Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 19484
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`Original filing date: May 17, 2024
`Redacted filing date: May 20, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 19485
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 15 PagelD #: 19485
`
`Yan-Xin Li
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 439-1400
`
`Alina Afinogenova
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`200 ClarendonStreet
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 385-7500
`
`May 17, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 19486
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 15 PagelD #: 19486
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Tintroduction............scsccsscccscessccesscssccsesccenccesecsencsesscssancescesscessccesscsenccenecseansusacessseranersesenees 1
`
`Legal Stamdard...........cccccsccccssccscscscscsesescccccccscnescseserenccccsccosssenesesenerscccsecenesesenesenenesscccsecener2
`
`TIT.«—-_—Argument 20.....ecssscsssccrcscscssscsessecssssencssccsessccscssncescncsessccssssccssssasescncsesscssssasssssasescncsessncsesees2
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ........ccccscscsescccscscccccsscscscconsscsenencvecesseconscosenencceconenscccccnenceseconevocccccncscsesssocososesecees 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 19487
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 4 of 15 PagelD #: 19487
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Inre Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019)... ee eececcsscesceseeeseeeseseseeceeeeeaecssesseeeecseeeseeeesaessaeaaeseaeseeeaseaes2,3
`
`Bank ofAm. Nat’l Tr. & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs.,
`800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986)... cee eecsecsseeseseseceseeecceeescecseeeaeeseceseeeseecessessaesseeeaeseaeeseenaseeeeeaes2
`
`In re Cendant Corp.,
`260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001)... eee cccccsesceseesseeeeseeseeecseessceseeeseesaeseeeaesseeeeeseeeeaeeeaeeeeeaessaeees2
`
`Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Med., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-1616-LPS-CJB, D.I. 447 (D. Del. Jun. 16, 2020)... eee eeeeeseeeseeceeeeeeeeeeeaeeees 6
`
`Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc.,
`998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993)... eee esesecsseeseeseeesecesesesceeaeeeecenecseesaeeseecseeesesseeeaessaeaaeseaesseeeaseeneeaes 7
`
`Littlejohn v. Bic Corp.,
`851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988)... eee cecssceseeeeceseeeeeeccscescecseeeseeesceseecseeecessessaecseeeaeseaeeseeeasennseaes2
`
`Miller v. Indiana Hosp.,
`16 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 1994)... eee cecssceseeesceseseeesseseceseecseesseeseeeseeeaeeeesaessaeeaeeeaecseeeaeeneeeaeseaeees2
`
`Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI Corp.,
`878 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Del. 2012)... eceeseesscesceeeecseeseeeseeeseeeaceeeessesaesseseaeseaeeaeeseseneeease2
`
`Nitto Denko Corp. v. Hutchinson Tech. Inc.,
`C.A. No. 16-3595 (CCC/MF), 2017 WL 2782639 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2017) .......escesesceeeeeeeeeeeees 6
`
`Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
`A435 U.S. 589 (1978)... ecceccssccscesecesecesceesceecceeessecseesseceeeseeeaseseeeseescessaseaessaeeaeeeaeeaeenseeaeeaessaeees 7
`
`Pansy v. Borough ofStroudsburg,
`23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994)... eeeccsccsccesceesceseceseseseseecseeeseeeeeeeeeseeaeeeeeaessaeeaeeeeesaeeeaeeeeeeseees2,7
`
`il
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 19488
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 5 of 15 PagelD #: 19488
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuantto the Protective Order (D.I. 91) as modified by the Court’s November14, 2023
`
`Order (D.I. 155), Defendants Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTX,Inc. (“Moderna”) respectfully
`
`movethis Court to seal Moderna’s sensitive and confidential information and to grant leave to
`
`file a partially redacted version of Plaintiffs’ Letter Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`
`Leave to Amend Complaint and the exhibits thereto (collectively, “Plaintiffs’ Motion to
`
`Amend”) (D.I. 278); Plaintiffs’ Letter Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and the
`
`exhibits thereto (collectively, “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Bancel Documents”) (D.I. 285);
`
`Moderna’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Bancel Documents and the exhibits
`
`thereto (collectively, “Moderna’s Bancel Opposition”) (D.I. 294); and Moderna’s Opposition to
`
`Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Motion to Compel andthe exhibit thereto (collectively, “Moderna’s 30(b)(6)
`
`Opposition”) (D.I. 302). As explained in more detail below, the portions marked for redaction
`
`contain Moderna’s sensitive and confidential technical information, including confidential trade
`
`secrets.
