`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`em
`
`HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES, lNC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`GENENTECII, INC., and CITY OF HOPE,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Plaintiff Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (“HGS”), by and through undersigned
`
`counsel, files this Complaint against Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope (collcctively,
`
`“Defendants”) and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`HGS seeks a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 titled “Methods of
`
`Producing Immunoglobulins, Vectors and Transformed Host Cells for Use Therein” (the
`
`“Cabilly II Patent,” attached as Exhibit A), including the Ex Party Reexamination Certificate
`
`issued pursuant to Reexamination Nos. 90/007,542 and 90/007,859, is invalid, unenforceable and
`
`not infringed by the manufacture, use, importation, offer to sell or sale of HGS’s Benlysta®
`
`(belimumab) antibody.
`
`2.
`
`HGS has manufactured and is currently manufacturing Benlysta®, a
`
`recombinantly engineered monoclonal antibody which is being developed for the treatment of
`
`autoantibody-positive patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (“Lupus”). lf approved,
`
`Benlysta® would be the first new approved drug for Lupus in more than fifty years.
`
`YCSTOI : 10649228.]
`
`9000020008
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1198
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1198
`
`
`
`3.
`
`HGS has expended substantial resources researching and developing Benlysta®,
`
`including filing a Biologic License Application (“BLA”) with the United States Food and Drug
`
`Administration (“FDA”). HGS also has expended substantial resources in preparing to launch
`
`and commercialize Benlysta®.
`
`4.
`
`In the near future, HGS expects a decision from the FDA regarding the approval
`
`of I-lGS’s BLA for Benlysta®. Upon approval, HGS intends to market Benlysta® in this
`
`District.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants have asserted that the Cabilly II Patent broadly covers the use of
`
`certain well—known, conventional recombinant methods to produce virtually any antibody
`
`product in any type of host cell. Defendants also have asserted multiple infringement claims
`
`under the Cabilly II Patent against companies who have made and sold antibody products that
`
`were produced using recombinant methods similar to the methods used by HGS to make
`
`Benlysta®. See Medlmmune Inc. V. Gerzerztech, 1rzc., Case No. O3—cv—02567 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`Cerztocor, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc, Case No. 08-ev-03573 (CD. Cal,); Glaxo Group Ltd. v.
`
`Genenfech, Inc, Case No. 2: 10-ev-02764 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`6.
`
`In a pending action pertaining to a different antibody, Arzerram, Defendants
`
`specifically averred that Benlysta® infringes Claims 18 and 20 of the Cabilly II Patent and that
`
`they “intend shortly” to assert infringement claims against HGS. See Glaxo Group Ltd, v.
`
`Genenfec/7, Inc, Case No. 2:10-cv—02764 (CD. Cal.) (Genentech, Inc. and City ofHope’s
`
`Opening Brief on Claim Construction dated Jan. 7, 2011), Dkt. No. 83 at FN4. Given
`
`Defendants’ acts and statements and IIGS’s intended sale of Benlysta®, a real, immediate and
`
`substantial dispute exists between the parties concerning the Cabilly II Patent for which HGS
`
`now seeks declaratory relief.
`
`YCST0l:l0649228.l
`
`9()()()o2_ooo3
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1199
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1199
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff HGS is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 14200 Shady Grove Road, Rockville,
`
`Maryland 20850.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) is a corporation duly organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State ofDelaware, with its principal place of business in South San
`
`Francisco, California.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant City of Hope is a not—for—profit organization duly organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in Duaite,
`
`Califomia. On information and belief, City of Hope conducts business in the State of Delaware
`
`and has developed valuable relationships and generated goodwill through advertising and
`
`educational initiatives, including having a Regional Development Office serving Delaware at
`
`1608 Walnut Street #1702, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania l9103. On information and belief, as pait
`
`of its business efforts, City of Hope routinely invites businesses in Delaware to donate time and
`
`raise funds for its research and treatment programs.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Genentech and City of Hope are co—assignees of the
`
`Cabilly 11 Patent.
`
`()n information and belief, City of Hope has an ongoing relationship with
`
`Genentech which involves dealings beyond simply receiving royalty income on the Cabilly II
`
`Patent, including coordinating patent prosecution and maintenance and the federal litigation of
`
`infringement elaims (in which City of Hope and Genentech are representedjointly by counsel).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 (28 U.S.C. §
`
`220l ), Title 28 of the United States Code, for the purposes of determining an actual and
`
`justiciable eontroversy between the parties, and the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of
`
`YCST0l:10649228.l
`
`900002_()()()x
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1200
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1200
`
`
`
`the United States Code. This Court has subject matterjurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and l338(a).
