UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC. AND CITY OF HOPE
`Patent Owners
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415
`
`“Methods of Producing Immunoglobulins, Vectors and
`Transformed Host Cells for Use Therein”
`____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-00047
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC. AND CITY OF HOPE
`Patent Owners
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415
`
`“Methods of Producing Immunoglobulins, Vectors and
`Transformed Host Cells for Use Therein”
`____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-00047
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS ................................... 2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate ........................................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`Joinder Will Not Introduce Any New Grounds of
`Unpatentability ............................................................................ 6
`
`2.
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Mylan IPR’s Trial Schedule ......... 9
`
`3. Merck Agrees to Consolidated Filings and Discovery .............10
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER ....................................................................................12
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Amneal Pharm., LLC v. Yeda Res. & Dev. Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2015-01976, Paper 9 (Dec. 28, 2015) ............................................................... 6
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013) .........................................................4, 5
`Kyocera Corp. et al. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (Apr. 24, 2013) ............................................................. 5
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 (June 20, 2013) ............................................................. 6
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG et al.,
`IPR2015-00268, Paper 17 (April 10, 2015)..................................................... 6, 12
`Statutes & Regulations
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................1, 4
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ................................................................................................. 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ............................................................................................2, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ...................................................................................................2, 4
`Other Authorities
`157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) .................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”) submits concurrently
`
`herewith a Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415
`
`(“Petition”) based on grounds identical to those that formed the basis for pending
`
`IPR proceedings in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Genentech Inc., et al., IPR2016-
`
`00710, (the “Mylan IPR”). See Paper 13 (Institution of Inter Partes Review, 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.108) (Sept. 8, 2016), at 2. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), Merck
`
`respectfully requests and moves that its Petition be instituted and joined with the
`
`Mylan IPR, for the exact same reasons previously considered by the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“Board”), on the exact same trial schedule. Mylan consents to
`
`Merck’s request for joinder.
`
`Merck submits that joinder is appropriate because: (a) Merck does not seek
`
`to add to or alter the grounds of unpatentability that the Board has already
`
`instituted in the Mylan IPR; (b) joinder will have no impact on the existing
`
`schedule in the Mylan IPR; and (c) joinder will promote the efficient resolution of
`
`issues related to the ’415 patent, specifically whether U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415
`
`(“the ’415 patent”) is obvious over well-known prior art.
`
`Absent joinder, Merck may be prejudiced as it has a significant interest in
`
`the underlying validity determination at issue in the Mylan IPR, given the potential
`
`impact on litigation proceedings between Merck and the owners of the ’415 patent,
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Genentech Inc. (“Genentech”) and City of Hope (collectively “Patent Owners”)
`
`involving related patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,923,221 (the ’221 patent), which is a
`
`continuation patent and involves the same recombinant antibody technology
`
`claimed by the ’415 patent. Joinder would protect Merck’s interests without
`
`affecting the scheduling or complexity of the pending Mylan IPR, and without
`
`prejudice to the prior petitioner, Mylan, or to Patent Owners. In light of the fact
`
`that Merck’s petition raises the same grounds of unpatentability over the same
`
`prior art, and that Merck is willing to agree to consolidated filings with Mylan,
`
`joinder with the Mylan IPR is appropriate.
`
`Merck’s present motion for joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and
`
`42.122(b) because it is submitted within one month of September 8, 2016, the date
`
`on which the Mylan IPR was instituted.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`In its Petition, Merck requests institution of an IPR on challenged claims 1-
`
`4, 11, 12, 14, 18-20, and 33 of the ’415 patent and asserts the same two grounds of
`
`unpatentability that were instituted in the Mylan IPR. These are all of the claims
`
`for which an IPR was instituted previously in the Mylan IPR. See Paper 13, at 2.
`
`Prior to the Mylan IPR, the Board instituted an IPR of the same claims of the ’415
`
`patent based on the same grounds in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. v. Genentech,
`
`Inc., et al., IPR2015-01624 (the “Sanofi IPR”). See Paper 15 (Institution of Inter
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Partes Review, 37 C.F.R. §42.108) (Feb. 5, 2016), at 22-23. A separate IPR
`
`petition filed by Petitioner Genzyme Corporation was subsequently instituted on
`
`the same grounds and joined to the Sanofi IPR. See Genzyme Corp. v. Genentech,
`
`Inc., et al., IPR2016-00460 (the “Genzyme IPR”), Paper 12 (June 8, 2016); Sanofi
`
`IPR, Paper 35 (March 28, 2016). Mylan then challenged the then-instituted claims
`
`on the then-instituted grounds and, while its Petition was pending, the Sanofi IPR
`
`was terminated (along with the joined Genzyme IPR). See Paper 43 (Termination
`
`of the Proceeding, 37 C.F.R. § 42.73) (Sept. 2, 2016), at 1-2. Thereafter, the
`
`Mylan IPR was instituted on those same two previously-instituted grounds. See
`
`Mylan IPR, Paper 13, at 13-14. Merck’s Petition challenges the same patent
`
`claims on grounds that are the same in all substantive aspects as the Mylan IPR.
