Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 27993
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 22-311-WCB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC. and
`GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
`FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew M. Moshos (#6685)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`amoshos@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Wendy L. Devine
`Kristina M. Hanson
`Shannon P. Gillespie McComb
`Jessica Ramsey
`Joyce K. Yao
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: (415) 947-2000
`
`Matthew R. Reed
`Jeffrey Nall
`Quincy Rush
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Lori P. Westin
`Natalie J. Morgan
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 350-2300
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 27994
`
`Sonja R. Gerrard
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: (206) 883-2529
`
`Matthew Macdonald
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI, P.C.
`953 East Third Street, Suite 100
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Tel: (323) 210-2953
`
`Dated: April 15, 2024
`11446647 / 20200.00002
`Public Version Dated: April 22, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 27995
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`UNCONTESTED FACTS ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE ..................................................2
`
`THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO AMEND ...........................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Impossible was diligent in
`
` Hemami .............................................................3
`
`The Fault For Motif’s Deficient Interrogatory Responses Lies With Motif ............4
`
`
`Deposition Testimony Was Necessary To Contextualize
`Documents ...............................................................................................................5
`
`This Motion Concerns Good Cause, Not The Merits ..............................................7
`
`III.
`
`“OTHER CONSIDERATIONS” SUPPORT AMENDMENT ...........................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Importance Of This New Information And Difficulty In Obtaining It .............8
`
`Lack Of Gamesmanship ...........................................................................................9
`
`Lack Of Prejudice To Motif .....................................................................................9
`
`IV. MOTIF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EARLY EXPERT DISCOVERY ..................................9
`
`V.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 27996
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Averbach v. Rival Mfg. Co.,
`879 F.2d 1196 (3d Cir. 1989).......................................................................................1, 4, 5
`
`Brit. Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp,
`C.A. No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 3047989 (D. Del. June 8, 2020) ...................................5
`
`Cevdet Aksüt Oğullari Koll. Sti v. Cavusoglu,
`No. 14-3362, 2018 WL 482453 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2018) .......................................................7
`
`Choice Is Yours, Inc. v. Choice Is Yours,
`No. 14-1804, 2017 WL 11550162 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2017) ................................................4
`
`Flynn v. Love,
`No. 19-cv-00239, 2023 WL 2561158 (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2023) ......................................6, 7
`
`Johns Hopkins University v. 454 Life Sciences Corp.,
`230 F. Supp. 3d 357 (D. Del. 2017) ...................................................................................10
`
`Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC,
`No. 1:CV-09-1685, 2010 WL 4537002 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2010) .................................9, 10
`
`Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc
`C.A. No. 13-239-LPS, 2017 WL 3264068 (D. Del. Aug. 1, 2017) ...................................10
`
`STATUTES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) ........................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 27997
`
`
`
`“The Federal Rules themselves recognize the reliance aspect of discovery” and “are
`
`structured to elicit truthful answers given under oath”; therefore, a party “may reasonably rely on
`
`interrogatory answers.” Averbach v. Rival Mfg. Co., 879 F.2d 1196, 1201 (3d Cir. 1989). That
`
`is exactly what Impossible did—reasonably rely on Motif’s representation that (1) Motif’s
`
`specification document for Hemami accurately represented that Hemami
`
`
`
`, and (2) Motif’s responses to Impossible’s Interrogatories requesting identification of “the
`
`chemical composition of all ingredients and components of the Accused Instrumentalities” and
`
`“any chemical analysis” of “any ingredient or component in the Accused Instrumentalities” was
`
`complete and did not omit key documents. Impossible had no obligation to fact-check Motif’s
`
`representations, and certainly no urgent obligation to do so, as discovery is designed to allow
`
`Impossible’s reasonable reliance. Nonetheless, Impossible did fact-check—through expert
`
`testing and review of thousands of documents—and thereby discovered facts showing
`
`infringement, and upon doing so diligently sought leave to amend.
