Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 16074
`Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>
`
`Re: Regeneron v. Celltrion, No. 1:23-CV-89: Celltrion's Good Faith Deficiency Letter
`1 message
`
`Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 3:28 PM
`
`Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>
`To: "Beazley, Jennalee" <jbeazley@wc.com>
`Cc: Rhochelle Krawetz <rkrawetz@wc.com>, David Pogue <drpogue@cdkrlaw.com>, Steve Ruby <sruby@cdkrlaw.com>, Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>, Eylea Biosimilars
`<Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>, REGENERON PATENT <REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com>, "Michael W. Johnson" <mjohnson1@willkie.com>, Mike
`Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>, Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>, Matthew Freimuth <mfreimuth@willkie.com>, Aviv Zalcenstein
`<azalcenstein@geminilaw.com>, DG-Aflibercept <DG-Aflibercept@netorg8512690.onmicrosoft.com>, Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>, Michael Hissam
`<mhissam@hfdrlaw.com>, "WFG-aflibercept@willkie.com" <WFG-aflibercept@willkie.com>, Carl Shaffer <cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>, Kimberly Thomas
`<kthomas@hfdrlaw.com>, Teagan Gregory <TGregory@wc.com>
`Jennalee,
` appreciate the response. As an initial matter, I see that Regeneron has adopted the tactical approach of responding to the deficiencies
`in its own discovery responses by continually reverting back its belief about what Celltrion did or didn’t do in response to Regeneron’s
`discovery requests. However, that approach is neither productive nor apt. And certainly the Court is not going to want to deal with finger
`pointing like that. Regeneron has never raised any of those issues in writing prior to yesterday’s email and letter. To my knowledge, the
`first time any of those issues were raised was on our February 29 meet and confer call that was specifically and solely for the purpose of
`attempting to work through Regeneron’s deficient discovery responses. Therefore, Regeneron has waived its right to pursue a motion to
`compel.  That said, Celltrion can make itself available for a meet and confer the week of March 11 to discuss Regeneron’s letter. 
` 
`As for your positions with respect to the Regeneron deficiencies we discussed during the meet and confer, I will take up each one in
`order. On the Mylan materials, given that your team indicated that it “wanted” to produce the Mylan materials, I am disappointed to hear
`that Regeneron does not want to join in seeking the Court’s assistance in making those available. To be clear, it is Regeneron’s
`responsibility — not Celltrion’s — to take the necessary action to produce the responsive materials. But it appears that Regeneron has
`opted not to take the necessary action to fulfill that responsibility. Given that, according to Regeneron, Mylan has refused to cooperate in
`a way that Regeneron believes it can produce the Mylan materials, it is Regeneron’s obligation to seek relief from the Court on that front.
`As such, Regeneron’s deficient responses and failure to produce the Mylan materials will be addressed in our forthcoming motion to
`compel. Also, contrary to Regeneron's position, the trial exhibits from Mylan are responsive to Celltrion’s discovery requests, specifically,
`at the very least, RFPs 2, 4, and 7. That too will be addressed. 
` am glad to hear that Regeneron has now abandoned its prior refusal to produce any privilege log. As we discussed, I certainly disagree
`that the Court’s scheduling order did not contemplate providing privilege information. Indeed, as I have mentioned multiple times, the
`local rules require it. Regardless, in the interest of good faith cooperation, Celltrion is willing to agree to a 10 day extension of the motion
`to compel deadline for this issue to permit the parties time to see if a resolution can be reached.  Given your email, if we do not hear
`otherwise by 6:00pmEST today, we will assume Regeneron has agreed to that extension. We can get an agreed stipulation over to
`you tomorrow. 
` 
`With respect to Regeneron’s boilerplate objections, I believe Regeneron is mistaken about being made aware of the boilerplate
`objections. First, the repeated general and boilerplate objections should be, and are, clear from the face of Regeneron’s responses.
