Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 16033
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`CLARKSBURG DIVISION
`
`
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`CELLTRION INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Judge Thomas S. Kleeh
`
`No. 1:23-cv-89-TSK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO CELLTRION INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR THE
`PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO REGENERON (NOS. 1–32)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 34.01 of
`
`the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Plaintiff” and/or
`
`“Regeneron”), by and through its counsel, hereby submits the following amended objections and
`
`responses to Defendant Celltrion Inc.’s (“Defendant” and/or “Celltrion”) Requests for the
`
`Production of Documents and Things to Regeneron (Nos. 1–32) (“Requests”).
`
`These objections and responses are based on information currently available and without
`
`prejudice to Regeneron’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or
`
`information, to add, modify, or otherwise change, amend, or supplement its responses as
`
`appropriate, or to correct any inadvertent errors, mistakes, or omissions.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Regeneron incorporates by reference these General Objections into each and
`
`every specific response below. A specific response may repeat a General Objection for emphasis
`
`or for other reasons. The omission of any General Objection in any specific response to a
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 16034
`
`Request is not intended to be and should not be construed as a waiver or limitation of any
`
`General Objection to that response.
`
`2.
`
`Regeneron objects to the Instructions and Definitions to the extent that they
`
`seek to impose on Regeneron any requirement or discovery obligation greater or different than
`
`those imposed by the Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Local Rules of the
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (collectively, the
`
`“Rules”).
`
`3.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information
`
`(including electronically stored information) or documents that are already in the possession,
`
`custody, or control of Defendant or counsel for Defendant, or to the extent that it seeks
`
`information or documents that are in the public domain and would be no more burdensome for
`
`Defendant to obtain than for Regeneron to obtain. Unless otherwise specifically indicated
`
`below, Regeneron will not produce any such information or documents.
`
`4.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks any document or
`
`electronically stored information that is not within the possession, custody, or control of
`
`Regeneron.
`
`5.
`
`Regeneron objects to producing documents in response to any Requests or any
`
`parts of Requests relating to patents not currently at issue in the litigation, as set forth in the
`
`Court’s Scheduling Order of January 9, 2024 (ECF No. 61). Regeneron only will produce
`
`documents in response to Requests or parts of Requests to the extent they relate to the PI Patents
`
`currently at issue in this initial phase of the litigation.
`
`6.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks “each” or “any”
`
`or “all” documents and electronically stored information responsive to the Request. Such
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 16035
`
`demands are unduly burdensome and overly broad, and they seek documents and electronically
`
`stored information that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party nor proportional to
`
`the needs of the case. Regeneron will consider as responsive to any Request that seeks
`
`documents or things “concerning,” “reflecting,” “regarding,” or “relating” (or similar language)
`
`to a designated subject only those documents or things that discuss the subject on their face.
`
`7.
`
`In furnishing these objections and responses to these Requests and in
`
`producing documents and electronically stored information in response to these Requests,
`
`Regeneron does not admit or concede the relevance, materiality, authenticity, or admissibility in
`
`evidence of any such Request, document, or electronically stored information. All objections to
`
`the use, at trial or otherwise, of any document produced or information provided in response to
`
`the Requests are hereby expressly reserved.
`
`8.
`
`Regeneron’s statements that it will produce documents in response to a
`
`particular Request do not mean that it has any such documents, and its response should not be
`
`construed in such a manner.
`
`9.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it uses language
`
`incorporating or calling for a legal conclusion or making an erroneous statement of law. By
`
`incorporating the need to make a legal conclusion or erroneous statement of law, such Requests
`
`are vague and ambiguous. Such Requests also intrude upon the attorney work product protection
`
`by seeking an identification of the information that counsel believes satisfies the legal
`
`contention. Regeneron’s responses herein shall be as to matters of fact only, and shall not be
`
`construed as stating or implying any conclusions of law concerning the matters referenced in any
`
`Request or concerning any matter relevant to this litigation.
