Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 133-6 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1812
`
`Exhibit F
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:ded
`9/22/23, 4:31 PM
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 133-6 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1813
`Query
`Reports
`Utilities
`Help
`Log Out
`
`Multi-Media Docs,PATENT
`
`U.S. District Court
`District of Delaware (Wilmington)
`CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:19-cv-02103-MN
`
`The United States of America v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al
`Assigned to: Judge Maryellen Noreika
`Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
`
`Date Filed: 11/06/2019
`Jury Demand: Plaintiff
`Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
`Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
`
`Plaintiff
`The United States of America
`
`represented by Lena A. Yueh
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`404-639-7122
`Email: osh6@cdc.gov
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Amanda Katherine Kelly
`DOJ-Civ
`1100 L St. NW
`Ste 8512
`Washington DC, DC 20005
`202-532-5026
`Email: amanda.k.kelly@usdoj.gov
`TERMINATED: 10/05/2022
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Andy J. Miller
`Office of the General Counsel
`U.S. Department of Health and Human
`Services
`233 N. Michigan Avenue
`Suite 700
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 886-3603
`Email: andy.miller@hhs.gov
`TERMINATED: 03/17/2022
`PRO HAC VICE
`
`Carrie Rosato
`DOJ-Civ
`1100 L St. NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-307-0415
`
`https://ecf.ded.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?393298847384307-L_1_0-1
`
`1/66
`
`

`

`CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:ded
`9/22/23, 4:31 PM
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 133-6 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1814
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Shamoor Anis
`(See above for address)
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Sosun Bae
`(See above for address)
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Walter W. Brown
`(See above for address)
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Date Filed
`11/06/2019
`
`11/06/2019
`
`11/06/2019
`
`11/07/2019
`11/13/2019
`
`11/21/2019
`
`11/21/2019
`
`01/10/2020
`
`01/10/2020
`
`01/23/2020
`
`01/23/2020
`
`# Docket Text
`1 COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Gilead Sciences, Inc., and Gilead Sciences
`Ireland UC - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf (Fee waived). - filed by The United States
`of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5, # 2 Exhibit 6, # 3 Exhibit 7-19, # 4 Exhibit
`20-33, # 5 Exhibit 34-61, # 6 Exhibit 62-92, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(myr) (Entered:
`11/07/2019)
`2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (myr)
`(Entered: 11/07/2019)
`3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s)
`U.S. 9,044,509; U.S. 9,579,333; U.S. 9,937,191; U.S. 10,335,423. (myr) Modified on
`11/13/2019 (dlw). (Entered: 11/07/2019)
` No Summons Issued. (myr) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
` Case Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN)
`after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
`4 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by The United States of America: For Gilead
`Sciences Ireland UC waiver sent on 11/13/2019, answer due 1/13/2020. (Brown, Walter)
`(Entered: 11/21/2019)
`5 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by The United States of America: For Gilead
`Sciences, Inc. waiver sent on 11/13/2019, answer due 1/13/2020. (Brown, Walter)
`(Entered: 11/21/2019)
`6 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the
`Complaint to January 23, 2020 - filed by Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, Gilead Sciences,
`Inc.. (Cottrell, Frederick) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
` SO ORDERED re 6 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to move, answer, or otherwise
`respond to the Complaint to January 23, 2020 (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Gilead
`Sciences Ireland UC answer due 1/23/2020; Gilead Sciences, Inc. answer due 1/23/2020).
`ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 1/10/2020. (dlw) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
`7 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, , COUNTERCLAIM against The United States of America by
`Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, Gilead Sciences, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-R)
`(Cottrell, Frederick) (Entered: 01/23/2020)
`8 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Gilead
`Sciences Ireland UC, Gilead Sciences, Inc.. (Cottrell, Frederick) (Entered: 01/23/2020)
`
`https://ecf.ded.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?393298847384307-L_1_0-1
`
`19/66
`
`