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Genentech based on its incorporation
`
`and business in Delaware. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`City of Hope based on its business activities in and directed to Delaware and its established and
`
`ongoing relationship with its co-assignee Genentech. Because of the multifaceted relationship
`
`between City of Hope and Genentech, including coordinating prosecution and maintenance of
`
`the Cabilly 11 Patent and control over federal litigation, City of Hope has purposefully availed
`
`itself of the benefits and protections of Delaware law.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ l39l(b) and (c) and
`
`l400(b), because Genentech is incorporated, both Defendants do business in the State of
`
`Delaware, and HGS intends to market Benlysta® in this District upon approval by the FDA.
`
`THE CABILLY PATENTS
`
`14.
`
`On April 8, 1983, Shmuel Cabilly, Herbert Heynelcer, William Holmes, Arthur
`
`Riggs and Ronald Wetzel (the “Cabilly Applicants”) filed a patent application in the PTO that
`
`issued on March 28, 1989, as U.S. Patent No. 4,816,567 (the “Cabilly I Patent”).
`
`15.
`
`At the time the Cabilly I Patent issued, the Cabilly Applicants had a continuation
`
`application (the “Cabilly II Application”) pending in the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”). The PTO issued the Cabilly II Patent on December 18, 2001. On its face, the
`
`Cabilly 11 Patent is assigned to Genentech, and, by certificate of correction, is also assigned to
`
`City of Hope.
`
`Patent Reexamination
`
`16.
`
`In 2005, two separate requests to re—examine the Cabilly 11 Patent were submitted
`
`to the PTO. The PTO mailed two separate orders granting a request for reexamination, on .luly
`
`YCST01:1064922K_l
`
`9000030003
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1201
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1201
`
`
`
`7, 2005 and January 23, 2006. See Decision Granting Ex Parte Reexamination, Reexamination
`
`Control No. 90/007,542 (July 7, 2005); Decision Granting Ex Parfe Reexamination,
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/007,859 (January 23, 2006). The reexamination proceedings
`
`were merged on June 6, 2006.
`
`17.
`
`On July 19, 2008, the PTO mailed an Advisory Action, maintaining its final
`
`rejection of all claims in the Cabilly II Patent as invalid for reasons including obviousness—type
`
`double patenting. Ex Parte Reexamination Advisory Action, Reexamination Control Nos.
`
`90/007,859 and 90/007,542 (July 19, 2008).
`
`18.
`
`In response to the final rejection, Defendants filed an Appeal Brief on December
`
`9, 2008.
`
`19.
`
`After an Ex Parte Examiner Interview on February 13, 2009, Genentech amended
`
`claims 21, 27 and 32 to overcome the obviousness—type double patenting rejection. See
`
`Supplemental Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § l.550(b),'Reexamination Control Nos. 90/007,859
`
`and 90/007,542 (February 13, 2009).
`
`20.
`
`On February 23, 2009, the PTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a
`
`Reexamination Certificate to Genentech, confirming claims 1-20 and 33-36 and allowing
`
`amended claims 21, 27 and 32. Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate,
`
`Reexamination Control Nos. 90/007,859 and 90/007,542 (February 23, 2009). On May 19,
`
`2009, the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 C1 with
`
`amended claims 21, 27 and 32.
`
`Defendants ’ Admissions Regarding State of the Art in April 1983
`
`21.
`
`Defendants made a number of admissions in their December 2008 Appeal Brief
`
`regarding the state of the art prior to the filing of the Cabilly II Patent application in April 1983.
`
`According to Defendants:
`
`YCST01:10649228.1
`
`9000020003
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1202
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1202
`
`
`
`a.
`
`“[I]n April 1983, the biological mechanisms that controlled expression of foreign
`
`DNA and assembly of proteins were not well understood. This lack of
`
`understanding was especially true for eukaryotic genes, which were known to be
`
`far more complex than prokaryotic genes. As Dr. Harris, one of Owners’ experts
`
`in this case, explained in his 1983 review paper, ‘it is clear that not all the rules
`
`governing the expression of cloned genes have been elaborated and those rules
`
`that do exist are still largely empirical.” (Appeal Brief at 20).
`
`b.
`
`“In early April of 1983, the field of genetic engineering was still developing .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`A relatively small number of proteins had been made by recombinant DNA
`
`technology. Almost all of those were relatively simple monomeric (i.e., one
`
`polypeptide chain) proteins.” (Appeal Brief Appendix at B551 [Harris Decl.]).
`
`c.
`
`“As of April 1983, insulin was the only ‘multimcric’ protein that had been made
`
`using genetic engineering.” (Appeal Brief at 21).