`
`10.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it prematurely seeks
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 16036
`
`production of information to be provided during later expert discovery. Regeneron will not
`
`prematurely produce documents or information that are to be provided during later expert
`
`discovery.
`
`11.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it calls for the production
`
`of documents or disclosure of electronically stored information protected by any privilege,
`
`including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the
`
`common interest privilege, or any other available and valid grounds for withholding documents
`
`and electronically stored information from production. Regeneron will not produce such
`
`privileged documents or information—all Requests have been read to exclude the discovery
`
`and/or production of such privileged information and documents, and any indication by
`
`Regeneron that it will produce documents or electronically stored information, including in these
`
`responses, shall be read to exclude the production of such privileged documents and information.
`
`Regeneron objects to any Request that it log communications with litigation counsel retained to
`
`handle patent litigation and inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings, including
`
`counsel at Williams & Connolly, Arnold & Porter, Carey Douglas Kessler & Ruby PLLC,
`
`Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick: P.L.L.C., Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Morrison
`
`Foerster, and Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams LLP. Regeneron objects to Defendant’s
`
`Instruction No. 7 regarding the logging of withheld documents as imposing on Regeneron a
`
`burden of production greater than that provided in the Rules (in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(b)(5)). Regeneron will not produce any privilege logs at this time. It is willing to meet and
`
`confer with Celltrion regarding the production and form of any logs at an appropriate time.
`
`12.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information or
`
`documents containing private, confidential, secret, trade secret, proprietary, and/or sensitive
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 16037
`
`business information of Regeneron, its employees, and/or third parties (hereinafter referred to as
`
`“Confidential Information”). Regeneron will only disclose Confidential Information, including
`
`trade secret, proprietary, personal, commercially sensitive, third-party confidential, or other
`
`confidential information, that is responsive, relevant, and not otherwise protected, with the
`
`understanding that these documents should be treated on an Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only basis
`
`until entry of a protective order in this case, at which time they may be treated according to the
`
`protective order and consistent with their confidentiality branding . Regeneron may withhold
`
`information or documents on this basis, and Regeneron may redact Confidential Information
`
`from documents that it has otherwise agreed to produce. For example, Regeneron will exclude
`
`personnel file materials such as evaluations and reviews because those documents lack relevance
`
`and reflect sensitive, personal information. Regeneron may, for its sole convenience, produce
`
`documents and/or information in response to a Request without agreeing that other, similar
`
`documents or information in its possession, custody, or control are responsive and without
`
`waiving any objections it may have to the production of such documents or information.
`
`13.
`
`Regeneron may, in response to particular Requests, refer to or produce
`
`documents from custodians or non-custodial sources located outside the United States. Foreign
`
`privacy laws, over which Regeneron has no control, may have a substantial impact on the nature
`
`and extent of information or documents that Regeneron can disclose or produce from such
`
`sources. Regeneron objects to the Requests to the extent that they call for production of
`
`information from any jurisdiction outside that United States that (i) pertains to a specific
`
`individual that can be linked to that individual; or (ii) is reasonably believed by Regeneron to
`
`contain information about or pertaining to a specific individual that can be linked to that
`
`individual and that reveals race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, political opinions, religious or
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 16038
`
`philosophical beliefs, trade union or political party membership or that concerns an individual’s
`
`health. Regeneron is withholding such documents or information on this basis and will redact
`
`such information from any documents that it produces in this action.
`
`14.
`
`Regeneron will withhold and redact Confidential Information from documents
`
`and electronically stored information that it produces, to the extent that such Confidential
`
`Information is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action. The Confidential Information
`
`that Regeneron will withhold and/or redact may include, but is not limited to, Confidential
`
`Information pertaining to individual patients involved in clinical trials; clinical trial
`
`investigators’ personal information; the personal information of Regeneron’s employees; the
`
`configuration of Regeneron’s information technology systems; Regeneron drugs not investigated
`
`or developed as part of the development of Eylea®; and proprietary manufacturing information to
`
`the extent not relevant to Regeneron’s claims. All of Regeneron’s responses should be read to
`
`exclude the production of such documents and information.
