`
`1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
` REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`2 3
`
`4 Plaintiff,
`
`5 vs. CASE NO.:
` 1:22-CV-61
`6 MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`7 Defendant.
`
`8 - - -
`
`9 Proceedings had in the status conference of the
` above-styled action on Wednesday, September 28, 2022, before
`10 the Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge, at
` Clarksburg, West Virginia.
`11
` - - -
`12
` APPEARANCES:
`13
` On behalf of the Plaintiff via Zoom:
`14
` David I. Berl
`15 Williams & Connolly LLP - Washington
` 680 Maine Avenue, SW
`16 Washington, DC 20024
` dberl@wc.com
`17
` Steven Robert Ruby
`18 Carey, Douglas, Kessler & Ruby, PLLC
` 707 Virginia Street, East
`19 Suite 901
` Charleston, WV 25301
`20 sruby@cdkrlaw.com
`
`21 James Evans
` Petra Scamborova
`22 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
` 777 Old Saw Mill River Road
`23 Tarrytown, NY 10591-6717
` james.evans@regeneron.com
`24 petra.scamborova@regeneron.com
`
`25 APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 1
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 46 PageID #: 2250
`
`1 On behalf of the Defendant via Zoom:
`
`2 Gordon H. Copland
` William J. O'Brien
`3 Steptoe & Johnson PLLC - Bridgeport
` 400 White Oaks Boulevard
`4 Bridgeport, WV 26330
` gordon.copland@steptoe-johnson.com
`5 william.obrien@steptoe-johnson.com
`
`6 William Rakoczy
` Neil B. McLaughlin
`7 Rakoczy, Molino, Mazzochi & Siwik, LLP
` 6 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`8 Chicago, IL 60654
` wrakoczy@rmmslegal.com
`9 nmclaughlin@rmmslegal.com
`
`10 Matthew Greinert
` Thomas Jenkins
`11 Viatris Inc.
` 1000 Mylan Boulevard
`12 Canonsburg, PA 15317
` matthew.greinert@viatris.com
`13
`
`14 Proceedings recorded utilizing realtime translation.
` Transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 2
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 3 of 46 PageID #: 2251
`
`1 Wednesday Afternoon Session
`
`2 September 28, 2022, 2:59 PM
`
`3 - - -
`
`4 THE COURT: Madam Clerk, would you be kind enough to
`
`5 call our next case, please.
`
`6 THE CLERK: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., versus
`
`7 Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Civil Action Number 1:22-cv-61.
`
`8 Will counsel, beginning with Plaintiff's counsel,
`
`9 please note your appearance for the record.
`
`10 MR. RUBY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Steve Ruby --
`
`11 Carey, Douglas, Kessler & Ruby -- for Plaintiff, Regeneron.
`
`12 And also with me I have David Berl of Williams & Connolly,
`
`13 who's been admitted pro hac vice and will be primarily handling
`
`14 the matter for Plaintiff today.
`
`15 We also have a couple of Plaintiff representatives
`
`16 from in-house counsel with Regeneron, Petra Scamborova and
`
`17 James Evans, Your Honor.
`
`18 THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, counsel.
`
`19 MR. COPLAND: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is
`
`20 Gordon Copland, Steptoe & Johnson, appearing for the
`
`21 Defendants.
`
`22 Also appearing are William Rakoczy of the Rakoczy
`
`23 Molino firm. Mr. Rakoczy will be addressing the Court on the
`
`24 issues we expect.
`
`25 Furthermore, Mylan is also appearing through two
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 3
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 4 of 46 PageID #: 2252
`
`1 in-house attorneys, Thomas Jenkins and Matthew Greinert, who
`
`2 are attending the hearing.
`
`3 THE COURT: All right. Understood. Good afternoon
`
`4 to you as well, counsel. And, again, my apologies collectively
`
`5 to everyone for being a bit behind schedule here today.
`
`6 We convene to discuss some scheduling issues as there
`
`7 seems to be quite a divergence as to not only when we should
`
`8 set trial but also under what statutory vehicle we proceed.
