386861.1 

Mayra V. Tarantino 

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

August 26, 2013 

Contains Confidential Information 

Filed Under Seal 

VIA ECF 

Honorable Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J. 

United States District Court 

District of New Jersey 

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse 

402 East State Street 

Room 6052 

Trenton, NJ 08608 

Re: AstraZeneca v. Hanmi

 Civil Action No.: 11-760(JAP)(TJB) 

Dear Judge Pisano: 

This firm, along with Sughrue Mion, PLLC, represents the Hanmi Defendants (“Hanmi”) 

in the above-captioned Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action brought by Plaintiffs 

AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hässle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI Inc. and KBI-E Inc. (collectively 

“AstraZeneca”). 

We write concerning a schedule for responding to AstraZeneca’s recent “Motion for 

Injunction Pending Appeal,” including the need for expedited discovery (D.I. 345). 

Unfortunately, despite the parties’ communications by email and by telephone, we are unable to 

agree on the scope of discovery and an appropriate schedule. 

Hanmi respectfully requests an opportunity to conduct focused, expedited discovery in 

order to be able to fairly and fully respond to AstraZeneca’s allegations of irreparable harm and 

related arguments, according to the following schedule: 

 August 30, 2013 -- AstraZeneca completes production of all documents 

responsive to Hanmi’s requests served Friday, August 23, 2013 (see Ex. A, 

Scherling to Renk, with discovery requests)  September 20, 2013 -- Hanmi concludes depositions of AstraZeneca fact and 

30(b)(6) witnesses (see Ex. A)  September 30, 2013 -- Hanmi Opposition and supporting evidence due  October 7, 2013 -- AstraZeneca Reply due 

 Narrowly-focused discovery on matters bearing on injunctive relief not addressed prior to 

the parties’ settlement is necessary for Hanmi to respond to AstraZeneca’s motion. Such focused 

discovery is routinely permitted on motions for injunctive relief. See, e.g., Sawhorse 

Enterprises, Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48155, *11-12 (D.N.J. 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 71 PageID: 16258
Honorable Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J. 

August 26, 2013 

Page 2 

386861.1 

April 3, 2013) (discussing propriety of narrowly-tailored discovery on preliminary injunction 

motions); Nest Int’l, Inc. v. Balzamo, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, *4 (D.N.J. May 3, 2012) (ordering 

discovery on preliminary injunction motion). 

 

 Here, the limited discovery requested by Hanmi is necessary for Hanmi fully to respond 

to and avoid undue prejudice from AstraZeneca’s one-sided allegations of irreparable harm, and 

for the Court to properly address AstraZeneca’s allegations. The expedited schedule requested 

by Hanmi is focused and provides Hanmi with the requisite documents and four separate 

depositions in less than 30 days, thus providing the parties and the Court (and potentially the 

Court of Appeals) with the full and complete record necessary to consider AstraZeneca’s motion. 

However, recent communications with AstraZeneca counsel make clear that AstraZeneca will 

not even provide written responses to Hanmi’s discovery requests until sometime tomorrow and 

that AstraZeneca plans to produce only a fraction of the documents requested, which are 

necessary for an understanding of the complete Nexium® market, now and in the future. 

AstraZeneca takes the narrow and incorrect position that the only possible relevant topic 

to any alleged irreparable harm is the impact of Hanmi’s imminent launch. (See Ex. B, 

Boland/Renk email communications.) However, facts pertaining to the entire Nexium® market 

and how it will play out in the future are critical to a proper assessment of AstraZeneca's claim of 

irreparable harm. Hanmi’s requests seek standard market related information. The addition of 

new market players and timing thereof, including competitors of not just AstraZeneca, but also 

Hanmi, is crucial to properly assess any purported irreparable harm. AstraZeneca’s plans to 

provide only a fractionated market picture and to shield highly pertinent information from Hanmi 

and the Court are improper. Critically, documents relating to the market impact of the generic 

and/or OTC launches in 2014 (see Ex. B) are necessary to demonstrate the impact of those other 

launches – not just Hanmi’s – on AstraZeneca’s business. In other words, without AstraZeneca’s 

documents showing what the market will look like with other products launched in 2014, the 

Court will not be able to properly assess the impact of Hanmi’s launch on AstraZeneca’s 

business and, consequently, to properly assess the alleged irreparable harm to AstraZeneca. 

Accordingly, Hanmi respectfully requests that its proposed schedule be adopted, and the focused 

discovery set forth in Exhibit A be ordered. 

While the merits of the pending Motion will be fully addressed on the schedule set by the 

Court, Hanmi notes that its impending mid-September launch presents no emergency or threat of 

“irreparable harm” – the hallmark of injunctive relief. AstraZeneca cannot meet the 

requirements for obtaining such relief here, whether in the form of a temporary restraining order 

or a preliminary injunction pending appeal. 

Most fundamentally, in the Consent Judgment entered June 3, 2013 (D.I. 338), 

AstraZeneca conceded that the Hanmi Product does not infringe the two patents-in-suit under the 

Court's controlling claim constructions. In terms of likelihood of success on the merits, 

AstraZeneca’s brief merely rehashes its prior claim construction arguments and should not cause 

the Court to seriously rethink its sound constructions, made on a full record, and affirmed on 

reconsideration. No new facts or change in law are presented by AstraZeneca to even remotely 

suggest a basis for success on the merits. 

