Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 1 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`IN THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`
`
`No. 20-1074
`
`
`Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing,
`Limited, Amgen USA, Inc.,
`
`
` v.
`
`
`Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, fka Aventis
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., Regeneron
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC,
`
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ OPPOSITION TO THE
`MOTION OF STANLEY D. LIANG TO SUBMIT A
`BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPPORT OF APPELLEES
`Plaintiffs-appellants Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, and Am-
`
`gen USA, Inc. (collectively, “Amgen”) hereby oppose the motion of Stanley D.
`
`Liang—a lawyer who has long represented defendant-appellee Regeneron Pharma-
`
`ceuticals in other matters—for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of his
`
`client in this case. Amgen regrets that the issue has come to motions practice. It is
`
`not the practice of undersigned counsel to oppose amicus participation. Amgen
`
`consented to the other amicus briefs filed in this case. And Amgen repeatedly of-
`
`fered to consent to Mr. Liang’s amicus brief if he disclosed the matters on which
`
`he represents appellee Regeneron.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 2 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`Although Mr. Liang initially agreed and stated that he had Regeneron’s con-
`
`sent to disclose those matters, he then attempted to file an amicus brief without the
`
`disclosures, without consent, and without a motion for leave. And despite his ear-
`
`lier agreement, Mr. Liang now says that “[t]hose matters are confidential and can-
`
`not be disclosed.” Mr. Liang’s proposed amicus brief, moreover, closely resem-
`
`bles a non-public filing by appellees in foreign proceedings involving an Amgen
`
`patent, escalating concerns about his independence. Raising factual arguments that
`
`are typically the domain of experts, Mr. Liang’s proposed brief, in substance,
`
`amounts to a 6,183-word, post-trial effort to present unsworn testimony that Am-
`
`gen has had no opportunity to conduct discovery on, cross-examine, or fairly re-
`
`spond to. The assertions were not presented to the jury, which rendered a verdict
`
`upholding the validity of the claims at issue in this appeal. Nor were they pre-
`
`sented to the district court, and thus formed no part of its JMOL decision. Mr.
`
`Liang should not be permitted to file what is, in effect, a second brief for appellees
`
`that adds new factual assertions, non-expert opinions, and scientific theories. The
`
`motion should be denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This appeal arises from a district-court decision overturning a jury verdict
`
`following a week-long trial. At trial, Sanofi-Regeneron had urged that the selected
`
`claims of Amgen’s patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 and 8,859,741—were not
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 3 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`enabled. The jury rejected that contention. The district court overturned that ver-
`
`dict and granted judgment as a matter of law.
`
`1.
`
`Shortly before appellees Sanofi and Regeneron filed their response
`
`brief in this appeal, attorney Stanley Liang emailed Amgen’s counsel, asking if
`
`Amgen would consent to his filing “an amicus brief supporting Regeneron and Sa-
`
`nofi” in this case. Ex. A at 4. When Amgen asked if Mr. Liang would be filing on
`
`behalf of a client, or whether he was the amicus himself, Mr. Liang responded that
`
`the brief would be on his own behalf, as “a patent attorney with a technical back-
`
`ground in this area.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Because the request seemed unusual, Amgen asked whether Mr. Liang rep-
`
`resented one of the parties. Ex. A at 3. Mr. Liang stated that “Regeneron has been
`
`a client for the past 5 or 6 years.” Id. Amgen told Mr. Liang that it “will consent
`
`to the filing of [his] amicus brief” nonetheless “on the condition that [Mr. Liang]
`
`disclose that Regeneron has been [his] client for the past 5-6 years, and that [he]
`
`disclose the matters on which [he] represented Regeneron.” Id. Mr. Liang later re-
`
`plied that “Regeneron has consented to [his] disclosing such information.” Id. at
`
`2 (emphasis added). Mr. Liang confirmed that he “[u]nderstood” Amgen was con-
`
`ditioning consent, and confirmed that Amgen wanted the disclosures made in the
`
`brief itself. Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 4 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`2.
`
`On June 5, Mr. Liang filed his amicus brief “in support of Regeneron
`
`Pharmaceuticals.” Doc. 81. In the Rule 29 Statement, Mr. Liang stated that,
`
`“while I am counsel for Party Regeneron on other matters, I am not counsel in the
`
`present matter.” Id. at 1. Mr. Liang did not disclose the matters on which he had
`
`represented Regeneron, despite his email exchanges with Amgen. As this Court
`
`noted in its Notice of Non-Compliance, the brief neither “state[d] that all parties
`
`have consented to its filing” nor included a motion for “leave of court.” Doc. 86 at
`
`1 (citing Fed. R. App. P. 29(a) and Fed. Cir. R. 29(c)).