`
`9 Plaintiff's counsel, the floor is yours first.
`
`10 MR. BERL: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
`
`11 David Berl of Williams & Connolly representing Regeneron.
`
`12 Your Honor, in our view this is not a garden variety
`
`13 patent infringement case. In particular, there are two
`
`14 important differences between this case and the typical case
`
`15 that comes before Your Honor in terms of patent infringement.
`
`16 The first key difference is that this case, a BPCIA
`
`17 case -- BPCIA is an acronym for the biosimilar statute passed
`
`18 as part of Obamacare -- includes with it a series of voluminous
`
`19 exchanges that occur before the case is filed, colloquially
`
`20 referred to as the "patent dance." And that patent dance
`
`21 includes Regeneron's assertions about what claims are infringed
`
`22 and why, Mylan's assertions about why its product and
`
`23 manufacturing process don't infringe those claims, Mylan's
`
`24 assertions for why the claims are invalid, and Regeneron's
`
`25 responses as to why it believes its claims are valid.
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 4
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 5 of 46 PageID #: 2253
`
`1 That all happened via an exchange of many hundreds of
`
`2 pages of information going both ways all before this case was
`
`3 filed. And that's important in our view because this case does
`
`4 not begin at the same posture as most cases. We're part of the
`
`5 way down the runway -- I would submit much of the way down the
`
`6 runway -- toward knowing what we would generally not know until
`
`7 that discovery has occurred.
`
`8 We've seen their aBLA -- that's their FDA
`
`9 application -- to sell their biosimilar version of Regeneron's
`
`10 flagship Eylea product. We've seen additional information as
`
`11 well. And we are prepared to move forward, given that
`
`12 information, on an accelerated schedule.
`
`13 Which brings me to the second distinction between
`
`14 this case and the typical patent infringement case is that this
`
`15 case, pursuant to the BPCIA, provides more particular statutory
`
`16 relief that Congress included when it passed the BPCIA. And
`
`17 that statutory relief is a mandatory injunction precluding the
`
`18 Defendant, here Viatris, from marketing and selling its product
`
`19 in the United States until expiry of any patent that Your Honor
`
`20 finds to be valid and infringed following trial as long as
`
`21 there's what's called in the statue a final court decision,
`
`22 which is defined as a judgment that is either not appealed or
`
`23 appealed and then ruled on by the court of appeals, here the
`
`24 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`25 So we can be flexible, Your Honor, with respect to
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 5
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 6 of 46 PageID #: 2254
`
`1 how this case proceeds and even with respect to how many
`
`2 patents move forward at this juncture. But we cannot be
`
`3 flexible -- because the statute does not permit us to be
`
`4 flexible -- as to the timing of the case, as to the timing of
`
`5 the trial and the ultimate disposition of the case, which in
`
`6 our view needs to occur before May 18th, 2024, in order to
`
`7 avail ourselves of the statutory relief that Congress provided.
`
`8 So that's why, in our view, we've proposed a schedule
`
`9 we think is feasible. We think it's reasonable. We think it's
`
`10 within the scope and balance of what other courts and
`
`11 administrative bodies have ordered in circumstances that we
`
`12 view are -- as analogous.
`
`13 But the fundamental point here is that it is not
`
`14 appropriate for Viatris, the defendant, to moot our claim for
`
`15 statutory relief, our primary request for relief, simply by
`
`16 running out the clock. But irrespective of the merits of
`
`17 opposition on validity and infringement, we are not permitted
`
`18 to obtain statutory relief. So that's why we provided the
`
`19 schedule we've provided.
`
`20 The Defendant, Viatris/Mylan, has provided a few
`
`21 responses, largely that our schedule isn't feasible. We don't
`
`22 believe that to be true. They are a large company as Your
`
`23 Honor knows. Eleven lawyers on their side already have entered
`
`24 an appearance. And we think we can move forward, given what we
`
`25 already know, on the schedule that we have provided for.
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 6
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 7 of 46 PageID #: 2255
`
`1 Their second primary response --
`
`2 THE COURT: Mr. Berl.
