Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1081
`
`
`IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
`
`
`
`MDL No.: 1:24-md-3103-TSK
`
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
`ALL CASES
`
`
`
`JOINT SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO MAY 20, 2024 ORDER
`
`On May 20, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to file submissions of no more than 20
`
`pages “indicating which matters are appropriate for collective pretrial consideration and
`
`disposition while the case is designated as an MDL.” ECF No. 112. The parties conferred on
`
`May 28, 2024, and reached substantial agreement with respect to these issues, as set forth below.
`
`The remaining areas of disagreement are provided in the below party-specific sections.
`
`Consistent with the Court’s Order, the parties have also attached to this submission all filings
`
`submitted to the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation.
`
`I.
`
`The Parties’ Proposal
`
`The member cases of MDL No. 3103 are currently consolidated for pretrial proceedings.
`
`The parties agree that those pretrial proceedings should include (1) resolution of all pending
`
`personal jurisdictional motions, (2) the resolution of all motions for preliminary injunction or
`
`temporary restraining order; (3) the completion of fact and expert discovery, including the
`
`adjudication of any related motion practice; (4) resolution of all claim construction (“Markman”)
`
`proceedings, (5) case management to administer the proceeding by ordering, for example, case
`
`narrowing as appropriate; and (6) resolution of dispositive motions.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 1082
`
`
`
`The parties propose that the Court schedule bimonthly conferences (i.e., every two
`
`months) to address the conduct and status of the pretrial proceedings. Such conferences are
`
`recommended by Fed. Judicial Ctr., Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed., 2004) at Section
`
`11.22. The parties propose submitting joint, non-argumentative status reports at least one week
`
`prior to each scheduled conference that include a progress report and a proposed agenda of items
`
`to be addressed at the conference. If there are no agenda items to address, then the conference
`
`could be canceled at the Court’s discretion.
`
`The parties suggest that it is not necessary at this time for the court to determine whether
`
`it will decide other pretrial motions, and suggest that issue be addressed at a bi-monthly
`
`conference after completion of discovery.
`
`The parties also agree that any case for which the transferor court is not the Northern
`
`District of West Virginia—including the “Amgen Case” (Case No. 24-cv-39-TSK) and any case
`
`dismissed or transferred to another venue for lack of personal jurisdiction—may be remanded for
`
`trial before a final pretrial order is entered and a final pretrial conference is held in all member
`
`cases remaining in the Northern District of West Virginia.
`
`Mylan/Biocon’s Position
`
`Biocon Biologics, Inc. (“Biocon”) and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) consent to
`
`consolidation and collective disposition of the member cases for all pretrial proceedings as noted
`
`above, to the extent that the Court is inclined to enter a schedule with a trial in summer/fall of
`
`2025 as requested by one or more of the MDL Defendants. However, as noted in their May 10,
`
`2024 position statement, Biocon and Mylan are uniquely situated compared to the other MDL
`
`Defendants, so to the extent the Court is inclined to enter Regeneron’s requested schedule (July
`
`2026 trial) with regard to the other Defendants, then Biocon and Mylan would request a separate
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 1083
`
`
`
`track, and entry of the schedule proposed by Biocon and Mylan in their May 10 submission,
`
`which contemplates trial in September 2025, or as close to that proposed trial date as the Court’s
`
`schedule allows. Separate tracks are common in MDL proceedings. See, e.g., In re: Nat’l
`
`Prescription Opiate Litig., MDL No. 2804, 1:17-md-02804, Dkt. 232, at 6-8 (N.D., Ohio Apr.
`
`11, 2018) (setting different scheduling tracks for differently positioned cases); see also, e.g., In
`
`re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2785,
`
`2019 WL 294803, at *6 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2019); Fed. Ins. Co. v. 3M Co., Case No. 21-cv-02093,
`
`642 F. Supp. 3d 882, 895-96 (D. Minn. Nov. 23, 2022) (citing In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`
`360 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1354 (J.P.M.L. 2005)). Indeed, separate tracks have already been
`
`implemented in this MDL. (See, e.g., MDL Dkts. 136, 144 (ordering any injunction against
`
`Amgen to proceed on a different briefing schedule than the other Defendants’ schedules)).
`
`A separate track is particularly warranted here, where Biocon and Mylan already have
`
`completed an entire litigation, including Markman, fact discovery, expert discovery, and trial, on
`
`a set of Regeneron’s selected patents.
