`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-00884
`____________________________________________________________
`DECLARATION OF GEORGE YANCOPOULOS, M.D., PH.D.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, George Yancopoulos, M.D., Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`BACKGROUND
`I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration,
`1.
`
`and if called upon to do so, I could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I am the sole inventor on U.S. Patent No. 11,253,572 (“the ’572
`
`patent”). Ex.1001.
`
`3.
`
`I was raised in New York City and attended its public schools,
`
`eventually being accepted to The Bronx High School of Science, where I graduated
`
`as valedictorian. I received my Bachelor of Arts degree in Biochemistry from
`
`Columbia College, where I also graduated as valedictorian. I received my M.D.
`
`from Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, and I received
`
`my Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics from Columbia University’s
`
`Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. In 1989, I became the Co-Founder and
`
`founding scientist of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, where I currently serve as
`
`President, Chief Scientific Officer, and Board Co-Chair of Regeneron.
`
`4.
`
`Over the course of my career, I have received numerous honors and
`
`awards, including the Prix Galien USA Best Biotechnology Product in 2022, the
`
`Prix Galien Roy Vagelos Pro Bono Humanum Award in 2021, Fortune’s World’s
`
`25 Greatest Leaders: Heroes of the Pandemic in 2020, Forbes America’s 100 Most
`
`Innovative Leaders in 2019, the Legends in Leadership Award, Yale School of
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`Management, CEO Institute in 2017, and the Ernst & Young Life Sciences
`
`
`
`Entrepreneurs of the Year National Award in 2016. During the 1990’s, I was
`
`among the ten most highly cited scientists in the world.
`
`5.
`
`In addition to the ’572 patent, I am also named as an inventor of more
`
`than 100 patents. I am the principal inventor of the aflibercept composition of
`
`matter and several other important medicines, such as the world’s leading medicine
`
`for allergic diseases (DUPIXENT®) and the first antibody cocktail treatment for
`
`COVID (REGN-COV®) for which Regeneron received the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office Patents for Humanity Award in 2020.
`
`6.
`
`I have personal knowledge of Exhibits 2005-2007, 2009-2011, 2015,
`
`2017-2020, 2024, 2035, 2039-2045, and 2069-2075 cited in this declaration, which
`
`are true and correct copies or excerpts of documents I received, sent, or reviewed.
`
`They also are business records created during the ordinary course of Regeneron’s
`
`business operations and documenting various activities and product development,
`
`as is and was our practice at Regeneron.
`
`II. DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE OF EYLEA®
`Aflibercept is a fusion protein, which I designed and led the clinical
`7.
`
`development of, that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor. Aflibercept is the
`
`active ingredient in Regeneron’s EYLEA® product, which is FDA-approved for
`
`the treatment of various angiogenic eye disorders. During clinical trials,
`
`
`
`2
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`Regeneron used the name "VEGF Trap-Eye" for the drug later known as EYLEA®
`
`(aflibercept). I also use that terminology in this Declaration, and any reference to
`
`VEGF Trap-Eye below should be understood to refer to aflibercept.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to FDA approval of EYLEA®, Regeneron conducted clinical
`
`trials to test the safety and efficacy of VEGF Trap-Eye for, among other
`
`indications, neovascular age-related macular degeneration (“wet AMD” or
`
`“AMD”) and diabetic macular edema (“DME”). As I noted above, I led the
`
`scientific and clinical development of VEGF Trap-Eye, including overseeing the
`
`clinical trial programs directed to AMD and DME, key portions of which are
`
`briefly summarized below.
`
`A.
`9.
`
`Phase I AMD Clinical Trial – CLEAR-IT-1
`Regeneron conducted a Phase I clinical trial called CLEAR-IT-1 to
`
`test the safety and tolerability of VEGF Trap-Eye in patients with AMD. Ex.1027.