`
`After this Court issued the Notice of Non-Compliance, Amgen again
`
`reached out to Mr. Liang. Amgen reiterated that it would consent to the filing so
`
`long as Mr. Liang (1) disclosed in the brief that Regeneron had been his client for
`
`the last 5-6 years, and (2) identified the matters in which he represents or has rep-
`
`resented Regeneron. Ex. A at 1. Despite having just represented that “Regeneron
`
`has consented to [his] disclosing such information,” id. at 2, this time Mr. Liang
`
`changed tact, urging that “[t]hose matters are confidential and cannot be dis-
`
`closed,” id. at 1.
`
`Mr. Liang’s motion for leave likewise represents that the matters “are confi-
`
`dential.” Doc. 95-2 at 1. It does not mention Mr. Liang’s prior representation that
`
`Regeneron had consented to his disclosure of those matters. It does not mention
`
`that Mr. Liang seeks to be an amicus based on his status as “a patent attorney with
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 5 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`a technical background.” Ex. A at 4. Instead, it states that his “estimate of the
`
`number of species in the claimed genus would be helpful to the Court.” Doc. 95-2
`
`at 2. Consistent with that, Mr. Liang’s proposed brief purports to provide an esti-
`
`mate “using three methods.” Doc. 95-3 at 5.1 Mr. Liang, however, cites no place
`
`where those arguments, or the evidence necessary to support those arguments,
`
`were presented to the jury below. He thus does not explain how his views relate to
`
`whether “any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron estab-
`
`lished non-enablement by clear-and-convincing evidence” at trial. Amgen Br. 4.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`“There is no right of nonparties generally to submit an amicus brief.” 16AA
`
`Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §3975
`
`(4th ed.). Rather, “[w]hether to permit a nonparty to submit a brief, as amicus
`
`curiae, is . . . a matter of judicial grace.” Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler,
`
`223 F.3d 615, 616 (7th Cir. 2000) (collecting cases). Amgen nonetheless would
`
`oppose the filing of such a brief—and would urge the Court to deny leave—only in
`
`highly unusual circumstances. Those circumstances are present here.
`
`1. Mr. Liang’s motion for leave raises significant concerns about his in-
`
`dependence from appellees. “The term ‘amicus curiae’ means friend of the court,
`
`
`1 These purported methods are “The Formation Method,” “The Substitution Meth-
`od,” and “The Functional Method.” Doc. 95-3 at 18-19.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 6 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`not friend of a party.” Ryan v. CFTC, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997)
`
`(Posner, J., in chambers). While courts obviously do not require amici to be whol-
`
`ly “‘impartial,’” amicus briefs should not “serv[e] as a mere conduit for the views
`
`of one of the parties.” Wright & Miller, supra, §3975.
`
`In this case, Mr. Liang is an attorney who has represented appellee Regener-
`
`on “for the past 5 or 6 years.” Ex. A at 3. He does not seek to file an amicus brief
`
`for another client who also happens to support Regeneron. Mr. Liang purports to
`
`file the amicus brief on his own behalf as “a patent attorney.” Id. at 4. While Mr.
`
`Liang’s brief asserts that he is “keenly interested in this Court’s decisions on patent
`
`validity requirements,” Doc. 95-3 at 2, his brief does not address validity require-
`
`ments or this Court’s precedents. Instead, his brief offers a series of mathematical
`
`calculations that purport to estimate the number of species in the claimed genus in
`
`this case. See id. at 17-31.
`
`Mr. Liang’s proposed submission thus is not an amicus brief in any normal
`
`sense. It is highly unusual that a party’s lawyer present himself as “amicus curiae”
`
`to advocate the party’s arguments on the merits.2 Amgen nonetheless offered to
`
`consent to Mr. Liang’s amicus brief so long as he disclosed his representation of
`
`Regeneron for 5-6 years and identified the matters in which he represented Regen-
`
`2 Indeed, while Mr. Liang’s corrected brief purports to be filed “in support of Ap-
`pellees,” Doc. 95-3, the brief he originally filed was only “in support of Regeneron
`Pharmaceuticals,” Doc. 81—his longstanding client.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 7 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`eron. Ex. A at 1, 3. That would have allowed the Court to assess the full extent of
`
`Mr. Liang’s relationship with Regeneron and his credibility as an amicus curiae.
