Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 14299
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC., and
`GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 22-311 (WCB)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JERRAD LEGAKO
`
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTIF’S SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 14300
`
`
`
`I, Jerrad Legako, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`
`
`1. I submitted a declaration on June 28, 2023 in support of Motif’s Answering Claim
`
`Construction Brief in the above-captioned matter (“Declaration”). I incorporate that Declaration,
`
`including my opinions therein and the associated exhibits thereto, herein by reference. My
`
`opinions and analysis in my Declaration are unchanged.
`
`2.
`
`For ease of reference,
`
`in
`
`this supplemental declaration (“Supplemental
`
`Declaration”) I have used the same labels for defined terms that I used in Declaration, which I
`
`restate in relevant part below:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Declaration” means the declaration I submitted on June 28, 2023 in
`support of Motif’s Answering Claim Construction Brief
`
`“Motif” means Defendant Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
`
`“Impossible” means Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`“’096 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 9,943,096
`
`“’306 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 10,039,306
`
`“’761 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 10,863,761
`
`“’250 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 11,013,250
`
`“’241 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 11,224,241
`
`“Foodstuff Patents” means the ’096 patent, the ’306 patent, the ’761
`patent, the ’250 patent, and the ’241 patent, collectively.
`
`I.
`
`SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENT
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to supplement my opinions and analysis detailed in my original
`
`Declaration in order to response to positions taken by Impossible and its expert, Dr. Paul Sarnoski,
`
`in connection with its Reply claim construction briefing and submitted opinions, including as it
`
`pertains to the terms I opined upon in my Declaration with respect to the Foodstuff Patents.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 14301
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed Impossible’s Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding the
`
`Replica Terms, the Physical Organization of Meat Term, and the Aroma Terms. I have also
`
`reviewed the declaration of Dr. Paul Sarnoski (“Sarnoski Declaration”), dated July 7, 2023, which
`
`I am informed was provided to Motif’s counsel on the same day. I see that Impossible’s briefing
`
`and Dr. Sarnoski’s declaration responded to some of the statements and opinions in my Declaration
`
`as to the Replica Terms, the Physical Organization of Meat Term, and the Aroma Terms. I disagree
`
`with Dr. Sarnoski’s opinions and conclusions on these terms as detailed below.
`
`5. I reserve the right to further respond to opinions or positions taken by Plaintiff
`
`Impossible, Dr. Sarnoski, or other experts of Impossible in due course as this Litigation proceeds,
`
`and to amend or further supplement my opinions as new information comes to my attention.
`
`I.
`
`REBUTTAL OPINIONS
`
`A.
`
`Replica Terms
`
`6.
`
`Dr. Sarnoski opines that he agrees with Impossible’s proposed construction, and
`
`states that his understanding of Impossible’s construction is that “a replica is not the thing that it
`
`replicates.” He notes that “[a]nimal muscle tissue is not a ‘muscle replica’” and “[a]nimal fat
`
`tissue is not a ‘fat tissue replica.’”
`
`7.
`
`To the extent Dr. Sarnoski is opining that animal muscle tissue itself (i.e., not in
`
`combination with other materials) is not a “muscle replica” and that animal fat tissue itself (i.e.,
`
`not in combination with other materials) is not a “fat tissue replica,” I agree. But that is not my
`
`understanding of what Impossible and Motif are in dispute over with regard to the composition of
`
`a “replica” as claimed. Instead, I understand Motif’s position to be that a “replica” composition
`
`can contain some of the actual material it replicates, so long as it does not make up the entire
`
`product; and I understand Impossible’s position to be that a “replica” must contain absolutely no
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 14302
`
`
`
`amount of the actual material it replicates. I agree with Motif. To be sure, there is nothing in the
`
`’761 patent specification that prevents a “muscle replica” from including some actual “muscle,”
`
`or a “fat tissue replica” from including some actual “fat tissue.” Accordingly, in my opinion, a
`
`POSITA would not read additional limits into the “replica” claim terms the way that Impossible
`
`and Dr. Sarnoski are suggesting.
