Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1304
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION
`and GENEVANT SCIENCES GmbH,
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendants.
`
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION
`and GENEVANT SCIENCES GmbH,
`
`
`
`
`
`MODERNA, INC. and MODERNATX, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MODERNA, INC. and MODERNATX, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-252 (MSG)
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE BRIEFS AS AMICUS CURIAE (D.I. 56 AND 61)
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Brian P. Egan (#6227)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`began@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
`Nancy Kaye Horstman
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 446-4800
`
`March 7, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1305
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standards ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`The Court Should Deny the Motions for Leave to File Amicus Briefs ................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Proposed Amici Have No Particularized Interest in this Litigation ............ 3
`
`All Interests Are Adequately Represented by the Parties ........................... 5
`
`The Proffered Information Is Not Useful to Resolving the Current
`Dispute ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1306
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES1
`
`Page(s)
`
`Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Pennsylvania Section
`v. Thornburgh, 699 F.2d 644 (3d Cir. 1983) .............................................................................4
`
`Bernstein v. Twp. of Freehold, New Jersey,
`No. CV 07-4110 (FLW), 2008 WL 11510751 (D.N.J. Jan. 4, 2008) ....................................4, 6
`
`Dobson Mills Apartments, L.P. v. City of Philadelphia,
`No. 21-CV-273, 2022 WL 558348 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2022) ................................................3, 5
`
`Dwelling Place Network v. Murphy,
`No. CV 20-6281, 2020 WL 3056305 (D.N.J. June 9, 2020) .................................................3, 5
`
`Granillo v. FCA US LLC,
`No. 16-153(FLW)(DEA), 2018 WL 4676057 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2018) .................................2, 3
`
`Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC,
`No. 2:10-CV-1283, D.I. 320 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2013) ..........................................................4, 5
`
`Oakley Inc. v. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On
`Schedule A, C.A. No. 1:22-cv-01570, Dkt. 52 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2022) ...................................6
`
`Panzer v. Verde Energy USA, Inc.,
`No. 19-3598, 2021 WL 2186422 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2021) .......................................................3
`
`Pro. Drug Co. Inc. v. Wyeth Inc.,
`No. 11–5479, 2012 WL 4794587 (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 2012) ........................................................3, 5
`
`Sciotto v. Marple Newtown Sch. Dist.,
`70 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 1999) .......................................................................................3, 4
`
`United States v. Olis,
`No. CIV.A. H-07-3295, 2008 WL 620520 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2008) .......................................4
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1498 ......................................................................................................................1, 2, 4
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, internal quotation marks and citations have been omitted from quoted
`material.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1307
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 ..........................................................................................2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1308
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Since the Government’s submission of a Statement of Interest, this case has garnered the
`
`interest of several groups and two motions seeking to enter this litigation as friends of the Court.
`
`However, both attempts fail to offer the type of information or guidance that can properly be
`
`introduced into a case through the vehicle of amicus curiae. These attempts should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`On February 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this action against Moderna. On May 6, 2022,
`
`Moderna filed a partial motion to dismiss based on § 1498 (D.I. 16). Briefing on the motion was
`
`completed June 24, 2022, and the Court issued its decision on Moderna’s partial motion on
`
`November 2, 2022 (D.I. 31). On February 14, 2023, the Government filed a Statement of Interest,
`
`confirming the applicability of § 1498(a) (D.I. 49). A conference with the Court was held on
`
`February 16, 2023, at the conclusion of which the Court ordered simultaneous letters regarding the
`
`impact of the Government’s Statement of Interest (D.I. 51). Subsequently, on March 2 and 6, 2023,
`
`two groups filed motions for leave to appear as amici curiae. D.I. 56; D.I. 61.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The proposed amicus briefs fail to meet the standards set by the Third Circuit for granting
`
`amicus status because the proposed amici have no particularized interests that are not already
`
`competently represented in the matter and fail to provide information that would be useful to
`
`resolving the pending dispute. For at least these reasons, the Court should exercise its discretion
`
`to deny the motions for leave. In the alternative, should the Court permit the proposed amici to file
`
`their briefs, the Court should grant Moderna leave to respond substantively to the proposed amici’s
`
`arguments.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1309
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The first set of proposed amici curiae are Professor Adam Mossoff and other law
`
`professors and former federal judges (collectively, “Professor Mossoff”) with a stated interest “in
`
`ensuring the integrity of the patent system and the proper application of the federal government’s
`
`eminent domain power to patented inventions.” D.I. 56-2 at 1. The second set of proposed amici
`
`is the Bayh-Dole Coalition, a group of “innovation-oriented organizations and academic
`
`institutions” who are “committed to celebrating and protecting the Bayh-Dole Act, and to
`
`preserving the reliability of U.S. patents as private property rights on which the Bayh Dole system
`
`depends.” D.I. 61, ¶5. Both groups of amici come before the Court seeking to “offer supporting
`
`legal analysis” relating to the “express text, legislative history, and judicial interpretation of
`
`Section 1498.” D.I. 56, ¶6; D.I. 61, ¶6.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`
` As there is no rule governing the appearance of an amicus curiae in district court,
`
`“district courts have been guided by the Third Circuit’s application of Federal Rule of Appellate
`
`Procedure 29, which governs the appearance of amici in the circuit courts.” Granillo v. FCA US
`
`LLC, No. 16-153 (FLW)(DEA), 2018 WL 4676057, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2018). Rule 29(3)
`
`states the following with respect to Motions for Leave to File:
`
`The motion must be accompanied by the proposed brief and state:
`
`(A) the movant's interest; and
`
`(B) the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the
`matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.
