Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 1 of 83 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`CLARKSBURG DIVISION
`
` ELECTRONICALLY
` FILED
`Dec 27 2023
` U.S. DISTRICT COURT
` Northern District of WV
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`1:23-CV-106 (Kleeh)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron” or “Plaintiff”), invented,
`
`developed, and sells EYLEA®, the market-leading treatment for several serious eye diseases.
`
`Defendant Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis” or “Defendant”) is seeking
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 2 of 83 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Regeneron is a leading science-based American biotechnology company. With a
`
`focus on patient access and fair drug pricing, Regeneron is dedicated to innovation, improving
`
`human health, and tackling the most urgent medical issues facing the Nation. Founded and led for
`
`over 30 years by physician-scientists, Regeneron has developed life-transforming medicines for
`
`people with serious diseases, including cancer, atopic dermatitis, asthma, eye diseases,
`
`cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, Ebola, and COVID-19, which have been used across the
`
`country. Regeneron’s cutting-edge scientific advances are supported, in large part, by its
`
`ophthalmic product, EYLEA®, which FDA approved in 2011.
`
`2.
`
`EYLEA® has been administered millions of times to treat certain ophthalmic
`
`disorders that, if left untreated, can lead to permanent blindness. Its active ingredient is a
`
`genetically engineered fusion protein called aflibercept. It works by blocking the overproduction
`
`of a naturally occurring protein in the eye that can cause the formation of new blood vessels,
`
`leading to vision loss. Based on extensive clinical testing by Regeneron, FDA approved EYLEA®
`
`in 2011 to treat an ophthalmic disorder called neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration
`
`(“wAMD”) and in 2014 to treat diabetic macular edema (“DME”). As a result of Regeneron’s
`
`additional clinical testing, EYLEA® is now also approved for use in treating other serious disorders
`
`
`1 As explained in its forthcoming memorandum in support of its motion to seal, Regeneron is bound by the provisions
`of 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(1), which dictate that Bioepis determine, “in its sole discretion,” what information constitutes
`Bioepis confidential information, that no such “confidential information shall be included in any publicly-available
`complaint or other pleading,” and any violation of paragraph 1 could result in “irreparable harm for which there is no
`adequate legal remedy” and for which “the court shall consider immediate injunctive relief to be an appropriate and
`necessary remedy.” Therefore, Regeneron initiates this case by filing a public version of this Complaint with
`redactions to any information that Bioepis has represented is Bioepis confidential information.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 3 of 83 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`of the eye: macular edema following retinal vein occlusion and diabetic retinopathy. Most recently,
`
`FDA granted approval for EYLEA® to treat retinopathy of prematurity in preterm infants, which
`
`is the leading cause of childhood blindness worldwide. In addition to benefitting the many patients
`
`it has been used to treat, EYLEA® is also a critical source of research and development funding
`
`for Regeneron to develop other life-transforming medicines.
`
`3.
`
` Enacted in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care
`
`
`
`Act, the BPCIA provides for an abbreviated regulatory approval pathway for biosimilars by letting
`
`applicants rely on the extensive clinical testing previously conducted, at great expense, by the
`
`innovator company that developed the medicine the applicant wants to copy. See Sandoz Inc. v.
`
`Amgen Inc., 582 U.S. 1 (2017).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`addition to a related pending action before this Court. See Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.
`
` This action is brought in
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 4 of 83 PageID #: 4
`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 4 of 83 PagelD #: 4
`
`Samsung Bioepis, Co., Ltd., No. 23-CV-00094-TSK (N.D.W.Va.).
`
`THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Regeneron is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of New York with its principal place of business located at 777 Old Saw Mill River Road,
`
`Tarrytown, New York 10591. Regeneron is dedicated to discovering, developing, and
`
`commercializing medicines to treat patients with debilitating and life-threatening diseases.
