CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 901007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`Patent
`Attorney's Docket No. 22338-10230, -10231
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`3991
`
`Examiner:
`
`B.M. Celsa
`
`Control Nos.:
`
`90/007,542
`90/007,859
`
`Confirmation Nos.: 7585 ('542)
`6447 ('859)
`
`Filed:
`
`13 May 2005
`('542)
`23 December 2005 ('859)
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Genentech, Inc. and
`City of Hope
`
`For:
`
`Merged Reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 (Cabilly ct al.)
`
`DECLARATION OF DR E. FINTAN WALTON UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.132
`
`I, E. Fintan Walton, do hereby declare and state
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I am a citizen of and reside in the United K ingdorn.
`
`I hold bachelor's and doctoral degrees, both from Trinity College, University of Dublin,
`Ireland. I also conducted research at the University of Michigan. My research
`experience, in which I reached the level of departmental head at Cell tech Ltd. ( 1984-
`!992), covered gene expression, metalloproteinases and HIV research. I gaim:d broad
`commercial experience in biotechnology in my management positions at Celltech Ltd.
`( !984-1992), and before that at Bass Brewing Ltd. (1 9S2-1983).
`
`I am presently Chainmm and CEO ofPharmaVentures Ltd., a company that assists
`healthcare company clients in forming alliances, conducting acquisitions and executing
`other transactions of strategic importance, including patent licen~e agreements. In
`addition to its consulting services, PharrnaVentures publishes reports on deal making to
`the phannaceutical and related industries and produces a proprietary comprehensive
`database, PhannaDeals, which contains details of over 28,000 transactions that have
`taken place in the pharmaceutical industry. Those details include, where available,
`information on total deal value, upfront payments, equity investments, milestone
`payments, royalty rates and other finam.:ial parameters.
`
`4.
`
`Through my experience at PharmaVentures and elsewhere, I have built up substantial
`expertise in the analysis of healthcare markets and of pharmaceutical and biotechnology
`
`WALTON~ Ll32 DECLARATION
`
`PAGEl
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE B1233
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 11 05
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1131
`
`

`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 90/007.542 AND 90/007,8.59
`
`companies, their technologies, and their intellectual property. Deal structuring, valuation
`and negotiation fonn a major part of my business.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`My company has been retained for this reexamination to evaluate certain conclusions
`made by the Patent and Trademark Ofiice about the licensing of U.S. Patent 4,399,216
`(the "Axel patent") as reported in an article published in the Harvard Journal of Law &
`Technology Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 2004, at pp. 583-618 (the "Harvard Journal article").
`We were also asked to evaluate the licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 ("the '415
`patent") to detennine if the '415 patent is recognised within the industry and enjoys
`commercial success that would be relevant to the patentability of the '415 patent.
`
`My company has been previously retained to act as an expert witness in Medlmmune,
`Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope, Case No. CV03-2567, which was filed in the
`Central District of California.
`
`I note that I have been, ami am being, compensat~d for my time at a rate of$650.00 per
`hour. Attached as Exhibit A is a !ist enumerating the materials that I reviewed in
`preparing my declaration.
`
`Introductory Remarks
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`1 have extensive experience in reviewing patent licensing practices in the healthcare
`sector. I have reviewed many patent license agreements and evaluated the circumstances
`under which these licenses were taken.
`
`Based on my experience, I have learned that in executing a patent license, a company
`usually will not agree to pay substantial fees, or provide other significant economic
`concessions, to a patent owner unless that company has reached a conclusion that the
`patentee could successfully enforce the patent being licensed against the company. If the
`prospective licensee reaches a conclusion that either the patent is invalid, or that its
`conduct would not result in a fmding of infringement of the patent, that prospective
`licensee generally will not take the license, or will not otherwise provide any significant
`economic concessions to the patent owner.
`
`Observations On Overlap of Axel Licensees and '415 Patent Licensees
`
`l 0.
`
`11.
`
`I have read the comments at page 46 of the Final Action concerning the licensing of the
`Axel patent, based on what was reported in the Harvard Journal article. In particular, I
`observe that the Final Action concludes from what is reported in the article that the
`licensing of the Axel patent provides evidence that "one of ordinary skill in the art
`interpreted the Axel patent claims as being directed to functional proteins, including
`antibodies." 1 do not draw the same conclusion from this article.
`
`Initially, I observe that the Harvard Journal article describes the technological advance
`made by Dr. Axel and his collaborators as being the simultaneous transformation of a
`eukaryotic cell with a selectable marker and another foreign gene that coded for desired
`proteinaceous material, where the presence of the selectable marker allowed for isolation
`of successful trans formants from non-trans formants (see generally pp. 584-586).
`
`WALTON§ 1.132 DECLARATION
`
`PAGE 2
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE B1234
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 11 06
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1132
`
`