`
`Both petitions contain the same analysis and exhibits, and effectively rely upon the
`
`same underlying expert opinions―as described further below.
`
`As noted supra, Merck and Patent Owners are currently engaged in related
`
`district court litigation in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., et al.,
`
`No. 16-cv-4992 (C.D. Cal.) (filed July 7, 2016) concerning the ’221 patent, a
`
`continuation patent that involves the same recombinant antibody technology as
`
`the ’415 patent. In addition, Merck and Patent Owners are currently engaged in
`
`related proceedings related to the ’415 patent and the subject matter in this
`
`Petition. Merck has a separate, pending petition for IPR of the ’415 patent in
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., et al., IPR2016-01373 (filed July
`
`7, 2016).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Merck respectfully requests that the Board exercise its discretion and grant
`
`joinder of the instant Petition and the Mylan IPR proceedings pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In support of this
`
`Motion, Merck proposes
`
`consolidated
`
`filings
`
`and other procedural
`
`accommodations designed to streamline the proceedings.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act permits joinder of IPR proceedings.
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder of IPR proceedings is 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c), which reads as follows:
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under section
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response,
`determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`section 314.
`
`Motions for joinder should “(1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule
`
`for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may be simplified.” Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013), at 4; Kyocera Corp. et al. v. Softview LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 (Apr. 24, 2013). Under its discretion, the Board
`
`considers the impact of substantive and procedural issues on the proceedings, as
`
`well as other considerations, while being “mindful that patent trial regulations,
`
`including the rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” Dell, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17,
`
`at 3. The Board may also consider “the policy preference for joining a party that
`
`does not present new issues that might complicate or delay an existing
`
`proceeding.” Id. at 10. Under this framework, for the reasons set forth in the
`
`Petition and the present motion, joinder of the present instant Petition with the
`
`Mylan IPR is appropriate.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`Joinder is appropriate in this case because it is the most expedient way to
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the two related proceedings.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). The Instant Petition is substantively
`
`identical with respect to the grounds instituted in the Mylan IPR. Given the
`
`duplicative nature of these petitions and Merck’s significant interest in the
`
`underlying validity determination at issue, joinder of the related proceedings is
`
`appropriate and conserves Board resources. Further, Merck will agree to
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`consolidated filings and discovery, and procedural concessions, so that in this
`
`matter Merck will be bound by the schedule set forth in the Mylan IPR.
`
`In other proceedings, the Board has found joinder is appropriate where (1)
`
`no new grounds of unpatentability are introduced, (2) the party joining the
`
`proceeding agrees to consolidated filings and discovery, (3) joinder will not affect
`
`the schedule in the pending IPR, and (4) joinder will streamline the proceedings
`
`and increase efficiency without prejudicing the parties. See, e.g., Amneal Pharm.,
`
`LLC v. Yeda Res. & Dev. Co., Ltd., IPR2015-01976, Paper 9 (Dec. 28, 2015)
`
`(granting motion for joinder where petitioner limited the grounds of unpatentatility
`
`to those already instituted, relied on the same expert testimony, agreed to “assume
`
`a limited ‘understudy’ role,” and submitted that joinder would not affect the
`
`pending schedule); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG, et al., IPR2015-
`
`00268, Paper 17 (April 10, 2015) (granting motion for joinder of substantially
`
`identical petition where petitioner agreed to consolidated filings and discovery and
`
`relied on the same expert declarations); Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 (June 20, 2013) (granting motion for joinder under
`
`similar circumstances). This Petition is no different.
`
`1.
`
`Joinder Will Not Introduce Any New Grounds of
`Unpatentability
`
`The instant Petition contains the same grounds of unpatentability instituted
`
`in the Mylan IPR. In fact, the grounds of unpatentability are identical in all
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`substantive respects. Merck’s Petition challenges the same patent claims, contains
`
`the same instituted grounds of unpatentability, and is the same in all substantive
`
`aspects as the instituted Mylan IPR. Merck’s Petition contains the same analysis
`
`and exhibits, and effectively relies on the same expert opinions—those of Dr.
