`42081
` 1
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
` 1:22-cv-61
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
`Biocon Biologics,
` Defendants.
`
`- - -
`
`Proceedings had in the bench trial of the above-styled
`action on June 12, 2023, before Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh
`District Judge, at Clarksburg, West Virginia.
`
`- - -
`
` APPEARANCES:
`
` On behalf of the Plaintiff:
`
`David I. Berl
`Ellen E. Oberwetter
`Kathryn S. Kayali
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`680 Maine Avenue, SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`202.434.5000
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 252 PageID #:
`42082
` 2
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`On behalf of the Plaintiff, continued:
`
`
`
`Steven Robert Ruby
`Carey, Douglas, Kessler & Ruby, PLLC
`797 Virginia Street, East, Suite 901
`Charleston, WV 25301
`304.345.1234
`
`
`Petra Scamborova
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`777 Old Saw Mill River Road
`Tarrytown, NY 10591-6717
`914.847.7611
`
`On behalf of the Defendant:
`
`Deanne M. Mazzochi
`William A. Rakoczy
`Neil B. McLaughlin
`Rakoczy, Molino, Mazzochi & Siwik, LLP
`6 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`Chicago, IL 60654
`312.527.2157
`
`Gordon H. Copland
`William J. O'Brien
`Steptoe & Johnson
`400 White Oaks Blvd.
`Bridgeport, WV 26330
`304.933.8162
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Proceedings recorded utilizing realtime translation.
` Transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 3 of 252 PageID #:
`42083
` 3
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Monday Morning Session,
`
`June 12, 2023, 9:30 a.m.
`
`- - -
`
`THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated.
`
`Madam Clerk, would you be kind enough to call our
`
`next case, please.
`
`THE CLERK: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action Number 1:22-cv-161.
`
`Will counsel please note your appearance for the
`
`record.
`
`MR. RUBY: Good morning, Your Honor. Steve Ruby of
`
`Carey, Douglas, Kessler & Ruby for plaintiff Regeneron
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. With me I have David Berl, Ellen
`
`Oberwetter, and Kathryn Kayali from Williams & Connolly in
`
`Washington, D.C. And also from Regeneron I have with me Joe
`
`LaRosa, who is executive vice president and general counsel;
`
`Larry Coury, who is vice president and associate general
`
`counsel. I'll note that Mr. Coury is a native of Mercer
`
`County.
`
`THE COURT: Welcome home, sir.
`
`MR. RUBY: His father is a WVU alum and his mother
`
`Marshall alum. So we're glad to have him back in West Virginia
`
`for a little while.
`
`Also Petra Scamborova, James Evans, Andrew Deciare,
`
`and Arun Bhoumik, all from Regeneron.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 4 of 252 PageID #:
`42084
` 4
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
`
`Good morning, Counsel.
`
`MR. COPLAND: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`
`Gordon Copland, Steptoe & Johnson, appearing on behalf of the
`
`defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Biocon Biologics,
`
`Inc. Also appearing this morning is William O'Brien of
`
`Steptoe & Johnson; William Rakoczy and Deanne Mazzochi, both
`
`with the Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi & Siwik firm.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
`
`All right. Here for day one for trial slated to
`
`start opening statements, but word was there was a request to
`
`seal the courtroom during a portion of plaintiff's opening. Is
`
`that correct?
`
`MR. COPLAND: That's correct, Your Honor. The
`
`motion's not opposed by the plaintiff. We did prepare a brief
`
`just in case, which I'll hand up if I may, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Sure. Which slides are we talking about?
`
`MR. COPLAND: It's 14 through, I believe, 45, but may
`
`I double-check that, Your Honor, when I get back to my seat?
`
`And there are about 142 slides, maybe a little more. So only
`
`the portion between the first slide, which is 14, and the last
`
`one that has an issue, 41, would we request sealing. And, of
`
`course, that would not apply to anyone already under the
`
`protective order, only to third parties present in the
`
`courtroom.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 5 of 252 PageID #:
`42085
` 5
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`We do have an agreement that certain counsel for
`
`Regeneron may attend even though outside-counsel-eyes-only
`
`material will be some of the material, and we just ask that
`
`their counsel confirm that they're agreed to be under the
`
`protective order pursuant to the parties' prior agreement.