Likewise, even if arguendo AstraZeneca were successful on appeal in modifying the 

claim constructions, and Hanmi’s esomeprazole strontium were later determined to infringe, 

AstraZeneca faces insurmountable hurdles in proving irreparable harm (as well as in proving that 

the balance of hardships and public interest favor injunctive relief). The extraordinary remedy of 

injunctive relief is unavailable when the purported harm may be redressed through an award of 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 2 of 71 PageID: 16259
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 71 PageID: 16260
EXHIBIT A

(Filed Under Seal)

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 4 of 71 PageID: 16261


LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc.,

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET 

HÄSSLE, ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., 

and KBI-E INC.,

Plaintiffs and 

 Counterclaim Defendants,

v.

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI 

PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., HANMI 

FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD, and HANMI 

HOLDINGS CO., LTD.,

Defendants and

 Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00760-JAP-TJB

Judge Joel A. Pisano

Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 7 of 71 PageID: 16264
1

HANMI’S REQUESTS FOR 

THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS NOS. 1-7 REGARDING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants and 

Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Hanmi USA, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi Fine 

Chemical Co., Ltd, and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd.’s (collectively “Hanmi”) hereby request that 

Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, AstraZeneca LP 

KBI INC., and KBI-E INC. (“AZ” or “Plaintiffs”) produce and/or permit Hanmi to inspect and 

copy each of the documents and things requested in Request Nos. 1-5 below on August 30, 2013. 

DEFINITIONS

Notwithstanding any definition set forth below, each word, term, or phrase used in this 

Request is intended to have the broadest meaning permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Each definition below is intended to apply strictly for the purpose of these Requests, 

and has no bearing on Hanmi’s positions with respect to claim construction or any other issue in 

the case. As used in these Requests, the below terms are to be interpreted in accordance with the 

following definitions:

1. The terms “Hanmi” or “Defendant” means Hanmi USA, Inc., Hanmi 

Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd, and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd., the 

collective defendant group in this action.

2. The term “AZ,” “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiffs,” “you” and/or “your” means 

AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI INC., and KBI-E INC., the 

collective group of plaintiffs in this action, and all predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, 

divisions, parents and/or affiliates thereof, past or present, and all past or present officers, 

directors, agents, employees, consultants, accountants, attorneys, representatives, and any other 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 8 of 71 PageID: 16265
2

person or entity acting on behalf of any of the foregoing.

3. The term “Person” or “Persons” means and includes any natural person, 

corporation, company, proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, association, firm, government 

entity or any other entity recognized in law, and shall include the owners, officers, directors, 

agents, trustees, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, assignees, predecessors, and successors of each 

such “person.” 

4. The phrase “Third Party” means and includes any Person or Persons other than 

AZ and Hanmi.

5. The term “Communication(s)” means the transmittal of information by any 

means, and includes any transfer of information, ideas, opinions, or thoughts by any means, 

written, oral, or otherwise, at any time or place under any circumstances. The definition is not 

limited to transfers between persons but also includes other transfers, such as records and 

memoranda to file; any written letter, memorandum, e-mail or other document which was sent by 

one or more individuals to another or others; any telephone call between one or more individual 

and another or others, whether such call was by chance or prearranged, formal or informal; and 

any conversation or meeting between one or more individuals and another, whether such contact 

was by chance or prearranged, formal or informal.

6. “Document” and “Documents” shall have the broadest meaning ascribed to it by 

Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and mean any writing of any kind, including 

originals and all non-identical copies (whether different from the original by reason of any 

notation made on such copies or otherwise). The terms “Document” and “Document(s)” shall 

include, without limitation, the following items, whether printed or reproduced by any process, 

or written or produced by hand or stored in computer memory, magnetic or hard disk or other 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 9 of 71 PageID: 16266
3

data storage medium, and whether or not claimed to be privileged, confidential or otherwise 

excludable from discovery, namely, notes, letters, correspondence, Communications, e-mails, 

telegrams, memoranda, summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records 

of personal conversations or meetings, diaries, reports, laboratory and research reports and 

notebooks, recorded experiments, charts, plans, drawings, diagrams, schematic diagrams, HDL, 

verilog, or other computer code, illustrations, product descriptions, product analyses, requests for 

proposals, documents related to proposed or actual product improvements or changes, users 

manuals or guides, installation guides or manuals, technical descriptions or specifications, 

product repair manuals or guides, photographs, video image, software flow charts or descriptions 

or specifications, product functional descriptions or specifications, minutes or records of 

meetings, summaries of interviews, reports, or investigations, opinions or reports of consultants, 

reports of patent searches, patent appraisals, opinions of counsel, agreements, reports or 

summaries of negotiations, brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, trade letters, press 

releases, drafts of documents, and all other material fixed in a tangible medium of whatever kind 

known to you or in your possession, custody, or control.

7. The term “concerning” means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing, 

constituting, identifying, mentioning, discussing or analyzing.

8. The terms “Thing” and “Things” mean and include any tangible item other than a 

Document.

9. The term “Patents-in-suit” means the ’504 Patent and the ’192 Patent.

10. The term “Hanmi’s NDA” means the New Drug Application No. 202342 for 

which Hanmi is identified as applicant relating to proposed esomeprazole strontium products (20 

mg, 40 mg).