`
`In support of this motion, Modernaattaches as Exhibit A the Declaration of Don Parsons,
`
`Vice President of Delivery Science and Development at ModernaTX,Inc., and as Exhibit B the
`
`Declaration of Hamilton Bennett, Senior Director, Vaccine Access and Partnerships, at
`
`ModernaTX, Inc., who are knowledgeable about Moderna’s confidential information that
`
`Moderna seeks to seal and are familiar with its sensitivity. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend;
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Bancel Documents; Moderna’s Bancel Opposition; and Moderna’s
`
`30(b)(6) Opposition contain Moderna’s confidential and highly confidential information, and
`
`the Court should maintain that material under seal to prevent serious and real harm to Moderna.
`
`Release of Moderna’s confidential information to the public and Moderna’s competitors would
`
`create a clearly defined and serious injury to Moderna,as discussed in detail below.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 19489
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 6 of 15 PagelD #: 19489
`
`Il.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Third Circuit common law presumesa public right of access to judicial records; however
`
`it also protects business and financial information when access would cause economic harm,
`
`including competitive harm. Jn re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d
`
`662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019). “Although the commonlaw right to public access is a recognized and
`
`venerated principle, courts have also recognized the accompanyingprinciple that the rightis not
`
`absolute.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations and quotations
`
`omitted); see also Littlejohn vy. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988) (“Despite the
`
`presumption, courts may deny accessto judicial records, for example, where they are sources of
`
`business information that might harmalitigant’s competitive standing.”’).
`
`This presumption is overcome where a movant shows “that the interest in secrecy
`
`outweighs the presumption.” Jn re Avandia Mktg., 924 F.3d at 672 (quoting Bank ofAm. Nat’l
`
`Tr. & Sav. Ass’n y. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs. , 800 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986)). This showing
`
`may be made by demonstrating that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to
`
`the movant and that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect. See In re
`
`Avandia Mktg., 924 F.3d at 672 (citing Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)).
`
`The Court will apply a “good cause” standard justifying sealing or redacting judicial records,
`
`requiring a “balancing process, in which courts weigh the harm ofdisclosing information against
`
`the importance of disclosure to the public.” Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d
`
`503, 507-08 (D. Del. 2012) (citing Pansy v. Borough ofStroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787 (3d Cir.
`
`1994)).
`
`Tl.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Goodcauseexists hereto seal or partially seal Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and Exhibits
`
`A-D,F, J, and M-N; Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Bancel Documents and Exhibits C—F and
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 19490
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 7 of 15 PagelD #: 19490
`
`K-P; Exhibit T to Moderna’s Bancel Opposition; and Exhibit 14 to Moderna’s 30(b)(6)
`
`Opposition because these documents contain Moderna’s confidential and highly confidential
`
`technical and business information. Disclosure of such information would causereal and serious
`
`competitive harm to Moderna and the information doesnot needto be disclosed to the public to
`
`understandthefilingsat issue.
`
`Although the public’s presumptive common law right of access to judicial records
`
`attaches to materials filed in connection with a pretrial motion of a non-discovery nature, this
`
`right is “not absolute” and may be overcomeby a showingthat the material sought to be sealed
`
`“is the kind of information that courts will protect and will work a clearly defined and serious
`
`injury to the party seeking closure.” Jn re Avandia Mktg., 924 F.3d 662, 673 (3d Cir. 2019)
`
`(citation omitted). Here, the material Moderna seeks to redact from is the type of limited
`
`information of the kind that courts in the Third Circuit have recognized as protectable, namely
`
`highly sensitive and confidential technical information regarding Moderna’s proprietary and
`
`trade secret manufacturing methods for its COVID-19 Vaccine,
`
`including steps in the
`
`manufacturing process and parameters for those steps, and confidential business information
`
`relating to Moderna’s negotiations and communications with the United States Government
`
`regarding Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine and third-party licensing negotiations and
`
`agreements.