`
`THE COURT: Understood.
`
`Counsel?
`
`MR. RUBY: We agree to that, Your Honor, yes.
`
`THE COURT: Understood. And note that we have a
`
`spectator or two today. I'll leave it to counsel to police who
`
`is permitted to attend -- remain in the courtroom under the
`
`Court's protective order and who is not.
`
`MR. COPLAND: If Mr. Berl will just give us notice
`
`before he hits Slide 14, and we can pause.
`
`THE COURT: Understood.
`
`A couple housekeeping matters for everyone. There
`
`are additional restrooms. Since we've got a bigger crowd than
`
`we had for naturalization on Friday, the line will back up
`
`quickly here. There are additional restrooms up on the third
`
`floor and either the elevator or stairs at the end of the hall
`
`will get you there.
`
`As folks may have noticed, in addition to our looming
`
`asbestos abatement project, some preliminary work is ongoing on
`
`the roof of the building. So please continue to refrain from
`
`trying to park immediately adjacent to the courthouse, those
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 6 of 252 PageID #:
`42086
` 6
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`spots abutting the building. One, it'll save your cars or
`
`rental cars some damage -- potential damage, I should say --
`
`and we need whatever slots they randomly let us have on any
`
`given day for the court personnel.
`
`With that, Mr. Berl, sir, the floor is yours.
`
`MR. BERL: Good morning, Your Honor. David Berl for
`
`Regeneron. This case is about Eylea, a product that made
`
`Regeneron what it is today. More specifically, this case is
`
`about the discoveries that made Eylea what it is.
`
`Before the discoveries at issue in this trial,
`
`Regeneron was a small fledgling company with virtually no
`
`products or revenues. The discoveries of the patents-in-suit
`
`led to Eylea's groundbreaking treatments for diseases that are
`
`the leading causes of blindness.
`
`Eylea is responsible for a majority of Regeneron's
`
`revenues. It funds Regeneron's research and development into
`
`the hardest diseases to treat, from cancer to Alzheimer's.
`
`Regeneron had and has a culture of innovation.
`
`To take just one example, when COVID struck and most
`
`of the world shut down, its scientists, led by George
`
`Yancopoulos, its cofounder, sprung into action immediately and
`
`quickly developed a treatment that saved many lives, including
`
`possibly the then-president of the United States.
`
`That's who the plaintiff is.
`
`The defendants in this case are Mylan and Biocon.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 7 of 252 PageID #:
`42087
` 7
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Mylan filed an abbreviated biologic application to FDA to sell
`
`a biosimilar version of Eylea. Mylan then transferred that
`
`application to its successor in interest, Biocon, in Bangalore,
`
`India. Biocon will be selling this product if the defendants
`
`succeed in this case.
`
`In order to understand the issues a little better,
`
`some background on the anatomy of the eye will be helpful.
`
`This is a diagram of a healthy eye. It's not drawn to scale.
`
`It's intended to show in two dimensions what's obviously three
`
`dimensions in real life.
`
`The important components here are the retina, shown
`
`in pale yellow, which is supplied by blood vessels, that are
`
`shown in red; and the vitreous, which is a gelatinous area of
`
`the area that abuts the retina. In between the vitreous and
`
`the retina is a barrier called the ILM, the inner or internal
`
`limiting membrane.
`
`There's also a protein in the retina, shown in green
`
`here in the little dots, called VEGF. And when VEGF is present
`
`in the right amounts, it supplies the healthy blood vessels of
`
`the retina and everything is fine.
`
`But when there's too much VEGF in the eye, things go
`
`wrong. The blood vessels increase, and the blood vessels get
`
`too thick, and blood and fluid starts to leak. That creates
`
`significant problems and diseases, including macular edema,
`
`shown here, and other diseases that cause blindness.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 8 of 252 PageID #:
`42088
` 8
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Regeneron developed Eylea to try to solve that
`
`problem. The active ingredient in Eylea, aflibercept, shown in
`
`purple here, blocks VEGF -- two hands on the football -- and
`
`thereby inactivates it.