`
`3 MR. BERL: -- is the fact --
`
`4 Yes.
`
`5 THE COURT: If I could interrupt you there before you
`
`6 transition.
`
`7 What would Plaintiff's position be on the remaining
`
`8 discovery or other issues necessary to occur before trial
`
`9 given -- and I'll borrow your phrase -- the patent dance work
`
`10 that's already occurred?
`
`11 MR. BERL: Yes. So, Your Honor, there are no
`
`12 documents for us to produce. Mylan has already produced its
`
`13 FDA application. There are some additional documents that we'd
`
`14 like them to produce. We provided them requests back in August
`
`15 for those documents. So they understand what we need. And
`
`16 that's largely what we need. There may be a few follow-ups,
`
`17 but that largely is what we need.
`
`18 In terms of what needs to happen from our
`
`19 perspective, from what we need to produce, we have prepared a
`
`20 substantial document production that includes the most
`
`21 important documents in my client's possession; that is the
`
`22 relevant portions of its FDA application for its Eylea product,
`
`23 the laboratory notebooks that reflect the conception of the
`
`24 invention at issue, scientific reports that reflect information
`
`25 about the research and development that led to the inventions
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 7
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 8 of 46 PageID #: 2256
`
`1 that are disclosed in claims here, as well as the patents and
`
`2 their file histories. We will be prepared to furnish all of
`
`3 that information, all of those documents to Mylan within 48
`
`4 hours of Your Honor's entry of a protective order.
`
`5 And by way of update, we have received a response
`
`6 from Mylan. We're conferring with Mylan tomorrow. And we're
`
`7 hopeful that by the end of the week the parties will be able to
`
`8 present for Your Honor's signature a stipulated protective
`
`9 order. And within 48 hours of that being executed by The
`
`10 Court, as I said, we will produce the lion's share of the
`
`11 information that Mylan would need.
`
`12 At that point, obviously, they would review the
`
`13 documents; we would review the documents they have produced;
`
`14 and we would proceed to depositions.
`
`15 We're mindful, Your Honor, of the fact that we are
`
`16 requesting an accelerated schedule. And what that means is
`
`17 that this should not be a case in which 50 depositions happen
`
`18 on both sides. This is not a four-year schedule. This is a
`
`19 nine-month schedule. Again, starting from today nine months
`
`20 rather than from the date of the exchanges that have preceded
`
`21 the filing of the complaint.
`
`22 And so we will obviously have depositions. They will
`
`23 be able to learn about the discoveries and the research and
`
`24 development that led to them. We'll need to take depositions
`
`25 to understand a little more of what their FDA application means
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 8
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 9 of 46 PageID #: 2257
`
`1 and their product. And following that we would proceed to
`
`2 expert discovery.
`
`3 Mylan has suggested that the expert discovery will be
`
`4 unwieldy, that we'll have innumerable experts. Just to be
`
`5 clear, Your Honor, that's not the case. We will not present to
`
`6 Your Honor anything like the boogeyman of a case that Mylan has
`
`7 presented in its papers. I've been doing this for two decades
`
`8 now. I have never presented to The Court 655 claims, or
`
`9 whatever the number is, for adjudication at trial. I would be
`
`10 shocked if we present more than a dozen claims to Your Honor
`
`11 for adjudication at trial.
`
`12 No fact finder, no matter how experienced and how
`
`13 intelligent, can keep 655 claims straight in his or her mind.
`
`14 And we don't pretend that you should be the first. So we will
`
`15 narrow the case substantially before trial. We think that
`
`16 should be done in a reasonable manner. We shouldn't have to
`
`17 pick and choose at this point, essentially playing roulette,
`
`18 before we have a claim construction proceeding and we have
`
`19 discovery. But following that fact discovery and claim
`
`20 construction proceeding, we will be prepared to narrow the case
`
`21 substantially, down to a small number of patents, somewhere in
`
`22 the range of four patents. And at that point we can proceed to
`
`23 trial on a small number of claims. Nowhere close to the
`
`24 hundreds of claims. Somewhere in the range of a dozen or two
`
`25 claims at that point. And we'll further narrow before trial.