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 10 of 71 PageID: 16267
4

11. The term “Hanmi Products” mean any of the pharmaceutical composition 

products containing esomeprazole strontium tetrahydrate that are the subject of Hanmi’s NDA, 

and which have been approved by the FDA.

12. The term “AZ’s NDA” means the New Drug Application No. 21153 for which 

AstraZeneca is identified as applicant, and which relates to esomeprazole magnesium trihydrate 

products (20 mg, 40 mg).

13. The term “Esomeprazole” means the (-)-enantiomer of 5-methoxy-2[[(4-

methoxy-3,5-dimethyl-2-pyridinyl)methyl]sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole in any form, including its 

salt forms, whether as a raw material active ingredient, formulated in any way, including into an 

administrable dosage form, or in any other form. 

14. The term “Esomeprazole Magnesium Trihydrate” means the active compound 

present in Nexium® that is represented by the formula:

15. The term “Nexium®” means and includes the esomeprazole magnesium trihydrate 

formulation products sold by AstraZeneca LP under the name Nexium®, as described in 

paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

16. The present tense includes the past and future tenses. The singular includes the 

plural, and the plural includes the singular. “All” means “any and all,” “any” means “any and 

all.” “Including” means “including but not limited to.” “And” and “or” encompass both “and” 

and “or.” Words in the masculine, feminine or neutral form shall include each of the other

genders.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 11 of 71 PageID: 16268
5

INSTRUCTIONS

1. If, in responding to these Requests, AZ encounters any ambiguities when 

construing a request or definition, the response shall set forth the matter deemed ambiguous and 

the construction used in responding.

2. Whenever, in these Requests, AZ is asked to identify or produce a Document 

which is deemed by AZ to be properly withheld from production for inspection or copying:

A. If AZ is withholding a Document under claim of privilege (including, but 

not limited to, the work product doctrine), please provide the information set forth in Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), including the type of Document, the general subject matter of the 

Document, the date of the Document, and such other information as is sufficient to 

identify the Document, including, where appropriate, the author, addressee, custodian, 

and any other recipient of the document, and where not apparent, the relationship of the 

author, addressee, custodian, and any other recipient to each other, in a manner that, 

without revealing the information claimed to be protected, will enable Hanmi to assess 

the applicability of the privilege or protection claimed by AZ;

B. If AZ is withholding the Document for any reason other than an objection 

that it is beyond the scope of discovery or that a request is unduly burdensome, identify 

as to each Document and, in addition to the information requested in ¶2.A, above, state 

the reason for withholding the Document. 

3. When a Document contains both privileged and non-privileged material, the nonprivileged material must be disclosed to the fullest extent possible without thereby disclosing the 

privileged material. If a privilege is asserted with regard to part of the material contained in a 

Document, the party claiming the privilege must clearly indicate the portions as to which the 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 12 of 71 PageID: 16269
6

privilege is claimed. When a Document has been redacted or altered in any fashion, identify as 

to each Document the reason for the redaction or alteration, the date of the redaction or alteration, 

and the person performing the redaction or alteration. Any redaction must be clearly visible on 

the redacted Document.

4. If production of any requested document(s) or thing(s) is objected to on the 

grounds that production is unduly burdensome, describe the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery.

5. These Requests apply to all Documents and Things in the possession, custody or 

control of AZ, or otherwise known or available to AZ, regardless of their location and regardless 

of whether such Documents are held, known by or available to any of AZ’s agents, employees, 

representatives, attorneys, or any other person.

6. If any Documents or Things requested were, but are no longer, in the possession, 

custody or control of AZ, or otherwise known or available to AZ, state what disposition was 

made of them and when. 

7. If any Documents or Things requested have been lost or destroyed, describe in 

detail the circumstances of such loss or destruction and identify each lost or destroyed document 

(and all files that contained such documents).

8. Each Request seeks production of a Document or Thing in its entirety, without 

abbreviation or expurgation, including all attachments, or other matters affixed thereto.

9. All Documents and Things produced by AZ in response to these Requests shall 

include a production number.

10. Pursuant to Rule 34(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, AZ is obligated to 

produce or make available for inspection all documents responsive to these Requests, as those 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 13 of 71 PageID: 16270
7

Documents are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label those Documents 

to correspond with these Requests. 

11. In producing Documents, all Documents which are physically attached to each 

other in any of AZ’s files shall be left so attached. Documents which are segregated or separated 

from other Documents whether by inclusion in binders, files, sub-files, or by use of dividers, tabs, 

or any other method, shall be left so segregated or separated. Documents shall be retained in the 

order in which they were maintained, in the file where found. 

12. If the requested Documents are maintained in a file, the file folder shall be 

included in the response to these requests for production of those documents.

13. Pursuant to Rule 26(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these Requests 

shall be deemed continuing so as to require further and supplemental responses and prompt 

supplemental production if AZ obtains or discovers additional information between the time of 

initial responses and the time of hearing or trial.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 14 of 71 PageID: 16271
8

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. Documents sufficient to show AstraZeneca’s lifecycle management strategies and 

future planning for Nexium® including, but not limited to: (a) financial projections that discuss 

the expected growth rate of sales for Nexium® (in dollars and units); (b) present and expected 

future promotional expenditures for Nexium®; (c) future line extension strategies for Nexium® 

including, but not limited to, introduction of an authorized generic version of Nexium® and/or an 

over-the-counter (OTC) version of Nexium®; and (d) expected reactions of AstraZeneca and 

third parties to competing products or generic versions of Nexium®.