`
`Now, Eylea is administered into the eye through a
`
`needle, so-called intravitreal injection. When it's
`
`administered into the vitreous, however, it must get into the
`
`retina to do its job. It must pass through that barrier, get
`
`into the retina, and inactivate the VEGF there, where there's a
`
`disease state. And when it does that and inactivates much of
`
`the VEGF in the retina, the VEGF essentially goes away and the
`
`disease recedes. You can see the blood vessels come back to
`
`their healthy state and vision is restored.
`
`Now, Eylea has a VEGF inhibitor called aflibercept,
`
`but there were lots of VEGF inhibitors out there, not just one,
`
`for many different companies. This is the story of why a
`
`product with one of those inhibitors, from a sea of potential
`
`inhibitors, won out. This is the story of the two inventions
`
`that made that happen.
`
`There are two inventions here. One on the left is
`
`directed to the product that is administered. Because of
`
`witness schedules, we'll start with that one this week. And it
`
`came first in time. The second invention is treating using
`
`aflibercept, the VEGF inhibitors in a particular way that has
`
`been proven to be very successful.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 9 of 252 PageID #:
`42089
` 9
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Now, starting with the product patent, the '865
`
`patent, you will hear from two of the inventors of the product
`
`patent, Dr. Furfine and Graham, about their invention and the
`
`research that led to it.
`
`The products they invented, one example of which was
`
`Eylea, were transformative. They bucked the conventional
`
`wisdom to invent a stable formulation with a high concentration
`
`of aflibercept, 40 milligrams per milliliter, required by all
`
`the asserted claims through incorporation of the independent
`
`claims. And that high dose and formulation of Eylea
`
`facilitated the product's eventual success.
`
`Now, in order to market a biosimilar version of Eylea
`
`that copies from the patent the 40 milligrams per milliliter of
`
`aflibercept as well as the organic cosolvent it uses of
`
`polysorbate, Mylan and Biocon advanced various defenses of
`
`noninfringement and invalidity. I don't think you'll hear in
`
`detail about many of these defenses given how many there are,
`
`but Mylan has not narrowed what it proposes to present at
`
`trial; so I'll try to cover them all this morning.
`
`The first dispute is whether Mylan infringes the
`
`organic cosolvent limitations of the claims. And they do.
`
`And this is the point where I'm going to hit material
`
`that I think they want the courtroom sealed for.
`
`THE COURT: Understood.
`
`The Court would then seal our proceedings. Those not
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 10 of 252 PageID #:
`42090
` 10
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`specifically permitted to be here in the Court's protective
`
`order, if I could ask you to depart, please.
`
`(The following proceedings (10/3 to 20/7) were sealed
`
`and are filed under separate cover.)
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 11 of 252 PageID #:
`42091
` 20
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`If I could ask court security to unseal our courtroom
`
`and extend an invitation to those out there to rejoin us if
`
`they'd like. Thank you.
`
`Welcome back, everyone.
`
`Mr. Berl, go right ahead, sir.
`
`MR. BERL: Next are Mylan's invalidity defenses, and
`
`we'll start with anticipation.
`
`The patents at issue in this case were issued after
`
`substantial examination by the US Patent and Trademark Office,
`
`and they were duly issued and entitled to the presumption of
`
`validity.
`
`Mylan bears a heavy burden -- clear and convincing
`
`evidence -- to prove the facts necessary to show invalidity.
`
`It can't do so. Anticipation requires that a single record,
`
`just one, disclose each and every limitation of the claims
`
`expressly or inherently arranged as in the claim.
`
`The first of Mylan's two anticipation references
`
`called Fraser doesn't even come close to meeting that
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 12 of 252 PageID #:
`42092
` 21
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`requirement. It's mincing lots of limitations from the claim.
`
`This argument of theirs reminds me of the old Coffee Talk Joan
`
`Rivers skit on Saturday Night Live. The Holy Roman Empire is
`
`neither Holy nor Roman nor an empire. You may remember that.
`
`That's what this is.
`
`Fraser discloses neither an ophthalmic formulation
`
`nor intravitreal administration nor glycosylated nor
`
`aflibercept nor 98 percent native conformation nor 40
`
`milligrams per milliliter. It's got none of it. And it has to
`
`have everything.