`Second, on our meet and confer, we mentioned how the responses generally rely on the repeated boilerplate objections, such as unduly
`burdensome, not proportional, overly broad, and irrelevance. Of the 32 requests, Regeneron relied on substantially similar, if not nearly
`identical, language asserting those objections in response to 29 requests. Thus, Regeneron’s assertion that it “can’t reasonably guess”
`as to our concern about boilerplate objections falls flat. 
` 
`However, given that Regeneron has indicated a willingness to discuss producing some Board materials,  Celltrion is willing to agree to a
`10 day extension of the motion to compel deadline for this issue to permit the parties time to see if a resolution can be reached. Given
`your email, if we do not hear otherwise by 6:00pmEST  today, we will assume Regeneron has agreed to that extension. That
`extension can be covered in the proposed stipulation noted earlier. 
` 
`Finally, with respect to the packaging documents, specifically the LUCENTIS® materials/information, as we have repeated, RFPs 5 and
`24 clearly cover those materials to the extent Regeneron or its agents had knowledge or possession of such information. Again, as we
`explained contemporaneously with service of RFPs 33 and 34, they were an effort by Celltrion to help provide a more targeted search in
`the interest of good faith cooperation. I am glad to hear that Regeneron is going conducting a review for the materials/information. Given
`that effort, Celltrion is willing to agree to a 10 day extension of the motion to compel deadline to permit Regeneron gather, identify, and
`produce those materials/information. Given your email, if we do not hear otherwise by 6:00pmEST  today, we will assume Regeneron
`has agreed to that extension. That extension can be covered in the proposed stipulation noted earlier.
` 
`As explained, it is clear that there remains some disagreement as to Regeneron’s responses and production. Therefore, we will file the
`appropriate motion today with respect to those issues. With respect to the matters for which the parties will continue to try to work things
`out, Celltrion will prepare a proposed stipulation giving Regeneron 10 days to provide the necessary responses/materials unless we
`hear otherwise by 6:00pmEST  today. 
` 
`Kindly,
`Max 
`
` I
`
` I
`
`

`

` 
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 16075
`____________________________
`Max C. Gottlieb
`Lawyer
`
`Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC
`www.hfdrlaw.com
`700 Virginia Street East, Suite 210
`Charleston, WV 25301
`t: 681-265-3802
` 
` 
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
` 
`The information contained in this message is attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended exclusively for the use of the client/s of Hissam
`Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
`this message strictly is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the party above by telephone and return the message via
`reply at the above e-mail address.
`
`On Mar 3, 2024, at 11:18 AM, Beazley, Jennalee <jbeazley@wc.com> wrote:
`Max,
` 
`Thank you for your note and for our call on Thursday.
` 
`I’ll begin by reiterating an overarching concern we expressed on the call, namely that Celltrion itself has failed to produce
`(and seemingly has failed even to search for, collect, or review) the materials it agreed to produce in response to
`Regeneron’s Requests for Production.  The parties’ requests were directed to a number of overlapping subjects, including
`issues relating to the irreparable harm inquiry and issues relating to patent validity and infringement.  Yet, outside of the
`BLA Celltrion was required to produce by statute, Celltrion has produced only about 150 total documents.  This stands in
`stark contrast to the nearly 67,000 documents produced by Regeneron to date.  It is apparent that Celltrion has failed to
`perform the reasonable searches and productions promised in its own discovery responses and now seeks to leverage the
`resulting asymmetry of the productions to this point for strategic advantage.  Regeneron will further outline its concerns in
`separate correspondence today, and we request that Celltrion make itself available to meet and confer no later than
`Monday.
