Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 3 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rodger D. Smith II, hereby certify that on April 28, 2008, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Philip A. Rovner, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire Richards Layton & Finger PA Mary W. Bourke, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Steven J. Balick, Esquire Ashby & Geddes John W. Shaw, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP I also certify that copies were caused to be served on April 28, 2008, upon the following in the manner indicated: BY HAND AND EMAIL Philip A. Rovner, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire Richards Layton & Finger PA One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Mary W. Bourke, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 4 of 5

Steven J. Balick, Esquire Ashby & Geddes 500 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 John W. Shaw, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 BY EMAIL Daniel A. Boehnen, Esquire Grantland G. Drutchas, Esquire McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Bergoff LLP 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 [email protected] [email protected] Michael G. Adams, Esquire Ashley L. Ellis, Esquire Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP Three Wachovia Center, Suite 3000 401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 [email protected] [email protected] Edward A. Mas II, Esquire McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. 500 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60661 [email protected] Rachel Krevans, Esquire Wesley E. Overson, Esquire Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] [email protected]

2

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 5 of 5

Kenneth P. George Joseph M. Casino Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 [email protected] [email protected]

/s/ Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP (302) 658-9200 [email protected]

3

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 1 of 73

EXHIBIT A

Re: Proposed Joint Defense Group Meeting Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 73

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Kahn, Michael P. Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:39 PM [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Jorjani, Parisa; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bartlett, Jason R.; dos Santos, Mathew W.; [email protected]; [email protected]; Guerra, Marcelo O.; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Krevans, Rachel; [email protected]; [email protected]; Meier, Chris; [email protected]; Muino, Daniel P.; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Badke, Bradford J.; De, Sona; [email protected]

Subject: Roche v. Abbott, et al. - Roche's Discovery Requests Grant, I write regarding Roche's First Set of Interrogatories (1-27) and Document Requests (1-161) served on Nova on January 23, 2008 and on behalf of the other defendants to the extent this e-mail relates to discovery served upon them. Roche's interrogatories and document requests are premature in view of the Court's February 8 Case Management Conference and the Court's form Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Roche's interrogatories also fail to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and Local Rule 26.1. Rather than engaging in protracted objections and letterwriting, the defendants propose that Roche withdraw its interrogatories and requests at this time, and serve more appropriately tailored sets at the proper time. If Roche elects to accept the defendants' offer of withdrawal, the defendants will not count Roche's first sets of interrogatories against Roche's discovery allotment. During the February 8 Conference, the Court instructed the parties to stage discovery. Specifically, the Court stated that "this case today is only about infringement and counterclaims properly brought to an infringement charge. We're going to push out validity. We're going to push out damages and anything else that might be in the case right now." (Feb. 8 Transcript, at 27:12-18). Many of Roche's interrogatories and document requests are directed to issues other than infringement and therefore are inappropriate at this time. The Court's form Rule 16 Scheduling Order (and the order first proposed by the parties) provides that contention interrogatories need not be answered before the end of document production and the identification of fact witnesses. (See Document 16-2, Paragraph 3(a)). The Court further suggested that all written discovery may be put off until document discovery is complete: "I can tell you what the process is going to be. There's going to be infringement discovery, document production. Then there's going to be the typical interrogatory, requests for admission and deposition discovery." (Feb. 8 Tr., at 37:1-5). The majority of Roche's Interrogatories are directed to contentions and are premature in any event. Roche's Interrogatories also run afoul of the limits imposed by Rule 33 and Local Rule 26.1. As an initial matter, Roche served 27 numbered interrogatories on Nova. This exceeds both the limit set forth in Rule 33, which limit Roche proposed to the Court (25). Further, Roche's 27 interrogatories contain at least 128 subparts. According to Local Rule 26.1(a), "Each subpart of an interrogatory or request shall be counted as a separate interrogatory or request." Even without getting overly literal with this requirement, we believe that Roche's interrogatories are far beyond what is reasonable in light of this Local Rule. In light of the foregoing, the defendants collectively propose that Roche withdraw its interrogatories and other discovery requests and conform them with the Court's instructions and the Federal and Local Rules. Further, the defendants propose that all parties hold back any discovery requests of any kind until the Court issues a Scheduling Order or sets other governing deadlines for written discovery. This will result in the most efficient use of resources. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss any of this.

