Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13468
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 11 PagelD #: 13468
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 13469
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 11 PagelD #: 13469
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION
`and GENEVANT SCIENCES GmbH,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Vv.
`
`) C.A. No. 22-252-MSG
`
`MODERNA,INC. and MODERNATX, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`) HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL —
`) OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`)
`
`PLAINTIFF GENEVANT SCIENCES GMBB’S FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS MODERNA,INC.
`AND MODERNATKX,INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES(NO.1)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the applicable
`
`Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Plaintiff Genevant Sciences
`
`GmbH (“Genevant’), by undersigned counsel, hereby objects and responds as follows to
`
`Defendants Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTX Inc.’s (collectively, “Moderna”or “Defendants”’)First
`
`Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1—7).
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS & OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
`
`Genevant
`
`incorporates in their entirety the General Objections and Objections to
`
`Definitions provided in Plaintiffs’ Responses and Objections to Defendants Moderna, Inc. and
`
`ModernaTX Inc.’s First Requests for Production. These objections form a part of, and are hereby
`
`incorporated into, the response to each and every Interrogatory set forth below. Nothing in those
`
`responses,
`
`including any failure to recite a specific objection in response to a particular
`
`Interrogatory, should be construed as a waiver of any of these General Objections and Objections
`
`to Definitions.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 13470
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 11 PagelD #: 13470
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`Genevant incorporates in their entirety the Definitions provided in Plaintiffs’ Responses
`
`and Objections to Defendants Moderna,Inc. and ModernaTX Inc.’s First Requests for Production.
`
`These definitions form a part of, and are hereby incorporated into, the response to each and every
`
`Interrogatory set forth below.
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.1
`
`facts and
`For each Asserted Claim of the Patents-in-Suit, describe in detail all
`circumstances relating to conception and reduction to practice, including the Dates and locations
`of conception and reduction to practice, both actual and constructive, and any alleged diligence
`from conception to reduction to practice, Identify all Persons knowledgeable of such conception,
`diligence, and/or reduction to practice and the subject matter of each Person’s knowledge and the
`nature of each such Person’s participation and/or contribution, and Identify all Documents and
`Things by production number relating or referring to any such conception, diligence, and/or
`reduction to practice.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO.1
`
`Genevant incorporates its General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Genevant
`
`objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`disproportionate to the needs of the case, to the extent it requests “all facts and circumstances”
`
`relating to, and “all Persons knowledgeable of,” the subject of this Interrogatory. Genevant further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as containing numerous subparts representing discrete requests.
`
`Genevantfurther objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including insofaras it seeks
`
`information on Persons “knowledgeable of such conception, diligence, and/or reduction to
`39 66.
`
`practice,”
`
`“the subject matter of each Person’s knowledge,” and “the nature of each such Person’s
`
`participation and/or contribution.” Genevant further objects to this Interrogatory as premature to
`
`the extent it implicates the interpretation of the asserted claimsprior to the Court’s entry of a claim
`
`construction order. Genevant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 13471
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 11 PagelD #: 13471
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`
`analysis or a legal conclusion concerning the asserted claims and/or what constitutes “diligence”
`
`or “conception or reduction to practice, both actual or constructive” of the subject matter of each
`
`asserted claim. Genevant further objects to this Interrogatory on the groundsthat it is overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case including because it seeks
`
`information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, including information relating to
`
`obviousness defenses to the Molar Ratio Patents, which Defendants are estopped from presenting
`
`in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). Genevant further objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent that Plaintiffs do not bear the burden of production or proof regarding validity. Genevant
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as premature, as Defendants havenotyet identified any alleged
`
`priorart related to the Patents-in- Suit. Genevant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
`
`it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work
`
`product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and General Objections, Genevant
`
`provides the following response in view ofits ongoing investigation:
`
`Genevant identifies Ian MacLachlan, Lloyd Jeffs, and Lorne Palmer as individuals with
`
`knowledge regarding the conception and reduction to practice of the inventions recited in the
`
`asserted claims of the ’651 patent. Genevant furtheridentifies the late Cory Giesbrecht as a named
`
`inventor of the ’651 patent. Genevantfurther identifies Edward Yaworski, Kieu Lam, LloydJeffs,
`
`Lorne Palmer, and Ian MacLachlan as individuals with knowledge regarding the conception and
`
`reduction to practice of the inventions recited in the asserted claims of the Molar Ratio Patents.