`

`CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:ded
`9/22/23, 4:31 PM
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 133-6 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1815
`12/21/2021
`247 ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute motion and
`briefing, (D.I. 227; D.I. 232-33; D.I. 241-42), which involved one dispute raised by
`Defendants and four disputes raised by Plaintiff ("the Government"), having heard
`argument during a teleconference on December 20, 2021 in which the Court resolved
`Defendants' dispute (by GRANTING the requested protective order) and resolved one of
`the four disputes raised by the Government (by GRANTING its request for discovery
`relating to Defendant GSIUC), hereby ORDERS as follows with regard to the
`Government's three remaining disputes: (1) With regard to the request that Defendants
`produce documents responsive to RFP No. 222 (relating to manufacturing costs and other
`factors considered by Gilead in determining the initial price of Truvada in 2004), the
`request is DENIED. The Court's Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of
`Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") (the "Default Standard") sets a presumption
`that discovery from six years or more before the case's filing will not be permitted.
`Default Standard at Section 4(e) ("Absent a showing of good cause, follow-up discovery
`shall be limited to a term of 6 years before the filing of the complaint[.]"). Here, in the
`few sentences of argument on this point in its briefing, (D.I. 232 at 3), the Government
`does not provide enough information to establish the requisite good cause. During the
`teleconference, the Government suggested that good cause was established because it was
`only in 2004, and at no time thereafter, that Defendants had extensive discussions relating
`to the factors contributing to Truvada pricing decisions. However, that assertion is merely
`attorney argument, as there is no record evidence before the Court supporting such a
`conclusion.; (2) With regard to the Government's request that Defendants produce
`documents responsive to RFP No. 263 (relating to meetings of Gilead's Board of
`Directors ("Board") or Executive Committee ("EC") that discussed pricing of Truvada for
`PrEP or Descovy for PreEP or the patents-in-suit from 2007 to present), the request is
`GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. First, to the extent that the Request calls
`for documents from prior to six years before this suit's filing, for reasons set out above,
`the Government has not sufficiently demonstrated why it is entitled to such documents.
`Next, as to documents dating from six years prior to suit and thereafter, the Government
`provided various articulations as to why such documents might be relevant (i.e., that they
`are "crucial to understanding Gilead's decision making as it relates to the pricing and
`sales of the Accused Products for PrEP, Gilead's awareness of the Patents-in-Suit, Gileads
`decision to file IPR petitions on the Patents-in-Suit, and Gilead's decision to file suit in
`the Court of Federal Claims"). (D.I. 232 at 3) But as to all of those issues with the
`exception of pricing, Defendants proffered a declaration indicating that review of an
`exemplary set of such documents indicates that there are not likely to be any or many
`non-privileged responsive materials. (D.I. 242, ex. A at para. 10) That leaves the issue of
`Board/EC meeting documents that relate to pricing; on that front, the Court is not
`prepared for say (as Defendants would like it to) that such documents are necessarily
`irrelevant to damages-related issues, such as the calculation of a reasonable royalty. And
`Defendants do not represent that the Board/EC never received presentations on this topic
`(indeed, it seems reasonable to the Court that they would have). Therefore, as to this RFP,
`the Court ORDERS that Defendants should produce responsive documents regarding
`pricing within the six-year cut off set by the Default Standard, and should do so in a
`reasonable time period.; and (3) Lastly, with regard to the Government's request that
`Defendants perform targeted searches for documents from three additional ESI custodians
`(Daniel O'Day, Dr. Terrance Dahl, and Traci Carrithers), the request is GRANTED-IN-
`PART and DENIED-IN-PART. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Default
`Standard provides that a party must search the ESI of up to 10 custodians, Default
`Standard at Section 3(a) & 5(b), and Defendants have already done so, (D.I. 242 at 2). So
`Plaintiff must show good cause as to why more should be required. As to Mr. O'Day, for
`the reasons the Court expressed on the teleconference, it is skeptical that this witness has
`a significant amount of non-privileged responsive material. Thus, an insufficient showing
`has been made to add him as a custodian at this time. With regard to Dr. Dahl, although
`https://ecf.ded.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?393298847384307-L_1_0-1
`
`40/66
`
`