`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 901007,542 AND 901007,R59
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`The Harvard Joumal article does not explain why the reported Axel patent licensees took
`a license under one or more of the Axel patents. It does provide, at pages 592-593, a list
`of observations based on the reported Axel patent licenses.
`
`According to the Harvard Journal article, six of the products reported as subject to a
`license under the Axel patent do not fall within any of the categories specifically claimed
`in that patent. 1 See Harvard Journal article at pp, 592-593. These products include:
`Ovidrel®, a recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin; Epogen® and Procrit®,
`recombinant human erythropoietin; Aranesp®, a modified recomhinant human
`etythropoietin; Gonal-t®, a human follicle stimulating hormone; anr.l Thyrogen®, a
`recombinant human thyroid stimulating hormone. See Harvard Journal article at pp. 615,
`616 and 618.
`
`The Harvard Journal article also indicates that the majority of the reported licensed
`products, including certain Genentech products, are not antibodies. See Harvard Journal
`article at pp. 592-593, 614-618.
`
`The Harvard Journal article reports that 28 of 29 of the products reported as subject to a
`license under the Axel patent are produced in CHO cells (a particular type of mammalian
`host cell), and that " ... it is almost certain that all [of the manufacturing processes] use
`some selective agents in culturing their transformed cells in accordance with the Axel
`patent." Harvard Journal article at p. 593.
`
`In view ofthese observations, 1 do not believe one can reasonably conclude that
`companies took licenses under the Axel patent based on an understanding that the
`licensed product was specifically claimed in the Axel patent. Indeed, at least six of the
`products are not specifically claimed in the Axel patent. This demonstrates to me that
`whether lhe protein made by these licensees was specifically claimed in the Axel patent
`could not have been a significant reason why they took their respective licenses.
`
`To the extent that one can infer anything from what is reported in the Harvard Journal
`article about why the A/\el patent licensees took their respective licenses, it would be that
`these licensees believed the Axel patent to be broadly claiming the technique of using a
`selectable marker in mammalian host cells that allowed for isolation of successful
`transformants from non-transformants. This seems to be the only common factor
`reported in the licensing data for the licensed products. It is also the advance in the field
`of recombimmt DNA technology that the Harvard Joum~:~l article attributes to Dr. Axel
`and his collaborators.
`
`18.
`
`Accordingly, I do not believe the licensing information provided in the Harvard .Journal
`article is evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art interpreted the Axel patent
`claims as being directed to production of functional proteins, including antibodies.
`
`The Axel patent claims indicate that the foreign DNA cmploy~::d could code for interferon, insulin,
`growth honnone, clotting factor, viral antigen, antibody or enzyme. See Harvard Journal article m
`page 588 and Axel patent claims 3-R.
`
`WALTON~ 1.132 DECLARATION
`
`PAGE 3
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE B1235
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 11 07
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1133
`
`

`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 901007.ll59
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`An additional observation can be made about the licensing experiences of the Axel
`patent. Specifically, I observe that two antibody products were identified in the Harvard
`Journal article as having been licensed under the Axel patent (i.e., Humira® by Abbott,
`and Zevalin® by Biogen Idee). See Harvard Journal article at pp. 614,617. These two
`antibody products are also licensed under the '415 patent.2
`
`I believe Abbott and Biogen Idee are companies with extensive experience in licensing
`patents concerning biological products. Based on my experience, the decision of each
`company to license both the '415 and Axel patents suggests two things. First. each
`company must have concluded that both patents covered in some manner the way their
`products are made. Second, each company must have concluded that the '415 patent was
`independently patentable over the Axel patent. Otherwise, neither company would have
`taken a license under both patents, or paid royalties under both patents to different patent
`owners.
`
`Overview ofthe '415 Patent. and Its Place in the Industry and Market
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that evidence of substantial licensing of an invention by market
`participants supports a conclusion that the invention is not obvious, in part because it
`indicates that the industry has recognised that the patent represents a non-obvious
`advance over the prior art. I also have been told that evidence of commercial success of
`an invention supports a conclusion that an invention is not obvious over the prior art.
`
`l understand that evidence of licensing and commercial success of the '415 patent is
`appropriate to consider if it can be linked to the merits of the invention (e.g., as opposed
`to being attributable to the prior art). In this case, this means that licensing and
`commercial success evidence is relevant if it can be shown to be attributable to the merits
`of the '415 patent, rather than being due to the merits of U.S. Patent 4,816,567 ("the' 567
`patent") and other prior art, or being due to other factors unrelated to the merits of the
`'415 patent.
`
`Accordingly, I have evaluated whether the licensing by others of the '415 patent, and the
`royalties Genentech has been paid on U.S. sales of produ~.:ls licensed under the '415
`patent, are properly attributable to the melits of the '415 patent, independent of the merits
`of the '567 patent and other prior art.
`
`Licensing Activity of the '415 Patent
`
`24.
`
`I have reviewed each of the licenses Genentcch has entered into under the '415 patent 3
`In general, confidentiality ~.:onsiderations between Genentech and the licensees preclude
`
`I know this based on my review of each of the licenses Genentech bas entered into under the '415
`p~lent.
`
`Because of confidentiality consideradons regarding these licenses, I have not provided a detailed
`table of the companies, products, and tenns of the licenses. Nevertheless, my opinions are grounded
`on the terms of these licenses.
`
`WALTON§ t.I32 DECLARATION
`
`PAGE 4
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE 81236
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 11 08
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1134
`
`

