Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
`32583
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 18-924-CFC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S LETTER BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S OCTOBER 13, 2019 DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER
`
`
`
`Michael P. Kelly (#2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (#6423)
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`ajoyce@mccarter.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Genentech, Inc.
`
`Dated: October 14, 2019
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`William F. Lee
`Lisa J. Pirozzolo
`Emily R. Whelan
`Kevin S. Prussia
`Andrew J. Danford
`Stephanie Neely
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`
`Nora Passamaneck
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`1225 17th Street, Suite 2600
`Denver, CO 80202
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION FILED: October 24, 2019
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
`32584
`
`Daralyn Durie
`Adam Brausa
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
`32585
`
`Dear Judge Connolly,
`Amgen’s request to void Genentech’s subpoenas to health care providers set forth in its
`October 13, 2019 discovery dispute letter rests on distortions of both the factual and legal bases
`for Genentech’s subpoenas. Amgen purports to be aware of patient use of Kanjinti (e.g., D.I. 414-
`2 ¶ 8), so consistent with Rule 45’s admonition that parties “must take reasonable steps to avoid
`imposing undue burden” on third parties, Genentech initially sought this information directly from
`Amgen through supplemental document discovery that the parties agreed to provide by September
`27, 2019 in view of Amgen’s recent product launch. When Amgen failed to provide this
`information itself, Genentech immediately sought this information directly from customers who
`are using Amgen’s product. This information could not have been sought any earlier because it
`literally did not exist until now. Kanjinti was not in customers’ hands until late July 2019, and it
`takes at least six weeks to complete all required steps of Genentech’s claimed dosing regimens.
`The timing of this discovery relative to trial is simply a product of Amgen’s choice to launch
`shortly before trial. Indeed, Amgen previously used the close proximity to trial as justification to
`allow it to launch at risk (e.g., D.I. 285 at 13), and having made that choice, Amgen cannot
`complain that this discovery is occurring now. If Amgen wishes to avoid this discovery, it could
`do so by stipulating to acts of direct infringement by Amgen’s customers (which Amgen had not
`disputed until now). Genentech respectfully requests that the Court deny Amgen’s motion.
`Factual Background
`I.
`The asserted claims of the “Dosing Patents” recite methods of treatment of HER2-
`overxpressing cancer by administration of an antibody such as trastuzumab; for example, claim 11
`of the ’196 patent recites administration of an “initial dose of approximately 8 mg/kg” and “a
`plurality of subsequent doses” “separated in time from each other by at least three weeks,” at least
`one of which much be “approximately 6 mg/kg.” (D.I. 060-01 at JA00000038.)
`The approved label for Amgen’s Kanjinti instructs physicians to treat patients using the
`methods claimed in the Dosing Patents; for example, Amgen’s label describes (1) adjuvant
`treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer using an “[i]nitial dose of 8 mg/kg …, then 6
`mg/kg … every three weeks …”; and (2) treatment of metastatic HER2-overexpressing gastric
`cancer using an “[i]nitial dose of 8 mg/kg …, followed by 6 mg/kg … every 3 weeks.” (D.I. 279,
`Ex. 4 at AMGKAN02982377.)
`As Amgen correctly notes, Genentech has alleged from the outset of this litigation that
`“medical practitioners will” “directly infringe” the Dosing Patents by “prescrib[ing] and/or
`administer[ing]” Kanjinti “according to” the indications quoted above. (D.I. 415 at 1.) Indeed,
`Amgen itself has not disputed direct infringement by Amgen’s customers in its contention
`interrogatory responses or non-infringement expert reports. Amgen’s only basis for asserting that
`it does not induce infringement is that there are other indications in its product label that are not
`covered by the Dosing Patents (Ex. 1)—a legally defective argument, and one not at issue here.
`See Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the
`existence of substantial non-infringing uses does not preclude liability for inducement).
`Genentech could not have obtained evidence of direct infringement of the Dosing Patents
`during the fact discovery period, which closed June 10, 2019 because Amgen had not yet launched
`Kanjinti. According to Amgen, patients were first treated with Kanjinti in late July 2019, and “the
`claimed steps can be performed in approximately six weeks.” (D.I. 415 at 2 n.3.) Therefore, the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
`32586
`
`earliest any evidence of direct infringement could have existed is mid-September 2019.