`

`CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:ded
`9/22/23, 4:31 PM
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 133-6 Filed 09/27/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1816
`the Government suggests that he should be added to the custodial list because Defendants
`rely "extensively" "in [their] invalidity contentions" on a piece of prior art as to which Dr.
`Dahl was the lead inventor, (D.I. 232 at 2), in reality, this reference is "not among the
`obvious combinations in Defendants final invalidity contentions[,]" (D.I. 242 at 3) and it
`is just one of many pieces of prior art referenced in those contentions. Thus, good cause
`has not been shown here either. As to Ms. Carrithers, it is undisputed that she is included
`on very relevant communications regarding, inter alia, certain material transfer
`agreements at issue in this case. (D.I. 232 at 2) Defendants argue that there is nevertheless
`no need to add Ms. Carrithers as a custodian because she was the assistant to one of their
`10 custodians (Dr. Bischofberger), and because it is likely that most or all of the
`responsive documents in her possession would be cumulative of others already produced.
`(D.I. 242 at 3) But Defendants bore the burden to demonstrate the likely accuracy of this
`assertion, and the Court simply does not have the record to conclude that a great deal of
`such relevant documents in Ms. Carrithers' custody would be cumulative. Therefore, it
`ORDERS that documents responsive to RFP No. 221 that are in her custody be produced
`in a reasonable time period.Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/21/2021. (mlc)
`(Entered: 12/21/2021)
`248 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Scott G. Greene - filed by Gilead
`Sciences Ireland UC, Gilead Sciences, Inc.. (Ewing, Alexandra) (Entered: 12/21/2021)
` SO ORDERED re 248 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Scott G.
`Greene filed by Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead Sciences Ireland UC. ORDERED by Judge
`Maryellen Noreika on 12/22/2021. (dlw) (Entered: 12/22/2021)
`249 NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Defendants' Sixth Set of Interrogatories to the United
`States of America and (2) Defendants' Fourth Set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiff
`filed by Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, Gilead Sciences, Inc..(Ewing, Alexandra) (Entered:
`12/22/2021)
`250 REDACTED VERSION of 232 Letter, by The United States of America. (Attachments: #
`1 Exhibit Redacted)(Anis, Shamoor) (Entered: 12/23/2021)
`251 REDACTED VERSION of 241 Letter, by The United States of America. (Attachments: #
`1 Exhibit Redacted)(Anis, Shamoor) (Entered: 12/23/2021)
`252 REDACTED VERSION of 242 Letter by Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, Gilead Sciences,
`Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-T)(Cottrell, Frederick) (Entered: 12/23/2021)
`253 NOTICE of Subpoena to Michael Hitchcock, PhD by The United States of America
`(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 & 2)(Holvey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/27/2021)
` Pro Hac Vice Attorney Scott G. Greene for Gilead Sciences Ireland UC, and Gilead
`Sciences, Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware
`counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers.
`(apk) (Entered: 12/27/2021)
`254 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Sukeethi Seetharaman on January 12, 2022, filed by The
`United States of America.(Holvey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/30/2021)
`255 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Stefania Attard on January 11, 2022, filed by The United
`States of America.(Holvey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/30/2021)
`256 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Melissa Koomey on January 6, 2022, filed by The United
`States of America.(Holvey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/30/2021)
`257 NOTICE of Subpoena to Dana Pizzuti by The United States of America (Attachments: #
`1 Exhibit 1)(Holvey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/30/2021)
`
`12/30/2021
`
`12/30/2021
`
`12/30/2021
`
`12/30/2021
`
`https://ecf.ded.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?393298847384307-L_1_0-1
`
`41/66
`
`12/21/2021
`
`12/22/2021
`
`12/22/2021
`
`12/23/2021
`
`12/23/2021
`
`12/23/2021
`
`12/27/2021
`
`12/27/2021
`
`