`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD., CELLTRION INC,
`and BIOCON BIOLOGICS INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-008841
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)
`
`
`1 IPR2024-00260 and IPR2024-00298 are joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`
`Regeneron challenged the prior art status of three references relied upon by
`
`Samsung Bioepis in its Patent Owner Preliminary Response on August 25, 2023.
`
`Regeneron further developed these arguments in its Response, filed February 23,
`
`2024, with declarations from named inventor and Regeneron’s CSO George
`
`Yancopoulos and Regeneron’s Global Program Head for Ophthalmology, Karen
`
`Chu. Dr. Yancopoulos and Ms. Chu sat for deposition on April 11-12, 2024, and
`
`answered all questions posed by Samsung’s counsel.
`
`Now, apparently unhappy with the evidentiary record, Samsung requests
`
`over 100 deposition and trial exhibits from parallel litigation between Mylan and
`
`Regeneron, without articulating any specific reason the exhibits are relevant to the
`
`subject matter of the declarations. Samsung argues that its Motion should be
`
`granted because the District Court and PTAB proceedings both implicate the
`
`patentability of the ’572 patent. But Dr. Yancopoulos and Ms. Chu’s declarations
`
`do not address the district court’s bases for unpatentability. They provide factual
`
`testimony regarding whether Exhibits 1006, 1007, and 1010 are prior art. The
`
`District Court did not address that issue and found the claims obvious over
`
`different references. Moreover, several exhibits post-date the priority date of the
`
`’572 patent, so their relevance to declarations about antedation remains unclear.
`
`The Board should not condone Samsung’s fishing expedition. Before filing
`
`its Motion, Samsung never suggested that its request was routine discovery. It is
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`not, nor do the Garmin factors support Samsung’s request for additional discovery.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, its Motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST IS NOT ROUTINE DISCOVERY
`
`Samsung never contended that its request for over 100 trial and deposition
`
`exhibits was routine discovery, until the Board requested that the parties consider
`
`that possibility on May 7. (Ex.3003; Ex.1070, 11-12.) Samsung now argues,
`
`however, that its request is routine discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii)
`
`because the District Court found two claims of the ’572 patent invalid. (See Mot.
`
`3-4.) While that is true, Regeneron disagrees with the District Court’s
`
`determination. And more importantly, there is no inconsistency in Regeneron’s
`
`position. In both proceedings, Regeneron has vigorously defended the
`
`patentability of the claims in the ’572 patent. Moreover, even after Samsung
`
`obtained the public District Court transcripts of Dr. Yancopoulos and Ms. Chu’s
`
`trial and deposition testimony, Samsung does not provide any basis for its assertion
`
`that the requested exhibits would reveal inconsistencies with Regeneron’s positions
`
`here. Routine discovery is “not broadly directed to any subject area in general
`
`within which the requesting party hopes to discover such inconsistent
`
`information.” Synaptive Med. Inc. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00462, Paper 14, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2017) (denying routine
`
`discovery). Therefore, Samsung’s request is not for routine discovery.
`
`2
`
`
`
`II. ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IS NOT WARRANTED UNDER THE
`GARMIN FACTORS
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`
`Factor 1. Samsung has not shown “more than a possibility or mere
`
`allegation” of something useful in its requested materials. Garmin, IPR2012-
`
`00001, Paper 26 at 6. Samsung has repeatedly failed to explain what would be
`
`relevant, much less useful, in its requested materials. (See Mot.; Ex.1070.)
`
`Samsung’s gesture toward the District Court finding claims 6 and 25 unpatentable
`
`is irrelevant. (Mot., 3-4.) Dr. Yancopoulos and Ms. Chu’s IPR declarations are
`
`limited in scope; they address actual reduction to practice of certain ’572 claims
`
`(not claim 25) and whether Exhibits 1006, 1007, and 1010 are Dr. Yancopoulos’s
`
`own work. (Ex.2063; Ex.2064.) The Mylan trial addressed neither reduction to
`
`practice nor these three references. (Ex.2032, 21-30; Ex.2093, 236-311.)
`
`In view of these facts, the Board’s decision in Amneal Pharms. LLC v.
`
`Alemirall, LLC, IPR2019-00207, Paper 39 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019) does not
`
`support Samsung’s request. There, the movant requested a “limited production” of
`
`only deposition testimony (not exhibits). Id. at 5. Because the nonmovant’s expert
`
`relied on a patent office declaration showing unexpected results, additional
`
`discovery was the only way for the movant to obtain cross examination testimony
`
`of the declarant, the only person with personal knowledge of that subject matter.
`
`Id. at 6. In stark contrast, Samsung has failed to tailor its request for information
`
`relating to the subject matter of the two Regeneron employee declarations.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`
`Factor 2. Samsung’s request for additional discovery is improper because
`
`Samsung is requesting litigation positions (which are also largely irrelevant to
`
`Dr. Yancopoulos and Ms. Chu’s testimony), despite its argument otherwise. (Mot.,
`
`4.) Specifically, the exhibits requested by Samsung include Regeneron’s
`
`interrogatory responses, Rule 26(a) disclosures, Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics,
`
`and a case narrowing stipulation. (See Ex.1073, 1654:10-13; Ex.1075, 17:15-23,
`
`40:2-11, 43:5-19.)