`Genentech initially sought proof of direct infringement from Amgen itself. The parties
`agreed to provide supplemental document productions by September 27, 2019 in view of Amgen’s
`product launch. Genentech specifically requested that Amgen provide information about the
`dosing regimens that its customers were using in that supplemental document production. Amgen,
`however, failed to provide this information in its September 27, 2019 document production. That
`failure prompted Genentech to seek the discovery at issue here—not, as Amgen suggests, the
`deposition of Genentech’s expert Dr. Susan Tannenbaum, who could hardly have been expected
`to identify instances of direct infringement in her July 26, 2019 expert report considering no such
`infringement could possibly have occurred by then, as Amgen acknowledges. (D.I. 415 at 2 n.3.)
`Less than a week later, Genentech served its subpoenas, which seek patient records without
`personally identifiable information relating to the use of Kanjinti according to the indications
`described above and corresponding deposition testimony. (D.I. 414-1.) After Genentech filed its
`Notices of Service (D.I. 390), Amgen’s counsel requested that Genentech meet and confer; the
`parties did so less than 24 hours later. During the parties’ discussion, Genentech invited Amgen
`to propose any mechanism (e.g., a stipulation regarding direct infringement) that might substitute
`for the subpoenas. Amgen has made no such proposal; instead, it demanded that Genentech notify
`the subpoena recipients that they need not comply. Amgen’s suggestion that Genentech should
`have agreed to stipulate that the information sought relates solely to damages (D.I. 415 at 2) makes
`no sense—the information sought undisputedly relates to both liability and damages.
`Nevertheless, in order to avoid Amgen’s threat of emergency motion practice, on October 11,
`2019, Genentech notified each of the subpoena recipients by email or FedEx that in light of
`Amgen’s motion they need not respond to the subpoenas until after October 16, 2019.
`Legal Standard
`II.
`The Court may permit discovery after the case schedule otherwise provides where the party
`seeking discovery has not “acted in bad faith” and the party opposing discovery has not “shown
`that it will face a significant burden that would warrant a protective order.”1 See Sepracor Inc. v.
`Dey L.P., No. 06-113-JJF, 2009 WL 2970467 (D. Del. Sept. 15, 2009). “Good cause” exists when
`new facts necessitate additional discovery and the party seeking additional discovery has been
`diligent. See ICU Med., Inc. v. RyMed Techs., Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 574, 577-578 (D. Del. 2009).
`III. Genentech Has Been Diligent In Seeking Discovery Regarding Use of Kanjinti
`Genentech has been diligent in seeking the discovery at issue. It is undisputed that the
`discovery Genentech seeks was not available—indeed, did not exist—during fact discovery, and
`Genentech served the subpoenas one week after Amgen failed to produce documents responsive
`to requests for, among other things, information regarding the use of Kanjinti according to the
`dosing regimens that would have rendered Genentech’s subpoenas unnecessary. See TC Tech.
`LLC v. Sprint Corp., No. 16-CV-153-RGA, 2019 WL 529678, at *2 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2019)
`(moving party diligent in moving to amend its complaint after “about a month”).
`
`
`1 Unlike Genentech’s subpoenas, which seek information that quite literally did not exist during
`fact discovery, Amgen’s subpoena to Dr. Brian Leyland Jones seeks decades-old information
`that Amgen could have obtained months (if not a year or more) earlier. (D.I. 397 at 1-3.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
`32587
`
`Amgen argues that Genentech should have served its subpoenas in “late August” (D.I. 415
`at 2)—a month after Amgen’s July 29, 2019 declaration that it had “received confirmation from”
`unidentified “customers that they ha[d] begun administering Kanjinti.” (D.I. 414-2 ¶ 8.) “Late
`August” preceded any possible direct infringement, as Amgen acknowledges (D.I. 415 at 2 n.3),
`and Amgen does not explain how Genentech should have identified which customers to subpoena
`at that time. At worst—i.e., according to Amgen’s own calculations—Genentech waited
`approximately one month for direct infringement to occur. Genentech has been diligent. See TC
`Tech., supra; see also Enzo Life Scis., Inc. v. Digene Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 484, 489 (D. Del.
`2003) (leave to amend based on motion filed six weeks after relevant depositions).
`IV. Genentech’s Subpoenas Are Appropriate In Scope And Substance
`Genentech’s subpoenas are carefully tailored to avoid imposing a significant burden on the
`recipients. Rather than seeking all records of patients treated using Kanjinti, Genentech’s
`subpoenas seek only (1) “records … sufficient to show the administration of Kanjinti” according
`to the indications described above “to a patient”; and (2) “records … sufficient to show the
`administration of a chemotherapeutic agent” to such a patient. (D.I. 390 at 7.) And while the
`subpoenas provided 11 days for compliance (not “a week” as Amgen asserts (D.I. 415 at 3)),
`Genentech has been accommodating of requests for flexibility from the subpoena recipients, will
`continue to do so, and has no intention of taking any unnecessary discovery.