`
`15.
`
`Regeneron objects to producing in response to each Request for Board of
`
`Director minutes, presentations, and related documents, because the burden of reviewing and
`
`producing such material is disproportionate to the needs of the case and such documents contain
`
`highly commercially sensitive information.
`
`16.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks the production of
`
`publicly available documents or electronically stored information gathered by counsel in
`
`connection with litigation involving the PI Patents or Eylea®.
`
`17.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it is not limited to a
`
`particular time period.
`
`18.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks production of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 16039
`
`documents and electronically stored information relating to Regeneron’s aflibercept products in
`
`countries other than the United States—including but not limited to documents and electronically
`
`stored information relating to foreign counterparts to the PI Patents (including any foreign
`
`litigation or patent office proceedings involving such patents), foreign regulatory documents, and
`
`foreign sales and marketing information—on the grounds that such requests are overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and seek information not relevant to any party’s claim or defense nor
`
`proportional to the needs of the case in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`26(b)(1). Regeneron will not produce such documents and electronically stored information, and
`
`Regeneron’s responses should be read to exclude the production of such documents and
`
`electronically stored information.
`
`19.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request to the extent that it calls for production of
`
`documents or electronically stored information based on a subjective conclusion or
`
`determination about what the document or information shows, means, supports, or contradicts.
`
`Regeneron objects to each Request incorporating or calling for a subjective judgment that
`
`information “supports” a particular issue or “refutes” a particular issue. Such Requests are
`
`necessarily vague and ambiguous and may intrude upon the attorney work product protection by
`
`seeking an identification of the information that counsel considers to support or refute a
`
`particular position.
`
`20.
`
`Regeneron objects to Defendant’s definition of “Plaintiffs” as overly broad.
`
`Regeneron will construe the Requests to require production of such documents or electronically
`
`stored information to the extent that they are in Regeneron’s possession, custody, or control.
`
`Regeneron will interpret all references to “Plaintiffs” to mean Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`21.
`
`Regeneron objects to Defendant’s Instruction No. 5 regarding the production
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 16040
`
`of documents, including the requirement that Regeneron produce information such as “the
`
`company, division, department, and/or individual from whose files the document is being
`
`produced,” as imposing on Regeneron a burden of production greater than that provided in the
`
`Rules. Regeneron will not be providing the information requested in Defendant’s Instruction No.
`
`5.
`
`22.
`
`Regeneron’s responses herein are based on facts presently known to
`
`Regeneron and represent a diligent and good faith effort to respond to the Requests based on the
`
`claims and defenses currently at issue in the litigation. Further, Regeneron’s discovery and
`
`investigation into the matters specified are ongoing. Accordingly, Regeneron reserves the right
`
`to supplement, alter, or change its responses and objections and to produce additional responsive
`
`information or documents, if any, that Regeneron has in its possession, custody, or control at the
`
`time the Requests were propounded. Regeneron also reserves the right, at trial or during other
`
`proceedings, to rely on documents, evidence, and other matters in addition to the documents or
`
`information produced in response to these Requests, whether or not such documents, evidence,
`
`or other matters are newly discovered or are now in existence but have not been identified or
`
`produced despite diligent and good-faith efforts.
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“Furfine Patent” means U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865 (the ’865 patent).
`
`“Cook Patent” means U.S. Patent No. 11,793,926 (“the ’926 patent”).
`
`“PI Patents” means the Furfine and Cook Patents.
`
`“Furfine Research & Development Documents” means non-privileged
`
`documents that discuss or reflect the research and development of the formulations described or
`
`claimed in the Furfine Patent, including related to the formulation of Eylea®.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 16041
`
`5.
`
`“Cook Research & Development Documents” means non-privileged
`
`documents that discuss or reflect the research and development of the subject matter described or
`
`claimed in the Cook Patent.
