Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 4047
`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 1of9 PagelD #: 4047
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 4048
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Counsel, 
`
`Kennedy, Natalie
`Monday, February 12, 2024 9:00 AM
`Patel, Priyata; laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com; DBerl@wc.com;
`eoberwetter@wc.com; tfletcher@wc.com; atrask@wc.com; smahaffy@wc.com;
`kkayali@wc.com; apan@wc.com; rebeccacarter@wc.com; handerson@wc.com;
`jbeazley@wc.com; rkrawetz@wc.com; rgriffin@wc.com; aargall@wc.com;
`tgregory@wc.com; sruby@cdkrlaw.com; drpogue@cdkrlaw.com; rfranks@cdkrlaw.com;
`Weiswasser, Elizabeth; Desai, Anish; Zhang, Yi; Yu, Tom; Recce, Rocco; Leicht, Kathryn;
`Lin, Zhen; Crozier, Jennifer Brooks; Van Beck, Kellie; Pepe, Christopher; Sieger, Matthew;
`agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com; jhartman@kellogghansen.com; Eylea Biosimilars;
`Eylea
`QE - Samsung Bioepis; Sandra K. Law; Chad Taylor; Mike Cottler; Mascherin, Terri L.;
`Fogel, Louis E.; Van Horn, Shaun M.; Robert Cerwinski; Andrew Robey; Carl Shaffer; Max
`Gottlieb; mhissam@hfdrlaw.com; Bryant J. Spann; M. David Griffith Jr.; DG-Aflibercept
`RE: Regeneron Ex Parte Communications
`
`With regard to the court‐ordered omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss, it is our understanding that the PI 
`Defendants’ position is that the draft protective order does not allow for the filing of the court‐ordered omnibus 
`response across all four cases containing confidential information of each of the PI Defendants.  Likewise, it is our 
`understanding that defendants reject the offered compromise of filing the omnibus response under seal and promptly 
`serving outside counsel for each PI Defendant with a full, unredacted copy of Regeneron’s papers, and such that outside 
`counsel may facilitate access to their clients on whatever terms the PI Defendants deem appropriate.   
`
`Please confirm our understanding.
`
`Regards, 
`
`Natalie 
`
`Natalie C. Kennedy
`Pronouns: She/her/hers
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com
`+1 212 310 8227 Direct
`+1 212 310 8007 Fax
`
`From: Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 5:08 PM 
`To: laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com; DBerl@wc.com; eoberwetter@wc.com; tfletcher@wc.com; atrask@wc.com; 
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 4049
`
`smahaffy@wc.com; kkayali@wc.com; apan@wc.com; rebeccacarter@wc.com; handerson@wc.com; jbeazley@wc.com; 
`rkrawetz@wc.com; rgriffin@wc.com; aargall@wc.com; tgregory@wc.com; sruby@cdkrlaw.com; 
`drpogue@cdkrlaw.com; rfranks@cdkrlaw.com; Weiswasser, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Weiswasser@weil.com>; Desai, Anish 
`<anish.desai@weil.com>; Kennedy, Natalie <Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com>; Zhang, Yi <Yi.Zhang@weil.com>; Yu, Tom 
`<Tom.Yu@weil.com>; Recce, Rocco <Rocco.Recce@weil.com>; Leicht, Kathryn <Kathryn.Leicht@weil.com>; Lin, Zhen 
`<Zhen.Lin@weil.com>; Crozier, Jennifer Brooks <Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com>; Van Beck, Kellie 
`<Kellie.VanBeck@weil.com>; Pepe, Christopher <Christopher.Pepe@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew 
`<Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com; jhartman@kellogghansen.com; Eylea Biosimilars 
`<Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com> 
`Cc: QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>; Sandra K. Law <skl@schraderlaw.com>; Chad 
`Taylor <clt@simmermanlaw.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>; Mascherin, Terri L. 