`Amgen’s assertion of “a chilling effect on Amgen’s customers’ use of Kanjinti” is utterly
`without basis. Out of hundreds or thousands of potential Amgen customers for Kanjinti,
`Genentech subpoenaed just 15. And Genentech took no steps to publicize its subpoenas (other
`than filing the required notices) or inform employees or patients of those 15 providers.
`Similarly, Genentech’s subpoenas request that “personally identifying information [be]
`redacted” from any produced records (D.I. 390 at 7), so Amgen’s complaint that Genentech’s
`subpoenas “raise[] privacy concerns” (D.I. 415 at 3) is unfounded. Amgen’s argument to the
`contrary is disproven by the regulations it cites—45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1) governs the disclosure
`of “protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding,” but
`“protected health information” “means individually identifiable health information,” 45 C.F.R. §
`164.103 (emphasis added), which Genentech has expressly excluded by requesting redaction.
`Moreover, the subpoenas request no “geographic” information; the subpoenas merely include the
`providers’ address to identify the subpoenaed party, which is exactly what Amgen itself did when
`subpoenaing patient records relating to other issues in this case (e.g., D.I. 242).
`Amgen Will Not Be Unduly Prejudiced
`V.
`Genentech’s subpoenas impose little burden on either the recipients or the parties—the
`document requests are narrowly tailored (as explained above), and the deposition topics are
`confined to discussion of the produced records. And, to the extent Amgen is willing to cooperate
`in minimizing burden, the need for depositions could be obviated by agreement to admit the
`records themselves with explanatory declarations.
`The timing of this discovery relative to trial is entirely Amgen’s own doing. Amgen chose
`to launch its product at risk shortly before trial—and, in fact, used the close proximity to trial as a
`basis to oppose Genentech’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (D.I. 285 at 13.) Having chosen
`to inject this issue into the case now, Amgen cannot complain that it is prejudiced by the timing.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
`32588
`
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
`Michael P. Kelly (#2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (#6423)
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`ajoyce@mccarter.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Genentech, Inc.
`
`Dated: October 14, 2019
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`William F. Lee
`Lisa J. Pirozzolo
`Emily R. Whelan
`Kevin S. Prussia
`Andrew J. Danford
`Stephanie Neely
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`
`Nora Passamaneck
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`1225 17th Street, Suite 2600
`Denver, CO 80202
`
`Daralyn Durie
`Adam Brausa
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
`32589
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
`32590
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 18-00924-CFC
`
`v.
`
`AMGEN INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF JOHN GLASPY, M.D., M.P.H.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
`32591
`
`October 2010 Herceptin label).)
`
`C.
`21.
`
`Physician Use of Prescribing Information
`
`“Prescribing Information” (also commonly referred to as the “label” or “package
`
`insert”) for a therapeutic agent typically includes a description of the therapeutic’s intended uses
`
`(also called “indications”), dosage range, and safety/efficacy information. The safety/efficacy
`
`information is often supported by summaries of clinical trial data.
`
`22.
`
`The Prescribing Information is meant to instruct physicians and other medical
`
`professionals on how to safely and effectively prescribe the therapeutic to patients, and physicians
`
`often consult the Prescribing Information, among many other resources, when deciding
`
`whether/how to prescribe drugs. Notably, the FDA does not prohibit physicians from prescribing
`
`drugs in manners not contemplated by the Prescribing Information (sometimes called “off-label”
`
`uses.) Indeed, it is uncommon for physicians to consult the product label of a therapeutic they are
`
`familiar with each time they make a treatment decision. Instead, physicians rely on their own
`
`experience and consult the most recent, up-to-date literature and guidelines to determine the best
`
`dosage regimen for a patient given that patient’s individual circumstances.
`
`IV. DETAILED OPINIONS
`A.
`
`Non-Infringement of the Dosing Patents
`1.
`
`Genentech Does Not Allege Intent to Induce Infringement of Two of
`The Four Labeled Dosage Regimens
`
`23.