`
`6.
`
`“PI Patents Research & Development Documents” means the Furfine Research
`
`& Development Documents and the Cook Research & Development Documents.
`
`7.
`
`“Patent and Prosecution Documents” means a certified copy of each one of the
`
`PI Patents and the file history of each one of the PI Patents.
`
`8.
`
`“Regulatory Documents” means copies of Modules 1–4 of Regeneron’s BLA
`
`No. 125387 for Eylea®.
`
`9.
`
` “Marketing Documents” means non-privileged documents and
`
`communications constituting a representative set of patient-facing and healthcare provider-facing
`
`marketing materials for Eylea® identified through a reasonable search, including submissions to
`
`the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion.
`
`10.
`
`“Financial Documents” means non-privileged documents and communications
`
`sufficient to show Regeneron’s actual and forecasted sales, revenue, profit, and costs for Eylea®
`
`from the period beginning January 1, 2020, and to the extent maintained in the ordinary course of
`
`business.
`
`11.
`
`“Regeneron’s Aflibercept Biosimilar Litigation Productions” means documents
`
`produced by Regeneron in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et
`
`al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00061-TSK (N.D. W. Va.), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.
`
`Samsung Bioepis, Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00094-TSK (N.D. W. Va.), Regeneron
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00106-TSK (N.D.
`
`W. Va.), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Celltrion, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00089-
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 16042
`
`TSK (N.D. W. Va.), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Formycon AG, Civil Action No. 1:23-
`
`cv-00097-TSK (N.D. W. Va.), and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 2:24-cv-00264 (C.D. Cal.) excluding (1) documents that implicate third party
`
`confidentiality obligations for which relevant permissions to re-produce have not yet been
`
`obtained, (2) documents produced in connection with Regeneron’s expert reports regarding
`
`infringement by Mylan, and (3) documents produced in response to Mylan’s Requests for
`
`Production Nos. 144-151. Regeneron’s Aflibercept Biosimilar Litigation Productions include
`
`the Furfine Research & Development Documents, the Regulatory Documents, the Marketing
`
`Documents, and the Financial Documents.
`
`12.
`
`“Mylan Litigation Written Discovery” means the interrogatories and
`
`responses, requests for admission and responses, and statements pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 262(l)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(3)(C) served in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM (N.D. W. Va.) relating
`
`to the PI Patents.
`
`13.
`
`“Mylan Litigation Trial Demonstratives” means the trial demonstratives used
`
`by the parties during opening statements, closing arguments, and direct examinations in the 2023
`
`trial in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
`
`1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM (N.D. W. Va.) to the extent those demonstratives relate to the PI
`
`Patents.
`
`14.
`
`“Mylan Litigation Deposition Materials” means transcripts of and exhibits
`
`from depositions in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Civil
`
`Action No. 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM (N.D. W. Va.) of Regeneron employees or experts and
`
`relating to the PI Patents.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 16043
`
`15.
`
`“Regeneron PI Commercial Materials” means non-privileged documents
`
`sufficient to show Regeneron’s present aflibercept market research in the United States,
`
`Regeneron’s aflibercept sales between 2020 and 2023 in the United States, Regeneron’s present
`
`United States aflibercept sales forecasting, Eylea and Eylea HD’s present market share in the
`
`United States, Regeneron’s present United States aflibercept market share forecasting,
`
`Regeneron’s present aflibercept biosimilar competitive planning, Regeneron’s present aflibercept
`
`pricing in the United States, and Regeneron’s present aflibercept pricing and contracting
`
`planning for the United States market.
`
`16.
`
`“PI Patent PTO Materials” means non-public filings, deposition transcripts,
`
`and deposition exhibits from inter partes review, post-grant review, or re-examination
`
`proceedings concerning the PI Patents.
`
`17.