` 
`With respect to the Mylan Litigation Written Discovery, the Mylan Litigation Trial Demonstratives, the Mylan Litigation
`Deposition Materials, and the Mylan Litigation Expert Reports, as defined in Regeneron’s Responses and Objections to
`Celltrion’s First Set of RFPs, we have explained that Regeneron is not in a position to unilaterally produce these materials
`given its Protective Order obligations in the Mylan litigation and Mylan’s/Biocon’s (“Mylan’s”) confidentiality assertions to
`date.  We have been in contact with Mylan regarding these materials and have made multiple requests for Mylan to either
`confirm the absence of its confidential information or provide appropriately redacted versions.  We have indicated to Mylan
`which of the documents we believe do contain Mylan confidential information and require their redactions and which we
`believe do not contain Mylan confidential information and for which we only request a confirmation of the same.  Despite
`repeated efforts, Mylan has prohibited us from producing even documents in the latter category until they provide express
`authorization.  In any event, we note certain of the documents falling within the Mylan Litigation Written Discovery, the
`Mylan Litigation Trial Demonstratives, the Mylan Litigation Deposition Materials, and the Mylan Litigation Expert Reports
`definitions are available and accessible by Celltrion on the public docket: e.g., Regeneron’s First Set of Interrogatories to
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nos. 1-2) (Aug. 31, 2022) Dkt. 299-11; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Answers and Objections to
`Regeneron’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-2) (Sept. 30, 2022) Dkt. 299-13; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Second Set
`of Interrogatories to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nos. 18-24) (Dec. 19, 2022) Dkt 252-19.  To the extent Celltrion
`wishes to seek the involvement of the Court to further expedite this process, Regeneron does not object, but it also does
`not wish to burden the Court with yet another filing in this matter and declines to join your motion.  With respect to your
`separate inquiry on our call regarding the trial exhibits from the Mylan litigation, these materials were not sought in
`Celltrion’s First Set of RFPs.
` 
`With respect to your request that Regeneron produce privilege logs, I reiterate that the Court’s scheduling order for this
`initial, preliminary injunction phase of the litigation does not contemplate the service of privilege logs.  ECF 61 at 3. 
`Celltrion apparently shared this view until quite recently, as Celltrion itself has not produced any privilege logs.  Indeed
`none of the parties in these BPCIA actions that were the subject of the Court’s January 9 scheduling order have served
`such logs.  Respectfully, your “commit[ment] to produc[e] a privilege log by early to mid next week” “in the interest of
`cooperation and reciprocity” rings hollow.  Having shared until now an understanding that the schedule does not include
`privilege logging—an understanding that makes good sense given the expedited nature of these proceedings—Celltrion
`now seeks to reverse course and demand an immediate exchange of logs.  Celltrion’s gamesmanship is apparent—that
`exchange would be “reciproc[al]” in name only, as Celltrion seeks to use the deficiency of its own production to shield itself
`from burden while using the Regeneron’s good faith production efforts to impose an exponentially greater burden on its
`adversary.  Nevertheless, Regeneron has begun working to prepare privilege logs for the materials relevant in these PI
`proceedings and will seek to serve those logs on a rolling basis over the coming days and weeks.  As we note in our
`separate correspondence, we expect that Celltrion’s commitment to produce a privilege log next week extends not just to
`the privileged material withheld or redacted during Celltrion’s deficient searches and productions to date but will also
`address all privileged material implicated by Celltrion’s remedial searches and productions.
` 
`
`

`

`With respect to Regeneron’s objections to Celltrion’s First Set of RFPs, we explained the basis for each of the objections
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 16076
`you wished to discuss on our call.  Your email below does not identify the “boilerplate” to which you now object, and you did
`not clarify during our meet and confer.  Nor can we reasonably guess as to the source of your concern—Celltrion’s own
`general and specific objections are recited with less particularity than Regeneron’s.  With respect to Board of Director
`materials, which we did discuss, Regeneron believes its objections are entirely proper given the marginal relevance of
`these documents, their duplicative nature, their sensitivity, and the privilege issues presented.  With that said, Regeneron is
`willing to discuss a compromise that would result in the production of Board materials from targeted time periods or as
`otherwise appropriate, assuming Celltrion will commit to conducting an appropriate search and production of its own Board
`materials.  Your response that you “do not view this as something that must be reciprocal” is again revealing of Celltrion’s
`troubling asymmetric view of discovery in this matter, and your attempt to shield Celltrion from equitable discovery based
`on the timing of its responses is not well taken.  The immediate issue here is not Celltrion’s responses (though those too
`are concerning)—it is Celltrion’s failure to search for and produce documents consistent with even those responses.  To put
`it simply, Regeneron should not be punished for conducting appropriate searches and making clear the limited categories
`of materials it is withholding from production while Celltrion is rewarded for conducting deficient searches and obfuscating
`the scope of its efforts.  I note even now you have not confirmed whether Celltrion searched for or reviewed relevant Board
`materials.