`
`In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiffs will produce non-
`
`privileged documents in response to this Interrogatory that are within Plaintiffs’ possession,
`
`custody, or control that can be located after a reasonably diligent search, including the Molar Ratio
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 13472
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 5 of 11 PagelD #: 13472
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`
`Research and Development Documents, the ’651 Research and Development Documents, and the
`
`Patent Prosecution Documents; the burden of ascertaining the answerto this Interrogatory from
`
`these documentsis substantially the same for Defendants asit is for Genevant.
`
`Genevantreserves the right to supplementthis response in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 26(e)(1).
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO.1 (5/5/2023)
`
`Genevantincorporates by referenceits prior objectionsto this Interrogatory. Subject to the
`
`General Objections and the specific objections to this Interrogatory, Genevant further responds:
`
`Theasserted claims ofU.S. Patent No. 8,058,069 were conceived of and reducedto practice
`
`no later than April 15, 2008, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/045,228. See,
`
`e.g., GENV-00012721
`
`Theasserted claims ofU.S. Patent No. 8,492,359 were conceived of and reducedto practice
`
`no later than April 15, 2008, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/045,228. See,
`
`e.g., GENV-00012721
`
`Theasserted claims ofU.S. Patent No. 8,822,668 were conceived of and reducedto practice
`
`no later than April 15, 2008, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/045,228. See,
`
`e.g., GENV-00012721
`
`Theasserted claims ofU.S. Patent No. 9,364,435 were conceived of and reducedto practice
`
`no later than April 15, 2008, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/045,228. See,
`
`e.g., GENV-00012721
`
`Theasserted claims ofU.S. Patent No. 9,504,651 were conceived of and reducedto practice
`
`no later than June 28, 2002, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/392,887. See,
`
`e.g., GENV-00012843
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 13473
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 6 of 11 PagelD #: 13473
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`
`The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,141,378 were conceived of and reduced to
`
`practice no later than April 15, 2008,
`
`the filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`61/045,228. See, e.g, GENV-00012721
`
`Genevant’s investigation is ongoing, and Genevant reserves the right to supplementthis
`
`response in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO.1 (10/27/2023)
`
`Genevantincorporates by referenceits prior objectionsto this Interrogatory. Subject to the
`
`General Objections and the specific objections to this Interrogatory, Genevant further responds:
`
`A.
`
`The ’069, °359, ’668, °435, and °378 Patents
`
`Claims1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`(“the ’069 patent”); claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,492,359 (“the °359 patent”); claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,822,668 (“the ’668 patent”); claims7, 8, 10, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435 (‘the ’435
`
`patent”); and claims1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 24, 25, 26, and 27 ofU.S. Patent No. 11,141,378
`
`(“the ’378 patent”) were conceived of on or around October 24, 2006, and thereafter diligently
`
`reduced to practice on or around November 14, 2006; alternatively, the foregoing claims were
`
`conceived of and/or reduced to practice on or around November30, 2006, or on or around January
`
`18, 2007, or on or around February 22, 2007, or on or around March8, 2007, or on or around May
`
`3, 2007, based on the activities of one or more of the named inventors in connection with Plaintiffs’
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 13474
