`
`THOMAS S. FLETCHER
`(202) 434-5497
`tfletcher@wc.com
`
`
`December 16, 2022
`CONFIDENTIAL—SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Via Email
`
`Neil B. McLaughlin, Esq.
`Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik
`6 West Hubbard Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`nmclaughlin@rmmslegal.com
`
`
`Re:
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-61-TSK
`
`Dear Neil:
`
`As discussed on our call today, I write to memorialize Regeneron’s narrowing of the case
`ahead of the Court’s ordered deadline.
`
`As part of Regeneron’s continued good-faith effort to narrow the scope of the case,
`Regeneron will not proceed with asserting U.S. Patents 11,053,280 and 11,299,532 in the first
`stage of the litigation. Regeneron also will not assert claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent
`11,104,715. While Regeneron is not required to drop 38 claims and two patents over a month
`ahead of the Court’s Scheduling Order deadline for narrowing, Regeneron does so as part of its
`continuing effort to streamline the case.
`
`Due to Regeneron’s substantial narrowing of the case, Mylan’s November 20, 2022 Notice
`of 30(b)(6) Depositions to Regeneron lists topics that are no longer relevant to the first stage of
`litigation. As such, Regeneron is amending its designations that it provided on December 12,
`2022.
`
`1. Topic No. 1
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. The other designees remain the same.
`
`APOTEX V. REGENERON IPR2022-01524
`REGENERON EXHIBIT 2018 PAGE 001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`December 16, 2022
`Page 2
`
`
`2. Topic 4
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. The other designees remain the same.
`
`3. Topic 17
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. The other designees remain the same.
`
`4. Topic 23
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. The other designees remain the same.
`
`5. Topic 59
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, nor claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the ’715 patent, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian.
`We are not designating another witness.
`
`6. Topic 60
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`7. Topic 61
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`8. Topic 62
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`9. Topic 63
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`10. Topic 64
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`APOTEX V. REGENERON IPR2022-01524
`REGENERON EXHIBIT 2018 PAGE 002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`December 16, 2022
`Page 3
`
`
`11. Topic 65
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, nor claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the ’715 patent, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian.
`We are not designating another witness.
`
`12. Topic 66
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`13. Topic 67
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 and ’532 patents as part of its Initial
`Patents, we are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`14. Topic 68
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’280 patent as part of its Initial Patents, we
`are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`15. Topic 69
`
`Because Regeneron is no longer asserting the ’532 patent as part of its Initial Patents, we
`are de-designating Andrew Tustian. We are not designating another witness.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`
`To further reduce the scope of the case, we invite Mylan to identify any topics from
`Regeneron’s 30(b)(6) Notice that it believes no longer to be relevant due Regeneron’s narrowing
`of the case.
`
`
`
`
`
`Please let us know if you would like to discuss further.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`
`APOTEX V. REGENERON IPR2022-01524
`REGENERON EXHIBIT 2018 PAGE 003
`
`
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