`
`Regeneron ownseach ofthe patents asserted in this Complaint(collectively, the “asserted patents”
`
`or the “patents in suit”):
`
`
`
`9,315,281
`
`9,816,110
`
`Tikiri Jean Dissanayake
`
`
`
`10,464,992
`
`Eric Furfine
`
`
`
`10,918,754
`10,927,342
`11,053,280
`
`Philip Stephen Shodder
`Amy S. Johnson
`
`11,066,458
`
`11,084,865
`Eric Furfine
`11,104,715
`Shawn Lawrence
`
`
`
`11,312,936
`
`
`ayevar
`Amy S. Johnson
`Shadia Abike Oshodi
`Shawn Lawrence
`Shunhai Wane
`Shawn Lawrence
`Shunhai Wang
`
`11,472,861
`11,485,770
`11,535,663
`11 542-317
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 5 of 83 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`11,548,932
`11,555,176
`11,559,564
`11,707,506
`11,732,024
`11,753,459
`11,769,597
`11,788,102
`10,182,969*
`11,103,552†
`11,160,918*
`11,433,186*
`11,439,758*
`11,459,374*
`11,478,588*
`11,505,593*
`11,577,025*
`11,793,926*
`USD 858,754*
`USD 906,102*
`USD 934,069*
`USD 961,376*
`USD 961,377*
`
`Shunhai Wang
`Wei Xue
`George D. Yancopoulos
`George D. Yancopoulos
`Eric Furfine
`Shunhai Wang
`Lorah Perlee
`Ying Shen
`Rachel Paige Arnott
`Kenneth S. Graham
`Andrew Cook
`Sibgat Ulla
`Trevor Langley
`Andrew Tustian
`Bryan Grygus
`Shunhai Wang
`Daniel B. Dix
`Andrew Cook
`Bryan Grygus
`Andrew Cook
`Andrew Cook
`Andrew Cook
`Andrew Cook
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Bioepis is a company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the Republic of Korea with its principal place of business located at 76, Songdogyoyuk-
`
`ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, Republic of Korea. Bioepis is a biopharmaceutical company that
`
`specializes in research and development of biosimilars and biopharmaceuticals.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Bioepis, directly or indirectly, manufactures its drug
`
`products abroad. On information and belief, Bioepis directly, or via its subsidiaries, affiliates, or
`
`other agents, develops, distributes, or sells within the United States or imports into the United
`
`States Bioepis’s drug products, including SB15, under the general direction and control of Bioepis.
`
`Non-limiting examples are provided below.
`
`9.
`
`Bioepis is the holder of aBLA No. 761054 for RENFLEXIS, an approved
`
`biosimilar of Remicade. On information and belief, Bioepis manufactures and imports
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 6 of 83 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`RENFLEXIS, directly or indirectly, into the United States. For example, between April 2, 2020
`
`and October 22, 2023, Bioepis imported 72 shipments of RENFLEXIS into the United States. As
`
`another example, between August 17, 2019 and October 25, 2023, Samsung Biologics Co. Ltd.
`
`(“Samsung Biologics”)—the corporate parent of Bioepis—imported 57 shipments of
`
`RENFLEXIS into the United States.
`
`10.
`
` On
`
`information and belief, between August 29, 2021 and March 28, 2023, Bioepis imported or
`
`directed one or more of its subsidiaries, affiliates, or agents to import 17 shipments of SB15 into
`
`the United States. Each of these shipments contained product described as “AFLIBERCEPT
`
`(INHIBITOR (GROWTH FACTOR)).” On information and belief, between July 2, 2019 and June
`
`8, 2023, Samsung Biologics imported or directed one or more of its subsidiaries, affiliates, or
`
`agents to import 19 shipments of SB15 into the United States. Each of these shipments contained
`
`product described as “AFLIBERCEPT (INHIBITOR (GROWTH FACTOR)).”
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Bioepis and its respective subsidiaries, affiliates, and
`
`agents will function as an integrated organization and a single business enterprise in the
`
`manufacture of SB15, in the importation of SB15 into the United States, and in the sale or offer
`
`for sale of SB15 in the United States.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, Bioepis and its respective subsidiaries, affiliates, and
`
`agents develop, manufacture, distribute, sell, and/or import drug products for the entire United
`
`States market and do business in every state, including West Virginia, either directly or indirectly.
`
`13.
`
`This action arises under the BPCIA, 42 U.S.C. § 262(l), the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, and Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1338.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 7 of 83 PageID #: 7
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Bioepis because
`
`has “substantial connection” with West Virginia, and therefore satisfies the minimum contacts
`
` This conduct is “suit-related,”
`
`requirement.
`
`15.
`
`Alternatively, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Bioepis because Bioepis
`
`develops, manufactures, distributes, sells, and/or imports drug products for the West Virginia
`
`market, including other biosimilar products such as RENFLEXIS, and because it does business in
`
`West Virginia, either directly or indirectly. These activities are so continuous and systematic as to
`
`render Bioepis essentially at home in West Virginia. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127
`
`(2014).
`
`16.
`
`Alternatively, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Bioepis pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(3), 1400(b). Bioepis is
`
`a foreign corporation and is therefore subject to suit in any judicial district. Id. Further, Bioepis
`
`does business, either directly or indirectly, in Braxton, Calhoun, Doddridge, Gilmer, Harrison,
`
`Marion, Monongalia, Pleasants, Preston, Ritchie, and Taylor Counties.
`
`FACTUAL BASIS FOR RELIEF
`
`18.
