`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 1of17 PagelD #: 4030
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 4031
` 1
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
` Plaintiff,
` VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.
` 1:23-cv-89
`Celltrion, Inc.
` Defendant.
`
`- - -
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
` Plaintiff,
` VS. CIVIL ACTION NOS.
` 1:23-cv-94
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. 1:23-cv-106
`Defendant.
`
`- - -
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
` Plaintiff,
` VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.
` 1:23-cv-97
`Formycon AG,
`Defendant.
`
`- - -
`
`Proceedings had in the status conference of the
`above-styled action on January 5, 2024, before Honorable Thomas
`S. Kleeh, District Judge, at Clarksburg, West Virginia.
`
`- - -
`
` APPEARANCES:
`
` On behalf of the Plaintiff:
`
`David I. Berl
`Ellen E. Oberwetter
`Renee Griffin
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`680 Maine Avenue, SW
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`202.434.5000
`
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 4032
` 2
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`On behalf of the Plaintiff (continued):
`
`Elizabeth S. Weiswasser
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`212.310.8022
`
`Jake E. Harman
`Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick
`1615 M Street NW, Suite 1400
`Washington, DC 20036
`202.326.7989
`
`Steven Robert Ruby
`Carey, Douglas, Kessler & Ruby, PLLC
`797 Virginia Street, East, Suite 901
`Charleston, WV 25301
`304.345.1234
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Also appearing: Petra Scamborova, James Evans, in-house
`counsel for Regeneron
`
`
`On behalf of Defendant Celltrion:
`
`Max Gottlieb
`Michael Hissam
`Andrew C. Robey
`Hissam, Forman, Donovan & Ritchie
`700 Virginia Street East, Suite 210
`Charleston, WV 25301
`304.543.4893
`
`
`
`Robert Cerwinski
`Michael B. Cottler
`Gemini Law, LLP
`40 West 24th Street, Suite 6N
`New York, NY 10010
`917.915.8832
`
`
`
`
`Michael W. Johnson
`Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`212.720.8000
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4033
` 3
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On behalf of Defendant Formycon AG:
`
`M. David Griffith
`Thomas, Combs & Spann
`PO Box 3824
`Charleston, WV 25338
`304.414.1810
`
`Louis Fogel
`Shaun M. VanHorn
`Jenner & Block, LLP
`353 N. Clark Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`312.923.2661
`
`On behalf of Defendant Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd:
`
`Sandra K. Law
`Schrader, Companion, Duff & law, PLLC
`401 Main Street
`Wheeling, WV 26003
`304.233.3390
`
`Matthew A. Traupman
`Raymond N. Nimrod
`Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`212.849.7322
`
`
`Chad L. Taylor
`Simmerman Law Office, PLLC
`254 East Main Street
`Clarksburg, WV 26301
`304.623.4900
`
`
`
` Proceedings recorded utilizing realtime translation.
` Transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 4034
` 6
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
`
`And then, my apologies if I mispronounce it,
`
`Formycon, specially or otherwise. Mr. Griffith.
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: Good morning, Your Honor. David
`
`Griffith with Thomas Combs & Spann in Charleston, West
`
`Virginia, on behalf of Formycon AG, appearing specially today,
`
`as indicated in our response to the motion for alternative
`
`service, preserving all rights to jurisdiction, venue, and
`
`12(b) defenses.
`
`With me today in the courtroom is Louis Fogel and
`
`Shaun VanHorn, both with the Jenner Block firm in Chicago.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning. Anyone else? Good to see
`
`everybody. I hope you had safe travels, if you had to travel.
`
`I wanted to get -- the Court's certainly aware of the
`
`pressing issues and the ticking clock that exists. I know we
`
`do already have a motion to dismiss, raising jurisdictional
`
`issues on behalf of Samsung in cases 94 and 106. Is that
`
`right? In 94 and 106.
`
`Mr. Berl, I'll ask you, sir, any idea when Regeneron
`
`may respond to that motion, sir?