`
`In CLEAR-IT-1, a single intravitreal injection of 0.05, 0.15, 0.5, 1, 2, or 4 mg of
`
`VEGF Trap-Eye was administered to 21 subjects with AMD. Ex.1027. The
`
`CLEAR-IT-1 study detected improvements in both retinal and visual acuity in
`
`patients with AMD following a single intravitreal injection of VEGF Trap-Eye. In
`
`May 2006, Regeneron issued a press release announcing positive preliminary
`
`results at a population level. Ex.1027.
`
`
`
`3
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`
`B.
`10.
`
`Phase I DME Clinical Trial – CLEAR-IT-DME
`In April 2006, Regeneron began its Phase I clinical trial, CLEAR-IT-
`
`DME, to test the safety and tolerability of VEGF Trap-Eye in 5 subjects suffering
`
`from DME. Ex.2012, 4. As shown in Exhibit 2012, which is a printout from
`
`ClinicalTrials.gov summarizing the CLEAR-IT-DME protocol, each subject in the
`
`study received a single 4 mg intravitreal injection of VEGF Trap-Eye. Ex.2012.
`
`The single injection resulted in an increase in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA)
`
`of 6 to 10 letters for 4 of the subjects. Ex.1030. The study also observed
`
`regression in BCVA at 6 weeks. Ex.1009, 3.
`
`Phase II AMD Clinical Trial – CLEAR-IT-2
`C.
`11. On May 1, 2006, Regeneron also announced the start of a Phase II
`
`clinical trial. Ex.1027. The Phase II trial was called CLEAR-IT-2 and tested
`
`dosing on a fixed interval followed by dosing on an as-needed (“PRN”) basis in
`
`157 subjects. Ex.1009, 4. The fixed dosing period spanned the first 12 weeks—
`
`subjects received either monthly doses of 0.5 mg or 2 mg of VEGF Trap-Eye for a
`
`total of 4 injections (initial dose and weeks 4, 8, and 12) or quarterly doses of 0.5,
`
`2, or 4 mg of VEGF Trap-Eye for a total of 2 injections (initial dose and week 12).
`
`Ex.2004. After the fixed dosing period, the subjects were treated on an as-needed
`
`basis with the same dose they received during the fixed dosing period. Ex.1009.
`
`
`
`4
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`D.
`12.
`
`Regeneron & Bayer Collaboration
`In October of 2006, while the CLEAR-IT-2 study was underway,
`
`Regeneron entered into a collaboration with Bayer Schering Pharmaceuticals, now
`
`called Bayer, for the global development and commercialization of VEGF Trap-
`
`Eye. We decided to partner with Bayer because, at that time, Regeneron was still a
`
`relatively small company and Bayer had the experience and resources needed to
`
`execute and fund the global clinical trials that we wanted to pursue. To the
`
`collaboration, Regeneron brought VEGF Trap-Eye, a clinically validated molecule,
`
`as well as its extensive knowledge and experience in developing therapies for
`
`diseases, including angiogenic eye disorders like AMD and DME.
`
`13. Regeneron’s primary reason for collaborating with Bayer was to
`
`ensure that we had the resources needed to commercialize a drug and compete
`
`against more established companies like Genentech. This was very important
`
`because in June 2006, Genentech had received the first approval of a biologic anti-
`
`VEGF agent for ophthalmic use, Lucentis®, and we needed a better strategy and
`
`more resources to compete with Genentech. We believed that combining
`
`Regeneron’s scientific expertise regarding VEGF Trap-Eye with Bayer’s global
`
`infrastructure and experience with commercializing drugs would maximize the
`
`likelihood of succeeding commercially. Ex.2068. Under the terms of the
`
`collaboration, Bayer agreed to an initial payment to Regeneron of $75M upfront
`
`5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-008 84
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL-SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`and then to share the global development costs in exchange for a share of profits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from any drug that ultimately became commercialized. Ex.2068.