`
`And it would have allowed Amgen to examine, for example, whether Mr. Liang’s
`
`submission reflected views that Regeneron had compensated him to develop. De-
`
`spite representing to Amgen that “Regeneron has consented to [his] disclosing
`
`such information,” id. at 2 (emphasis added), Mr. Liang has rejected Amgen’s of-
`
`fer of consent and refused the requested disclosures because, he now says, “[t]hose
`
`matters are confidential and cannot be disclosed,” id. at 1 (emphasis added).
`
`Perhaps worse still, Mr. Liang’s brief parrots, almost verbatim, opinion and
`
`mathematical calculations about a particular antibody (12H11) submitted by appel-
`
`lees in another (foreign) lawsuit between the parties.3 The pleadings and evidence
`
`from the foreign case are not available from a public docket, which suggests that
`
`Mr. Liang was not in any sense independent in the preparation of his amicus brief.
`
`It strains credulity to think that Mr. Liang would have chosen—through chance—
`
`to undertake the same analysis of the very same 12H11 antibody as appellees did
`
`in the foreign proceeding, out of dozens of concrete antibodies Amgen disclosed in
`
`
`3 In the foreign proceeding related to Amgen’s European patent, EP 2,215,124,
`which contains claims that differ materially from those at issue here, Sanofi-
`Regeneron purported to calculate the “possible permutations” using “the heavy
`chain of [the antibody] 12H11 as an example.” Ex. B at 32, ¶140. Mr. Liang’s
`purported amicus brief makes precisely the same argument and reaches precisely
`the same result. Doc. 95-3 at 23-25.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 8 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`its patents. Worse yet, no such calculation was offered by appellees in this case,
`
`and the antibody 12H11, which was added to Amgen’s patents after the priority
`
`date, was not discussed by either party at trial. Instead, Mr. Liang appears to be re-
`
`peating appellees’ positions from other cases, “in effect merely extending the
`
`length of the [appellees’] brief.” Ryan, 125 F.3d at 1063.
`
`2.
`
`The substance of Mr. Liang’s brief independently justifies denial of
`
`his motion for leave. This Court must decide whether “any reasonable juror was
`
`required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and-
`
`convincing evidence” at the trial. Amgen Br. 4. The questions he purports to ad-
`
`dress are matters for expert opinion—“(i) the theoretical size of the claim[ed] ge-
`
`nus; (ii) the members of the claimed genus that, according to the ’165 Patent, a per-
`
`son of ordinary skill in the art would be likely to consider; and (iii) the number of
`
`classes of antibodies that must be tested to determine actual members of the
`
`claimed genus.” Doc. 95-3 at 17-18. Mr. Liang purports to provide hard numbers
`
`of “potential genus members” for each calculation method he employs. Id. at 18-
`
`19. But the experts Sanofi-Regeneron brought to trial, including Dr. Boyd, did not
`
`present any of the theories Mr. Liang purports to apply, or any of the numbers he
`
`offers.4 Mr. Liang’s brief is entirely devoid of citation to their testimony or the
`
`
`4 Mr. Liang’s arguments under his purported “Substitution Method” differ
`dramatically from the far more limited arguments Sanofi-Regeneron’s Dr. Boyd
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 9 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`trial record. His views have never been subjected to the usual safeguards for
`
`admissibility or tested through cross-examination. This Court should not grant
`
`leave for Mr. Liang to file what is, in effect, supplemental appellate testimony
`
`offering pseudo-scientific argument of a non-expert attorney without foundation in
`
`the record of this case.
`
`“Such amicus briefs should not be allowed. They are an abuse.” Ryan, 125
`
`F.3d at 1063; see also United States v. Ackerman, 831 F.3d 1292, 1299 (10th Cir.
`
`2016) (purposes of amicus curiae briefs “don’t include . . . unilaterally expanding
`
`the word limits established by rule for a favored party”); Sciotto v. Marple
`
`Newtown Sch. Dist., 70 F. Supp. 2d 553, 556 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (denying amicus
`
`participation where “the petitioner is better characterized as ‘amicus reus,’ or
`
`friend of the defendant, than amicus curiae”); Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v.