`
`d.
`
`“Several experts with actual experience in the field of the invention in April 1983
`
`explained that those references cited by the Examiner that include experimental
`
`results show a significant amount of unpredictability in achieving success in
`
`simpler experiments than what is required by the ‘4l5 patent claims.” (Appeal
`
`Brief at 28).
`
`e.
`
`“[Sjuccessful production of immunoglobulins was highly dependent on the
`
`sequence of expression and levels at which the two immunoglobulin genes were
`
`expressed.” (Appeal Brief at 63).
`
`f.
`
`“[L]evels of expression of each immunoglobulin gene could affect production of
`
`the other immunoglobulin polypeptide.” (Appeal Brief at 63).
`
`YCST0l:l0649228,l
`
`9000020008
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1203
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1203
`
`
`
`g. “Such a person would have been familiar with the many complications of
`
`producing eukaryotic polypeptides in bacterial host cells known by April 1983.”
`
`(Appeal Brief at 73).
`
`h.
`
`“I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art, in early April of 1983, would have
`
`thought that successful expression of two immunoglobulin proteins in one
`
`transformed host cell would have been unpredictable and that assembly of the two
`
`proteins into an immunoglobulin tetramer would have been even more
`
`unpredictable.” (Appeal Brief Apendix at B224 [McKnight Decl.]).
`
`i.
`
`“Experimental results would have been important to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in April 1983 because many of the biological mechanisms that controlled
`
`expression of foreign DNA and assembly of proteins were not well understood at
`
`that time.” (Appeal Brief Appendix at B376 [Second McKnight Decl.]).
`
`j.
`
`“Each of these papers shows that successful transformation and expression of
`
`even one foreign immunoglobulin gene in a lymphoid host cell could not be
`
`reasonably expected in April 1983. I do not believe these references can be read
`
`as suggesting that something even more challenging —— expressing two different
`
`foreign immunoglobulin genes in one transformed cell ~ would have been
`
`something that could be predictably achieved at that time.” (Appeal Brief
`
`Appendix at B3 82 [Second McKnight Decl.).
`
`k.
`
`“. .
`
`. I disagree with the suggestion, that by early April 1983, my PNAS paper had
`
`made routine or predictable the task of expressing exogenous immunoglobulin
`
`light and heavy chain genes in the same cell. In later experiments, I attempted to
`
`use the techniques described in the PNAS paper to introduce and express single lg
`
`genes into other lymphoid cell lines. Most of these experiments failed to produce
`
`YCST01: 106492281
`
`9000020003
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1204
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1204
`
`
`
`stable transfectants. Thus, my experience was that using the same transfection and
`
`selection conditions described in the PNAS paper with other cell lines or other lg
`
`genes did not routinely yield stable transformants containing cvcn a single
`
`exogenous Ig gene.” (Appeal BriefAppendix at B391 [Rice Decl.]).
`
`HGS’S BENLYSTA® gl§ELIMUMAB[
`
`22.
`
`Benlysta® (belimumab) is a new, human monoclonal antibody that targets the B-
`
`lymphocyte stimulator (“BLyS”), a naturally occurring protein, which is involved in the
`
`mediation of immunological responses and autoimmune diseases, including Lupus. HGS first
`
`discovered BLyS in 1996 and published a scientific article describing its activity in the journal
`
`Science in July 1999. Following that discovery, HGS initiated a program to develop human
`
`monoclonal antibodies that would specifically recognize and inhibit the biological activity of
`
`BLyS.
`
`23.
`
`After years of research and development, on June 2, 2010, HGS submitted a BLA
`
`to the FDA seeking to market Benlysta® with an indication for the treatment of autoantibody—
`
`positive patients with Lupus. If approved, Benlysta® would be the first new approved drug for
`
`Lupus in more than fifty years.
`
`24.
`
`HGS has expended substantial revenues researching and developing Benlysta®.
`
`HGS also has expended substantial revenues preparing to launch and commercialize Benlysta®.
`
`25.
`
`HGS currently manufactures belimumab in Rockvillc, Maryland in anticipation of
`
`commercial sales in the United States as the Benlysta® product. In addition, copies of the
`
`working cell bank used to produce Benlysta® are maintained by HGS in Rockville, Maryland.
`
`26.
`
`The FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee met to consider the Benlysta® BLA on
`
`November 16, 2010, voting 13 to 2 to recommend that the FDA approvc Bcnlysta®.
`
`YCS'l'0l 2106492281
`
`9000020008
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1205
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1205
`
`
`
`27.