`<TMascherin@jenner.com>; Fogel, Louis E. <LFogel@jenner.com>; Van Horn, Shaun M. <SVanHorn@jenner.com>; 
`Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Carl Shaffer 
`<cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>; mhissam@hfdrlaw.com; Bryant J. Spann 
`<BSpann@tcspllc.com>; M. David Griffith Jr. <DGriffith@tcspllc.com>; DG‐Aflibercept <DG‐
`Aflibercept@NETORG8512690.onmicrosoft.com> 
`Subject: RE: Regeneron Ex Parte Communications 
`
`Thanks, Laura.  We understand that the PI Defendants will also be prepared to discuss the draft protective 
`orders.  Thanks.   
` 
`From: Laura Fairneny <laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 4:55 PM 
`To: Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>; DBerl@wc.com; eoberwetter@wc.com; tfletcher@wc.com; 
`atrask@wc.com; smahaffy@wc.com; kkayali@wc.com; apan@wc.com; rebeccacarter@wc.com; handerson@wc.com; 
`jbeazley@wc.com; rkrawetz@wc.com; rgriffin@wc.com; aargall@wc.com; tgregory@wc.com; sruby@cdkrlaw.com; 
`drpogue@cdkrlaw.com; rfranks@cdkrlaw.com; Weiswasser, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Weiswasser@weil.com>; Desai, Anish 
`<anish.desai@weil.com>; Kennedy, Natalie <Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com>; Zhang, Yi <Yi.Zhang@weil.com>; Yu, Tom 
`<Tom.Yu@weil.com>; Recce, Rocco <Rocco.Recce@weil.com>; Leicht, Kathryn <Kathryn.Leicht@weil.com>; Lin, Zhen 
`<Zhen.Lin@weil.com>; Crozier, Jennifer Brooks <Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com>; Van Beck, Kellie 
`<Kellie.VanBeck@weil.com>; Pepe, Christopher <Christopher.Pepe@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew 
`<Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com; jhartman@kellogghansen.com; Eylea Biosimilars 
`<Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com> 
`Cc: QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>; Sandra K. Law <skl@schraderlaw.com>; Chad 
`Taylor <clt@simmermanlaw.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>; Mascherin, Terri L. 
`<TMascherin@jenner.com>; Fogel, Louis E. <LFogel@jenner.com>; Van Horn, Shaun M. <SVanHorn@jenner.com>; 
`Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Carl Shaffer 
`<cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>; mhissam@hfdrlaw.com; Bryant J. Spann 
`<BSpann@tcspllc.com>; M. David Griffith Jr. <DGriffith@tcspllc.com>; DG‐Aflibercept <DG‐
`Aflibercept@NETORG8512690.onmicrosoft.com> 
`Subject: RE: Regeneron Ex Parte Communications 
`
`Priya, 
` 
`We will make 9am ET tomorrow work.  Here is a dial‐in: 
` 
`Join Zoom Meeting
`https://quinnemanuel.zoom.us/j/82993020722?pwd=uT9B5Y9C0U7fHgSq4ttRlFY2zBp1so.1
`
`Meeting ID: 829 9302 0722
`Password: 373651
`One tap mobile
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4050
`
`+13017158592,,82993020722#,,,,*373651# US (Washington DC)
`+13126266799,,82993020722#,,,,*373651# US (Chicago)
` 
`Regards, 
`Laura 
` 
`From: Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 3:12 PM 
`To: Laura Fairneny <laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com>; DBerl@wc.com; eoberwetter@wc.com; tfletcher@wc.com; 
`atrask@wc.com; smahaffy@wc.com; kkayali@wc.com; apan@wc.com; rebeccacarter@wc.com; handerson@wc.com; 
`jbeazley@wc.com; rkrawetz@wc.com; rgriffin@wc.com; aargall@wc.com; tgregory@wc.com; sruby@cdkrlaw.com; 
`drpogue@cdkrlaw.com; rfranks@cdkrlaw.com; Weiswasser, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Weiswasser@weil.com>; Desai, Anish 
`<anish.desai@weil.com>; Kennedy, Natalie <Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com>; Zhang, Yi <Yi.Zhang@weil.com>; Yu, Tom 
`<Tom.Yu@weil.com>; Recce, Rocco <Rocco.Recce@weil.com>; Leicht, Kathryn <Kathryn.Leicht@weil.com>; Lin, Zhen 
`<Zhen.Lin@weil.com>; Crozier, Jennifer Brooks <Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com>; Van Beck, Kellie 
`<Kellie.VanBeck@weil.com>; Pepe, Christopher <Christopher.Pepe@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew 
`<Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com; jhartman@kellogghansen.com; Eylea Biosimilars 
`<Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com> 
`Cc: QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>; Sandra K. Law <skl@schraderlaw.com>; Chad 
`Taylor <clt@simmermanlaw.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>; Mascherin, Terri L. 