4/24/2008

Re: Proposed Joint Defense Group Meeting Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF Document 150-2
Best regards, Michael

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 2 of 2 Page 3 of 73

Michael P. Kahn
ROPES & GRAY LLP T 212-596-9186 | F 646-728-2872 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 [email protected] www.ropesgray.com

4/24/2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 4 of 73

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 5 of 73

mbhti I
I

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert &Berghoff LLP

300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709 www.mbhb.com

3129130001 phone 3129130002 fax

February 15, 2008 Sent Via e-mail and First Class Mail Stephen F. Sherry McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. 500 West Madison St 34th Floor Chicago, IL 60661 ssherry@mcandrews-ip,com Rachel Krevans Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market St. San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] Re: Mary W. Bourke Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange St. Wilmington, DE 19801 [email protected] Bradford J. Badke Ropes & Gray LLP 1211 Avenue of Americas New York, NY 10036 [email protected]

Roche Diagnostic Operations, Inc. et al. v. Abbott Diabetes Gare, Inc. et al., G.A. No. 07-753-JJF (D. Del.)

Dear Counsel: As you know, Plaintiffs Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. and Corange International Limited (collectively "Plaintiffs") served document requests and interrogatories on Defendants Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. ("ADC") and Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corporation ("ADCSC") (collectively "Abbott"), Bayer Healthcare, LLC ("Bayer"), LifeScan, Inc. ("LifeScan") and Nova Biomedical Corporation ("Nova") on January 23,2008. In light of the Court's directions at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference on February 8, 2008 regarding phasing of this case, and as detailed herein, Plaintiffs are withdrawing or temporarily limiting the discovery requests that fall outside the phasing parameters directed bythe Court. Plaintiffs request the prompt production of discovery that is responsive to the requests falling within the phasing parameters directed bythe Court, and Plaintiffs reserve the right to re-assert the other discovery requests during the appropriate future phase of discovery activity in this case. In particular, referring to Plaintiffs' First Set of Document Requests and Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories to each of Abbott, Bayer, LifeScan and Nova, dated January 23, 2008,

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 6 of 73

Plaintiffs are withdrawing without prejudice any requests relating solely to the issues of validity and/or damages as indicated below. You may treat the withdrawn requests as cancelled, and need not lodge objections, etc. at this stage. In addition, Plaintiffs are limiting, as also indicated below, some requests to the extent that those requests related in part to the issues of validity and/or damages. We have received Michael Kahn's E-mail of February 13, 2008. We believe that our approach outlined herein responds to virtually all of the concerns raised by Mr. Kahn, including the scope of the requests and the number of interrogatories posed to Nova. To the extent that the Court's order and/or directions have indicated that contention interrogatories need not be answered prior to the completion of document discovery, we can discuss an appropriate time for Defendants to submit those answers; in no event is Roche required to withdraw them. (We further note that Defendants' proposed Protective Order, sent last night, does not stage document discovery and interrogatories as Mr. Kahn's letter suggests.) Finally, as for the limits imposed by Local Rule 26.1, we believe that the interrogatories comply fully with that rule. In each instance, the interrogatory requests Defendants to provide information on a specific topic, and provides examples of information that would be required to provide a fully responsive answer on that topic. The interrogatories do not have separate subparts within the rule. Withdrawals/limitations Applicable to Abbott: Withdrawn discovery: Plaintiffs withdraw Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11, 13 and 15. Plaintiffs also withdraw Request for Production Nos. 38, 49, 50, 70 and 72-102. Limited Discovery: Plaintiffs are limiting Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 12 and 17 and Request for Production Nos. 36, 37, 43, 48, 53-59 and 107-123 to the issues of infringement and/or prior invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) of any claim in the 146 patent and the 147 patent. Withdrawals/limitations Applicable to Bayer: Withdrawn discovery: Plaintiffs withdraw Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11 and 13. Plaintiffs also withdraw Request for Production Nos. 38, 49, 50, 70 and 72-102. Limited Discovery: Plaintiffs are limiting Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 12 and 18 and Request for Production Nos. 36, 37, 43, 48, 53-59, 107, 108 and 110-115 to the issues of infringement and/or prior invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) of any claim in the 146 patent and the 147 patent.