`
`The harms caused by revealing Moderna’s confidential information are discussed below,
`
`and further in the attached declarations of Don Parsons (Exhibit A), Vice President of Delivery
`
`Science and Development at ModernaTX, Inc., and Hamilton Bennett (Exhibit B), Senior
`
`Director, Vaccine Access and Partnerships, at ModernaTX, Inc., who are familiar with this
`
`information and its sensitivity. As Dr. Parsons and Ms. Bennett explain, there is significant
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 19491
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 8 of 15 PagelD #: 19491
`
`competition between established vaccine suppliers,
`
`including suppliers with mRNA-based
`
`vaccines, like Moderna, and any information about one of these competitors, even seemingly
`
`minorinformation, may prove competitively advantageous. Ex. A, 4 7; Ex. B, 7.
`
`Modernaseeksonly to partially seal Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend;Plaintiffs’ Motion to
`
`Compel Bancel Documents; Moderna’s Bancel Opposition;
`
`and Moderna’s 30(b)(6)
`
`Opposition. As described briefly below,and further explained in the Declaration of Don Parsons
`
`and the Declaration of Hamilton Bennett,
`
`the portions Moderna seeks to redact contain
`
`Moderna’s confidential information, including highly confidential and sensitive information
`
`regarding Moderna’s proprietary technology relating to its manufacturing methods for its
`
`COVID-19 Vaccine, known as mRNA-1273 or “SpikeVax,” and highly confidential
`
`information regarding Moderna’s agreementswith third parties and internal negotiation strategy
`
`with the U.S. Government, including pricing information for SpikeVax. Ex. A, { 6-9; Ex. B
`
`As Dr. Parsons explains, SpikeVax is comprised of messenger RNA (mRNA)whichis
`
`delivered using lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). Ex. A, 93. Moderna’s proprietary LNP is comprised
`
`of four lipid components including SM-102, cholesterol, phospholipid, and a polyethylene
`
`glycol (PEG)lipid conjugate. Jd. With respect to Moderna’s formulation, Moderna considersits
`
`precise formulation, including the specific quantities of ingredients, a trade secret, which is not
`
`public knowledge. /d., § 8. With respect to Moderna’s manufacturing process for SpikeVax,
`
`Modernaconsiders its process-as-a-whole a trade secret, including the steps in the process, the
`
`records of each step, the parameters or specification for each step (such as timing, sequence,
`
`amount and kind of raw materials, temperatures, measurements, equipment used,etc.). Id, J 9.
`
`Modernahasnot publicly disclosed its proprietary manufacturing process. Jd. As Ms. Bennett
`
`explains, Modernahasalso kept confidential certain negotiations and communications with the
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 19492
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 9 of 15 PagelD #: 19492
`
`U.S. Government regarding Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine, as well as certain contracts and
`
`negotiations with third parties. Ex. B, J 8-9. Disclosure of such information, which includes
`
`internal strategy regarding pricing, would cause Moderna competitive harm.Id.
`
`Specifically, Moderna has not publicly disclosed certain information within Plaintiffs’
`
`Motion to Amend and Exhibits A-D, F, J, and M-—N;Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Bancel
`
`Documents and Exhibits C-F and K—P; Exhibit T to Moderna’s Bancel Opposition; and Exhibit
`
`14 to Moderna’s 30(b)(6) Opposition. These documents contain specific information concerning
`
`the composition of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine and Moderna’s proprietary and trade secret
`
`manufacturing methods for its COVID-19 Vaccine, including steps in the manufacturing process
`
`and parameters for those steps, as well as Moderna’s negotiations and communications with the
`
`United States Government regarding Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine and third-party licensing
`
`negotiations and agreements.