`
`Ford Mktg. Corp., 149 F.R.D. 65, 82 (D.N.J. 1993) (“When the party seeking to
`
`appear as amicus curiae is perceived to be an interested party or to be an advocate
`
`of one of the parties to the litigation, leave to appear amicus curiae should be
`
`denied.”).
`
`3.
`
`Rule 29 requires amici to show “why an amicus brief is desirable and
`
`why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.” Fed. R. App.
`
`
`presented at trial concerning “conservative substitutions.” Compare Doc. 95-3 at
`23-29, with Amgen Br. 42-49 (discussing and citing Dr. Boyd’s testimony).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 10 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`P. 29(a)(3)(B). Mr. Liang’s calculations are legally irrelevant and, instead, are an
`
`improper attempt to supplement the record on appeal with evidence that the jury
`
`never heard; that the trial court has not examined for admissibility under traditional
`
`standards; that is without evidentiary foundation; and that has never been subjected
`
`to the crucible of cross-examination. Mr. Liang’s brief is thus not the argument of
`
`an amicus curiae. It is 6,183 words of “‘unsworn’” post-trial “‘testimony’”
`
`without any of the safeguards applicable to such matters. New York v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., No. Civ.A. 98-1233 CKK, 2002 WL 31628215, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 14,
`
`2002). The Court should not allow Mr. Liang to supplement the trial record while
`
`avoiding the evidentiary safeguards provided by a trial court.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 11 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`
`
`
`June 19, 2020
`
`
`Stuart L. Watt
`Wendy A. Whiteford
`Erica S. Olson
`Steven D. Tang
`Emily C. Johnson
`AMGEN, INC.
`One Amgen Center Drive
`Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
`(805) 447-1000 (telephone)
`(805) 447-1090 (fax)
`swatt@amgen.com
`
`Keith R. Hummel
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
` LLP
`Worldwide Plaza
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019-7475
`(212) 474-1000 (telephone)
`(212) 474-3700 (fax)
`khummel@cravath.com
`
`William G. Gaede, III
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 100
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 815-7400 (telephone)
`(650) 815-7401 (fax)
`wgaede@mwe.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeffrey A. Lamken
`Jeffrey A. Lamken
` Counsel of Record
`Michael G. Pattillo, Jr.
`Sarah J. Newman
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`The Watergate, Suite 500
`600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`(202) 556-2000 (telephone)
`(202) 556-2001 (fax)
`jlamken@mololamken.com
`
`Sara Margolis
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`430 Park Avenue, Floor 6
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 607-8160 (telephone)
`(212) 607-8161 (fax)
`smargolis@mololamken.com
`
`Lauren Martin
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
` SULLIVAN, LLP
`111 Huntington Ave., Suite 520
`Boston, MA 02199
`(617) 712-7100 (telephone)
`(617) 712-7200 (fax)
`laurenmartin@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 12 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`Christopher B. Mead
`SCHERTLER ONORATO MEAD &
` SEARS LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Suite 500 West
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 628-4199 (telephone)
`(202) 628-4177 (fax)
`cmead@schertlerlaw.com
`
`Sarah C. Columbia
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 535-4074 (telephone)
`(617) 535-3800 (fax)
`scolumbia@mwe.com
`
`Melanie K. Sharp
`James L. Higgins
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
` TAYLOR, LLP
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600 (telephone)
`(302) 576-3333 (fax)
`msharp@ycst.com
`
`
`
`Counsel for Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing, Limited,
`and Amgen USA Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 13 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Form 9
` Rev. 10/17
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Amgen Inc., et al.
`Sanofi, et al.
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20-1074
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for the:
`(cid:133) (petitioner) (cid:133) (appellant) (cid:133) (respondent) (cid:133) (appellee) (cid:133) (amicus) (cid:133) (name of party)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):
`
`
`2. Name of Real Party in interest
`(Please only include any real party
`in interest NOT identified in
`Question 3) represented by me is:
`None
`None
`None
`
`3. Parent corporations and
`publicly held companies
` that own 10% or more of
`stock in the party
`None
`Amgen Inc.
`Amgen Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Amgen Inc.
`
`
`
`Amgen Manufacturing, Limited
`
`
`
`Amgen USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now
`represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not
`or will not enter an appearance in this case) are:
`Please see attached.