` 
`With regard to Celltrion’s additional RFPs 33 and 34, it has been over one month since the Court-mandated deadline to
`serve any requests for production for purposes of the preliminary injunction proceedings. That deadline was January 11,
`2024. Under the Court’s scheduling order, we have no obligation to serve additional documents responsive to belated
`requests. Celltrion’s attempt to mask the additional requests as “clarifying” is a rather transparent attempt to seek additional
`information that Celltrion should have requested at the appropriate time, or otherwise sought via subpoena, and the service
`of a new set of RFPs serves as an implicit acknowledgement that your original set of RFPs did not cover this topic.  None
`of the RFPs that Celltrion served by the deadline cover RFP Nos. 33 and 34, and Celltrion citing to RFP 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”) or RFP No. 24 (“All documents and
`things concerning the conception, reduction to practice, whether actual or constructive, and diligence from the date of
`conception to the reduction to practice of the subject matter recited in any claim of the Identified Patents, including without
`limitation laboratory notebooks, invention disclosures, presentations, and meeting minutes”) for support is inapt. The
`language of RFP Nos. 5 and 24 clearly does not cover documents and things relating to the LUCENTIS® blister packaging
`—a product which has never been developed by Regeneron or used in developing Regeneron’s products. Regardless of
`the total lack of justification for these additional requests from Celltrion, we can confirm that our previous collections and
`productions related to the 926 patent did not exclude mentions of ranibizumab or LUCENTIS® PFS. While an entirely new
`search covering your belated requests is not warranted, we nevertheless are reviewing the documents originally collected
`for any that are responsive to your new RFPs, and we will get back to you regarding what, if anything, we identify as
`relevant.
` 
`Regards,
`Jennalee
` 
` 
`Jennalee Beazley
`Associate* | Williams & Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20024
`202-434-5767 | jbeazley@wc.com | www.wc.com
`She, Her, Hers
` 
`*Admitted only in Pennsylvania; practice supervised by D.C. Bar members.
` 
`From: Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>
`Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 1:40 PM
`To: Gregory, Teagan <TGregory@wc.com>
`Cc: Krawetz, Rhochelle <rkrawetz@wc.com>; David Pogue <drpogue@cdkrlaw.com>; Steve Ruby <sruby@cdkrlaw.com>; Eylea
`<Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; REGENERON PATENT <REGENERONPATENT@lists.
`kellogghansen.com>; Michael W. Johnson <mjohnson1@willkie.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>; Robert Cerwinski
`<rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Matthew Freimuth <mfreimuth@willkie.com>; Aviv Zalcenstein <azalcenstein@geminilaw.com>; DG-
`Aflibercept <DG-Aflibercept@netorg8512690.onmicrosoft.com>; Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Michael Hissam
`<mhissam@hfdrlaw.com>; WFG-aflibercept@willkie.com; Carl Shaffer <cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Kimberly Thomas
`<kthomas@hfdrlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Regeneron v. Celltrion, No. 1:23-CV-89: Celltrion's Good Faith Deficiency Letter
`
` Teagan,
` 
`Thanks to you and your team for the productive meet and confer today.  I write to memorialize the topics of discussion and deliverables. 
` 
`
`·       Mylan documents
`o   Given that you explained that Regeneron wants to produce the Mylan documents, we proposed a joint motion to have the Court rule that,
`at least, certain of the Mylan documents, such as the trial demonstratives that were shown in open court, could be produced now, and to
`request that the Court set a deadline for Mylan to review and take a position on the remainder of the relevant documents. We can have this
`motion on file by tomorrow or Monday, if you agree.  You said you would take this back to your team and let us know.