`
`
`
`
`
`several14.As part of the collaboration, Regeneron and Bayer established
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`joint committees to execute the global development ofVEGF Trap-Eye. Ex.2069.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I served as co-chair of the Joint Steering Committee (JSC), which included an
`
`
`
`
`
`equal number of senior-level members from both companies and was responsible
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for directing and supervising the collaboration. Ex.2069, 5-7. Various sub
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`committees-the joint development committee, the joint commercialization
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`committee, and the joint finance committee-were also established and reported to
`
`
`
`
`
`the JSC. Ex.2069, 9. Typically, the sub-committees would prepare information,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`presentations, and the like to share with the JSC, which made final decisions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relating to our development and commercialization efforts. Ex.2069, 4. Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2069, a November 8, 2006 PowerPoint presentation, further describes the JSC's
`
`
`
`
`
`structure.
`
`
`
`that I explained above,15.Consistent with the goal of the collaboration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`we and Bayer understood that
`
`6
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`Scientific Officer at the time, a position I continue to hold to this day,
`
`. I was serving as Regeneron’s Chief
`
`III. THE “2Q8” DOSING REGIMEN
`16.
`In my role as Chief Scientific Officer of Regeneron, I conceived of
`
`the idea to test a VEGF Trap-Eye dosing regimen of 2 mg every 4 weeks for the
`
`first three injections, followed by 2 mg every 8 weeks, for the treatment of
`
`angiogenic eye disorders, including AMD and DME.
`
`17. My idea was based on several sources of information, including
`
`(1) the need to give patients results at least as good as with Lucentis® and, indeed,
`
`to give patients a reason to choose VEGF Trap-Eye over Lucentis®, (2) recent
`
`clinical trial results for extended dosing regimens of Lucentis®, (3) recent results
`
`from Regeneron’s phase II CLEAR-IT 2 trial, and (4) careful weighing of the
`
`potential advantages of less-frequent dosing against Regeneron’s aversion to the
`
`risk of negative clinical trial results.
`
`18.
`
`I had the idea to try to determine the dosing interval at which
`
`Lucentis® fails. This analysis is shown in Exhibit 2007, the February 16, 2007
`
`presentation that I gave to Bayer at the kick-off meeting between Bayer and
`
`Regeneron. Ex.2007, 46-47. At that time, recent data from a clinical trial of
`
`7
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`Lucentis® for DME had shown that, when injections were administered monthly,
`
`
`
`subjects gained visual acuity, but when they were dosed every two months,
`
`patients would gain visual acuity in the first month after the injection and then lose
`
`it over the second month after the injection. Ex.2007, 46-47. Likewise, a regimen
`
`of three monthly doses followed by quarterly injections of Lucentis® failed to
`
`improve or even maintain vision in subjects with AMD. Ex.2007, 46. From these
`
`data, I determined that Lucentis® likely would fail to maintain gains in visual
`
`acuity when dosed at two month or longer intervals. Ex.2007, 46-47.
`
`19. By March 22, 2007, shortly after the kick-off meeting with Bayer, I
`
`had received the interim results of the Phase II CLEAR-IT-2 trial for AMD.
`
`Ex.2005; Ex.2006. Exhibits 2005 and 2006 are an email by myself and an
`
`attachment summarizing those results, respectively. Ex.2005; Ex.2006. According
`
`to the interim results, the CLEAR-IT-2 trial included two dosing intervals of
`
`VEGF Trap-Eye for the first 12 weeks—monthly doses of 0.5, 2, or 4 mg for a
`
`total of 4 treatments and quarterly doses of 0.5 or 2 mg for a total of 2 treatments.
`
`Subjects in the quarterly dosing groups showed mean improvements in visual
`
`acuity, but the gains were lower in these arms than in the monthly dosing arms.
`
`Ex.2004, Ex.2006.
`
`
`
`8
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`
`20. After I received the interim results of the CLEAR-IT-2 trial, I had the
`
`idea to test 2 mg every 4 weeks for the first three injections, followed by 2 mg
`
`every 8 weeks in a Phase III AMD trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23. My practice at that time was to study and understand the various
`
`considerations relevant to the clinical design and protocol that we were working
`
`towards, and I would have thoroughly discussed any of my ideas with the team
`
`before making a final decision on clinical trial design. Thus, over the subsequent
`
`weeks, my idea to test the 2 mg of VEGF Trap-Eye every 8 weeks following three
`
`initial doses administered every 4 weeks was thoroughly discussed with the
`
`internal members of the Regeneron team as well as with our collaborators at Bayer.