`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 901007,R59
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`public disclosure of many terms and conditions of the licenses. Because of this, I present
`my findings in a manner that limits disclosure of license tetms.
`
`Genentech has licensed the '415 patent, either in conjunction with the '567 patent or
`without the '567 patent, to at (cast 35 companies.
`
`Of the companies that have licensed the '415 patent, many have elected to take licenses
`under both the '567 and the '415 patents, while others have taken licenses only under the
`'415 patent4 and not under the '567 patent.
`
`A number of licenses granting rights under both the '567 and '415 patents require the
`licensee to pay one royalty on net sales of products covered by the '567 patent and a
`separate and additional royalty on net sales of products covered by the '415 patent, even
`if the product was also covered by the '567 patent. In other wGrds, in certain of these
`"dual" licenses, the royalty obligations under each patent arc independent. 5
`
`I also observe from my review of the licenses that after the '41 5 patent issued, but before
`the '567 patent expired, severallict::nses wt::re enlt:red into that granted rights only under
`the '4 l 5 patent (i.e., without also granting rights under the '567 patent).
`
`A number of the companies that have taken a license under the '415 patent are currently
`marketing an antibody product under that license within the United States. 6
`
`The companies that have taken licenses under the '415 patent include some of the largest
`biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in the world in terms of product revenue,
`as identified by Med Ad News in 2005 and 2007. 7
`
`Revenue Generated f'rom Licensing Activity
`
`31.
`
`I have reviewed repm1s of royalty payments made by licensees under the '567 and the
`'415 patents for therapeutic antibody products sold in the U.S., including a compilation of
`
`These licenses did grant rights to continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals of the '415 patent,
`and foreign counterparts of those patents. No such U.S. patents l1ave issued to date.
`Medlmmune has licensed both the '415 and the '567 patent for Synagis®, but has paid royalties to
`Gencntcch only under the '415 patent. See Joint Appendix Volume l filed with the United States
`Supreme Court in Medlmmune, Inc. v Genentech, No. 05-608 at pp. 414-416.
`
`Some product~ publicly known to he licensed under the '4 I 5 patent are Humira®, Remicade®,
`Synagis®, Tysabri® and Erhituxllt·. See Genentech Presentation hy David Ehersman, Investment
`Communily Meeting, Financial Overview, 14 March 2008, at slide 8, available at,
`www.gene. com/ gene/ir /webca st.sipd f/ finance. pdf.
`
`Med Ad News, July 2005, "Top I 00 biotechnology companies;" Med Ad News, September 2007,
`"Top 50 pharmaceutical companies."
`
`WALTON * l t :l2 DECLARATION
`
`PAGE 5
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE B1237
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 11 09
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1135
`
`