`
`However, even in the event of separate tracks, Biocon and Mylan are not opposed to
`
`consolidation and collective disposition of matters common across all MDL cases, including
`
`with regard to, to the extent possible, holding combined Markman proceedings, coordinating
`
`with other Defendants regarding depositions, matters relating to patent invalidity, and other
`
`discovery issues.
`
`Biocon and Mylan do not have a position as to when the other Defendants’ cases are
`
`remanded to other jurisdictions for trial.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 1084
`
`
`
`Regeneron’s Response
`
`Biocon/Mylan (collectively, “Biocon”) reprise their argument –rejected by this Court in
`
`February (No. 1:22-CV-61, Dkt. 698) and by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in
`
`April (No. 24-md-3103, Dkt. 1) – that they are uniquely positioned and their case should proceed
`
`on a separate, faster track than co-pending cases against other MDL Defendants. There is no
`
`basis for Biocon’s demand. As adjudged infringers of USP No. 11,084,865 (the “’865 patent”),
`
`which does not expire until June 2027, there is no reason to expedite trial of the remaining
`
`patents against Biocon. Biocon’s proposal would create inefficiencies for the Court and the
`
`parties, needlessly complicate proceedings, and introduce opportunities for inconsistent or
`
`revisited rulings.
`
`First, a large number of the remaining patents in the Biocon case also are asserted against
`
`one or more of the additional MDL Defendants. Indeed, the number of overlapping patents will
`
`only increase before these cases begin in earnest, as Regeneron may file suit against Biocon on
`
`additional patents pursuant to 42 USC § 262(l)(7) (governing patents issuing after certain stages
`
`of the patent dance) to bring that case current with the cases against other Defendants filed at a
`
`later date (and thus after additional patents had issued). Biocon suggests that Regeneron
`
`previously represented that trial on a second wave of patents would not be necessary. Not so.
`
`Regeneron stated that it “d[id] not know exactly what will happen” with the remaining patents,
`
`and explained that “[i]f we prevail on these patents that we’re proposing to move forward with
`
`now . . . then it’s very unlikely that we would feel the need to move forward again with respect to
`
`those other patents.” No. 22-cv-61-TSK, Dkt. 90 at 4-11. While Regeneron did prevail with
`
`respect to the ’865 patent, it did not receive a favorable judgment on later-expiring patents from
`
`the first round of litigation (USP Nos. 10,888,601, 11,253,572, and 11,104,715). Thus, Biocon’s
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 1085
`
`
`
`infringement of additional patents remains an important consideration. Nor can Biocon
`
`unilaterally decree trial on the remaining patents to be unnecessary. “Regeneron does not agree
`
`that its remaining, presumptively valid patents should be dismissed with a wave of the hand.” No.
`
`22-cv-61-TSK, Dkt. 697 at 6-7 (opposing Biocon’s earlier motion for expedited trial). Regardless,
`
`the handful of patents on which Biocon has already obtained a judgment do not outweigh the large
`
`number of common patents that remain to be adjudicated against Biocon and all other
`
`Defendants. Nor do Biocon’s cited cases justify separate tracks on these facts.1
`
`Second, Biocon’s premise that it is differently situated because it already has “completed
`
`an entire litigation, including Markman, fact discovery, expert discovery, and trial,” ignores the
`
`substantial amount of work that remains to be accomplished not only because of the new patents
`
`to be addressed but also because of the narrow scope of the initial phase of the Biocon
`
`litigation. That first phase was limited by the particular issues and parties involved, and the
`
`remaining patents present new and distinct issues. See No. 22-cv-61-TSK, Dkt. 697 at 6-7
`
`(providing examples). Furthermore, Biocon was not joined as a party until the eve of trial
`
`following its acquisition of Mylan’s biosimilars business, and Regeneron has had only limited
`
`opportunities to obtain discovery from Biocon in the context of the present, expedited injunction
`
`proceedings. Much work—including additional fact discovery, claim construction, and expert
`
`discovery—remains to be done.