`
`Tellingly, Motif has no explanation for its failure to disclose through any document or
`
`discovery response that Hemami
`
` or its convenient omission of highly relevant
`
`documents from its interrogatory responses. Instead, Motif bizarrely argues that the amino acid
`
`documents were easy to find, begging the question of why Motif didn’t include them in its
`
`interrogatory response to begin with. Even more brazen, Motif further argues that its failure to
`
`provide complete interrogatory responses should be excused because discovery encompassed 22
`
`products—18 of which Motif represented were its products in January 2023 only to admit in
`
`December 2023, after nearly a year of discovery, those products did not exist. Motif also
`
`attempts to confuse the issue of good cause by arguing the merits of the infringement
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 27998
`
`
`
`contentions. Impossible’s contentions are strong and will be proven at the appropriate time, but
`
`that is not the issue presented in this motion.
`
`In reality, Impossible diligently pursued discovery, including testing of the accused
`
`products and ingredients, and timely sought leave to amend contentions upon discovery of
`
`evidence of infringement. This litigation has been complicated and delayed by Motif’s creation
`
`of extensive, burdensome discovery distractions—including forcing Impossible to seek Court
`
`intervention to obtain product samples and remove Motif’s “prototype” products from the case
`
`and failing to provide straightforward responses to Impossible’s discovery requests. Against that
`
`irrefutable history, Motif’s claim that Impossible “should have” done more to discover the actual
`
`content of Hemami earlier is astonishing. Motif’s discovery gamesmanship does not negate
`
`Impossible’s good cause to amend.
`
`There is good cause for the requested amendment and Impossible respectfully requests its
`
`motion be granted.
`
`I.
`
`Uncontested Facts Establish Good Cause
`
`Motif does not deny several key facts, including that (1) in response to Impossible’s
`
`targeted discovery requests, Motif provided no information related to
`
`
`
`; (2) the only documents in Motif’s
`
`production (the
`
` Documents) indicating Hemami
`
` were buried in a
`
`production of over 100,000 documents; (3) the
`
`Documents do not reveal on their face
`
`that they
`
`; (4) Hemami has been an accused product in this litigation
`
`since the original complaint; and (5) once Impossible discovered that Hemami
`
`
`
`, Impossible acted with diligence to investigate and move to amend its
`
`contentions. These facts are dispositive of the question of good cause.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 27999
`
`
`
`II.
`
`There is Good Cause to Amend
`
`The asserted claims of the ’096 patent require both a sugar and a sulfur-containing
`
`compound. Regarding sugar, Impossible’s
`
`recited in the asserted claims. Regarding sulfur-containing compounds,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` recited in the asserted claims. Impossible was diligent in discovering those facts and
`
`moving to amend. Motif’s arguments to the contrary fail.
`
`A.
`
`Impossible was diligent in
`
` Hemami
`
`Motif’s product specification for Hemami states that
`
`,
`
`thus Impossible had a right to reasonably rely on that representation and not accuse Hemami of
`
`infringing the ’096 patent. Impossible received samples of Hemami1 and copious other products
`
`and ingredients (after the Court ordered Motif to provide them) and diligently worked with
`
`experts to evaluate them. That work encompasses several issues in this case;2 there was no
`
`urgency focused on Hemami infringing the ’096 patent in view of Motif’s representations in
`
`discovery. Nevertheless, Impossible uncovered that Hemami
`
`. Coincidentally, Impossible also discovered that Motif had
`
`
`
`
`1 Motif implies that it produced samples of Hemami in conjunction with the
`
`Documents. Not so. Motif produced the
` Documents in a production of over 200,000
`pages and did not identify them as related to Hemami (in response to relevant interrogatories or
`otherwise).
`
`2 These issues were especially complex and numerous during the year that Motif represented it
`had 18 products that, as discussed at the December 4, 2023 hearing (D.I. 299), did not actually
`exist, which was complicated further by Motif’s claim that it could not produce samples of
`several of those products, necessitating discovery regarding the individual ingredients in said
`products.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 28000
`
`
`
` and failed to disclose that testing in its interrogatory responses.
`
`Once Impossible had that information, it timely moved to amend after only 10 days.
`
`B.