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff lLP

2 February 15, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 7 of 73

Withdrawals/Limitations Applicable to LifeScan Withdrawn discovery: Plaintiffs withdraw Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11 and 13. Plaintiffs also withdraw Request for Production Nos. 38, 49, 50, 70 and 72-102. Limited Discovery: Plaintiffs are limiting Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 12 and 16 and Request for Production Nos. 36, 37,43,48, 53-59 and 107-115 to the issues of infringement and/or prior invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) of any claim in the 146 patent and the 147 patent. Withdrawals/Limitations Applicable to Nova: Withdrawn discovery: Plaintiffs withdraw Interrogatory Nos. 6, 10, 11, 13 and 25. Plaintiffs also withdraw Request for Production Nos. 38, 49, 50, 70 and 72-102. Limited Discovery: Plaintiffs are limiting Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 12 and 27 and Request for Production Nos. 36, 37, 43, 48,53-59, 107-109 and 152-157 to the issues of infringement and/or prior invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) of any claim in the 146 patent and the 147 patent. Nova Counterclaim Discovery: To the extent that Nova intends to pursue its counterclaims now, Plaintiffs maintain Interrogatory Nos. 14-17 and 20-24, and Request for Production Nos. 110-151. If Nova intends to pursue its counterclaims at a later point in the case, Plaintiffs request that Nova notify them immediately.

Sincerely,

~

rantland G. D tchas 3129132121 direct [email protected]

. r v: ~
c.

cc: all counsel (via email)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff liP

3 February 15, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 8 of 73

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 9 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 10 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 11 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 12 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 13 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 14 of 73

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 15 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 16 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 17 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 18 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 19 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 20 of 73

EXHIBIT E

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 21 of 73

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Kahn, Michael P. Monday, March 17, 2008 12:05 PM Gattari, Patrick Badke, Bradford J.; De, Sona; Boehnen, Daniel; Drutchas, Grantland; Huber Benjamin; Rovner, Philip A.; Fritsch, Paula; Smith, Rodger

Subject: 3/17 e-mail from Kahn to Gattari re: Nova's responses to Roche's discovery requests Patrick, I am responding to Paula Fritsch's March 14 e-mail regarding Nova's responses to Roche's discovery requests. I am available to participate in a telephone conference on Thursday, March 20 at 2:00 p.m. central time (3:00 p.m. eastern). In addition to the other issues raised in my letter, Nova requested that Roche explain why many of its discovery requests that appear to relate solely to damages, invalidity and willfulness issues, reasonably call for the production of documents concerning any Phase 1 issue. Ms. Fritsch did not provide any such information. It would be helpful and productive if, before we speak, you could provide answers to these questions. Please confirm that Ms. Fritsch's proposed time on Thursday still works for you. Regards, Michael

Michael P. Kahn
ROPES & GRAY LLP T 212-596-9186 | F 646-728-2872 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 [email protected] www.ropesgray.com

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 22 of 73

EXHIBIT F

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 23 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 24 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 25 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 26 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 27 of 73

EXHIBIT G

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 28 of 73

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert &Berghoff LLP April 4, 2008

300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709 www.mbhb.com

3129130001 phone 3129130002 fax

Sent Via Email; Confirmation via First Class Mail Michael Kahn Ropes & Gray LLP 1211 Avenue of Americas New York, NY 10036 [email protected] Re: Roche v. Abbott et aI., Civil Action No. 07-753 JJF Meet and Confer - April 1, 2008

Dear Michael: It is our intent to memorialize a summary of our current understanding of the areas of agreement and disagreement that resulted from our meet and confer telephone conversation of April 1, 2008. As with our letter of March 24, 2008, we consider this letter a draft of the summary. To the extent that our current understanding does not accurately reflect Nova's positions, we suggest holding a telephone conference to ameliorate any misunderstanding. Please advise if this is necessary.