`
`MR. BERL: Yes. Your Honor, I think your question
`
`goes to a few issues here that we think should be discussed,
`
`which is what is the overall schedule here with respect to a
`
`motion for preliminary injunction, and resolution of that, as
`
`well as resolution of the motions that one defendant has filed,
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 4035
` 7
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`the other two defendants have indicated that they will file on
`
`January 17th, contesting jurisdiction.
`
`We set out a schedule that sets forth when we think
`
`all of that should happen, including our opposition to the
`
`motions for personal jurisdiction, which would be due on
`
`February 19th. I can address just that piece, if you'd like,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`Samsung filed first, the fastest. It took them 44
`
`days between the day we filed the complaint and the day that
`
`they filed their motion yesterday. I leave it to Your Honor to
`
`figure out why they waited 44 days to file that motion, but
`
`obviously doesn't take 44 days to prepare a motion for lack of
`
`personal jurisdiction.
`
`For their part, Celltrion is waiting 69 days between
`
`the time of the complaint and the time to file the motion, and
`
`Formycon is somewhere in between 44 and 69. Their motion --
`
`we've seen one of the three. I think it makes sense, to be
`
`honest, to respond to all three of the motions together.
`
`They're going to raise, as we understand it, overlapping issues
`
`with very similar legal principles at stake. And so we think
`
`we should respond to all of them together at the same time.
`
`In terms of when, their motion -- and I don't want to
`
`get into the details, especially because it was filed under
`
`seal. In our view, it's defective legally for various reasons
`
`and, we think, contrary to controlling Federal Circuit
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 4036
` 8
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`authority. But it also raises various factual allegations that
`
`we think are both incomplete and, as far as we can tell, not
`
`correct.
`
`And so on the basis of having seen one of those three
`
`motions, it's our view that we think we should have some
`
`discovery as to that motion. Again, I don't want to get into
`
`the details that they raised on agreement between two parties.
`
`They did not furnish to us other agreements between those
`
`parties that we think are relevant to the relationship and to
`
`the issues, again, even if we're wrong as to the threshold
`
`legal question. And so in our view, if we can get that
`
`discovery rather quickly.
`
`THE COURT: How long would that discovery take
`
`ideally from, your perspective?
`
`MR. BERL: I think we want the agreements themselves.
`
`I think those should be able to be furnished within 24 hours,
`
`and then take a deposition of someone with knowledge of the
`
`agreements and the relationships between the parties that are
`
`at issue in their motion. So I think with those documents and
`
`a deposition, I think that would be sufficient.
`
`Again, we'll see the other motions on January 17th.
`
`I'd imagine we'd probably want something like that with respect
`
`to the Celltrion motion and the Formycon motion, and if we were
`
`to get that discovery quickly, we think we'd be in a position
`
`to respond to that on February 19th.
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 4037
` 9
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Okay. All right.
`
`MR. BERL: One issue that this raises, however, is
`
`something that Samsung raised yesterday in their opposition to
`
`our motion for the emergency conference, which is Samsung takes
`
`the view that somehow their jurisdictional motion should be
`
`decided before anyone moves forward with preliminary injunction
`
`proceedings. And I think that's, to be honest, Your Honor, the
`
`threshold issue that you'll have to decide.
`
`We've been proposing to do them all together, in
`
`parallel. Honestly, we've already started down that road. A
`
`couple weeks ago we gave the defendants categories of documents
`
`we think we need in order to file the preliminary injunction
`
`motion. Two of the three defendants, Formycon and Celltrion,
`
`are starting to work with us on that, saying which documents
`
`should we prioritize first, and we're going down that road with
`
`two out of the three in a cooperative and productive way.
`
`Honestly, with Samsung, we're not. We've heard
`
`nothing in response to our categories from the production with
`
`Samsung, and as I read the papers yesterday, their position is
`
`we can just ignore everything until our jurisdictional motion
`
`is decided.