`
`Because of the highly competitive nature of the vaccine supplier market, Moderna has
`
`spent significant effort and resources to develop these manufacturing methods and formulations
`
`and the release of such information to the public, including Moderna’s competitors, would harm
`
`Moderna. Ex. A, J 7. Moderna has also invested significant time and effort in developing
`
`contractual relationships with third parties, and publicly revealing such information could harm
`
`Moderna’s relationship with these third parties and give an unfair advantage to competitors.
`
`Ex. B, J 9. Additionally, publicly revealing sensitive non-public details regarding Moderna’s
`
`relationship with the Government during development of the COVID-19 Vaccine, including
`
`pricing and development timing, could cause Moderna competitive harm. J/d., § 10. Because
`
`there are so few competitors in the vaccine supplier market, the market is highly competitive,
`
`and any information about one ofthe competitors, even seemingly minor information, may prove
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 19493
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 10 of 15 PagelD #: 19493
`
`competitively advantageous. Ex. A, 9 7; Ex. B, § 7. Additionally,
`
`there are companies
`
`considering entering the vaccine market and companies developing mRNA-based vaccines and
`
`therapeutics for other diseases or developing lipid nanoparticles for mRNA-basedproducts. Jd.
`
`If the confidential information were made public, Moderna’s competitors would be able
`
`to potentially replicate Moderna’s products, features within Moderna’s products, and methods
`
`of making mRNA-LNPproducts, or make decisions about where, when, and how to offer
`
`directly competitive goods with full knowledge of Moderna’s technology. Ex. A, J 10; Ex. B,
`
`4 10. Moderna’s competitors would gain a significant advantage in creating their own business
`
`strategies, which would put Modernaat a significant competitive disadvantage, causing it real
`
`and serious harm. Jd. Moderna’s competitors may also seek patent claims to cover Moderna’s
`
`technology. Ex. A, J 10.
`
`Moderna has always taken extensive measures to maintain the confidentiality of its
`
`technical and business information. Ex. A, § 5; Ex. B, § 5. Moderna has been extremely
`
`concerned aboutthe protection of its confidential information during thislitigation and has been
`
`very careful to always protect this information. Jd. Moderna has invested significant resources
`
`to develop this information as well, Ex. A, § 7; Ex. B, § 7, and this information is of the type
`
`that courts have recognized as protectable. See, e.g., Nitto Denko Corp. v. Hutchinson Tech.
`
`Inc., No. CV 16-3595 (CCC/MF), 2017 WL 2782639, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2017) (granting
`
`motion to seal “confidential technical information” where such information “was not intended
`
`to be seen by competitors .. . for review and potential use against the parties” and parties were
`
`in “highly competitive [] industry”); Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Med., Inc., C.A. Nos.
`
`17-1616-LPS-CJB, D.I. 447 (D. Del. Jun. 16, 2020) (granting motion to redact confidential
`
`information concerning defendant’s confidential technical information).
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 19494
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 11 of 15 PagelD #: 19494
`
`Disclosure of Moderna’s confidential information regarding either the technical details
`
`of Moderna’s precise formulation or the proprietary manufacturing process for SpikeVax would
`
`“work a clearly defined and serious injury” to Moderna, as such disclosure would provide
`
`Moderna’s competitors, customers, and potential
`
`licensors or
`
`licensees with otherwise
`
`confidential information regarding Moderna’s products andstrategies, as well as a competitive
`
`advantage in both the vaccine supplier market and in negotiations with Moderna. See Pansy, 23
`
`F.3d at 786. Moreover, because this “case involves private litigants” and their confidential
`
`information, there is “little legitimate public interest” in the proposed redactions. Jd. at 788.
`
`Under such circumstances, Moderna’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality ofthe proposed
`
`redacted information outweighs any countervailing public interest. See id. (“[I]f a case involves
`
`private litigants, and concerns mattersoflittle legitimate public interest, that should be a factor
`
`weighing in favor of granting or maintaining an order of confidentiality.”); Leucadia, Inc. v.
