`
`Kayali, Kathryn
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Elliot Choi <elliotchoi@quinnemanuel.com>
`Thursday, June 20, 2024 6:32 PM
`Patel, Priyata; Zach Summers; Trask, Andrew; QE - Samsung Bioepis
`Eylea; Eylea Biosimilars; REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com
`RE: Regeneron v. Samsung, 23-cv-94 & 23-cv-106 (NDWVa)
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`Regeneron has not provided any basis for its request in the procedures set forth in the Protective Order. The Protective
`Order provides that depositions containing confidential information may be designated as such, and there is no
`mechanism requiring a line‐by‐line redaction.
`
`
`This position is not inconsistent with our redactions to our PI papers. The cited testimony of Dr. Boyle was made in the
`context of his non‐infringement opinion involving SB’s confidential information. Indeed, Dr. Boyle’s transcript was
`withheld in its entirety from Amgen due to its highly confidential nature.
`
`
`We further note that Regeneron has not applied this rigorous review process to its own deponents, which underscores
`the inconsistency and inequity of its demands. SB will adhere to the established procedures set forth in the Protective
`Order.
`
`
`Regards,
`Elliot
`
`From: Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 10:46 AM
`To: Elliot Choi <elliotchoi@quinnemanuel.com>; Zach Summers <zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com>; Trask, Andrew
`<atrask@wc.com>; QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>
`Cc: Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>;
`REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com
`Subject: RE: Regeneron v. Samsung, 23‐cv‐94 & 23‐cv‐106 (NDWVa)
`
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from priyata.patel@weil.com]
`
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`It has now been over two months since Regeneron made the below request for redacted copies of Dr. Boyle’s deposition
`transcript. SB has failed to comply. SB previously contended that it is not required to perform a “line‐by‐line review of
`each deposition.” But no such review is necessary because Regeneron has provided SB with a short list of lines from the
`specific transcript that it contends does not contain confidential information. Additionally, Regeneron has now further
`limited its request to only the documents pertaining to Dr. Boyle (and excluded the transcript of Dr.
`Prentice). Regeneron’s request is therefore narrow and would not be onerous for SB. Indeed, SB has now provided
`redactions to a number of documents pursuant to the parties’ stipulation regarding redactions, and yet, has failed to
`respond to Regeneron’s request.
`
`
`By close of business 6/20, confirm whether SB agrees with Regeneron regarding the non‐confidential nature of the
`below information and, if not, identify which lines SB considers confidential or OCEO and provide an explanation
`supporting its designations.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 18-3 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2734
`
`
`
`Boyle Final Tr. 1
`
`24:17‐25:9; 39:22‐40:18; 42:5‐16; 70:13‐71:9; 72:2‐12; 76:20‐77:8;
`79:11‐21; 84:12‐17; 100:10‐16; 131:8‐132:4; 163:2‐11; 202:16‐21;
`220:7‐13; 221:2 – 222:2; 226:21 – 227:6; 231:1 – 231:9; 263:3‐8;
`277:18 – 278:6
`
`
`Thanks,
`Priya
`
`From: Elliot Choi <elliotchoi@quinnemanuel.com>
`Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 5:50 PM
`To: Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>; Zach Summers <zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com>; Trask, Andrew
`<atrask@wc.com>; QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>
`Cc: Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>;
`REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com
`Subject: RE: Regeneron v. Samsung, 23‐cv‐94 & 23‐cv‐106 (NDWVa)
`
`Counsel:
`
`
`As stated in our prior correspondence, SB has and will continue to abide the procedures set forth in the Protective Order
`regarding the treatment of deposition transcripts containing confidential information. As set forth in Paragraph 16 of
`the Protective Order, SB has ten days following receipt of the final transcript to designate the deposition as
`confidential. Despite the fact this ten‐day period is only now expiring, SB has previously informed Regeneron that Dr.
`Boyle’s transcript contains SB confidential information, a fact that Regeneron implicitly acknowledges given its repeated
`requests for redactions. SB therefore maintains its claim of confidentiality with respect to Dr. Boyle’s
`transcript. Moreover, we understand that Celltrion has asked that the Prentice deposition be designated
`confidential. Finally, there is nothing in the Protective Order that requires the parties to undertake the time consuming
`and expensive process of conducting and line‐by‐line review of each deposition transcript to determine which pages and
`lines of the transcript contain confidential information and Regeneron’s unilateral demands that SB does so are not
`appropriate, particular under the expedited timelines that Regeneron has imposed. We further note that Regeneron
`has not undertaken this process for any of its deponents. Regeneron has not provided any basis deviating from the
`procedures set forth in the Protective Order and without more, SB intends to follow the procedures set forth in the
`Protective Order.