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 9
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 10 of 46 PageID #: 2258
`
`1 So we think this can be done and managed, given what
`
`2 we already know, in an efficient manner. We will litigate the
`
`3 case in recognition of the schedule. We're not going to have
`
`4 25 experts come in in a nine-month schedule. That's
`
`5 unreasonable. We wouldn't do that upon asking Your Honor for
`
`6 this schedule. It has to be litigated in a commensurate and
`
`7 reasonable way. And we're prepared to do that.
`
`8 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Counsel.
`
`9 Mr. Rakoczy. And I'm sorry if I'm not pronouncing
`
`10 your name correctly, sir. Is that -- am I close?
`
`11 MR. RAKOCZY: That is correct, Your Honor.
`
`12 Mr. Rakoczy. William Rakoczy.
`
`13 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. Go right
`
`14 ahead.
`
`15 MR. RAKOCZY: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`16 I'd like to start first with the remedy issue. So
`
`17 point one, Your Honor: Regeneron will not be left without a
`
`18 remedy here. There's no dispute that they can seek a
`
`19 preliminary injunction if the emergent need arises and that
`
`20 they can seek a permanent injunction under the patent laws,
`
`21 just like any litigant can do, and under Supreme Court case
`
`22 law.
`
`23 As for the statutory issue, Your Honor, they are not
`
`24 interpreting it how the statute has been applied. For one
`
`25 thing --
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 10
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 11 of 46 PageID #: 2259
`
`1 THE COURT: And, Mr. Rakoczy, you're speaking
`
`2 specifically about the BPCIA? Is that right?
`
`3 MR. RAKOCZY: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`4 THE COURT: Okay.
`
`5 MR. RAKOCZY: I want to speak about that issue.
`
`6 So the first issue is there's no dispute they can
`
`7 seek a permanent injunction if they win it. All patent
`
`8 applicants can do that. All people that sue as a patent owner
`
`9 can do that.
`
`10 On that specific statutory issue, Your Honor,
`
`11 mentioned, my point is this: The majority of all BLAs, or
`
`12 biosimilars, in the past have been approved years before there
`
`13 was ever a District Court, much less a Federal Circuit appeal,
`
`14 decision. And the only courts to redress this issue have, in
`
`15 fact, granted the permanent injunctive relief under that
`
`16 statute even though the BLA was approved years before those
`
`17 final judgments. So this interpretation of Regeneron just does
`
`18 not come to pass.
`
`19 Beyond that, Your Honor, the interpretation doesn't
`
`20 make sense. Because under their view of the world of this
`
`21 statute whether that relief is available is based on things
`
`22 like court schedules, the vagaries of litigation, appellate
`
`23 schedules, when applicants filed their applications. And so
`
`24 this is a great case in point. In this case they're saying
`
`25 they need a superfast schedule against Mylan to get that
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 11
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 12 of 46 PageID #: 2260
`
`1 relief. But there's a dozen other filers coming down the pipe
`
`2 after Mylan who will be nowhere near court decisions before
`
`3 they get BLA approval. And yet they would say it wouldn't
`
`4 apply to them. That makes no sense.
`
`5 So point one, Your Honor, they do have a remedy.
`
`6 They will not be left without a remedy.
`
`7 But number two, putting all that aside, that issue
`
`8 should not be used to deprive Mylan of the due process and a
`
`9 full and fair opportunity to defend itself with full discovery,
`
`10 Your Honor. A full and fair discovery. And the schedule that
`
`11 they are proposing is not feasible, it's not fair, and it's
`
`12 unprecedented.
`
`13 We're talking about 24 patents, Your Honor, they've
`
`14 sued us on. Twenty-four patents, hundreds of claims,
`
`15 11 different patent families, numerous subject matter like
`
`16 protein purification, recombinant manufacturing methods,
`
`17 formulations, indications. I can go on. Thirty-three unique
`
`18 inventors.
