`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, DC
`
`Before the Honorable Bryan F. Moore
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN BOTULINUM TOXIN
`PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES FOR
`MANUFACTURING OR RELATING TO
`SAME
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1313
`
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE COMPLAINANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
`TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS FROM THE INITIAL WITNESS
`STATEMENT OF JONATHAN EISEN, PH.D. (RX-0004C) (Mot. No. 1313-032)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.37, and Ground Rule 6.4.3, 9, 13.6.6, Respondents Hugel
`
`Inc., Hugel America, Inc. (collectively, “Hugel”), and Croma Pharma GmbH (“Croma”)
`
`(together “Respondents”) respectfully submit this response to Complainant’s Motion in Limine
`
`No. 4 to preclude Respondents’ expert Dr. Jonathan Eisen from relying on certain exhibits and to
`
`exclude the portions of Dr. Eisen’s questions and answers and demonstratives that reference
`
`those exhibits.
`
`In order to streamline issues, Respondents hereby withdraw Q/As 79 and 80 and RDX-
`
`0004C.0017, RDX-0004.0018, and a portion of Q/A 77 referencing RX-1158 and RX-1159 as
`
`shown with red highlighting in the version of RX-0004C attached herewith as Appendix A.
`
`Medytox’s motion with respect to these Q/As is therefore moot. However, these exhibits should
`
`remain available for Respondents to use on cross-examination.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Complainant’s motion should be denied as it pertains to:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Q/As 22 and 35 referencing RX-0567 and RX-1153; Q/A 60, 64-68, 69, and 70 referencing RX-
`
`1008, RX-1011-21, RX-1063, RX-1142, and RX-1154; Q/A 44 and 49 referencing RX-1156
`
`and RX-1172; Q/As 77 and 78 referencing RX-1157 and demonstrative slides RDX-0004C.0015
`
`
`
`and RDX-0004C.0016.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. Dr. Eisen’s Testimony Regarding the Nomenclature and Commercial Availability of
` Strain Was Not Untimely and Should Be Allowed
`
`Medytox argues that Dr. Eisen’s opinions at Q/As 22 and 35 regarding nomenclature and
`
`commercial availability of bacterial strains characterized as “
`
` strains” should be
`
`excluded because they were not previously disclosed. Mot. at 2. Not so. Dr. Eisen’s testimony
`
`at Q/A 22 of his witness statement that “
`
` is not a universally accepted name” for
`
`certain strains of bacteria was repeatedly addressed both in his expert report and deposition. For
`
`example, Dr. Eisen indicated in his report that the name “
`
` Strain” could be any of at
`
`least four different isolates and therefore “can cause confusion.” See Appendix B (Eisen Expert
`
`Report) at ¶ 65. Dr. Eisen further elaborated in his report on the imprecise and confusing nature
`
`of the name “
`
`” and the need to provide a more precise definition to avoid any such
`
`confusion. Id. at ¶¶ 66-74, Table 1. On deposition, Dr. Eisen testified that “
`
`
`
`” and that he prefers to use an alternate name of
`
` Appendix
`
`C (Eisen Dep. Tr.) at 149:23-150:5.
`
`Similarly, Dr. Eisen’s opinion that the
`
` strain(s) is/are “widely distributed
`
`worldwide” and was commercially available in Q/A 35 of his witness statement is found in his
`
`expert report. Specifically, Dr. Eisen stated that the strains of C. botulinum were “readily shared
`
`between researchers and laboratories” and that such sharing was without any “requirement to
`
`report or record any use or transmission of the bacteria.” Appendix B (Eisen Expert Report) at
`
`2
`
`

`

`¶¶ 76-79. In fact, Dr. Eisen’s report identifies many of the entities that possess the
`
`
`
`
`
`strain, including the University of Wisconsin, University of Massachusetts, U.S. Army Medical
`
`Research Institute (“USAMRIID”), Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
`
`(“KAIST”), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Id. at ¶¶ 65, 76, 209. The
`
`fact that “various strains of C. botulinum were readily available from numerous [commercial]
`
`sources”―for which Medytox’s motion fails to provide any argument for exclusion―also was
`
`addressed in his expert report. Id. at ¶ 80.
