISTATE UNIVERSITY MO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITYHEALTH SCIENCES CENTER MO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

TENNESSEETECHNOLOGICALUNIVERSITY

TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

TRINITY UNIVERSITY TX 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

UD TECHNOLOGYCORPORATION DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER,COLORADO SEMINARY CO 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDATISSUE BANK, INC. FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA GA 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD CT 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANAAT MONROE LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

UNIVERSITY OF NEWORLEANS FOUNDATION LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEERESEARCH CENTER TN 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC CA 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNICINSTITUTE EDUCATIONAL VA 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3




FOUNDATION, INC.

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYSCHOOL OF MEDICINE MO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYTECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES,INC.

WA 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

WELLESLEY COLLEGE MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

WESTERN UNIVERSITY OFHEALTH SCIENCES CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

WESTERN WASHINGTONUNIVERSITY WA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

APPALACHIAN STATEUNIVERSITY NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

APPLIED OPTICS CENTER OFDELAWARE, INC. DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

BOARD OF OVERSEERS OFGOSHEN COLLEGE IN 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

BOARD OF REGENTS FOREDUCATION OF THE STATEOF RHODE ISLAND

RI 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

BROOKLYN COLLEGEFOUNDATION NY 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

CALIFORNIA STATEUNIVERSITY CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

CORNELL CENTER FORTECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISEAND COMMERCIALIZATION

NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

CREIGHTON UNIVERSITYOFFICE OF TECHNOLOGYLICENSING

NE 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

DAEMEN COLLEGE NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

DENVER RESEARCHINSTITUTE CO 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

DOWLING COLLEGE NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

DREXEL INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY PA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

EASTERN WASHINGTONUNIVERSITY WA 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

EMBRY. RIDDLEAERONAUTICALUNIVERSITY, INC.

FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY CT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

FOUNDATION AT NEWJERSEY INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY

NJ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2




GEORGIA HEALTH SCIENCESUNIVERSITY GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

GEORGIA HEALTH SCIENCESUNIVERSITY RESEARCHINSTITUTE, INC.

GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

GRAND VALLEY STATEUNIVERSITY MI 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

HUMBOLDT STATEUNIVERSITY FOUNDATION CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

INTER AMERICANUNIVERSITY OF PUERTORICO

PR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

KANSAS UNIVERSITYMEDICAL CENTERRESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.

KS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

KRESGE EYE INSTITUTE OFWAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY MI 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

LAKE FOREST COLLEGE IL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITYADVENTIST HEALTHSCIENCES CENTER

CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

MANHATTAN COLLEGE NY 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGEOF PHARMACY MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

MEDICAL COLLEGE OFGEORGIA FOUNDATION INC. GA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

MEMPHIS STATEUNIVERSITY TN 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

MONTANA TECH OF THEUNIVERSITY OF MONTANA MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OFMINING AND TECHNOLOGY NM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

NORTHWEST MISSOURISTATE UNIVERSITY MO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

OHIO NORTHERNUNIVERSITY OH 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

PACE UNIVERSITY NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE OFOSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE PA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE OFTEXTILES AND SCIENCE PA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2




PURDUE RESEARCHCORPORATION IN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

SOUTHEASTERN ILLINOISCOLLEGE FOUNDATION IL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANAUNIVERSITY LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

SOUTHERN METHODISTUNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONFOR RESEARCH

TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

STANFORD UNIVERSITYMEDICAL CENTER CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

STATE OF OREGON BY ANDTHROUGH THE STATEBOARD OF HIGHEREDUCATION, ON BEHALF OFSOUTHERN OREGONUNIVERSITY

OR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

TEXAS LUTHERANUNIVERSITY TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

THE COLLEGE OF N.J. NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

THE FOUNDATION FOR THELSU HEALTH SCIENCESCENTER (LOUISIANA STATEUNIVERSITY)

LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

THE UNIVERSITYFOUNDATION, CALIFORNIASTATE UNIVERSITY

CA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

THE UNIVERSITY OF THESTATE OF NEW YORK, STATEEDUCATION DEPARTMENT

NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAHTECHNOLOGY TRANSFEROFFICE

UT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

TRUSTEES OF AMHERSTCOLLEGE MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOLOF MEDICINE MA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

TULANE UNIVERSITYMEDICAL CENTER LA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY AL 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSASFOUNDATION AR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UNIVERSITY OFCONNECTICUT RESEARCH &DEVELOPMENT CORP.

CT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UNIVERSITY OFCONNECTICUT, CENTER FOR CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2




SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYCOMMERCIALIZATION

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,SCHOOL OF MEDICINE MD 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UNIVERSITY OF NEWORLEANS LA 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHDAKOTA MEDICALEDUCATION RESEARCHFOUNDATION

ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UNIVERSITY OFPITTSBURGH MEDICALCENTER

PA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA, USC STEVENSCENTER FOR INNOVATION

CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

UNIVERSITY OF TEXASHEALTH SCIENCE CENTERHOUSTON

TX 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UNIVERSITY OF TEXASMEDICAL BRANCH ATGALVESTON

TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UNIVERSITY OF WESTFLORIDA FL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTHUNIVERSITY MEDICALCOLLEGE

VA 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

VIRGINIA TECHFOUNDATION, INC. VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

WHEELING JESUITUNIVERSITY WV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

WIDENER COLLEGE PA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

A.T. STILL UNIVERSITY OFHEALTH SCIENCES AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ALABAMA A AND MUNIVERSITY AL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ALABAMA A& MUNIVERSITY INSTITUTE AL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

ALCORN STATE UNIVERSITY MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ALVERNO COLLEGE WI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

AMERICAN PUBLICUNIVERSITY SYSTEMS, INC. WV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

AMERICANTECHNOLOGICALUNIVERSITY

TX 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1




ANTIOCH COLLEGE OH 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ARKASAS STATEUNIVERSITY - RESEARCHAND DEVELOPMENTINSTITUTE (ASU-RDI)

AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

ART CENTER COLLEGE OFDESIGN CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

AUBURN UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATION AL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

BAYLOR RESEARCHFOUNDATION, A NONPROFITCORPORATION OF THESTATE OF TEXAS

TX 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

BAYLOR UNIVERSITYMEDICAL CENTER TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OFWESTERN ILLINOISUNIVERSITY

IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

BOB JONES UNIVERSITY SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

BOSTON UNIVERSITYRESEARCH FOUNDATION MA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

BOWMAN GRAY SCHOOL OFMEDICINE, WAKE FORESTUNIVERSITY

NC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

BROWN TECHNOLOGYPARTNERSHIPS RI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

BUREAU OF FACULTYRESEARCH OF WESTERNWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

WA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

BUTLER UNIVERSITY IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY, JETPROPULSION LABORATORY

CA 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

CALVIN COLLEGE MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

CHAPMAN COLLEGE CA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

CHARLES R. DREWUNIVERSITY OF MEDICINEAND SCIENCE

CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

CHRISTOPHER NEWPORTUNIVERSITY VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

CITY COLLEGE OF NEWYORK NY 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

CLAFLIN UNIVERSITY SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

COLLEGE OF FORESTRY,WILDLIFE & RANGE ID 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1




SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OFIDAHO

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE ANDDENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY NJ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

COLLEGE OF THE HOLYCROSS MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

CONNECTICUT COLLEGE CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

COOPER UNION RESEARCHFOUNDATION, INC. NY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

COOPERATIVE INSTITUTEFOR RESEARCH INENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

CO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

DELAWARE STATEUNIVERSITY FOUNDATION,INC.

DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

DIVISION OF PLASTICSURGERY OF THE MEDICALSCHOOL OFNORTHWESTERN

IL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

DUKE UNIVERSITY PATENTSFOUNDATION NC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ENDOWMENT AND ALUMNIFOUNDATION AT MONTANASTATE UNIVERSITY

MT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ENGINEERING RESEARCHCTR., NORTH CAROLINASTATE UNIV.

NC 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ERSKINE COLLEGE SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

FAIRLEIGH DICKINSONUNIVERSITY NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

FORT VALLEY STATECOLLEGE GA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

FRANKLIN AND MARSHALLCOLLEGE PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

GEORGE MASONINTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

GEORGE WASHINGTONUNIVERSITY, OFFICE OFSPONSORED RESEARCH

DC 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

HACKENSACK UNIVERSITYMEDICAL CENTER NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

JACKSONVILLE STATE




UNIVERSITY FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

JESUIT COMMUNITY ATLOYOLA UNIVERSITY CA 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

JOHNSON COUNTYCOMMUNITY COLLEGEFOUNDATION, INC.

KS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY KS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

KIRKWOOD COMMUNITYCOLLEGE FACILITIESFOUNDATION

IA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

LAMAR STATE COLLEGE OFTECHNOLOGY TX 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY ANDNORTHEAST BENJAMINFRANKLIN TECHNOLOGYCENTER OF PA

PA 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

LOCK HAVEN UNIVERSITYOF PENNSYLVANIA PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

LOUISIANA TECHUNIVERSITY LA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MARQUETTE SCHOOL OFMEDICINE, INC. WI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MASSACHUSETTS COLLEGEOF OPTOMETRY MA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MCNEESE STATEUNIVERSITY LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MERCER UNIVERSITY GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MINNESOTA STATEUNIVERSITY SYSTEMTHROUGH ITS MANKATOSTATE UNIVERSITY AGENCY

MN 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MONTCLAIR STATECOLLEGE NJ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE OFOPTOMETRY MA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

NEW YORK CHIROPRACTICCOLLEGE NY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY &JURIDICAL FOUNDATION NY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NICHOLLS STATEUNIVERSITY LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NORTH DAKOTA STATE




UNIVERSITY OFAGRICULTURE AND APPLIEDSCIENCE

ND 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NORTHWESTERN UNIV.TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERPROG.

IL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NORTHWESTERNUNIVERSITY MEDICALSCHOOL

IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NOVA UNIVERSITY FL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

PARKER COLLEGE OFCHIROPRACTIC TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY CA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

PHILADELPHIA COLLEGE OFPHARMACY AND SCIENCE PA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

PURDUE RESEARCHLABORATORY IN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

REGIS COLLEGE CO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

RIT RESEARCH CORP.(ROCHESTER, NY) NY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ROWAN UNIVERSITY NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

RUSH UNIVERSITY IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SAINT FRANCIS UNIVERSITY PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY,HEALTH SERVICES CENTER,RESEARCHADMINISTRATION

MO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SALEM INTERNATIONALUNIVERSITY (SALEM-TEIKYO UNIVERSITY)

WV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SAN DIEGO STATE COLLEGEFOUNDATION CA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SHAW UNIVERSITY NC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SIENA COLLEGE NY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITYFOUNDATION PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

SMITH COLLEGE MA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SOUTHERN COLLEGE OFOPTOMETRY TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SPACE VACUUM EPITAXYCENTER UNIVERSITY OFHOUSTON

TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATEUNIVERSITY TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1




TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITYSYSTEM TECHNOLOGYLICENSING OFFICE

TX 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TEXAS COLLEGE OFOSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE TX 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

TEXAS WESLEYANUNIVERSITY, INC. TX 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

THE LUTHERAN UNIVERSITYASSOCIATION, INC. IN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

THE MOUNT SINAI MEDICALCENTER OF THE CITYUNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

THE RICHARD STOCKTONCOLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

THE UNIVERSITY OF THEARTS PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

TOURO COLLEGE NY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TOWSON UNIVERSITY MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

TROY STATE UNIVERSITY AL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TRUMAN STATEUNIVERSITY MO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TRUSTEES OF DAVIDSONCOLLEGE NC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TRUSTEES OF THE COLLEGEOF AERONAUTICS NY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TULANE UNIVERSITYHEALTH SCIENCES CENTER LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

UNIFORMED SERVICESUNIVERSITY OF THEHEALTH SCIENCES

MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNION COLLEGE NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

UNIV. OF CHICAGODEVELOPMENT CORP.ARGONNE NATIONALLABORATORIES

IL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITYHEALTHSYSTEMCONSORTIUM

IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSASTECHNOLOGYDEVELOPMENTFOUNDATION

AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRALFLORIDA RESEARCH FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1




INSTITUTE, INC.

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO,UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGYCORPORATION

CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII,OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGYTRANSFER AND ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT

HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF HONOLULU HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON -CLEARLAKE TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS-KUMEDICAL CENTERRESEARCH INSTITUTE

KS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLEFOUNDATION KY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLANDCENTER FORENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLANDOFFICE OF TECHNOLOGYCOMMERCIALIZATION

MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMAFOUNDATION, INC. OK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMARESEARCH INSTITUTE OK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF PATENTS,INC. CT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS MN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

UNIVERSITY OF UTAHTECHNOLOGYCOMMERCIALIZATIONOFFICE

UT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STOUT MANUFACTURINGLABORATORY

WI 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

USC/NORRISCOMPREHENSIVE CANCERCTR.

CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY,OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGYCOMMERCIALIZATION

UT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

VALDOSTA STATEUNIVERSITY GA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

VIRGINIA FOUNDATION FORINDEPENDENT COLLEGES VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1




VIRGINIA STATEUNIVERSITY VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

VMI FOUNDATION VA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

WABASH COLLEGE IN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITYBAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

WAYLAND BAPTISTUNIVERSITY TX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

WESTERN WASHINGTONSTATE COLLEGE WA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

WIDENER UNIVERSITY PA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

WYOMING RESEARCHPRODUCTS CENTER WY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

TOTAL 12123 1574 1675 1822 1929 2201 2490 3249 3439 3177 3315 3355 3339 3099 2766 3392 3071 2895 3133 4346 4166 4797 75353

PTMT ContactsQuestions regarding these reports should be directed to:

U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeElectronic Information Products Division - PTMTAlexandria, VA 22313-1450

tel: (571) 272-5600fax: (571) 273-0110email: [email protected]

address of PTMT pages at the USPTO Web Site : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports.htmselected PTMT files available for download at : http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/data/

Top

Home > PTMT Listing of Viewable Reports > University Report Table of Contents > University Listing > This Page

Last Modified : 10/05/2017 10:57:23


mailto:[email protected]


ftp://http//www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/data/

http://www.uspto.gov/


https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/univ_toc.htm

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/org_gr/universities_g.htm

StateTotal State Patents

in 2012University Patents in 2012 Total Patents

UAB Research Foundation 12 315

Auburn University 14 164

University of Alabama 7 151

University of South Alabama 0 25

Auburn Research Foundation 0 10

Tuskegee University 0 2

Alabama A&M University 0 1

Alabama A&M University Institute 0 1

Auburn University Research Foundation 0 1

Troy State University 0 1

Alaska 22 University of Alaska 0 22

Arizona State University 34 264

University of Arizona 7 158

Arizona Board of Regents 5 80

University of Arizona Foundation 0 18

Arizona Board of Regents, acting on behalf of

Northern Arizona University 0 4

A.T. Still University of Health Sciences 0 1

University of Arkansas 34 387

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences 0 15

Arkansas State University 2 5

University of Arkansas Foundation 0 2

ASU-Research and Development Institute 0 1

UA Technology Development Foundation 0 1

UC Berkeley 357 7488

Stanford University 182 2403

California Institute of Technology 136 2365

University of Southern California 83 702

Scripps Research Institute 32 689

Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation 0 121

Loma Linda University Medical Center 11 104

Alabama 671

525Arizona

Arkansas 311

California 14,147


University of California Office of Technology

Transfer 0 56

Alfred E. Mann Institute for Biomedical Engineering

at USC 2 31

Loma Linda University 1 27

San Diego State University 2 23

Research and Education Institute, UCLA Medical

Center 0 19

Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor

UCLA Medical Center 4 17

California Institute Research Foundation 0 16

California Polytechnic State University Foundation 0 14

California Polytechnic State University Corporation 2 9

Keck Graduate Institute 3 7

Cal State Fresno Foundation 1 6

Research and Education Institute, Inc. 0 6

Ambassador College 0 5

Cal State Fullerton Foundation 0 4

Harvey Mudd College 0 3

San Diego State University Research Foundation 0 3

San Jose State University Foundation 0 3

University of the Pacific 0 3

Western University of Health Sciences 1 3

California State University 1 2

Humboldt State University Foundation 0 2

Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences

Center 0 2

Stanford University Medical Center 0 2

The University Foundation, California State

University 0 2

USC Stevens Center for Innovation 1 2

Art Center College of Design 0 1

California 14,147


California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Lab 0 1

Chapman College 0 1

Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science 1 1

Jesuit Community at Loyola University 0 1

Pepperdine University 0 1

San Diego State College Foundation 0 1USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center 0 1

The Regents of the University of Colorado 23 260

Colorado State University Research Foundation 14 130

University Technology Corp. 0 85

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 2 82

University of Colorado Foundation 0 76

Colorado School of Mines 7 47

Colorado Seminary 0 21

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute 0 13

University of Denver 0 3

University of Denver, Colorado Seminary 0 3

Denver Research Institute 0 2

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental

Sciences 0 1Regis College 0 1

Yale University 24 506

University of Connecticut 25 326

University Patents, Inc. 0 215

University of Connecticut Health Center 0 8

University of Hartford 0 3

Fairfield University 0 2

University of Connecticut, Center for Science and

Technology Commercialization 2 2

Connecticut College 0 1

University of Connecticut Research and

Development Corp. 0 2

Connecticut 1066

California 14,147

Colorado 724


University of Patents, Inc. 0 1

University of Delaware 16 302

UD Technology Corp. 0 3

Applied Optics Center of Delaware 0 2Delaware State University Foundation 0 1

Georgetown University 12 201

Associated Universities, Inc. 0 96

George Washington University 8 69

Universities Research Association 0 38

Catholic University of America 3 25Howard University 4 18

University of Florida Research Foundation 70 624

University of Florida 0 611

University of South Florida 79 587

University of Central Florida 72 543

Florida State University 32 280

University of Miami 21 159

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute 0 100

Florida Atlantic University 4 59

FSU Research Foundation 1 26

Florida International University 1 17

Florida A&M University 6 16

Florida Institute of Technology 3 13

University of North Florida 1 8

Florida Atlantic University Research Corp. 0 3

Nova Southeastern University 0 3

University of Florida Tissue Bank, Inc. 0 3

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 1 2

University of West Florida 0 2

Jacksonville State University 0 1

Nova University 0 1

University of Central Florida Research Institute 0 1

Georgia Tech Research Corp. 80 916

Emory University 9 354

308Delaware

Florida 3059

Georgia 1769

District of

Columbia447

Connecticut 1066


University of Georgia Research Foundation 29 324

Institute of Paper Science and Technology 0 54

Medical College of Georgia Research Institute 9 45

Georgia State University Research Foundation 5 28

Morehouse School of Medicine 4 17

Georgia Institute of Technology 0 7

Spelman College 3 6

Mercer University Corp. 0 6

University of Georgia 0 3

Georgia Health Sciences University 2 4

Medical College of Georgia Foundation 0 2

Fort Valley State College 0 1

Mercer University 0 1Valdosta State University 0 1

University of Hawaii 3 151

University of Hawaii Office of Technology Transfer

and Economic Development 0 1University of Honolulu 0 1

University of Idaho Research Foundation 0 103

Boise State University 6 21

Idaho State University 0 7

University of Idaho 0 4University of Idaho College of Foresty, Wildlife, and

Range Sciences 0 1

University of Illinois 85 885

Northwestern University 70 665

University of Chicago 14 439

UChicago Argonne LLC 31 182

University of Illinois Foundation 0 135

Illinois Institute of Technology 14 112

Southern Illinois University 4 68

Loyola University, Chicago 2 40

Northern Illinois University 3 31

Rush University Medical Center 2 16

Hawaii 153

136Idaho

Illinois 2624

Georgia 1769


Argonne National Labs, UChicago Development

Corp. 0 13

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science 2 8

Illinois State University 0 6

University of Health Sciences, The Chicago Medical

School 0 6

University Patents, Inc. of Illinois 0 5

Bradley University 0 3

Lake Forest College 0 2

Southeastern Illinois College Foundation 0 2

Western Illinois University 0 1

Division of Plastic Surgery of the Medical School of

Northwestern University 0 1

Northwestern University Technology Transfer

Program 0 1

Northwestern University Medical School 0 1

Rush University 0 1University Healthsystem Consortium 0 1

Perdue University Foundation 42 687

Indiana University Foundation 0 138

University of Notre Dame 10 89

Advanced Research and Technology Institute 0 87

Indiana University Research and Technology Corp. 8 56

Ball State University 0 7

Indiana University 0 4

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 0 4

Indiana University Advanced Research and

Technology Institute 0 3

Perdue Research Foundation Office of Technology

Transfer 0 3

Goshen College 0 2

Perdue Research Corporation 0 2

Butler University 0 1

Indiana 1087

Illinois 2624


Indiana State University 1 1

Perdue Research Lab 0 1

Lutheran University Association 0 1Wabash College 0 1

Iowa State University Research Foundation 14 956

University of Iowa Research Foundation 31 532

University of Northern Iowa Foundation 0 16

University of Iowa 1 6

Iowa State University 0 4Kirkwood Commmunity College 0 1

Kansas State University Research Foundation 5 213

University of Kansas 23 125

University of Kansas Medical Center 0 38

University of Kansas Endowment Association 0 18

Pittsburg State University 0 9

Wichita State University 0 8

University of Kansas Center for Research 0 6

KU Medical Center Research Institute 1 3Johnson County Community College 1 1

University of Kentucky Research Foundation 23 469

University of Louisville Research Foundation 17 74

University of Kentucky 4 22

University of Louisville 0 11Western Kentucky University 0 8

Louisiana State University 17 388

Tulane Educational Fund 5 116

Louisiana Tech University Foundation 5 35

University of New Orleans Research and Technology

Foundation 0 26

University of Louisiana at Lafayette 1 7

LSU Medical Center Foundation 0 5

Tulane University 0 4

University of Southwestern Louisiana 0 4

University of Louisiana at Monroe 1 3

Kentucky 584

597Louisiana

Indiana 1087

1515Iowa

Kansas 421


Southereastern Louisiana University 0 2

Foundation for the LSU Health Sciences Center 0 2

Tulane University Medical Center 0 2

McNeese State University 0 1

Nicholls State University 0 1Tulane University Health Sciences Center 0 1

Maine 56 University of Maine 2 56

Johns Hopkins University 79 1556

University of Maryland 61 634

UMD Biotechnology Institute 0 76

Salisbury University 1 6

Universities Space Research Association 1 6

University Research Foundation 0 5

UMD School of Medicine 0 2

Johns Hopkins Hospital 0 1

Towson University 1 1Uniformed Services University of the Health

Sciences 0 1

MIT 216 4017

Harvard University 52 849

Boston University 24 382

University of Massachusetts 54 378

Tufts University 26 231

Northeastern University 8 194

Brandeis University 4 107

University of Massachusetts at Lowell 3 64

University of Massachusetts Medical Center 0 61

Worchester Polytechnic Institute 5 53

Boston College 3 34

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 3 30

University of Massachusetts at Amherst 0 15

University of Massachusetts Medical School 0 8

University of Massachusetts at Worcester 0 6

Clark University 0 3

Maryland 2288

Massachusetts 6447

597Louisiana Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 45 of 57 PageID #: 25842

Wellesley College 0 3

Massachusetts College of Pharmacy 0 2

Amherst College 0 2

Tufts University School of Medicine 0 2

College of the Holy Cross 0 1

Hampshire College 0 1

Massachusetts College of Optometry 0 1

Mount Holyoke College 0 1

New England College of Optometry 0 1Smith College 0 1

University of Michigan 97 1267

Michigan State University 30 808

Wayne State University 13 258

Michigan Technological University 2 134

Western Michigan University 0 18

Oakland University 2 14

Central Michigan University 1 10

GMI Engineering and Management Institute 0 9

Eastern Michigan University 1 8

Jordan College 0 5

Saginaw Valley State University 1 5

Lawrence Technological University 0 4

Oakland Community College 0 4

Kettering University 2 3

Grand Valley State University 0 2

Kresge Eye Institute of Wayne State University 0 2

Calvin College 0 1Ferris State University 0 1

University of Minnesota 38 1037

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and

Research 48 528

Minnesota State University, Mankato 0 1University of St. Thomas 1 1

Mississippi State University 3 76

1567Minnesota

252Mississippi

Massachusetts 6447

2553Michigan


University of Mississippi 0 71

University of Southern Mississippi 1 69

University of Mississippi Medical Center 1 12

Mississippi State University Research and

Technology Corporation 1 11

Jackson State University 0 4

Mississippi State University Development

Foundation 0 4

Mississippi State University Forest Products

Laboratory 0 4Alcorn State University 0 1

Washington University 25 564

University of Missouri 35 391

St. Louis University 8 89

Rockhurst University 0 4

Southwest Missouri State University 0 3

St. Louis University Health Sciences Center 0 3

Washington University School of Medicine 0 3

Northwest Missouri State University 0 2Truman State University 0 1

Montana State University 5 41

Montana State University Research and

Development Institute 0 34

University of Montana 0 32

Montana Tech 0 2Montana State University Endowment and Alumni

Foundation 0 1

University of Nebraska 12 406

Creighton University 4 32

Creighton University, Office of Technology Licensing 0 2

University of Nevada 14 68

University and Community College System of

Nevada 0 20

110Montana

440Nebraska

Nevada 99

252Mississippi

1060Missouri


Desert Research Institute 0 11

Dartmouth College 24 221University of New Hampshire 3 36

Princeton University 24 536

Rutgers University 28 491

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 14 218

New Jersey Institute of Technology 34 181

Stevens Institute of Technology 10 69

Rutgers Research and Educational Foundation 0 6

Seton Hall University 1 4

Foundation of New Jersey Institute of Technology 0 2

The College of New Jersey 0 2

College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 0 1

Fairleigh Dickinson University 0 1

Hackensack University Medical Center 0 1

Montclair State College 0 1

Rowan University 0 1The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey 0 1