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 7 of 11 PagelD #: 13474
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`
`efforts (and/or the efforts of Plaintiffs’ predecessors) to[x
`
`HE during the course of which the inventors developed one or more formulations within
`
`the scope of the claims. For instance, nucleic acid andlipid particles prepared from a formulation
`
`comprising a cationic lipid, a phospholipid, cholesterol or a derivative thereof, and a conjugated
`
`lipid that inhibits aggregation ofthe particles in a molar ratio (PEG:DLinDMA:DPPC:Cholesterol)
`
`of 1:57:7:34 were conceived of by one or more of the named inventors on or around October 24,
`
`2006. See, e.g., GENV-00063813; GENV-00063770; GENV-00063808. [iE
`
`Alternatively, the asserted claims of the ’069 patent, ’359 patent, ’668 patent, ’435 patent,
`
`and 378 patent were constructively reduced to practice on April 15, 2008, the filing date of U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/045,228, and no later than April 15, 2009, the filing date of U.S.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 13475
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 8 of 11 PagelD #: 13475
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`
`Application No. 12,424,367. See, e.g., GENV-00000001; GENV-00000074; GENV-00000148;
`
`GENV-00000223; GENV-00000327; GENV-00000404; GENV-00003978; GENV-00005270;
`
`GENV-00006295; GENV-00011655.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), further information responsive to this
`
`Interrogatory may be determined from documents that Plaintiffs have produced, or will produce,
`
`and the burden ascertaining this information is substantially the same for Modernaasit is for
`
`Plaintiffs. See, e.g., GENV-00049551; GENV-00049551; GENV-00057931; GENV-00055290;
`
`GENV-00057846; GENV-00058048; GENV-00063773; GENV-00057995; GENV-00055246;
`
`GENV-00057783; GENV-00055226; GENV-00055246; GENV-00057595; GENV-00057719;
`
`GENV-00046202; GENV-00047910; GENV-00012329; GENV-00049551; GENV-00012523;
`
`GENV-00049929; GENV-00064181; GENV-00050127; GENV-00065855; GENV-00064500;
`
`GENV-00064376; GENV-00064695; GENV-00065082; GENV-00065661; GENV-00064889;
`
`GENV-00065276; GENV-00064500; GENV-00065466; GENV-00040486; GENV-00040960;
`
`GENV-00040404; GENV-00040725; GENV-00040654; GENV-00040550; GENV-00040909;
`
`GENV-00040913; GENV-00040858; GENV-00040851; GENV-00040800; GENV-00040812;
`
`GENV-00040747; GENV-00040753; GENV-00040787; GENV-00040507; GENV-00041052;
`
`GENV-00064175; GENV-00064165; GENV-00064155; GENV-00064150; GENV-00064143;
`
`GENV-00064172; GENV-00063813; GENV-00063770; GENV-00063808.
`
`Genevant’s investigation is ongoing, and Genevant reserves the right to supplementthis
`
`response in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).
`
`B.
`
`The ’651 Patent
`
`In light of Moderna’s contentions to date, which Plaintiffs have relied upon, Plaintiffs do
`
`not at this time intend to assert a date of conception or reduction to practice with respect to the
`
`asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,504,651 (“the 651 patent”) earlier than June 28, 2002, the
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 13476
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 9 of 11 PagelD #: 13476
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`
`filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/392,887, which constitutes a constructive
`
`reduction to practice of the claimed invention. See, e.g., GENV-00012843. Pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), further information responsive to this Interrogatory may be
`
`determined from documents that Plaintiffs have produced, or will produce, and the burden
`
`ascertaining this information is substantially the same for Modernaasit is for Plaintiffs. See, e.g.,
`
`GENV-00063810; GENV-00064129; GENV-00041164; GENV-00041253; GENV-00013164;
`
`GENV-00013268; GENV-00016730; GENV-00016929; GENV-00017128; GENV-00017328;
`
`GENV-00017527; GENV-00017725; GENV-00017922; GENV-00018122; GENV-00018320;