`
`
`1 See, e.g., In re: Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., MDL No. 2804, 1:17-md-02804, Dkt. 232, at 1 (N.D.,
`Ohio Apr. 11, 2018) (creating separate “settlement track” and “litigation track” because parties stated such
`tracks would make settlement more likely); see also, e.g., In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Mktg.,
`Sales Pracs. & Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2785, 2019 WL 294803, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2019) (allowing
`Sanofi case to proceed on separate track than consumer class cases because Sanofi, as competitor of
`defendant, filed Sanofi case “only for itself, and not on behalf of any other plaintiffs or putative class
`members,” and did not seek class certification); Fed. Ins. Co. v. 3M Co., Case No. 21-cv-02093, 642 F.
`Supp. 3d 882, 895-96 (D. Minn. Nov. 23, 2022) (stating merely that MDL courts can create separate tracks
`where appropriate).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 1086
`
`
`
`Third, proceeding on the same track as other Defendants would not prejudice Biocon. As
`
`the Court previously determined, there is “no urgent need” to schedule a trial on any of the
`
`remaining patents when Biocon are adjudged infringers of the Product Patent, which does not
`
`expire until June 2027. No. 1:22-CV-61, Dkt. 698; No. 24-md-3103, Dkt. 1 at 3. Indeed, Biocon’s
`
`proposed September 2025 trial date appears to be arbitrary, and there is no reason that the Court
`
`need reach a decision on the remaining patents by that illusory deadline. Certainly, there is no
`
`reason why Biocon should need resolution more quickly than other Defendants.
`
`Biocon and Mylan’s Response
`
`Biocon and Mylan briefly respond to Regeneron’s above arguments here.
`
`First, Regeneron previously told this Court that “it’s very unlikely that [it] would feel the
`
`need to move forward again with respect to” the patents remaining in the Biocon/Mylan case after
`
`the first trial. (Dkt. 90, 25:7-11; May 10 Position Statement, at 2-3), directly contradicting its
`
`statements herein. Second, as has been articulated to the Court, the remainder of Regeneron’s
`
`patents have either been held unpatentable at the PTAB, have no good faith for being asserted, or
`
`have serious invalidity issues, which is why they were not chosen by Regeneron for the first trial,
`
`and Regeneron has not shown good cause why any of them can be asserted in a second litigation.
`
`(See, e.g., May 10 Position Statement at 14-15). Discovery on the little that remains, to the extent
`
`litigation even proceeds, will be minimal. In September 2022, Regeneron agreed.2 The threatened
`
`§ 262(l)(7) litigation, which Regeneron raises for the first time, will not substantially impact the
`
`proceedings, as a majority of the (l)(7) patents are either not infringed, or emanate from the same
`
`families already litigated. Third, the timing is critical because although the ‘865 patent does not
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Dkt. 90 at 5 (“We’re . . . much of the way down the runway”).
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 1087
`
`
`
`expire until 2027, the infringement and validity decisions are subject to appeal, which will
`
`conclude substantially sooner than 2027. (See, e.g., May 10 Position Statement at 4).
`
`II.
`
`Appendices of Filings Before Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
`
`Attached hereto are appendices consisting of all filings made before the Judicial Panel on
`
`Multidistrict Litigation, as follows:
`
`Appendix A
`Appendix B
`Appendix C
`Appendix D
`
`
`
`Regeneron’s Filings
`Amgen’s Filings
`Mylan/Biocon’s Filings
`Joint filings on behalf of Formycon, Celltrion,
`and Samsung Bioepis
`
`Respectfully submitted this 31st day of May, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`REGENERON
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David I. Berl (admitted PHV)
`Ellen E. Oberwetter (admitted PHV)
`Thomas S. Fletcher (admitted PHV)
`Andrew V. Trask (admitted PHV)
`Teagan J. Gregory (admitted PHV)
`Shaun P. Mahaffy (admitted PHV)
`Kathryn S. Kayali (admitted PHV)
`Arthur J. Argall III (admitted PHV)
`Adam Pan (admitted PHV)
`Haylee N. Bernal Anderson (admitted PHV)
`Renee M. Griffin (admitted PHV)
`Jennalee Beazley (admitted PHV)
`Rhochelle Krawetz
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue, SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`(202) 434-5000
`dberl@wc.com
`eoberwetter@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David R. Pogue
`Steven R. Ruby (WVSB No. 10752)
`David R. Pogue (WVSB No. 10806)
`CAREY DOUGLAS KESSLER &
`RUBY, PLLC
`707 Virginia Street East
`901 Chase Tower (25301)
`P.O. Box 913
`Charleston, West Virginia 25323
`(304) 345-1234
`sruby@cdkrlaw.com