`
`The Fault For Motif’s Deficient Interrogatory Responses Lies With Motif
`
`Motif does not deny that it failed to cite highly relevant documents in response to
`
`interrogatories that directly requested the information contained in those documents. Instead,
`
`Motif complains that it was burdened by having to respond with respect to “20+ accused
`
`products”—a burden that was created entirely by Motif’s representation that it had 22
`
`products, 18 of which it eventually admitted were “prototypes.” Motif’s attempt to shift the
`
`blame to Impossible by arguing that it failed to “investigat[e] the purported adequacy of Motif’s
`
`discovery responses” (Opp. at 13) also fails. Impossible was entitled to rely on representations
`
`made by Motif in its discovery responses. Averbach, 879 F.2d at 1201. It was Motif that had a
`
`responsibility to answer Impossible’s written discovery to the best of its knowledge. Choice Is
`
`Yours, Inc. v. Choice Is Yours, No. 14-1804, 2017 WL 11550162, at *1 n. 2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23,
`
`2017) (stating that “a defendant has a ‘duty to conduct a reasonable investigation . . . and fully
`
`respond to interrogatories posed to the [defendant]’”) (citation omitted). And it was Motif that
`
`failed to identify the
`
` Documents in response to Impossible’s Interrogatory Nos. 16 and
`
`17.
`
`Motif’s failure to identify the
`
` Documents in its interrogatory responses, by Bates
`
`number or otherwise, is particularly egregious given that it was Dr. Janet Collins who requested
`
`the
`
`testing and received the results. In responding to the interrogatories by invoking
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Motif represented that (1) the answer to the interrogatory may be
`
`determined through review of Motif’s business records; and (2) the burden of deriving the
`
`answer from those records “will be substantially the same for either party.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(d). Dr. Janet Collins is the Motif employee that is responsible for managing this litigation,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 28001
`
`
`
`and therefore Motif’s counsel must have consulted with her regarding their original, and several
`
`supplemental, responses to these interrogatories. Indeed, at least Interrogatory No. 16 was the
`
`subject of motion practice (which Dr. Collins would have been managing and reporting to Motif
`
`management). D.I. 299. It is not reasonably possible that Dr. Collins did not personally know
`
`that the
`
` Documents were not in Motif’s response. The burden was not on Impossible to
`
`uncover Motif’s deliberate choice to provide incomplete discovery responses. Averbach, 879
`
`F.2d at 1201 (explaining that “[a] litigant is entitled to accept answers to previous interrogatories
`
`as true, and to refrain from seeking additional discovery directed to the same issue”; a party
`
`“cannot be faulted for failing to pry further by discovery into the very same inquiry aborted by
`
`[the opposing party’s] misleading answer”).
`
`The case law cited by Motif is inapposite. Opp. at 6, 7, 11, 13, 17 (citing, Brit.
`
`Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, C.A. No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 3047989 (D. Del.
`
`June 8, 2020)). In British Telecommunications, the defendant retained new counsel who located
`
`prior art that the preceding counsel had missed and moved to amend contentions to add said prior
`
`art. Id. at *1-2. The Court found that the presence of new counsel did not support a finding of
`
`diligence. Id. at *4. Notably, the information sought to be added to the contentions in British
`
`Telecommunications was not information in the possession and knowledge of the opposing party,
`
`as is the case here. Here, Impossible discovered the true nature of Motif’s Hemami only after
`
`extensive discovery and
`
`. Such investigation necessarily takes time, and it takes
`
`more time where the defendant fails to be candid in discovery, as is the case here.
`
`C.
`
`Deposition Testimony Was Necessary To Contextualize The
`Documents
`
`
`
`Ms. Sallade revealed for the first time during her deposition on March 11, 2024 that
`
`. Motif’s claim that Impossible should have
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 28002
`
`
`
`known that a
`
` Document contains testing of Hemami if it were attached to an email that
`
`discusses Hemami does not negate good cause. The
`
` Documents themselves do not refer
`
`to “Hemami” and the cover emails do not clearly indicate that the documents address Hemami.
`
`Impossible had no reason to search for the
`
` Documents in the first place as they should
`
`have been identified in response to Impossible’s Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17 and therefore
`
`Impossible had no reason to believe that they existed. Moreover, a search of Motif’s document
`
`production for “Hemami” results in over
`
`—given Motif’s representations that
`
`response to interrogatories, Impossible had no reason to parse through those thousands of
`
` and Motif’s failure to identify the
`
` in
`
`documents one-by-one to discover that was false.
`
`That the
`
` Documents contain the word
`
`also proves nothing.
`
`Hemami is a Motif product that contains myoglobin. Again, given Motif’s representations,
`
`Impossible had no more reason to search for
`
` on myoglobin than it did for
`
`Hemami. Similarly, Motif’s contention that the
`
`Documents could have been located if
`
`only Impossible had thought to search the keywords
`
` also misses the
`
`mark. Searches for such words in the patent claims return
`
`.