`
`In the near future, HGS expects a decision from the FDA on the approval of
`
`HGS’s BLA for Benlysta®. Upon approval, HGS will begin marketing Benlysta® in thc United
`
`States, including in this District.
`
`HGS’S DISPUTE WITH DEFENDANTS REGARDING THE CABILLY II PATENT
`
`28.
`
`Through its statements and actions, Genentech has made clear to the
`
`biophalfrnaccutical industry generally and to HGS particularly that it contends that the claims of
`
`the Cabilly II Patent preclude others from commercially manufacturing recombinantly produced
`
`monoclonal antibodies without Genentech’s permission. In 2002, after the Cabilly II Patent
`
`issued, Sean Johnston, then Genentech’s Vice President of Intellectual Property and now
`
`Genentech’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel said:
`
`“The recently issued patent broadly covers the co-expression of immunoglobulin heavy
`
`and light chain genes in a single host cell .
`
`.
`
`. We do not believe that the claims are
`
`limited by type of antibody (mLu‘ine, humanized, or human) or by host cell type.”
`
`Genentech Awarded Critical Antibody Patent, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 20, p. 108 (Feb. 2002)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`29.
`
`According to Defendants, the manufacturing methods claimed in the Cabilly 11
`
`Patent are “the backbone of recombinant antibody production in the biotech industry.”
`
`Centocor, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-03573 (C.D. Cal.) (Opening Brief of Claim
`
`Construction, March 24, 2009), Dkt. No. 78.
`
`30.
`
`Genentech has asserted the Cabilly 11 Patent in litigation against other
`
`manufacturers of recombinant monoclonal antibodies, including Medlmmune, Inc., Centocor
`
`Oitho Biotech Inc. and GlaxoSmithK1inc LLC. See Medlmmune Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Case
`
`No. 03-cv—02567 (C.D. Cal.); Centocor, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc-., Case No. 08—cv-03573 (C.D.
`
`Cal.); Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc, Case No. 2:10-cv—02764 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`YCSTO I : l0649228.l
`
`9000020008
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1206
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1206
`
`
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, Genentech contends that the process and certain
`
`starting materials used to produce Benlysta® infringe one or more claims of the Cabilly 11
`
`Patent.
`
`32.
`
`Because Defendants have consistently alleged that the use of well—known,
`
`conventional recombinant methods to produce monoclonal antibodies in mammalian cell culture
`
`is within the scope of claims of the Cabilly 11 Patent and have asserted the patent against others
`
`who are similarly situated to HGS, Defendants’ prior statements and conduct necessarily
`
`establish an actual and substantial dispute between HGS and Defendants regarding the invalidity,
`
`unenforceability and noninfringement of the claims of the Cabilly II Patent. Therefore, HGS has
`
`a reasonable apprehension of suit by Genentech and City of Hope regarding the Cabilly 11 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`In addition to the statements and conduct directed at others, Defendants have
`
`made statements and engaged in conduct directed at HGS that create a real and immediate
`
`dispute between the parties regarding the Cabilly 11 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`Genentech has made public statements about pursuing an aggressive litigation
`
`policy to protect its products against competition and to protect against alleged infringement of
`
`the Cabilly 11 Patent claims in its 2009 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
`
`Commission. Genentech states:
`
`“intellectual property protection of our products is crucial to our business. Loss of
`
`effective intellectual property protection could result in lost sales to competing products
`
`and loss of royalty payments (for example, royalty income associated with the Cabilly
`
`patent) from licensees. We are often involved in disputes over contracts and intellectual
`
`property, and we work to resolve these disputes in confidential negotiations or litigation.
`
`We expect legal challenges in this area to continue. We plan to continue to build upon
`
`and defend our intellectual property position.”
`
`10
`
`YCSTOl:lO64922X.l
`
`9000010008
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1207
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1207
`
`
`
`(emphasis added). Genentech also states: “We have in the past been, are currently, and may in
`
`the future be involved in material litigation and other legal proceedings related to our
`
`proprietary rights, such as the Cabilly patent litigation and reexamination. .
`
`. .” (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`35.
`
`On January 7, 2011, Defendants averred in a court filing that HGS’s process to
`
`make Benlysta® infringes the Cabilly 11 Patent. Specifically, in Defendants’ Opening Brief on
`
`Claim Construction, a patent infringement action involving GlaxoSrnithKline’s antibody
`
`Arzerram and the Cabilly ll Patent, Defendants stated:
`
`“Genentech and City of Hope intend shortly to ask the Court for leave to add
`
`infringement allegations against a new GSK product, Benlysta® (belimumab), a
`
`recombinantly engineered monoclonal antibody for the treatment of lupus. .
`
`.