`
`8.
`
`I see that Dr. Sarnoski cites to the ’761 patent at 25:35-421 to conclude that “the
`
`specification informs [him] that the patent does not define a “muscle replica” as including the
`
`animal-derived skeletal muscle or animal derived tissues,” and cites to the ’761 patent at 27:10-
`
`172 to draw a similar conclusion, that “the patent claims do not intend ‘fat tissue replica’ to include
`
`animal fat or animal derived tissues.” I disagree with Dr. Sarnoski’s analysis and opinion for two
`
`fundamental reasons.
`
`9.
`
`First, I disagree that the language he cites drives the conclusion he draws. The fact
`
`that the specification discloses an example embodiment where the recited “replicas” do not contain
`
`any of the correspondent animal tissues does not mean that there are no other parts of the
`
`specification disclosing examples where they do. And indeed, the ’761 patent specification does
`
`just that. Just as the specification teaches that some of the claimed “replicas” include no animal
`
`
`1 “[T]he present invention provides a composition derived from non-animal sources
`which replicates or approximates key features of animal skeletal muscle. In another aspect, the
`present invention provides a meat substitute product that comprises a composition derived from
`non-animal sources which replicate or approximates animal skeletal muscle. Such a composition
`will be labeled herein as ‘muscle replica.’” ’761 patent, 25:35-42
`
`2 “Animal fat is important for the experience of eating cooked meat. Accordingly, the
`present invention provides a composition derived from non-animal sources which recapitulates
`key features of animal fat. In another aspect, the present invention provides a meat substitute
`product that comprises a composition derived from non-animal sources which recapitulates
`animal fat. Such a composition will be labeled herein as a “fat replica”. In some embodiments,
`the fat replica and/or meat substitute product comprising the fat replica are partially derived from
`animal sources.” ’761 patent at 27:10-17
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 14303
`
`
`
`products, the specification also teaches that some of the claimed “replicas” do include animal
`
`products including various animal tissues:
`
`In other aspects, the present invention provides compositions for a
`muscle tissue replica (herein referred to as “muscle replica”), an
`adipose tissue replica (herein referred to as “fat replica”), and a
`connective tissue replica (herein referred to as “connective tissue
`replica”). In some embodiments, the compositions and meat
`substitute products are principally or entirely composed of
`ingredients derived from non-animal sources. In alternative
`embodiments, the muscle, fat, and/or connective tissue replica,
`or the meat substitute products comprising one or more of said
`replicas, are partially derived from animal sources but
`supplemented with
`ingredients derived from non-animal
`sources. In yet other alternative embodiments, the invention
`provides meat products substantially derived from animal sources
`but which are supplemented with one or more of a muscle tissue
`replica, a fat replica, and/or a connective tissue replica, wherein said
`replicas are derived substantially or entirely from non-animal
`sources.
`
`’761 patent, 22:63-23:8; see also Declaration, ¶¶ 102-104.
`
`Alternatively, a meat replica may include inedible portions to
`mimic the experience of meat consumption. Such portions can
`include bone, cartilage, connective tissue, or other materials
`commonly referred to as gristle, or materials included simulating
`these components.
`
`’761 patent, 33:66-34:4.
`
`10.
`
`Second, in my opinion Dr. Sarnoski’s conclusion does not answer the right
`
`question. For a negative limitation like the one Impossible wants to apply to the claims (i.e., that
`
`the claimed replicas cannot include any amount of the material they replicate), the question is not
`
`whether the specification affirmatively defines a “replica” to include some of what it replicates as
`
`Dr. Sarnoski suggests; rather, the question is whether the specification explains, from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA, that in all embodiments a “replica” cannot include some of what it
`
`replicates. And the answer to that latter question is clearly no – the specification simply does not
`
`do that. Instead, as provided in the quotation above, the ’761 specification makes it perfectly clear
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 14304
`
`
`
`to a POSITA that, in some embodiments, the claimed “muscle replica” and “fat tissue replica” may
`
`include components derived from animal sources and that a “replica,” more generally, can include
`
`animal tissues (e.g., bone, cartilage, connective tissue, etc.). As long as these animal-borne
`
`components and tissues are combined with other non-animal ingredients, a “replica” can include
`
`the tissue it seeks to replicate. Declaration, ¶¶ 102-104 (citing Exhibit L9, 22:63-23:8.); ’761
`
`patent, 33:66-34:4.