University of New Mexico 0 184

Science and Technology Corp. at University of New

Mexico 38 179

New Mexico Tech Research Foundation 2 33

New Mexico State University Technology Transfer

Corporation 0 32

New Mexico State University 0 8

New Mexico Highlands University 3 5

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 0 2

Cornell Research Foundation 33 1346

Columbia University 78 1098

Research Foundation of State University of New

York 46 932

Research Corporation 0 670

New York University 46 628

7190New York

New Hampshire 257

New Jersey 1515

443New Mexico

Nevada 99


Rockefeller University 15 469

University of Rochester 27 433

Rensselear Polytechnic Institute 16 272

Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva

University 13 238

Cold Spring Harbor Lab 8 107

Syracuse University 8 106

Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the CUNY 0 90

State University of New York 0 90

Polytechnic Institute of New York 1 69

Research Foundation, City University of New York 6 68

Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York

University 0 66

Mount Sinai School of Medicine 8 60

New York Institute of Technology 0 55

Rochester Institute of Technology 6 53

Fordham University 0 42

Alfred University 0 41

Polytechnic Institute of New York University 15 41

Albany Medical College 2 39

NY Medical College 4 27

Research Foundation of CCNY 0 23

NYU Medical Center 0 22

Alfred University Research Foundation 0 18

Syracuse University Research Corporation 0 17

Clarkson University 1 11

The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science

and Art 0 10

Yeshiva University 0 7

Mount Sinai Research Foundation 0 6

NYU School of Medicine 0 6

St. John's University 0 5

Adelphi University 2 3

Brooklyn College 0 2

7190New York


Daemen College 0 2

Dowling College 0 2

Long Island University 0 2

Manhattan College 0 2

Pace University 0 2

State Education Department, University of State of

New York 0 2

City College of New York 0 1

New York Chiropractic College 0 1

New York University and Juridicial Foundation 0 1

RIT Research Corp. 0 1

Siena College 0 1

Mount Sinai Medical Center of CUNY 0 1

Touro College 0 1

Union College 0 1

Duke University 41 738

North Carolina State University 38 721

University of North Carolina 39 588

Research Triangle Institute 6 190

Wake Forest University 22 171

East Carolina University 3 51

Duke University Medical Center 0 12

North Carolina A&T State University 2 12

North Carolina Central University 0 4

Wake Forest University Health Science 0 4

Appalachian State University 0 2

Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest

University 0 1

Shaw University 0 1

Davidson College 0 1

Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center 0 1

North Dakota State University 6 82

University of North Dakota Energy and Environment

Research Center Foundation 9 29

7190New York

2497North Carolina

137North Dakota


University of North Dakota 2 16

University of North Dakota School of Engineering

and Mines Foundation 0 8University of North Dakota Medical Research

Foundation 0 2

Ohio State University 17 473

Case Western Reserve University 33 343

University of Akron 20 294

University of Cincinnati 9 234

Ohio State University Research Foundation 23 214

University of Dayton 8 140

University of Toledo 11 140

Kent State University 12 115

Ohio University 7 89

Wright State University 3 64

Cleveland State University 1 41

Medical College of Ohio 0 31

Bowling Green State University 3 24

Miami University 1 23

Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine 0 20

Ohio University Edison Animal Biotechnology

Institute 0 10

Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center 0 9

Ohio Northern University 1 2Antioch College 0 1

University of Oklahoma 11 306

Oklahoma State University 10 102

University of Tulsa 0 21Oklahoma A&M College 0 18

Oregon Health Sciences University 13 248

Oregon State University 12 153

University of Oregon 4 62

2267Ohio

Oklahoma 447

539Oregon

137North Dakota


Oregon Graduate Center for Study and Research 0 26

Portland State University 3 24

Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and

Technology 0 10

Oregon State Board of Higher Education 1 5

University of Portland 0 5

Lewis and Clark College 0 4Southern Oregon University 1 2

University of Pennsylvania 78 1054

University of Pittsburgh 43 593

Penn State Research Foundation 32 592

Carnegie Mellon University 36 415

Thomas Jefferson University 5 365

Temple University 11 219

Drexel University 20 146

Lehigh University 6 90

Duquesne University 7 65

Philadelphia Health and Education Corp. 8 33

Pennsylvania Research Corp. 0 31

Penn State University 0 19

Drexel University College of Medicine 0 14

Allegheny University of the Health Sciences 0 8

University of Scranton 0 7

Villanova University 1 7

Bryn Mawr College 0 4

University of the Sciences in Philadelphia 0 4

Drexel Institute of Technology 0 2

Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine 0 2

Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science 0 2

Philadelphia University 1 2

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center 0 2

Widener College 0 2

Franklin and Marshall College 0 1

3686Pennsylvania

539Oregon


Lehigh University and Northeast Benjamin Franklin

Technology Center of PA 0 1

Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania 1 1

Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science 0 1

St. Francis University 1 1

Slippery Rock University 0 1

University of the Arts 0 1Widener University 1 1

Brown University Research Foundation 2 176

Brown University 2 34

University of Rhode Island 0 32

Board of Regents for State Education 0 2Brown Technology Partnerships 0 1

Clemson University 1 194

University of South Carolina 25 115

Medical University of South Carolina 2 57

Clemson University Research Foundation 13 56

USC Research Foundation 0 11

Bob Jones University 0 1

Claflin University 1 1Erskine College 0 1

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 1 24South Dakota State University 1 4

Vanderbilt University 32 383

University of Tennessee Research Corp. 0 234

University of Tennessee Research Foundation 13 121

University of Memphis 3 12

East Tennessee State University 1 5

Oak Ridge Associated Universities 0 4

Meharry Medical College 1 3

Tennessee Technological University 1 3

University of Tennessee Research Center 0 3

Memphis State University 0 2Souther College of Optometry 0 1

South Dakota 28

771Tennessee

3686Pennsylvania

Rhode Island 245

436South Carolina


University of Texas 141 2321

Texas A&M University 34 514

Baylor College of Medicine 6 319

Rice University 35 285

University of Houston 8 102

Texas Tech University 1 48

UHouston System 10 39

Baylor University 3 38

Southern Methodist University 1 32

Baylor Research Institute 5 27

University of North Texas 3 25

UHouston-University Park 0 19

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center 0 13

University of North Texas Health Science Center 2 13

University of Texas SW Medical Center, Dallas 0 8

Texas Christian University 1 5

UT MD Anderson Cancer Center 0 4

Sam Houston State University 0 3

Trinity University 0 3

Texas Lutheran University 0 2

UT Health Science Center, Houston 0 2

UT Medical Branch, Galveston 0 2

American Technological University 0 1

Baylor Research Foundation 0 1

Baylor University Medical Center 0 1

Lamar State College of Technology 0 1

Parker College of Chiropractic 0 1

UHouston-Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center 0 1

Stephen F. Austin State University 0 1

Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine 0 1

Texas State University 0 1

Texas Wesleyan University 0 1

UHouston-Clearlake 0 1Wayland Baptist University 0 1

Texas 3836


University of Utah Research Foundation 79 589

University of Utah 6 263

Brigham Young University 13 171

Utah State University 11 86

Utah State University Foundation 0 40Weber State University 0 4

Vermont 102 University of Vermont 4 102

University of Virginia Alumni Patents Foundation 28 351

Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties 13 334

Virginia Commonwealth University 7 144

Southeastern Universities Research Association 0 63

University of Virginia 1 52

Eastern Virginia Medical School 3 28

George Mason University 0 23

Virgnia Tech 0 22

College of William and Mary 3 18

Medical College of Hampton Roads 0 14

Old Dominion University Research Foundation 4 12

Old Dominion University 1 11

Hampton University 3 10

Roanoke College 0 7

James Madison University 0 6

Virginia Polytechnic Institute Educational

Foundation 0 3

Virginia Commonwealth University Medical College 0 2

Virginia Tech Foundation 0 2

Christopher Newport University 0 1

Virginia Foundation for Independent Colleges 0 1

Virginia State University 0 1VMI Foundation 0 1

University of Washington 70 857

Washington State University Research Foundation 8 153

Utah 1153

1106Virginia

Washington 1041


Washington State University 2 18

Corporation of Gonzaga University 0 3

Washington University Technology Associates 0 3

Western Washington University 0 5Eastern Washington University 0 2

West Virginia University 3 56

West Virginia University Research Corp. 2 9

Marshall University Research Corp. 2 7

Wheeling Jesuit University 0 2

American Public University Systems 0 1Salem International University 0 1

University of Wisconsin Alumni Research

Foundation 155 2139

Medical College of Wisconsin Research Foundation 1 36

Wisys Technology Foundation 5 33

Medical College of Wisconsin 1 28

Marquette University 1 17

UWM Research Foundation 7 13

Milwaukee School of Engineering 1 8

University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 0 8

Beloit College 0 7

Alverno College 0 1

Marquette School of Medicine 0 1UW-Stout Manufacturing Lab 0 1

University of Wyoming 3 60

University of Wyoming Research Corp. 5 31Wyoming Research Products Center 0 1

West Virginia 76

2292Wisconsin

Wyoming 92

Washington 1041


UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

Original Organization Patents

Microtransponder, Inc. 31

Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. And Cor Therapeutics, Inc. 24

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 19

Pharmacyclics, Inc. 17

Shell Oil Company 16

Ticona GmbH 14

Board Of Regents Of The University Of Texas 14

Orthologic Corp 14

The Regents Of The University Of California 13

Texas Tech University Health SciencesCenter 12

SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 12

Schering Aktiengesellschaft 10

Molecular Imprints Inc 10

William Marsh Rice University 10

Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft 8

MedImmune, LLC And Board Of Regents, The University Of Texas System 8

Southwestern Plc 7

Southwest Research Institute 7

Texas Heart Institute 6

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. 5

Hitachi, Ltd. 5

Hana Biosciences, Inc. 5

GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. 5

Micro Therapeutics Inc 5

Vermillion, Inc. 5

Vapogenix, Inc. 5

The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Army 5

Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Ave Cleveland Ohio 44106 A Corp

Of Ohio

5

Organic Fuels Algae Technologies, LLC 5

The Board Of Trustees Of The University Of Illinois 5

Micro Therapeutics, Inc. 4

MedImmune Inc 4

Amgen Fremont Inc. (N.D.Ges.D. Staates Delawar, US 4

Research Development Foundation, Nevada 4

Cardiospectra, Inc., Texas 4

Northwestern University 4

Mission Pharmacal Company 4

Microtransponder Inc Texas 4

Duke University 4

Board Of Regents,US 4

New Chapter Inc Vermont 4

Nanospectra Biosciences Inc 4

Celera Corporation 4

Volcano Corporation 4

The University Of Houston System 4

Patentees who Assign Patents to State UniversitiesCase 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 517-4 Filed 10/13/17 Page 57 of 57 PageID #: 25854

Exhibit 4


SRMT Office of Technology, Research and Patents (“OTRAP”)

Mohawks have a unique and distinct history and culture encompassing a long history of

traditional crafts, traditional medicines, the traditional sport of lacrosse, and a unique

language. The Tribe understands the value of ideas and knowledge and the importance

of the protection of ideas and inventions.

Looking to the business model already utilized by State universities and their patent

offices, in 2017 the Tribe adopted a Tribal Resolution to establish the “Office of

Technology, Research and Patents” (“OTRAP”) and is part of the Tribe’s Economic

Development Department. The overall objective of OTRAP is to create wealth, jobs,

sponsored research, and economic development opportunities for the Tribe and its

members and to serve as a resource for promoting the education of Mohawks to enter

the fields of technology and research. OTRAP’s purpose is to contribute to the

strengthening of the Tribal economy by encouraging the development of emerging

science and technology initiatives and projects and promoting the modernization of

Tribal and other businesses. The Tribe will manage the acquisition of intellectual

property from third parties, and the maintain and license the acquired legally protected

intellectual property. In the future, the Tribe could potentially consider to seek to

develop its own technology or other intellectual property.

More specifically, OTRAP was formed to:

i. Contribute to the strengthening of the Tribal economy by encouraging the

development of emerging science and technology initiatives and projects;

ii. To promote the modernization of Tribal and other businesses by providing

assistance with development, application and commercialization of new

and emerging technologies; and

iii. To foster the continuing growth of educational, research, and scientific

opportunities for the Mohawk people.

OTRAP will facilitate the growth and development of emerging technologies through a variety of

methods, including but not limited to:

i. Facilitating the research and development of new technology with the

potential to have widespread impact on individuals and businesses;

ii. Coordinating with local and regional colleges and businesses on issues

impacting the development of emerging technologies;

iii. Providing assistance to colleges, universities, and businesses seeking to

increase income streams derived from their intellectual property; and


iv. Implementing workforce development and educational initiatives in

science, technology, engineering, and math (“STEM” initiatives).

OTRAP will work closely with a team of financial, legal, and technical experts to identify

technological initiatives and projects with the potential to meet the stated purposes and goals of

the Office. Among other things, OTRAP’s projects will include a data center and it will serve as a

resource for promoting the education of Mohawks to enter the field of technology and research.

The Tribe’s goal vis-à-vis OTRAP is to work with companies to enhance the value of its

intellectual property and provide an efficient means to protect the Tribe’s substantial investments

in their research and development of such intellectual property. All revenue, after expenses, goes

into the Tribal General Fund, which supports tribal programs and facilities that support the health,

education, and general welfare of the Tribe and its members. The fruits of this endeavor will also

go to preserving Mohawk cultural traditions, and the education of future generations.


Exhibit 5


October 12, 2017

Honorable Charles E. Grassley Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on Judiciary Committee on Judiciary

SD-224 Dirksen Building SD-224 Dirksen Building

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:

I am writing on behalf of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (“BIO”) with

respect to a recent request by several Judiciary Committee members that the Committee

investigate the recent patent licensing agreement between Allergan and the Saint Regis

Mohawk Tribe. While BIO does not comment on specific business transactions of its

members, BIO believes that any inquiry by the Judiciary Committee in this area must include

a serious review of the numerous deficiencies of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO)

inter partes review system (“IPR”), and the extent to which its use by certain generic

pharmaceutical manufacturers undermines longstanding and carefully-balanced procedures

governing market entry and patent dispute resolution under the highly successful Hatch-

Waxman Act.

BIO is the world’s largest biotechnology trade association. It represents over 1,100

companies, research institutions, technology incubators, and similar entities in the medical,

agricultural, environmental and industrial biotechnology sectors, the vast majority of which

are small, start-up companies that are engaged in the most cutting-edge and risky R&D and

are heavily reliant on massive amounts of private investment. As such, BIO is focused on the

critical and positive role that patents play in incentivizing biotechnology and pharmaceutical

innovation and in generating millions of high-skill jobs in the United States. Given this focus,

BIO is extremely concerned with the way in which the IPR system has failed to live up to

Congress’s hopes for a limited, but faster and cheaper, alternative to certain types of patent

litigation. Instead, IPR as it exists today, is undercutting the patent system’s intended

incentives for innovation by serving as an open-ended and duplicative forum for a new class

of “patent trolls” that is introducing significant business uncertainty and cost.1

1 BIO also recently submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Oil States Energy Services, LLC v.

Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-1712, which is currently before the United States


As you know, IPR has become highly controversial. There are persistent complaints

that these proceedings lack finality and due process, use legal standards that are

systematically unfavorable to patentees, and that the PTO has emphasized speed and

efficiency over procedural fairness. IPR is too often used not as a substitute for, but together

with, district court litigation for multi-pronged attacks on the same patents in different fora.

There are instances of valuable patents being upheld after years of litigation by a federal

court, only to be struck down on the same record through an IPR using a weaker legal

standard. For patent challengers, IPR can be an effective form of answer-shopping. For

patentees, they are a form of double – indeed seemingly endless – jeopardy.

Importantly, Congress never discussed or contemplated the potential impact on

pharmaceutical patent litigation under the Hatch Waxman Act (HWA) when it created the

IPR system.2 And such use of IPR has introduced unexpected and unintended complications

into the Hatch-Waxman system. The HWA, enacted in 1984, is the principal law governing

approval and market entry of generic drugs. For 30 years, the HWA has successfully

balanced its goals of drug innovation and cheaper access: more innovative new drugs have

been developed in the United States than in the rest of the world combined, while at the same

time, more than 90% of drug prescriptions in America today are for generic drugs – one of

the highest generic market penetration rates in the industrialized world. In addition, U.S.

consumers enjoy generic drug prices that are among the lowest among industrialized

countries.

Generic drug companies already receive benefits under the HWA that exist in no

other industry, including a safe harbor from infringement liability during drug development,

the ability to issue patent challenges in FDA certifications, a lucrative 180-day generic

exclusivity, and the ability to fully and fairly challenge patents in federal district court

without risk of financial liability. Under this system, generic drug companies also get the

benefit of the innovator company’s prior demonstration of safety and efficacy for a given

medicine, resulting in enormous reductions in both drug development costs and business risk.

While continuing to reap these benefits, generic companies now use IPR to game the system

in pursuit of further advantages – for example, by litigating the innovator company’s patents

for about a year in federal district court, and then using what they have learned to open a

Supreme Court. It is BIO’s position that the current IPR process is constitutionally infirm

and requires significant reforms.

2 See, e.g., Statement of Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA), Executive Business Meeting,

Senate Judiciary Committee, June 4, 2015 (“When the America Invents Act was considered,

it’s my understanding that there was no debate over whether or how IPR would impact these

important processes.”).


parallel challenge to the same patents in an IPR proceeding. If timed strategically, this

parallel IPR proceeding can be used as a hedge against the results of the district court

litigation. If the federal court determines the innovator’s patent to be valid, the IPR may still

produce the opposite result. And even if the court and the PTO both agree that the patent is

valid, the generic company has not one but two chances to overturn the result on appeal. It is

the quintessential double bite at the apple.

Through such gamesmanship, generic drug companies seek to secure for themselves

the benefits of the Hatch-Waxman system without being bound by that system’s results. In

the process, they are undermining the carefully constructed policy balance of the HWA, by

creating uncertainty, delay, and increased costs in the system for drug innovators and other

generic competitors, without producing any offsetting benefits for patients or consumers.

After five years of using IPRs in this way, generic companies cannot point to a single generic

drug that entered the market sooner because the PTO ruled in their favor. Indeed, such

gamesmanship by generic drug companies will serve only to harm patients in the long run by

dampening investment in already risky biomedical innovation.

As you will recall, BIO has been raising concerns with the Senate Judiciary

Committee about the impact of IPR on the HWA system for several years. And more than

two years ago, members of this Committee began expressing their concern with these

developments.3 Since then, the problem has only become worse. It is time for this Committee

to reassess whether IPR remains, in Senator Hatch’s words, the “legitimate and cost-effective

alternative to litigation” it was intended to be, while at the same time preventing misuse of

“this administrative process to interfere with a litigation system that encourages the

development of cheaper life-saving medicines.”

Finally, let me emphasize that BIO takes no particular position with respect to

Allergan’s transaction with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. We note, however, that sovereign

immunity is nothing new in the patent system. State-owned patents have been part of the

3 See, e.g., Transcript of Executive Business Meeting, Senate Judiciary Committee, June 4,

2015 (Statement of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY): “When we passed the AIA and set up

the IPR process, no one anticipated it would be used as an end run around Hatch -

Waxman.…That pattern is troubling to me and many other sponsors and I see a strong

justification for work to preserve the incentive structure as it existed for decades.”; Statement

of Senator John Cornyn (R-TX): “When we passed the America Invents Act, no one

anticipated that IPR would impact [Hatch Waxman] in the way that it has and it is important

we preserve incentives both for generics to come to market and to encourage future

investments in developing new treatments for patients.”).


Hatch-Waxman system for decades, and we are aware of no instance where sovereign

immunity has ever interfered with or delayed resolution of innovator-generic patent disputes

in federal court. It is the misuse of IPR, not the assertion of sovereign immunity, that has

introduced imbalance into the HWA framework. We remain committed to restoring that

balance through reasonable, but urgently-needed reforms of the IPR system.4

With Sincerest Regards,

James C. Greenwood

President and CEO

4 For a description of BIO’s proposed reforms, see generally: testimony of Hans Sauer on

behalf of BIO, United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on “The Impact of

Abusive Patent Litigation Practices on the American Economy” March 18, 2015. BIO also

supports the PTAB reform concepts embedded in S. 1390, introduced 6/21/2017 by Senators

Coons, Cotton, Durbin and Hirono.


Exhibit 6


Statement of

JUDGE PAUL R. MICHEL (Ret.) former Chief Judge

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Before the

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY United States House of Representatives

“The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses”

July 13, 2017


Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Nadler and Members of the Committee and Subcommittee: Everyone understands that the American economy depends heavily on invention—that is why it is referred to as the “Innovation Economy.” Invention and innovation, in turn, depend critically on adequate incentives to invest, because most invention is very risky and very expensive. A well-functioning patent system then is essential to securing such investments, both of company revenues and outside funding from venture capitalists, private equity firms, pension funds, commercial banks and other like sources. But, money managers in both worlds have many alternatives other than innovation. So, if risks are lower and rewards higher in other countries or in other endeavors such as entertainment, that is where the money will flow. The primary basis for most investment in useful innovation is the return on investment (ROI) assured by enforceable patents. The health of the American patent system is therefore of high national importance. On it depends the sufficiency of incentives to make the necessary investments. With sufficient incentives, our country will see the following effects:

• economic growth

• creation of net new jobs(at good salaries)

• productivity increases

• enhanced global competitiveness

• increased family and individual incomes

• increased tax revenues to support crucial upgrades in citizen welfare and physical infrastructure

• technological leadership

• economic and national security.

We have seen all these effects in recent decades under a healthy patent system. What about at present? Well, in just the past 3–4 years the patent world has been turned upside down. The combination of how the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board shaped and implemented procedures governing the AIA reviews, unintended consequences of a few design feature in the AIA itself, continuing, aggressive interventions by the Supreme Court, particularly on eligibility, and Rules and practice changes in the lower courts has totally changed perceptions of the current patent system. It is no longer viewed as reliable. Our system dropped from its customary first place in the annual Chamber of Commerce global ranking to an embarrassing tenth place, tied with former Soviet Bloc country, Hungary. Patent values have plummeted, by as much as 60% according to several studies by economists, based on public sales and licenses.


Venture investing has shifted heavily out of America to overseas competitors, particularly to Europe and China where eligibility is broader than here and enforcement far faster and cheaper, with injunctions, now rare here, routine there. America is already suffering a massive money-drain with the portion of venture funding staying here dropping from 83% to 54%, with the rest going overseas, often to China. In some technologies it has all but dried up. Start-ups, the source of most new technologies, most economic growth and most net new jobs, are shrinking in number. More now die each year in America than are born, for the first time ever. Enforcement of valid and infringed patents, always very slow, and very expensive, has become much more so. Inter partes reviews have become less than Congressionally-intended “alternative to expensive court litigation” than the prelude to court action, adding some $500,000 per challenge and typically 2.5 years of delay, as suits are routinely stayed for the duration. Eligibility law under the Alice/Mayo regime has become highly uncertain and unpredictable. And results have been as inconsistent as unpredictable. The net impact of these and related changes has convinced most investors that patents are now too unreliable as to validity, and too difficult to enforce, with excessive risk, delay and weak remedies. Indeed, most owners of patents can no longer afford to enforce them. The majority have been priced out of our justice system. Experts opine that to enforce a small portfolio an owner needs $15 million in cash and $3 billion in market cap. So, wages now say that the “sport of kings”, horse racing, has been replaced by patent litigation. The impacts on start-ups, research universities, university spin-offs, small and medium sized businesses and nearly all but giant multi-national corporations has been devastating. Even large companies, such as pharmaceutical firms, are hurting, many shrinking labs and decreasing or out-sourcing R & D, sometimes to foreign nations. In sum, I must report in candor to the Committee that the health of the American patent system is not good, but has declined sharply in just the past few years. Why? With the best of intentions, the three stewards of the patent system, the Supreme Court, the Congress and the PTO, have worked so hard to root out invalid patents, stem frivolous suits, and curb abusers of the patent system that its efficacy has been diminished or destroyed for the majority of owners who are responsible actors. That seems an absurd and unnecessary price for America to pay. Abusers can be punished and deterred by surgical means and weakening the entire system is surely unnecessary and unwise. How then did we arrive at this worrisome circumstance?