`
`19 And here we hear from Regeneron today that maybe if
`
`20 we go through all this discovery we'll have all of this somehow
`
`21 reduced. Well, it hasn't been reduced, Your Honor. And this
`
`22 is an unprecedented schedule. In all of the biologic
`
`23 litigation of this type to date, we're talking about 24-month
`
`24 to 41 1/2-month schedules for two patents. Not 24, not
`
`25 hundreds of claims, not 33 unique inventors. No one has done a
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 12
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 13 of 46 PageID #: 2261
`
`1 biologic case like this in this amount of time, and for good
`
`2 reason, because it prejudices the defendant in a huge, huge
`
`3 way. We don't think this remedy should override that.
`
`4 Now, something else I want to mention -- point three,
`
`5 Your Honor -- is the futility of the proposal from Regeneron.
`
`6 Even if we mapped out their proposal, we're talking about one
`
`7 and a half months for Markman proceedings. And let's think
`
`8 about that. Twenty-four patents in suit. Briefing on Markman,
`
`9 hearing on Markman, and Your Honor writing up an opinion on
`
`10 Markman in one and a half months. Let's just assume even that
`
`11 was feasible. Then we're talking about three months of fact
`
`12 discovery on 24 patents. In Your Honor's other patent actions,
`
`13 Hatch-Waxman actions, we're talking over 24-month schedules for
`
`14 two to six patents. And again, as I said, in other biologic
`
`15 actions it's gone years, 41 months for two patents.
`
`16 Let's assume that could all happen. Then we do three
`
`17 months of expert discovery. And a point -- I want to make a
`
`18 point on Regeneron's issue on experts, Your Honor. More than
`
`19 one of these patents has already been challenged in the patent
`
`20 office. One patent. And Regeneron had five expert witnesses
`
`21 for one patent. Now we're talking about 24 patents, 11 subject
`
`22 matters. So I -- I question the amount of expert witnesses
`
`23 that will be necessary here.
`
`24 But, again, let's assume we get all that done in
`
`25 three months. Even if we go to trial in June 2023 as Regeneron
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 13
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 14 of 46 PageID #: 2262
`
`1 says, the parties -- even if in July of next year we did all
`
`2 post-trial briefing and then Your Honor drafting an opinion on
`
`3 24 or even 12 patents in the month of July, they still wouldn't
`
`4 get this Federal Circuit appeal decision anywhere near in time
`
`5 before that date in May of 2024. Federal Circuit run rate for
`
`6 a simple appeal is 12 months. I'm not aware of any Federal
`
`7 Circuit appeal ever getting done on 12 to 24 patents in less
`
`8 than 12 months.
`
`9 And, in fact, if they want a final decision, we have
`
`10 to factor in rehearing proceedings. So they would need a
`
`11 Federal Circuit decision in eight months. That's not going to
`
`12 happen. It's unrealistic, Your Honor. So even under their
`
`13 schedule it's futile and it's not going to work and it's
`
`14 certainly not a reason to take away Mylan's due process rights.
`
`15 Point four, Your Honor: This whole emergent
`
`16 circumstances or expediency they're raising is undermined by
`
`17 their conduct in that so-called "patent dance" they just
`
`18 mentioned. They sat back for 209 days, 120 days of which they
`
`19 control. They solely could have expedited 120 days. They
`
`20 never did anything. They let the time go by, and then they
`
`21 ambushed Mylan after the complaint was filed, waiting 30 days
`
`22 to file the complaint, and then they raised the fact that they
`
`23 want this expedient schedule. If they wanted expediency, Your
`
`24 Honor, they could have shaved many, many months off of this.
`
`25 But, instead, they let the time go by.
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 14
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 15 of 46 PageID #: 2263
`
`1 On that same issue, on the patent dance, no court has
`
`2 ever held and no statute says that that is a substitute for
`
`3 litigation and discovery. Quite the contrary, Your Honor. The
`
`4 courts have held that nothing in that binds the defendant like
`
`5 Mylan. Mylan is entitled to defend itself in any way, shape,
`
`6 and form that is reasonable and proper. It's entitled to seek
`
`7 the discovery to do that.