`
`Ex.2008; Ex.2009; Ex.2075. Exhibits 2008, 2009, and 2075 are emails that I sent
`
`or received documenting such discussions.
`
`24. For the 2q8 dosing regimen, I believed that we should use a 2 mg dose
`
`of VEGF Trap-Eye. Although we had the ability to dose up to 4 mg of VEGF
`
`Trap-Eye in one dose, in my judgment, it was not clear that the higher 4 mg dose
`
`could provide a clear benefit over the 2 mg dose. In addition, I knew that Phase III
`
`
`
`10
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`trials sometimes reveal toxicities that smaller phase II trials do not detect. At the
`
`
`
`time, we were very worried about an increased risk of intraocular toxicities and
`
`inflammation, as well as systemic toxicities. Therefore, the lower, 2 mg dose was
`
`the appropriate, more conservative, choice.
`
`25. Ultimately, I concluded that an arm of the AMD Phase III clinical
`
`trials (“VIEW trials”), and eventually an arm of the DME Phase II trial (“DA
`
`VINCI trial”), should test multiple, “loading” doses administered every 4 weeks,
`
`followed by “maintenance” doses, administered every 8 weeks. My rationale for
`
`using multiple loading doses was that we had observed that monthly dosing could
`
`produce gains in visual acuity, but that those visual acuity gains plateaued around
`
`the third monthly injection. I also knew that dosing at intervals longer than one
`
`month provided some benefit to visual acuity. My hope was that by pivoting to
`
`dosing every 8 weeks after initial dosing every 4 weeks, we could achieve
`
`significant benefits to visual acuity while also reducing the number of office visits
`
`and intravitreal injections patients were required to receive. But at that time, it was
`
`still unclear whether the dosing regimen that I envisioned would work.
`
`26.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. VIEW Trials and Results
`27. The VIEW trials were Phase III clinical trials designed to test the
`
`efficacy of VEGF Trap-Eye in patients with AMD. In addition to conceiving of
`
`the 2q8 dosing regimen, I played the leading role in designing the VIEW trials and
`
`working with other investigators to carry them out and analyze the data.
`
`28. As discussed above, I made the decision to test three, 2 mg VEGF
`
`Trap-Eye loading doses administered every 4 weeks followed by 2 mg
`
`maintenance doses of VEGF Trap-Eye administered every 8 weeks (the “2q8”
`
`arm) in the VIEW trials. This was a new arm that was not previously tested in
`
`either of the CLEAR-IT studies. In addition to this new arm, we included two of
`
`the arms tested in CLEAR-IT-2, monthly dosing of 0.5 or 2 mg of VEGF Trap-
`
`Eye. Ex.2011. According to the VIEW trials’ design, the results of the VEGF
`
`Trap-Eye arms would be compared to 0.5 mg monthly Lucentis® (the “Rq4” arm).
`
`Ex.2011. At the time I decided test the 2q8 dosing regimen, I was aware that the
`
`VEGF Trap-Eye used in the VIEW trials would be formulated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex.2076, 76. And, given my earlier insight that Lucentis had failed to
`
`
`
`12
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`sustain gains in visual acuity when dosed at longer intervals, I also made the
`
`
`
`decision to measure maintenance of visual acuity and change in best corrected
`
`visual acuity from baseline in the VIEW trials and to compare those results with
`
`the Lucentis arm of those trials. Ex.2007, 46; Ex.2076, 4. I made the final
`
`decision to proceed with the VIEW trials according to this design.
`
`29. At the time I made the decision to test the 2q8 dosing regimen in the
`
`VIEW trials and through to their completion,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30. The first VIEW trial, VIEW 1, included 1200 patients with AMD in
`
`the United States and Canada and began dosing patients in August of 2007.
`
`Ex.1015, 3. The second VIEW trial, VIEW 2, which enrolled patients in Europe,
`
`Asia, Japan, and Latin America began dosing subjects in May 2008. Ex.1015, 3.