Three myths pervaded the policy debates even before and particularly since passage of the AIA: The first myth is that most asserted patents are “bad.” Not so. The second myth is that most suits are frivolous. No so. The third myth is that the courts are unwilling or unable to deal with the limited number of actual abusers of the patent system. Also not so. Another phenomenon was that the three Branches of Government did not adequately coordinate their interventions to improve performance of the system. So, the PTO implemented the AIA reviews with procedures that, in my view, in certain respects departed from Congressional intent. The Supreme Court revolutionized the law of patent eligibility, but provided wholly inadequate guidance for those who must apply the new standards: 8,300 examiners, 1,000 district judges, 263 APJs on the PTAB and many thousands of private and corporate attorneys who advise business decision-makers. They, after all control much of the money that could go into R & D and follow-on commercialization that actually puts cures in the hands of physicians and new products on store shelves for consumers, or not. The PTO appears to have been so worried about missing the Congressionally-required deadline of one year for a Final Written Decision in an AIA review that they never used the extra 6 months the Congress provided to them and made the procedures for AIA reviews so difficult for patent owners as to be unfair or, at least unjust compared to procedures in a court of law. For example, Congress wanted owners to be able to amend claims in IPRs, but the PTAB virtually always denies amendment. Courts of law require patents to be correctly construed, but the PTAB applies a broader, laxer, inaccurate construction, called Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. So, there was not much follow-up on PTO implementation by the Congress. Similarly, Congress worked hard to assure that repetitive challenges to a patent on the same ground would be barred by legislatively-required estoppel. But, as implemented by the PTO Director and the PTAB, estoppels are so weak as to be almost meaningless, with a challenger being permitted to file multiple petitions against the same patent and numerous other parties to file petitions on the same or very similar grounds. Again, with its other duties, follow-up by Congress, understandably has not, so far, been a priority. But not all in recent years has harmed investment and made the system less efficient. And, many complaints are now summarily dismissed for failing to meet the new requirement of fact-pleading the new Rules and the Supreme Court decisions in Twombly and Iqbal instituted. Many patents are now being invalidated as indefinite before trial under the Supreme Court's decision in Nautilus. And, fee-shifting against parties advancing "exceptionally weak claims" is now quite common as trial judges implement the Supreme Court mandate of Octane Fitness. Discovery limits under the new Rules of Civil Procedure are reducing costs to both plaintiffs and defendants. In my estimation, then, the court system has demonstrated great capability to combat the true “patent trolls.” That make the overreach by the PTO Director and the PTAB all the more regrettable.


Overreach, however, has not been limited to the PTO and PTAB. I consider that eligibility for patenting (assuming all other “conditions of patentability” are met) to have been resolved by the Congress as a matter of national economic policy in Section 101 of the Patent Act. That section very clearly provides that “any machine” is eligible. But in Alice, the Supreme Court effectively contradicted Congress' mandate, holding that only those machines it deems eligibility shall be so. If the patent claiming a machine is deemed too reliant on an “abstract idea”, then it is ineligible, per the Court, regardless what the statute provides. Certainly, one can agree that a claim to E=mc2 would not be valid and perhaps not even eligible. But there are no such patent claims. But to hold that if a claim “is directed to” an abstract idea (whatever that means) it is ineligible despite claiming a “machine”, as Congress explicitly allows, seems highly inappropriate as an apparent invasion of the Constitutional prerogatives of the Legislative Branch. Further, the Court implies its cases are a permissible exercise of judicial power under Article III because Congress have not legislatively abrogated them. That seems a stretch to me. Even worse, the Mayo decision has cast a dark cloud of doubtful validity over many thousands of important patents in the health sciences. That is choking off funding for bio-tech firms just when they are on the cusp of breakthrough discoveries that would revolutionize human health and longevity. If Congress is as concerned as I am sure it is with human health, it should be motivated to abrogate Mayo as well. It almost appears to me as if Congress is unaware of all these recent developments and still thinks that “trolls” are the biggest problem in the patent system. That is clearly not so. Yes, there are still some frivolous suits, but not many, as they have been deterred by those very developments, including the AIA itself. That is why the incidence of frivolity found by the courts as so small. The AIA’s creation of IPRs was, in my view, a very constructive step, even though I find fault with some aspects of its implementation by the PTO. They serve as a huge deterrent to dubious assertions, as does the new fee-shifting regime. In this and many other ways the AIA properly set the policies for patenting and patent reviews. But, it is a very different thing for the Congress to attempt to micro-manage the details of an ongoing patent suit. In my opinion, only the judge presiding over that case has the expertise and experience to realistically and competently do so. Therefore, as much as I support the AIA, I cannot support legislation such as the Innovation Act introduced in past Congresses. In view of all the developments of the past few years, to pile on still more patent “reform” at this juncture when the system is still reeling from the destabilizing and degrading effects of recent interventions by all three Branches seems inappropriate. It can only further weaken the investment incentives that have already been seriously diminished. In the current circumstance, patience is a signal virtue, as developments continue to unfold. For example, much has been speculated about the future practical effects of the recent Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland. Realistically, it is too soon to know. Surely, there will be fewer cases in Eastern Texas and more in the district courts in California, Chicago, Wilmington, New York and elsewhere. In my opinion, that is a good thing, and I submitted an amicus brief to the Court to encourage a broader distribution of cases across the country and its 94 judicial


districts. But only time will reveal if further adjustments of venue law are needed and appropriate. Much will depend on exactly how the lower courts interpret the statutory phrase “regular and established place of business.” That cannot be predicted. The same can be said about damages law. It continues to undergoes significant changes. Important improvements have been instituted by the courts. Whether there will be a useful role for Congress is as yet unclear. I doubt it, but one cannot be sure from what is visible at present. As to “loser pays” proposals, application of Octane Fitness by the trial courts has tripled the incidence of fee-shifting, so again, it is questionable whether Congressional action is ripe or appropriate, much less necessary. If I may suggest an improvement in the dialogue among all parties interested in the patent system, it would be to use more accurate terminology. The epithet “troll” is meaningless as an accepted definition is impossible to state. “Patent assertion entities” suffers the same deficiency. In fact, so does the phrase “bad patents.” Patents are neither bad nor good. As legal instruments, they are only valid or invalid under the terms of the Patent Act. As a national asset, the patent system needs balance, balance between the interests of applicants and petitioners, between plaintiffs and defendants, between giant corporations and start-ups, between “tech” and bio/pharma, between and among hundreds of different industries. The system has to serve all interests reasonably well. If any one interest is given all it prefers, then the balance is destroyed. Sure, if I were a counsel at Google or a similar Silicon Valley company, I would want the weakest patent enforcement as possible. Same if I were a lawyer at Target or a similar retail giant. But such a parochial viewpoint does not deserve adoption if it harms American competitiveness or economic growth. The national interest requires balancing the interests of all participants in the system. The problem is simply put: if in the interest of further combatting the relatively few system abusers, we further dismantle the system itself, our county will be committing economic suicide. Instead, the three Branches need to improve the operation of the system with surgical strikes, best done by the courts for the most part, not carpet bomb it into oblivion. Foreign competitors must be watching in astonishment to observe us continually weakening of our patent system. But, they have not been idle. They have enlarged eligibility to take advantage of our shrinking it. They have assured injunctive relief as the norm, while we have largely blocked it. They have made enforcement suits faster, surer and cheaper than here. They have given equal treatment to U. S. companies, of late, even China. One consequence is that American multi-nationals are now increasingly preferring to enforce first in Europe, particularly Germany, or even in China. That is a sad state of affairs for some of our most successful companies to encounter. In my view, the Committee should primarily focus on how to strengthen our system, make it cheaper, faster, more reliable. Bad patents and patent abusers are increasingly under effective


control, thanks in no small part to the prior work of this committee. For that, it is to be greatly commended. Thank you.


Exhibit 7


Supplemental Statement of

JUDGE PAUL R. MICHEL (Ret.) former Chief Judge

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY United States House of Representatives

“The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses”

Submitted September 12, 2017


September 12, 2017

2

INTRODUCTION Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Nadler, and Members of the Committee and Subcommittee: I thank the Committee for the opportunity to have provided testimony during the hearing held on July 13, 2017. I also thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this supplemental testimony addressing various issues that were raised during the hearing. The American economy’s success depends heavily on invention. Our “Innovation Economy” requires adequate incentives to invest in innovation because most invention is very risky and very expensive. A well-functioning patent system provides the necessary incentive for securing such investments, both of company revenues and outside funding from venture capitalists, private equity firms, pension funds, commercial banks, and other similar sources. Of course, investors have many alternative investment options, and if risks are lower and rewards higher in other countries or in other endeavors such as entertainment, that is where investment funds will flow. Without the proper incentives provided by the patent system, investment in innovation will falter, and the U.S. economy will suffer. The health of the American patent system is therefore of the highest national importance. Improving the U.S. patent system will lead to:

- economic growth; - creation of net new jobs with competitive salaries; - productivity increases; - enhanced global competitiveness; - increased family and individual incomes; - increased tax revenues to support crucial upgrades in citizen welfare and physical

infrastructure; - technological leadership; and - technological developments to address environmental issues; and - economic and national security.

The Committee is conducting some of the most important work in Congress. The Committee’s work will effect positive change to stabilize the U.S. patent system and will create the necessary incentives for developing, protecting, and commercializing American innovation. I applaud the Committee’s work. In my twenty-two years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, I witnessed countless examples of the importance of innovation in protecting and growing business. And as I stated during my testimony on July 13, 2017, I am testifying on behalf of myself only, and not advocating for any particular companies or groups, as are the other witnesses. I firmly believe my recommendations set forth below will benefit the U.S. economy and the Nation as a whole, and I respectfully urge the Committee to adopt the recommendations.


September 12, 2017

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Committee can rescue the U.S. patent system and reinvigorate the U.S. economy. To do so, the Committee should adopt seven specific action items (listed below as A-G). The first five will substantively and procedurally improve patent law and strengthen patent rights while optimizing PTAB procedures. The last two items relate to the administration of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A more detailed discussion of each of the items follows, as well as several concluding points in response to specific queries noted at the July 13 hearing. A. Amend the AIA to Ensure Fairness and Improve Economic Competitiveness. After six years, the AIA has caused more harm than good. It is time to fix the PTAB system and reinstate confidence in the U.S. patent system.

1. A reexamination off-ramp must be established. It will enable the USPTO to properly examine new and amended claims introduced during the AIA post-grant review. 2. A patent owner must have a right to amend claims during AIA review. The reexamination off-ramp will obviate the PTAB’s current reluctance to permit patent owners to amend claims. 3. AIA post-grant proceedings must apply the clear and convincing evidentiary standard and the presumption of validity. Lower standards of proof have no place in adjudicating patent rights and are contrary to Supreme Court precedent and 35 U.S.C. § 282. 4. The PTAB must discard the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) claim construction and apply the Phillips standard. Using the same claim construction standard as in district court will avoid inconsistent outcomes involving the same patent. 5. The PTAB panel deciding the merits of the case cannot be the same decisionmaker that decides to institute review. The decision to institute review must be made by a different decisionmaker. This must be done to prevent the PTAB panel jumping to premature conclusions based on “first impression” bias and incomplete evidence. 6. Parties who challenge patents through AIA post-grant review proceedings must have Article III standing. AIA post-grant review was intended to be a surrogate for district court litigation. In district court, a party can challenge patent validity only if the party has Article III standing to pursue such a challenge. The same should hold true in AIA post-grant proceedings. Implementing a standing requirement will also decrease the burden on PTO and PTAB resources and increase the fidelity of the review process.

B. Amend 35 U.S.C. § 101 to Eliminate the Current Uncertainty in Patent-Eligibility Law. Patent-eligibility law under § 101 has descended into chaos after a string of Supreme Court decisions. Congress must amend the statute to bring order from chaos. The legal uncertainty is devastating American business, including high tech, manufacturing, biotech, and pharmaceutical industries. Section 101 must be amended (a) to recognize that a patent claim with a physical aspect or element necessarily satisfies patent eligibility; (b) to clarify that processes containing


September 12, 2017

4

solely mental steps are not patent eligible; and (c) to add the following: “Eligibility shall not be denied based on any judicially-imposed exceptions.” C. Amend 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) to Define “Regular and Established Place of Business” for Purposes of Venue in Patent Litigation. Congress must define “regular and established place of business” to bring clarity to the patent venue statute. TC Heartland did not address the entire statute, courts are split, and litigation will continue until Congress defines the statutory phrase. A regular and established place of business should not include a place where a company merely has transient employees and activities. The regular and established place of business should also not include locations where a limited number of employees work remotely or telework. Without this clarification, many companies will be subjected to patent infringement actions in districts throughout the United States, even though they conduct little actual business in the districts. I leave it to Congress to adopt the specific language necessary. D. End PTO Fee Diversion. The AIA sought to minimize PTO fee diversion, but hundreds of millions of dollars—paid by inventors and innovators—continue to be used for non-patent purposes. From 2010 to 2014, a total of $409.8 million in PTO user fees was diverted to non-PTO uses. PTO fee diversion is a tax on innovation, and it must be stopped. E. Authorize Technical Support Staff for District Judges Participating in the Patent Pilot Program. Congress should authorize technical support staff for federal district court judges who participate in the Patent Pilot Program. The Patent Pilot Program successfully yielded a group of federal district court judges who are more experienced with patent infringement actions. Additional technical support staff for these judges will help them understand complex patent cases and will provide additional assistance to dispose of those cases efficiently and rigorously. F. Require the PTO Director to Be Qualified and Admitted to the Patent Bar. The PTO needs the best and brightest leadership. PTO leadership must understand the technological advances with which the PTO is being entrusted. Accordingly, the PTO Director must be an individual who is admitted to practice before the PTO and thus has a patent bar registration number. This requirement will ensure that the PTO Director has the necessary technical knowledge to fully execute the PTO’s mission. While the PTO Director need not be a technical expert, having the minimum scientific education is critical to effective leadership. G. Empower PTO Leadership to Maintain Quality Patent Examiners. In recent years, the PTO Director has been unnecessarily hampered by burdensome rules governing employee misconduct and responsibility, as well as insufficient means to reward the best employees. PTO leadership must be empowered to make the decisions necessary to lead the agency entrusted with protecting the nation’s innovation. To do so, PTO leadership should be given more authority to reward excellent employees and to discipline improper employee conduct. The PTO Director should be encouraged to, and, to the extent necessary, given additional authorization to, award sufficient cash bonuses to the very best patent examiners, not to exceed 5% of examiners per annum. The PTO leadership must be authorized to expeditiously dismiss employees, particularly examiners, when those employees have committed egregious misconduct. Finally, examiner training and continuing education must be improved, with emphasis on claim construction and 35 U.S.C. § 112.


September 12, 2017

5

DETAILED SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT

I. Amend the America Invents Act to Ensure Fairness in the Process In 2011, Congress passed the America Invents Act1 (“AIA”) in part as an effort to provide an alternative venue for resolving patent validity disputes. When Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a bill that ultimately led to the AIA, he stated that it would “provide[] the tools the USPTO needs to separate the inventive wheat from the chaff” and that “[i]t will allow our inventors and innovators to flourish.”2 The AIA was supposed to “improve patent quality and restore confidence in the presumption of validity that comes with issued patents.”3 In the six years since, we have witnessed the opposite—plummeting patent values, while licensing and capital investments in many technologies are sinking. Erroneous grants and denials of patents and excessive invalidations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are sapping the strength of our patent system. While the PTAB has cancelled many patent claims that should never have issued, the PTAB’s implementation of the AIA does not “allow our inventors and innovators to flourish.” In fact, the situation is so bad that inventors are burning their issued U.S. patents at the steps of the PTO to express their outrage with the PTAB.4 I submit this supplemental statement with the understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering two cases—Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal—that may affect AIA post-grant proceedings. Further evaluation may be necessary in response to the Court’s decisions in those two cases. My submission here must not be interpreted as an endorsement of any particular legal position advanced in Oil States or SAS Institute.

A. Establish a “Reexamination Off-Ramp” from the Post-Grant Proceeding As I stated during my hearing testimony, a major deficiency with the current AIA post-grant review process is the lack of a meaningful ability to amend and examine claims during the post-grant review process. A patent owner should be granted a right to amend claims. The objective of post-grant review should be to ensure that patents contain claims that cover only novel and nonobvious inventions, and that overly broad claims are cancelled. Prior to the AIA, the ex parte reexamination proceeding was an effective procedure to cancel invalid claims without having to proceed through district court litigation. The reexamination

1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 84 (2011). 2 157 Cong. Rec. S131 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 2011) (statement of Sen. Leahy). 3 H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 48. 4 See Malathi Nayak, Inventors Torch Patents Outside PTO, Decry Review Process, Bloomberg BNA, Aug. 11, 2017, at https://www.bna.com/inventors-torch-patents-n73014463088/; Steve Brachmann & Gene Quinn, US Inventor Sets Patents on Fire as Part of PTAB Protest at USPTO, IPWatchdog.com, Aug. 11, 2017, at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/11/us-inventor-patents-on-fire-ptab-protest-uspto/id=86757/. For video of the event, see https://www.c-span.org/video/?432438-1/patent-trademark-policy-protest.


September 12, 2017

6

process allows the PTO to thoroughly reexamine issued claims and to examine newly presented claims. Examining claims—whether new or old—takes time, especially if new prior art or new patentability arguments are presented. A primary obstacle to achieving effective claim examination in AIA post-grant proceedings is that the PTAB is not a patent-examining body. The administrative patent judges (“APJs”) of the PTAB are not equipped to search and review the prior art and to comprehensively review new claims for patentability. Instead, the APJs are tasked with adjudicating specific competing arguments advanced by the parties in light of a limited set of evidence. The limited time allowed for completing AIA post-grant proceedings is another obstacle to effective claim examination in the AIA context. The AIA post-grant proceedings must generally be completed within 18 months from the filing date of the petition.5 Little time exists for proper examination of new and amended claims in those 18 months. The timeframe contributes to the PTAB’s reluctance to allow parties to amend claims. The straightforward solution is to establish a “reexamination off-ramp.” The reexamination off-ramp could be structured in various ways, but the basic premise would allow the patent to be moved from the AIA post-grant process to the reexamination process. The reexamination off-ramp would give the PTO enough time and resources to properly assess the validity of new and amend claims and to fully consider new prior art. The PTO appears authorized to create a reexamination off-ramp under existing law. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and § 325(d), the PTO Director has the authority to “stay, transfer, consolidat[e], or terminat[e]” another “proceeding or matter involving the patent” that is being reviewed in the AIA post-grant proceeding.6 Thus, under the statute, the PTO Director can transfer the AIA review of a patent to the reexamination process (which would be another “proceeding or matter involving the same patent”). Further, the PTO Director can sua sponte order the reexamination of any issued patent.7 To institute reexamination, the PTO Director must establish that a substantial new question of patentability exists. In practice, if the PTAB has instituted post-grant review of a patent, it will certainly be the case that a substantial new question of patentability exists. Accordingly, the PTO Director will generally have the statutory authority to institute an ex parte reexamination of any patent for which the PTAB has instituted post-grant review under the AIA.

5 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(a)(11), 326(a)(11). If additional time is needed, the PTAB can extend the proceeding by up to six months, see id., but the PTAB rarely, if ever, has taken advantage of that additional time. 6 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) reads in full: “(d) Multiple Proceedings.— Notwithstanding sections 135(a), 251, and 252, and chapter 30, during the pendency of an inter partes review, if another proceeding or matter involving the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner in which the inter partes review or other proceeding or matter may proceed, including providing for stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding.” 7 35 U.S.C. § 303; 37 C.F.R. § 1.520.


September 12, 2017

7

Although authorized to transfer or stay AIA matters and thus create the reexamination off-ramp, the PTO Director and PTAB have not done so. I am aware of no instance in which an IPR review has been transferred to the reexamination process. The PTAB has stayed reexaminations in view of concurrent IPR reviews8, but that result is the opposite of what I suggest is preferable. The patent owner would prefer the option to proceed through reexamination in order to have amended and new claims properly examined. The PTO is unlikely to establish, on its own volition, the necessary reexamination off-ramp. The PTAB focuses too much on completing AIA post-grant proceedings within the deadlines—without ever taking the additional time allowable under the statute. Institutional inertia is another likely culprit; a federal agency is institutionally disinclined to make a significant procedural change even though it would create an efficient, creative solution. To solve the problem, Congress should amend the AIA to provide the patent owner with a right to demand that the patent be transferred to a reexamination proceeding from the AIA post-grant proceeding if claim amendments are made, new claims added, or new prior art is presented. This reexamination off-ramp will provide the proper means by which to examine new claims for patentability and to examine existing claims in view of new prior art. Some patent owners, to be sure, may forgo the reexamination off-ramp for various reasons. Reexamination generally takes longer than AIA post-grant review. Additional prior art and arguments may be considered in the reexamination, beyond what was the initial basis for instituting the reexamination. Once the reexamination begins, the examiner is free to consider all available prior art—not just the art cited at the beginning of the proceeding. In reexamination, an examiner may also reject claims based on double patenting grounds.9 And surviving reexamination with amended claims subjects the claims to intervening rights (as explained below in the next section). Even with these features, a reexamination off-ramp will be utilized to properly examine new and amended claims presented during AIA post-grant review. In short, the reexamination off-ramp is an ideal mechanism to enable the PTO to examine new and amended claims in light of the cited prior art and to consider new arguments and new prior art about the patentability of issued claims. Even though the PTO Director can create the reexamination off-ramp under current law, minor statutory amendments to the AIA may be necessary to ensure the procedure’s viability for those patent owners who elect to use the reexamination off-ramp.

B. A Patent Owner Must Have a Right to Amend Claims During AIA Proceedings AIA proceedings should be revised so that a patent owner has a right to amend its claims. This proposal will simplify the proceedings, enable patent challengers to cull overly broad claims, and ensure that inventors and innovators maintain valid patent protection for novel and nonobvious

8 See, e.g., CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, No. IPR2013-00033, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6. 2012) (staying a concurrent inter partes reexamination pending the termination or completion of the IPR). 9 In re Lonardo, 119 F.3d 960, 965-67 (Fed. Cir. 1997).


September 12, 2017

8

inventions. The reexamination off-ramp will enable proper examination of new and amended claims. In AIA post-grant proceedings, a patent owner currently lacks the right to amend claims but does have the right to file one motion seeking an amendment of the claims.10 The PTO’s and PTAB’s application of the AIA makes illusory the ability to amend claims during a post-grant proceeding.11 Many have written about the problems associated with the lack of a meaningful ability to amend the claims.12 Some have suggested that the PTAB rarely allows claim amendments because the compressed timing of the post-grant proceeding. This is likely so, but, with a reexamination off-ramp the patent owner will have the right to ask that new and amended claims be fully examined before a patent examiner. The PTAB has the authority to stay proceedings, and therefore concerns about statutory timing requirements are misplaced. I further note that the Federal Circuit has an appeal, In re Aqua Products, Inc.,13 pending before the full en banc court. The court granted rehearing en banc to address the following questions:

(a) When the patent owner moves to amend its claims under 35 U.S.C. § 316(d), may the PTO require the patent owner to bear the burden of persuasion, or a burden of production, regarding patentability of the amended claims as a condition of allowing them? Which burdens are permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)?

(b) When the petitioner does not challenge the patentability of a proposed amended claim, or the Board thinks the challenge is inadequate, may the Board sua sponte raise patentability challenges to such a claim? If so, where would the burden of persuasion, or a burden of production, lie?

10 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(d), 326(d). 11 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (requiring that proposed substitute claims must “respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial” and may not “enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter”); id. § 42.121(a)(3) (mandating that “[t]he presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim”); Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., No. IPR2012-00027, Paper No. 26 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013) (listing additional requirements for motions to amend claims); MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., No. IPR2015-00040, Paper No. 42 (P.TA.B. July 15, 2015). 12 E.g., Matthew Bultman, PTAB Lets Schaeffler Amend Some Claims In Patent Challenge, Law360, June 21, 2017, at https://www.law360.com/articles/936525/ptab-lets-schaeffler-amend-some-claims-in-patent-challenge (“It has been unusual for the PTAB to grant motions to amend, which can be a tool for patent owners to save patents from an invalidity challenge.”); see also USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Motion to Amend Study, Apr. 30, 2016, at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016-04-30%20PTAB%20MTA%20study.pdf. 13 Appeal No. 2015-1177.