2. Documents evidencing or reflecting expected effects of the introduction of 

Hanmi’s Product, any other 505(b)(2) product, and/or any generic version of Nexium® on the 

U.S. sales or marketing of Nexium® including, but not limited to: (a) formulary placement of 

Nexium®; (b) “step edits” before Nexium® would be eligible for reimbursement; (c) any required 

prior authorization for approval to use Nexium®; (d) “Tier” placement of the Hanmi product, any 

other 505(b)(2) product, and/or any generic version of Nexium®; and/or (e) any impact the 

Hanmi’s Product, any other 505(b)(2) product, and/or any generic version of Nexium® will have 

on the use of Nexium® within managed care plans.

3. All Documents that discuss the projected market share of AstraZeneca’s 

esomeprazole magnesium product that will be achieved by, and projected lost unit sales, lost 

revenue, and lost profits relating to, (a) Hanmi’s Product (either if introduced as a branded or a 

generic product), and (b) Ranbaxy and others’ esomeprazole magnesium products entering in 

2014.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 15 of 71 PageID: 16272
9

4. Documents sufficient to show AstraZeneca’s promotional, marketing and 

discounting/rebate/couponing strategies with respect to Nexium® in anticipation of or in reaction 

to potential generic entry by (a) Hanmi and (b) Ranbaxy and others in 2014, including any such 

discounting/rebate/couponing already underway with respect to Nexium®.

5. Documents, including data in electronic form, sufficient to show by month since 

the introduction of Nexium® in the U.S.: (a) the unit sales and gross revenues received by 

AstraZeneca and/or its affiliates from the sale of Nexium®; (b) corresponding net sales of 

Nexium®, including a summary itemization of each category of discount or rebate that is 

subtracted from gross sales to calculate net sales; (c) cost of goods sold including distribution 

costs; and (d) the resulting gross profits.

6. Documents sufficient to show all settlement agreements (including any 

amendments to these agreements) with other parties who have filed ANDAs for Nexium®, 

including but not limited to Ranbaxy, Teva, Dr. Reddy’s, Sandoz and Lupin.

7. All Documents relating to potential “confusion” among doctors, patients, 

pharmacists, or managed care agents caused by the introduction of Hanmi’s Product.

Date: August 23, 2013 By:

LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 16 of 71 PageID: 16273
10

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Hanmi USA, Inc., 

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi 

Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi 

Holdings Co., Ltd.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 17 of 71 PageID: 16274
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 23, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Requests 

for the Production of Documents and Things Nos. 1-7 to AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hässle, 

AstraZeneca LP KBI INC., and KBI-E INC. was served upon the following counsel via 

electronic mail:

John E. Flaherty, Esq.

MCCARTER & ENGLISH

Four Gateway Center

100 Mulberry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 622-4444

jflaherty@mccarter.com

Henry J. Renk, Esq.

Bruce C. Haas, Esq.

Joshua Rothman, Esq.

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10104-3800

(212) 281-2100

hrenk@fchs.com

bhaas@fchs.com

ctracy@fchs.com

jrothman@fchs.com

Jay I. Alexander, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004-2401

(202) 662-5622

jalexander@cov.com

By: 

Renita S. Rathinam, Esq.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 18 of 71 PageID: 16275
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc.,

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET 

HÄSSLE, ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., 

and KBI-E INC.,

Plaintiffs and 

 Counterclaim Defendants,

v.

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI 

PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., HANMI 

FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD, and HANMI 

HOLDINGS CO., LTD.,

Defendants and 

 Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00760-JAP-TJB

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 19 of 71 PageID: 16276
1

NOTICE FOR THE DEPOSITION OF ASTRAZENECA REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL 

Please take notice that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and 30(b)(6) 

Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Hanmi USA, 

Inc., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively “Hanmi”) 

shall take the deposition of Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, AstraZeneca AB 

(“AstraZeneca”) before an officer authorized to administer oaths by oral examination of 

witnesses designated by Plaintiff to testify on its behalf with respect to the subjects set forth in 

the attached Schedule A commencing at 9:30 am on September 19, 2013 at the offices of 

Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. in Washington D.C. 

Plaintiff is requested to provide Hanmi’s trial counsel, as soon as reasonably possible, a 

written designation of the name(s) and position(s) of the agent(s) or other persons who consent to 

testify on behalf of plaintiff, and, for each person so designated, the matters set forth in 

Schedule A to which the designee will testify.

The deposition will continue from day to day until completed, with such adjournments as 

may be necessary, and may be recorded by stenographic or videographic means. 

DEFINITIONS

The Definitions set forth in Hanmi’s Request for Production (Nos. 1-7) are hereby 

incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth herein. Notwithstanding any definition set forth 

therein, each word, term, or phrase used in these Topics is intended to have the broadest 

meaning permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 20 of 71 PageID: 16277
2

SCHEDULE A

1. The collection of documents in response to Hanmi’s Requests for the Production of 

Documents and Things Nos. 1-7 Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal.

2. AstraZeneca’s lifecycle management strategies and future planning for Nexium®

including: (a) financial projections that discuss the expected growth rate of sales for Nexium®

(in dollars and units); (b) present and expected future promotional expenditures for Nexium®; (c) 

future line extension strategies for Nexium® including, but not limited to, introduction of an 

authorized generic version of Nexium® and/or an over-the-counter (OTC) version of Nexium®; 

and (d) expected reactions of AstraZeneca and third parties to competing products or generic 

versions of Nexium®.