`
`1. Full Name of Party
`Represented by me
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 14 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Form 9
` Rev. 10/17
`
`
`5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court or agency
`that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. See Fed. Cir.
`R. 47. 4(a)(5) and 47.5(b). (The parties should attach continuation pages as necessary).
`
`None.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6/19/2020
`
`
`
`
` Date
`
`
`
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All counsel by ECF
`cc:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeffrey A. Lamken
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature of counsel
`Jeffrey A. Lamken
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Printed name of counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`Reset Fields
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 15 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`Appellants Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, and Amgen USA,
`
`Inc. (collectively “Amgen”) state that the following partners or associates have
`
`appeared on their behalf before the district court or are expected to appear in this
`
`Court:
`
`From Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP: Melanie K. Sharp, James
`
`L. Higgins, and Michelle M. Ovanesian.1
`
`From McDermott Will & Emery LLP: William G. Gaede, III, Sarah C.
`
`Columbia, K. Nicole Clouse, Mandy H. Kim, Bhanu K. Sadasivan, David L.
`
`Larson, Rebecca Harker Duttry, Eric W. Hagen, Terry W. Ahearn, Shane G.
`
`Smith, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy, Esther E. Lin, and Evan Boetticher.2
`
`From Schertler & Onorato, LLP: Christopher B. Mead.
`
`From Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP: Keith R. Hummel, David N.
`
`Greenwald, Lauren A. Moskowitz, Andrei Harasymiak, Geoffrey G. Hu,
`
`Sharonmoyee Goswami, and Amal El bakhar.
`
`
`1 Michelle M. Ovanesian no longer practices with Young Conaway Stargatt &
`Taylor LLP and is not expected to enter an appearance on behalf of Amgen in this
`appeal.
`2 Eric W. Hagen, Terry W. Ahearn, Shane G. Smith, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy,
`Esther E. Lin, and Evan Boetticher no longer practice with McDermott Will &
`Emery LLP and are not expected to enter appearances on behalf of Amgen in this
`appeal.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 16 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`From Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Lauren N. Martin and
`
`Megan Y. Yung.3
`
`From King & Spalding LLP: Daryl L. Joseffer and Adam M. Conrad.4
`
`From Amgen, Inc.: Stuart L. Watt, Wendy A. Whiteford, Erica S. Olson,
`
`Steven D. Tang, Emily C. Johnson, Dennis J. Smith, and Joshua Mack.5
`
`From MoloLamken LLP: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr.,
`
`Sarah J. Newman, and Sara E. Margolis.6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Megan Y. Yung no longer practices at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
`and is not expected to enter an appearance on behalf of Amgen in this appeal.
`4 Daryl L. Joseffer and Adam M. Conrad no longer practice with King & Spalding
`LLP and are not expected to enter appearances on behalf of Amgen in this appeal.
`5 Joshua Mack is no longer employed by Amgen, Inc., and is not expected to enter
`an appearance on behalf of Amgen in this appeal.
`6 In the prior appeal in this case (No. 17-1480), Christopher R. Healy, Merritt E.
`McAlister, and Joshua N. Mitchell from King & Spalding LLP appeared before
`this Court on behalf of Amgen. Those attorneys are not expected to enter
`appearances on behalf of Amgen in this appeal.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 17 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on the 19th day of June 2020, I electronically filed the
`
`foregoing Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Opposition to the Motion of Stanley D. Liang To
`
`Submit a Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees by using the CM/ECF
`
`system, which sent a notice of electronic filing to all ECF registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeffrey A. Lamken
`Jeffrey A. Lamken
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`The Watergate, Suite 500
`600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`(202) 556-2000 (telephone)
`(202) 556-2001 (fax)
`jlamken@mololamken.com
`
`Counsel for Amgen Inc., Amgen
`Manufacturing, Limited, and
`Amgen USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1074 Document: 99-1 Page: 18 Filed: 06/19/2020
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`This opposition complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
`27(d)(2)(A) because this opposition contains 2,213 words, excluding the
`parts of the opposition exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2) and Fed. R.
`App. P. 27(a)(2)(B).
`This opposition complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R . A p p .
`P . 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6)
`because this opposition has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface
`using Microsoft Word in Times New Roman 14-point font.
`
`June 19, 2020
`
`/s/ Jeffrey A. Lamken
`Jeffrey A. Lamken
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.