`
`Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document118 Page1of 3 PagelD #: 14065Filed 04/29/19
`
`
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III
`Director
`
`302-651-7509
`cottrell@rlf.com
`
`April 22, 2019
`
`BY CM/ECF AND HAND DELIVERY
`The Honorable Colm F, Connolly
`United States District Court
`District of Delaware
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3555
`
`RICHARDS
`[AYTON Se
`f]NGER
`
`REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Re: Genentech, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis Co., C.A. No. 18-1363-CFC
`
`Dear Judge Connolly:
`
`I write jointly on behalf of Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope and Defendant
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. in advance of the claim construction hearing that is scheduled in this
`case for April 24, 2019 to address the claim construction U.S. Patent Nos. 6,627,196 (“the °196
`patent”), 7,371,379 (“the °379 patent”), 7,485,704 (“the ’704 patent”), and 10,160,811 (“the ’811
`patent’).
`
`With respect to the ’704 patent, the parties stipulate and agree for purposesof this case to
`the construction of (i) “about” as “no more than + | °C”; and (ii) “performing subsequent
`purification of compositions comprising said protein by Protein A chromatography at a
`[temperature range]” as “performing subsequent purification of compositions comprising said
`protein by Protein A chromatography, wherein the composition being purified is at a [temperature
`range|.”
`
`With respect to the ’196, ?379, and ’811 patents, Samsung Bioepis is currently approved to
`marketits trastuzumab biosimilar productforall indications in the Herceptin® label. Accordingly,
`for purposesofthis case, the parties are willing to stipulate to the construction of“an initial dose”
`as “the first dose of the claimed antibody given to the patient as part of a treatment regimen”
`
`because Plaintiffs believe there is no ripe dispute as to this claim term.
`
`In view of the parties’ agreement with respect to these claim terms in view of the current
`posture of the case, there is no issue of claim construction for the Court to decide with respect to
`the ’704 patent or the *196, °379, and ’811 patents in this case.
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document118
`
`Filed 04/29/19
`
`Page 2 of 3 PagelD #: 14066
`
`The Honorable Colm F. Connolly
`April 22, 2019
`Page 2 of 2
`
`The parties are submitting herewith a stipulation and proposed order memorializing their
`agreement with respect to these claim terms. Please let us know if Your Honor has any questions
`or concerns regarding the foregoing. Counsel are available at the Court’s convenience in
`connection with this matter.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Frederick £. Cottrell, IT
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, UIE (#2555)
`
`FLC,IHafg
`ce:
`All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF and email)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01363-CFC Document118_Filed 04/29/19 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #: 14067
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
`
`Thereby certify that on April 22, 2019, true and correct copies ofthe foregoing document were caused
`
`be served on the following counsel in the mannerindicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`David Moore
`Bindu Ann Palapura
`POTTER ANDERSON CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Amit Thakore
`Dimitrios T. Drivas
`Holly Tao
`Scott T. Weingaertner
`John P. Padro
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`1221 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10020-1095
`athakore@whitecase.com
`ddrivas@whitecase.com
`holly.tao@whitecase.com
`sweingaertner@whitecase.com
`jpadro@whitecase.com
`
`/s/ Jason J. Rawnsley
`Jason J. Rawnsley 5379)
`rawnsley@rlf.com
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
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
