Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK-JPM Document 218 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 36982
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
`
`
`
`MDL No.: 1:24-md-3103-TSK
`
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
`CASE NOS. 1:22-cv-00094-TSK,
`1:23-cv-106-TSK
`
`
`
`
`REGENERON’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
`ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`(“Regeneron”) moves the Court to extend its Temporary Restraining Order, issued on May 17,
`
`2024, Case No. 1:23-cv-94-TSK, Dkt. No. 224, for an additional fourteen days beyond its
`
`original expiration on May 31, 2024, for good cause shown, particularly in view of the lengthy
`
`submissions submitted by the parties on May 24. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2); Granny Goose Foods,
`
`Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 440 n.15 (1974).
`
`As detailed in Regeneron’s Brief in Support of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining
`
`Order, Dkt. No. 219-1, Regeneron has filed for preliminary injunctive relief in this case against
`
`the launch of Defendant’s allegedly infringing biosimilar product. Given the pendency of that
`
`motion, the Court previously granted Regeneron’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order,
`
`temporarily restraining Defendant’s launch until the end of the month. Dkt. No. 224 at 3. See
`
`also, e.g., ClearOne Advantage, LLC v. Kersen, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2024 WL 69918, at *2 (D.
`
`Md. Jan. 5, 2024) (“The purpose of a TRO is to ‘preserve the status quo only until a preliminary
`
`injunction hearing can be held.’” (quoting Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174
`
`F.3d 411, 422 (4th Cir. 1999))).
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: AFLIBERCEPT PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
`
`
`
`MDL No.: 1:24-md-3103-TSK
`
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
`CASE NOS. 1:22-cv-00094-TSK,
`1:23-cv-106-TSK
`
`
`
`
`REGENERON’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
`ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`(“Regeneron”) moves the Court to extend its Temporary Restraining Order, issued on May 17,
`
`2024, Case No. 1:23-cv-94-TSK, Dkt. No. 224, for an additional fourteen days beyond its
`
`original expiration on May 31, 2024, for good cause shown, particularly in view of the lengthy
`
`submissions submitted by the parties on May 24. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2); Granny Goose Foods,
`
`Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 440 n.15 (1974).
`
`As detailed in Regeneron’s Brief in Support of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining
`
`Order, Dkt. No. 219-1, Regeneron has filed for preliminary injunctive relief in this case against
`
`the launch of Defendant’s allegedly infringing biosimilar product. Given the pendency of that
`
`motion, the Court previously granted Regeneron’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order,
`
`temporarily restraining Defendant’s launch until the end of the month. Dkt. No. 224 at 3. See
`
`also, e.g., ClearOne Advantage, LLC v. Kersen, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2024 WL 69918, at *2 (D.
`
`Md. Jan. 5, 2024) (“The purpose of a TRO is to ‘preserve the status quo only until a preliminary
`
`injunction hearing can be held.’” (quoting Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174
`
`F.3d 411, 422 (4th Cir. 1999))).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK-JPM Document 218 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 36983
`
`
`
`At the Court’s direction, see Dkt. No. 227, Regeneron has since submitted a proposed
`
`order to accompany its preliminary injunction motion. Cognizant of the length of that
`
`submission—and that of Defendant’s simultaneous submission, and those filed in the other cases
`
`in this multi-district litigation—Regeneron seeks to extend the TRO an additional fourteen days,
`
`in the event that it is not feasible for the Court to adjudicate the preliminary injunction motion
`
`before May 31, 2024.
`
`There is “good cause” to extend a TRO under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2)
`
`where “the grounds for originally granting the temporary restraining order continue to exist.”