`
`Respectfully, we don't think that's the correct
`
`approach here. We prepared a slide, if you want, of cases
`
`where courts have entertained discovery in parallel proceedings
`
`while jurisdictional motions are pending. In this district,
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 4038
` 12
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`whole story, because of course there's a second lawsuit that
`
`was filed last week, December 28th. And we knew that lawsuit
`
`was coming. So we waited till that second lawsuit was filed to
`
`move to dismiss, because we knew the issues were going to be
`
`the same, and we were honestly hopeful that we could engage in
`
`dialogue with Regeneron so they would file that second lawsuit
`
`here in West Virginia, for the reasons that we've stated on the
`
`record. We asked them repeatedly to work cooperatively with us
`
`to talk about jurisdiction, figure out the right place where
`
`this lawsuit can be filed. And we're not trying to play a game
`
`of gotcha here, Your Honor. We told --
`
`THE COURT: There's cross accusations of gotcha that
`
`have already been made.
`
`MR. TRAUPMAN: My point is it's not like we're trying
`
`to say there's no personal jurisdiction anywhere. We told the
`
`Court and Regeneron where they could file suit and where we're
`
`not going to contest personal jurisdiction. The 20-odd-plus
`
`lawyers, I'm confident, could get a complaint on file on
`
`Monday, if they wanted to, in a different jurisdiction where
`
`there won't be issues of personal jurisdiction. But that's not
`
`what happens here, Your Honor. We're here on what we think is
`
`a meritorious personal jurisdiction motion.
`
`And under the default local rules -- two points under
`
`the local rules. Our motion to dismiss is supposed to be given
`
`priority. And we think certainly, given the threshold
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 4039
` 13
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`jurisdictional issues that are presented in our motion, that
`
`makes a lot of sense here, and the Court should follow what's
`
`already in the local rules.
`
`And the second point --
`
`THE COURT: To that point, counsel, let me ask, any
`
`objection from Samsung's perspective in either -- I should have
`
`the numbers memorized by now -- Cases 94 and 106, Mr. Berl's
`
`suggestion that Regeneron be given until February 19th,
`
`Mr. Berl?
`
`MR. BERL: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: February 19th, and basically just do an
`
`omnibus response to all of the pending anticipated motions to
`
`dismiss?
`
`MR. TRAUPMAN: The answer to that question, Your
`
`Honor, depends on whether or not we're moving in parallel. We
`
`don't think we should move in parallel. We think it's
`
`improper. We don't think we're subject to the Court's
`
`jurisdiction, and I could get into the reasons we think moving
`
`forward with discovery is improper.
`
`If we're not moving forward with other parts of the
`
`proceeding while the motion for personal jurisdiction issues
`
`are pending, February 19th is, I guess, okay with us. If
`
`that's not the case, then I think we have some issues, but with
`
`the proposed schedule, I guess what really just strikes me,
`
`from what I've heard counsel for Regeneron state, is I thought
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 4040
` 14
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`this was a legal issue.
`
`They stated pretty clearly, both in our conversations
`
`and again in the brief for the emergency motion they filed last
`
`week, that their view of Acorda is the simple act of making
`
`that FDA submission submits the filer to jurisdiction in all 50
`
`states. There's no dispute we've made -- that one single fact
`
`is, I don't think, in dispute. I think it's pretty clear from
`
`our brief that it's not in dispute.
`
`And it seems to me that the personal jurisdiction
`
`issues are largely legal in nature. And Regeneron has their
`
`view of the Acorda decision. We have our view of the Acorda
`
`decision. Obviously, it shouldn't take so long to write a
`
`brief to explain the basis of why we're wrong in our reading of
`
`Acorda, and it shouldn't be that complex.
`
`THE COURT: So you're in a hurry as well then, sounds
`
`like.
`
`MR. TRAUPMAN: To be clear, we are anxious to get
`
`resolution of that, Your Honor, but again, we think there's
`
`jurisdictions that there won't be any personal jurisdiction
`
`issues, and we'd just as soon get moving forward in those
`
`jurisdictions as promptly as we can. But again, that's not our
`
`choice, and we're dealing with the hand that we've been dealt.