`
`Mylan tries to plug at least some of the holes in the
`
`dam by suggesting that anything written in an article that
`
`Fraser cites or, in fact, anything written in an article cited
`
`by an article that Fraser cites somehow magically becomes part
`
`of Fraser because anticipation, they have to have only one
`
`reference.
`
`First of all, that's implausible; but second, it's
`
`contrary to consistent federal circuit precedent, that the host
`
`document -- here Fraser -- must identify with detailed
`
`particularity what specific material it incorporates. Simply
`
`adding the footnote and citing a reference isn't close to
`
`enough. You've gone from Joan Rivers to Six Degrees of Kevin
`
`Bacon in one article.
`
`Now, the second anticipation argument that they
`
`advance is this, and the assertion of Dix requires the Court to
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 13 of 252 PageID #:
`42093
` 22
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`address a subsidiary question, which is whether Regeneron is
`
`entitled to a priority date of March 21, 2006, or earlier
`
`because that's before the time that Dix was filed.
`
`Now, the answer to that question is yes. In fact,
`
`the invention here was made far earlier in the fall of 2005,
`
`but for present purposes, because Mylan has only asserted Dix,
`
`we only need to show priority back to March 21, 2006, or
`
`earlier.
`
`If Regeneron is entitled to that date -- and we think
`
`it's clear that it is -- then Dix simply is not prior art.
`
`Everything you hear about Dix the next two weeks -- and I
`
`suspect you'll hear quite a bit -- is totally and blessedly
`
`irrelevant to this case because it's not prior art.
`
`But even if Dix were prior art, then it would still
`
`not anticipate the claims because it too, like Fraser, is
`
`missing at least one limitation, in fact, several, including
`
`intravitreal administration and an ophthalmic formulation. It
`
`has none of that.
`
`Now, for the 40 milligrams per milliliter
`
`formulation, which is a very important limitation in the claim,
`
`what they rely on is a disclosure of 10 to 50 milligrams per
`
`milliliter in Dix.
`
`First of all, that disclosure is not about
`
`aflibercept in particular; so it's not arranged as in the
`
`claim. But more importantly, the federal circuit repeatedly
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 14 of 252 PageID #:
`42094
` 23
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`has been clear, including earlier this year, that the
`
`disclosure of a range, like 10 to 50, is not a disclosure of
`
`discrete points within that range like 50, like 40. 10 to 50
`
`does not anticipate 40. It can't do that under controlling
`
`law.
`
`Now, with that, I'll move to obviousness, which is
`
`their backup prior art argument. And the first problem with
`
`Mylan's obviousness argument is their selection of references.
`
`They pluck out of prior art various references, most of which
`
`have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue here, which is
`
`intravitreal injection that can treat diseases in the retina.
`
`But that's not allowed under the law.
`
`The question is not whether the so-called person of
`
`ordinary skill, or the POSA, with the two prior art references
`
`in front of him could combine them and arrive at the
`
`patent-in-suit, which, by the way, it couldn't even if they had
`
`them in front of them.
`
`Mylan and Biocon don't even get to that question
`
`because the question, as the federal circuit said in the WBIP
`
`case, is whether the skilled artisan would have plucked one or
`
`more of those references out of the sea of prior art in the
`
`first place. And Mylan's experts skip over that analysis and
`
`choose their references without any contemporaneous
`
`justification or basis.
`
`There were many VEGF inhibitors in the prior art. It
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 15 of 252 PageID #:
`42095
` 24
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`was a sea of VEGF inhibitors. And Mylan just assumes without
`
`basis that the POSA would have chosen one of them, aflibercept.
`
`Not so.
`
`As I mentioned earlier, there's a barrier between the
`
`vitreous, where the drug is injected, and the retina and other
`
`associated tissues where it needs to go. And whether the
`
`molecule would get from the vitreous to the retina was
`
`understood to depend on its size. And aflibercept at the time
`
`was considered too big.
`
`Now, the prior art taught -- and this is the
`
`Gaudreault reference from Genentech in 2005. And we'll hear a
`
`lot about this reference. It taught that penetration of
`
`ranibizumab -- that was Genentech's product at the time. They
`
`were developing a different product called ranibizumab that
`
`later became Lucentis, which is a product on the market. They
`
`were ahead of Regeneron; so they were publishing already.