September 12, 2017

9

My proposal of a mandatory right to amend during AIA post-grant proceedings would simplify the process for amendments and would reduce litigation about whether the PTAB properly granted or denied motions to amend. Evident from the Aqua Products en banc case, the Federal Circuit is weighing issues such as “burden of persuasion” and “burden of production” in the context of motions to amend claims. These issues can be complicated—and are too complicated to be decided in the context of an AIA post-grant proceeding. The right to amend, with a reexamination off-ramp, will obviate this unnecessary complexity. At the same time, accused infringers will be protected from claim amendments under the doctrine of intervening rights. When a patent owner amends the claims, the doctrine of intervening rights may apply to cut off damages liability, and the accused infringer may not be liable for past or future infringement of the new or amended claims.14 As the Federal Circuit has explained, “the making of substantive changes in the claims is treated as an irrebuttable presumption that the original claims were materially flawed,” and therefore, the doctrine of intervening rights “relieves those who may have infringed the original claims from liability during the period before the claims are validated.”15 In the post-grant situation, the goal should be to preserve valid patent protection while cancelling invalid claims. Affording a patent owner the right to amend claims, particularly when facing newly presented prior art, will help achieve the proper balance between cancelling overly broad claims and maintaining patent protection for worthy innovation.

C. In AIA Reviews, The PTAB Must Apply the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard and the Presumption of Validity

AIA post-grant proceedings use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.16 After several years, our experience proves that this evidentiary standard is too low. Patents covering important inventions are too easily invalidated. Congress should amend the statute so that the “clear and convincing” standard—the same used in district court proceedings—is used in AIA post-grant proceedings. When the AIA was passed, a patent owner expected to have an opportunity to amend challenged claims. The procedure would in part resemble an examination of the claims, similar to what occurs in ex parte patent prosecution. Patent examination is an ex parte process, and using a too-high evidentiary standard would hamper the PTO examiner’s ability to reject claims of questionable patentability. If a post-grant proceeding were, in fact, like patent examination, it would make sense to use the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard when assessing the patentability of any given claim.17

14 See, e.g., Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCom, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1360-65 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 15 Bloom Eng’g Co. v. N. Am. Mfg. Co., 129 F.3d 1247, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 16 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(e), 326(e). 17 See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record,


September 12, 2017

10

But a post-grant proceeding differs significantly. AIA proceedings are adversarial adjudications of patent validity. The petitioner and the patent owner put forth competing arguments based on the evidence presented. There is no meaningful procedure by which patent owners can amend claims and have their new claims examined for patentability. The post-grant proceedings include discovery and the taking of testimony of witnesses. Indeed, AIA post-grant proceedings were intended to be a less expensive, faster alternative to traditional district court litigation.18 Establishing a more efficient forum for adjudicating patent validity disputes is a reasonable objective, but little justification exists for lowering the evidentiary standard for assessing the validity of a duly-issued patent. Post-grant proceedings should focus on confirming valid patent rights and cancelling invalid claims, consistent with outcomes expected in district court litigation, but without the unnecessary costs associated with burdensome discovery matters and the delays due to crowded district court dockets. In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership,19 the Supreme Court unanimously upheld that the clear-and-convincing standard applies to validity determinations in patent infringement actions. The Court ruled that 35 U.S.C. § 282 embodied the common-law rule for the standard of proof: “The common-law presumption, in other words, reflected the universal understanding that a preponderance standard of proof was too ‘dubious’ a basis to deem a patent invalid.”20 If, in the Supreme Court’s view, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is “too dubious” for patent invalidation, then that dubious standard should not be used in AIA post-grant proceedings, especially when a patent owner cannot amend or add patent claims and the proceeding is not structured to enable the PTO to examine new or amended claims. Similarly, validity determinations in AIA post-grant proceedings should be consistent with district court proceedings by properly applying the statutory presumption of validity set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 282. As Judge Rich explained over thirty years ago, § 282 “creates a presumption that a patent is valid and imposes the burden of proving invalidity on the attacker” and “[t]hat burden is constant and never changes and is to convince the court of invalidity by clear evidence.”21 The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of the statutory burden of proof in

by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument.”); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 18 E.g., 157 Cong. Rec. S1326 (daily ed. Mar. 7, 2011) (statement of Sen. Sessions) (opining that post-grant review “will allow invalid patents that were mistakenly issued by the PTO to be fixed early in their life, before they disrupt an entire industry or result in expensive litigation”); see also Tony Dutra, AIA at 5 Years: PTAB’s Tectonic Change in Patent Litigation, Bloomberg BNA, Sept. 16, 2016 (quoting Kevin Jakel, CEO of Unified Patents: “The PTAB has been a game-changer and, as the legislative intent suggested, it has worked as a less expensive alternative to litigation . . . .”), at https://www.bna.com/aia-years-ptabs-n57982077105/. 19 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011). 20 Id. at 2246. 21 Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984).


September 12, 2017

11

Microsoft v. i4i, but currently, too many patent owners feel that the deck is stacked against them and that they have the burden to prove their patents valid once they set foot in the PTAB. In total, post-grant proceedings should use a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof and a presumption of validity when deciding the validity of issued patents in AIA post-grant proceedings.

D. The PTAB Must Use the Same Claim Construction Standard Used in Patent Litigation Before Article III District Courts

Another concern with AIA post-grant proceedings is that, pursuant to PTO rule, the PTAB construes the claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) when assessing the validity of the claims.22 When the PTO implemented the BRI rule23 for AIA post-grant proceedings, the expectation was that the patent owner would have a reasonable ability to amend claims and propose new claims, which then would be examined for patentability. As we now know, however, claim amendments are rarely permitted in post-grant review proceedings.24 The result is an extraordinarily high patent cancellation rate in AIA post-grant proceedings. The PTAB’s use of the BRI, which is different than in federal district court, results in the cancellation of claims based on a claim interpretation divorced from the patent’s specification, as it would be understood by the ordinary artisan. The PTAB does not construe the patent claims according to its plain and ordinary meaning, as is required in federal court.25 Instead, the PTAB uses the BRI, a broader interpretation of the claims and the same approach used by patent examiners when reviewing patent applications. In some instances, the BRI does not properly account for prosecution history, which can inform the ordinary artisan’s understanding of the claims. The BRI has led to differing outcomes in post-grant proceedings compared to district court patent litigation, and that result conflicts with the AIA’s goal of creating an alternative forum for patent litigation. Moreover, using the BRI in a proceeding lacking the right to amend claims makes little sense. In contrast, during reexamination, a patent applicant can readily amend claims should the examiner apply the BRI and conclude that the claim is not patentable. The patent owner can narrow the claim to overcome the examiner’s rejection (based on the BRI) and then maintain claims, albeit narrower claims, that still protect the invention. Not so in AIA post-grant proceedings.

22 I explained the problems with the BRI in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). The amicus brief is available here: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme court preview/briefs 2015

2016/15-446 amicus np PaulRMichel.authcheckdam.pdf. 23 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016). 24 The Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo upheld the validity of the PTO’s rule applying the BRI. I do not reargue that issue but instead target the best rule for achieving the AIA’s objectives. With experience, we have learned that the BRI in AIA post-grant proceedings causes more harm than good. 25 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).


September 12, 2017

12

Instead of using the BRI, the PTAB should use the plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., the Phillips standard, for construing claims. This would harmonize PTAB patent reviews with district court proceedings, minimize conflicting outcomes, and make AIA post-grant proceedings a truer surrogate for district court litigation, as Congress originally intended. My proposal is also consistent with my suggestion above to give patent owners the right to amend the claims. If a patent owner chooses to amend or add claims during a post-grant proceeding, the process could move forward through the reexamination off-ramp. The reexamination process would then provide a proper examination of the new and amended claims, using the BRI as per accepted practice.

E. The Institution Decision Must be Made by a Distinct Decisionmaker from the PTAB Panel that Would Rule on the Merits

When Congress established the AIA, it instructed that “[t]he Director” of the PTO “shall determine whether to institute an inter partes review,”26 and that “[t]he Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall … conduct each inter partes review instituted under this chapter.”27 Thus, Congress—for good reason—envisioned a system in which the initial decision to institute AIA post-grant review was made by another decisionmaker, while the final decision on the merits would be by the PTAB. Contrary to congressional intent, the PTO uses the same PTAB panel to make both the decision to institute and the final decision on the merits.28 The PTO’s procedure is inconsistent with the statute, is functionally flawed, and should be corrected. A major flaw in the PTO’s system is that the three-judge PTAB panel that decides whether to institute or not is the same panel that decides the merits of the patent challenge. The very act of deciding to institute review likely prejudices the panel, even though the panel has reviewed only an incomplete record. In many instances, the PTAB panel may decide to institute review after hearing only from the petitioner because the patent owner, for good reasons, did not file a patent owner preliminary response. The saying “you only get one chance to make a first impression” rings true in the patent ligation context. As a judge, I was highly influenced by my first read of the parties’ briefs. I always kept an open mind, of course, as I studied the briefs, read my clerk’s bench memo, reviewed the evidentiary record, and listened to oral argument by the attorneys. My final conclusions often differed from my initial impression, but my initial impression, based on the briefs, strongly influenced my subsequent thinking of the case. My personal experience is consistent with well-documented reports in the legal and scientific literature. Legal scholars, relying on cognitive science research, have explained that “individuals, including judges, will overvalue initial impressions, even those based on imperfect

26 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). 27 Id. § 316(c). 28 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).


September 12, 2017

13

information.”29 “[P]eople form their first impressions of an issue based on the context in which they first confront it” and “they have an ingrained tendency to overestimate the extent to which those circumstances are representative of the issue.”30 Indeed, the literature is vast concerning the extent to which inaccurate “first impressions” can influence final decisionmaking.31 For these reasons, I was always certain to read the parties’ appeal briefs together, meaning I read the appellant’s brief and then would immediately read the appellee’s brief, so that I learned both sides of the story at the same time. I sometimes would read the appellant’s reply brief first, and then the appellee’s brief. My approach allowed me to digest opposing arguments close in time so I could process all arguments and evidence before reaching any firm initial conclusions. The PTAB’s current process of reviewing AIA petitions is not structured to mitigate the risks associated with first impression bias based on incomplete information. The PTAB panel’s first introduction to the case is based on a thorough and complete petition filed by the patent challenger. The patent owner is not required to file a preliminary patent owner response before the PTAB panel decides whether to institute review. Even if the patent owner does file a preliminary response to the petition, the preliminary response will likely be limited, even under the expanded rules permitting the patent owner to file testimonial and other evidence.32 Recent news about PTAB “panel packing’ underscore the importance of establishing fair PTAB procedures. Judges on the Federal Circuit have questioned the propriety of changing a PTAB panel in order to achieve a desired result in post-grant proceedings. In a rare two-judge concurrence, Judges Dyk and Wallach “question[ed] whether the practice of expanding panels where the PTO is dissatisfied with a panel’s earlier decision is the appropriate mechanism of achieving the desired uniformity.”33 And in an earlier case, a PTO attorney acknowledged that “anytime there has been a seeming other-outlier [the PTO has] engaged the power to reconfigure the panel so as to get the result [the PTO] want[s].”34

29 Neal Devins & Alan Meese, Judicial Review and Nongeneralizable Cases, 32 Fla. State Univ. L. Rev. 323, 331 (2005) (citing Chris Guthrie et al., Inside the Judicial Mind, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 777, 778-80 (2001)). 30 Michael Abramowicz & Thomas B. Colby, Notice-and-Comment Judicial Decisionmaking, 76 Univ. Chi. L. Rev. 965, 981 (2009). 31 See, e.g., Thomas C. Mann & Melissa J. Ferguson, Can We Undo Our First Impressions?: The Role of Reinterpretation in Reversing Implicit Evaluations, 108 J. Personality and Social Psychology 832 (2015); Philip E. Tetlock, Accountability and the Perseverance of First Impressions, 46 Social Psychology Quarterly 285 (1983); see also Matthew Rabin & Joel L. Schrag, First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias, 114 Quarterly J. of Economics 37, 37 (Feb. 1999) (“Psychological research indicates that people have a cognitive bias that leads them to misinterpret new information as supporting previously held hypotheses.”). 32 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(c) (2016). 33 Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., No. 16-2321, slip op. at 4 (Aug. 22, 2017) (Dyk, J., concurring, with Wallach, J.). 34 Gene Quinn, USPTO Admits to Stacking PTAB Panels to Achieve Desired Outcomes, IPWatchdog.com, Aug. 23, 2017, at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/23/uspto-admits-stacking-ptab-panels-achieve-desired-outcomes/id=87206/.


September 12, 2017

14

Whether the PTO Director is allowed to “panel pack” is beyond the scope of my testimony here, but I raise it because it relates to whether PTO and PTAB procedures are—and appear to be—fair to patent owners and applicants. The current structure for reviewing AIA post-grant petitions fails to account for the “first impression” bias. The panel forms in an initial view based on the petitioner’s initial arguments and before reviewing the competing evidence. Coupled with the revelations about potential “panel packing,” inventors and innovators are quickly losing faith in the PTAB process. To correct these deficiencies, the initial decision on an AIA petition should be made by a decisionmaker other than the three-judge PTAB panel making the final decision. The PTO Director has various options that could be easily implemented. For instance, delegate the initial decision to institute to a single APJ. Alternatively, the initial decision could be made by the Central Reexamination Unit (“CRU”). Once a case is instituted, then the case would be assigned to a full PTAB panel comprising three new APJs who will adjudicate the matter without the risk of “first impression” bias. My proposal obviates concerns that separating the institution decision from the final written decision will create too much work for the PTAB. If the CRU is used to make the institution decision, then workload on the Board will decrease. If a single APJ makes the initial decision, the workload will decrease, as only one APJ will be assigned to the petition during the first six months (the institution stage), in effect freeing up two APJs for six months. The CRU may be particularly well-suited to make the initial decision on an AIA post-grant review petition. The CRU was created in 2005 within the PTO to provide a dedicated group of employees to rule on reexamination requests. By creating the CRU, the PTO increased the consistency of reexamination proceedings. The CRU also worked to reduce pendency in reexamination proceedings. The CRU has more than ten years of experience making the very types of decisions that are made when granting or denying an AIA post-grant review petition. While the PTO has the authority to implement these changes,35 expediency warrants congressional action. A relatively minor statutory amendment would achieve the result. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 314 currently specifies that the Director shall determine whether to institute inter partes review. A new subsection, § 314(f), could read:

Under no circumstances shall the determination whether to institute inter partes review be made by an individual who is a member of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board who participates in the inter partes review after institution or the final written decision under § 318 of this chapter.36

With this amendment, the PTO Director will have broad discretion on how to assign the decision to institute, while requiring a decisional separation between the preliminary institution decision

35 Cf. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied 137 S. Ct. 625 (2017). 36 The analogous section for post-grant review (“PGR”) is 35 U.S.C. § 324.


September 12, 2017

15

under § 314 and the final written decision on the merits under § 318. Corresponding changes should be made for the other two AIA reviews.

F. A Petitioner Challenging a Patent in the PTAB Must Have Article III Standing

Another needed improvement to the AIA is to require that all post-grant patent challengers demonstrate Article III standing. This requirement would better align post-grant proceedings with district court proceedings. The AIA scheme was intended to be a faster, less expensive alternative to district court litigation, and district court patent challenges are limited to those parties. Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts the power of federal courts to adjudicate “Cases” and “Controversies.”37 This demands an actual controversy to exist between parties seeking to litigate a matter in federal court.38 Article III applies equally to patent litigation in federal court.39 Before the PTAB, however, Article III standing is not a requirement because the case or controversy requirement does not apply to proceedings before federal agencies. Thus, the AIA allows parties without any concrete interest in the patent to question the patent’s validity. This creates several problems. First, without a standing requirement, litigants lack the concrete interest to devote full resources for a robust patent challenge. A party with no risk of liability of infringement has little interest in ensuring a full and complete test of the patent claims. As the Supreme Court has explained, the exercise of judicial power “is not to be placed in the hands of ‘concerned bystanders,’ who will use it simply as a ‘vehicle for the vindication of value interests.’”40 “Concerned bystanders” may have a general interest, but they suffer no actual harm if they fail to cancel the patent claims. They suffer no consequences for poor advocacy. This results in false positives, i.e., patent claims being upheld even though they should be cancelled and likely would have been cancelled if a party with a real interest had challenged the patent. Second, the lack of a standing requirement in AIA post-grant reviews leads to appellate asymmetry. Patent challengers can sometimes participate in an appeal of a PTAB final written decision, but sometimes not. While a party need not have Article III standing for an AIA post-grant review, it must have standing to appeal the final decision to the Federal Circuit.41 But, under a recent Federal Circuit decision, a PTAB patent challenger need not have standing to be

37 U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009). 38 See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). 39 E.g., Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 925 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 40 Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986) (quoting United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 687 (1973)). 41 Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168, 1173-74 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014).


September 12, 2017

16

an appellee.42 Under current law, therefore, if a patent challenger without Article III standing wins at the PTAB, it can always participate in an appeal, but if the party loses, it cannot appeal. This asymmetry is detrimental to creating a uniform body of patent law. PTAB decisions can create rules of law that bind the PTO in future cases.43 Some PTAB decisions will be wrong, and the appellate process will correct those decisions. But if decisions are shielded from appellate review because the patent challenger lacks Article III standing, those incorrect PTAB decisions will infect future proceedings. Third, the lack of a standing requirement puts the Federal Circuit in the awkward position of having to conduct, in the first instance, factfinding about standing.44 Before the PTAB, the parties have no reason or ability to develop the evidence necessary to establish or dispute a petitioner’s standing. A dispute about standing only arises when appealed to the Federal Circuit, and the appeals court must then attempt to resolve the dispute through motions practice, which is far from optimal for making factual findings. This process also unnecessarily increases the workload on the court. Fourth, without a standing requirement, certain entities have abused the AIA review process by filing post-grant petitions with the intention of manipulating stock prices. One well-known hedge fund manager sought to “fil[e] and publiciz[e] patent challenges against pharmaceutical companies while also betting against their shares.”45 AIA post-grant proceedings might be a legitimate means to cancel patents, including pharmaceutical patents, but the administrative resources of the PTO should not be made a mechanism for short-term financial gains through a short-selling campaign. These problems can be solved by requiring a PTAB petitioner to have standing under Article III. The Federal Circuit has developed a robust body of case law applying the standing requirement to patent actions. If a party has been sued for patent infringement, standing to initiate a PTAB post-grant review will exist. If a party has not been sued for infringement, the petitioner can still

42 Personal Audio, LLC v. Elec. Frontier Found., No. 2016-1123, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2017). 43 See Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard Operating Procedure 2, Publication of Opinions and Designation of Opinions as Precedential, Informative, Representative, and Routine (Revision 9), Sept. 22, 2014, at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sop2-revision-9-dated-9-22-2014.pdf 44 Amy J. Wildermuth & Lincoln L. Davies, Standing, On Appeal, 2010 Univ. Ill. L. Rev. 957, 968 (2010) (“Because appellate courts are on foreign ground when they are faced with factual-based standing questions, the procedures they have created for the cases they normally hear are unlikely to work.”). 45 Joseph Walker & Rob Copeland, New Hedge Fund Strategy: Dispute the Patent, Short the Stock, Wall Street Journal, Apr. 7, 2015, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/hedge-fund-manager-kyle-bass-challenges-jazz-pharmaceuticals-patent-1428417408.


September 12, 2017

17

establish standing under well-developed Federal Circuit precedent in the context of declaratory judgment actions.46 Alternatively, Congress could adopt the standing requirement currently applied in covered business method (“CBM”) reviews. A CBM review can only be sought by a “person or the person’s real party in interest or privy [who] has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent.”47 This approach is administratively simpler and will not require the PTAB to make extensive findings about standing.

II. Amend 35 U.S.C. § 101 to Remove the Uncertainty in Patent-Eligibility Law

“A too restrictive test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with respect to laws of nature (reflected in some of the language in Mayo) might discourage development and disclosure of new diagnostic and therapeutic methods in the life sciences, which are often driven by discovery of new natural laws and phenomena.”48 So wrote Judge Dyk of the Federal Circuit, and the problems of an overly restrictive patent-eligibility test continue unabated. The Supreme Court has continued its use of vague and undefined terms, such as “abstract concepts,” “natural law or phenomenon,” and “significantly more.” These terms are not in the patent statute and have never been adequately defined in any of the recent cases, such as Bilski, Mayo, or Alice. No court has been able to define—even modestly—the term “abstract.”49 The Court clings to vapid terminology based on dicta from its older cases. With biotech cases, the Court seems unable or unwilling to apply the plain language of the statute and has grown unduly aggressive on policy issues better left for Congress. These fundamental deficiencies with the Court’s Section 101 jurisprudence are adversely affecting high-tech, biotech, pharma, and ubiquitous software-implemented technologies. A prime example of the disorder in patent-eligibility law is the case of Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.50 The claimed medical diagnostic method employed a groundbreaking discovery, contrary to conventional wisdom, that one could analyze paternally inherited cell-free DNA of a fetus isolated from the mother’s blood during pregnancy. Doctors could use this new method to perform genetic tests on an unborn child without having to carry out a risky

46 E.g., MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007); Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co., 718 F.3d 1350, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 47 AIA § 22(a)(1)(B). 48 Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 809 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Dyk, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc). 49 See, e.g., Paul R. Michel & Matthew J. Dowd, Consensus Grows that US Patent System Needs a Lifeline, IAM, Sept./Oct. 2017, at 13 (“The Supreme Court trio of Bilski, Mayo and Alice adversely affected software patent eligibility, while Myriad and Mayo have been expanded to undermine important biotech inventions.”); Paul Michel & Matthew J. Dowd, The Uncertain State of Patent Law 10 Years Into The Roberts Court, IAM, Nov./Dec. 2016, at 27. 50 Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 809 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (precedential order denying rehearing en banc); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (panel decision).


September 12, 2017

18

amniocentesis procedure. The claimed method, according to the undisputed evidence, was a significant and widely praised breakthrough. Yet, the court felt constrained by Supreme Court precedent and therefore held that this groundbreaking, life-saving invention was not the type of innovation that could be protected by patents—even if novel and nonobvious. The same confusion exists in decisions about software-related inventions. Trying to bring some semblance of order, the Federal Circuit has issued rulings that are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile. In cases, such as Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,51 Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,52 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,53 and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,54 the court upheld the patent eligibility of claims directed to software inventions. In many more, such as RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,55 Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,56 and Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,57 the court struck down similar claims to computer-based inventions. Particularly troubling is when validly issued patent claims are stricken in district court at the pleading stage, without regard to construing the patent claims. We have also seen conflicting outcomes when patents are adjudicated at the PTAB versus in district court, with one tribunal affirming the patent while the other invalidates the patent. Overall, the law has created unacceptable chaos for inventors, innovators, business, and investors. Legal chaos is the exact opposite of what the U.S. economy needs. Ideally, the courts would solve the problems created by their “judicial exceptions” to the statutory language, but the U.S. economy can no longer wait for the courts. Congress must act. Congress must amend 35 U.S.C. § 101 so that the boundaries of patent-eligible subject matter are clear. Furthermore, the amendment must limit the reach of so-called “judicial exceptions” to the statutory text. Such judge-made exceptions frustrate the intent and will of Congress. It is Congress’s prerogative to delineate the national policy for protecting U.S. innovation. Specifically, I propose the following amendments:

- Amend § 101 to recognize that a patent claim with a physical aspect or element necessarily satisfies patent eligibility.

- Amend § 101 to clarify that processes containing solely mental steps are not patent eligible.

- Amend § 101 by adding the following: “Eligibility shall not be denied based on any judicially-imposed exceptions.”

51 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 52 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 53 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 54 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 55 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 56 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 57 Nos. 2016-1188 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2017).


September 12, 2017

19

The proposed amendments would solve most, if not all, of the current problems associated with § 101 court decisions. First, if a patent claim recites a physical aspect or element, the claimed invention as a whole must, in fact, be a tangible composition or device that falls within the current statutory classes of “machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Further, a process, including a computer-based or software-based process, will be patent-eligible if not solely a mental process and if it uses a physical device. Patentability will still be restricted based on the novelty and nonobviousness requirements. Patent claims must still satisfy the written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements. These statutory requirements are the best gatekeepers for the patenting process.58 Indeed, many § 101 decisions are, at base, premised on § 102 (novelty) and § 103 (nonobviousness), but without the careful analyses those statutory sections require.59 Alternative amendments to § 101 have recently been proposed.60 The ABA IP Section, AIPLA, and IPO have each proposed specific amendments to § 101. Those proposals have merit as well. I, of course, leave it to Congress to decide the specific statutory language needed to return clarity to patent-eligibility law. In my view, the goal should be to amend the statute as concisely as possible to establish a bright-line definition of what subject matter is eligible for patent protection and what is not.

III. Amend 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) to Define “Regular and Established Place of Business” for Purposes of Venue in Patent Litigation

Congress has authorized that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”61 On May 22, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC addressed half of the statute when it held that “resides” “refers only to the State of incorporation.”62 The decision led to a spate of district court decisions with differing reasoning and results.63

58 See, e.g., Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 59 Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981) (“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”). 60 ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law, Letter to Michelle K. Lee, Mar. 28, 2017, at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/intellectual property law/advocacy/advocacy-20170328-comments.authcheckdam.pdf; AIPLA, AIPLA Legislative Proposal and Report On Patent Eligible Subject Matter, May 12, 2017, at http://bit.ly/2sWwbX6. 61 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). 62 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1521 (2017). 63 See, e.g., Brad Scheller & Tiffany Knapp, District Courts Remain Split on TC Heartland and Waiver of Improper Venue Defense, Aug. 21, 2017, at https://www.globalipmatters.com/2017/08/21/district-courts-remain-split-on-tc-heartland-and-waiver-of-improper-venue-defense.