`
`People with “[a]ctive ocular inflammation in either eye,” or an “[a]ctive ocular or
`
`periocular infection in either eye” were excluded from the study. While Regeneron
`
`
`
`13
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`executed the VIEW 1 study in the United States and Canada and Bayer executed
`
`
`
`the VIEW 2 study abroad, I led the design and analysis plan for both VIEW trials.
`
`Ex.1029. I did so with the help of personnel working at my direction to implement
`
`all aspects of the trials, from inception through the completion of data analysis.
`
`31. While both VIEW trials were two-year long studies, the primary
`
`endpoints of the trials related to the gain and maintenance of visual acuity,
`
`including as compared to Lucentis® at 52 weeks. Ex.1029, 1. We completed
`
`collection of the 52-week data for both VIEW trials by around October 2010.
`
`Ex.2037.
`
`32. Once the results from the VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 trials were available,
`
`personnel working at my direction prepared statistical analyses of the results. On
`
`November 19, 2010, I received and reviewed Exhibit 2011, a PowerPoint file
`
`summarizing the visual acuity results from each VIEW trial, which was attached to
`
`Exhibit 2010, an email from one of my colleagues. Ex.2010; Ex.2011. I also
`
`received Exhibits 2044 and 2045, an email and an attached draft press release that
`
`summarized the same results on that day. Ex.2044, Ex.2045. On November 20,
`
`2010, I requested, received, and reviewed a PowerPoint file (Exhibit 2043)
`
`summarizing the combined visual acuity results from both VIEW trials, which was
`
`attached to Exhibit 2042, an email from one of my colleagues. Ex.2042; Ex.2043.
`
`
`
`14
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`
`33. The goal of the 2q8 VEGF Trap-Eye dosing regimen was to achieve
`
`treatment comparable to Lucentis® on a fixed extended dosing interval. That was
`
`one way we hoped to differentiate ourselves from Lucentis®. A different goal had
`
`been better efficacy than Lucentis®, but we did not see that in the results when we
`
`looked at the VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 results combined.
`
`34. By at least November 20, 2010, I had reviewed the VIEW 1 and 2
`
`results, and based on these clinical data, I recognized and appreciated that the 2q8
`
`VEGF Trap-Eye dosing regimen had met that goal of comparable treatment to
`
`Lucentis® on a fixed extended dosing interval for subjects with AMD at 52 weeks.
`
`Specifically, I recognized and appreciated that the VIEW results indicated that the
`
`dosing regimen was both (1) as effective in achieving a gain in visual acuity, and
`
`(2) as effective in maintaining visual acuity, as monthly administration of 0.5 mg
`
`of Lucentis® by intravitreal injection in human subjects with age-related macular
`
`degeneration at 52 weeks following the initial dose:
`
`
`
`15
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 16
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`VIEW 1 + VIEW 2
`Mean Changein Visual Acuity to 1 year
`Compared to Baseline
`
`
`
`96.1%" 0.5q4
`95.3%"
`2q4
`95.3%" 2q8
`94.4% Rad
`
`* Statistically
`non-inferior
`vs. Rq4
`
`letters
`ETDRS
`
`9.3 2q4
`8.7 Rq4
`8.4 298
`8.3 0.5q4
`
`Week
`
`LOCF; full analysis set; Rq4 n=595; 294 n=613; 0.5q4 n=597; 2q8 n=607
`
`Ex.2043, 6.
`
`VIEW 1 + VIEW 2
`Primary Endpoint: Maintenance of Vision
`
` LOCF; per protocol set; Ra4 n=538; 2q4 n=559; 0.5q4 n=538; 2q8 n=535
`
`
`
`
`ra
`
`%Patients
`
`Week
`
`Ex.2043, 5.
`
`I also recognized and appreciated that the 2q8 VEGF Trap-Eye dosing
`
`regimen achieveda gain in visual acuity of 7.9 and 8.9 letters in VIEW 1 and 2,
`
`respectively, that over 90% of patients lost fewer than 15 letters (1.e., “maintenance
`
`16
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Samsung etal. v. Regeneron
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit2063
`Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`of visual acuity”) at 52 weeks, and that these benefits were clinically equivalent
`
`
`
`and statistically non-inferior to the 8.1 and 9.4 letters visual acuity gains and the
`
`over 90% maintenance of visual acuity achieved with 0.5 mg monthly doses
`
`Lucentis®:
`
`
`
` Ex.2011, 4.