`
`Jefferson Foote as adopted by Kathryn Calame.1
`
`If joinder is granted, Merck is prepared to rely solely on the testimony of
`
`Mylan’s expert, Dr. Calame, who “fully agree[s] with, and hereby adopt[s], the
`
`opinions set forth in the Foote Declaration.” See Calame Declaration at ¶ 16. Only
`
`if the Mylan IPR settles prior to a final written decision, Merck would elect to rely
`
`on its own expert, Dr. Margaret H. Baron, who has submitted a declaration
`
`
`1
`Previously, in its Motion for Joinder with the Sanofi IPR, Mylan agreed to
`
`“rely solely on the testimony of Sanofi’s expert, Dr. Foote, unless the Sanofi IPR is
`
`settled prior to a final written decision” and that “no additional discovery would be
`
`needed” as long as the Sanofi IPR remains pending following joinder. See Mylan
`
`IPR, Paper 3 (March 3, 2016), at 2, 7. Mylan also retained its own expert, Dr.
`
`Kathryn Calame, to preserve its position in the event that the Sanofi IPR settled
`
`before a final decision; Dr. Calame simply adopted Dr. Foote’s opinions in the
`
`Sanofi IPR. Id.; see also Ex. 1059 (Declaration of Kathryn Calame, Ph.D., in
`
`Support of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,331,415) (“Calame Declaration”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identical to Dr. Calame’s declaration in all material respects. See Merck Petition,
`
`IPR2017-00047, Ex. 1006 (Declaration of Margaret H. Baron, M.D., Ph.D., in
`
`Support of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,331,415) (“Baron Declaration”).
`
`Dr. Baron’s Declaration in the instant Petition is substantively identical to
`
`Dr. Foote’s opinion in the Sanofi IPR, which Mylan submitted in support of its
`
`petition for IPR and which Mylan’s expert Dr. Calame expressly incorporates as
`
`her own opinion. The Baron Declaration does not alter or otherwise seek to
`
`supplement the opinions offered by Dr. Foote, nor does Dr. Baron intend to offer
`
`opinions beyond those expressed by Dr. Foote in connection with the Sanofi IPR
`
`and adopted by Dr. Calame in the connection with the Mylan IPR.
`
`Because the Board has already instituted trial in the Mylan IPR, the
`
`substantively identical instant Petition and supporting exhibits will not require
`
`additional Board resources to determine that institution on the same grounds as in
`
`the Mylan IPR and joinder of the instant petition with the Mylan IPR is appropriate
`
`here. Indeed, in circumstances such as these, the PTO anticipated that joinder of
`
`proceedings would be granted as a matter of right. See 157 CONG. REC. S1376
`
`(daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Office anticipates that
`
`joinder will be allowed as of right—if an IPR is instituted on the basis of a petition,
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for example, a party that files an identical petition will be joined to that
`
`proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own briefs and make its own arguments.”).
`
`2.
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Mylan IPR’s Trial Schedule
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review in a timely
`
`manner. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) provide that IPR
`
`proceedings should be completed and the Board’s final decision issued within one
`
`year of institution of the review. The same provisions provide the Board with
`
`flexibility to extend the one-year period by up to six months for good cause, or in
`
`the case of joinder. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). In this
`
`case, joinder should not affect the Board’s ability to issue its final determination
`
`within one year because Merck does not raise any issues that are not already before
`
`the Board and the Mylan IPR was instituted only one month ago. See Mylan IPR,
`
`Paper 13.
`
`Merck agrees that the Scheduling Order issued in the Mylan IPR will apply
`
`to the joined proceeding. See Mylan IPR, Paper 14 (Scheduling Order) (Sept. 8,
`
`2016). The first deadline is the Initial Conference Call, which has not yet occurred
`
`and which deadline is “Upon Request” by the parties. Id. at 7. Mylan does not
`
`object to Merck’s participation on this call and Merck’s involvement will not delay
`
`the timing of the as-yet-unscheduled call.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The next deadline in the Mylan IPR is Patent Owner’s response to the
`
`petition and any motion to amend the petition, which is currently set for December
`
`8, 2016―almost two months from the date of this motion. Should the Board grant
`
`Merck’s request for joinder, Patent Owners will have ample time to complete its
`
`submission by its deadline, particularly given that Patent Owners’ response would
`
`not require any analysis beyond what they are already required to undertake to
`
`respond to Mylan’s petition. None of the other deadlines would need to be
`
`extended following joinder of Merck’s Petition to those proceedings. In sum, no
`
`aspect of the trial schedule for the Mylan IPR would need to be impacted to effect
`
`joinder. Rather, a joint proceeding would allow the Board and parties to focus on
`
`the merits in one consolidated proceeding without unnecessary duplication of
`
`effort, and in a timely manner.