September 12, 2017

20

More importantly, the TC Heartland case answered only half of the venue question for patent litigation. TC Heartland had no reason to consider what is meant by “regular and established place of business.”64 For that reason, and as I explain here, Congress ought to define statutorily the phrase “a regular and established place of business.” Shortly after the TC Heartland decision, Judge Gilstrap had the opportunity to rule on a motion to transfer based on venue in a pending litigation, Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc.65 In Raytheon, Judge Gilstrap denied Cray’s motion to transfer. Consistent with TC Heartland, the court held that “Cray is incorporated in the State of Washington” and “[a]ccordingly, Cray does not reside in this District within the meaning of § 1400(b).” Judge Gilstrap then continued with the § 1400(b) analysis. He reviewed the case law since the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cordis Corp.66 and provided his synthesis of the applicable precedent as a four-part test. He then held that venue was proper under the second prong of § 1400(b), namely that “Cray has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Gilstrap’s decision attracted ample attention in the legal and business communities.67 This Committee itself took notice of the Raytheon decision, particularly during the hearing on July 13. Judge Gilstrap’s decision was criticized by some and approved by others. My point here is not to critique the “correctness” or “incorrectness” of the decision. I merely point out that Judge Gilstrap’s opinion addressed a legal issue that was not directly addressed by TC Heartland, and, given the existing precedent and the broad statutory language, there appear to be reasonable arguments for and against Judge Gilstrap’s conclusion, based on the particular facts presented in the case. I also note that the Federal Circuit is poised to rule on a mandamus petition in the Raytheon case, so we will soon have additional guidance. Even so, we will see more disputes over venue in patent litigation without a statutory definition for the phrase “a regular and established place of business.” Absent a definition, litigants will continue to fight over the precise scope of the phrase, and venue decisions for patent litigation may not reflect Congress’s policy choice about where patent cases ought to be litigated. Crafting an acceptable statutory definition will require careful consideration of competing factors. Imposing too many restrictions will unduly limit choice of venue for patent owners, may unnecessarily increase costs for enforcing valid patent rights, and could waste judicial resources. At the same time, a statute with too little guidance on the meaning of “a regular and established

64 See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). 65 See Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01554-JRG (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2017). 66 769 F.2d 733 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 67 See, e.g., Scott Graham, Texas Judge Sets Patent Venue Test for a Post-TC Heartland World, Inside Counsel, July 6, 2017, at http://www.insidecounsel.com/2017/07/06/texas-judge-sets-patent-venue-test-for-a-post-tc-h; Joe Mullin, Will East Texas be able to Keep Patent Cases Despite the Supreme Court?, ArsTechnica, July 20, 2017, at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/will-east-texas-be-able-to-keep-patent-cases-despite-the-supreme-court/.


September 12, 2017

21

place of business” leaves the statute too flexible, thereby creating possible venue in almost any district and thus frustrating the apparent rationale of TC Heartland. To that end, I recommend that Congress adopt as soon as possible specific statutory amendments to § 1400(b) in order to provide the necessary contextual guidance of what falls within “a regular and established place of business.” I suggest adopting language that makes clear that a regular and established place of business does not include a location in which a company merely has transient employees and activities. A regular and established place of business should also not include locations where a limited number of employees work remotely or telework. If having merely a handful of transient or remotely-working employees is sufficient to create “a regular and established place of business,” many companies will be subject to patent infringement actions in districts throughout the United States, even though they conduct little actual business in the districts. Congress should also specify that certain activities are sufficient to establish “a regular and established place of business.” If a business has regular physical facilities, such as a factory, warehouse, research laboratory, retail outlet, and the like, then those facilities would be sufficient to establish venue. As I noted above, careful study is necessary to find the optimal language for defining the boundaries of the phrase “regular and established place of business.” I leave it to Congress to explore the precise language it should adopt. Last year, Senator Flake introduced the Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act of 2016 (“VENUE Act”).68 The VENUE Act offered modifications to § 1400(b) along similar lines to what I recommend here. While I do not at this time endorse wholesale the VENUE Act, the language of the proposed amendments is instructive and can offer guidance to the Committee when crafting its amendments to § 1400(b). In relevant part, under the VENUE Act, venue would be limited to:

(1) where the defendant has its principal place of business or is incorporated;

(2) where the defendant has committed an act of infringement of a patent in suit and has a regular and established physical facility that gives rise to the act of infringement;

(3) where the defendant has agreed or consented to be sued in the instant action;

(4) where an inventor named on the patent in suit conducted research or development that led to the application for the patent in suit;

(5) where a party has a regular and established physical facility that such party controls and operates, not primarily for the purpose of creating venue, and has—

68 S. 2733 (Mar. 27, 2016).


September 12, 2017

22

(A) engaged in management of significant research and development of an invention claimed in a patent in suit prior to the effective filing date of the patent;

(B) manufactured a tangible product that is alleged to embody an invention claimed in a patent in suit; or

(C) implemented a manufacturing process for a tangible good in which the process is alleged to embody an invention claimed in a patent in suit; . . .69

From the above list, subsection (1) is resolved by TC Heartland. I agree with subsection (2). If the defendant committed an act of infringement in a district and has an established physical facility giving rise to the act of infringement, there should be little disagreement that venue is proper in that district, except I would delete the phrase “that gives rise to the act of infringement.” The provision already requires a connection between the location of the infringement and the company, and the cited language is unduly restrictive. Regarding subsection (3), there is little dispute that venue is proper where a defendant “has agreed or consented to be sued in the instant action.” Under established law, venue is a personal privilege, which a defendant “may assert, or may waive, at his election.”70 Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), if a party does not raise an objection to venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), the party waives the defense. Accordingly, the proposed subsection (3) is not necessary. Subsection (4), while seemingly simple, raises concerns. Venue primarily focuses on the litigants to the civil action, whereas this proposal ties venue to the location of an individual who may not be party to the suit. Further, there may be a long temporal gap between the inventor’s research activities and the time of suit. By the time a suit is filed, the location of the inventor’s original research activity may be completely irrelevant to the parties and the infringement. Subsection (5) provides useful limitations beyond what is in the current statute, but it may go too far by excluding business locations that conduct the regular business of a company but that do not necessarily manufacture “a tangible good.” Ultimately, defining “a regular and established place of business” is a balance between under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness. With further input from interested parties, I am confident that this Committee can draft an amendment to § 1400(b) that adequately balances the interests of innovators, patent owners, businesses, and other entities involved in the patent system.

69 Id. 70 Commercial Casualty Ins. Co. v. Consolidated Stone Co., 278 U.S. 177, 179 (1929).


September 12, 2017

23

IV. PTO Fee Collections Must Remain with the PTO I have written and spoken extensively about the problems PTO fee diversion causes.71 This is a continuing problem which, unfortunately, the AIA has not resolved. According to a report by the Intellectual Property Owners Association, from 2010-2014, a total of $409.8 million in PTO user fees was collected by the PTO but diverted to non-PTO uses. In 2011, the largest amount ever—$209 million—was diverted from the PTO. This diversion is a de facto tax on American innovation because funds paid by inventors and innovators are used for other governmental purposes.72 The AIA included provisions designed to minimize the amount of PTO revenue diverted to non-PTO uses.73 But this compromise failed, as just two years later, the PTO lost $147.7 million of fees paid by PTO users. The PTO has currently requested a budget of $3.586 billion for fiscal year 2018:

For FY 2018, the USPTO requests the authority to spend fee collections of $3,586M. Along with $29M from other income, these fee collections will fund operating requirements of $3,501M, including 13,249 full-time equivalents (FTE); a transfer of $2M to the DOC Office of the Inspector General (OIG); and the addition of $113M to the OR balance, as shown in the following table. With full access to its fee collections to offset its funding requirements, the USPTO’s FY 2018 net appropriation would be $0.74

The entirety of the PTO’s requested budget should be authorized solely for use by the PTO, rather than being diverted to other federal uses. Congress should also permanently and legislatively end the diversion of user fees from the PTO.

71 See, e.g., Paul R. Michel & Henry R. Nothhaft, Inventing Our Way Out of Joblessness, N.Y. Times, Aug. 5, 2010, at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06nothhaft.html; Gene Quinn, Interview Sequel: Chief Judge Paul Michel, IPWatchDog.com, Oct. 19, 2010, at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/10/19/interview-sequel-chief-judge-paul-michel/id=12885/. 72 See, e.g., Brian O’Shaughnessy, Diversion of USPTO User Fees is a Tax on Innovation, IPWatchDog.com, May 17, 2016, at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/17/diversion-uspto-user-fees-tax-innovation/id=69070/; James L. Gattuso, The Invention Tax: PTO and the Diversion of Patent Fees, The Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum, No. 842,(Nov. 25, 2002, at http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf media/2002/pdf/em842.pdf. Tony Dutra, AIA at 5 Years: PTAB's Tectonic Change in Patent Litigation, Bloomberg BNA, Sept. 16, 2016, at https://www.bna.com/aia-years-ptabs-n57982077105/ (quoting Teresa Stanek Rea, former Acting PTO Director, as saying: “The PTO needs legislation that explicitly requires it to keep all of its fee income. The PTO should be allowed to manage its budget and maintain a sufficient reserve. The uncertainty of the budget process adds unnecessary complexity.”). 73 AIA § 22 (codified at 35 U.S.C. § 42(c)). 74 U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Fiscal Year 2018 Congressional Justification 5 (May 23, 2017), at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy18pbr.pdf.


September 12, 2017

24

V. Authorize Technical Support Staff for District Judges Participating in the Patent Pilot Program

Congress should authorize technical support staff for federal district court judges who participate in the Patent Pilot Program. Additional technical support staff for judges participating in the Patent Pilot Program would aid judges in understanding complex patent cases and assist with the efficient disposition of those cases. The Patent Pilot Program was established in 2011.75 The legislation’s purpose was “[t]o establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges.”76 Under the Patent Pilot Program, participating district courts can assign new patent cases to judges who have been designated as Patent Pilot Program judges. The chief judge of each participating district designates district judges to handle patent cases under the program. According to the 2016 report by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Patent Pilot Program has achieved many of its intended objectives:

• Of the 270 active and senior district judges with at least one patent case, 66 (24%) were participating in the PPP as “designated judges” as of our January 5, 2016, data pull.

• Over the life of the PPP, judges serving as designated judges have more experience with patent litigation than their nondesignated counterparts. Designated judges had more patent litigation experience when the PPP began, and also received more patent cases because of their participation in the program, as compared to nondesignated judges.

• More than three quarters (76%) of all patent cases filed in pilot districts since the start of the PPP were before a designated judge. Nondesignated judges frequently transfer their randomly assigned cases to designated judges.

• Cases before designated judges are terminated faster than those before nondesignated judges.

• Cases before designated judges are as likely to result in appeals as those before non-designated judges, and cases of both types that are appealed tend to be affirmed.77

75 Pub L. No. 111-349, 124 Stat. 3674 (2011). 76 Id. 77 See generally Margaret S. Williams, Rebecca Eyre, & Joe Cecil, Federal Judicial Center, Patent Pilot Program: Five-Year Report, at v (Apr. 2016), at https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2016/Patent%20Pilot%20Program%20Five-Year%20Report%20(2016).pdf.


September 12, 2017

25

The Patent Pilot Program would achieve even further success if the participating judges could hire additional technical staff. The technical staff, such as another law clerk with an advanced scientific degree, would be a critical resource for the Patent Pilot Program judges. Authorizing technical staff of Patent Pilot Program judges would merely make more readily available a practice that judges and patent litigants adopt on occasion when they use “special masters” or neutral technical experts. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, the district court can appoint a special master to handle many aspects of litigation. Although using a special master provides significant benefits to the district court, many courts do not use them frequently.78 One former district court judge has explained that special master appointments “are very beneficial in resolving disputes quickly, streamlining discovery, handling delicate settlement negotiations, and—somewhat surprisingly—reducing cost and delay.”79 Similarly, a district court judge can appoint a neutral technical expert under Federal Rule of 706. Such neutral technical experts have been used in patent and other types of cases.80 Providing Patent Pilot Program judges with additional technical staff would achieve many of the benefits associated with using special masters and court-appointed experts. This proposal would push the Patent Pilot Program forward and create further efficiencies in the judicial management of complex patent litigation.

VI. The PTO Director Must Be Qualified and Admitted to the Patent Bar Leadership is key to the success of any federal agency, and the PTO is no different. It is critically important that the President and Congress select the best individuals to run the agency. Yet, the PTO is not a typical federal agency. The PTO is entrusted with the evaluation of the most important technological developments in the world. Numerous patented inventions have gone on to become the basis for awarding the top prizes in science and technology, such as the Nobel Prize. Inventions in other areas, first disclosed to the PTO, have fundamentally changed our society. Google, for example, revolutionized the way we think about information searching, storage, and availability. And like many tech companies, Google’s birth traces back to two U.S. patents filed by Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page.81

78 Hon. Shira Scheindlin, The Use Of Special Masters In Complex Cases, Law360, Aug. 15, 2017, at https://www.law360.com/articles/950395/the-use-of-special-masters-in-complex-cases (explaining that, “[a]lthough some judges are fans of using special masters, many others have never done so”). 79 Id. 80 Monolithic Power Sys. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 558 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 901 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (Posner, J.); see also J. Gregory Sidak, Court-Appointed Neutral Economic Experts, 9 J. Competition L. & Econ. 359 (June 2013). 81 United States Patent Nos. 6,678,681 and 6,285,999.


September 12, 2017

26

We need the best and brightest to lead the PTO. I have written more generally about the ideal attributes for the next PTO Director.82 I emphasize one further point here: The PTO leadership must be qualified to understand the technological advances with which the PTO is entrusted. Accordingly, I recommend that the Director of the PTO must be an individual who is admitted to practice before the PTO and thus has a patent bar registration number. This requirement will ensure that the PTO Director has the technical education and knowledge to fully execute the mission of the PTO. While the PTO Director need not be an expert in any specific technical field, having a technical and scientific education is critical to effective leadership. Requiring the PTO Director to be a registered patent attorney (or agent) would also build confidence in the PTO workforce. A substantial number of PTO employees, including PTO examiners, hold advanced degrees, such as M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in the sciences. Those employees would be best served if they knew that the PTO director had the necessary scientific training to practice before the Office. My recommendation would bring PTO leadership in line with leadership at other federal agencies whose work involves highly technical and important advances in science, such as the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) or the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Both the NIH and the FDA have a large employee base, many of whom possess advanced scientific degrees. The activities of both the NIH and the FDA are largely directed to issues involving complex scientific developments and advances. The individuals chosen to lead the NIH and FDA embody the importance of having scientific and technical fluency in those positions. The current director of the NIH is Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., a physician-geneticist noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project prior to his directorship.83 Previous NIH directors include: Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. (2002-2008), a world-renowned leader in the field of radiology and medicine; Dr. Harold E. Varmus (1993-1999), a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1989 for his work in cancer research; and Bernadine Healy, M.D. (1991-1993), a renowned cardiologist who was chairman of the Research Institute of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, where she directed the research programs of nine departments including efforts in cardiovascular disease, neurobiology, immunology, cancer, artificial organs, and molecular biology.84 The same qualified leadership has been at the FDA. The current director is Scott Gottlieb, a physician, medical policy expert, and public health advocate who previously served as the FDA's

82 See Paul Michel, Next PTO Director Must Have Management Experience, Patent Savvy, and Leadership Skills, IPWatchdog.com, June 12, 2017, at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/12/next-pto-director-management-experience-patent-savvy-leadership-skills/id=84414/. 83 See National Institutes of Health, Biographical Sketch of Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., at https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/biographical-sketch-francis-s-collins-md-phd. 84 See National Institutes of Health, NIH Directors, at https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/nih-directors.


September 12, 2017

27

Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs and before that, as a senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner.85 Previous FDA commissioners include: Robert Califf, M.D.; Margaret Hamburg, M.D.; and Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D. The first FDA commissioner was a medical doctor, and all FDA commissioners since 1965 had either a medical degree or a Ph.D. degree. Over the years, the PTO has had capable directors, but appointments of PTO leadership have at times fallen victim to the traditional political-appointments process—meaning that the PTO directorship can be used as a political favor instead of as a position for the best qualified individual. In my opinion, David Kappos embodied the attributes of an excellent PTO Director. He came from a long, highly successful career at IBM, where he ran a large operation that depended on using patent skills both for protecting patented inventions and defending against patent assertions by others. He became a patent agent in 1990 and has been a registered patent attorney since 1991. The most recent PTO Director, Michelle K. Lee, also had the technical qualifications necessary for the position. Ms. Lee earned a B.S. in electrical engineering and an M.S. in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1989. She earned her law degree from Stanford University School of Law in 1992, and she is a registered patent attorney, authorized to practice before the PTO. In sum, to best serve the public and the PTO employees, the PTO Director must be admitted to the patent bar and be registered to practice before the PTO. There are numerous qualified individuals who could fill the current vacancy and satisfy this requirement.

VII. Empower PTO Leadership to Maintain Quality Employees PTO leadership must be empowered to make the difficult decisions necessary to lead the agency entrusted with protecting the nation’s innovation. In recent years, the PTO Director has been unnecessarily hampered by the burdensome rules governing employee misconduct and responsibility. PTO leadership must have the necessary authority and tools needed to provide quality examinations of patent applications. PTO leadership should be given more authority to reward excellent employees and to discipline improper employee conduct. Rewarding Excellent Employees: The PTO Director should be encouraged and, to the extent necessary, given additional authorization (delegable as far as Assistant Commissioner) to award sufficient cash bonuses to the very best performers in the examining corps and not to exceed 5% of examiners per annum. Federal agencies are generally authorized to provide various incentives, recognitions, and awards to high-performing employees. The PTO Director should be fully authorized to incentivize top

85 See U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Meet Scott Gottlieb, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ucm557569.htm.


September 12, 2017

28

performance of patent examiners. This will directly improve patent examination, which in turn will address many of the concerns voiced about the so-called “patent quality” problem. As explained by the Office of Personnel Management:

Agencies have discretionary authority to grant an employee a lump-sum cash award based on a “Fully Successful” or better rating of record. These are called rating-based cash awards. These cash awards do not increase an employee's basic pay. Awards based on the rating of record can be up to 10 percent of salary, or up to 20 percent for exceptional performance. (5 U.S.C. 4302, 4503, 4505(a); 5 CFR 451.104)

Agencies may also grant other cash awards. A cash award can be granted to an employee, individually or as a member of a group, in recognition of accomplishments that contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of Government operations. Agencies may grant up to $10,000 without external approval, up to $25,000 with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approval, and in excess of $25,000 with Presidential approval. (Department of Defense (DoD) does not require OPM approval for awards up to $25,000, but awards over $25,000 must be approved by the President.) Award payments are subject to the aggregate limitation on total pay equal to the rate of pay for Executive Level I. (5 U.S.C. 45; 5 CFR 451)86

Under the applicable statutes and rules, the PTO Director is authorized to use cash bonuses to reward stellar employees in the appropriate manner. I understand that the PTO has used cash bonuses, to some extent, in the past. It appears, however, that any cash bonus is primarily tied to “examiner productivity,” meaning the well-known “count system.” Examiner productivity measurements are too strictly linked to the amount of work performed, i.e., the number of counts, and not to the quality of work. To be effective as an incentive for quality employees, cash bonuses cannot be dependent solely to the number of patent applications examined. It may be that the dollar amounts permissible under current rules or the applicable union agreement are insufficient to adequately reward the highly skilled PTO employees. If that is so, the rules should be revised to empower the PTO Director with wider discretion in granting cash bonuses. Responding to Employee Misconduct: The PTO Director and top leadership must have the authorization to dismiss employees, particularly examiners, when it is determined that the employees have committed egregious misconduct. This authorization is necessary to maintain the full faith of Congress and the taxpayers, and to efficiently conduct PTO business.

86 OPM, Incentives and Employee Recognition, at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/human-capital-management/reference-materials/talent-management/incentivesrecognition.pdf; see also OPM, Approaches to Calculating Performance-Based Cash Awards, at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/performance-management/performance-management-cycle/rewarding/approaches-to-calculating-performance-based-cash-awards/.


September 12, 2017

29

A recent scandal at the PTO underscores the need for reform in this area. Thousands of PTO employees committed fraud on the PTO, claiming work never performed. The cost to the agency was at least $18.3 million, and likely more.87 According to a Washington Post story, the PTO is still trying to remove or suspend eighteen employees years after their misconduct.88

After a three-year investigation, the office has moved recently to fire or suspend 18 of about two dozen employees in a clerical support unit that dockets trademark applications, according to current and former agency staff and other government officials familiar with the case. One worker has been fired.89

It should not take three years to terminate or suspend employees who egregiously failed to adhere to their terms of employment. PTO personnel who engage in a pattern of actively falsifying time and attendance records should be subject to automatic dismissal. Congress should empower the Director, the Deputy, and the Commissioner to deal with bad actors. An examiner, including a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), should be subject to transfer to lesser duties, without their consent, at the discretion of any of the top three officials, if it is determined that the examiner is not satisfying the duties of his or her position. Examiner Training: Training and continuing education of examiners—both new and current—must be improved to include the relevant patent legal issues, including claim construction and 35 U.S.C. § 112. Many patent examiners begin their career without any formal legal education. Many start straight from graduate school, after earning an M.S. or Ph.D. degree. Patent examiners do not need a full law degree to excel in their positions. Patent examiners must be versed in their specific technology areas. Indeed, they often know the technology better than many patent attorneys and agents who represent inventors. However, as recent experience has shown, complex legal issues are a growing facet of patent prosecution. Claim construction, while always an issue in patent prosecution, has grown

87 U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Investigative Report, Analysis of Patent Examiners’ Time and Attendance (Aug. 2016), at https://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/14-0990.pdf; Lisa Rein, Patent Office Workers Bilked the Government of Millions by Playing Hooky, Watchdog Finds, Wash. Post, Aug. 31, 2016, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/31/patent-office-workers-cost-taxpayers-millions-by-playing-hooky-watchdog-finds/. 88 Lisa Rein, “You’re Fired” may be Harder than Trump Thinks When It Comes to Federal Workers, Wash. Post, Aug. 21, 2017, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/youre-fired-may-be-harder-than-trump-thinks-when-it-comes-to-federal-workers/2017/08/21/6dd0c4c4-7c5f-11e7-83c7-5bd5460f0d7e story.html. 89 Id.


September 12, 2017

30

increasingly complex, in part due to the now-confusing dichotomy of the broadest reasonable construction (or broadest reasonable interpretation, or “BRI”)90 and so-called Phillips construction.91 Additionally, enablement, indefiniteness, and means-plus-function issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112 all involve relatively complex legal issues. Accordingly, examiner training must be supplemented to include additional education about the critical legal issues that affect patent scope and validity.

VIII. Answers to Specific Queries from Chairman Issa At the end of the July 13 hearing, Chairman Issa noted several points for further consideration. I addressed most in detail above. A few further concise responses are provided below. Question 1: Should the Covered Business Method (CBM) review be extended or made permanent? Answer: No. As Congressman Issa noted at the end of the hearing, the CBM review92 was intended to be a temporary measure to respond to a specific subset of patents. The “transitional” program was added solely to affect patents granted in the late 1990s and very early 2000s shortly after the 1998 decision in State Street Bank93 because the PTO needed time to acquire non-patent prior art in the field of software-related inventions. The final Committee Report observed:

A number of patent observers believe the issuance of poor [quality] business-method patents during the late 1990’s through the early 2000’s led to the patent “troll” lawsuits that compelled the Committee to launch the patent reform project 6 years ago. At the time, the USPTO lacked a sufficient number of examiners with expertise in the relevant art area. Compounding this problem, there was a dearth of available prior art to assist examiners as they reviewed business method applications.94

Ample time has since passed, the relevant prior art has been collected, and examiner expertise has increased. The PTO has also taken steps to further improve its ability to search and identify prior art. For instance, in 2014, the PTO solicited input regarding the use of crowdsourcing to identify prior art.95 There is no longer any justification to extending the program beyond 2020, the expiration date set by Congress.

90 Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-45 (2016) (upholding the PTO’s regulation implementing the “broadest reasonable construction” in AIA proceedings). 91 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 92 AIA § 18. 93 State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 94 H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 54 (2011). 95 Request for Comments and Notice of Roundtable on USPTO Use of Crowdsourcing to Identify Relevant Prior Art, 79 Fed. Reg. 67,159 (Nov. 12, 2014).