Identification of the Products-In-Suit It is our understanding that the references to "products-in-suit", as used in our letter of March 24, 2008, and the references to "accused Nova products" and "accused products", as setforth in Nova's letter of April 1, 2008, all refer to the entire list of products identified in Nova's Answer to Interrogatory No.1. Timing of Document Production It is our understanding that Nova hopes to start production of documents bythe end of this week or early next week. Moreover, we understand that Nova is currently searching for documents in all agreed-upon categories and does not intend to delay the production of documents based on the categorization of the documents. We understand that you have been in contact with Sherri Oslick to resolve technical issues regarding the format of documents produced electronically.

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 29 of 73

Date Limitations For Document Production No agreement has been reached regarding the appropriate look-back period for sales and marketing documents, including communications between Nova and third parties relating to the accused products. We expressed Roche's concern that there may be documents from before Nova's proposed January 1, 2007 date that would be necessary to prove that infringing acts are being committed with meters sold before the issue date of the patentsin-suit. As such, Roche believes that January 1, 2006 is a more appropriate starting date for such documents. We understand that Nova maintains its position that January 1, 2007 is a more appropriate starting date. As discussed in more detail below, Nova agreed to consider a stipulation to alleviate this issue. In the alternative of a stipulation, you raised the possibility of producing documents "sufficient to show" the structure, function, operation, and use of these older meters. We expressed concern over Nova's use of the term "sufficient to show," particularly as it pertains to Nova's document production of materials dated prior to the issue date of the patents-in-suit. It is Roche's position that to the extent an issue is in dispute, we are entitled to full discovery on the issue. Thus, if Nova will not agree to the stipulation as detailed below, or a similar stipulation, it is Roche's position that the parties have reached an impasse regarding the start date for production of sales and marketing documents regarding the structure, function, features, operation, and use of the products-in-suit. We understand that Nova has agreed to produce three categories of documents and information developed after the filing of the lawsuit, namely (1) documents sufficient to show the existence of sales of the accused products, (2) documents concerning communications between Nova and its distributors and/or customers regarding the structure, function, features, operation, or use of the accused products, and (3) information concerning any new Nova blood-glucose monitoring products brought to market that are capable of providing a reading within 10 seconds using a blood sample of 1 ~I or less. It is also our understanding that Becton-Dickinson is included in the group of distributors and/or customers for the purposes of document production. Post-Filing Logging of Withheld Documents We indicated that Roche is willing to reach an agreement on the issue. Roche agrees in principle with Nova's proposal that post-filing privileged and work-product documents do not need to be listed on a log of withheld documents. However, Roche will not agree to this proposal unless all of the other defendants are also in agreement with Nova's proposal. Nova appears to be in a better position to address the issue with the other codefendants, and we appreciate any of Nova's efforts in pursuing an agreement with the other codefendants.

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Michael Kahn

Page 2

April 04, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 30 of 73

General Discovery Considerations Nova reiterated its agreement to search for and produce documents that relate to the structure, function, features, operation, and use of the accused products, including any communications with third parties regarding the structure, function, features, operation, or use of the accused devices.
Business Strategy Documents Nova's position is thatthere is a distinction between documents pertaining to an actual product versus documents pertaining to products that were proposed but never marketed. Nova believes that documents related to Nova's strategic decisions that do not also relate to the structure, function, features, operation, or use of an actual product are beyond the scope of Phase I discovery. Roche does not agree with Nova's position on this issue, as it is Roche's position that these documents could contain information relevant to Roche's infringement claims. It appears that the parties have reached an impasse on this issue.