`
`3. Merck Agrees to Consolidated Filings and Discovery
`
`Because the grounds of unpatentability and the prior art relied on in the
`
`instant Petition and the Mylan IPR are the same, the case is amenable to
`
`consolidated filings and discovery, which will simplify the briefing and discovery
`
`process.
`
`Merck will agree to consolidated filings for all substantive papers in the
`
`proceedings (e.g., Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response, Opposition to Motion to
`
`Amend, Motion for Observation on Cross Examination Testimony of a Reply
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Witness, Motion to Exclude Evidence, Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`and Reply). Specifically, Merck will agree to incorporate its filings with those of
`
`Mylan into a consolidated filing in the Mylan IPR, including being subject to the
`
`ordinary rules for one party on page limits. Mylan and Merck will be jointly
`
`responsible for the consolidated filings. Merck agrees not to be permitted any
`
`arguments separate from those advanced by Mylan in the consolidated filings, thus
`
`avoiding lengthy and duplicative briefing.2
`
`Consolidated discovery is also appropriate given that Merck agrees to take a
`
`subordinate role in the proceedings and have Mylan take the lead in all discovery
`
`matters. Merck agrees to work with Mylan to manage any depositions within an
`
`ordinary time limit and to allow Mylan to take the lead in designating an attorney
`
`to conduct the cross-examination of any given witness produced by Patent Owners,
`
`and the redirect of any given witness produced by Merck and Mylan within the
`
`ordinary time limits normally allotted by the rules for one party. Merck will not
`
`receive any separate cross-examination or redirect time from that of Mylan, unless
`
`
`2
`In the event that an issue arises that is directed to Merck alone, although
`
`none is anticipated at this time, Merck proposes an arrangement where any
`
`separate filing by Merck would be limited to no more than seven pages, and Patent
`
`Owners would be allowed a corresponding number of pages to respond separately.
`
`Mylan does not oppose this arrangement.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mylan wishes otherwise or until Mylan terminates its involvement in the joined
`
`deposition or oral hearing time.
`
`If joinder is granted, Merck is also willing to agree to any other procedural
`
`concessions that will minimize complication or delay and result in a speedy trial
`
`with little to no impact on the Mylan IPR or the Board. In short, as long as the
`
`Mylan IPR remains pending following joinder, no additional discovery would be
`
`needed. Merck will adopt an “understudy” or “second chair” role and would only
`
`assume the primary role if Mylan ceases to participate in the IPR. See, e.g.,
`
`Novartis AG, IPR2015-00268, Paper 17, at 5.3
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER
`
`Merck proposes a joinder order for consideration by the Board as follows:
`
`•
`
`The instant Petition will be instituted and joined with the Mylan IPR on
`
`the same grounds as those for which review was instituted in the Mylan
`
`IPR;
`
`
`3
`In the event that Mylan ceases to participate and Merck is required to rely on
`
`Dr. Baron, there would be no impact on the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. Moreover, there would only be a modest impact on the Patent
`
`Owners, given that Merck’s contingent expert’s opinions are virtually identical to
`
`those already introduced and relied upon by Mylan’s expert.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The scheduling order for the Mylan IPR will apply to the joined
`
`proceeding.
`
`Merck and Mylan will cooperate to avoid duplicative discovery and
`
`testimony.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Merck respectfully requests that its Petition be
`
`instituted and the proceeding joined with Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.
`
`Genentech, Inc. et al., IPR2016-00710. Although no additional fee is believed to
`
`be required for this Motion, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any
`
`additional fees which may be required for this Motion to Deposit Acct. No.
`
`503626.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: October 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By s/Matthew A. Traupman
`Raymond N. Nimrod (Reg. No. 31,987)
`raynimrod@quinnemanuel.com
`Matthew A. Traupman (Reg. No. 50,832)
`matthewtraupman@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel:
`(212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`Katherine A. Helm (pro hac vice to be filed)
`khelm@stblaw.com
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`425 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 455-2000
`Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22 AND 42.122(b) were served on October 11, 2016 via FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`to the attorneys of record for U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 as evidenced on Public
`
`PAIR on October 11, 2016, namely:
`
`JEFFREY P. KUSHAN, ESQ.
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`and
`
`SEAN JOHNSTON, ESQ.
`Genentech, Inc.
`1 DNA Way
`South San Francisco, CA 94080
`
`
`DATED: October 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By s/Matthew A. Traupman
`Matthew A. Traupman (Reg. No. 50,832)
`matthewtraupman@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel:
`(212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`
`15
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