`
`As I describe above in Section III-A, the approved Kanjinti label includes four
`
`separate dosing regimens in three indications – two regimens for the adjuvant (early) breast cancer
`
`indication, and one each for the metastatic breast and gastric cancer indications. The label provides
`
`that Kanjinti may be administered 1) for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast
`
`cancer using an initial dose of 4 mg/kg and then weekly doses of 2 mg/kg for twelve weeks,
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 10 of 16 PageID
`#: 32592
`
`followed by three-weekly doses of 6 mg/kg; 2) for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing
`
`breast cancer using an initial dose of 8 mg/kg, followed by three-weekly doses of 6 mg/kg; 3) for
`
`the treatment of metastatic HER2-overexpressing breast cancer using an initial dose of 4 mg/kg,
`
`followed by weekly doses of 2 mg/kg; and 4) for the treatment of metastatic HER2-overexpressing
`
`gastric cancer using an initial dose of 8 mg/kg followed by three-weekly doses of 6 mg/kg. It is
`
`my understanding that Genentech has not alleged that either of the weekly dosing regimens for
`
`Herceptin (numbers 1 and 3 above) infringe the Dosing Patents. I agree that these two regimens
`
`cannot be infringing because both of them recite dosing Herceptin on a weekly basis. All the
`
`asserted claims require administration of Herceptin at intervals of at least two or at least three
`
`weeks apart.
`
`24.
`
`In her report, Dr. Tannenbaum argues that Amgen intends for physicians to infringe
`
`the asserted claims of the Dosing Patents because it intends for them to use Kanjinti according to
`
`any listed regimen on the Kanjinti label. (See Tannenbaum Rpt. ¶¶ 65-74.) I note that Dr.
`
`Tannenbaum’s analysis is limited to two of the four regimens on Kanjinti’s label. Dr. Tannenbaum
`
`does not argue that Amgen intends to induce infringement of either 1) the weekly dosage regimen
`
`for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer or 2) the weekly dosage regimen
`
`for the treatment of metastatic HER2-overexpressing breast cancer, both of which are listed on the
`
`Kanjinti label. As noted, I understand that Dr. Tannenbaum could not make such an argument, as
`
`Genentech does not allege that either of these dosage regimens infringe the asserted claims of the
`
`Dosing Patents.
`
`2.
`
`The Size of the Noninfringing Patient Population is Substantial
`
`25.
`
`I note that Dr. Tannenbaum does not argue in her report that any recited indication
`
`in the Kanjinti label explicitly encourages, recommends, or promotes the 8 mg/kg initial dose
`
`followed by three-weekly 6 mg/kg doses regimen to the exclusion of the other clearly
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 11 of 16 PageID
`#: 32593
`
`noninfringing regimens on the label. I note that nothing on the Kanjinti label or the
`
`marketing/advertisement materials Dr. Tannenbaum cites in her report recommends any particular
`
`dosage regimen as preferred, or to the exclusion of any others. (See, e.g., Appendix B (Kanjinti
`
`label); see also AMGKAN02909658.)
`
`26.
`
`It is my opinion that the patient population for the two clearly noninfringing
`
`regimens is substantial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Genentech’s and Amgen’s files that suggest
`
`
`
` In fact, Dr. Tannenbaum cites to several documents from both
`
` (See, e.g., GNE-HER_000983220; see also AMGKAN02927171.)
`
`B. Weekly Dosing is an Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternative to Three-Weekly
`Dosing in the Adjuvant Setting
`
`27.
`
`As I noted in Section III-A above, the Kanjinti label lists two distinct alternative
`
`dosing regimens for the treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer in the adjuvant setting:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 12 of 16 PageID
`#: 32594
`
`(See Appendix B (Kanjinti label); see also AMGKAN02833222.)
`
`
`28.
`
`As I noted in ¶¶ 23-24 of this report (Section IV-A-1), the 4 mg/kg initial dose
`
`followed by 2 mg/kg weekly doses regimen for adjuvant treatment does not infringe any claim of
`
`the Dosing Patents.
`
`29.
`
`In my experience, the number of patients who received Herceptin for the adjuvant
`
`treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer did not significantly change upon the inclusion
`
`of the 8 mg/kg initial dose followed by three-weekly 6 mg/kg doses indication. In other words,
`
`the number of Herceptin prescriptions did not change in any significant or notable way after the
`
`three-weekly regimen was added to the label for the adjuvant setting. This makes sense, given that
`
`the cumulative quantity of Herceptin prescribed to patients is the same whether the patient is
`
`treated on the weekly or 3-weekly regimen: 8 mg/kg in the first three weeks, and 6 mg/kg every
`
`three weeks thereafter.
`
`30.