`
`11A WRIGHT & MILLER, FED. PRACT. & PROC. § 2953 (3d ed.). The grounds for Regeneron’s
`
`original Motion still exist: Defendant—which has now received FDA approval for its biosimilar,
`
`see Dkt. 233-1—may choose to launch that infringing product before the Court is able to
`
`adjudicate Regeneron’s preliminary injunction motion, which would cause Regeneron
`
`irreparable harm. Just as courts commonly issue a temporary restraining order to preserve the
`
`status quo pending the adjudication of lasting injunctive relief, so too do they find good cause to
`
`extend such an order if the injunction motion cannot be decided within fourteen days. See, e.g.,
`
`Costa v. Bazron, 2020 WL 2410502, at *2 (D.D.C. May 11, 2020) (“[C]ourts have . . . found
`
`‘good cause’ where more time is needed fully to consider the parties’ arguments and
`
`motions[.]”); Versaterm Inc. v. City of Seattle, 2016 WL 4399634, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 18,
`
`2016) (extending a TRO “until such time as the court resolves [plaintiff]’s pending motion for a
`
`preliminary injunction”). Regeneron therefore incorporates by reference the arguments made in
`
`its Brief in Support of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. No. 219-1, in support
`
`of this Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK-JPM Document 218 Filed 05/29/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 36984
`
`
`
`Date: May 29, 2024
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`David I. Berl (admitted PHV)
`Ellen E. Oberwetter (admitted PHV)
`Thomas S. Fletcher (admitted PHV)
`Andrew V. Trask (admitted PHV)
`Teagan J. Gregory (admitted PHV)
`Shaun P. Mahaffy (admitted PHV)
`Kathryn S. Kayali (admitted PHV)
`Arthur J. Argall III (admitted PHV)
`Adam Pan (admitted PHV)
`Haylee N. Bernal Anderson (admitted PHV)
`Renee M. Griffin (admitted PHV)
`Jennalee Beazley* (admitted PHV)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue, SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`(202) 434-5000
`dberl@wc.com
`eoberwetter@wc.com
`tfletcher@wc.com
`atrask@wc.com
`tgregory@wc.com
`smahaffy@wc.com
`kkayali@wc.com
`aargall@wc.com
`apan@wc.com
`handerson@wc.com
`rgriffin@wc.com
`jbeazley@wc.com
`
`*Admitted only in Pennsylvania; practice
`supervised by D.C. Bar members
`
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser (admitted
`PHV)
`Anish R. Desai (admitted PHV)
`Natalie C. Kennedy (admitted PHV)
`Jennifer Brooks Crozier (admitted PHV)
`Tom Yu (admitted PHV)
`Yi Zhang (admitted PHV)
`Kathryn Leicht (admitted PHV)
`Rocco Recce (admitted PHV)
`
`
`
`
`CAREY DOUGLAS KESSLER & RUBY,
`PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Steven R. Ruby
`Steven R. Ruby (WVSB No. 10752)
`David R. Pogue (WVSB No. 10806)
`Raymond S. Franks II (WVSB No. 6523)
`707 Virginia Street East
`901 Chase Tower (25301)
`P.O. Box 913
`Charleston, West Virginia 25323
`(304) 345-1234
`sruby@cdkrlaw.com
`drpogue@cdkrlaw.com
`rfranks@cdkrlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK-JPM Document 218 Filed 05/29/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 36985
`
`
`
`Zhen Lin (admitted PHV)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Elizabeth.Weiswasser@weil.com
`Anish.Desai@weil.com
`Natalie.Kennedy@weil.com
`Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com
`Tom.Yu@weil.com
`Yi.Zhang@weil.com
`Kathryn.Leicht@weil.com
`Rocco.Recce@weil.com
`Zhen.Lin@weil.com
`
`Christopher M. Pepe (admitted PHV)
`Priyata Y. Patel (admitted PHV)
`Matthew Sieger (admitted PHV)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
`2001 M Street, NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`Christopher.Pepe@weil.com
`Priyata.Patel@weil.com
`Matthew.Seiger@weil.com
`
`Andrew E. Goldsmith (admitted PHV)
`Evan T. Leo (admitted PHV)
`Jacob E. Hartman (admitted PHV)
`Mary Charlotte Y. Carroll (admitted PHV)
`Sven E. Henningson (admitted PHV)
`Alyssa J. Picard (admitted PHV)
`KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
`FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
`1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`TEL: (202) 326-7900
`agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com
`eleo@kellogghansen.com
`jhartman@kellogghansen.com
`mcarroll@kellogghansen.com
`shenningson@kellogghansen.com
`apicard@kellogghansen.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Regeneron
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00106-TSK-JPM Document 218 Filed 05/29/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 36986
`
`
`
`C ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 29, 2024, I electronically transmitted the foregoing to the
`
`Court. Counsel of record for all parties will be served by electronic mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`/ s/ Steven R. Ruby
`Steven R. Ruby (WVSB No. 10752)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