`
`In applying the “interest,” “desirability” and “relevance” prongs of Rule 29(3) to determine
`
`whether to grant amicus status, courts often consider whether, “(1) the amicus curiae has a ‘special
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1310
`
`
`
`interest’ in the particular case; (2) the amicus curiae’s interest is not represented competently or at
`
`all in the case; (3) the proffered information is timely and useful; and (4) the petitioner is not partial
`
`to a particular outcome in the case.” Granillo, 2018 WL 4676057, at *4 (quoting Pro. Drug Co.
`
`Inc. v. Wyeth Inc., No. 11–5479, 2012 WL 4794587, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 2012)).
`
`Courts in this Circuit have found that “[a]t the trial level, where issues of fact as well as
`
`law predominate, the aid of amicus curiae may be less appropriate than at the appellate level.”
`
`Dwelling Place Network v. Murphy, No. CV 20-6281 (RBK/AMD), 2020 WL 3056305, at *1
`
`(D.N.J. June 9, 2020). Ultimately, it “rests within a district court’s discretion whether to permit
`
`the filing of an amicus brief.” Dobson Mills Apartments, L.P. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 21-CV-
`
`273, 2022 WL 558348, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2022) (citing Panzer v. Verde Energy USA, Inc.,
`
`No. 19-3598, 2021 WL 2186422, at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2021)).
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Deny the Motions for Leave to File Amicus Briefs
`
`The proposed amici have failed to show that they have any special interest in this matter
`
`or that any argument they intend to bring into the matter is not (or cannot be) addressed by the
`
`parties. The motions should therefore be denied.
`
`1.
`
`Proposed Amici Have No Particularized Interest in this Litigation
`
` “When evaluating a potential amici’s proffered interest in a case, the court looks to
`
`whether its interests which [sic] would be ultimately and directly affected by the court’s ruling on
`
`the substantive matter before it.” Dwelling Place, 2020 WL 3056305, at *2. “The potential amici
`
`must show more than simply ‘a generalized interest in all cases’ of a similar subject matter.”
`
`Granillo, 2018 WL 4676057, at *5 (quoting Sciotto v. Marple Newtown Sch. Dist., 70 F. Supp. 2d
`
`553, 555 (E.D. Pa. 1999)). Neither set of proposed amici here contends that the Court’s decision
`
`on the issue will “impact them directly.” Rather, their purported interests are at best “generalized”
`
`academic or policy interests in all cases relating to at least § 1498, and perhaps patent law more
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1311
`
`
`
`broadly. The purported interests of both proposed sets of amici here are “not the kind of special
`
`interest that warrants amicus status.” Sciotto, 70 F. Supp. 2d at 555; id. at 556 (“While policy
`
`arguments are certainly interesting and perhaps helpful at the appellate level, they are not the
`
`currency of a trial court.”).
`
`The Third Circuit has denied a similar motion by law professors, even when neither party
`
`objected, where “[t]he law professors d[id] not purport to represent any individual or organization
`
`with a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter at issue, and g[a]ve only their concern about
`
`the manner in which this court will interpret the law.” Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists,
`
`Pennsylvania Section v. Thornburgh, 699 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir. 1983). Other courts have reached
`
`similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Olis, No. CIV.A. H-07-3295, 2008 WL 620520, at
`
`*7 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2008) (denying motion to file amici curiae brief purporting to “elucidate,
`
`from a historical and scholarly perspective, the constitutional right to free access to defense
`
`funding and to be free of government interference with the right to counsel” where the facts did
`
`not support the defendant’s original motion); Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, No. 2:10-
`
`CV-1283, D.I. 320 at 3 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2013) (denying a motion to file amicus brief where
`
`“[t]he moving parties have identified no ‘special interest’ of [Professor] Sperino”); Bernstein v.