`
`Further, based on my understanding of the science, the weekly dosage regimen for
`
`Herceptin has equivalent efficacy as the three-weekly regimen, and thus would be considered a
`
`clinically acceptable alternative. The comparable efficacy between weekly and three-weekly
`
`dosing is shown by the fact that neither of the clinical trials Genentech listed as support for its
`
`2008 amendment to the Herceptin label adding the three-weekly dosage regimen involved a
`
`weekly dosing arm to compare its efficacy to three-weekly dosing. (See Herceptin Label, Study 3
`
`(HERA) and Study 4 (BCIRG-006).) I further am not aware of any clinical evidence showing a
`
`meaningful difference in efficacy for adjuvant treatment of breast cancer when the weekly versus
`
`three-weekly regimens are compared.
`
`31.
`
`Presently, Herceptin is used in some patients on a weekly schedule when
`
`appropriate for a specific individual patient, often based on the chemotherapeutic regimen that is
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 13 of 16 PageID
`#: 32595
`
`being used to treat that patient. For example, in some cases locally advanced breast cancer is
`
`treated using a relatively “dose-dense” regimen; during a part of this regimen patients receive
`
`weekly taxol therapy in combination with Herceptin. I am aware that patients being treated in this
`
`fashion may receive Herceptin on a weekly schedule.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, if the allegedly infringing dosage indication were carved out of the
`
`Kanjinti label, those patients who would have been treated with Kanjinti for HER2-overexpressing
`
`breast cancer in the adjuvant setting could still be treated with Kanjinti—only with a weekly
`
`dosage regimen. (Or, the patient could be treated with Herceptin on either the weekly or three-
`
`weekly regimen.) In other words, physicians could prescribe the same amount of Kanjinti (or
`
`Herceptin) in the adjuvant setting for treatment of breast cancer both with and without the three-
`
`weekly dosage regimen. I therefore consider the weekly dosage regimen for the adjuvant treatment
`
`of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer to be an acceptable non-infringing alternative to the three-
`
`weekly dosage regimen for that indication.
`
`C.
`
`33.
`
`Rebuttal Statements to the Reports of Dr. Jena
`1.
`
`Dr. Jena’s Statements Regarding Physician Perception of Kanjinti
`
`As noted above, I have reviewed portions of the expert reports submitted by
`
`Genentech expert Dr. Anupam B. Jena on July 10, 2019 and July 26, 2019, dealing with
`
`Genentech’s request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (respectively). To the extent
`
`these reports opine on medical or clinical matters, or regarding the perspective of a physician
`
`treating cancer with trastuzumab (or a biosimilar thereof), I offer rebuttal opinions as set forth
`
`below. I reserve the right to supplement this rebuttal report, or otherwise to rebut any new opinions
`
`of Dr. Jena.
`
`34.
`
`I note that Dr. Jena offers opinions concerning physician perception of Kanjinti,
`
`Amgen, and the “LILAC” clinical trial sponsored by Amgen. (See 7/26 Jena Rpt. ¶¶ 42, 48-49.)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 14 of 16 PageID
`#: 32596
`
`this case.
`
`42.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`September 6, 2019
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. John A. Glaspy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 15 of 16 PageID
`#: 32597
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that true and correct copies of the foregoing
`
`
`
`document were caused to be served on October 14, 2019 on the following counsel in the manner
`
`indicated:
`
`
`VIA EMAIL:
`
`Neal C. Belgam
`Eve H. Ormerod
`Jennifer M. Rutter
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`jrutter@skjlaw.com
`
`
`Orion Armon
`COOLEY, LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
`(720) 566-4119
`oarmon@cooley.com
`
`
`Eamonn Gardner
`COOLEY, LLP
`4401 Eastgate Mall
`San Diego, CA 92121-1909
`(858) 550-6086
`egardner@cooley.com
`
`Christopher B. Mead
`London & Mead
`1225 19th Street, NW, Ste. 320
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 331-3334
`cmead@londonandmead.com
`
`
`
`
`ME1 31705004v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00924-CFC-SRF Document 444 Filed 10/24/19 Page 16 of 16 PageID
`#: 32598
`
`
`
`
`Michelle Rhyu
`Susan Krumplitsch
`Daniel Knauss
`Philip H. Mao
`Alexandra Leeper
`Lauren Krickl
`Benjamin S. Lin
`Alissa M. Wood
`COOLEY, LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5287
`rhyums@cooley.com
`skrumplitsch@cooley.com
`dknauss@cooley.com
`pmao@cooley.com
`aleeper@cooley.com
`lkrickl@cooley.com
`blin@cooley.com
`amwood@cooley.com
`
`Brian Kao
`Lois Kwasigroch
`AMGEN, INC.
`One Amgen Center Drive
`Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1799
`(805) 447-1000
`bkao@amgen.com
`loisk@amgen.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amgen Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 14, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ME1 31705004v.1
`
`2
`
`