`
`The BPCIA provides a mechanism to obtain FDA approval for a biological product
`
`that is “biosimilar” to a previously licensed “reference product” such as EYLEA®. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 8 of 83 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`262(k). In order to be approved, biosimilars must be “highly similar to the reference product
`
`notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components,” with “no clinically
`
`meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the
`
`safety, purity, and potency of the product.” Id. § 262(i)(2)(A)-(B).
`
`19.
`
`The BPCIA reduces substantially the time and expense otherwise required to gain
`
`FDA approval, by allowing a biosimilar applicant like Bioepis to rely on most of the prior clinical
`
`testing that Regeneron conducted to establish the safety and efficacy of the reference product
`
`(EYLEA®). Regeneron, the reference product sponsor, invested many years of effort into its design
`
`and development of EYLEA® and received patents rewarding this research. In exchange for this
`
`accelerated and far less expensive application process, the BPCIA obligates a biosimilar applicant
`
`to address a reference product sponsor’s relevant patents in a manner that permits adjudication of
`
`patent rights before commercialization of the biosimilar product. The BPCIA does so, inter alia,
`
`through a set of pre-litigation exchanges or steps outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 262(l) (herein referred to
`
`as the “patent dance”).
`
`20.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 9 of 83 PageID #: 9
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`NcnawnNNQNN
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 10 of 83 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`
`
`
`2 Genentech, Inc. v. Immunex Rhode Island Corp., 964 F.3d 1109, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 11 of 83 PageID #: 11
`
`00aSroAmn
`
`wn
`
`et
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 12 of 83 PageID #: 12
`
`=iana
`
`t
`
`nl
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 13 of 83 PageID #: 13
`
`Ww ww
`
`Ww
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT1: INFRINGEMENTOF U.S. PATENT NO.9,222,106 UNDER35 U.S.C. § 271(e)
`
`35.|Regeneronincorporates byreferenceall of the allegations set forth aboveas if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`36.
`
`United States Patent No. 9,222,106 (“the ’106 patent”) (Exhibit 1 hereto), was duly
`
`and legally issued on December29, 2015.
`
`37.|Regeneronis the ownerofall right, title, and interest in the ’106 patent.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 14 of 83 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`The ’106 patent has not yet expired.
`
`The ’106 patent claims methods of making biological products and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’106 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’106
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`41.
`
`For example, on information and belief, manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or
`
`sale, or import into the United States, of SB15 will infringe, inter alia, claim 20 of the ’106 patent.
`
`42.
`
`Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’106 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`43.
`
`Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’106 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`44.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’106 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 2: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,254,338 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)
`
`45.
`
`Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 15 of 83 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`set forth below.
`
`46.
`
`United States Patent No. 9,254,338 (“the ’338 patent”) (Exhibit 2 hereto), was duly
`
`and legally issued on February 9, 2016.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’338 patent.
`
`The ’338 patent has not yet expired.
`
`The ’338 patent claims methods of treatment using biological products and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’338 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’338
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`51.
`
`For example, the sale of SB15
`
`
`
`will contribute to and induce infringement of, inter alia, claim 1 of the ’338 patent.
`
`52.
`
`Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’338 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`53.
`
`Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’338 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`54.
`
`
`
`15
`
` the
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 16 of 83 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’338 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 3: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,315,281 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)
`
`55.
`
`Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`56.
`
`United States Patent No. 9,315,281 (“the ’281 patent”) (Exhibit 3 hereto), was duly
`
`and legally issued on April 19, 2016.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’281 patent.
`
`The ’281 patent has not yet expired.
`
`The ’281 patent claims, inter alia, methods of making biological products and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’281 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’281
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`61.
`
`For example, on information and belief, manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or
`
`sale, or import into the United States, of SB15 will infringe, inter alia, claim 1 of the ’281 patent.
`
`62.
`
`Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’281 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`63.
`
`Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 17 of 83 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’281 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`64.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’281 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 4: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,562,238 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)
`
`65.
`
`Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`66.
`
`United States Patent No. 9,562,238 (“the ’238 patent”) (Exhibit 4 hereto), was duly
`
`and legally issued on February 7, 2017.
`
`Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’238 patent.
`
`The ’238 patent has not yet expired.
`
`The ’238 patent claims methods of making biological products and
`
`
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’238 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’238
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`71.
`
`For example, on information and belief, manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or
`
`sale, or import into the United States, of SB15 will infringe, inter alia, claim 1 of the ’238 patent.
`
`72.
`
`Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 18 of 83 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`one or more claims of the ’238 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`73.
`
`Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’238 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`74.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’238 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 5: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,816,110 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)
`
`75.
`
`Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`76.
`
`United States Patent No. 9,816,110 (“the ’110 patent”) (Exhibit 5 hereto), was duly
`
`and legally issued on November 14, 2017.