`
`8 Point five, your Honor. And I'll try and be brief.
`
`9 We've still gotten no answers as to how this schedule could
`
`10 even possibly happen from Regeneron. We don't have any
`
`11 indications on claim reductions, patent reductions, except for
`
`12 what I just heard was we could go through all discovery and
`
`13 then maybe we might get a reduction. We have no indications on
`
`14 fact witnesses. We have 33 unique inventors, no indication of
`
`15 who will come to trial, who they have control over, whether we
`
`16 have to go overseas, to The Hague, for foreign inventors.
`
`17 We've not gotten anything in that regard from them. We've
`
`18 gotten no limits on expert witnesses, no explanation for how we
`
`19 do Markman, much less an opinion on Markman in one and a half
`
`20 months. And, again, this would be super, super expedited.
`
`21 It's unprecedented.
`
`22 And by the way, Your Honor, the examples they put in
`
`23 their papers -- the Twitter example, the Telecom example, ITC
`
`24 examples -- none of those had anything to do with a 24-patent
`
`25 biologic case.
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 15
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 16 of 46 PageID #: 2264
`
`1 And lastly, Your Honor, kind of the elephant in the
`
`2 room, which is we have no explanation on what's going to happen
`
`3 with all these other patents. The whole point of this action
`
`4 is to try and get some type of patent certainty with 24
`
`5 patents. They're suggesting trying 12 patents and then holding
`
`6 these other 12 back. What does that mean? Can they assert
`
`7 them after the first trial? Can they assert them in serial
`
`8 fashion after that? We have no explanations on that. None
`
`9 whatsoever.
`
`10 So what we've done is made a -- what we believe is a
`
`11 cooperative and accommodating proposal, Your Honor, two part.
`
`12 If Regeneron insists on asserting 24 patents and they will not
`
`13 drop them, give us covenants not to sue or dismiss them with
`
`14 prejudice, we are proposing a standard 24-month schedule, which
`
`15 in and of itself would be ridiculously fast for 24 patents.
`
`16 That's part one of our proposal.
`
`17 If Regeneron doesn't like that, if they won't give us
`
`18 certainty -- meaning they'll drop most of these patents with
`
`19 covenants, dismissals with prejudice, what have you -- and we
`
`20 could get it down to a manageable number, say eight, and they
`
`21 reduce the claims, then Mylan is willing to do a 15-month
`
`22 schedule, which gets us to trial, I believe, by December of
`
`23 2023.
`
`24 So Mylan is willing to be reasonable. We're willing
`
`25 to move quick. But we are not willing to move so quick that,
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 16
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 17 of 46 PageID #: 2265
`
`1 again, it deprives us of the ability to fully and fairly defend
`
`2 ourself, Your Honor.
`
`3 And I should say, lastly, Mylan is not trying to run
`
`4 out the clock. Regeneron tried to run out the clock during the
`
`5 patent dance. If they really wanted to move fast, they could
`
`6 have self-expedited and not wasted those many months.
`
`7 Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`8 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Counsel.
`
`9 Mr. Berl.
`
`10 MR. BERL: If I could respond to the six points that
`
`11 Mr. Rakoczy just made.
`
`12 First he said that there is other relief in the BPCIA
`
`13 other than the statutory relief. He's right, of course. But
`
`14 the ability to obtain other relief does not moot the statutory
`
`15 relief that Congress provided. And his view of the law is that
`
`16 Congress provided statutory relief for no reason; it's a dead
`
`17 letter and a biosimilar applicant, like Mylan today, can come
`
`18 into the court and run out the clock. That's exactly what's
`
`19 going on here. Make no mistake. A December 2024 trial date --
`
`20 or a December 2023 trial date deprives us of any opportunity
`
`21 for statutory relief. They don't have to face it on the
`
`22 merits. They just run out the clock. That's exactly what's
`
`23 going on here.
`
`24 And to be clear, we didn't run out the clock during
`
`25 the patent dance. We had to review their materials. And we
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 17
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 18 of 46 PageID #: 2266
`
`1 did self-expedite and serve our submissions before they were
`
`2 due.