`
`11. Dr. Sarnoski also cites to the ’761 patent at 37:46-47 and 37:58-67 where it is taught
`
`that “in some embodiments the consumable is a plant based meat that has animal myoglobin
`
`added.” Dr. Sarnoski contends that Motif’s proposed construction would render “animal
`
`myoglobin” redundant. In my opinion, Dr. Sarnoski’s argument makes no sense. Motif’s proposal
`
`is that the “muscle replica” composition “may” (not must) be “partially” (not wholly) derived
`
`from animal sources. Thus, the specificity that the ’761 patent uses in describing embodiments that
`
`include “animal myoglobin” are certainly not rendered redundant by Motif’s proposed
`
`construction. Nor does claim 12 make that any less true as Dr. Sarnoski suggests.
`
`12. Dr. Sarnoski also opines that because the ’761 patent gives an example where
`
`hemoglobin is isolated from animal blood (labeling the animal blood as the “animal source”) and
`
`that muscle tissue itself is not incorporated into the muscle replica. I agree that in that example
`
`there is no indication that muscle tissue is part of the muscle replica, but a POSITA would not read
`
`this single example to require that there must not be any amount of actual “muscle” tissue in the
`
`“muscle replica” or any “fat tissue” in the “fat tissue replica” in any embodiment of the invention.
`
`A POSITA would not interpret the ’761 patent specification to be so limited.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 14305
`
`
`
`13. Dr. Sarnoski discounts my reference to “imitation crab” as an example of what a
`
`POSITA would recognize as a replica food product that includes some of the actual crab meat that
`
`it is intended to replicate. It appears Dr. Sarnoski’s issue with my example is two-fold.
`
`14. His first issue appears to be one of branding. Specifically, he opines that the
`
`branding on the “imitation crab” packaging does not use the word “replica,” and thus cannot
`
`“extend[] to the claim language here.” Sarnoski Decl. ¶99. I disagree with that view entirely, and
`
`I find Impossible’s adoption of Dr. Sarnoski’s opinion to be peculiar given that Impossible has
`
`accused many of Motif’s food products as being a type of “replica” despite the fact that Motif’s
`
`packaging does not use the word “replica.” As set out in my Declaration, “a POSITA would
`
`understand [imitation crab] to be a replica of real crab” even though it included some amount of
`
`real crab meat (see ¶111), and I stand by all of the evidence I provided and the opinions I offered
`
`in my Declaration at ¶¶ 109-113. The evidence has relevance to a POSITA’s understanding of this
`
`term, and confirms what a POSITA would already understand from the specification: replica
`
`products can include at least some of the material it replicates.
`
`15. His second issue is one of degree, which actually supports Motif’s construction. In
`
`short, Dr. Sarnoski appears to believe that because the amount of crab meat in “imitation crab” is
`
`so small that it was only “intended to flavor the product,” and that it could not have “a functional
`
`role in creating a crab meat-like texture or the approximate physical organization of crab meat to
`
`support a ‘replica’ of that meat.” Dr. Sarnoski’s conclusion appears to assume that if an ingredient
`
`in a “replica” is (1) “primarily intended to flavor the product” only, or if it (2) “simply does not
`
`meet a high enough proportion to have a functional role in creating…the approximate physical
`
`organization of … meat,” then it is somehow irrelevant for purposes of the “replica” terms. But
`
`neither of these qualifiers are part of Impossible’s proposed construction. Nowhere in Impossible’s
`
`briefing does it say that, for purposes of the composition of the claimed replicas, it only considers
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 14306
`
`
`
`ingredients that are not “primarily intended to flavor the product,” and/or that “meet a high enough
`
`proportion to have a functional role in creating…the approximate physical organization of
`
`…meat.” Dr. Sarnoski’s opinion does not appear to support even Impossible’s proposed
`
`construction. If anything, his attempt to discredit my reference to imitation crab only supports my
`
`opinion that a replica product itself can indeed include small amounts of the material it replicates.