`drpogue@cdkrlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Regeneron
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 1088
`
`tfletcher@wc.com
`atrask@wc.com
`tgregory@wc.com
`smahaffy@wc.com
`sdouglass@wc.com
`kkayali@wc.com
`aargall@wc.com
`apan@wc.com
`njordan@wc.com
`handerson@wc.com
`rgriffin@wc.com
`jbeazley@wc.com
`rkrawetz@wc.com
`
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser (admitted
`PHV)
`Anish R. Desai (admitted PHV)
`Natalie C. Kennedy (admitted PHV)
`Jennifer Brooks Crozier (admitted PHV)
`Tom Yu (admitted PHV)
`Yi Zhang (admitted PHV)
`Kathryn Leicht (admitted PHV)
`Rocco Recce (admitted PHV)
`Zhen Lin (admitted PHV)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Elizabeth.Weiswasser@weil.com
`Anish.Desai@weil.com
`Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com
`Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com
`Tom.Yu@weil.com
`Yi.Zhang@weil.com
`Kathryn.Leicht@weil.com
`Rocco.Recce@weil.com
`Zhen.Lin@weil.com
`
`Christopher M. Pepe (admitted PHV)
`Priyata P. Patel (admitted PHV)
`Matthew Sieger (admitted PHV)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
`2001 M Street, NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`Christopher.Pepe@weil.com
`Priyata.Patel@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 1089
`
`Matthew.Seiger@weil.com
`
`Andrew E. Goldsmith (admitted PHV)
`Jacob E. Hartman (admitted PHV)
`Mary Charlotte Y. Carroll (admitted PHV)
`Sven E. Henningson (admitted PHV)
`Alyssa J. Picard (admitted PHV)
`KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
`FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
`1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`TEL: (202) 326-7900
`agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com
`jhartman@kellogghansen.com
`mcarroll@kellogghansen.com
`shenningson@kellogghansen.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Regeneron
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`FORMYCON AG
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Louis E. Fogel (pro hac vice)
`Shaun M. Van Horn (pro hac vice)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South 6th Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`(612) 335-5070
`fogel@fr.com
`vanhorn@fr.com
`
`Robert M. Oakes (pro hac vice)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-5070
`oakes@fr.com
`
`Andria Rae Crisler (pro hac vice)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 747-5070
`crisler@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THOMAS COMBS & SPANN PLLC
`
`/s/ M. David Griffith, Jr.
`Bryant J. Spann (WVSB No. 8628)
`M. David Griffith, Jr. (WVSB No. 7720)
`300 Summers Street, Suite 1380
`Charleston, West Virginia 25301
`Phone: (304) 414-1800
`Fax: (304) 414-1801
`bspann@tcspllc.com
`dgriffith@tcspllc.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Formycon AG
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 1090
`
`hac
`
`vice)
`
`Madelyn McCormick (pro hac vice)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 678-5070
`mmccormick@fr.com
`
`(pro
`Taylor Burgener
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`(202) 783-5070
`burgener@fr.com
`
`Qiuyi Wu (pro hac vice)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`(617)-542-5070
`Qwu@fr.com
`
`Terri L. Mascherin (pro hac vice)
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`(312) 222-9350
`tmascherin@jenner.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Formycon AG
`
`CELLTRION, INC.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert Cerwinski, (pro hac vice)
`Aviv Zalcenstein, (pro hac vice)
`Michael Cottler, (pro hac vice)
`Lora Green, (pro hac vice)
`David Kim, (pro hac vice)
`Brigid Morris, (pro hac vice)
`Kyle Musgrove, (pro hac vice)
`Cindy Chang, (pro hac vice)
`GEMINI LAW LLP
`40 W 24th Street
`New York, NY 10010
`(917) 915-8832
`rcerwinski@geminilaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Max C. Gottlieb____________
`Michael B. Hissam (WVSB #11526)
`Max C. Gottlieb (WVSB #13201)
`Andrew C. Robey (WVSB #12806)
`Carl W. Shaffer (WVSB #13260)
`HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
`P.O. Box 3983
`Charleston, WV 25339
`681-265-3802 office
`304-982-8056 fax
`mhissam@hfdrlaw.com
`mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com
`arobey@hfdrlaw.com
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 1091
`
`azalcenstein@geminilaw.com
`mcottler@geminilaw.com
`lgreen@geminilaw.com
`dkim@geminilaw.com
`bmorris@geminilaw.com
`kmusgrove@geminilaw.com
`cchang@geminilaw.com
`
`Michael W. Johnson, (pro hac vice)
`Matthew Freimuth, (pro hac vice)
`Dan Constantinescu, (pro hac vice)
`Ocean Lu, (pro hac vice)
`WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 728-8000
`mjohnson@willkie.com
`mfreimuth@willkie.com
`dconstantinescu@willkie.com
`olu@willkie.com
`
`Attorneys for Celltrion, Inc.