`
`“Mylan Litigation Expert Reports” means the expert reports served in
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-
`
`cv-00061-TSK-JPM (N.D. W. Va.) relating to the PI Patents and excluding reports relating
`
`solely to the commercial success of the inventions claimed in such patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 16044
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 1
`
`All documents and things produced by Regeneron in the Mylan Litigation, the Formycon
`Litigation, Amgen Litigation, and the Samsung Litigations.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
`
`Regeneron incorporates each of its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Regeneron objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents or things not relevant to
`
`any party’s claim or defense and is unduly burdensome, overly broad, and not proportionate to
`
`the needs of the case, including because it seeks materials unrelated to the PI Patents or other
`
`subjects at issue in the preliminary injunction phase of the present litigation.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections Regeneron will produce
`
`Regeneron’s Aflibercept Biosimilar Litigation Productions.
`
`REQUEST NO. 2
`All documents and things that relate to, support, refute, contradict, or concern
`Regeneron’s contention that Regeneron would experience economic or irreparable harm if the
`Court were to deny a preliminary injunction preventing Celltrion from making, using, offering to
`sell, or selling the Celltrion Product upon approval.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
`
`Regeneron incorporates each of its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Regeneron objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and things protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common-interest privilege, or any
`
`other applicable privilege.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections Regeneron will produce
`
`Regeneron PI Commercial Materials as well as Regeneron’s Aflibercept Biosimilar Litigation
`
`Productions, which include the Financial Documents and Marketing Documents; and any non-
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 16045
`
`public documents or things cited in any briefing or fact witness or expert declarations submitted
`
`in support of Regeneron’s motion for preliminary injunction in this matter.
`
`REQUEST NO. 3
`All documents and things concerning the bases of Regeneron’s contention(s) that
`Celltrion infringes or will infringe the Identified Patents, including without limitation, any
`opinions or analyses that compare the Celltrion Product to any claim of the Identified Patents,
`and all documents and things which support, refute, or contradict Regeneron’s contention that
`Celltrion infringes or will infringe the Identified Patents.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:
`
`Regeneron incorporates each of its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Regeneron objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and things protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common-interest privilege, or any
`
`other applicable privilege. Regeneron objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Regeneron further objects
`
`to this Request as premature to the extent it seeks an expert determination or information more
`
`appropriately sought through expert discovery.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Regeneron will produce any
`
`non-public documents or things not already in Defendant’s possession, custody or control and
`
`that are cited in any briefing or fact witness or expert declarations submitted in support of
`
`Regeneron’s motion for preliminary injunction in this matter, including non-public documents or
`
`things cited in any briefing or fact witness or expert declarations submitted in support of
`
`Regeneron ’s allegations that the PI Patents are infringed or will be infringed by Celltrion.
`
`REQUEST NO. 4
`All documents and things concerning, or produced by Regeneron, in any prior U.S.
`federal litigation, proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, any foreign
`litigation, or any proceedings before any foreign patent office or other administrative entity,
`relating to any of the Identified Patents, or aflibercept, including all correspondence, pleadings,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 16046
`
`demonstratives, reports, expert reports, validity or invalidity opinions, including opinions of
`counsel regarding the validity or invalidity of the Identified Patents; expert opinions, discovery
`responses, prior art identified by any party, documents concerning validity, including validity
`and invalidity contentions, transcripts, and all documents produced by Regeneron in those
`litigations, including without limitation: the unredacted decision in the Mylan Litigation,
`demonstratives relied upon by Regeneron in the Mylan Litigation, the final pretrial Order and
`pre- and post-trial briefing in the Mylan Litigation, the 3(B) and 3(C) contentions from the
`Mylan Litigation, interrogatory or RFA responses served by Regeneron in the Mylan Litigation,
`and any prior art relied upon by Mylan or Regeneron in the Mylan Litigation.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4:
`
`Regeneron incorporates each of its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Regeneron objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and things protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common-interest privilege, or any
`
`other applicable privilege. Regeneron objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks
`
`documents or things not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and is unduly burdensome,
`
`overly broad, and not proportionate to the needs of the case, including because it seeks
`
`information, documents, and things unrelated to the PI Patents or other subjects at issue in the
`
`preliminary injunction phase of the present litigation. Regeneron further objects to this request
`
`as unduly burdensome because it seeks documents from “any prior U.S. federal litigation,
`
`proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, any foreign litigation, or any
`
`proceedings before any foreign patent office or other administrative entity,” and it seeks
`
`documents containing third-party confidential information.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Regeneron will produce
`
`Regeneron’s Aflibercept Biosimilar Litigation Productions; Mylan Litigation Expert Reports,
`
`subject to confirmation by Mylan that these materials do not contain Mylan confidential
`
`information or as redacted by Mylan to remove Mylan confidential information; Mylan
`
`Litigation Deposition Materials, subject to confirmation by Mylan that these materials do not
`
`contain Mylan confidential information or as redacted by Mylan to remove Mylan confidential
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 16047
`
`information; and Mylan Litigation Trial Demonstratives, subject to confirmation by Mylan that
`
`these materials do not contain Mylan confidential information or as redacted by Mylan to remove
`
`Mylan confidential information.