`
`Motif also argues that Impossible’s assertion that the
`
`Documents were hidden
`
`among a production of over 100,000 documents somehow mischaracterizes the situation. There
`
`is no mischaracterization—the
`
`Documents were produced in a “document dump” of
`
`over 200,000 pages. Flynn v. Love, No. 19-cv-00239, 2023 WL 2561158, at *14 (D. Nev. Mar.
`
`16, 2023) (finding that providing several thousand documents in a ‘“do it yourself document
`
`dump fashion’” “flies in the face of both the spirit of Rule 34 and established case law.”); Cevdet
`
`Aksüt Oğullari Koll. Sti v. Cavusoglu, No. 14-3362, 2018 WL 482453, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 19,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 28003
`
`
`
`2018) (finding that the court sorting through an indiscernible document production is a waste of
`
`its time).
`
`D.
`
`This Motion Concerns Good Cause, Not The Merits
`
`Motif’s various arguments regarding the merits are not relevant and do not weigh against
`
`good cause. For example, Motif’s claim that Impossible’s infringement evidence relates to
`
`supposed
`
`is both false and irrelevant. The claims at issue are not product by
`
`process claims, thus Motif’s arguments related to what “Hemami is manufactured to include” are
`
`irrelevant to the merits—what matters is what Hemami actually contains,
`
`
`
`
`
`Likewise, Motif’s arguments regarding the interpretation of the
`
` Documents are
`
`both wrong and beside the point. Motif argues that the
`
` Documents do not evidence
`
`infringing
`
` because they relate to
`
`
`
`. Opp. at 14-15. Motif is
`
`wrong for several reasons. First, there is no evidence supporting Motif’s claim that
`
` Even if one assumes that the data in the
`
` Documents includes results of
`
` there is no basis to assume that
`
`. Motif’s claim that
`
`evidence that
`
`documents showing
`
`” is entirely unsupported. Second, there is no
`
` that Motif claims—there are no
`
`Documents, and even if there were there is no testimony from anyone involved in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 28004
`
`
`
`.3 Thus, there is no evidence that
`
`
`
`And, in fact, Impossible’s
`
` demonstrates that
`
`
`
`More to the point of this motion, Dr. Collins’s deposition testimony revealed that she was
`
`well aware of
`
` Documents. Motif does not even attempt to
`
`offer any excuse for its failure to identify those documents in its interrogatory responses. Any
`
`argument about
`
` goes to the merits of
`
`an infringement contention; it does nothing to excuse Motif from its discovery obligations.
`
`III.
`
`“Other Considerations” Support Amendment
`A.
`
`The Importance Of This New Information And Difficulty In Obtaining It
`
`This new information is vital to Impossible’s infringement case, as it demonstrates that
`
`Motif’s core product—Hemami—directly infringes Impossible’s asserted patents, contrary to
`
`what Impossible was previously led to believe. Motif’s only argument regarding why this new
`
`information is not important to the case is that “the
`
` Documents do not show
`
`
`
`.” Opp. at 18. Additionally, Motif simply argues that it
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`(discussing Ex. 29 at MOTIF00320083 (“
`
`, Motif executive, Dr. Janet Collins did not know if the
`Ex. 28 at 151:2-153:17
`
` . . .”)). At her April 11, 2024
`deposition, Dr. Collins contradicted herself repeatedly regarding whether there was ever any
`answer to that inquiry. Id. at 152:1-153:17, 157:4-158:25, 166:9-20. Conveniently, at that same
`deposition, Dr. Collins claimed
`
`
`. Id. at 154:11-
`
`156:9. Dr. Collins also testified that
`
`
`Documents. Id. at 164:2-24, 166:24-168:7, 168:18-23. Later, Dr. Collins contradicted herself
`and claimed she asked
`. Id. at 168:25-
` in an inquiry that Dr. Collins
`172:11. The supposed focus on that
`
`, is questionable at best. Although it is not the issue to be decided in this
`motion, Dr. Collin’s self-serving, contradictory testimony is not credible.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 28005
`
`
`
`does not have Impossible’s
`
`. In other words, Motif can only contend that the new
`
`discovery is unimportant if the new discovery does not actually establish what Impossible asserts
`
`it establishes. Motif does not—and cannot—argue that evidence
`
`
`
`explained (Open. 6-8), this information clearly establishes these facts. Accordingly, Motif has
`
` is not important to this case. And as
`
`no argument against the importance of this evidence.