`
`Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’110 patent.
`
`The ’110 patent has not yet expired.
`
`The ’110 patent claims methods of making biological products and
`
`
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’110 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’110
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 19 of 83 PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`81.
`
`For example, on information and belief, manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or
`
`sale, or import into the United States, of SB15 will infringe, inter alia, claim 18 of the ’110 patent.
`
`82.
`
`Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’110 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`83.
`
`Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’110 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`84.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’110 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 6: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,130,681 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`271(e)
`
`85.
`
`Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`86.
`
`United States Patent No. 10,130,681 (“the ’681 patent”) (Exhibit 6 hereto), was
`
`duly and legally issued on November 20, 2018.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`
`
`Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’681 patent.
`
`The ’681 patent has not yet expired.
`
`The ’681 patent claims methods of treatment using biological products and
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 20 of 83 PageID #: 20
`
`
`
`90.
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’681 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’681
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`91.
`
`For example, the sale of SB15
`
`
`
`will contribute to and induce infringement of, inter alia, claim 1 of the ’681 patent.
`
`92.
`
`Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’681 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`93.
`
`Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’681 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`94.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’681 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 7: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,415,055 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`271(e)
`
`95.
`
`Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 21 of 83 PageID #: 21
`
`
`
`96.
`
`United States Patent No. 10,415,055 (“the ’055 patent”) (Exhibit 7 hereto), was
`
`duly and legally issued on September 17, 2019.
`
`Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’055 patent.
`
`The ’055 patent has not yet expired.
`
`The ’055 patent claims methods of making biological products and
`
`
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`100.
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’055 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’055
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`101. For example, on information and belief, manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or
`
`sale, or import into the United States, of SB15 will infringe, inter alia, claim 23 of the ’055 patent.
`
`102. Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’055 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`103. Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’055 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`104.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 22 of 83 PageID #: 22
`
`
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’055 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 8: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,464,992 UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 271(e)
`
`105. Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`106. United States Patent No. 10,464,992 (“the ’992 patent”) (Exhibit 8 hereto), was
`
`duly and legally issued on November 5, 2019.
`
`107. Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’992 patent.
`
`108. The ’992 patent has not yet expired.
`
`109. The ’992 patent claims biological products and
`
`
`
`110.
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’992 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’992
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`111. For example, manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States,
`
`or importation into the United States, of SB15 will infringe, inter alia, claim 1 of the ’992 patent.
`
`112. Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’992 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`113. Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 23 of 83 PageID #: 23
`
`
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’992 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`114.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’992 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 9: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,669,594 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`271(e)
`
`115. Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`116. United States Patent No. 10,669,594 (“the ’594 patent”) (Exhibit 9 hereto), was
`
`duly and legally issued on June 2, 2020.
`
`117. Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’594 patent.
`
`118. The ’594 patent has not yet expired.
`
`119. The ’594 patent claims methods of detecting biological contaminants and
`
`120.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’594 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’594
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`121. For example, on information and belief, manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or
`
`sale, or import into the United States, of SB15 will infringe, inter alia, claim 1 of the ’594 patent.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 24 of 83 PageID #: 24
`
`
`
`122. Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’594 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`123. Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’594 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`124.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’594 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4) and § 285.
`
`COUNT 10: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,828,345 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`271(e)
`
`125. Regeneron incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth above as if fully
`
`set forth below.
`
`126. United States Patent No. 10,828,345 (“the ’345 patent”) (Exhibit 10 hereto), was
`
`duly and legally issued on November 10, 2020.
`
`127. Regeneron is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’345 patent.
`
`128. The ’345 patent has not yet expired.
`
`129. The ’345 patent claims methods of treatment using biological products and
`
`
`
`
`
`130.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
` the
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK Document 1 Filed 12/27/23 Page 25 of 83 PageID #: 25
`
`
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale, or import into the United States, of SB15
`
`before the expiration of the ’345 patent is an act of infringement of one or more claims of the ’345
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i).
`
`131. For example, the sale of SB15
`
`
`
`will contribute to and induce infringement of, inter alia, claim 1 of the ’345 patent.
`
`132. Regeneron will be irreparably harmed if Bioepis is not enjoined from infringing
`
`one or more claims of the ’345 patent. Regeneron is entitled to injunctive relief at least under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B) and § 271(e)(4)(D) preventing Bioepis from any further infringement.
`
`Regeneron has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`133. Bioepis’s commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United
`
`States, or importation into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’345 patent will
`
`cause Regeneron injury, entitling Regeneron to damages and/or other monetary relief under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(C).
`
`134.
`
` the
`
`commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale within the United States, or importation
`
`into the United States, of SB15 before the expiration of the ’345 patent entitles Regeneron to fees
`
`under 3