`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 901007,542 AND 901007,859
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`this diita pn:pared by employees of Genentech in the finance group.~ That compilation
`provides data showing royalty payments made on U.S. sales of antibody products
`licensed under the '415 patent that Genentech has received on an annual biisis since its
`Issuance.
`
`I have discussed the information that I received from Genentech and the manner in which
`the information was generated with the employees in the finance group who compiled
`this information. Tn particular, I have been informed that the information was compiled
`from royalty 5latements that licensees of the '415 patent provided to Genentech for sales
`made during the quarter covered by the licensee's royalty statement. I have also been
`informed that those statements differentiated sales made in the U.S. from sales made
`outside ofthe U.S.
`
`B~:cause I understand how the information was collected and have reviewed the licensing
`provisions that correspond to these royalty payments, I believe the data I reviewed
`accurately reflect the royaltit:s that Genentech has been paid pursuant to licenses under
`the '415 patent, whether or not in conjunction with the '567 patent.
`
`I believe it is possible to readily identify a portion of the total licensing revenue, paid to
`Genentech by alllicc.:n~t:e~ of either or both ofthe '415 and '567 patents, that is
`exclusively attributable to the '415 patent. Specifically, this would be amounts of
`licensing revenue paid by: (a) companies that have licensed only the '415 patent, and not
`the '567 patent; and (b) Medimmune ior li(;tmse obligations arising trom sales of
`Synagis®, which Medlmmune asserts it pays only because of its obligation under the
`'415 patent. 9 As of December 31, 2007, these amounts totaled approximately $346
`million.
`
`I note that this estimate is conservative because J have not included any amounts of
`royalty payments made by dual licensees, other than Mcdlmmune, under the '415 and
`'567 patents. T note that a portion of such royalties would certainly be exclusively
`attributable to '415 patent license obligations because many of the license provisions
`impose independent obligations on the licensee to pay royalties on each of the '415 and
`'567 patents.
`
`In 2007, there were 21 therapeutic antibodies or therapeutic products containing an
`antibody fragment (collectively "therapeutic antibody products") marketed within the
`U.S. These products are identified in Table I of Piggee, Christine, "Therapeutic
`Antibodies Coming Through the Pipeline," Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 80 Issue 7, pp.
`2305-2310 (Apri12008), along with other antibody related drugs, including in vivo
`diagnostic agents. These products are used in treating cancer, inflammation, allergy,
`organ transplant rejection, macular degeneration as well as cardiovascular, autoimmune
`and infectious diseases. Based on my review of the '415 licenses that Genentech has
`
`Because of confidentiality considerations concerning these licenses, I cannot provide this compllation
`as an appendix to this dt:daration. However, I can and do report information from this compilation in
`a way that reasonably respects these confidentiality considerations.
`
`See footnote 5.
`
`WALTON~ 1.132 DECLARATION
`
`PAGE 6
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE 81238
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 111 0
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1136
`
`

`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 901007,542 AND 901007 ,S59
`
`entered into, almost all of the 21 therapeutic antibodies identified in the Piggee article are
`licensed under the '415 patent, both alone and in conjunction with the '567 patent. As
`illustrated in the figure below, the yearly c:.s. sales of all of the 21 therapeutic antibody
`products have been significant and show a strong positive trend. Based on the licens~;:s
`that I have reviewed and the information reviewed to generate this figure, I am aware that
`billions of dollars of the U.S. sales of non-Genentech products are attributable to products
`licensed under the '415 patent.
`
`US Therapeutic Antibody Sales
`
`16
`
`14.,
`
`D Other Products
`
`• Genentech Products
`
`1995
`
`1997
`
`1998
`
`1999
`
`2000
`
`2001
`
`2{)02
`
`2{)03
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`200&
`
`2007
`
`Year
`
`Source: EvaluatePharma
`
`Conclusions Regarding Recognition_Qf_()ther_~
`
`37.
`
`Dozens of pharmaceutical companies, including some nfthc largest in the world in terms
`of product revenu~;:s, have licensed the '415 patt:nt. A subset of these companies markets
`many of the 21 therapeutic antibodies that are presently available on the U.S. market and
`have paid substantial sums for the right to practice the '415 patent tcchnology. 10
`
`10 As noted above, in addition to the $346 million that is readily attributable exclusiwly to the '415
`patent, there is a portion of royalties paid by dual licensees that would certainly be exclusively
`attributable to '415 patent license obhgations because many of the license provisions impose
`independent obligations on the licensee to pay royalties on each of the '415 and '567 patents.
`
`WALTON§ l.l32 DECLARATION
`
`PAGE 7
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE B1239
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 1111
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1137
`
`