3. Expected effects, and the bases therefor, of the introduction of Hanmi’s Product, any 

other 505(b)(2) product, and/or any generic version of Nexium® on the U.S. sales or marketing 

of Nexium® including: (a) formulary placement of Nexium®; (b) “step edits” before Nexium®

would be eligible for reimbursement; (c) any required prior authorization for approval to use 

Nexium®; (d) “Tier” placement of the Hanmi product, any other 505(b)(2) product, and/or any 

generic version of Nexium®; and/or (e) any impact the Hanmi’s Product, any other 505(b)(2) 

product, and/or any generic version of Nexium® will have on the use of Nexium® within 

managed care plans.

4. The projected market share of AstraZeneca’s esomeprazole magnesium product that will 

be achieved by, and projected lost unit sales, lost revenue, and lost profits relating to, (a) 

Hanmi’s Product (either if introduced as a branded or a generic product), and (b) Ranbaxy and 

others’ esomeprazole magnesium products entering in 2014.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 21 of 71 PageID: 16278
3

5. AstraZeneca’s promotional, marketing and discounting/rebate/couponing strategies with 

respect to Nexium® in anticipation of or in reaction to potential generic entry by (a) Hanmi and

(b) Ranbaxy and others in 2014, including any such discounting/rebate/couponing already 

underway with respect to Nexium®.

6. Since the introduction of Nexium® in the U.S., monthly (a) unit sales and gross revenues 

received by AstraZeneca and/or its affiliates from the sale of Nexium®, (b) corresponding net 

sales of Nexium®, including a summary itemization of each category of discount or rebate that is 

subtracted from gross sales to calculate net sales, (c) cost of goods sold including distribution 

costs, and (d) the resulting gross profits.

7. Settlement agreements (including any amendments to these agreements) with other 

parties who have filed ANDAs for Nexium®, including but not limited to Ranbaxy, Teva, 

Dr. Reddy’s, Sandoz and Lupin.

8. Potential “confusion” among doctors, patients, pharmacists, or managed care agents 

caused by the introduction of Hanmi’s Product.

9. Real world practice by managed care, physicians, pharmacists and patients with respect 

to prescription and substitution of non-AB rated 505(b)(2) products for branded pharmaceuticals.

Date: August 23, 2013 By:

LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 22 of 71 PageID: 16279
4

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Hanmi USA, Inc., 

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi 

Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi 

Holdings Co., Ltd.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 23 of 71 PageID: 16280
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 23, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Notice for the 

Deposition of AstraZeneca Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal was 

served upon the following counsel via electronic mail:

John E. Flaherty, Esq.

MCCARTER & ENGLISH

Four Gateway Center

100 Mulberry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 622-4444

jflaherty@mccarter.com

Henry J. Renk, Esq.

Bruce C. Haas, Esq.

Joshua Rothman, Esq.

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10104-3800

(212) 281-2100

hrenk@fchs.com

bhaas@fchs.com

ctracy@fchs.com

jrothman@fchs.com

Jay I. Alexander, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004-2401

(202) 662-5622

jalexander@cov.com

By: 

Renita S. Rathinam, Esq.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 24 of 71 PageID: 16281
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc.,

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET 

HÄSSLE, ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., 

and KBI-E INC.,

Plaintiffs and 

 Counterclaim Defendants,

v.

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI 

PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., HANMI 

FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD, and HANMI 

HOLDINGS CO., LTD.,

Defendants and

 Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00760-JAP-TJB

Judge Joel A. Pisano

Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF ROBERT MARESCA

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 25 of 71 PageID: 16282
1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Defendants Hanmi USA, 

Inc., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively “Hanmi”) shall 

take the deposition upon oral examination under oath of Robert Maresca, beginning at 9:30 a.m., 

on the 16th day of September, 2013, and continuing from day to day until completed, in the 

offices of Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037, or at 

such other time and place as may be agreed upon by counsel. The deposition will be recorded by 

videographic, stenographic, audio, audiovisual and/or real-time computer means, and is being 

taken for the purposes of discovery, for use at trial, and for such other purposes as permitted 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Date: August 23, 2013 By:

LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 26 of 71 PageID: 16283
2

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Hanmi USA, Inc., 

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi 

Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi 

Holdings Co., Ltd.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 27 of 71 PageID: 16284
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 23, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Notice of 

Deposition of Robert Maresca was served upon the following counsel via electronic mail:

John E. Flaherty, Esq.

MCCARTER & ENGLISH

Four Gateway Center

100 Mulberry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 622-4444

jflaherty@mccarter.com

Henry J. Renk, Esq.

Bruce C. Haas, Esq.

Joshua Rothman, Esq.

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10104-3800

(212) 281-2100

hrenk@fchs.com

bhaas@fchs.com

ctracy@fchs.com

jrothman@fchs.com

Jay I. Alexander, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004-2401

(202) 662-5622

jalexander@cov.com

By: 

Renita S. Rathinam, Esq.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 28 of 71 PageID: 16285
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc.,

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET 

HÄSSLE, ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., 

and KBI-E INC.,

Plaintiffs and 

 Counterclaim Defendants,

v.