`<TMascherin@jenner.com>; Fogel, Louis E. <LFogel@jenner.com>; Van Horn, Shaun M. <SVanHorn@jenner.com>; 
`Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Carl Shaffer 
`<cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>; mhissam@hfdrlaw.com; Bryant J. Spann 
`<BSpann@tcspllc.com>; M. David Griffith Jr. <DGriffith@tcspllc.com>; DG‐Aflibercept <DG‐
`Aflibercept@NETORG8512690.onmicrosoft.com> 
`Subject: RE: Regeneron Ex Parte Communications 
`
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from priyata.patel@weil.com]
`
`
`
`Laura,  
` 
`Regeneron is available Friday 2/9 at any time before 10am ET.  Please let us know if that works for the PI Defendants or 
`provide alternate times.  
` 
`Thanks,  
`Priya 
` 
`From: Laura Fairneny <laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 12:46 PM 
`To: Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>; DBerl@wc.com; eoberwetter@wc.com; tfletcher@wc.com; 
`atrask@wc.com; smahaffy@wc.com; kkayali@wc.com; apan@wc.com; rebeccacarter@wc.com; handerson@wc.com; 
`jbeazley@wc.com; rkrawetz@wc.com; rgriffin@wc.com; aargall@wc.com; tgregory@wc.com; sruby@cdkrlaw.com; 
`drpogue@cdkrlaw.com; rfranks@cdkrlaw.com; Weiswasser, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Weiswasser@weil.com>; Desai, Anish 
`<anish.desai@weil.com>; Kennedy, Natalie <Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com>; Zhang, Yi <Yi.Zhang@weil.com>; Yu, Tom 
`<Tom.Yu@weil.com>; Recce, Rocco <Rocco.Recce@weil.com>; Leicht, Kathryn <Kathryn.Leicht@weil.com>; Lin, Zhen 
`<Zhen.Lin@weil.com>; Crozier, Jennifer Brooks <Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com>; Van Beck, Kellie 
`<Kellie.VanBeck@weil.com>; Pepe, Christopher <Christopher.Pepe@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew 
`<Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com; jhartman@kellogghansen.com; Eylea Biosimilars 
`<Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com> 
`Cc: QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>; Sandra K. Law <skl@schraderlaw.com>; Chad 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 4051
`
`Taylor <clt@simmermanlaw.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>; Mascherin, Terri L. 
`<TMascherin@jenner.com>; Fogel, Louis E. <LFogel@jenner.com>; Van Horn, Shaun M. <SVanHorn@jenner.com>; 
`Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Carl Shaffer 
`<cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>; mhissam@hfdrlaw.com; Bryant J. Spann 
`<BSpann@tcspllc.com>; M. David Griffith Jr. <DGriffith@tcspllc.com>; DG‐Aflibercept <DG‐
`Aflibercept@NETORG8512690.onmicrosoft.com> 
`Subject: RE: Regeneron Ex Parte Communications 
`
`Priya, 
` 
`We disagree with many of the representations in your email and think it makes sense to meet and confer.  The PI 
`Defendants are available on Friday 2/9 at 10 am ET.  Please let us know if that works for Regeneron. 