`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 A:-JD 90/007,859
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Based on my experience, it is reasonable lo conclude that licensees of the '415 patent
`took a license under that patent after assessing its validity and whether their conduct
`could be found to infringe the patent. In my opinion, one part of the validity assessment
`would have been whether the '415 patent defmed a patentable invention over the' 567
`patent claims, considered with any other information in the public record prior to the
`filing date of the two patents.
`
`For any licensee agreeing to pay separate royalties on both the '415 and the '567 patents
`in the event the licensed product was believed to implicate both patents, the licensee
`would have had an additional motivation to focus on whether the '415 patent defined
`inventions that were separately patentable over the '567 patent claims.
`
`The fact that so many companies have licensed the '415 patent, and that a subset of those
`companies have paid substantial sums to Genentech attributable solely to the licensing of
`the '415 patented technology, indicates to me that there is widespread industry
`recognition that the '415 patent claims are independently patentable over the '567 patent
`claims and the prior knowledge concerning antibody technology.
`
`I also believe that the evidence showing that commercially marketed ther11peutic
`antibodies have been licensed under only the '415 patent indicates that the companies
`that took these '415-only licenses believed that the '415 patent defined a distinct and
`separately patentable invention relative to the '56 7 patent claims when they took those
`licenses.
`
`Rased on my experience, the '415 patent is one of a relatively small number of patents
`that have been broadly licensed to many companies in the biotechnology industJy.
`
`As I understand the role licensing of the patent plays in obviousness evaluations, I
`believe the foregoing strongly supports a conclusion that the '415 patent claims define
`invt:nliuns that are not obvious over, and therefore independently patentable in view of,
`the '567 patent claims, when they are considered alone or in conjunction with the prior
`art known before the common filing date of these patents.
`
`Conclusions Regarding Commercial Success
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`As explained in paragraph 36 above, the therapeutic antibody products that are licensed
`under the '415 patent have generated billions of dollars in drug sales. These monoclonal
`antibodies are sold for use in numerous therapeutic fields.
`
`Genentech has received several hundred million dollars in royalties from these companies
`that are attributable solely to licenses granted under the '415 patent. I believe, based on
`my experience, that these companies paid these substantial royalties because they have
`each concluded that the way they m11ke their products would likdy bt: lound by a court to
`be covered by the '415 patent claims. In my opinion, this is strong evidence of a
`substantial degree of commercial success that is attributable solely to the '415 patent.
`
`46.
`
`As l understand the role that this evidence plays in obviousness evaluations, I believe
`these significant amounts of compensation that companies have paid Genentech pursuant
`
`WALTON ii 1.132 OF.CI.ARATION
`
`PAGE 8
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE B1240
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 1112
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1138
`
`

`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`to their license obligations is evidence of commercial success of the "415 patent, and
`supports a conclusion that the '415 patent claims are not obvious over the '567 patent
`claims, when they are considered alone or in conjunction with the other prior art known
`prior to the common filing date of the '567 patent.
`
`* * • * * * * * * * *
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements
`made on information and belief are believed to he true; and further that these statements were
`made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that
`such willful false statements may jeopardise the validity of the patent subject to this
`reexamination proceeding.
`
`CJ
`
`.
`I
`~.,_.,:L--·~ /
`-,s
`E. Fintan Walton
`
`----~--)--.~
`
`Date
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE B1241
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 1113
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1139
`
`

`
`. .
`
`CONTROL NOS. 90/007,542 AND 90/007,859
`
`DOCKET NOS. 22338-10230 AND -10231
`
`Control Nos. 90/007.542 and 90/007,859
`
`Attorney Docket No. 22338-10230
`
`List of Materials Reviewed In Preparing this Declaration:
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Of!:ice's communication dated February 25, 2008
`Recent Developments "Columbia, Co-transformation, Commercialization & Controversy: The
`Axel Patent Litigation," Harvard Journal ofLaw & Technology, Vol. 17, No.2, Spring
`2004 pp. 583-618
`U.S. Patent No. 4,399,216
`U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415
`U.S. Patent No. 4,816,567
`Genentech-Cabilly License agreements produced under the protective order in Medimmune, lnc.
`v. Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope, Case No. CV03-2567
`Genentech Royalty Statements regarding '415 and '567 patents produced under the protective
`order in Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope, Case No. CV03-2567
`Joint Appendix Volume I filed with the United States Supreme Court in Medlmmune, Inc. v
`Genentech, No. 05-608
`Genentech Presentation by David Ebersman, Investment Community Meeting, Financial
`Overview, 14 March 2008, at slide 8, available at,
`wwv;.gene.corn!gene/ir/webcasts/pdf/finance.pdf
`Summary Report ofRoyalties Paid to Genentech by licensees of the '415 patent, prepared by
`Genentech ba~ed on infum1ation sent by licensees of the '415 patent to Genentech
`Med Ad News, July 2005, "Top 100 biotechnology companies"
`Med Ad News, September 2007, "Top 50 pharmaceutical companies"
`Piggee, Christine "Therapeutic Antibodies Coming Through the Pipeline," Analytical Chemistry,
`Vol. 80, Issue 7, pp. 2305-10. (April 2008)
`EvaluatePharma, (analysis and intelligence service for the pharma and biotech sector), London,
`UK
`
`WALTON § 1 . 132 DE CLARA TID I\
`
`EVIDENCE APPENDIX
`
`PAGE B1242
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1 046, pg 1114
`
`Merck Ex. 1046, pg 1140