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 16077
`o   As we discussed, it would be helpful to have a delineation, even if by category, of documents that: (i) Regeneron has produced regarding
`the Mylan action; (ii) documents that Regeneron desires to produce but believes it can’t do to the outstanding issues with Mylan
`confidentiality assertions; and (iii) documents that Regeneron does not intend to produce. That list will help to understand the universe of
`outstanding documents, and will help the Court in the event that we (jointly or individually) are forced to seek its assistance in obtaining
`production on the Mylan action.
`o   We asked for production of the Mylan trial exhibits.  You stated that you had not agreed to produce these but that you would take it back
`and see if this was something you could commit to producing.
`o   We also expressed the urgency of having Mylan litigation documents relating to Dr. Trout, as his deposition is in less than two weeks.
`·       Privilege logs
`o   I appreciate you confirming that Regeneron withheld documents based upon the assertion of privilege. We reiterated our request, as set
`forth in Max’s February 19 letter, for the required privilege logs/information. You said you would take the request to provide privilege logs
`back to your team. Please let us know your position before Monday. In the interest of cooperation and reciprocity, we can commit to
`producing a privilege log by early to mid next week. We hope and expect that Regeneron will be able to do the same.
`o   Notwithstanding your general objection to producing a privilege log, we understand that you will by tomorrow provide a copy of the
`redacted document you recently clawed back on the basis of privilege, along with a privilege log entry related to the redacted information.
`·       Documents withheld on the basis of general, boilerplate objections
`o   As noted during the call, in this jurisdiction, withholding documents on the basis of boilerplate general objections as you have done is
`improper. Please let confirm whether you will continue to stand on those repeated boilerplate objections.
`o   Although you refuse to produce documents regarding board of direct meetings, including presentations, you do not dispute the relevance
`of such documents.  Rather, you claim those documents are duplicative of other documents you produced and the review and production of
`them would be burdensome.  To help us better understand your objection, we asked you to identify how many documents are being withheld
`on the basis of this objection, and to identify documents representative of those that are withheld.  Please let us know your position on this
`before Monday.  As a compromise, however, would Regeneron be amenable to producing board of director meetings, including
`presentations, from the 2004-2006 timeframe related to the development of the EYLEA formulation, and from the 2015-2019 timeframe
`related to the development of the blister packaging for the PFS?
`o   You asked if Celltrion withheld board of director-related documents, but we do not view this as something that must be reciprocal. For
`over a month now, you have had Celltrion’s objections and responses to Regeneron’s first set of requests, along with Celltrion’s PI document
`production, and the scope of what Celltrion agreed to produce, and did produce, was clear.   
`·       Documents concerning Lucentis packaging
`o   As we mentioned on the call, documents concerning Lucentis packaging are covered by, for example, Celltrion’s RFP No. 5, which
`requests “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.” Likewise, as we discussed, those Lucentis documents
`are responsive to RFP No. 24. Such documents would have been undisputedly relevant and in the possession of the inventors at the time of
`the invention.  You stated that you had made a document collection from both of the named inventors of the ‘926 patent.  You also
`represented that your team is going back and look to see if documents concerning Lucentis were collected in your document collection but
`not produced. Please let us know the results of that search, including whether you used key word searches to limit the scope of documents
`collected from the named inventors’ files. 
`
` I
`
` appreciate your efforts to resolve these issues, especially in light of the fact that we need to resolve them, prior to Monday’s motion to
`compel deadline. Of course, please feel free to reach out to discuss further. 
` 
`Kindly,
`Max  
` 
`____________________________
`Max C. Gottlieb
`Lawyer
`
`Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC
`www.hfdrlaw.com
`700 Virginia Street East, Suite 210
`Charleston, WV 25301
`t: 681-265-3802
` 
` 
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
` 
`The information contained in this message is attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended exclusively for the use of the client/s of
`Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
`distribution or copying of this message strictly is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the party above by
`telephone and return the message via reply at the above e-mail address.
`
`On Feb 29, 2024, at 9:00 AM, Gregory, Teagan <TGregory@wc.com> wrote:
` 
`
`

`

`Thanks, Max.  I will plan to join  at 9:10.