`
`Applied Extrusion Tech., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 166 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Documents containing trade
`
`secrets or other confidential business information may be protected from disclosure” and
`
`explaining that the court has “framed the inquiry as whether the need for secrecy outweighs the
`
`presumption of access that normally attaches to such documents”); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,
`
`Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“[C]ourts have refused to permittheir files to serve as ... sources
`
`of business information that might harmalitigant’s competitive standing.”).
`
`As explained above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend and Exhibits A—D, F, J, and M-N;
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Bancel Documents and Exhibits C-F and K—P; Exhibit T to
`
`Moderna’s Bancel Opposition; and Exhibit 14 to Moderna’s 30(b)(6) Opposition contain
`
`technical details regarding Moderna’s proprietary LNP formulation in SpikeVax and the related
`
`proprietary manufacturing process and Moderna’s confidential communications and agreements
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 19495
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 12 of 15 PagelD #: 19495
`
`with non-parties to this litigation. Moderna’s proposed redactions remove the specific
`
`confidential material at issue, leaving the remainder unredacted. These proposed redactionsare
`
`narrow such that the public’s ability to understand these filings is not impaired any less than
`
`necessary to prevent the release of Moderna’s most sensitive information to its competitors,
`
`preventing clear competitive harm. Moderna’s proposed redactions are narrow in scope and
`
`refer only to Moderna’s confidential, sensitive technical or business information to prevent the
`
`serious harm to Moderna which would be caused by its public release as outlined in Dr.
`
`Parsons’s and Ms. Bennett’s declarations.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Moderna respectfully requests the Court grant Moderna’s
`
`Motion to Seal with respect to Moderna’s confidential and highly confidential information.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 19496
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 13 of 15 PagelD #: 19496
`
`Morris, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/Travis J. Murray
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Brian P. Egan (#6227)
`Travis J. Murray (#6882)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`began@morrisnichols.com
`tmurray@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James F. Hurst
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago,IL 60654
`(312) 862-2000
`
`Patricia A. Carson, Ph.D.
`Jeanna M. Wacker, P.C.
`Mark C. McLennan
`Caitlin Dean
`N. Kaye Horstman
`Shaoyao Yu
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 446-4679
`
`Yan-Xin Li
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 439-1400
`
`Alina Afinogenova
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`200 ClarendonStreet
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 385-7500
`
`May 17, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 19497
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 14 of 15 PagelD #: 19497
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 17, 2024, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with
`
`the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, whichwill send notification of such filing to all registered
`
`participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on May 17,
`
`2024, upon the following in the mannerindicated:
`
`John W. Shaw, Esquire
`Karen E.Keller, Esquire
`Nathan R. Hoeschen, Esquire
`Emily S. DiBenedetto, Esquire
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`I.M.Pei Building
`1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Arbutus Biopharma
`Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH
`
`Daralyn J. Durie, Esquire
`Adam R.Brausa, Esquire
`Eric C. Wiener, Esquire
`Annie A. Lee, Esquire
`Shaelyn K. Dawson, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 MarketStreet
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffArbutus Biopharma
`Corporation
`
`Kira A. Davis, Esquire
`MorRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffArbutus Biopharma
`Corporation
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 19498
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 325 Filed 05/20/24 Page 15 of 15 PagelD #: 19498
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`David N. Tan, Esquire
`MorRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2100 L Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20037
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffArbutus Biopharma
`Corporation
`
`David I. Berl, Esquire
`Adam D. Harber, Esquire
`ThomasS. Fletcher, Esquire
`Jessica Palmer Ryen, Esquire
`Shaun P. Mahaffy, Esquire
`Anthony H. Sheh, Esquire
`Philip N. Haunschild, Esquire
`Falicia Elenberg, Esquire
`Jihad J. Komis, Esquire
`Matthew W. Lachman, Esquire
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine AvenueS.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffGenevant Sciences GmbH
`
`/s/ Travis J. Murray
`
`Travis J. Murray (#6882)
`
`