`
`16. In sum, none of Dr. Sarnoski’s opinions concerning the Replica Terms change my own
`
`as set forth in my original Declaration at ¶¶ 94-113.
`
`B.
`
`“Approximates the Physical Organization of Meat”
`
`17. Dr. Sarnoski opines that he agrees with Impossible’s proposed construction, and
`
`that he “disagree[s] with Motif in its opinion that term 17 does not have meaning within the
`
`scope of this claim” and that he “also disagree[s] with Motif’s [alternative] proposed definition
`
`[that] ‘the muscle replica and fat tissue replica are combined to mimic the appearance of meat,
`
`and are visually distinguishable from each other after being combined.’” Sarnoski Decl. ¶ 102.
`
`18. Citing to the same portions of the ’761 specification that Impossible did in its
`
`opening brief, Dr. Sarnoski opines that “[a] POSA would understand that example to mean that
`
`the different tissue replicas would be incorporated together in such a way as to look, feel, and
`
`behave in the same way as meat products as is specified in the claims of the ’761 patent.”
`
`Sarnoski Decl. ¶ 103. I disagree with Dr. Sarnoski’s conclusions, and maintain that the claim
`
`phrase is indefinite for all of the reasons I already set out in my original Declaration (see ¶¶ 114-
`
`123). Nothing about Dr. Sarnoski’s declaration changes my opinion. However, I do note Dr.
`
`Sarnoski’s opinion introduces a brand new definition of “wherein said muscle replica and fat
`
`tissue replica are assembled in a manner that approximates the physical organization of meat” to
`
`mean that “the different tissue replicas would be incorporated together in such a way as to look,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 14307
`
`
`
`feel, and behave in the same way as meat products.” In my opinion, the specification does not
`
`provide or otherwise support this new definition. I additionally believe this new proposed
`
`construction is unhelpful as a POSITA would not even be able to discern with reasonable
`
`certainty the full scope of the new definition itself.
`
`19.
`
`Specifically, while Dr. Sarnoski’s proposed definition specifies that
`
`“approximates” means “same” (adding some degree of clarity), his proposal still does not
`
`resolves the issue I highlighted in my Declaration (see ¶122) concerning the full scope of what
`
`“meat” could mean in the context of the claims. Thus, in my opinion, a POSITA would not
`
`understand with reasonable certainty the full scope of what “meat” could mean for at least the
`
`same reasons I specified in my Declaration (see ¶122).
`
`20. Dr. Sarnoski also opines that Motif’s alternative proposal for this term (in the
`
`event the claim term is construed) has a “hyperfocus on the visual aspect of the ‘physical
`
`organization,’ and that he disagrees with that focus and contends that “visual” aspects are one
`
`aspect of the physical characteristics of meat, but not the only characteristic described in the ‘761
`
`specification. I don’t disagree that the ’761 patent includes a description of other characteristics,
`
`but my understanding is that a patent owner’s clear and unmistakable statements about what their
`
`claims do not cover (made during prosecution and/or an IPR proceeding as is the case here),
`
`extends even to features disclosed in embodiments of their specification. For instance, if a patent
`
`described embodiments that included A, B, and C, but then during prosecution and/or IPR made
`
`it unmistakably clear that their claims did not cover C, the patent owner could not then later
`
`argue that its claims actually did cover C because it was described in the specification. That is
`
`exactly what I see Dr. Sarnoski doing here, and, in my opinion, a POSITA would read the entire
`
`record differently, and see that Impossible views its own claims as not covering food products
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 14308
`
`
`
`where the replicas are “no longer visually distinguishable from each other after being combined.”