`
`. The
`
`process used to make Benlysta® is similar to that for Arzerra, except that it uses two
`
`Vectors instead of one (and thus will implicate claims 18 and 20).”
`
`Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Genenlec/'2, Inc, Case No. 2:10-cv—02764 (CD. Cal.), Dlct. No. 83 at FN4
`
`(emphasis added)
`
`36.
`
`Taken together, Genentech’s statements that it will enforce the Cabilly ll Patent to
`
`defend its products against competing products, and Defendants’ sworn contention that HGS’s
`
`Benlysta® infringes at least two claims of the Cabilly 11 Patent, establish that a real and
`
`immediate dispute exists between the parties with adverse legal interests concerning the Cabilly
`
`H Patent. HGS therefore has a reasonable apprehension of suit by Gcnentech and City of Hope
`
`regarding the Cabilly ll Patent.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`37.
`
`HGS incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 36 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`YCSTO l : 106492281
`
`l l
`
`9000020008
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1208
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1208
`
`
`
`
`
`38.
`
`An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties concerning
`
`whether HGS’s manufacture of Benlysta® (beliinuinab) infringes any valid and cnforceable
`
`claim of the Cabilly 11 Patent, either directly or indirectly, literally, under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, or otherwise.
`
`39.
`
`HGS seeks a declaratory judgment that making, using, importing, offering to sell,
`
`and selling Benlysta® (belimuniab) does not and will not infringe any valid and enforceable
`
`claim of the Cabilly 11 Patent.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`INVALIDITY
`
`40.
`
`HGS incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 39 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`41.
`
`The Cabilly 11 Patent is invalid because it is anticipated and/or obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`42.
`
`The Cabilly 11 Patent is invalid based on the judicially created doctrine of
`
`obviousness-typc double patenting and/or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and/or 103.
`
`43.
`
`The Cabilly 11 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`44.
`
`Claims 21-32 of the Cabilly 11 Patent are invalid as being broadened in scope
`
`during reexamination in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 305.
`
`45.
`
`HGS seeks a declaratory judgment that the Cabilly II Patent is invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112 and 305 and/or under the judicially created doctrine of
`
`obviousness—Lype double patenting.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`PROSECUTION LACHES
`
`46.
`
`HGS incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`12
`
`YCSTOI: 10649228.]
`
`9000020008
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1209
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1209
`
`
`
`47.
`
`An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties concerning
`
`the enforceability of the Cabilly ll Patent.
`
`48.
`
`The Cabilly 11 Patent is unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches.
`
`The Cabilly II Patent issued after an unreasonable and unexplained delay in the interference
`
`proceedings between the Cabilly II Application and US. Patent No. 4,816,397. Genentech also
`
`unreasonably delayed the prosecution of claims 21 , 22, 27-30 and 32, which were filed as part of
`
`the Cabilly II Application in 1983 but did not issue until 2001.
`
`49.
`
`HGS seeks a declaratory judgment that the Cabilly ll Patent is unenforceable due
`
`to prosecution laches.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`50.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, HGS demands a
`
`trial byjury of all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, HGS requests that judgment be entered in favor of HGS and
`
`against Defendants Genentech and City of Hope:
`
`a)
`
`Dcclaring that the manufacture, use, importation, offer to sell, or sale of HGS’s
`
`Benlysta® (belimumab) product does not infringe any valid and enforceable
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`claim of the Cabilly 11 Patent;
`
`Declaring that the Cabilly ll Patent is invalid;
`
`Enjoining Genentcch and City of Hope from enforcing the Cabilly 11 Patent;
`
`Awarding costs to HGS in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`Declaring HGS’s case to be exceptional and awarding IIGS its attorneys’ fees and
`
`expenses under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`YCST01:l0649228.1
`
`9000020008
`
`13
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1210
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1210
`
`
`
`t)
`
`Awarding HGS such other relief as the Court may deem just, equitable, and
`
`proper.
`
`
`
`Monte’ T.A Squire (No. 4764)
`The Brandywine Building
`100 West Street, 17th Floor
`
`Wilmington, DE 19899-0391
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.con1
`Insquire@yest.eom
`
`Attorneys for PlaintiffHuman Genome
`Sciences, Inc.
`
`Of Cotmsel:
`
`Henry B. Gutman
`Noah M. Leibowitz
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`
`425 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10017
`Telephone: (212) 455-2000
`
`Harrison J. Frahn
`
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`2550 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`Telephone: (650) 462-9406
`
`Dated: January 25, 201 1
`
`YCSTO1:]0649228.1
`
`9000020003
`
`14
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1053, pg 1211
`
`Mylan Ex. 1053, pg 1211