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 16078
` 
`Teagan James Gregory
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20024
`(P) 202-434-5178 | (F) 202-434-5029
`tgregory@wc.com | www.wc.com/tgregory
` 
`From: Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com> 
`Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 8:54 AM
`To: Krawetz, Rhochelle <rkrawetz@wc.com>
`Cc: Gregory, Teagan <TGregory@wc.com>; David Pogue <drpogue@cdkrlaw.com>; Steve Ruby <sruby@cdkrlaw.com>;
`Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; REGENERON PATENT
`<REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com>; Michael W. Johnson <mjohnson1@willkie.com>; Mike Cottler
`<mcottler@geminilaw.com>; Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Matthew Freimuth <mfreimuth@willkie.com>;
`Aviv Zalcenstein <azalcenstein@geminilaw.com>; DG-Aflibercept <DG-Aflibercept@netorg8512690.onmicrosoft.com>;
`Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Michael Hissam <mhissam@hfdrlaw.com>; WFG-aflibercept@willkie.com; Carl
`Shaffer <cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Kimberly Thomas <kthomas@hfdrlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Regeneron v. Celltrion, No. 1:23-CV-89: Celltrion's Good Faith Deficiency Letter
` 
`Hi Rhochelle,
` 
`Just FYI, having a call bleed over. We will likely start about 9:10 if that works for you all. 
` 
`Thanks,
`Max 
`____________________________
`Max C. Gottlieb
`Lawyer
`
`Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC
`www.hfdrlaw.com
`700 Virginia Street East, Suite 210
`Charleston, WV 25301
`t: 681-265-3802
` 
` 
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
` 
`The information contained in this message is attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended exclusively for the use of
`the client/s of Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
`that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message strictly is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please
`immediately notify the party above by telephone and return the message via reply at the above e-mail address.
`
`On Feb 28, 2024, at 11:00 PM, Krawetz, Rhochelle <rkrawetz@wc.com> wrote:
` 
`Max, 
` 
`Please see the attached correspondence.
` 
`Best, 
`Rhochelle
` 
`Rhochelle T. Krawetz
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20024
`202-434-5072 | rkrawetz@wc.com | www.wc.com
` 
`From: Gregory, Teagan <TGregory@wc.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 1:07 PM
`To: Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>
`Cc: David Pogue <drpogue@cdkrlaw.com>; Steve Ruby <sruby@cdkrlaw.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>;
`Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; REGENERON PATENT <REGENERONPATENT@lists.
`
`

`

`kellogghansen.com>; Michael W. Johnson <mjohnson1@willkie.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>;
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 16079
`Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Matthew Freimuth <mfreimuth@willkie.com>; Aviv Zalcenstein
`<azalcenstein@geminilaw.com>; DG-Aflibercept <DG-Aflibercept@netorg8512690.onmicrosoft.com>; Andrew
`Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Michael Hissam <mhissam@hfdrlaw.com>; WFG-aflibercept@willkie.com; Carl
`Shaffer <cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Kimberly Thomas <kthomas@hfdrlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Regeneron v. Celltrion, No. 1:23-CV-89: Celltrion's Good Faith Deficiency Letter
` 
`Max,
` 
`As I noted below, we are preparing a written response to your letter.  I expect it will be sent ahead of our meet
`and confer.
` 
`Regards,
`Teagan
` 
`Teagan James Gregory
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20024
`(P) 202-434-5178 | (F) 202-434-5029
`tgregory@wc.com | www.wc.com/tgregory
` 
`From: Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 1:03 PM
`To: Gregory, Teagan <TGregory@wc.com>
`Cc: David Pogue <drpogue@cdkrlaw.com>; Steve Ruby <sruby@cdkrlaw.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>;
`Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; REGENERON PATENT <REGENERONPATENT@lists.