`
`35. On November 22, 2010, Regeneron published a press release
`
`announcing the positive 1-year results of the VIEW trials. Ex.1007. The
`
`information in that press release related to the 2q8 dosing regimen used in the
`
`VIEW trials and their results corresponds to the 1-year data of the VIEW trials that
`
`I received on November 19, 2010. Ex.2010; Ex.2011. The 2q8 regimen and
`
`results reported in the press release are my own work.
`
`
`
`17
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`
`B. DA VINCI Trial and Results
`I also played a critical role in designing the Phase II DA VINCI trial
`36.
`
`directed to testing VEGF Trap-Eye in subjects with DME and worked with others
`
`to carry it out and analyze the data. Like the VIEW trials, the DA VINCI trial was
`
`conducted in collaboration with Bayer, with the organizational structure described
`
`above.
`
`37.
`
`I made the decision to test three 2 mg loading doses administered
`
`every 4 weeks followed by 2 mg maintenance doses administered every 8 weeks
`
`(the “2q8” arm) in the DA VINCI trial. Ex.2013. Exhibits 2039, 2040, and 2041,
`
`an email, memo, and list of action items by myself, respectively,
`
`
`
`
`
`earlier insight that Lucentis had failed to sustain gains in visual acuity when dosed
`
` Ex.2039; Ex.2040; Ex.2041. Given my
`
`at longer intervals,
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`. Ex.2048, 88. Regeneron followed
`
`
`
`the same standard procedure for handling data that I described for the VIEW trials
`
`at the time I made the decision to test the 2q8 dosing regimen in the DA VINCI
`
`trial and through its completion. I made the final decision to proceed with the
`
`DA VINCI trial according to this design.
`
`38.
`
`In December 2008, we began enrolling subjects with DME in the
`
`Phase II DA VINCI clinical trial. Ex.2014, 2. Enrollment excluded people with
`
`“ocular inflammation (including trace or above) in the study eye” and “evidence at
`
`examination of infectious blepharitis, keratitis, scleritis, or conjunctivitis in either
`
`eye or current treatment for serious systemic infection.” Ex.2048, 37-38.
`
`39.
`
` The 221 subjects of the DA VINCI trial were randomly assigned to
`
`one of five treatment arms—a laser photocoagulation arm, and four arms directed
`
`to VEGF Trap-Eye: (1) 0.5 mg doses every 4 weeks, (2) 2 mg doses every 4
`
`weeks, (3) three 2 mg loading doses administered every 4 weeks followed by 2 mg
`
`maintenance doses administered every 8 weeks (the “2q8” arm), and (4) three 2 mg
`
`doses every 4 weeks followed by as-needed dosing. Ex.2014.
`
`40. As with the VIEW results,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` On February 1 and 2, 2010, I received summaries
`
`
`
`19
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 20
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`IPR2023-00884
`
`ofthe 24-week data, includingstatistical analysesPo
`
`pe The following day, I attended a meeting with other members of
`
`senior management at Regeneron to review and discuss the 24-weekinterim results
`
`of the DA VINCItrial. Ex.2017. Exhibits 2017, 2018, and 2019 are an email that
`
`I received and two attachments summarizing those data, respectively. Exhibit
`
`2035, likewise, is an email from myself attaching the 24-weekresults.
`
`41. Upon analyzing the 24-week DA VINCIresults, and at least by
`
`February 2, 2010, I recognized and appreciated that the 2qg8 VEGF Trap-Eye
`
`dosing regimen would beable to achieve significantly improved visual acuity in
`
`patients with DME comparedto baseline. Specifically, I recognized that
`
`administering the 2q8 VEGF Trap-Eyedosing regimenresulted in an improvement
`
`of 9 or more letters in some DME patients as comparedto baseline at 24 weeks:
`
`20
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Samsung etal. v. Regeneron
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit2063
`Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex.2019, 13.