`
`And what they said was penetration of their molecule,
`
`ranibizumab, into the retina is critical for its credible use.
`
`You've got to get to the retina. Or as people in the field
`
`often say, the tissue is the issue. So you've got to get to
`
`the right tissue. And why do they say their product gets to
`
`the retina? Because of its small molecule size,
`
`48 kilodaltons. Kilodaltons is just a measure of weight like
`
`pounds or kilograms.
`
`And they contrasted it with what they called a
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 16 of 252 PageID #:
`42096
` 25
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`full-length antibody, something that was 148 kilodaltons that
`
`they said was not able to penetrate the retinal layers of the
`
`monkeys. So 148 was too big; 48 was good enough. And what the
`
`art said -- not just Genentech but others -- is that things
`
`that are over about 70 kilodaltons or about 76 kilodaltons were
`
`too big.
`
`Now, we all know that aflibercept, in fact, did end
`
`up penetrating the eye into the retina. If it didn't, none of
`
`us would be here today. Okay? We'd all be somewhere else.
`
`But that's not what matters for obviousness. What matters is
`
`what everyone thought and knew at the time of the invention
`
`about 16, 17 years ago. And at that time aflibercept was
`
`simply considered too big.
`
`This is ranibizumab, what we just saw, 48
`
`kilodaltons. Aflibercept was 115. And it actually behaved
`
`like it's even bigger because of its unusual size. The idea of
`
`using aflibercept via intravitreal injection straight into the
`
`eye was actually tried in mice in the prior art, and it didn't
`
`work very well.
`
`The figure on the left is subcutaneous injection.
`
`That's systemic injection that Your Honor is used to, less
`
`scary than intravitreal injection. And what you want to look
`
`for here is does the problem go down. You want the numbers to
`
`go down. This is golf, not bowling.
`
`And when you did this systemic administration, what
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 17 of 252 PageID #:
`42097
` 26
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`we see is the bar goes way down. That works well. But when
`
`you do intravitreal administration straight into the eye, the
`
`bar doesn't go down very much. And what people at the time
`
`said -- and not just people. This on the right is an article
`
`by Genentech and in particular someone called Napoleone
`
`Ferrara. He's the godfather of VEGF. He actually discovered
`
`VEGF. And he, while at Genentech, developed the first two
`
`anti-VEGF therapies: Avastin and then Lucentis. And what he
`
`said is he looked at these data and he said there's limited
`
`efficacy, despite the high binding of the molecule. And it may
`
`be due at least in part to the existence of a barrier to
`
`penetration of large molecules such as the VEGF Trap.
`
`That's what people were thinking and saying at the
`
`time. It's too big. And without showing that you want to do
`
`intravitreal administration of aflibercept, that claim can't be
`
`obvious because all of the claims require it.
`
`But the claims actually require more. Mylan has to
`
`show much more than that. They have to show that the person of
`
`skill would have wanted to use 40 milligrams per milliliter of
`
`aflibercept, this high concentration of aflibercept. They have
`
`to show that by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`And the presentation from them that you'll see in a
`
`moment has all sorts of prior art showing all sorts of buffers
`
`and organic cosolvents and stabilizing agents, almost nothing
`
`about 40 milligrams per milliliter. That was never done in the
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 18 of 252 PageID #:
`42098
` 27
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`prior art for aflibercept. And they can't meet that burden,
`
`including because people thought that increasing concentration
`
`increases aggregation. That's the problem I discussed earlier.
`
`In fact, Genentech in this same Gaudreault article
`
`tried 40 milligrams per milliliter, and it went poorly. What
`
`happened when they did 40 milligrams per milliliter was that
`
`they got ocular inflammation that was moderate to severe. Bad
`
`news. You don't want inflammation. It resolved after
`
`eight days, but keep in mind this is a product that's
`
`administered every month. No one wants their eye to be
`
`inflamed for one week out of every month, let alone inflamed
`
`potentially with particles that can hurt your vision and cause
`
`real problems.