`
`Twp. of Freehold, New Jersey, No. CV 07-4110 (FLW), 2008 WL 11510751, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 4,
`
`2008) (denying ACLU’s motion to appear amicus curiae because despite “obvious general interest
`
`in the constitutional questions involved in this case, [ ] absent a specific showing of a special
`
`interest, participation as amicus curiae would be inappropriate”). Where, as here, the proposed
`
`amici’s interests are grounded in “legal principles” or statutory interpretation, no special interest
`
`exists.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1312
`
`
`
`The generalized interests of both groups of proposed amici weigh against granting their
`
`motions.
`
`2.
`
`All Interests Are Adequately Represented by the Parties
`
`District Courts in this Circuit have found amici unnecessary where their interests are
`
`competently represented. Dobson Mills Apartments, 2022 WL 558348, at *1 (denying a motion
`
`for leave to file amicus curiae where the petitioner made no claim that party counsel was not
`
`qualified to represent its asserted interest); see also Pro. Drug, 2012 WL 4794587, at *2 (denying
`
`a motion where petitioner had not expressed an interest that was not represented competently and
`
`plaintiffs were “represented by competent counsel who have ably addressed the relevant issues
`
`relating to the motions to dismiss”). The proposed amici do not contend that the parties’ counsel
`
`are not qualified to represent their asserted interests. Nor is there any reason why the parties’
`
`counsel cannot competently represent said interests. See Karlo, No. 2:10-CV-1283, Dkt. 320 at 3
`
`(concluding that the petitioner law professor’s presumed interest was “competently represented by
`
`able counsel”). This factor also weighs against granting their motions.
`
`3.
`
`The Proffered Information Is Not Useful to Resolving the Current
`Dispute
`
`The proposed groups of amici purport to “offer supporting legal analysis beyond that
`
`provided by the parties.” D.I. 56-2 at 2; see also D.I. 61, ¶6 (“Bayh-Dole seeks leave to offer
`
`supporting legal analysis that is necessary for this Court to consider”). However, the vast majority
`
`of at least Professor Mossoff’s “judicial interpretation” is spent on rehashing case law raised by
`
`the parties and the Government in their briefing, cited in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, and
`
`discussed at the February 16 conference with the Court. To the extent the Court finds that the
`
`proposed amici are raising new information through their historical analysis or constitutional
`
`arguments, they are “not present[ing] any arguments or information that could not be provided just
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1313
`
`
`
`as readily by [the parties] themselves.” Dwelling Place, 2020 WL 3056305, at *3. In fact, allowing
`
`the proposed amici to raise any new constitutional or historical arguments would run afoul the
`
`“classic role of an amicus curiae” under which it “cannot initiate, create, extend, or enlarge [the]
`
`issues” before the Court. Bernstein, 2008 WL 11510751, at *2; see also Oakley Inc. v. The
`
`Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, C.A. No. 1:22-cv-
`
`01570, Dkt. 52, at 3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2022) (denying a motion to file amicus brief where
`
`“[a]llowing Movant to present new” “constitutional and historical arguments” would “pay
`
`insufficient heed to the principle of party presentation”). Additionally, the brief provided by the
`
`Bayh-Dole Coalition provides no analysis of case law and no citations to legislative history or
`
`documents evidencing legislative intent to support its position. D.I. 61-1. The substance of the
`
`proposed submissions therefore does not provide a basis for granting amicus status.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`Moderna respectfully requests that the Court deny the amicus motions. In the alternative,
`
`should the Court grant these motions, Moderna requests that it be permitted an opportunity to
`
`substantively respond to the proposed amici’s positions.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Nancy Kaye Horstman
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 446-4800
`
`March 7, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Brian P. Egan (#6227)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`began@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1315
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 7, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on March 7,
`
`2023, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`John W. Shaw, Esquire
`Karen E. Keller, Esquire
`Nathan R. Hoeschen, Esquire
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`I.M. Pei Building
`1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Arbutus Biopharma
`Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH
`
`Daralyn J. Durie, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arbutus Biopharma
`Corporation
`
`Kira A. Davis, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arbutus Biopharma
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 62 Filed 03/07/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1316
`
`
`
`David I. Berl, Esquire
`Adam D. Harber, Esquire
`Thomas S. Fletcher, Esquire
`Jessica Palmer Ryen, Esquire
`Lydia B. Cash, Esquire
`Shaun P. Mahaffy, Esquire
`Anthony H. Sheh, Esquire
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue S.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Genevant Sciences
`GmbH
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire
`BAYARD, P.A.
`600 North King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Proposed Amici Law
`Professors, Scholars, and Former
`Government Officials
`
`Stephanie S. Riley, Esquire
`WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
`1313 North Market Street, Suite 1200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorney for Bayh-Dole Coalition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`