` 
`Regards, 
`Laura 
` 
`From: Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>  
`Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 9:41 AM 
`To: Laura Fairneny <laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com>; DBerl@wc.com; eoberwetter@wc.com; tfletcher@wc.com; 
`atrask@wc.com; smahaffy@wc.com; kkayali@wc.com; apan@wc.com; rebeccacarter@wc.com; handerson@wc.com; 
`jbeazley@wc.com; rkrawetz@wc.com; rgriffin@wc.com; aargall@wc.com; tgregory@wc.com; sruby@cdkrlaw.com; 
`drpogue@cdkrlaw.com; rfranks@cdkrlaw.com; Weiswasser, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Weiswasser@weil.com>; Desai, Anish 
`<anish.desai@weil.com>; Kennedy, Natalie <Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com>; Zhang, Yi <Yi.Zhang@weil.com>; Yu, Tom 
`<Tom.Yu@weil.com>; Recce, Rocco <Rocco.Recce@weil.com>; Leicht, Kathryn <Kathryn.Leicht@weil.com>; Lin, Zhen 
`<Zhen.Lin@weil.com>; Crozier, Jennifer Brooks <Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com>; Van Beck, Kellie 
`<Kellie.VanBeck@weil.com>; Pepe, Christopher <Christopher.Pepe@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew 
`<Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com; jhartman@kellogghansen.com; Eylea Biosimilars 
`<Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com> 
`Cc: QE ‐ Samsung Bioepis <qe‐samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>; Sandra K. Law <skl@schraderlaw.com>; Chad 
`Taylor <clt@simmermanlaw.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>; Mascherin, Terri L. 
`<TMascherin@jenner.com>; Fogel, Louis E. <LFogel@jenner.com>; Van Horn, Shaun M. <SVanHorn@jenner.com>; 
`Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Andrew Robey <arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Carl Shaffer 
`<cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>; mhissam@hfdrlaw.com; Bryant J. Spann 
`<BSpann@tcspllc.com>; M. David Griffith Jr. <DGriffith@tcspllc.com>; DG‐Aflibercept <DG‐
`Aflibercept@NETORG8512690.onmicrosoft.com> 
`Subject: RE: Regeneron Ex Parte Communications 
`
`
`[EXTERNAL EMAIL from priyata.patel@weil.com]
`
`
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`
`
`
`First, Regeneron did not contact the Court on an ex parte basis to request a 40-page consolidated opposition
`brief to the PI Defendants’ motions. Rather, consistent with arguments that Regeneron raised in advance of the
`January 5, 2024 hearing, the Court ordered that Regeneron file a single “omnibus response to the motions to
`dismiss[.]” See Order Setting Briefing Schedule dated Jan. 9, 2024 [Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-94, ECF No. 69]. The
`PI Defendants had every opportunity to argue otherwise both before and during the hearing and failed to do
`so. After the Court ordered an omnibus response, Regeneron contacted the clerk’s office solely to obtain clarity
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 4052
`
`on the procedural process for seeking page enlargement, after which the Court sua sponte ordered a limit of 40
`pages—far fewer than the 75 pages total allowed under the local rules for three separate responses.
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, your implications regarding Regeneron’s treatment of the PI defendants’ confidential information are
`not well taken. Regeneron already had a call with counsel for Bioepis regarding the inadvertent disclosures that
`form the basis of Mylan’s sanctions motion. To be clear, and as further explained next, Regeneron does not
`intend to disclose any PI Defendant’s OCEO or confidential information to the other two PI Defendants
`(including their counsel) absent express authorization.