`
`And so now we've heard for the first time that there
`
`might be other agreements. I don't know exactly what
`
`agreements they're talking about. If it's simple, simply some
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 4041
` 15
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`other agreements between SB and its public commercialization
`
`partner is Biogen, so I don't think there's any problem saying
`
`that on the record. This is the first I've heard from
`
`Regeneron that they want some other agreements that they think
`
`exist between Biogen and Samsung Bioepis. I don't know exactly
`
`what they are. I'm happy to take those requests.
`
`THE COURT: That was going to be my next question,
`
`counsel. And we'll take it in two parts. But with respect to
`
`jurisdictional discovery, is there any objection to that
`
`proposal?
`
`MR. TRAUPMAN: Without seeing the exact discovery
`
`request, I can't say for sure, but in the theory of asking for
`
`some additional agreements, I think they said a deposition, on
`
`that level I don't think there's any strenuous objections.
`
`Again, the devil's in the details, but standing here today,
`
`nothing I heard at that high level is problematic, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. What about dual-track discovery,
`
`both jurisdictional and merits? I'll let you state that
`
`officially on the record.
`
`MR. TRAUPMAN: As I think you've alluded to, you know
`
`the answer to the question, which is Samsung objects to that
`
`and does not believe it would be appropriate to move forward
`
`with merits-based discovery, any sort of merits-based action,
`
`while our personal jurisdiction motion is pending.
`
`THE COURT: Understood. Anything else, counsel?
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 4042
` 16
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MR. TRAUPMAN: Not unless Your Honor has any
`
`questions.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
`
`MR. TRAUPMAN: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Celltrion.
`
`MR. GOTTLIEB: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. GOTTLIEB: First, with respect to the
`
`jurisdictional breaching issue, we absolutely are in agreement
`
`with Samsung that this should be taken, first, a schedule as to
`
`the briefing on the motion to dismiss, or the jurisdictional
`
`and venue issues, and then deal with the merits scheduling.
`
`And part of that, Your Honor -- I know Regeneron proposed a
`
`February 19th date. We think it's more appropriate in this
`
`instance to simply follow the local rules and the briefing
`
`schedule under it, which, based on Celltrion's filing of the
`
`17th, would make their response due roughly on the 31st, if my
`
`math is to be trusted, but we think that's appropriate.
`
`And additionally, going to the secondary issue of
`
`whether jurisdictional discovery is necessary, one, admittedly
`
`they've seen Samsung's. We think we'll be similarly situated
`
`with respect to some of the legal arguments, but to order
`
`discovery prior to Celltrion's filing is preliminary and is too
`
`preemptive, Your Honor. And additionally, the other issue with
`
`it --
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 4043
` 17
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Making the chosen date of January 17th
`
`for this coming motion the fly in the ointment, yes, sir, I
`
`would agree. Go ahead.
`
`MR. GOTTLIEB: Your Honor, I mean, it is important to
`
`note that jurisdictional discovery is, in and of itself, an
`
`exception to the rule. And I think it only should be in the
`
`instance in which there are serious factual issues, which, as
`
`Samsung's counsel pointed out, this should largely be a legal
`
`issue, Your Honor, so we think that is preemptive, not the
`
`least of which is Regeneron has already received hundreds of
`
`thousands of pages of discovery from Celltrion months and
`
`months ago, without going into anything confidential, Your
`
`Honor, so the contention that kind of more is needed for this
`
`immediate process is -- it just doesn't -- it doesn't land,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`Moving to the timing elements of this, Celltrion's
`
`not opposed to moving forward. We think it would be more
`
`efficient and easier to move forward in a different venue, Your
`
`Honor. In fact, we think that is part of the reason why the
`
`venue and personal jurisdiction arguments from an efficiency
`
`reason have weight. Like Samsung, Your Honor, Celltrion has
`
`made clear to Regeneron that we are happy to make Celltrion
`
`available to the personal jurisdiction and venue elsewhere. It
`
`will be easier. It will be quicker. We all recognize there's
`
`a time crunch, Your Honor, and we're happy to do that, but
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 4044
` 18
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`there's another venue that's appropriate to do so.
