WHEREAS, the current fact discovery deadline in the yeast patent case is July 19, 2024

WHEREAS, the parties have completed service of written discovery requests, have served subpoenas and notices of deposition, and are engaged in good faith efforts to schedule those depositions; WHEREAS, on Thursday, July 11, 2024, Ginkgo notified Impossible that Ginkgo inadvertently had failed to produce electronic communications dating from July 2017 to November 2018; WHEREAS, on Monday, July 15, 2024, Ginkgo began producing these documents, and completed its production by July 16, 2024; WHEREAS, Impossible needs time to review these documents; WHEREAS, while Impossible does not currently intend on serving any additional discovery, Impossible believes that it is possible that these newly produced documents will create a need to serve additional discovery (discovery that could have been served earlier had the documents timely been produced); WHEREAS, Ginkgo disputes that any such additional discovery would be appropriate; NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that:

The parties agree to a limited extension of the yeast patent case fact discovery deadline from July 19, 2024 to August 16, 2024 solely for purposes of taking depositions of party or third-party witnesses who have already been timely served with a notice or a subpoena and for whom a deposition has been scheduled or is in the process of being scheduled, and for supplementation of interrogatory responses;

The parties agree to allow third-party witnesses and third-party production who have already been timely served with subpoenas (with compliance deadlines on or before July 19, 2024) in the yeast patent case to produce and testify after the close of fact discovery;

This order is without prejudice to Impossible to serve additional discovery based on information revealed in Ginkgo’s supplemental production and without prejudice to Ginkgo’s ability to object to any such discovery.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

WENDY L. DEVINE, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant.

Also represented by RICHARD TORCZON, Washington, DC; LORELEI WESTIN, San Diego, CA; JEFFREY WILLIAM GUISE, Eversheds Suth- erland (US) LLP, San Diego, CA.

DANIEL A. SCOLA, JR., Hoffmann & Baron, LLP, Parsip- pany, NJ, argued for appellee.

Also represented by MICHAEL I. CHAKANSKY; JOHN T. GALLAGHER, Syosset, NY.