`
`
`
`Third, Regeneron’s omnibus response will cite material designated by the PI Defendants as OCEO or
`confidential and—consistent with the those designations and the local rules—will be filed entirely under seal
`across all four cases. To ensure that each PI Defendant obtains timely access to Regeneron’s omnibus response,
`we suggest an agreement moving forward whereby outside counsel for each PI Defendant may view the
`confidential information of the other two PI Defendants. This will allow Regeneron to promptly serve outside
`counsel for each PI Defendant with a full, unredacted copy of Regeneron’s papers, and for outside counsel to
`facilitate access to their clients on whatever terms the PI Defendants deem appropriate. Indeed, each PI
`Defendant is best-positioned to identify and redact its own confidential information in a timely manner. If the
`PI Defendants cannot agree to this, then Regeneron will have no choice but to provide each PI Defendant
`(including its outside counsel) with copies of Regeneron’s omnibus response that redact the other two PI
`Defendants’ information. This may take some time to prepare after filing because again, it is not Regeneron’s
`information and each PI Defendant is in a much better position to redact its own information in a timely
`manner.
`
`
`
`Finally, Regeneron already requested a consolidated PI brief in a formal motion, and the Court already decided
`the issue in Regeneron’s favor. Specifically, Regeneron’s proposed schedule attached to its Emergency Motion
`for a PI Schedule requested that Regeneron file a single motion for preliminary injunction against all PI
`Defendants. Again, despite having ample opportunity to do so, the PI Defendants never submitted a counter-
`proposal to the Court in advance of the January 5, 2024 hearing (and instead, attempted to spring an entirely
`new schedule on the Court in the middle of the hearing). After hearing from all parties, the Court ordered
`Regeneron to “file motion(s) for preliminary injunction and supportive memoranda against all defendants in the
`above-captioned cases,” leaving the choice up to Regeneron on whether to file a single motion or three. It is
`unclear what more the Court has left to decide. That said, if the PI Defendants wish to meet and confer on
`Regeneron’s PI motion(s) or on any alternate proposal for redacting Regeneron’s omnibus response, then please
`provide times that work for all parties.
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Priya
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 4053
`
`From: Laura Fairneny <laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 10:20 AM
`To: DBerl@wc.com; eoberwetter@wc.com; tfletcher@wc.com; atrask@wc.com; smahaffy@wc.com;
`kkayali@wc.com; apan@wc.com; rebeccacarter@wc.com; handerson@wc.com; jbeazley@wc.com;
`rkrawetz@wc.com; rgriffin@wc.com; aargall@wc.com; tgregory@wc.com; sruby@cdkrlaw.com;
`drpogue@cdkrlaw.com; rfranks@cdkrlaw.com; Weiswasser, Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Weiswasser@weil.com>;
`Desai, Anish <anish.desai@weil.com>; Kennedy, Natalie <Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com>; Zhang, Yi
`<Yi.Zhang@weil.com>; Yu, Tom <Tom.Yu@weil.com>; Recce, Rocco <Rocco.Recce@weil.com>; Leicht,
`Kathryn <Kathryn.Leicht@weil.com>; Lin, Zhen <Zhen.Lin@weil.com>; Crozier, Jennifer Brooks
`<Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com>; Van Beck, Kellie <Kellie.VanBeck@weil.com>; Pepe, Christopher
`<Christopher.Pepe@weil.com>; Patel, Priyata <Priyata.Patel@weil.com>; Sieger, Matthew
`<Matthew.Sieger@weil.com>; agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com; jhartman@kellogghansen.com; Eylea
`Biosimilars <Eylea.Biosimilars@weil.com>; Eylea <Eylea@wc.com>
`Cc: QE - Samsung Bioepis <qe-samsungbioepis@quinnemanuel.com>; Sandra K. Law
`<skl@schraderlaw.com>; Chad Taylor <clt@simmermanlaw.com>; Mike Cottler <mcottler@geminilaw.com>;
`Mascherin, Terri L. <TMascherin@jenner.com>; Fogel, Louis E. <LFogel@jenner.com>; Van Horn, Shaun M.
`<SVanHorn@jenner.com>; Robert Cerwinski <rcerwinski@geminilaw.com>; Andrew Robey
`<arobey@hfdrlaw.com>; Carl Shaffer <cshaffer@hfdrlaw.com>; Max Gottlieb <mgottlieb@hfdrlaw.com>;
`mhissam@hfdrlaw.com; Bryant J. Spann <BSpann@tcspllc.com>; M. David Griffith Jr.