September 12, 2017

31

Question 2: Should IPR be expanded to include other Patent Act requirements, such as eligibility under Section 101, sales or public uses under § 102, or indefiniteness under § 112? Answer: No. Patent eligibility under § 101 is now routinely raised at the very outset of any infringement suit and immediately and inexpensively adjudicated for far less than the cost of litigating an IPR and far faster as well. So there is absolutely no need or justification for such an expansion of IPRs. Furthermore, with the current disarray in patent eligibility law, as I noted above, adding § 101 would only complicate AIA post-grant reviews. Second, IPR should not be expanded to include invalidity challenges based on sales or public uses under § 102. These issues would require extensive and expensive discovery, slowing disposition of such reviews and greatly adding to their cost and complexity, often requiring live testimony of multiple witnesses. Including these patent validity issues would run counter to Congress’s intent that IPRs be a faster, cheaper alternative to district court litigation. Third, as with eligibility, indefiniteness under § 112 is now raised by preliminary motion at the very start of any infringement suit. It can be quickly and inexpensively adjudicated through the claim construction process. There is no sensible reason to expand IPR to include indefiniteness under § 112. Question 3: Does damages law need to be revised to deal with the situation of claims narrowed after a suit is initiated but before final judgment? Answer: No. The present law precludes a patent owner from obtaining damages for products that do not infringe the present claims although they did infringe the previous, broader claims that were subsequently cancelled at the PTO. As I touched on above, the Federal Circuit has developed a robust body of case law that addresses the doctrine of intervening rights. This settled law can be applied in the AIA context, including the reexamination off-ramp.


Exhibit 8


Telephonic Hearing - September 11, 2017

1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

2

3 CASE IPR2016-01127

Patent No. 8.685,930 B2

4

5 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,)

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, )

6 INC., and AKORN, INC., )

Petitioners )

7 vs. )

ALLERGAN, INC., Patent Owner)

8

9

10 TELEPHONIC HEARING

11 September 11, 2017

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Reported by: Shauna Foreman, CSR

25

Page 1

Veritext Legal Solutions Job No. 2706052

800-336-4000SRMT 2090

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN

IPR2016-01127



1 PROCEEDINGS

2 THE COURT: Who is on the call

3 representing petitioner?

4 MR. TORCZON: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 This is Richard Torczon. I am appearing on behalf of

6 Mylan, and with me on the line is I believe Steve

7 Parmelee and Jad Mills and Wendy Devine.

8 THE COURT: Mr. Torczon,

9 T-O-R-C-Z-O-N? And you will be speaking today on

10 behalf of petitioner?

11 MR. TORCZON: Yes, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: And who do we have on the

13 call for Allergan?

14 MS. WHELAN: Your Honor, this is

15 Dorothy Whelan, and I'm joined by Michael Kane. We

16 represent Allergan.

17 THE COURT: And who would be speaking

18 for Allergan?

19 MS. WHELAN: No one will be speaking

20 for Allergan, but Michael Shore will be speaking on

21 the sovereign immunity issue -- the tribe's issue.

22 THE COURT: And who is representing

23 the tribe?

24 MR. SHORE: Michael Shore, S-H-O-R-E,

25 and with me -- in the room with me are Chris Evans

Page 2


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 and Jessica (inaudible).

2 THE COURT: And I understand that we

3 have a pro hac vice motion and just want to confirm

4 that no one is going -- no one objects to Mr. Shore

5 speaking today on today's conference call.

6 MR. TORCZON: You Honor, this is

7 Richard Torczon on behalf of Mylan. We have already

8 indicated to -- to the tribe that we do not oppose

9 their pro hac vice entry.

10 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank

11 you. I hear we have a court reporter. Who --

12 MR. CHAN: Your Honor, this is Alfonso

13 Chan. I'm also on the call on behalf of the tribe.

14 THE COURT: Thank you. And is there

15 anybody else on the call?

16 MR. SPEIER: Your Honor, this is Gary

17 Speier on behalf of Teva.

18 MR. DEWANSIK: Your Honor, this is

19 Mike Dzwonczyk on behalf of Akorn.

20 THE COURT: And anyone else?

21 MS. GRAY: Your Honor, this is Marissa

22 Young-Gray (phonetic) on behalf of Teva.

23 THE COURT: Okay. I'll keep asking

24 until I get a silence. Anybody else?

25 MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, this is

Page 3


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 Richard Torczon. If counsel are all done, you should

2 be aware that there are actually two court reporters

3 on the call. Each side has requested to have a court

4 reporter present.

5 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for that

6 information. And if you could, both parties file

7 their -- their transcript following this call.

8 Okay. I think with that, we'll begin.

9 Mr. Shore, would you like to begin?

10 MR. SHORE: Yes, Your Honor. I'm

11 going to take the phone off speaker so that this part

12 of the call will be easier for the court reporters

13 to -- to hear. I want to make sure there's no

14 feedback or anything.

15 Thank you for taking the call today,

16 Your Honor. For the record, my name is Michael

17 Shore. I represent St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. I do not

18 represent Allergan, and I do not speak for Allergan

19 on this call. I only speak behalf of the St. Regis

20 Mohawk Tribe.

21 Patent owner St. Regis Mohawk Tribe,

22 which I'm going to refer to as "the tribe" for the

23 remainder of my discussion today for the purposes of

24 the court reporter, hereby makes a special appearance

25 before this board to protect its sovereignty. No

Page 4


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 immunity is waived by the tribe's counsel

2 participating in this call or in any briefing that

3 might follow regarding the tribe's assertion of its

4 sovereign immunity.

5 First, the tribe requests that the

6 board immediately enter an order staying all

7 proceedings in all IPRs before the board that might

8 in any way adversely affect the tribe's rights in

9 U.S. Patent Numbers 8,685,930, 8,629,111, 8,624,556,

10 866 -- 633,162, 8,648,048, 9,248,191. And for the

11 purposes of the court reporters, for the remainder of

12 my discussion today the '930 patent, the '111 patent,

13 the '556 patent, the '162 patent, the '048 patent,

14 and the '191 patent will be collectively referred to

15 as the patents-at-issue.

16 The stay -- the stay should remain in

17 place pending resolution of the tribe's sovereign

18 immunity challenge to the board's jurisdiction to

19 proceed with the IPRs.

20 The tribe is a federally-recognized

21 sovereign American Indian tribe. It has acquired all

22 the patents-at-issue. This is established by the

23 Assignment, which is Exhibit 2086 in the court's

24 record and the Updated Mandatory Notice, which was

25 Paper Number 63 in IPR2016-01127.

Page 5


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 The tribe, as a sovereign government,

2 is not amenable to suit unless it expressly consents

3 or Congress abrogates its immunity. Neither of these

4 exceptions apply here, as will be more fully briefed

5 in the tribe's forthcoming Motion to Dismiss.

6 The stay is required, Your Honor, not

7 discretionary, because "sovereign immunity by nature

8 is jurisdictional," so it must be addressed before

9 the board may proceed to the merits. Sovereign

10 immunity goes to the issue of the court's power to

11 hear the case and, therefore, it must be decided as

12 an antecedent issue to the merits of the case.

13 Absent jurisdiction, the board cannot proceed to the

14 merits. It would frankly be unprecedented for the

15 board to deny the tribe the right to seek a dismissal

16 before conducting the hearing on the merits.

17 The -- every other instance in which a

18 sovereign has applied to the Patent Trial and Appeal

19 Board to seek a dismissal prior to a hearing on the

20 merits has been granted. And we can give you

21 multiple examples of that, and I believe some of them

22 are already in the record as Exhibits 2094 -- or will

23 be in the record as Exhibits 2094, 2095, and 2096

24 when filed.

25 The tribe's sovereign immunity is not

Page 6


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 merely a liability defense. It's an immunity from

2 suit that would be effectively be lost if IPRs are

3 permitted to go to trial.

4 To respect the tribe's sovereign

5 immunity as required by binding Supreme Court

6 precedent, the court must stay this proceeding

7 pending a final determination of the tribe's

8 assertion of its immunity.

9 Should the board disregard binding

10 precedent and attempt to force the tribe to

11 participate in this process before ruling on the

12 applicability of the its immunity, the tribe has a

13 right to an appellate review.

14 The tribe does not and will not waive

15 its sovereign immunity to the IPRs proceeding against

16 the patents-in-suit.

17 Therefore, if the board allows the

18 September 15, 2017 hearing to proceed, the tribe's

19 immunity would be effectively abrogated in violation

20 of federal law. The better course is to stay the

21 current proceedings, preserve the status quo, and

22 continue the hearing until after the board has had

23 the opportunity to fully consider the tribe's

24 assertion of sovereign immunity and, if the board

25 acts adversely, await a decision on the application

Page 7


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 of the tribe's immunity at the Federal Circuit, as

2 the tribe would pursue its rights to immediate appeal

3 under the collateral order doctrine.

4 I would also note that the one-year

5 statutory deadline to complete the IPRs, which

6 expires on December 8, 2017, could be extended under

7 37 C.F.R. Section 41.100(c) for either good cause or

8 joinder of new parties. The need to allow the tribe

9 to assert its sovereign immunity clearly qualifies as

10 good cause, and the addition of the tribe as a

11 newly-joined party and the late addition of Teva and

12 Akorn would also support an extension of the

13 deadlines.

14 The tribe requests 15 days to prepare

15 and file its motion to dismiss the IPRs. And

16 understanding that petitioners do not likely have a

17 great deal of experience in briefing Indian sovereign

18 immunity and may need time to line up additional

19 counsel with experience in that area, the tribe is

20 willing to voluntarily provide the petitioners 60

21 days from the day we file our motion to file a

22 response, or more time if they request it. And the

23 tribe would ask -- then ask for 15 days after their

24 filing to file a reply brief.

25 So unless the board has any other

Page 8


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 questions for me, I believe that I've stated the

2 tribe's position. I understand this call is normally

3 not the place to argue case law, but I have at my

4 disposal citations and cases that back every factual

5 and legal statement I've made. If the board would

6 like a reference to anything now in this call, I can

7 provide it to you.

8 The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe would like

9 to thank you for taking our call today, and I look

10 forward to working with the board to resolving all of

11 these issues before us.

12 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you,

13 Mr. Shore. I think we understand the nature of your

14 request. I'll go ahead and allow Mr. Torczon to

15 respond.

16 MR. TORCZON: Thank you, Your Honor.

17 This is Richard Torczon from Mylan. As an initial

18 matter, I would like to address our objections to the

19 call. The board, in setting the call on Friday, said

20 we could do that today. I would also like to discuss

21 the moving of the hearing date and then, finally,

22 suggest that there's little reason to believe that

23 there would be success on the merits as a further

24 assurance for not moving the -- the date.

25 The objections to the call, there was

Page 9


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 no meet and confer. This is a concern for several

2 reasons. In this case, particularly at this

3 juncture, we're seeing a lot of push on the -- the

4 petitioners and on the board to act hastily. In this

5 particular case because the -- there was no meet and

6 confer and Mylan at least was unable to determine a

7 timely availability for the call, one of our key

8 attorneys is not available today.

9 This is not the first time Allergan

10 has failed to do a meet and confer in this

11 proceeding. At least once before a reply was

12 authorized under similar circumstances, and we just

13 would like to note our objection to these procedural

14 irregularities. Let me clarify. There was a meet

15 and confer this morning, but I mean a meet and confer

16 before the call was set.

17 The second point of objection is that

18 we were given less than one business day to prepare

19 for this. The tribe has known about this issue since

20 April. They have been telling the media that. And

21 so, there really is no basis for a hurry in this

22 case. They have had plenty of time to consider what

23 they're doing. They've waited until the last

24 possible moment. The only construction that can go

25 with that is intentional prejudice to the petitioner.

Page 10


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 And, therefore, we ask that you not consider their

2 belatedness a good reason for haste on Mylan's part

3 or on the board's part.

4 We also understand that this call is

5 just about whether you're going to authorize a motion

6 to delay the hearing and authorize a motion to

7 dismiss. Again, we've had so little time to prepare

8 to address the merit, we're really not prepared at

9 this juncture to address the substance of all of

10 those facts.

11 Having gone through the objections, I

12 would like to address the hearing date. As the board

13 knows, it is under a one-year clock to decide this.

14 That means that the decision is going to be due in

15 early December. While opposing counsel has noted

16 that there are bases for extending, this case is not

17 one of those cases that justifies such an extension.

18 The briefing has all been timely. The briefing has

19 all been complete. The only thing that awaits is the

20 hearing and the decision on the merits. Once again,

21 Allergan's decision to delay this until the last

22 possible moment is not good cause for anything.

23 Secondly, the board is supposed to

24 take into account in its proceedings the efficient

25 administration, the office, and the ability of the

Page 11


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 office to timely complete its proceeding, both of

2 which clearly apply in this circumstance. The same

3 provision of the Statute 316(b) also requires the

4 board to take into account the economy and the

5 integrity of the patent system, both of which are

6 strongly implicated in this case.

7 The motion should not be authorized,

8 the motion to dismiss. But if it is, it should

9 proceeded in parallel, not to the exclusion of

10 consideration of the -- the merits. We have been

11 told that there's no precedent for delay. Quite to

12 the contrary, on the closest authority to this case

13 there is precedent for briefing after when the

14 immunity issue is raised at the very last moment.

15 That's the Neocort versus Maryland decision,

16 IPR2016-002008, Paper 28.

17 We have been told in this proceeding

18 or in this call that the -- that if the board doesn't

19 stay, there's an immediate appeal. We know that

20 that's not true. The first time we heard about this

21 was -- was about an hour ago from opposing counsel

22 during the meet and confer. They cited the

23 collateral order doctrine. Just cursory research

24 into that shows that that doctrine, which is actually

25 Statute 28 U.S.C. 1291, only applies to district

Page 12


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 court proceedings and it's applied very, very

2 stringently even in those proceedings.

3 There's nothing that they have cited

4 that suggests that it applies in an administrative

5 context. There's nothing to suggest that it

6 overrules the finality doctrine that applies under

7 the APA. And in any case, we know from IPR specific

8 case law that there's no interrogatory appeal.

9 So -- so that's completely a misplaced assumption on

10 opposing counsel's part.

11 There's already been delay in this

12 case. We -- we've already set the hearing back, and

13 that's going to further prejudice the board's ability

14 to get a decision out in a timely fashion. We expect

15 that any motion that gets authorized will require

16 substantial briefing and fact production from both

17 sides.

18 Due to Allergan's last-minute raising

19 of this issue, we would expect to have time

20 commiserate to the month-long preparation they've had

21 to address this issue to fully explore the facts and

22 legal issues involved. Any opposition that would be

23 due from us should await Allergan's -- or rather the

24 tribe's action in the district court. While the

25 tribe is insisting that the board act immediately

Page 13


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 affecting its -- its immunity in this case, they have

2 told that -- the district court in a letter on Friday

3 that they would make an appearance in due course.

4 This is clearly an effort by them to

5 play the court and the board's jurisdiction off each

6 other because they know that the minute they make an

7 appearance in the district court there will be yet

8 another waiver argument.

9 Mylan shouldn't -- shouldn't have to

10 file any opposition until they have acted in the

11 district court. Anything else would be allowing them

12 to manipulate both the board and the court's

13 jurisdiction.

14 Any delay in considering the merits in

15 this case, prejudices Mylan. Mylan has already

16 expended substantial resources in this case,

17 including since April when a lot of the discovery and

18 briefing has occurred. It's expended substantial

19 resources before Friday when this issue was first

20 raised preparing for the hearing. It also has

21 business interests that -- that have involved

22 substantial investment toward launching a product

23 that now would be delayed.

24 The tribe's media reported royalty for

25 delay works out to about $41,000 a day. That's just

Page 14


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 the tribe's fraction of the royalties involved here.

2 So -- so they have a substantial interest in dragging

3 this out as long as possible. We really need to get

4 to the merits. The public deserves that. The

5 integrity of the patent system deserves that.

6 Our delay in making the request waives

7 any equity it has on this. Allergan has controlled

8 the timing. It has timed things to maximum the

9 prejudice of the board of Mylan. There's no

10 prejudice to Allergan. Allergan can appear for the

11 oral argument or not at its discretion. If it does

12 appear, it won't waive its rights any more than it

13 already has. So -- so that argument is specious.

14 If -- if Allergan remains, the tribe

15 can be dismissed and the proceeding can continue

16 without it. There's actually precedent from the

17 board -- again, the most on-point precedent in the

18 case of Reactive Services versus Toyota in which the

19 state entity was dismissed and the proceeding

20 continued with the other interested parties.

21 On the likelihood of -- of their -- of

22 the motion to succeed on the merits, I would like to

23 point out that we haven't cited any authority that's

24 directly on point to this situation. Counsel has

25 just told us that there are a lot of cases out there,

Page 15


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 but we know for a fact that there's not a single IPR

2 tribal immunity case. They would like us draw

3 analogies to the 11th Amendment. The board is

4 probably very familiar with the 11th Amendment and

5 knows that it does not apply to tribes. If there's

6 any doubt, there's multiple Supreme Court cases that

7 state that.

8 Instead, tribal immunity is a

9 common-law privilege. It doesn't control any

10 Congressionally-mandated scheme. There's ample

11 Supreme Court and Appeals Court authority for that.

12 So -- so they are essentially asking

13 you to use federal common-law to overcome a statutory

14 scheme that Congress has created.

15 There are also plenty -- there's a lot

16 of reasons for concern that -- that this transaction

17 is a sham transaction. In this case, the tribe did

18 not purchase the intellectual property. Instead,

19 they were paid to take it, plus promised a

20 $15 million a year royalty stream on top of the $13

21 and a half million that they were paid to take it.

22 There are extensive cases in a lending

23 fraud context where federal courts are permitting

24 extensive briefing and discovery into these kinds of

25 sham transactions, and at least in one case

Page 16


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 there's -- federal prosecution is being pursued on

2 racketeering charges in these sort of circumstances.

3 So facially this transaction is a

4 sham. There's no reason to believe that it will lead

5 to any success. But in any case, there's an

6 unequivocal waiver here. Mylan expects to have a lot

7 of arguments on merit, but you should have confidence

8 that this motion can't succeed because they have

9 clearly sought out this forum. Mylan did not drag

10 them into this forum. Akorn did not drag them into

11 this forum. Teva did not drag them into the forum,

12 and even the board did not drag them into this forum.

13 Rather, by their own admissions to the press -- the

14 press releases, they have -- the tribe has said that

15 they have sought this out as an opportunity that they

16 are marketing to patentees, that this is basically a

17 protection scheme that they have put forth. They

18 have been looking at this with the advice of counsel.

19 They are marketing it to people. They are

20 specifically targeting the Patent Trial and Appeal

21 Board. They are going to patentees who they think

22 have weak patents and at risk of cancellation, and

23 they are offering this protective service. They are

24 explicit selling immunity.

25 So this is not -- this is totally

Page 17


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 non-analogous to any of the 11th Amendment cases even

2 if those sorts of cases apply because in all of those

3 cases, the state entity was the pre-existing owner of

4 the intellectual property. In all of those cases, it

5 was the state entity that had been dragged into the

6 proceeding against its will. The tribe here has not

7 been dragged into this proceeding against its will.

8 It has deliberately by its own admission targeted

9 these proceedings for exactly this kind of

10 revenue-generating opportunity.

11 So there's -- there can be no question

12 that there's waiver under these circumstances. If

13 waiver has any meaning in any context, the tribe has

14 waived it.

15 I also point out that there's a

16 statutory waiver under 35 U.S. 8.261. When you

17 accept a patent, you accept it with strings attached.

18 Congress did not create unlimited property. Under

19 261, which is the only one that addresses any kind of

20 property rights under the patent code, Congress

21 actually expressly reserves that any ownership is

22 taken subject to the provisions of the patent code.

23 One of those provisions is amenability to IPRs. So

24 the tribe when went into this with eyes open. They

25 are stuck with it. They have waived it statutorily.

Page 18


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 They have waived it equitably.

2 Finally, I would like to point out

3 that the director of the PTO has policy guidance and

4 management supervision duties under 35 U.S.D.

5 3(a)2(a). Sovereignty is clearly a policy issue.

6 Destroying IPRs with sham transactions is a policy

7 pattern. The head of Allergan has said that this is

8 going to open the floodgates. The tribe has said

9 that they already have an unidentified non-pharma

10 tech patent owner who -- who they are extending this

11 protection service to.

12 So this is just the tip of the

13 iceberg. The effects of this would be to -- if

14 granted, if the motion were granted, would be to deny

15 the director of the power to institute. So this is

16 an attack on director power -- we understand that the

17 board has taken a position that you cannot request an

18 expanded panel. However, SOP1 actually in

19 Section 3(c) says that a party can suggest it. And I

20 strongly suggest -- Mylan strongly suggests that if

21 the board decides to authorize this motion that it do

22 so in a manner that allows the director to play the

23 director's policy role and speak on how the

24 director's institution powers would be used in this

25 context.

Page 19


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 MR. SHORE: Your Honor, this is

2 Michael Shore. If I may quickly respond -- and I

3 apologize. I'm sure that my opponent was speaking

4 with relatively little preparation, so I'll forgive

5 him for his lack of understanding of tribal immunity.

6 But --

7 THE COURT: Mr. Torczon, are you

8 finished?

9 MR. TORCZON: I -- I am, Your Honor.

10 I'm -- I'm willing to -- to hear what Mr. Shore says.

11 I would like an opportunity to respond, though.

12 MR. SHORE: First, tribal sovereignty

13 is broader, not narrower (inaudible), and it is

14 clearly established in the case law that a sovereign

15 immunity does not waive its sovereign immunity

16 through the acts of (inaudible) to a corporation.

17 It's either not entitled sovereign immunity or that

18 it has waived sovereign immunity. There's a whole

19 slew of cases on that.

20 Sovereign -- sovereign immunity

21 attaches as part of the asset. It doesn't matter

22 where the asset is or how the asset is positioned

23 before the acquisition. I think the Seminole case on

24 that came out of Puerto Rico out of the First

25 Circuit, but that case has followed many, many times.

Page 20


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 But that is not an issue.

2 Second, some of the statements he made

3 were just wrong. This -- this transaction has not

4 been contemplated since April. Allergan and St.

5 Regis Mohawk Tribe did not ever talk to one another

6 until August, and the deal was consummated on Friday.

7 And within two hours of the deal being consummated,

8 paperwork was filed. So this is not just something

9 that anyone is sitting on their hands about at all.

10 There is -- there is no waiver by

11 appearance in district court. And I can kind of

12 speak with authority on this because on behalf of the

13 University of Texas in the Texas Board of Regents

14 versus Texas case I actually won on that issue in the

15 Federal Circuit that if you file in one forum that

16 doesn't mean that you waive as to any other forum.

17 As a matter of fact, the law is you only waive as to

18 the forum where you file compulsory (inaudible). For

19 state sovereign immunity -- actually, tribal

20 sovereign immunity only allows counterclaims for

21 recoupment.

22 So his understanding of tribal law is

23 wrong. His understanding of the facts are wrong.

24 His understanding of the law generally here is wrong.

25 But -- but what it really comes down to, Your Honor,

Page 21


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 is I think he has articulated very well that he needs

2 to do a lot of research, the board needs --

3 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Shore. I

4 think I understand your position. Let me ask a

5 couple questions.

6 Ms. Whelan, are you withdrawing from

7 this case?

8 MS. WHELAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor?

9 THE COURT: Are you withdrawing as

10 counsel from this case?

11 MS. WHELAN: No, we are not.

12 THE COURT: So will you be prepared on

13 Friday to attend the hearing?

14 MS. WHELAN: If the hearing proceeds,

15 we will be prepared to attend the hearing.

16 THE COURT: And will you be

17 representing the patent owner?

18 MS. WHELAN: We will only be

19 representing Allergan.

20 THE COURT: And -- but not as patent

21 owner?

22 MS. WHELAN: Correct.

23 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.


25 Richard Torczon. If I may address just that point.

Page 22


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 Just as a matter of formality, the

2 updated notice on Friday was defective and -- and

3 confusing. It does leave -- leave open the question

4 of who's got a power of attorney for whom and who is

5 speaking from whom -- for whom.

6 The board has a rule in place that

7 does allow for a represent patient by a part owner or

8 somebody with a partial interest in the case that's

9 42.9(b). It sets forth a process for doing that.

10 And just as a matter of formality, I will note that

11 that process has not been observed here.

12 MR. SHORE: Your Honor, I've got

13 another, I think, relatively important point to make.

14 The earlier complaints about conferencing and noted

15 and things like that, the court should be aware that

16 prior to any conference today, Mylan had already sent

17 a letter to the district court judge saying that

18 Mylan will vigorously oppose the transparent delay

19 tactic before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

20 They had already done their research. They had

21 already made --

22 THE COURT: Sure. We have our own

23 procedures here, and Mr. Torczon is absolutely

24 correct that before any call to the board the parties

25 are to confer and to at least discuss the issue

Page 23


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 amongst themselves.

2 MR. SHORE: And we tried. We

3 contacted them on Friday, on Saturday. They refused

4 to conference with us until this morning.

5 MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, if I may,

6 they put in their request before they contacted on us

7 Friday. In fact, I believe the first action was

8 press releases, then they contacted the board, then

9 they contacted us. And at close of business on

10 Friday, they wanted to know whether we could meet and

11 confer in response to your order telling them to do

12 that. We are -- conferred with them less than one

13 business day which is, I think, very good time.