`
`Medytox’s attempt to preclude Dr. Eisen from citing to the declaration of Dr. Theresa
`
`Smith (RX-0567) and the 2010 federal government report (RX-1153) is also misplaced. The
`
`Smith declaration and RX-1153 (federal government report) provide independent corroboration
`
`of opinions already expressed in Dr. Eisen’s expert report and deposition testimony about the
`
`widespread distribution of C. botulinum strains, which he is entitled to do. See Certain Liquid
`
`Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components
`
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-749, Order No. 26 at 1-2 (August 30, 2011) (explaining that “parties
`
`should not seek to strike expert testimony simply because it is not copied verbatim from the
`
`expert reports or depositions” and “[a]n expert may provide more detail in his witness testimony,
`
`as long as the opinion at issue is fairly disclosed”). Dr. Eisen is not offering new opinions based
`
`on these exhibits.
`
`Further, Medytox cannot claim surprise or prejudice. Dr. Smith was Medytox’s expert in
`
`its prior ITC Investigation No. 1145 against Dae-Woong, and RX-0567 is her publicly available
`
`declaration submitted as an exhibit to Medytox’s complaint detailing the distribution of C.
`
`botulinum to various labs. See Exhibit X (Attachment ID 1397115) to the 1145 Complaint
`
`(EDIS Doc. ID 665282). In fact, Dr. Paul Keim relies on Dr. Smith’s declaration, the same
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`exhibit Medytox seeks to preclude from Dr. Eisen’s witness statement. CX-0002C.26 at Q/A 74
`
`(citing CX-0129C, which corresponds to RX-0567).
`
`Simply put, Dr. Eisen’s opinions at Q/As 22 and 35 do not include any opinions that
`
`substantially differ from what he already offered in his expert report and deposition testimony,
`
`and the motion by Medytox to exclude these opinions and citations to the supporting evidence
`
`should therefore be denied. See Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components
`
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1209, Order No. 22 at 4 (March 28, 2023) (denying motion to exclude
`
`because the challenged Q/As were “not substantially different” than the expert’s previous
`
`opinions and there was no prejudice to movant). Allowing these opinions and supporting
`
`citations will not prejudice Medytox, and will assist Your Honor in weighing the credibility of
`
`the competing expert opinions. Further, even if Your Honor rules in Medytox’s favor on this
`
`issue, RX-0567 and RX-1153 should remain available for Respondents for the purposes of cross-
`
`examining witnesses at the hearing because they are proper cross exhibits. Indeed, Medytox has
`
`not asked to strike the exhibits themselves.
`
`B. Dr. Eisen’s Testimony Regarding the Prevalence of Laboratory Leaks Is Not New
`and Should Not Be Excluded
`
`Medytox’s motion also alleges that Dr. Eisen’s opinion on lab leaks is untimely. Mot. at
`
`2-3. To the contrary, Dr. Eisen’s testimony at Q/As 60, 64-68, and 69-70 concerning the
`
`prevalence of lab leaks is supported by his report and deposition testimony. Moreover, Your
`
`Honor has already denied Medytox’s motion to strike Dr. Eisen’s testimony on this point. See
`
`EDIS Doc. ID 812309 (Order No. 37 denying Complainant’s motion to strike Respondents’
`
`expert opinions).
`
`In addition to the opinion in his expert report that “laboratory leaks are known to occur,”
`
`see Appendix B (Eisen Expert Report) at ¶¶ 133, 222, Dr. Eisen provided detailed testimony
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`regarding the prevalence of laboratory leaks and articles reporting such leaks when questioned
`
`by Medytox’s counsel. See Appendix C (Eisen Dep. Tr.) at 121:21-122:2, 134:19-137:23, 165:2-
`
`16, 166:6-16. For example, in response to the questioning by Medytox’s counsel, Dr. Eisen
`
`testified regarding the existence of “a lot of literature and newspaper reports on lab leaks such as
`
`by Alison Young at U.S.A. Today.” Id. at 137:15-23. Dr. Eisen was then redirected by Hugel’s
`
`counsel to further clarify his earlier testimony on lab leaks. Id. at 247:3-253:9.
`
`Medytox further argues―again, incorrectly―that the testimony on lab leaks and the
`
`related articles was improperly introduced at Dr. Eisen’s deposition during redirect. Mot. at 3-4.