`<DGriffith@tcspllc.com>; DG-Aflibercept <DG-Aflibercept@NETORG8512690.onmicrosoft.com>
`Subject: Regeneron Ex Parte Communications
`
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`
`
`
`We write on behalf of Samsung Bioepis, Formycon and Celltrion (“the PI Defendants”). We understand that
`Regeneron contacted the Court on an ex parte basis to request that Regeneron be permitted to file a consolidated
`40-page opposition brief in response to the PI Defendants’ three separate motions to dismiss and/or
`transfer. We were surprised and disappointed to learn that Regeneron would make such an ex parte request,
`particularly without meeting and conferring with the PI Defendants first.
`
`
`
`
`
`All three PI Defendants have significant concerns regarding Regeneron’s plans for the treatment of their
`confidential information. Each defendant has produced documents on an outside counsel eyes only (“OCEO”)
`or confidential basis in their respective litigations. Given that the litigations between Regeneron and each of the
`PI Defendants have not been consolidated (nor has Regeneron moved to consolidate them), the production by
`each defendant of materials designated OCEO or confidential was specific to each defendant, not across all four
`litigations involving the PI Defendants. As Regeneron knows, each of the PI Defendants are competitors with
`one another and the OCEO or other confidential materials produced by each defendant contain highly sensitive
`technical and commercial information that each PI Defendant expects will not be shared with the other PI
`Defendants, including their outside counsel.
`
`
`
`
`
`Given that Regeneron has indicated it intends to file a single opposition brief regarding the pending motions to
`dismiss, we assume this means that Regeneron does not intend to cite any material designated by any PI
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 4054
`
`Defendant as OCEO or confidential in its consolidated opposition brief. To be clear, absent express
`authorization, each PI Defendant objects to any disclosure of its OCEO or other confidential materials to
`counsel for the other PI Defendants, and the PI Defendants reserve all of their rights to seek appropriate
`remedies from the Court should Regeneron not comply with the OCEO or other confidentiality designations.
`
`
`
`
`
`More generally, the PI Defendants have significant concerns regarding Regeneron’s treatment of its adversaries’
`confidential information. These concerns are based on, inter alia, the serious issues raised by Mylan in its
`motion for sanctions regarding failures by Regeneron counsel, both in-house and outside, to prevent the
`unauthorized disclosure of Mylan’s confidential information as well Regeneron’s failure to properly redact
`Amgen’s confidential information in Regeneron’s ex parte application in the Amgen action and its ex parte
`communications with the Court regarding the motion to dismiss briefing.
`
`
`
`
`
`The PI Defendants’ concerns also extend to the upcoming PI briefing. The PI Defendants expect that
`Regeneron’s upcoming preliminary injunction motions will rely upon some of the PI Defendants’ most sensitive
`information, including their respective launch plans. Should Regeneron seek to deviate from the limits set forth
`in the Local Rules, including, for example, seeking to file a consolidated preliminary injunction brief, the PI
`Defendants invite Regeneron to meet and confer regarding the upcoming PI briefs before any party contacts the
`Court regarding the format of that briefing. Moreover, given the highly sensitive nature of the confidential
`information at issue, the PI Defendants believe that requests regarding the PI briefing should either be made by
`formal motion or via communication with the Court in which all parties participate. Please let us know if
`Regeneron wishes to meet and confer regarding the preliminary injunction motions and, if so, when it is
`available to do so.
`
`
`
`Regards,
`
`
`
`Laura Fairneny
`Partner
`quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
`
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`212.849.7333 Direct
`212.849.7000 Main Office Number
`212.849.7100 FAX
`laurafairneny@quinnemanuel.com
`www.quinnemanuel.com
`
`NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
`may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
`recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
`review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
`by e-mail, and delete the original message.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00089-TSK Document 95-2 Filed 02/13/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 4055
`
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`