Research & Development and Design-Around Documents Nova contends that these documents are outside the scope of Phase I discovery to the extent thatthe documents do not describe the structure, function, features, operation, or use of an actual product. Again, Roche does not agree with Nova's position, as these documents could contain information relevant to Roche's infringement claims. The parties seem to have reached an impasse on this issue as well.
Licenses and Other Agreements In addition to the documents identified in your letter of April 1, 2008, Roche believes that it is entitled to documents that are related to or concern license and other agreements for at least the reason that they may be related to Nova's trade secret and other counterclaims. It is our understanding that Nova intends to produce information relevant to its trade secret counterclaims, including information regarding the handling of information related to the structure, function, operation, or use of blood glucose sensors that may have been exchanged as part of a licensing or other agreement. We request confirmation that Nova also intends to produce any documents related to the structure, function, features, operation, or use of the products-in-suit that were exchanged pursuant to a licensing or other agreement.

Prior Art Documents Nova intends to produce prior art relating to Nova's claim of prior invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). Roche understands that Nova continues to object to the production of any additional prior art during Phase I. Roche disagrees that prior art relating to Nova's prior invention counterclaim is the only prior art relevant to Phase I. Therefore, this is another issue on which the parties appear to have reached an impasse.

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff UP

Michael Kahn

Page 3

April 04, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 31 of 73

Interrogatories 20-24 We indicated during the conference that absent a date certain by which Nova would identify the information that it considers to be a trade secret, Roche would pursue a motion to compel. Nova proposed, and Roche agreed, that within one week of the first production of Nova's documents (to occur late in the week of March 31 or early in the week of April 7), Nova will provide a supplemental response to these interrogatories, which will contain additional substantive information regarding the alleged trade secrets and/or confidential information, and/or an identification of documents relating to the alleged trade secret and/or confidential information. Interrogatory 3 Nova indicated that Plaintiff's Interrogatory 3 captures information that Nova has already agreed to produce, and that Nova will supplement the interrogatory answer. Interrogatories 15 and 17 It is Roche's position that Interrogatories 15 and 17 call for the identification of the particular documents that Nova relied upon in asserting their claims. Currently, Roche is not requesting a listing of every document in Nova's possession that tends to support Nova's allegations. We understand Nova's position is that the present answers are sufficiently specific, and that Nova intends to supplement the responses as Nova becomes aware of additional information. Roche disagrees that supplementation according to Rule 26(e) is sufficient. Thus, this is another issue on which the parties appear to have reached an impasse. The Second Application In order to ensure that both parties are referring to the same application as the "second application," we indicated that we would like to confirm the identity of the "second application" through the serial number of the application. Roche understands that the "second application" is a U.S. Patent Application with the Serial No. 09/324,443. We would appreciate confirmation that U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/324,443 is indeed the application Nova was referring to as the "second application" in its counterclaims.

Notice of the '146 and '147 Patents, Opinions of Counsel and Product Decision Documents
It is Roche's position that Nova's notice of thepatents-in-suit both before and after issuance is relevant to its infringement claims, including the specific indirect infringement claims that are spelled out in the proposed Amended Complaint. Although not specifically discussed on the call, it is Roche's position that documents reflecting Nova's notice of the patents in

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Michael Kahn

Page 4

April 04, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 32 of 73

suit would include an identification of opinions of counsel, which would reflect dates by which Nova had notice of the patents-in-suit or their underlying applications. Nova has indicated that it would take Roche's position regarding the relevance of notice into consideration. Again, although not necessarily articulated during our call, we also believe that product decision documents are relevant to the scienter issue for inducement and contributory infringement. Please let us know soon whether Nova intends to stand on its objections.
Foreign Counterpart Applications It is Roche's position that statements made during the prosecution of a foreign counterpart application may be relevant at least to issues of claim construction. Nova indicated that it would take Roche's position into consideration. Please let us know soon whether Nova intends to stand on its objections. Response-in-Kind to Discovery Requests Nova inquired whether we are amenable to comply with Nova's discovery requests in a manner similar to Nova's responses to our discovery requests. We indicated that Roche will generally abide bythe agreements made by Nova regarding discovery requests.
Proposed Stipulations: We proposed two stipulations during the teleconference. The first proposed stipulation related to the operation of older meters that can accept the accused strips, and the second stipulation related to the manner in which end-users use the accused products. Nova did notagree to make any stipulations at this time, but is willing to consider and discuss these proposed stipulations.