`
`Indeed, based on my review of the IPR proceedings, it is my opinion that Impossible’s
`
`distinction over McMindes at least makes it clear that this claim term, whatever its full scope,
`
`does not include mixtures of replicas where, in the resulting food product, the replicas are no
`
`longer visually distinguishable from each other after being combined. Thus, I disagree with Dr.
`
`Sarnoski’s opinion.
`
`A.
`
`“Aroma Terms”
`
`21. Nothing in Dr. Sarnoski’s declaration changes my opinions as to the Aroma
`
`Terms, and I maintain my opinions that a POSITA would be unable to discern, with reasonable
`
`certainty, the degree to which an aroma is “associated” with meat or “like” beef.
`
`22.
`
`I understand Impossible believes, and Dr. Sarnoski asserts, that a POSITA would
`
`readily understand the terms “meat-associated aroma” and “beef-like aroma” with reasonable
`
`certainty in “the context of the claims, the entirety of the specifications of the patents, and the
`
`prosecution history.” I disagree. None of these sources provide enough context for a POSITA to
`
`understand with reasonable certainty the degree to which an aroma is “associated” with meat or
`
`“like” beef.
`
`23. Dr. Sarnoski appears to assert that the qualifiers in the terms “meat-associated
`
`aroma” and “beef-like aroma” indicate that the invention is directed to “a plant-based
`
`consumable,” and that the terms should otherwise be understood to mean “meat aroma” and
`
`“beef aroma.” Sarnoski, ¶ 135. I disagree.
`
`24.
`
`First, the terms “meaty flavor” and “meaty aroma” appear in the claims as
`
`descriptors of plant-based food products. ’096 Patent, cl. 10 (“where the heme flavor reaction
`
`mixture has a meaty flavor and/or meaty aroma”). The specifications also commonly use the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 14309
`
`
`
`terms “meaty aroma” or “beefy aroma” in the context of plant-based food products. ’241 Patent,
`
`2:48-55; ’250 Patent, 83:66-84:1. Thus, when reviewing the language in the context of the claims
`
`and specification, a POSITA would understand that plant-based food products can be described
`
`as having “meaty” or “beefy” aromas, and therefore, “meat-associated aroma” is meant to
`
`capture a different concept.
`
`25. Nor would it have been commonplace in the industry to use the terms “meat-
`
`associated” or “beef-like” exclusively in the context of plant-based food products. For example,
`
`Song describes that hydrolyzed beef is largely responsible for imparting “beeflike flavor.”
`
`Legako, Ex. L22, 10. Additionally, he discusses in detail that “beeflike process flavors” can be
`
`imparted from different beef base. Id., 12. Thus, Song specifically discusses “beeflike” flavors
`
`that are extracted directly from beef, not a plant-based food product. Id. Thus, a POSITA would
`
`not readily determine that “beeflike” is meant to refer to a product that is plant-based.
`
`26. Dr. Sarnoski also appears to suggest that I believe a POSITA would not be able to
`
`determine what aromas and flavors are considered “meaty” or “beefy” in any context. Sarnoski,
`
`¶¶ 136, 138, 141. This mistates my opinion. As I state multiple times, I believe the Foodstuff
`
`Patents fail to provide the requisite context to understand which aromas are sufficiently
`
`“associated” with meat or “like” beef, and therefore a POSITA would not understand the scope
`
`of the invention with reasonable certainty.
`
`27.
`
`I do not dispute that the Foodstuff Patents provide disclosures of techniques to
`
`identify aromatic compounds in meat (Sarnoski, ¶¶ 138-139), that a POSITA has means of
`
`characterizing and classifying aromas as “meaty” (Sarnoski, ¶¶ 140-142), nor that there may be
`
`volatile compounds in the art that are known, within given contexts, to possess “meaty” flavors
`
`(Sarnoski, ¶¶ 143-144). Dr. Sarnoski’s discussion of these points misses the issue – the patents
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 14310
`
`
`
`do not claim “meaty” or “beefy” aromas, but “meat-associated” and “beef-like” ones. As Dr.