`
`So Genentech, the leader in the field, ditched the
`
`40 milligrams per milliliter idea and instead pursued lower
`
`doses, 6 milligrams per milliliter or 10 milligrams per
`
`milliliter, which is what they ultimately used in Lucentis.
`
`The argument based on Fraser of obviousness fails for
`
`this reason alone. Not only does it fail to disclose
`
`aflibercept or intravitreal injection, it has only
`
`24.3 milligrams per milliliter, and the claim requires 40. The
`
`skilled artisan would have used less than 24, not more, and
`
`certainly wouldn't have gone all the way up to 40 when
`
`Genentech, the prior art, was teaching away from it.
`
`Now, the second prior art reference for obviousness
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 19 of 252 PageID #:
`42099
` 28
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`that Mylan advances is Dix. And the assertion of Dix would
`
`require the Court to answer a second question in the event that
`
`the Court does not believe that Regeneron is entitled to an
`
`earlier priority date.
`
`If we are entitled to an earlier priority date, as I
`
`said, Dix goes out the window completely. But if you answer
`
`that question no, Your Honor, then you have to answer a second
`
`question. Is Dix subject to the safe harbor of 103(c) in the
`
`statute so that it cannot be used for obviousness?
`
`And the answer to that question is that Dix is
`
`subject to the safe harbor. The statute is very clear. You
`
`can't use as an obviousness reference a reference owned by the
`
`same person as the patent or subject to an assignment of -- to
`
`an obligation of assignment to the same person. Your own prior
`
`art can't be used against you for obviousness under 103(c).
`
`There is no question but that Dix shown here on the
`
`right and other such references and the product patent at issue
`
`were owned by the same person, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. And
`
`all of the scientists working at Regeneron at the time, of
`
`course, had an obligation to assign their inventions. That's
`
`how pharmaceutical companies work. If you work for them and
`
`use their labs, you don't get to keep your invention. It
`
`belongs to the company, of course.
`
`Now, even if Dix could be used for obviousness, it
`
`doesn't really help Mylan and Biocon. It does not disclose
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 20 of 252 PageID #:
`42100
` 29
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`40 milligrams per milliliter. And based on the prior art that
`
`we've seen, the skilled artisan never would have used that high
`
`a concentration. It would have used a much lower concentration
`
`for the intravitreal injection, just as the prior art
`
`repeatedly taught.
`
`In any event, even if Mylan could show motivation to
`
`make the claimed invention, it cannot show expectation of
`
`success, an independent requirement of the obviousness inquiry.
`
`And moreover, the objective indicia of nonobviousness,
`
`including commercial success, demonstrate clearly that the
`
`invention was not obvious, as you'll hear from Dr. Richard
`
`Manning, our expert economist.
`
`Now, Regeneron did not succeed because it had a
`
`molecule that inhibited VEGF. Lots of companies had that. But
`
`consider what happened with Genentech. They were the big
`
`800-pound gorilla in the field, the leaders in the field of
`
`biotechnology in general and VEGF in particular. They had a
`
`big first mover advantage with their product, ranibizumab.
`
`And there were lots of companies out there trying to
`
`compete with Genentech, who had the leader in the field,
`
`Dr. Ferrara, leading their program. None of the other
`
`competitors succeeded, none of them. Only Regeneron succeeded.
`
`And Regeneron succeeded wildly with a product Eylea that ended
`
`up being the market leader and, in fact, overtaking Genentech's
`
`ranibizumab.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`Samsung Bioepis Exhibit 1071
`Page 20
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 558 Filed 06/26/23 Page 21 of 252 PageID #:
`42101
` 30
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Now, because the prior art does not invalidate the
`
`patent, Mylan next turns to Section 112 defenses. Now, these
`
`defenses, as I pointed out at the pretrial conference, are so
`
`blatantly inconsistent with their prior art references that
`
`Mylan actually has to bring two separate experts in order to
`
`advance these arguments -- prior art on the one hand and
`
`Section 112 on the other -- because one person couldn't
`
`possibly keep them straight, let alone testify lucidly as to
`
`both.
`
`They start with enablement, but their theory on
`
`enablement suffers from a repeated fatal flaw. Mylan runs
`
`enablement in the alternative in saying if the