`
`GENV-00018519; GENV-00018918; GENV-00019115; GENV-00019313; GENV-00019511;
`
`GENV-00019904; GENV-00020302; GENV-00020510; GENV-00064127; GENV-00064128;
`
`GENV-00055789; GENV-00055791; GENV-00064125; GENV-00055787; GENV-00055793;
`
`GENV-00055794; GENV-00058506; GENV-00055768; GENV-00055772; GENV-00055770;
`
`GENV-000055777; GENV-00055774; GENV-00055785; GENV-00055783; GENV-00055780;
`
`GENV-00055651; GENV-00055748; GENV-00055745; GENV-00055738; GENV-00055668;
`
`GENV-00055664; GENV-00055751; GENV-00055708; GENV-00055738; GENV-00055659;
`
`GENV-00055679; GENV-00055715; GENV-00055708; GENV-00055731; GENV-00055734;
`
`GENV-00055727; GENV-00055763; GENV-00055759; GENV-00055698; GENV-00055695;
`
`GENV-00055693; GENV-00055683; GENV-00055700; GENV-00055705; GENV-00055702;
`
`GENV-00055760; GENV-00055756; GENV-00055639; GENV-00055637; GENV-00055631;
`
`GENV-00055669; GENV-00055675; GENV-00055626; GENV-00055622; GENV-00055617;
`
`GENV-00055647; GENV-00055643; GENV-00055741; GENV-00055712; GENV-00055724;
`
`GENV-00055720; GENV-00055717; GENV-00055682; GENV-00055715; GENV-00055692;
`
`GENV-00056153; GENV-00057590; GENV-00057795; GENV-00057807; GENV-00057808;
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 13477
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 10 of 11 PagelD #: 13477
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY
`
`GENV-00064137; GENV-00064140; GENV-00064142; GENV-00064133; GENV-00064136;
`
`GENV-00064141; GENV-00063816.
`
`Genevant’s investigation is ongoing, and Genevant reserves the right to supplementthis
`
`response in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Nathan R. Hoeschen
`John W. Shaw (No.3362)
`Karen E.Keller (No. 4489)
`Nathan R. Hoeschen (No. 6232)
`Emily S. DiBenedetto (No. 6779)
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`I.M.Pei Building
`1105 North MarketStreet, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 298-0700
`jshaw@shawkeller.com
`kkeller@shawkeller.com
`nhoeschen@shawkeller.com
`edibenedetto@shawkeller.com
`Attorneysfor Plaintiff Genevant
`Sciences GmbH
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`David I. Berl
`Adam D. Harber
`ThomasS. Fletcher
`Shaun P. Mahaffy
`Jessica Palmer Ryen
`Anthony H. Sheh
`Jihad J. Komis
`Philip N. Haunschild
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue S.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`(202) 434-5000
`
`Dated: October 27, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 13478
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 195-14 Filed 01/16/24 Page 11 of 11 PagelD #: 13478
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Nathan R. Hoeschen, hereby certify that on October 27, 2023, this document was
`
`served on the personslisted below in the mannerindicated:
`
`BY EMAIL:
`Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Brian P. Egan
`Morris, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jolumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`began@morrisnichols.com
`
`James F. Hurst
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`(312) 862-2000
`james.hurst@kirkland.com
`
`Alina Afinogenova
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 385-7500
`alina.afinogenova@kirkland.com
`
`Patricia A. Carson, Ph.D.
`Jeanna M. Wacker
`Mark C. McLennan
`Nancy Kaye Horstman
`Shaoyao Yu
`Caitlin Dean
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 446-4800
`patricia.carson@kirkland.com
`jeanna.wacker@kirkland.com
`mark.mclennan@kirkland.com
`kaye.horstman@kirkland.com
`shaoyao.yu@kirkland.com
`caitlin.dean@kirkland.com
`
`Yan-Xin Li
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 439-1400
`yanxin.li@kirkland.com
`
`/s/ Nathan R. Hoeschen
`John W. Shaw (No. 3362)
`Karen E.Keller (No. 4489)
`Nathan R. Hoeschen (No. 6232)
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`IM.Pei Building
`1105 North MarketStreet, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 298-0700
`jshaw@shawkeller.com
`kkeller@shawkeller.com
`nhoeschen@shawkeller.com
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
`
`10
`
`