`
`Your Honor, to the extent that the Court would --
`
`does not opt for the motion to dismiss solely schedule, we
`
`reserve the ability to talk through some of the other issues,
`
`but we do think that's most important, because unlike in other
`
`situations, this is not your run-of-the-mill litigation, Your
`
`Honor. And we think it really is appropriate to deal with
`
`these --
`
`THE COURT: We get this crowd every day, every day,
`
`standing room only, out in the hallway.
`
`MR. GOTTLIEB: Absolutely, Your Honor, but unless the
`
`Court has any other questions, we're happy to sit for the time
`
`being.
`
`THE COURT: I get it. Thank you so much.
`
`MR. GOTTLIEB: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`Formycon. Mr. Griffith, sir.
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: Good morning, Your Honor. David
`
`Griffith from Thomas, Combs & Spann for Formycon. I don't want
`
`to take up much more of the Court's time with that. I'll say
`
`that Formycon's position on all of these issues is virtually
`
`identical to what Celltrion just presented to the Court.
`
`THE COURT: Understood. And let me ask you, just for
`
`the record, counsel, any opposition or objection to the
`
`proposal of a unified briefing schedule, if you will, and an
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 4045
` 19
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`omnibus response from -- obviously defendants should have the
`
`opportunity to submit any reply briefs on their own, but any
`
`objection to that?
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: On the motions to dismiss?
`
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`
`MR. GRIFFITH: No, Your Honor. Although we agree
`
`with Celltrion's position that the local rules do provide a
`
`schedule for that briefing, that we don't believe there's
`
`really any reason to diverge from that.
`
`THE COURT: Understood. Thank you, counsel.
`
`You actually get a reply, Mr. Berl, but it's early in
`
`the year. I'm still --
`
`MR. BERL: Christmas spirit.
`
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`
`MR. BERL: Christmas spirit still holds.
`
`THE COURT: Actually, due to a blue and gold victory,
`
`probably more accurate.
`
`MR. BERL: I saw that. Congratulations.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you. Big year for Mountaineers.
`
`MR. BERL: So, Your Honor, as you noted, there's a
`
`ticking clock here, and so the notion that the parties should
`
`have 69 days after the complaint to file a motion to dismiss
`
`for lack of jurisdiction and then we have to await preliminary
`
`injunction proceedings to begin until all of that is resolved,
`
`that just doesn't make any sense. As I said -- and we'll
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-1 Filed 02/13/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 4046
` 20
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`submit it in the papers, but we can flash it up -- case after
`
`case after case holds that you can do discovery at the same
`
`time.
`
`THE COURT: One second. One second. Mr. Berl, if
`
`you wouldn't mind filing those.
`
`MR. BERL: Why don't I hand up -- those are two
`
`copies, with Your Honor's permission to approach. And these
`
`cases are on page 10 and 11. They look like docket entries,
`
`scheduling orders, that are entered while motions for personal
`
`jurisdiction are pending, including the second case that you
`
`see in this district that's a case from Judge Bailey clarifying
`
`his scheduling order that discovery continues and proceeds
`
`while any motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
`
`is pending.
`
`And as I said, districts throughout the land
`
`recognize this. It is discretionary. It is discretionary.
`
`But in the cases where there's a stay of the merits, the theme
`
`of those cases is there's no burden. And here, the notion that
`
`we're not burdened is not tenable. They've waited 69 days to
`
`file a personal jurisdiction motion. We can't wait. We have a
`
`ticking clock. And I think Formycon and Celltrion respectfully
`
`recognize that. That's why they're proposing to give us
`
`documents pursuant to the schedule that we propose.
`
`And so in our view, you should enter the schedule
`
`that we proposed. We proposed a schedule -- and if we can look
`
`C i n d y L . K n e c h t , R M R / C R R / C B C / C C P
`
`P O B o x 3 2 6 W h e e l i n g , W V 2 6 0 0 3 3 0 4 . 2 3 4 . 3 9 6 8
`
`