`
`Sarnoski admits, food scientists have been discovering various volatile compounds for years –
`
`there are dozens listed in the specifications of the Foodstuff patents, and there are thousands that
`
`have been discovered to this day. Sarnoski, ¶¶ 139, 140, 142-145; Legako, L4, 601. But these
`
`volatile compounds cover a vast range of aromas and flavors, some of which can be considered
`
`meaty, and some of which can be described as “roasted, nutty, green, or earthy qualities,” “fresh
`
`onions,” or “bread crusts,” in addition to other flavors. Sarnoski, ¶ 143. Again, context is key.
`
`The degree to which any of these other aromas and flavors can be considered “meat-associated”
`
`or “beef-like” is not well-defined in the industry, and a POSITA’s understanding of whether or
`
`not an aroma qualifies would be heavily dependent on the established context.
`
`28. Dr. Sarnoski’s citations to extrinsic evidence further support this point. As Dr.
`
`Sarnoski describes, the term “meatiness” can be “cleanly dissected sensorially into about ten
`
`different odour qualities (Galt and MacLeod, 1983), in which case, many of the identified
`
`volatiles are acting as ‘aroma modifiers’ contributing buttery, caramel, roast, burnt, sulphurous,
`
`green, fragrant, oily/fatty and nutty qualities.” Sarnoski, ¶ 145. However, just because a POSITA
`
`could identify that “meatiness” has these odor qualities does not imply that every single one of
`
`these volatiles, in isolation, should be considered “meat-associated.” It would be illogical for a
`
`POSITA to conclude that the claimed invention encompasses a food product that purely consists
`
`of a volatile compound smelling like “grass,” for example. Yet the Foodstuff patents do not
`
`provide enough clarity on what is meant by a “meat-associated aroma” that would satisfy the
`
`claims.
`
`29. Dr. Sarnoski’s arguments regarding beef aromas and beef flavor compounds are
`
`similarly unavailing; it does not matter that a POSITA could identify beef flavors in certain
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 14311
`
`
`
`contexts (Sarnoski, ¶ 146), or that a POSITA could identify different types of beef smells and
`
`tastes in certain contexts (Sarnoski, ¶ 147). The problem is that the patents do not provide clarity
`
`on what aromas are considered sufficiently “beef-like” to satisfy the claimed invention in the
`
`context of the Foodstuff Patents themselves.
`
`30.
`
`Thus, I agree with Motif that the terms “meat-associated aroma” and “beef-like
`
`aroma” are indefinite because a POSITA would not be able understand the scope of these terms,
`
`nor the broader invention as a whole, with reasonable certainty.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`31.
`
`In conclusion, nothing in Dr. Sarnoski’s declaration changes any of my opinions
`
`as set forth in my Declaration. Instead, his opinion reaffirms my views concerning each of my
`
`opinions, including those in my Declaration and as set forth above in this Supplemental
`
`Declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` I
`
` hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
`
`that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 14, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Dr. Jerrad Legako, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 14312
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 14, 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
`
`July 14, 2023, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Ian R. Liston, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Matthew R. Reed, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Wendy L. Devine, Esquire
`Susannah M. L. Gagnon, Esquire
`Kristina Hanson, Esquire
`Jessica Ramsey, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Lorelei P. Westin, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 150 Filed 07/14/23 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 14313
`
`
`
`Daniel M. Silver, Esquire
`Alexandra M. Joyce, Esquire
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Daralyn J. Durie, Esquire
`Adam R. Brausa, Esquire
`Vera Ranieri, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Aaron D. Bray, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Caleb D. Woods, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2100 L Street, NW
`Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20037
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`
`
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`