14 THE COURT: Your objection is

15 understood, Mr. Torczon. I -- I have a question for

16 you. Right now I'm trying to decide whether or not

17 we proceed with the hearing but, Mr. Torczon, this

18 latest development obviously changes the situation in

19 this case. So I would ask you, you know -- I think

20 we'll -- we are inclined to go ahead and authorize

21 briefing -- at least briefing on this issue. And if

22 we do so, should we also move the trial -- move the

23 hearing date?

24 MR. TORCZON: Okay. That -- that's an

25 excellent question, Your Honor. Again, let me just

Page 24


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 state that we don't think you should authorize the

2 motion. But if you do, it's a completely separate

3 issue from whether you move the hearing date.

4 As I pointed out, there's at least one

5 case where the issue was raised very late -- within a

6 few days of the hearing -- and the board in that case

7 proceeded with the hearing and then subsequently

8 authorized briefing, had the briefing, and decided

9 the issue. Now, that was an 11th Amendment case, and

10 they ended up deciding that the 11th Amendment

11 applied in that case on those facts. But there is no

12 reason to stop the briefing at this point if -- just

13 because they have raised an issue.

14 I will point out that while they have

15 suggested I don't understand the fact or the law,

16 it's really important to note that we haven't really

17 been told any of the facts or the law yet. We've

18 been asked to believe them on a whole bunch of things

19 but, again, there is no controlling precedent on

20 point here. So at best this is a very, very open

21 issue that nobody has ever addressed before and

22 nobody has ever resolved before.

23 They have also told you that I don't

24 understand the fact. Well, it's certainly true

25 because all of those facts are under their control

Page 25


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 and there's going to have to be a good deal of fact

2 production because, among other things, sham

3 transactions have been identified as a key part of

4 the analysis in these cases. So there's going to

5 have to be a lot of fact development before we know

6 the true merits of this case.

7 So because of all that, that would put

8 the hearing out quite a bit of time based on

9 counsel's assurance -- opposing counsel's assurance

10 that he's right on the case law and he's right on the

11 facts. I -- I have no idea what his basis for

12 confidence on those is, but I don't think that that's

13 enough basis for the board to put off the oral

14 argument, particularly at this late date. Precedent

15 doesn't require it. In -- in the most interest of

16 the efficient administration of the office, it's in

17 the best interests of the economy and the integrity

18 of the patent system because, as I said, every day

19 delay profits the tribe 41,000-dollar under their

20 agreement and --

21 MR. SHORE: Not true.

22 MR. TORCZON: I did the math. It's --

23 MR. SHORE: You didn't read the

24 documents. The documents -- there is no --

25 THE COURT: Let me -- let me cut you

Page 26


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 off there, Mr. Shore. Let me cut you off there,

2 Mr. Shore.

3 Mr. Torczon, how is Mylan

4 prejudiced -- even if you're right, how is Mylan

5 Mylan prejudiced by that fact?

6 MR. TORCZON: Very -- very simply

7 because we've made preparations to -- to enter the

8 market on a strict timetable. As you -- as Your

9 Honor no doubt knows, these SBA regulatory cases

10 depends on tight time tables. People make investment

11 decisions based on those time tables.

12 In this case, the board has a

13 statutory deadline that allows pretty reliable

14 planning. To -- to pull the plug and say, "Well,

15 we're going to think about it for a long time" costs

16 Mylan directly, costs Teva directly, and costs Akorn

17 directly and, frankly, costs the taxpayers who are

18 underwriting direct cost and patients who are

19 directly paying direct costs because, for better or

20 for worse, when a patent is enforced they are a

21 monopoly rep. And, you know, I'm not going to say

22 the patent system is a bad as a result of that, but

23 that's just a fact.

24 And so -- so not Mylan, not just Teva,

25 not just Akorn, but everybody is paying for delay

Page 27


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 here.

2 THE COURT: I understand.

3 MR. SHORE: Your Honor, I would like

4 to -- I would like to step in for just a moment.

5 THE REPORTER: Who is this, please?

6 MR. SHORE: This is Michael Shore.

7 First of all, they're assuming they are going to win,

8 which is kind of an odd presumption to make before

9 the board has made any decisions. So the idea that

10 they have already decided they are going to win is

11 very odd to me.

12 Second of all, the Neocort case talked

13 about -- was a co-owner case. Mostly -- not a

14 co-owner case. It was a case where the university

15 was a participant throughout the entire process.

16 That's not the case here.

17 THE COURT: Okay. I understand,

18 Mr. Shore. You're very much getting into, you know,

19 legal argument. And I -- and I think what we're

20 trying to do right now is figure out what we should

21 do.

22 MR. SHORE: I agree -- I agree, Your

23 Honor. But the one -- the number one thing I think

24 that the board should understand is that every single

25 case -- Supreme Court, every Court of Appeals case --

Page 28


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 that the determination of tribal sovereign immunity

2 is an issue which must come before the merit and

3 participating -- forcing the tribe to participate in

4 the hearing on Friday is forcing us to go through a

5 process for which the sovereign immunity exempts us.

6 If sovereign immunity applies -- and

7 it does -- and there are no equitable or fairness

8 considerations on sovereign immunity, any sovereign

9 immunity case where a sovereign has immunity from

10 tort claims or anything else, equity and fairness do

11 not come into play. That's Supreme Court. And I

12 understand he doesn't know the law on this -- we

13 do -- but it is an antecedent issue. We have to

14 decide it first. And there is absolutely no way that

15 this hearing can go forward on Friday supported by

16 any precedent not -- it would be a completely

17 unprecedented thing for the court to do.


19 Richard Torczon for Mylan.

20 The license agreement back to Allergan

21 has required Allergan to do all the litigating.

22 Counsel for Allergan has already indicated she's

23 prepared to do that. So there is absolutely no harm

24 to the tribe.

25 The tribe is saying that it's -- it

Page 29


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 would somehow be harmed because Allergan would be

2 doing its litigating for it, and yet there would be

3 no more impingement on its sovereign immunity than

4 it's already waived away by entering the proceeding.

5 So -- so it doesn't change the immunity analysis to

6 have the hearing to go ahead.

7 MR. SHORE: I apologize, Your Honor.

8 Michael Shore again.

9 What he just said is just not true.

10 It's not true. It's not what the agreement says.

11 And if anything else, I think it's a misunderstanding

12 of the facts and the law. Until the issues can be

13 fully briefed, fully --

14 THE COURT: I think -- I think we

15 understand. What we're trying to figure out here --

16 that is me, myself, and my fellow judges -- is to

17 whether or not we should entertain additional

18 briefing on the issue of sovereign immunity. And I

19 believe that I'm going to need to confer with my

20 panel on that point. So if -- I'm going to ask that

21 the parties hold while we confer.

22 (Recess)

23 THE COURT: Okay. This is Judge

24 Smedder (phonetic). Mr. Shore?

25 MR. SHORE: Yes, sir.

Page 30


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 THE COURT: And Mr. Torczon?

2 MR. TORCZON: Yes, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Okay. I believe we have

4 decided that we will need to brief the issue of

5 sovereign immunity and postpone the hearing. I think

6 the panel would benefit from having the opportunity

7 to address the sovereign immunity issue at oral

8 hearing and, thus, we as a panel are not prepared to

9 answer such questions or will not be prepared to

10 answer such questions by Friday.

11 In that regard, we'll want to set a

12 briefing schedule on the issue of sovereign immunity

13 and set a date for the hearing after that.

14 So, Mr. Shore, it seems that you're

15 ready to go with a brief. We're willing to give you

16 25 pages, and as such -- and in terms of when you

17 might be able to file that, we were hoping that you

18 can do it by next week, maybe the 18th.

19 MR. SHORE: Your Honor, I would ask

20 for four more days simply because I have another case

21 that is hot and heavy in federal court that I need to

22 deal with. I only want four more days. That will

23 get me out of that proceeding. They can -- they can

24 have as much time as they want. Whatever they

25 want -- I understand it's a new issue for them. So

Page 31


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 whatever they want is fine with us.

2 THE COURT: So you're saying

3 September 22nd?


5 THE COURT: Mr. Torczon, how long

6 would you need?

7 MR. TORCZON: Your Honor, frankly,

8 until we see what evidence they put in and what their

9 arguments are, we can't say. I mean, if they put in

10 declaration testimony, we'll need to take

11 cross-examination of that.

12 As I have said in the sham tribal

13 immunity context, there's usually been expensive

14 discovery to plumb whether it's a sham transaction or

15 not.

16 So until we see what they argue and

17 until we see what they actually make a record, it's

18 hard to say. Again, remember, this issue has only

19 been around since Friday, and facially there are very

20 troubling aspects about this transaction and all of

21 the facts are in Allergan and the tribe's hands. So

22 it's just impossible for us to even know.

23 MR. SHORE: We don't have any

24 objections to them asking for whatever time they

25 want. I think that the more facts they have, I think

Page 32


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 their minds will be put at ease there's no

2 racketeering here or anything like that going on.

3 And I understand it is a concern, but I think the

4 more he knows, the more his mind will be put at ease

5 this is a legitimate transaction. It's a transaction

6 that goes to the economic development of the tribe.

7 So I have no problem with any time he asks for.

8 THE COURT: So is -- is that going to

9 be true for discovery?

10 MR. SHORE: We're not subject to

11 discovery because that's part of the entire sovereign

12 immunity. We're exempt. But I think when you see

13 our filings, he can make that request. He's not --

14 when he sees our filings, he's not going to have any

15 of these concerns he's worried about.

16 MR. TORCZON: Okay. Your -- Your

17 Honor, in which case I would like to -- to reserve

18 the right if -- if they are going to resist any kind

19 of discovery despite the case law that applies here

20 for dismissal of the motion on that basis.

21 Also, I mean, they haven't asserted a

22 single controlling authority. And so, to the extent

23 that -- that this exercise results in cost to us, I

24 would like to just lay out there that we are going to

25 probably ask to recover those costs.

Page 33


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 THE COURT: I would say that what you

2 will need to do is at the appropriate time file a

3 request for additional discovery.

4 MR. TORCZON: Okay. There's certainly

5 some automatic discovery, too, if -- if they put in

6 any testimony.

7 THE COURT: So --

8 MR. SHORE: I -- I think the time -- I

9 think Your Honor is right. The time to address that

10 is after our filing on the 22nd and they take a look

11 at it. I can't -- I can't respond to discovery

12 requests I haven't seen, but I think when they see

13 our filing on the 22nd, I think they are -- I don't

14 think they're going to need any, and I don't think

15 that -- but that's an issue for later. And like --

16 as I said, we will give them as much time as they

17 want to -- to go through their research, and we have

18 no problem with that.

19 MR. TORCZON: Well, then, maybe the

20 simplest thing, Your Honor, would be to reconvene

21 after they have filed their motion.

22 THE COURT: I'm going to suggest a

23 date of October 20th.

24 MR. TORCZON: We understand that

25 with -- with the understanding that, again, we're

Page 34


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 getting a pig in a poke here with virtually no

2 notice.

3 THE COURT: Yeah, I understand. That

4 date, you can submit -- you know, raise your concern

5 again at the appropriate time, but we'll give you --

6 one second. Let me just take a pause. That's

7 actually -- hold, please.

8 (Recess)

9 THE COURT: Okay. This is Judge

10 Smedder returning.

11 Mr. Torczon, I understand your

12 position, but we're going to set an initial briefing

13 schedule. It will begin with the tribe's filing on

14 September 22nd. You'll have a response, 25 pages,

15 due on the 13th. If there is a need for a discussion

16 regarding discovery, then you can call us as soon as

17 possible and schedule a conference and we will hear

18 those concerns at that time.

19 A reply from the tribe then will be

20 due August -- I'm sorry -- October 20th, and the

21 reply is limited to 15 pages.

22 So again, initial filing by the tribe,

23 25 pages, due September 22nd; the response, 25 pages,

24 due October 15th; reply due the 20th of October, and

25 limited to 15 pages. Limited to the issue of

Page 35


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 sovereign immunity. I believe I addressed all the

2 issues there.

3 Is there any other concerns,

4 Mr. Torczon?

5 MR. TORCZON: That's it for today,

6 Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: And Mr. Shore?

8 MR. SHORE: No. I just appreciate the

9 lawyers taking this call on such short notice. I

10 understand it's a complicated issue, but we'll get

11 through it efficiently.

12 THE COURT: And just to make clear, as

13 well, the hearing will be postponed and we'll suggest

14 a date at a later time.

15 MR. SHORE: Thank you, Your Honor.

16 May we be excused?

17 THE COURT: Yes, unless there's --

18 well, let me just ask one more time, make sure.

19 Anything further, Mr. Torczon?

20 MR. TORCZON: No. If -- if we have

21 anything further, we'll get back to you after we see

22 their motion.

23 THE COURT: Okay. And I assume,

24 Mr. Shore, you are also finished?


Page 36


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 THE COURT: All right. Again, I would

2 like to remind the parties to file the transcripts

3 within a day, if possible.

4 MR. SHORE: Madam court reporter,

5 expedite.

6 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very

7 much. And with that, the call is adjourned. Thank

8 you.

9 (Whereupon at 12:55 p.m. the

10 proceedings were adjourned.)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 37


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1

2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

3 TELEPHONIC HEARING

4 September 11, 2017

5

6 I, Shauna Foreman, Certified Shorthand Reporter

7 in and for the State of Texas, hereby certify to the

8 following:

9 That the above telephonic proceedings are a true

10 record to the best of my ability;

11 That the original transcript was delivered

12 to Michael Shore.

13 That a copy of this certificate was served on

14 all parties and/or the witness shown herein on

15 _____________________.

16 I further certify that pursuant to FRCP Rule

17 30(f)(1), the signature of the deponent:

18 ____was requested by the deponent or a party

19 before the completion of the deposition and that the

20 signature is to be before any notary public and returned

21 within 30 days (or ______ days, per agreement of counsel)

22 from date of receipt of the transcript. If returned, the

23 attached Changes and Signature page contains any changes

24 and the reasons therefor;

25 _____was not requested by the deponent or a

Page 38


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



1 party before the completion of the deposition;

2 I further certify that I am neither counsel for,

3 related to, nor employed by any parties or attorneys

4 in the action in which this testimony is taken, and

5 further that I am not financially or otherwise interested

6 in the outcome of this action.

7 Certified to by me on this the 11th day

8 of September, 2017.

9

10

<%Signature%>

11 Shauna Foreman, CSR

Texas CSR 3786

12 Expiration: 12/31/2018

Veritext Legal Solutions

13 300 Throckmorton Street

Suite 1600

14 Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Tel. (817)336-3042

15 Firm No. 571

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 39


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



0

048 5:13

1

1 38:17

11 1:11 38:4

111 5:12

11th 16:3,4 18:1

25:9,10 39:7

12/31/2018 39:12

1291 12:25

12:55 37:9

13 16:20

13th 35:15

15 7:18 8:14,23

16:20 35:21,25

15th 35:24

1600 39:13

162 5:13

18th 31:18

191 5:14

2

2 19:5

2017 1:11 7:18 8:6

38:4 39:8

2086 5:23

2094 6:22,23

2095 6:23

2096 6:23

20th 34:23 35:20

35:24

22nd 32:3 34:10

34:13 35:14,23

25 31:16 35:14,23

35:23

261 18:19

28 12:16,25

3

3 19:5,19

30 38:17,21

300 39:13

316 12:3

336-3042 39:14

35 18:16 19:4

37 8:7

3786 39:11

4

41,000 14:25 26:19

41.100 8:7

42.9 23:9

5

556 5:13

571 39:15

6

60 8:20

63 5:25

633,162 5:10

7

76102 39:14

8

8 8:6

8,624,556 5:9

8,629,111 5:9

8,648,048 5:10

8,685,930 5:9

8.261. 18:16

8.685,930 1:3

817 39:14

866 5:10

9

9,248,191 5:10

930 5:12

a

ability 11:25 13:13

38:10

able 31:17

abrogated 7:19

abrogates 6:3

absent 6:13

absolutely 23:23

29:14,23

accept 18:17,17

account 11:24

12:4

acquired 5:21

acquisition 20:23

act 10:4 13:25

acted 14:10

action 13:24 24:7

39:4,6

acts 7:25 20:16

addition 8:10,11

additional 8:18

30:17 34:3

address 9:18 11:8

11:9,12 13:21

22:25 31:7 34:9

addressed 6:8

25:21 36:1

addresses 18:19

adjourned 37:7,10

administration

11:25 26:16

administrative

13:4

admission 18:8

admissions 17:13

adversely 5:8 7:25

advice 17:18

affect 5:8

ago 12:21

agree 28:22,22

agreement 26:20

29:20 30:10 38:21

ahead 9:14 24:20

30:6

akorn 1:6 3:19

8:12 17:10 27:16

27:25

alfonso 3:12

allergan 1:7 2:13

2:16,18,20 4:18,18

10:9 15:7,10,10,14

19:7 21:4 22:19

29:20,21,22 30:1

32:21

allergan's 11:21

13:18,23

allow 8:8 9:14

23:7

allowing 14:11

allows 7:17 19:22

21:20 27:13

amenability 18:23

amenable 6:2

amendment 16:3

16:4 18:1 25:9,10

american 5:21

ample 16:10

analogies 16:3

analogous 18:1

analysis 26:4 30:5

answer 31:9,10

antecedent 6:12

29:13

anybody 3:15,24

apa 13:7

apologize 20:3

30:7

appeal 1:1 6:18

8:2 12:19 13:8

17:20 23:19

appeals 16:11

28:25

appear 15:10,12

appearance 4:24

14:3,7 21:11

appearing 2:5

[048 - appearing]

Page 1


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



appellate 7:13

applicability 7:12

application 7:25

applied 6:18 13:1

25:11

applies 12:25 13:4

13:6 29:6 33:19

apply 6:4 12:2

16:5 18:2

appreciate 36:8

appropriate 34:2

35:5

april 10:20 14:17

21:4

area 8:19

argue 9:3 32:16

argument 14:8

15:11,13 26:14

28:19

arguments 17:7

32:9

articulated 22:1

asked 25:18

asking 3:23 16:12

32:24

asks 33:7

aspects 32:20

assert 8:9

asserted 33:21

assertion 5:3 7:8

7:24

asset 20:21,22,22

assignment 5:23

assume 36:23

assuming 28:7

assumption 13:9

assurance 9:24

26:9,9

attached 18:17

38:23

attaches 20:21

attack 19:16

attempt 7:10

attend 22:13,15

attorney 23:4

attorneys 10:8

39:3

august 21:6 35:20

authority 12:12

15:23 16:11 21:12

33:22

authorize 11:5,6

19:21 24:20 25:1

authorized 10:12

12:7 13:15 25:8

automatic 34:5

availability 10:7

available 10:8

await 7:25 13:23

awaits 11:19

aware 4:2 23:15

b

b 12:3 23:9

b2 1:3

back 9:4 13:12

29:20 36:21

bad 27:22

based 26:8 27:11

bases 11:16

basically 17:16

basis 10:21 26:11

26:13 33:20

behalf 2:5,10 3:7

3:13,17,19,22 4:19

21:12

belatedness 11:2

believe 2:6 6:21

9:1,22 17:4 24:7

25:18 30:19 31:3

36:1

benefit 31:6

best 25:20 26:17

38:10

better 7:20 27:19

binding 7:5,9

bit 26:8

board 1:1 4:25 5:6

5:7 6:9,13,15,19

7:9,17,22,24 8:25

9:5,10,19 10:4

11:12,23 12:4,18

13:25 14:12 15:9

15:17 16:3 17:12

17:21 19:17,21

21:13 22:2 23:6

23:19,24 24:8

25:6 26:13 27:12

28:9,24

board's 5:18 11:3

13:13 14:5

brief 8:24 31:4,15

briefed 6:4 30:13

briefing 5:2 8:17

11:18,18 12:13

13:16 14:18 16:24

24:21,21 25:8,8,12

30:18 31:12 35:12

broader 20:13

bunch 25:18

business 10:18

14:21 24:9,13

c

c 2:9 8:7 19:19

c.f.r. 8:7

call 2:2,13 3:5,13

3:15 4:3,7,12,15

4:19 5:2 9:2,6,9

9:19,19,25 10:7,16

11:4 12:18 23:24

35:16 36:9 37:7

cancellation 17:22

case 1:3 6:11,12

9:3 10:2,5,22

11:16 12:6,12

13:7,8,12 14:1,15

14:16 15:18 16:2

16:17,25 17:5

20:14,23,25 21:14

22:7,10 23:8

24:19 25:5,6,9,11

26:6,10 27:12

28:12,13,14,14,16

28:25,25 29:9

31:20 33:17,19

cases 9:4 11:17

15:25 16:6,22

18:1,2,3,4 20:19

26:4 27:9

cause 8:7,10 11:22

certainly 25:24

34:4

certificate 38:2,13

certified 38:6 39:7

certify 38:7,16

39:2

challenge 5:18

chan 3:12,13

change 30:5

changes 24:18

38:23,23

charges 17:2

chris 2:25

circuit 8:1 20:25

21:15

circumstance 12:2

circumstances

10:12 17:2 18:12

citations 9:4

cited 12:22 13:3

15:23

[appellate - cited]

Page 2


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



claims 29:10

clarify 10:14

clear 36:12

clearly 8:9 12:2

14:4 17:9 19:5

20:14

clock 11:13

close 24:9

closest 12:12

code 18:20,22

collateral 8:3

12:23

collectively 5:14

come 29:2,11

comes 21:25

commiserate

13:20

common 16:9,13

complaints 23:14

complete 8:5

11:19 12:1

completely 13:9

25:2 29:16

completion 38:19

39:1

complicated 36:10

compulsory 21:18

concern 10:1

16:16 33:3 35:4

concerns 33:15

35:18 36:3

conducting 6:16

confer 10:1,6,10

10:15,15 12:22

23:25 24:11 30:19

30:21

conference 3:5

23:16 24:4 35:17

conferencing

23:14

conferred 24:12

confidence 17:7

26:12

confirm 3:3

confusing 23:3

congress 6:3 16:14

18:18,20

congressionally

16:10

consents 6:2

consider 7:23

10:22 11:1

consideration

12:10

considerations

29:8

considering 14:14

construction

10:24

consummated

21:6,7

contacted 24:3,6,8

24:9

contains 38:23

contemplated 21:4

context 13:5 16:23

18:13 19:25 32:13

continue 7:22

15:15

continued 15:20

contrary 12:12

control 16:9 25:25

controlled 15:7

controlling 25:19

33:22

copy 38:13

corporation 20:16

correct 22:22

23:24

cost 27:18 33:23

costs 27:15,16,16

27:17,19 33:25

counsel 4:1 5:1

8:19 11:15 12:21

15:24 17:18 22:10

29:22 38:21 39:2

counsel's 13:10

26:9,9

counterclaims

21:20

couple 22:5

course 7:20 14:3

court 2:2,8,12,17

2:22 3:2,10,11,14

3:20,23 4:2,3,5,12

4:24 5:11 7:5,6

9:12 13:1,24 14:2

14:5,7,11 16:6,11

16:11 20:7 21:11

22:3,9,12,16,20,23

23:15,17,22 24:14

26:25 28:2,17,25

28:25 29:11,17

30:14,23 31:1,3,21

32:2,5 33:8 34:1,7

34:22 35:3,9 36:7

36:12,17,23 37:1,4

37:6

court's 5:23 6:10

14:12

courts 16:23

create 18:18

created 16:14

cross 32:11

csr 1:24 39:11,11

current 7:21

cursory 12:23

cut 26:25 27:1

d

date 9:21,24 11:12

24:23 25:3 26:14

31:13 34:23 35:4

36:14 38:22

day 8:21 10:18

14:25 24:13 26:18

37:3 39:7

days 8:14,21,23

25:6 31:20,22

38:21,21

deadline 8:5 27:13

deadlines 8:13

deal 8:17 21:6,7

26:1 31:22

december 8:6

11:15

decide 11:13 24:16

29:14

decided 6:11 25:8

28:10 31:4

decides 19:21

deciding 25:10

decision 7:25

11:14,20,21 12:15

13:14

decisions 27:11

28:9

declaration 32:10

defective 23:2

defense 7:1

delay 11:6,21

12:11 13:11 14:14

14:25 15:6 23:18

26:19 27:25

delayed 14:23

deliberately 18:8

delivered 38:11

deny 6:15 19:14

depends 27:10

[claims - depends]