`
`Regards,
`Elliot
`
`From: Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>
`Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 3:53 PM
`To: Zach Summers <zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com>; Trask, Andrew <atrask@wc.com>; Elliot Choi
`<elliotchoi@quinnemanuel.com>; QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>
`Cc: Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>;
`REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com
`Subject: RE: Regeneron v. Samsung, 23‐cv‐94 & 23‐cv‐106 (NDWVa)
`
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from priyata.patel@weil.com]
`
`
`
`Counsel for Bioepis,
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 18-3 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 2735
`
`You have yet again failed to comply with Regeneron’s request. Though we are not obligated to do so, we have provided
`below a table of citations to information that Regeneron contends does not contain any OCEO information or Bioepis
`confidential information. For ease of reference, we have also attached excerpts of the relevant transcripts containing
`highlighting that reflects those same citations. By close of business Monday, let us know whether Bioepis agrees with
`Regeneron regarding the non‐confidential nature of this information and, if not, identify which lines Bioepis considers
`confidential or OCEO and provide an explanation supporting its designations. If Bioepis fails to do so by close of business
`Monday, then Regeneron will understand that the parties are unable to agree upon the status of the information listed
`below.
`
`
`Boyle Final Tr. 1
`
`Prentice Rough Tr.
`
`24:17‐25:9; 39:22‐40:18; 42:5‐16; 70:13‐71:9; 72:2‐12; 76:20‐77:8;
`79:11‐21; 84:12‐17; 100:10‐16; 131:8‐132:4; 163:2‐11; 202:16‐21;
`220:7‐13; 221:2 – 222:2; 226:21 – 227:6; 231:1 – 231:9; 263:3‐8;
`277:18 – 278:6
`9:8‐10:16; 40:4‐41:12
`
`
`Sincerely,
`Priya
`
`From: Zach Summers <zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com>
`Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 8:44 AM
`To: Trask, Andrew <atrask@wc.com>; Elliot Choi <elliotchoi@quinnemanuel.com>; QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐
`samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>
`Cc: Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>;
`REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com
`Subject: RE: Regeneron v. Samsung, 23‐cv‐94 & 23‐cv‐106 (NDWVa) | Boyle deposition
`
`Counsel:
`
`As we stated, Regeneron’s questioning and Dr. Boyle’s answers implicated Samsung Confidential information, including
`Samsung’s Confidential BLA testing, throughout the transcript—indeed, analysis of those tests was the subject of Dr.
`Boyle’s declaration. Accordingly, pursuant to the Protective Order, we have designated the transcript as
`Confidential. We also note that this is consistent with the parties’ practice in other depositions. Pursuant to Paragraph
`16, we are reviewing our designation with our client, but unless we change it within the time allotted by the PO, the
`transcript remains Confidential and must be treated as such. We are not required under the Protective Order to review
`and designate each line of the transcript as confidential or non‐confidential. Regeneron has not done as much in this
`case and has not cited any authority or agreement for the proposition it can unilaterally impose such a requirement on
`SB. Regeneron’s statement that SB is somehow shielding the Court from the transcript is nonsensical—the transcript
`can, of course, be submitted to the Court under seal here, in the same way Regeneron has submitted voluminous
`amounts of its own Confidential information already.
`
`Best,
`Zach
`
`From: Trask, Andrew <atrask@wc.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 1:00 PM
`To: Elliot Choi <elliotchoi@quinnemanuel.com>; Zach Summers <zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com>; QE ‐ Samsung
`Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>
`Cc: Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com; REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com
`Subject: RE: Regeneron v. Samsung, 23‐cv‐94 & 23‐cv‐106 (NDWVa) | Boyle deposition
`
`
`
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from atrask@wc.com]
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 18-3 Filed 06/26/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 2736
`
`
`Samsung counsel,
`
`Regeneron requested that you (1) identify any lines of testimony in the redacted version of pages 1‐288 of the transcript
`(with lines 152:11‐16 redacted, as discussed below) that you believe contains Samsung’s confidential information; and
`(2) provide a time today to confer. Your response does neither. Please comply with these requests immediately so that
`Regeneron may understand and confer with you about your confidentiality designations.