`
`B.
`
`Lack Of Gamesmanship
`
`Impossible’s actions are in no way indicative of gamesmanship. Rather, Motif’s failure
`
`to provide complete written discovery responses made the process of discovering the true content
`
`of Hemami an excessively burdensome and time-consuming task. Given Motif’s
`
`gamesmanship, Impossible’s motion is more than timely.
`
`C.
`
`Lack Of Prejudice To Motif
`
`Motif is not prejudiced by the addition of direct infringement contentions against
`
`Hemami. As Impossible explained (Open. 8-9), Hemami has been a part of this litigation and
`
`Motif has been on notice that sales of Hemami and inclusion of Hemami in food products
`
`induced infringement of the Food Product Patents. E.g., D.I. 299 at 43:3-9. As a result, Motif’s
`
`defenses are already inclusive of Hemami, and its assertion that it will “need[ ] to develop
`
`theories relating to damages or injunctive relief concerning direct infringement of the ’096
`
`patent” is baseless. Opp. at 20. Motif’s only complaint is that it would need to investigate
`
`whether Hemami—its own product—meets the limitation of the asserted claim. Id. That is not
`
`undue burden.
`
`IV. Motif is Not Entitled to Early Expert Discovery
`
`Motif’s argument that Impossible has waived attorney work product protection for its
`
` by “relying on [them in] support its Motion” (id. at 16), is not supported by either
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 28006
`
`
`
`the facts or case law. The court in Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby
`
`Products, LLC, held that even though the plaintiff had used attorney work-product testing in
`
`drafting its infringement contentions, the testing information did not have to be produced unless
`
`and until the plaintiff “actually relies upon this data . . . to support its infringement claims.” No.
`
`1:CV-09-1685, 2010 WL 4537002, at *2-3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2010). And in Princeton Digital
`
`Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc., the plaintiff did not merely “selectively rely[]” on privileged
`
`documents, but rather actively disclosed privileged documents while asserting privilege over
`
`others. C.A. No. 13-239-LPS, 2017 WL 3264068, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 1, 2017). Here, unlike in
`
`Princeton, Impossible is not disclosing some information while withholding other information.
`
`Rather, Motif is trying to leverage the result of its own discovery deficiencies (the necessity of
`
`the present motion) to gain premature expert discovery.
`
`Motif also claims that because Motif has not seen the
`
`, Impossible’s assertion
`
`is baseless and in doing so disregards Impossible’s sworn attorney declaration in support of the
`
`results. Opp. at 16-17. Yet, Motif’s sole support for this assertion, Johns Hopkins University v.
`
`454 Life Sciences Corp., 230 F. Supp. 3d 357, 387 (D. Del. 2017), involved an argument made
`
`for the first time in post-trial briefing, with no record evidence supporting it. There is no support
`
`for Motif’s argument that an attorney’s declaration carries no weight.
`
`More to the point, Impossible is not requiring the Court to rely on attorney argument—
`
`Impossible offered to provide
`
` in camera and will do so in compliance with the
`
`Court’s subsequent order. D.I. 458.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Impossible Foods respectfully requests that the Court grant its
`
`Motion to Amend the Final Infringement Contentions to Include Hemami.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 487 Filed 04/22/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 28007
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Bindu A. Palapura
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew M. Moshos (#6685)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`amoshos@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Wendy L. Devine
`Kristina M. Hanson
`Shannon P. Gillespie McComb
`Jessica Ramsey
`Joyce K. Yao
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: (415) 947-2000
`
`Matthew R. Reed
`Jeffrey Nall
`Quincy Rush
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Lori P. Westin
`Natalie J. Morgan
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 350-2300
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Sonja R. Gerrard
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: (206) 883-2529
`
`Matthew Macdonald
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI, P.C.
`953 East Third Street, Suite 100
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Tel: (323) 210-2953
`
`Dated: April 15, 2024
`11446647 / 20200.00002
`Public Version Dated: April 22,
`2024
`
`11
`
`