`
`AMGEN INC.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`John R. Labbe (PHV)
`Kevin M. Flowers (PHV)
`Thomas Burns (PHV)
`MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
`233 South Wacker Drive
`6300 Willis Tower
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 474-6300
`
`E. Anthony Figg (PHV)
`Joseph A. Hynds (PHV)
`Jennifer Nock (PHV)
`Brett A. Postal (PHV)
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST, &
`MANBECK, P.C.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Suite 900 East
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`(202) 783-6040
`
`
`
`
`
`cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Celltrion, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ashley Hardesty Odell
`Ashley Hardesty Odell [WVSB # 9380]
`ahardestyodell@bowlesrice.com
`Karly N. King [WVSB #14461]
`karly.king@bowlesrice.com
`BOWLES RICE LLP
`125 Granville Square
`Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
`(304) 285-2500 – Telephone
`(304) 285-2575 – Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amgen Inc.
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 1092
`
`
`Wendy Whiteford (PHV)
`Eric Agovino (PHV)
`Chanson Chang (PHV)
`Pauline Pelletier (PHV)
`AMGEN INC.
`One Amgen Center Drive
`Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
`(805) 447-1000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amgen Inc.
`
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Frank E. Simmerman, Jr. (WVSB# 3403)
`Chad L. Taylor (WVSB# 10564)
`Frank E. Simmerman, III (WVSB# 10584)
`SIMMERMAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
`254 East Main Street
`Clarksburg, West Virginia 26301
`(304) 623-4900
`clt@simmermanlaw.com
`
`Raymond N. Nimrod
`(PHV granted, special appearance)
`Matthew A. Traupman
`(PHV granted, special appearance)
`Laura L. Fairneny
`(PHV granted, special appearance)
`Matthew D. Robson
`(PHV granted, special appearance)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`(212) 849-7000
`raynimrod@quinnemanuel.com
`matthewtraupman@quinnemanuel.com
`laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com
`matthewrobson@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Zachariah B. Summers
`(PHV granted, special appearance)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHRADER COMPANION, DUFF & LAW, PLLC
`
` /s/ Sandra K. Law
`Sandra K. Law (WVSB No. 6071)
`401 Main Street
`Wheeling, West Virginia 26003
`skl@schraderlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.
`appearing for the limited purpose of contesting
`jurisdiction
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 1093
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 S. Figueroa St.
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.
`appearing for the limited purpose of
`contesting jurisdiction
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`AND BIOCON BIOLOGICS INC.
`
`Of Counsel (admitted pro hac vice):
`William A. Rakoczy
`Deanne M. Mazzochi
`Heinz J. Salmen
`Eric R. Hunt
`Neil B. McLaughlin
`Lauren M. Lesko
`Jake R. Ritthamel
`RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`6 W. Hubbard St., Suite 500
`Chicago, IL 60654
`(312) 527-2157
`
`wrakoczy@rmmslegal.com
`dmmazzochi@rmmslegal.com
`hsalmen@rmmslegal.com
`ehunt@rmmslegal.com
`nmclaughlin@rmmslegal.com
`llesko@rmmslegal.com
`jritthamel@rmmslegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Biocon Biologics
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
`
`/s/ William J. O’Brien
`Gordon H. Copland (WVSB #828)
`William J. O’Brien (WVSB #10549)
`400 White Oaks Boulevard
`Bridgeport, WV 26330
`(304) 933-8162
`gordon.copland@steptoe-johnson.com
`william.obrien@steptoe-johnson.com
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 16 Filed 05/31/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 1094
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 31, 2024, the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court
`
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Counsel of record for all parties will be served by the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David R. Pogue
`David R. Pogue (WVSB No. 10806)
`
`
`
`14
`
`