`
`The protective order does not restrict the use of nonconfidential information. Your attempt to delay the resolution of
`Regeneron’s challenge to Samsung’s improper confidentiality designation is prejudicial to Regeneron and improperly
`seeks to shield nonconfidential information from the Court.
`
`Best,
`Andrew
`
`Andrew Trask | Williams & Connolly LLP | 202‐434‐5023 | atrask@wc.com
`
`From: Elliot Choi <elliotchoi@quinnemanuel.com>
`Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 22:08
`To: Trask, Andrew <atrask@wc.com>; Zach Summers <zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com>; QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐
`samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>
`Cc: Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com; REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com
`Subject: RE: Regeneron v. Samsung, 23‐cv‐94 & 23‐cv‐106 (NDWVa) | Boyle deposition
`
`Counsel:
`
`
`We disagree with your characterization of the record and your unilateral attempt to de‐designate portions of the
`transcript that contain SB’s confidential information. As stated on the face of the transcripts themselves, SB’s counsel
`designated the transcript Confidential on the record, pursuant to the Protective Order as well as the parties’ practice in
`this case. While we are still reviewing the transcript, aside from the testimony you cite below, Regeneron’s questioning
`touched upon SB’s and REGN’s confidential information throughout (for instance, information reflective of SB’s BLA
`testing), and SB’s designation of the transcript as confidential reflects that fact. Pursuant to the Protective Order, the
`transcript as a whole was designated Confidential.
`
`Your position regarding SB’s designation of the transcript as Confidential and your demand for an immediate response is
`inconsistent with both the parties’ practice in this case and, more importantly, the Protective Order’s requirement for
`treatment of deposition transcripts, including as set out in Paragraph 16. As we noted at the deposition, Regeneron
`should familiarize itself with the Protective Order before making demands that directly contradict the parties’ agreed on
`processes for designating and handling Confidential information in this case.
`
`Regards,
`Elliot
`
`From: Trask, Andrew <atrask@wc.com>
`Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 11:52 AM
`To: Zach Summers <zachsummers@quinnemanuel.com>; QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐
`samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>
`Cc: Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>; Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com; REGENERONPATENT@lists.kellogghansen.com
`Subject: Regeneron v. Samsung, 23‐cv‐94 & 23‐cv‐106 (NDWVa) | Boyle deposition
`
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from atrask@wc.com]
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 18-3 Filed 06/26/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 2737
`
`
`
`
`Samsung counsel,
`
`
`
`
`
`At Thursday’s deposition of Dr. Boyle in the Regeneron v. Samsung case, Regeneron’s counsel indicated that
`the deposition would start with a portion that would not include any Samsung confidential
`information. Regeneron’s counsel asked Samsung’s counsel to note on the record if any particular testimony
`involved Samsung confidential information. During this first portion of the deposition, Samsung’s counsel
`identified only the testimony at 152:11-16 of the final transcript as allegedly involving Samsung confidential
`information.
`
`
`
`
`
`Aside from the testimony at 152:11-16, the first portion of the transcript of Dr. Boyle’s deposition (i.e., final
`transcript pages 1-288) contains no Samsung confidential information. Regeneron has prepared a version of
`this first portion of the transcript with the testimony at 152:11-16 redacted, and Regeneron understands that
`redacted transcript to contain no Samsung confidential information or Samsung outside counsel eyes only
`information. If you disagree, let us know no later than close of business on Monday what additional lines from
`pages 1-288 you contend contain Samsung confidential information and what times on Tuesday you are
`available to confer.
`
`
`
`Any delay in confirming that this redacted version of pages 1-288 of the transcript is nonconfidential will be
`understood as an effort to shield improperly the Court and Regeneron’s in-house counsel from information that
`is plainly nonconfidential.
`
`
`
`Best,
`
`Andrew
`
`
`
`Andrew Trask | Williams & Connolly LLP | 202-434-5023 | atrask@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This message and any attachments are intended only for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and
`confidential. If you have received this message in error, please do not read, use, copy, distribute, or disclose the contents of the
`message and any attachments. Instead, please delete the message and any attachments and notify the sender immediately. Thank
`you.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00053-TSK Document 18-3 Filed 06/26/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 2738
`
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
`reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
`recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
`prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, postmaster@weil.com,
`and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`
`
`The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
`reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
`recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
`prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, postmaster@weil.com,
`and destroy the original message. Thank you.
`
`6
`
`