`
`42. On February 18, 2010, Regeneron released Exhibit 2020, a press
`
`release summarizing the 24-week interim results of the DA VINCI trial, including
`
`the visual acuity gains for the various dosing arms. Ex.2020. The 2q8 dosing
`
`regimen and visual acuity gains achieved by said dosing regimen that are described
`
`in the February 18, 2010 Press Release resulted from my work in designing the
`
`clinical trial and analysis plans. The clinical trial and analysis plans were executed
`
`by personnel working under my direction. In other words, I was responsible for
`
`the scientific aspects of the clinical trial and analysis plan, while administrative
`
`aspects of the clinical trials, such as the enrollment of patients and site selection,
`
`were carried out by others.
`
`
`
`21
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`
`43.
`
` I understand that an abstract from the 2010 Association for Research
`
`in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) conference has been filed as Exhibit 1010
`
`in this proceeding. I have reviewed that abstract and I understand that it recites
`
`some information about visual acuity gains observed at 24-weeks in the DA VINCI
`
`trial. The submission of this abstract is consistent with Regeneron’s standard
`
`practice of arranging for clinical investigators to submit abstracts and present
`
`clinical trial results at scientific conferences. It was standard operating procedure
`
`for me to review anything that would eventually publish, including abstracts.
`
`44. Like the February 18, 2010 Press Release mentioned above, Exhibit
`
`1010 recites data from the DA VINCI trial related to gains in visual acuity and the
`
`change from baseline in central retinal thickness (CRT) at week 24 following
`
`treatment. The information in Exhibit 1010 corresponds to the data described in
`
`the internal summary of 24-week interim results of the DA VINCI trial emailed to
`
`me on February 1, 2010, as described above. Ex.2018, 19, 22-23. Thus, the visual
`
`acuity gains (8.5+ letters) observed in subjects receiving the 2q8 dosing regimen in
`
`the 2010 ARVO meeting abstract resulted from my work in designing the clinical
`
`trial and analysis plans. The clinical trial and analysis plans were executed by
`
`personnel working under my direction.
`
`45. On December 1, 2010, the 1-year data for DA VINCI was ready for
`
`cleaning, locking, and statistical analysis. Ex.2038, 2. By no later than December
`
`
`
`22
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 23
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`8, 2010, I received Exhibit 2015, a copy of the DA VINCI 1-year results, which
`
`
`
`was attached to Exhibit 2024, an email from one of my colleagues. Ex.2015;
`
`Ex.2024.
`
`46.
`
` Upon review of the results, and at least by December 8, 2010, I
`
`recognized and appreciated that the 24-week visual acuity gains could be sustained
`
`over time using the 2q8 dosing regimen, as evidenced by the mean change in visual
`
`acuity at 24-weeks (8.5 letters) versus at 52 weeks (9.7 letters):
`
`
`
` Ex.2015, 11.
`
`47. On December 20, 2010, Regeneron published the 1-year results of the
`
`Phase II DA VINCI trial in a press release. Ex.1006. The information in the
`
`December 20, 2010 Press Release corresponds to the data included in the copy of
`23
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 24
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`the DA VINCI 1-year results that I received on December 8, 2010. Ex.2015;
`
`
`
`Ex.2024. The DA VINCI 1-year results resulted from my work in designing the
`
`clinical trial, including my idea to test the 2q8 dosing regimen, and related analysis
`
`plans. The clinical trial and analysis plans were executed by people working under
`
`my direction.
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Samsung et al. v. Regeneron IPR2023-00884
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2063 Page 25
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledgeare true and
`
`that all statements made uponinformation and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`that these statements were made with knowledgethat willful false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable byfine or imprisonment, or both, under section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated:
`
`IY Ee Vaz
`
`
`“\
`%
`Vt
`George Yancopoulos, M.D., Ph.D.
`
`2a
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Samsung etal. v. Regeneron
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit2063
`Page 26
`
`