Proposed Stipulation 1: Certain meters sold prior to October 2, 1997 (i.e., the issue date of the patents-in-suit) can be used with currently sold BD Test Strips and/or NovaMax test strips. Insofar as the patents-in-suit are concerned, such previously sold meters have the same structure, functions, features, and operation as the current NovaMaxTM glucose monitor. Proposed Stipulation 2: Consumer/purchasers use the accused Nova products in the manner described in the owner's manual, product inserts, and other documents supplied by Nova for the accused Nova products.

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Michael Kahn

Page 5

April 04, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 33 of 73

Roche.s Amended Complaint Nova indicated that it has no procedural objections to Roche's filing of its proposed Amended Complaint, although Nova reserves its disagreement with the merits of the Amended Complaint. We thank you for your agreement in this matter.

In the event you would like to hold a follow-up telephone conference, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,

't".....L. 6. F-~b~k.
Paula S. Fritsch, Ph.D. Ph. 3129133315 [email protected]

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff UP

Michael Kahn

Page 6

April 04, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 34 of 73

EXHIBIT H

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 35 of 73

From: Sent: To:

Kahn, Michael P. Wednesday, April 09, 2008 6:05 PM Boehnen, Daniel; Jorjani, Parisa; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; De, Sona; [email protected]; [email protected]; Muino, Daniel P.; Bartlett, Jason R.; [email protected]; [email protected]; Krevans, Rachel; Badke, Bradford J.; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Drutchas, Grantland; Hood, Gary; Keenan, Nicole; Sullivan, Sean; Machonkin, Rick; Fritsch, Paula; Tinsley, Nancy; Brown, Christina; Moran, Eric; Rovner, Philip A.; Oslick, Sherri; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mattioli, Michael R.

Cc:

Subject: RE: Roche v. Abbott et al. -- Document Production Schedule Dan, Like the other defendants, Nova will not agree to shorten the document discovery time period adopted by the Court on February 28, 2008. The January 23, 2008 discovery requests, referenced in your e-mail, sought the production of documents and information relating to damages, willfulness, invalidity and inequitable conduct - topics far beyond the scope of the Court's designation of "Phase 1" discovery. Nova repeatedly has asked Roche to withdraw those requests in light of the Court's guidance and re-serve a more appropriately tailored set. Roche refused to do so. Roche's refusal has led to numerous and on-going meet-and-confer attempts to isolate which requests, if any, call for documents and information that fall within Phase 1. In light of such discussions, it is hard to believe that Roche expects Nova - or any other defendants - not only to have a clear understanding of how Roche is limiting its omnibus requests to call for Phase 1 discovery, but also to search for, process and produce all documents within three weeks of your e-mail. This is inconsistent with our previous discussions and directly contrary to the Court's instructions. Nova will continue to work diligently to search for the documents and information Roche has requested, in accordance with our on-going discussions, and will produce documents on a rolling basis. Nova produced over 27,000 pages of documents earlier this week and will produce additional documents as soon as they are available. Michael

Michael P. Kahn
ROPES & GRAY LLP T 212-596-9186 | F 646-728-2872 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 [email protected] www.ropesgray.com

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 36 of 73

EXHIBIT I

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 37 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 38 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 39 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 40 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 41 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 42 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 43 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 44 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 45 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 46 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 47 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 48 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 49 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 50 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 51 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 52 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 53 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 54 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 55 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 56 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 57 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 58 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 59 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 60 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 61 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 62 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 63 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 64 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 65 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 66 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 67 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 68 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 69 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 70 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 71 of 73

EXHIBIT J

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 72 of 73

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 150-2

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 73 of 73