`
`REQUEST NO. 5
`All records concerning the alleged invention of the subject matter described or covered
`by the Identified Patents including, without limitation, laboratory notebooks, invention
`disclosure forms, and invention records.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5:
`
`Regeneron incorporates each of its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Regeneron objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and things protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common-interest privilege, or any
`
`other applicable privilege. Regeneron objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks
`
`documents or things not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and is unduly burdensome,
`
`overly broad, and not proportionate to the needs of the case, including to the extent it requests
`
`documents “concerning the alleged invention of the subject matter described or covered by the
`
`Identified Patents including, without limitation, laboratory notebooks, invention disclosure
`
`forms, and invention records” from an unlimited number of sources and not limited to a
`
`particular time period.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Regeneron will produce
`
`Regeneron’s Aflibercept Biosimilar Litigation Productions and Cook Research & Development
`
`Documents.
`
`REQUEST NO. 6
`All documents and opinions on which Regeneron or its experts intend to rely in in a
`motion for a preliminary injunction.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 16048
`
`Regeneron incorporates each of its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Regeneron objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and things protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common-interest privilege, or any
`
`other applicable privilege. Regeneron further objects this this request as vague in so far as it
`
`seeks documents that “Regeneron or its experts intend to rely in in a motion for a preliminary
`
`injunction.”
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Regeneron will produce any
`
`non-public documents or things not already in Defendant’s possession, custody or control and
`
`that are cited in any briefing or fact witness or expert declarations submitted in support of
`
`Regeneron’s motion for preliminary injunction in this matter.
`
`REQUEST NO. 7
`All documents and things that Regeneron contends support its position that the asserted
`claims of the Identified Patents are not invalid for the reasons provided in Celltrion’s 3(B)
`contentions.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:
`
`Regeneron incorporates each of its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Regeneron objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents and things protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common-interest privilege, or any
`
`other applicable privilege. Regeneron objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks
`
`documents or things not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and is unduly burdensome,
`
`overly broad, and not proportionate to the needs of the case, including because it seeks “[a]ll
`
`documents” relating to the subject matter of this Request.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Regeneron will produce any
`
`non-public documents or things not already in Defendant’s possession, custody or control and
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-2 Filed 03/04/24 Page 17 of 35 PageID #: 16049
`
`that are cited in any briefing or fact witness or expert declarations submitted in support of
`
`Regeneron’s motion for preliminary injunction in this matter, including non-public documents or
`
`things cited in any briefing or fact witness or expert declarations submitted in support of
`
`Regeneron’s asserted claims that the PI Patents are not invalid.
`
`REQUEST NO. 8
`All documents and things that comprise Regeneron’s BLA No. 125387 and BLA No.
`761355, including any amendments.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:
`
`Regeneron incorporates each of its General Objection