Page 3


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



deponent 38:17,18

38:25

deposition 38:19

39:1

deserves 15:4,5

despite 33:19

destroying 19:6

determination 7:7

29:1

determine 10:6

development

24:18 26:5 33:6

devine 2:7

dewansik 3:18

direct 27:18,19

directly 15:24

27:16,16,17,19

director 19:3,15

19:16,22

director's 19:23

19:24

discovery 14:17

16:24 32:14 33:9

33:11,19 34:3,5,11

35:16

discretion 15:11

discretionary 6:7

discuss 9:20 23:25

discussion 4:23

5:12 35:15

dismiss 6:5 8:15

11:7 12:8

dismissal 6:15,19

33:20

dismissed 15:15

15:19

disposal 9:4

disregard 7:9

district 12:25

13:24 14:2,7,11

21:11 23:17

doctrine 8:3 12:23

12:24 13:6

documents 26:24

26:24

doing 10:23 23:9

30:2

dollar 26:19

dorothy 2:15

doubt 16:6 27:9

drag 17:9,10,11,12

dragged 18:5,7

dragging 15:2

draw 16:2

due 11:14 13:18

13:23 14:3 35:15

35:20,23,24,24

duties 19:4

dzwonczyk 3:19

e

e 2:24

earlier 23:14

early 11:15

ease 33:1,4

easier 4:12

economic 33:6

economy 12:4

26:17

effectively 7:2,19

effects 19:13

efficient 11:24

26:16

efficiently 36:11

effort 14:4

either 8:7 20:17

employed 39:3

ended 25:10

enforced 27:20

enter 5:6 27:7

entering 30:4

entertain 30:17

entire 28:15 33:11

entitled 20:17

entity 15:19 18:3,5

entry 3:9

equitable 29:7

equitably 19:1

equity 15:7 29:10

essentially 16:12

established 5:22

20:14

evans 2:25

everybody 27:25

evidence 32:8

exactly 18:9

examination 32:11

examples 6:21

excellent 24:25

exceptions 6:4

exclusion 12:9

excused 36:16

exempt 33:12

exempts 29:5

exercise 33:23

exhibit 5:23

exhibits 6:22,23

existing 18:3

expanded 19:18

expect 13:14,19

expects 17:6

expedite 37:5

expended 14:16

14:18

expensive 32:13

experience 8:17

8:19

expiration 39:12

expires 8:6

explicit 17:24

explore 13:21

expressly 6:2

18:21

extended 8:6

extending 11:16

19:10

extension 8:12

11:17

extensive 16:22,24

extent 33:22

eyes 18:24

f

f 38:17

facially 17:3 32:19

fact 13:16 16:1

21:17 24:7 25:15

25:24 26:1,5 27:5

27:23

facts 11:10 13:21

21:23 25:11,17,25

26:11 30:12 32:21

32:25

factual 9:4

failed 10:10

fairness 29:7,10

familiar 16:4

fashion 13:14

federal 7:20 8:1

16:13,23 17:1

21:15 31:21

federally 5:20

feedback 4:14

fellow 30:16

figure 28:20 30:15

file 4:6 8:15,21,21

8:24 14:10 21:15

21:18 31:17 34:2

37:2

filed 6:24 21:8

34:21

filing 8:24 34:10

34:13 35:13,22

filings 33:13,14

[deponent - filings]

Page 4


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



final 7:7

finality 13:6

finally 9:21 19:2

financially 39:5

fine 32:1

finished 20:8

36:24

firm 39:15

first 5:5 10:9

12:20 14:19 20:12

20:24 24:7 28:7

29:14

floodgates 19:8

follow 5:3

followed 20:25

following 4:7 38:8

force 7:10

forcing 29:3,4

foreman 1:24 38:6

39:11

forgive 20:4

formality 23:1,10

fort 39:14

forth 17:17 23:9

forthcoming 6:5

forum 17:9,10,11

17:11,12 21:15,16

21:18

forward 9:10

29:15

four 31:20,22

fraction 15:1

frankly 6:14 27:17

32:7

fraud 16:23

frcp 38:16

friday 9:19 14:2

14:19 21:6 22:13

23:2 24:3,7,10

29:4,15 31:10

32:19

fully 6:4 7:23

13:21 30:13,13

further 9:23 13:13

36:19,21 38:16

39:2,5

g

gary 3:16

generally 21:24

generating 18:10

getting 28:18 35:1

give 6:20 31:15

34:16 35:5

given 10:18

go 7:3 9:14 10:24

24:20 29:4,15

30:6 31:15 34:17

goes 6:10 33:6

going 3:4 4:11,22

11:5,14 13:13

17:21 19:8 26:1,4

27:15,21 28:7,10

30:19,20 33:2,8,14

33:18,24 34:14,22

35:12

good 8:7,10 11:2

11:22 24:13 26:1

government 6:1

granted 6:20

19:14,14

gray 3:21,22

great 8:17

guidance 19:3

h

h 2:24

hac 3:3,9

half 16:21

hands 21:9 32:21

hard 32:18

harm 29:23

harmed 30:1

haste 11:2

hastily 10:4

head 19:7

hear 3:11 4:13

6:11 20:10 35:17

heard 12:20

hearing 1:10 6:16

6:19 7:18,22 9:21

11:6,12,20 13:12

14:20 22:13,14,15

24:17,23 25:3,6,7

26:8 29:4,15 30:6

31:5,8,13 36:13

38:3

heavy 31:21

hold 30:21 35:7

honor 2:4,11,14

3:6,12,16,18,21,25

4:10,16 6:6 9:16

20:1,9 21:25 22:8

22:24 23:12 24:5

24:25 27:9 28:3

28:23 29:18 30:7

31:2,19 32:7

33:17 34:9,20

36:6,15

hoping 31:17

hot 31:21

hour 12:21

hours 21:7

hurry 10:21

i

iceberg 19:13

idea 26:11 28:9

identified 26:3

immediate 8:2

12:19

immediately 5:6

13:25

immunity 2:21 5:1

5:4,18 6:3,7,10,25

7:1,5,8,12,15,19

7:24 8:1,9,18

12:14 14:1 16:2,8

17:24 20:5,15,15

20:17,18,20 21:19

21:20 29:1,5,6,8,9

29:9 30:3,5,18

31:5,7,12 32:13

33:12 36:1

impingement 30:3

implicated 12:6

important 23:13

25:16

impossible 32:22

inaudible 3:1

20:13,16 21:18

inclined 24:20

including 14:17

indian 5:21 8:17

indicated 3:8

29:22

information 4:6

initial 9:17 35:12

35:22

insisting 13:25

instance 6:17

institute 19:15

institution 19:24

integrity 12:5 15:5

26:17

intellectual 16:18

18:4

intentional 10:25

interest 15:2 23:8

26:15

interested 15:20

39:5

interests 14:21

26:17

[final - interests]

Page 5


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



interrogatory

13:8

investment 14:22

27:10

involved 13:22

14:21 15:1

ipr 13:7 16:1

ipr2016-002008

12:16

ipr2016-01127 1:3

5:25

iprs 5:7,19 7:2,15

8:5,15 18:23 19:6

irregularities

10:14

issue 2:21,21 5:15

5:22 6:10,12

10:19 12:14 13:19

13:21 14:19 19:5

21:1,14 23:25

24:21 25:3,5,9,13

25:21 29:2,13

30:18 31:4,7,12,25

32:18 34:15 35:25

36:10

issues 9:11 13:22

30:12 36:2

j

jad 2:7

jessica 3:1

joinder 8:8

joined 2:15 8:11

judge 23:17 30:23

35:9

judges 30:16

juncture 10:3 11:9

jurisdiction 5:18

6:13 14:5,13

jurisdictional 6:8

justifies 11:17

k

kane 2:15

keep 3:23

key 10:7 26:3

kind 18:9,19 21:11

28:8 33:18

kinds 16:24

know 12:19 13:7

14:6 16:1 24:10

24:19 26:5 27:21

28:18 29:12 32:22

35:4

known 10:19

knows 11:13 16:5

27:9 33:4

l

lack 20:5

late 8:11 25:5

26:14

latest 24:18

launching 14:22

law 7:20 9:3 13:8

16:9,13 20:14

21:17,22,24 25:15

25:17 26:10 29:12

30:12 33:19

lawyers 36:9

lay 33:24

lead 17:4

leave 23:3,3

legal 9:5 13:22

28:19 39:12

legitimate 33:5

lending 16:22

letter 14:2 23:17

liability 7:1

license 29:20

likelihood 15:21

limited 35:21,25

35:25

line 2:6 8:18

litigating 29:21

30:2

little 9:22 11:7

20:4

long 13:20 15:3

27:15 32:5

look 9:9 34:10

looking 17:18

lost 7:2

lot 10:3 14:17

15:25 16:15 17:6

22:2 26:5

m

madam 37:4

making 15:6

management 19:4

mandated 16:10

mandatory 5:24

manipulate 14:12

manner 19:22

marissa 3:21

market 27:8

marketing 17:16

17:19

maryland 12:15

math 26:22

matter 9:18 20:21

21:17 23:1,10

maximum 15:8

mean 10:15 21:16

32:9 33:21

meaning 18:13

means 11:14

media 10:20 14:24

meet 10:1,5,10,14

10:15 12:22 24:10

merely 7:1

merit 11:8 17:7

29:2

merits 6:9,12,14

6:16,20 9:23

11:20 12:10 14:14

15:4,22 26:6

michael 2:15,20

2:24 4:16 20:2

28:6 30:8 38:12

mike 3:19

million 16:20,21

mills 2:7

mind 33:4

minds 33:1

minute 13:18 14:6

misplaced 13:9

misunderstanding

30:11

mohawk 4:17,20

4:21 9:8 21:5

moment 10:24

11:22 12:14 28:4

monopoly 27:21

month 13:20

morning 10:15

24:4

motion 3:3 6:5

8:15,21 11:5,6

12:7,8 13:15

15:22 17:8 19:14

19:21 25:2 33:20

34:21 36:22

move 24:22,22

25:3

moving 9:21,24

multiple 6:21 16:6

mylan 1:5 2:6 3:7

9:17 10:6 14:9,15

14:15 15:9 17:6,9

19:20 23:16,18

27:3,4,5,16,24

29:19

[interrogatory - mylan]

Page 6


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



mylan's 11:2

n

n 2:9

name 4:16

narrower 20:13

nature 6:7 9:13

need 8:8,18 15:3

30:19 31:4,21

32:6,10 34:2,14

35:15

needs 22:1,2

neither 6:3 39:2

neocort 12:15

28:12

new 8:8 31:25

newly 8:11

non 18:1 19:9

normally 9:2

notary 38:20

note 8:4 10:13

23:10 25:16

noted 11:15 23:14

notice 5:24 23:2

35:2 36:9

number 5:25

28:23

numbers 5:9

o

o 2:9,9,24

objection 10:13,17

24:14

objections 9:18,25

11:11 32:24

objects 3:4

observed 23:11

obviously 24:18

occurred 14:18

october 34:23

35:20,24,24

odd 28:8,11

offering 17:23

office 1:1 11:25

12:1 26:16

okay 3:10,23 4:5,8

9:12 22:23 24:24

28:17 30:23 31:3

33:16 34:4 35:9

36:23

once 10:11 11:20

open 18:24 19:8

23:3 25:20

opponent 20:3

opportunity 7:23

17:15 18:10 20:11

31:6

oppose 3:8 23:18

opposing 11:15

12:21 13:10 26:9

opposition 13:22

14:10

oral 15:11 26:13

31:7

order 5:6 8:3

12:23 24:11

original 38:11

outcome 39:6

overcome 16:13

overrules 13:6

owner 1:7 4:21

18:3 19:10 22:17

22:21 23:7 28:13

28:14

ownership 18:21

p

p.m. 37:9

page 38:23

pages 31:16 35:14

35:21,23,23,25

paid 16:19,21

panel 19:18 30:20

31:6,8

paper 5:25 12:16

paperwork 21:8

parallel 12:9

parmelee 2:7

part 4:11 11:2,3

13:10 20:21 23:7

26:3 33:11

partial 23:8

participant 28:15

participate 7:11

29:3

participating 5:2

29:3

particular 10:5

particularly 10:2

26:14

parties 4:6 8:8

15:20 23:24 30:21

37:2 38:14 39:3

party 8:11 19:19

38:18 39:1

patent 1:1,1,3,7

4:21 5:9,12,12,13

5:13,13,14 6:18

12:5 15:5 17:20

18:17,20,22 19:10

22:17,20 23:19

26:18 27:20,22

patentees 17:16,21

patents 5:15,22

7:16 17:22

patient 23:7

patients 27:18

pattern 19:7

pause 35:6

paying 27:19,25

pending 5:17 7:7

people 17:19

27:10

permitted 7:3

permitting 16:23

petitioner 2:3,10

10:25

petitioners 1:6

8:16,20 10:4

pharma 19:9

pharmaceuticals

1:5,5

phone 4:11

phonetic 3:22

30:24

pig 35:1

place 5:17 9:3 23:6

planning 27:14

play 14:5 19:22

29:11

please 28:5 35:7

plenty 10:22 16:15

plug 27:14

plumb 32:14

plus 16:19

point 10:17 15:17

15:23,24 18:15

19:2 22:25 23:13

25:12,14,20 30:20

pointed 25:4

poke 35:1

policy 19:3,5,6,23

position 9:2 19:17

22:4 35:12

positioned 20:22

possible 10:24

11:22 15:3 35:17

37:3

postpone 31:5

postponed 36:13

power 6:10 19:15

19:16 23:4

powers 19:24

[mylan's - powers]

Page 7


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



pre 18:3

precedent 7:6,10

12:11,13 15:16,17

25:19 26:14 29:16

prejudice 10:25

13:13 15:9,10

prejudiced 27:4,5

prejudices 14:15

preparation 13:20

20:4

preparations 27:7

prepare 8:14

10:18 11:7

prepared 11:8

22:12,15 29:23

31:8,9

preparing 14:20

present 4:4

preserve 7:21

press 17:13,14

24:8

presumption 28:8

pretty 27:13

prior 6:19 23:16

privilege 16:9

pro 3:3,9

probably 16:4

33:25

problem 33:7

34:18

procedural 10:13

procedures 23:23

proceed 5:19 6:9

6:13 7:18 24:17

proceeded 12:9

25:7

proceeding 7:6,15

10:11 12:1,17

15:15,19 18:6,7

30:4 31:23

proceedings 2:1

5:7 7:21 11:24

13:1,2 18:9 37:10

38:9

proceeds 22:14

process 7:11 23:9

23:11 28:15 29:5

product 14:22

production 13:16

26:2

profits 26:19

promised 16:19

property 16:18

18:4,18,20

prosecution 17:1

protect 4:25

protection 17:17

19:11

protective 17:23

provide 8:20 9:7

provision 12:3

provisions 18:22

18:23

pto 19:3

public 15:4 38:20

puerto 20:24

pull 27:14

purchase 16:18

purposes 4:23

5:11

pursuant 38:16

pursue 8:2

pursued 17:1

push 10:3

put 17:17 24:6

26:7,13 32:8,9

33:1,4 34:5

q

qualifies 8:9

question 18:11

23:3 24:15,25

questions 9:1 22:5

31:9,10

quickly 20:2

quite 12:11 26:8

quo 7:21

r

r 2:9,24

racketeering 17:2

33:2

raise 35:4

raised 12:14 14:20

25:5,13

raising 13:18

reactive 15:18

read 26:23

ready 31:15

really 10:21 11:8

15:3 21:25 25:16

25:16

reason 9:22 11:2

17:4 25:12

reasons 10:2 16:16

38:24

receipt 38:22

recess 30:22 35:8

recognized 5:20

reconvene 34:20

record 4:16 5:24

6:22,23 32:17

38:10

recoupment 21:21

recover 33:25

refer 4:22

reference 9:6

referred 5:14

refused 24:3

regard 31:11

regarding 5:3

35:16

regents 21:13

regis 4:17,19,21

9:8 21:5

regulatory 27:9

related 39:3

relatively 20:4

23:13

releases 17:14

24:8

reliable 27:13

remain 5:16

remainder 4:23

5:11

remains 15:14

remember 32:18

remind 37:2

rep 27:21

reply 8:24 10:11

35:19,21,24

reported 1:24

14:24

reporter 3:11 4:4

4:24 28:5 37:4

38:6

reporter's 38:2

reporters 4:2,12

5:11

represent 2:16

4:17,18 23:7

representing 2:3

2:22 22:17,19

request 8:22 9:14

15:6 19:17 24:6

33:13 34:3

requested 4:3

38:18,25

requests 5:5 8:14

34:12

require 13:15

26:15

required 6:6 7:5

29:21

[pre - required]

Page 8


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



requires 12:3

research 12:23

22:2 23:20 34:17

reserve 33:17

reserves 18:21

resist 33:18

resolution 5:17

resolved 25:22

resolving 9:10

resources 14:16

14:19

respect 7:4

respond 9:15 20:2

20:11 34:11

response 8:22

24:11 35:14,23

result 27:22

results 33:23

returned 38:20,22

returning 35:10

revenue 18:10

review 7:13

richard 2:5 3:7 4:1

9:17 22:25 29:19

rico 20:24

right 6:15 7:13

22:3 24:16 26:10

26:10 27:4 28:20

33:18 34:9 37:1,6

rights 5:8 8:2

15:12 18:20

risk 17:22

role 19:23

room 2:25

royalties 15:1

royalty 14:24

16:20

rule 23:6 38:16

ruling 7:11

s

s 2:24

saturday 24:3

saying 23:17 29:25

32:2

says 19:19 20:10

30:10

sba 27:9

schedule 31:12

35:13,17

scheme 16:10,14

17:17

second 10:17 21:2

28:12 35:6

secondly 11:23

section 8:7 19:19

see 32:8,16,17

33:12 34:12 36:21

seeing 10:3

seek 6:15,19

seen 34:12

sees 33:14

selling 17:24

seminole 20:23

sent 23:16

separate 25:2

september 1:11

7:18 32:3 35:14

35:23 38:4 39:8

served 38:13

service 17:23

19:11

services 15:18

set 10:16 13:12

31:11,13 35:12

sets 23:9

setting 9:19

sham 16:17,25

17:4 19:6 26:2

32:12,14

shauna 1:24 38:6

39:11

shore 2:20,24,24

3:4 4:9,10,17 9:13

20:1,2,10,12 22:3

23:12 24:2 26:21

26:23 27:1,2 28:3

28:6,6,18,22 30:7

30:8,24,25 31:14

31:19 32:4,23

33:10 34:8 36:7,8

36:15,24,25 37:4

38:12

short 36:9

shorthand 38:6

shown 38:14

shows 12:24

side 4:3

sides 13:17

signature 38:17,20

38:23 39:10

silence 3:24

similar 10:12

simplest 34:20

simply 27:6 31:20

single 16:1 28:24

33:22

sir 30:25 32:4

36:25

sitting 21:9

situation 15:24

24:18

slew 20:19

smedder 30:24

35:10

solutions 39:12

somebody 23:8

soon 35:16

sop1 19:18

sorry 22:8 35:20

sort 17:2

sorts 18:2

sought 17:9,15

sovereign 2:21 5:4

5:17,21 6:1,7,9,18

6:25 7:4,15,24 8:9

8:17 20:14,15,17

20:18,20,20 21:19

21:20 29:1,5,6,8,8

29:9 30:3,18 31:5

31:7,12 33:11

36:1

sovereignty 4:25

19:5 20:12

speak 4:18,19

19:23 21:12

speaker 4:11

speaking 2:9,17,19

2:20 3:5 20:3 23:5

special 4:24

specific 13:7

specifically 17:20

specious 15:13

speier 3:16,17

st 4:17,19,21 9:8

21:4

state 15:19 16:7

18:3,5 21:19 25:1

38:7

stated 9:1

statement 9:5

statements 21:2

states 1:1

status 7:21

statute 12:3,25

statutorily 18:25

statutory 8:5

16:13 18:16 27:13

stay 5:16,16 6:6

7:6,20 12:19

[requires - stay]

Page 9


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



staying 5:6

step 28:4

steve 2:6

stop 25:12

stream 16:20

street 39:13

strict 27:8

stringently 13:2

strings 18:17

strongly 12:6

19:20,20

stuck 18:25

subject 18:22

33:10

submit 35:4

subsequently 25:7

substance 11:9

substantial 13:16

14:16,18,22 15:2

succeed 15:22

17:8

success 9:23 17:5

suggest 9:22 13:5

19:19,20 34:22

36:13

suggested 25:15

suggests 13:4

19:20

suit 6:2 7:2,16

suite 39:13

supervision 19:4

support 8:12

supported 29:15

supposed 11:23

supreme 7:5 16:6

16:11 28:25 29:11

sure 4:13 20:3

23:22 36:18

system 12:5 15:5

26:18 27:22

t

t 2:9

tables 27:10,11

tactic 23:19

take 4:11 11:24

12:4 16:19,21

32:10 34:10 35:6

taken 18:22 19:17

39:4

talk 21:5

talked 28:12

targeted 18:8

targeting 17:20

taxpayers 27:17

tech 19:10

tel 39:14

telephonic 1:10

38:3,9

telling 10:20 24:11

terms 31:16

testimony 32:10

34:6 39:4

teva 1:5 3:17,22

8:11 17:11 27:16

27:24

texas 21:13,13,14

38:7 39:11,14

thank 2:4 3:10,10

3:14 4:5,15 9:9,12

9:16 22:23 36:15

37:6,7

therefor 38:24

thing 11:19 28:23

29:17 34:20

things 15:8 23:15

25:18 26:2

think 4:8 9:13

17:21 20:23 22:1

22:4 23:13 24:13

24:19 25:1 26:12

27:15 28:19,23

30:11,14,14 31:5

32:25,25 33:3,12

34:8,9,12,13,14,14

throckmorton

39:13

tight 27:10

time 8:18,22 10:9

10:22 11:7 12:20

13:19 24:13 26:8

27:10,11,15 31:24

32:24 33:7 34:2,8

34:9,16 35:5,18

36:14,18

timed 15:8

timely 10:7 11:18

12:1 13:14

times 20:25

timetable 27:8

timing 15:8

tip 19:12

today 2:9 3:5 4:15

4:23 5:12 9:9,20

10:8 23:16 36:5

today's 3:5

told 12:11,17 14:2

15:25 25:17,23

top 16:20

torczon 2:4,5,8,11

3:6,7,25 4:1 9:14

9:16,17 20:7,9

22:24,25 23:23

24:5,15,17,24

26:22 27:3,6

29:18,19 31:1,2

32:5,7 33:16 34:4

34:19,24 35:11

36:4,5,19,20

tort 29:10

totally 17:25

toyota 15:18

trademark 1:1

transaction 16:16

16:17 17:3 21:3

32:14,20 33:5,5

transactions 16:25

19:6 26:3

transcript 4:7

38:11,22

transcripts 37:2

transparent 23:18

trial 1:1 6:18 7:3

17:20 23:19 24:22

tribal 16:2,8 20:5

20:12 21:19,22

29:1 32:12

tribe 2:23 3:8,13

4:17,20,21,22 5:5

5:20,21 6:1,15

7:10,12,14 8:2,8

8:10,14,19,23 9:8

10:19 13:25 15:14

16:17 17:14 18:6

18:13,24 19:8

21:5 26:19 29:3

29:24,25 33:6

35:19,22

tribe's 2:21 5:1,3,8

5:17 6:5,25 7:4,7

7:18,23 8:1 9:2

13:24 14:24 15:1

32:21 35:13

tribes 16:5

tried 24:2

troubling 32:20

true 12:20 25:24

26:6,21 30:9,10

33:9 38:9

trying 24:16 28:20

30:15

two 4:2 21:7

[staying - two]

Page 10


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127



u

u.s. 5:9 18:16

u.s.c. 12:25

u.s.d. 19:4

unable 10:6

understand 3:2

9:2,13 11:4 19:16

22:4 25:15,24

28:2,17,24 29:12

30:15 31:25 33:3

34:24 35:3,11

36:10

understanding

8:16 20:5 21:22

21:23,24 34:25

understood 24:15

underwriting

27:18

unequivocal 17:6

unidentified 19:9

united 1:1

university 21:13

28:14

unlimited 18:18

unprecedented

6:14 29:17

updated 5:24 23:2

usa 1:5

use 16:13

usually 32:13

v

veritext 39:12

versus 12:15 15:18

21:14

vice 3:3,9

vigorously 23:18

violation 7:19

virtually 35:1

voluntarily 8:20

vs 1:7

w

waited 10:23

waive 7:14 15:12

20:15 21:16,17

waived 5:1 18:14

18:25 19:1 20:18

30:4

waiver 14:8 17:6

18:12,13,16 21:10

waives 15:6

want 3:3 4:13

31:11,22,24,25

32:1,25 34:17

wanted 24:10

way 5:8 29:14

we've 11:7 13:12

25:17 27:7

weak 17:22

week 31:18

wendy 2:7

went 18:24

whelan 2:14,15,19

22:6,8,11,14,18,22

willing 8:20 20:10

31:15

win 28:7,10

withdrawing 22:6

22:9

witness 38:14

won 21:14

working 9:10

works 14:25

worried 33:15

worse 27:20

worth 39:14

wrong 21:3,23,23

21:24

y

yeah 35:3

year 8:4 11:13

16:20

young 3:22

z

z 2:9

[u.s. - z]

Page 11


800-336-4000SRMT 2090


IPR2016-01127


in the united states district court for the eastern … · claire abernathy henry state bar no....

Documents