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI 

PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., HANMI 

FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD, and HANMI 

HOLDINGS CO., LTD.,

Defendants and

 Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00760-JAP-TJB

Judge Joel A. Pisano

Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF ROBERT P. NAVARRO, PHARM. D.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 29 of 71 PageID: 16286
1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Defendants Hanmi USA, 

Inc., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively “Hanmi”) shall 

take the deposition upon oral examination under oath of Robert P. Vavarro, Pharm. D., 

beginning at 9:30 a.m., on the 17th day of September, 2013, and continuing from day to day until 

completed, in the offices of Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20037, or at such other time and place as may be agreed upon by counsel. The 

deposition will be recorded by videographic, stenographic, audio, audiovisual and/or real-time 

computer means, and is being taken for the purposes of discovery, for use at trial, and for such 

other purposes as permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Date: August 23, 2013 By:

LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 30 of 71 PageID: 16287
2

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Hanmi USA, Inc., 

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi 

Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi 

Holdings Co., Ltd.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 31 of 71 PageID: 16288
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 23, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Notice of 

Deposition of Robert P. Vavarro, Pharm. D. was served upon the following counsel via 

electronic mail:

John E. Flaherty, Esq.

MCCARTER & ENGLISH

Four Gateway Center

100 Mulberry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 622-4444

jflaherty@mccarter.com

Henry J. Renk, Esq.

Bruce C. Haas, Esq.

Joshua Rothman, Esq.

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10104-3800

(212) 281-2100

hrenk@fchs.com

bhaas@fchs.com

ctracy@fchs.com

jrothman@fchs.com

Jay I. Alexander, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004-2401

(202) 662-5622

jalexander@cov.com

By: 

Renita S. Rathinam, Esq.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 32 of 71 PageID: 16289
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc.,

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET 

HÄSSLE, ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., 

and KBI-E INC.,

Plaintiffs and 

 Counterclaim Defendants,

v.

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI 

PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., HANMI 

FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD, and HANMI 

HOLDINGS CO., LTD.,

Defendants and

 Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00760-JAP-TJB

Judge Joel A. Pisano

Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 

NIMISH VAKIL, M.D. AGAF, FACG, FACGE

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 33 of 71 PageID: 16290
1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Defendants Hanmi USA, 

Inc., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively “Hanmi”) shall 

take the deposition upon oral examination under oath of Nimish Vakil, M.D. AGAF, FACG, 

FACGE, beginning at 9:30 a.m., on the 18th day of September, 2013, and continuing from day to 

day until completed, in the offices of Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20037, or at such other time and place as may be agreed upon by counsel. The 

deposition will be recorded by videographic, stenographic, audio, audiovisual and/or real-time 

computer means, and is being taken for the purposes of discovery, for use at trial, and for such 

other purposes as permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Date: August 23, 2013 By:

LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC

Allyn Z. Lite

Mayra V. Tarantino

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Telephone: (973) 623-3000

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872

alite@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Mark Boland

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Renita S. Rathinam

2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037-3213

Telephone: (202) 293-706

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwoncyzk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 34 of 71 PageID: 16291
2

John B. Scherling

4250 Executive Square

Suite 900

La Jolla, CA 92037

Telephone: (858) 795-1180

Facsimile: (858) 795-1199

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Hanmi USA, Inc., 

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi 

Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi 

Holdings Co., Ltd.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 35 of 71 PageID: 16292
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 23, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Notice of 

Deposition of Nimish Vakil, M.D. AGAF, FACG, FACGE was served upon the following 

counsel via electronic mail:

John E. Flaherty, Esq.

MCCARTER & ENGLISH

Four Gateway Center

100 Mulberry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 622-4444

jflaherty@mccarter.com

Henry J. Renk, Esq.

Bruce C. Haas, Esq.

Joshua Rothman, Esq.

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10104-3800

(212) 281-2100

hrenk@fchs.com

bhaas@fchs.com

ctracy@fchs.com

jrothman@fchs.com

Jay I. Alexander, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004-2401

(202) 662-5622

jalexander@cov.com

By: 

Renita S. Rathinam, Esq.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 36 of 71 PageID: 16293
EXHIBIT B

(Filed Under Seal)

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 37 of 71 PageID: 16294
From: Boland, Mark

To: hrenk@fchs.com

Cc: Scherling, John B.; bhaas@fchs.com; jrothman@fchs.com; pchen@fchs.com; mfurrow@fchs.com;

jflaherty@mccarter.com; Patel, Ravin; estole@cov.com; jalexander@cov.com; Dzwonczyk, Michael R.;

Rathinam, Renita S.; mtarantino@litedepalma.com; alite@litedepalma.com; Jacobs, Blair; Yoo, Ri; Rozos,Rick

Subject: RE: AZ v. Hanmi

Date: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:32:14 PM

Henry, 

Thank you for your email. As we have discussed previously, we need all of the requested documents in

advance of the noticed depositions. Whereas we propounded the document requests shortly after the

filing of your motion last week, it appears (1) that you are refusing to produce many of the documents

we requested, and (2) your delay in even giving us specific grounds of objection until tomorrow -- 5

days after receiving our requests -- leaves us no choice but to seek immediate relief from the Court

regarding discovery and the schedule.