`kellogghansen.com>; Michael W. Johnson <mjohnson1@willkie.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>;
`Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Matthew Freimuth <mfreimuth@willkie.com>; Aviv Zalcenstein
`<azalcenstein@geminilaw.com>; DG-Aflibercept <DG-Aflibercept@netorg8512690.onmicrosoft.com>; Andrew
`Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Michael Hissam <mhissam@hfdrlaw.com>;WFG-aflibercept@willkie.com; Carl
`Shaffer <cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Kimberly Thomas <kthomas@hfdrlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Regeneron v. Celltrion, No. 1:23-CV-89: Celltrion's Good Faith Deficiency Letter
` 
`Teagan, 
`
` I
`
` hope that we will be receiving some written response to our good faith letter from your team prior to tomorrow’s
`meet and confer. Among other things, the meet and confer to be more efficient and productive if we know where
`Regeneron stands on the issues raised prior to the call. 
` 
`Kindly, 
`Max 
`____________________________
`Max C. Gottlieb
`Lawyer
`
`Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC
`www.hfdrlaw.com
`700 Virginia Street East, Suite 210
`Charleston, WV 25301
`t: 681-265-3802
` 
` 
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
` 
`The information contained in this message is attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended exclusively
`for the use of the client/s of Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
`recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message strictly is prohibited.  If
`you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the party above by telephone and return the message via
`reply at the above e-mail address.
` 
`
`On Feb 27, 2024, at 1:25 PM, Gregory, Teagan <TGregory@wc.com> wrote:
` 
`Max,
`
`Would 9am ET work for your team?
`
`

`

` 
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 16080
`Thanks,
`Teagan
` 
`Teagan James Gregory
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20024
`(P) 202-434-5178 | (F) 202-434-5029
`tgregory@wc.com | www.wc.com/tgregory
` 
`From: Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com> 
`Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 12:41 PM
`To: Gregory, Teagan <TGregory@wc.com>; David Pogue <drpogue@cdkrlaw.com>; Steve Ruby
`<sruby@cdkrlaw.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>;
`REGENERON PATENT <REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com>
`Cc: Michael W. Johnson <mjohnson1@willkie.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>;
`Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Matthew Freimuth <mfreimuth@willkie.com>; Aviv
`Zalcenstein <azalcenstein@geminilaw.com>; DG-Aflibercept <DG-Aflibercept@netorg8512690.
`onmicrosoft.com>; Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Michael Hissam
`<mhissam@hfdrlaw.com>; WFG-aflibercept@willkie.com; Carl Shaffer <cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>;
`Kimberly Thomas <kthomas@hfdrlaw.com>
`Subject: Re: Regeneron v. Celltrion, No. 1:23-CV-89: Celltrion's Good Faith Deficiency Letter
` 
`Hi Teagan, 
` 
`Just want to follow up on this to ensure that calendars don’t fill up. 
` 
`Kindly,
`Max 
`____________________________
`Max C. Gottlieb
`Lawyer
`
`Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC
`www.hfdrlaw.com
`700 Virginia Street East, Suite 210
`Charleston, WV 25301
`t: 681-265-3802
` 
` 
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
` 
`The information contained in this message is attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended
`exclusively for the use of the client/s of Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC.  If the reader of this message
`is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
`message strictly is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the party
`above by telephone and return the message via reply at the above e-mail address.
`
`On Feb 26, 2024, at 9:48 PM, Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com> wrote:
` 
`Teagan,
` 
`The Celltrion team is generally available Thursday (2/29) morning. Please provide
`some windows that work for you folks and we will send out an invite.
` 
`Have a nice evening,
`Max 
` 
`Get Outlook for iOS
`
`From: Gregory, Teagan <TGregory@wc.com>
`Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 4:31 PM
`
`

`

`To: Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>; David Pogue <drpogue@cdkrlaw.com>;
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 122-5 Filed 03/04/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 16081
`Steve Ruby <sruby@cdkrlaw.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea Biosimilars
`<Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; REGENERON PATENT
`<REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com>
`Cc: Michael W. Johnson <mjohnson1@willkie.com>; Mike Cottler
`<mcottler@geminilaw.com>; Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Matthew
`Freimuth <mfreimuth@willkie.com>; Aviv Zalcenstein <azalcenstein@geminilaw.com>;
`DG-Aflibercept <DG-Aflibercept@netorg8512690.onmicrosoft.com>; Andrew Robey
`<arobey@h