`
`3 With respect to his due process sort of arguments,
`
`4 number one, I'd note that there's no citation anywhere in
`
`5 Mylan's papers about the proposition that a court setting a
`
`6 trial date nine months after a scheduling conference somehow
`
`7 deprives a party of due process. That's because it's not true.
`
`8 All of his arguments that you just heard from Mr. Rakoczy
`
`9 depend on a fallacy. And that fallacy is that we are proposing
`
`10 to proceed all the way to trial on 24 patents. That's not
`
`11 true. We are proposing to proceed on a subset of those
`
`12 patents, 12 patents now. And if Your Honor thinks that's too
`
`13 much to accommodate Mylan's needs, we're prepared to be
`
`14 flexible on that and we're prepared to move forward with this
`
`15 first phase with fewer than that. We could do even six patents
`
`16 if that's more palatable.
`
`17 But at the end of the day, this notion that we're
`
`18 going forward on 24 patents with 11 different families simply
`
`19 is not true. There are 12 patents that we have identified for
`
`20 the first part of litigation. There are only 4 patent
`
`21 families, not 11. And we'd be prepared right now to go down to
`
`22 3 patent families to make the burden even lower on the parties
`
`23 and on The Court. That's not so much. That's not nearly as
`
`24 many as in the papers. And we're cutting out all of the time
`
`25 for document production by having already reviewed and
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 18
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 19 of 46 PageID #: 2267
`
`1 collected the lion's share of the documents. And we're
`
`2 prepared to produce them with alacrity.
`
`3 With respect to the futility argument, respectfully,
`
`4 it's the same fallacy, Your Honor. There's not fact discovery
`
`5 on 24 patents. There's fact discovery on far fewer than that,
`
`6 three or four patent families. That's it.
`
`7 And the Markman hearing? Courts frequently limit the
`
`8 number of Markman disputes in order to prevent an unwieldy
`
`9 process. It's common in other courts, from Texas to California
`
`10 and elsewhere, for The Court to pronounce that it will
`
`11 adjudicate eight or ten different Markman disputes. We can
`
`12 choose five; they can choose five. If there are fewer than
`
`13 ten, there are fewer than ten. And that ensures that it won't
`
`14 be an unwieldy Markman process.
`
`15 And by the way, Mr. Rakoczy is not correct that we
`
`16 provided some time limit for the Markman decision. We would
`
`17 not suggest that Your Honor has some deadline. That's for Your
`
`18 Honor to decide the Markman issues after they're presented.
`
`19 We've obviously provided a deadline for the parties to submit
`
`20 their papers and to present the Markman issues to The Court,
`
`21 and we would hope that Your Honor would rule on them after
`
`22 that. But it's not true that everything has to be decided in
`
`23 six weeks under our schedule, let alone 24 patents in
`
`24 11 families, let alone some innumerable number of claim terms.
`
`25 We think that that could be done in an expedited fashion by
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Exhibit 2034 Page 19
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. IPR2023-00884
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 90 Filed 11/02/22 Page 20 of 46 PageID #: 2268
`
`1 selecting ten claim terms at most and having the parties work
`
`2 out which those are that require adjudication by The Court.
`
`3 Same thing with respect to fact discovery. It's not
`
`4 24 patents. Nor is it for an expert discovery. We're not
`
`5 going to have five experts on one patent, Your Honor. We're
`
`6 not going to do that having requested this schedule. We will
`
`7 be reasonable as to the number of experts that will be present.
`
`8 If we go forward on three patents, it's very unlikely that
`
`9 we'll have more than five experts in total in the case, let
`
`10 alone one patent, smaller than the typical case of this size.
`
`11 With respect to the Federal Circuit and the futility,
`
`12 I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Rakoczy. Upon Your
`
`13 Honor's ruling we will, of course, make the Federal Circuit
`
`14 aware of the timing issue so that this will not be a typical
`
`15 appeal. And we will explain to the Federal Circuit that
`
`16 justic