Your position that "to the extent [our] discovery requests go beyond the impact on AstraZeneca's

Nexium business of Hanmi's threatened imminent launch (e.g., by seeking discovery on the impact on

that business by generic launches in mid-2014), they plainly seek totally irrelevant information" is

baseless. Facts pertaining to the entire Nexium® market and how it will play out in the future are

critical to a proper assessment of AstraZeneca's claim of irreparable harm. You know very well that our

requests seek standard market based information in this regard. In contrast to your narrow views, the

addition of new market players and timing thereof, including competitors of not just AstraZeneca, but

also Hanmi is crucial to properly assess any purported irreparable harm. Your plans to provide only a

fractionated market picture and to shield highly pertinent information from us and the Court are

improper. We are entitled to full discovery on the irreparable harm alleged by AstraZeneca, as well as

each of the related assertions by your PI declarants.

As it appears that we are at an impasse regarding both the discovery and the schedule we have

proposed, we will proceed with seeking the Court's assistance.

Mark

-----Original Message-----

From: Renk,Henry [mailto:HRenk@fchs.com]

Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 10:55 AM

To: Boland, Mark

Cc: Scherling, John B.; bhaas@fchs.com; jrothman@fchs.com; pchen@fchs.com; mfurrow@fchs.com;

jflaherty@mccarter.com; Patel, Ravin; estole@cov.com; jalexander@cov.com; Dzwonczyk, Michael R.;

Rathinam, Renita S.; mtarantino@litedepalma.com; alite@litedepalma.com; Jacobs, Blair; Yoo, Ri;

Rozos,Rick

Subject: RE: AZ v. Hanmi

Mark:

We hope to produce all relevant responsive documents by tomorrow, along with written responses to

both Hanmi's document requests and its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. As I specifically told you

yesterday, to the extent your discovery requests go beyond the impact on AstraZeneca's Nexium

business of Hanmi's threatened imminent launch (e.g., by seeking discovery on the impact on that

business by generic launches in mid-2014), they plainly seek totally irrelevant information. In essence,

this will be AstraZeneca's response to Hanmi's discovery requests. Your unsupported assertion of

relevance is misplaced.

Under the circumstances, 

we again ask Hanmi to begin its depositions on the dates we offered yesterday. If you refuse, or

continue to insist on a schedule which delays resolution of the injunction motion, we will seek a

conference with Judge Pisano on Wednesday.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 38 of 71 PageID: 16295
Henry

Henry J. Renk

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10104-3800

T 212-218-2250

F 212-218-2200

HRenk@fchs.com

http://www.fitzpatrickcella.com

-----Original Message-----

From: Boland, Mark [mailto:mboland@sughrue.com]

Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 9:16 PM

To: Renk,Henry; Renk,Henry

Cc: Scherling, John B.; Haas, Bruce; Rothman,Joshua; Chen, Patrick L.; Furrow, Michael;

jflaherty@mccarter.com; Patel, Ravin; estole@cov.com; jalexander@cov.com; Dzwonczyk, Michael R.;

Rathinam, Renita S.; mtarantino@litedepalma.com; alite@litedepalma.com; Jacobs, Blair; Yoo, Ri

Subject: RE: AZ v. Hanmi

Henry, Thanks, but:

 1) Without a commitment that the complete set of documents we requested will be produced by a

date certain -- all of which are relevant and a production date you fail to provide -- and giving us an

opportunity to review and process, your proposed deposition dates fall precisely into the prejudice arena

we previously advised.

 2) If you actually have specific objections to any discovery requests we made (within 48 hours of

receiving your papers and lengthy declarations), please advise so that the parties can address the areas

that can't be resolved without going to the Court. Your vague emails are not sufficient. We're prepared

to go before the Court this week as to any specific objections to our document requests and 30(b)(6)

categories, but obviously such issues should be addressed before depositions to avoid recall and delay.

 3) All of this shows that the deposition dates you are proposing -- especially this coming week --

are not fair or workable and thus highly prejudicial. However, with significant movement on your part

to get us all the relevant documents without objection we will be in a position to move forward quickly,

as per our prior correspondence.

Mark

-----Original Message-----

From: Renk,Henry [mailto:HRenk@fchs.com]

Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 8:00 PM

To: hrenk@fchs.com

Cc: Boland, Mark; Scherling, John B.; bhaas@fchs.com; jrothman@fchs.com; pchen@fchs.com;

mfurrow@fchs.com; jflaherty@mccarter.com; Patel, Ravin; estole@cov.com; jalexander@cov.com;

Dzwonczyk, Michael R.; Rathinam, Renita S.; mtarantino@litedepalma.com; alite@litedepalma.com;

Jacobs, Blair; Yoo, Ri

Subject: Re: AZ v. Hanmi

Mark: Dr. Vakil could be available for deposition as early as the afternoon of August 30 in Milwaukee, or

in Washington, DC on Saturday, August 31, or in Milwaukee on September 3, morning. Dr. Navarro's

deposition could be on September 3 or 4. We will advise tomorrow about Mr. Maresca.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 25, 2013, at 5:33 PM, "Renk,Henry" <HRenk@fchs.com> wrote:

> Mark: as I told you on Friday, we will endeavor to complete document production as early as possible

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 39 of 71 PageID: 16296
this week. We note that your document requests seek totally irrelevant documents, such as

AstraZeneca's plans to respond to a generic launch next May-June. The only possible relevant topic is

the impact of Hanmi's imminent launch. We are collecting such documents.