`
`Factor 3. Samsung is wrong that its requested materials are “not publicly
`
`available.” (Mot., 4.) Not only are many of them public, but the public documents
`
`that Samsung requests further illustrate Samsung’s untargeted approach. For
`
`example, PTX 1 and PTX 3 are the ’572 patent and ’601 patent. (Ex.1071, 100:16-
`
`101:21.) PTX 311 and DTX 8180 are scientific publications that Samsung already
`
`filed in this proceeding as Exs.1038, 1039. (See Ex.1071, 150:2-17, 182:1-8,
`
`255:2-8.) The public docket includes several more exhibits that Samsung contends
`
`are important additional discovery, but that Samsung did not bother to pull before
`
`filing its Motion. For example, DTX 913, 915, 5385, and 8190 are documents
`
`filed as ECF Nos. 505-29, -24, -44, and -42, respectively. (See Ex.1071, 190:25-
`
`191:5, 220:12-18; Ex.1073, 1606:2-24, 1629:7-15.) Samsung also had ample
`
`opportunity to ask Ms. Chu and Dr. Yancopoulos about any relevant requested
`
`information during their respective depositions. Having chosen not to do so, it
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`
`should not now be permitted to pursue litigation-style discovery requests,
`
`particularly given its lack of diligence and justification.
`
`Factor 5. Samsung argues that this factor favors additional discovery
`
`because its request is allegedly “limited in scope and not overly burdensome.” But
`
`as discussed above, Samsung’s request is overbroad. Additionally, some of the
`
`requested materials are sensitive, requiring careful review for Regeneron’s
`
`confidential information as well as entry of a new protective order for “outside
`
`counsel’s eyes only” materials. (See Ex.1070, 7-8.) Even if the Board is willing to
`
`enter such a protective order, the production of Regeneron materials implicating
`
`proprietary, highly confidential, and competitively sensitive information in another
`
`forum, to two new parties (Samsung and Celltrion) and more outside counsel,
`
`increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure, without sufficient justification.
`
`Furthermore, Samsung’s request for more than 100 exhibits is not “responsibly
`
`tailored according to a genuine need.” Garmin, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 at 7.
`
`The list includes documents far post-dating the last events discussed in Dr.
`
`Yancopoulos’s and Ms. Chu’s declarations (e.g., Ex.1074, 55:2-5), and documents
`
`clearly unrelated to the facts of whether Dr. Yancopoulos reduced certain
`
`challenged claims to practice (e.g., Ex.1073, 1624:2-6 (addressing diabetic
`
`retinopathy indication)).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`
`Date: 5/17/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /Adam R. Brausa/
`Adam R. Brausa, Reg. No. 60,287
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Tel: (415) 268-6053
`ABrausa@mofo.com
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4))
`
`I hereby certify that the attached “PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)” was served on the below date on the Petitioner via e-mail (by consent) to
`
`the following counsel of record:
`
`Raymond N. Nimrod (Reg. No. 31,987)
`Richard W. Erwine (Reg. No 41,737)
`Matthew A. Traupman (Reg. No. 50,832)
`Laura Fairneny (pro hac vice to be applied for)
`Elliot Choi (pro hac vice granted)
`Zachariah Summers (pro hac vice granted)
`Sarah Cork (pro hac vice to be applied for)
`Landon Andrew Smith (Reg. No. 79,248)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`General Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Direct Tel: (212) 849-7322
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`Email: raynimrod@quinnemanuel.com
`Email: richarderwine@quinnemanuel.com
`Email: matthewtraupman@quinnemanuel.com
`Email: laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com
`Email: elliotchoi@quinnemanuel.com
`Email: zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com
`Email: landonsmith@quinnemanuel.com
`Email: qe-samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Paul J. Molino (Reg. No. 45,350)
`William A. Rakoczy (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Deanne M. Mazzochi (Reg. No. 50,158)
`Heinz J. Salmen (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Eric R. Hunt (pro hac vice to be filed)
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`
`Neil B. McLaughlin (Reg. No. 70,810)
`Lauren M. Lesko (pro hac vice to be filed)
`L. Scott Beall (Reg. No. 52,601)
`Thomas H. Ehrich (Reg. No. 67,122)
`Steven J. Birkos (Reg. No. 65,300)
`Jake R. Ritthamel (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 527-2157
`Facsimile: (312) 843-6260
`MYL_REG_IPR@rmmslegal.com
`
`Lora Green (Reg. No. 43,541)
`Yahn-Lin Chu (Reg. No. 75,946)
`Robert Cerwinski (to be admitted pro hac vice, pending)
`Aviv Zalcenstein (to be admitted pro hac vice, pending)
`Brigid Morris (to be admitted pro hac vice, pending)
`Gemini Law LLP
`40 W 24th Street, Suite 6N
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel.: 917-915-8832
`Email: lgreen@geminilaw.com
`Email: fchu@geminilaw.com
`Email: rcerwinski@geminilaw.com
`Email: azalcenstein@geminilaw.com
`Email: bmorris@geminilaw.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: 5/17/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Adam R. Brausa/
`Adam R. Brausa, Reg. No. 60,287
`
`8
`
`