>

> moreover, you will need to start your depositions, and file your opposition, much sooner than your

proposed schedule allows. Since Hanmi apparently refuses to even 

>

> We'll talk further tomorrow.

>

> Henry

>

> Sent from my iPad

>

> On Aug 25, 2013, at 5:10 PM, "Boland, Mark" <mboland@sughrue.com> wrote:

>

>> Henry:

>>

>> Further to our discussion on Friday afternoon, we have yet to hear

>> back from you regarding a specific response to our proposed PI

>> schedule. We did take another look at our proposal, and if you can

>> advance the document production completion date to sooner than Aug.

>> 30th, we would be reasonable in attempting to move up certain other

>> dates. However, we will need time to review the documents, discuss

>> with experts as appropriate and prepare for depositions, which our

>> schedule provides. If your proposal would not permit us to fairly

>> complete the discovery needed to respond, it would obviously be

>> highly prejudicial.

>>

>> In any case, if we do not have an agreed schedule by Monday mid-day

>> (and if we don't receive something from you soon we won't have an

>> ability to discuss it with Hanmi), we'll plan to arrange an

>> immediate call with Judge Pisano. 

>>

>> Mark

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: Scherling, John B.

>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 4:07 PM

>> To: hrenk@fchs.com

>> Cc: bhaas@fchs.com; jrothman@fchs.com; pchen@fchs.com;

>> mfurrow@fchs.com; jflaherty@mccarter.com; Patel, Ravin;

>> estole@cov.com; jalexander@cov.com; Boland, Mark; Dzwonczyk, Michael

>> R.; Rathinam, Renita S.; mtarantino@litedepalma.com;

>> alite@litedepalma.com; Jacobs, Blair; Yoo, Ri

>> Subject: RE: AZ v. Hanmi

>>

>> Henry-

 as Mark has

>> previously advised. We will be in touch with you shortly to meet

>> and confer, and then to set up a call with Judge Pisano for early

>> next week assuming we will not reach agreement. John

>>

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: Renk,Henry [mailto:HRenk@fchs.com]

>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 11:57 AM

>> To: Yoo, Ri

>> Cc: bhaas@fchs.com; jrothman@fchs.com; pchen@fchs.com;

>> mfurrow@fchs.com; jflaherty@mccarter.com; Patel, Ravin;

>> estole@cov.com; jalexander@cov.com; Boland, Mark; Dzwonczyk, Michael

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 40 of 71 PageID: 16297
>> R.; Rathinam, Renita S.; Scherling, John B.;

>> mtarantino@litedepalma.com; alite@litedepalma.com; Jacobs, Blair

>> Subject: Re: AZ v. Hanmi

>>

>> John: I have not had an opportunity to discuss your letter with all concerned, but my own reaction

is that your proposed schedule is impossible unless Hanmi will agree to postpone its launch until the

Court decides the matter. Will Hanmi so agree? let me know immediately.

>>

>> Henry

>>

>> Sent from my iPad

>>

>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:57 PM, "Yoo, Ri" <ryoo@sughrue.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Dear Counsel:

>>>

>>> Please see attached.

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> Ri

>>> <2013-08-23 Scherling to Renk.pdf>

>>> <Hanmi Requests for the Production of Documents and Things Nos. 1-7

>>> Re Motion for Injunction.pdf> <Notice for the Deposition of

>>> AstraZeneca Re Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal.pdf> <Notice of

>>> Deposition of Robert Maresca.pdf> <Notice of Deposition of Robert

>>> Navarro.pdf> <Notice of Deposition of Nimish Vakil.pdf>

>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

>> ------ This email message and any attachments are intended for the

>> use of the addressee(s) indicated above. Information that is privileged or otherwise confidential may

be contained therein. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any

dissemination, review or use of this message, documents or information contained therein is strictly

prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete it and notify us by

telephone at (212) 218-2100. Thank you.

>>

>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email message and any attachments are intended for the use of

the addressee(s) indicated above. Information that is privileged or

otherwise confidential may be contained therein. If you are not the

intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any

dissemination, review or use of this message, documents or

information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this message in error, please immediately delete it and

notify us by telephone at (212) 218-2100. Thank you.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 41 of 71 PageID: 16298
EXHIBIT C

(Filed Under Seal)

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 42 of 71 PageID: 16299
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 43 of 71 PageID: 16300
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 44 of 71 PageID: 16301
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 45 of 71 PageID: 16302
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 46 of 71 PageID: 16303
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 47 of 71 PageID: 16304
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 48 of 71 PageID: 16305
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 49 of 71 PageID: 16306
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 50 of 71 PageID: 16307
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 51 of 71 PageID: 16308
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 52 of 71 PageID: 16309
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 53 of 71 PageID: 16310
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 54 of 71 PageID: 16311
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 55 of 71 PageID: 16312
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 56 of 71 PageID: 16313
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 57 of 71 PageID: 16314
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 58 of 71 PageID: 16315
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 59 of 71 PageID: 16316
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 60 of 71 PageID: 16317
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 61 of 71 PageID: 16318
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 62 of 71 PageID: 16319
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 63 of 71 PageID: 16320
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 64 of 71 PageID: 16321
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 65 of 71 PageID: 16322
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 66 of 71 PageID: 16323

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 68 of 71 PageID: 16325
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 69 of 71 PageID: 16326
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 70 of 71 PageID: 16327
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 388 Filed 12/06/13 Page 71 of 71 PageID: 16328