`
`However, the record is clear that Medytox’s counsel invited Dr. Eisen to testify about lab leaks
`
`described in his expert report and the articles reporting the same, see Appendix B (Eisen Dep.
`
`Tr.) at 137:2-23. Accordingly, it was proper for Hugel’s counsel to clarify the earlier testimony
`
`during redirect.1 Id. at 247:3-252:9. See Certain Wi-Fi Routers, Wi-Fi Devices, Mesh Wi-Fi
`
`Network Devices, and Hardware and Software Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1361,
`
`Order No. 42 at 22 (March 28, 2023) (denying motion to exclude because the challenged
`
`opinions were found in redirect testimony of deposition that were “appropriate and related to
`
`issues that [opposing party] addressed in its questioning”).
`
`The articles cited in Dr. Eisen’s witness statement are independent sources that confirm
`
`his prior testimony, including violation of biosafety regulations by Dr. Keim’s laboratory at
`
`1 Medytox had no qualms about soliciting new opinions from its own expert on redirect at his
`deposition. See Appendix D (Lenski Dep. Tr.) at 236:2-9. Should Your Honor agree with
`Medytox that it is improper to use redirect questioning at a deposition to introduce entirely new
`opinions (MIL at 3-4, citing Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Prod. & Related Components
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1131, Order No. 33 (Aug. 30, 2019)), Dr. Lenski’s opinions regarding
`Hugel’s lab leak theory from his deposition should likewise be stricken because they are
`nowhere to be found in Dr. Lenski’s expert report. See CX-0003C.19 (Lenski WS) at Q/A 92-
`93.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Northern Arizona University, see Appendix C (Eisen Dep. Tr.) at 248:20-249-5, RX-1017 at pg.
`
`10, and similar violation by Dr. Bal Ram Singh’s laboratory at the University of Massachusetts.
`
`See Appendix C (Eisen Dep. Tr.) at 251:16-252:9; RX-1063. Despite Dr. Eisen’s identification
`
`of the articles by author and publication names, Medytox’s counsel simply chose not to inquire
`
`further about the articles. Further, RX-1142 is a review article discussing laboratory leaks
`
`published December 22, 2023. See EDIS Doc. ID 812657 (Medytox MIL No. 4), Ex. C-1. RX-
`
`1142 is powerful, independent evidence consistent with Dr. Eisen’s previously-expressed
`
`opinion that “[L]ab leaks do occur.” Appendix C (Eisen Dep. Tr.) at 136:19; Appendix B (Eisen
`
`Expert Report) at ¶ 222. Because this review article was published after Dr. Eisen issued his
`
`expert report and testified at deposition, Dr. Eisen could not have cited it on those occasions.
`
`In sum, Dr. Eisen’s discussion of the challenged articles, and RX-1142 in particular, is
`
`neither untimely nor improper and should not be foreclosed by Ground Rule 13.6.6. See Certain
`
`Kinesiotherapy Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-823, Order No. 38 (Aug. 20,
`
`2012) at 5-6 (“the purpose of [a rule similar to Ground Rule 13.6.6] is to give the opposing party
`
`notification in advance of the hearing of the issues to be contested and the substance of any
`
`expert opinions on those issues. In so doing, the rule confines the issues for hearing and avoids
`
`prejudicial surprises.”).
`
`Finally, should Your Honor agree with Medytox and exclude Dr. Eisen’s citations to
`
`these exhibits that support his opinion on lab leaks, only a portion of Dr. Eisen’s testimony in
`
`Q/A 60 relies on these exhibits. As such, exclusion should be limited to this highlighted
`
`statement in green as shown in Appendix A (Eisen Witness Statement) rather than the entirety of
`
`the testimony in Q/A 60.
`
`6
`
`

`

`C. Dr. Eisen’s Testimony Regarding Increased Mutation Rates Is Not Untimely
`
`Dr. Eisen’s testimony at Q/As 44 and 49 are not new or untimely. The testimony at Q/A
`
`44 that Medytox targets for exclusion is a single-sentence statement that
`
`.2 This opinion was provided in Dr. Eisen’ report, in which he
`
`
`
`stated that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Appendix B (Eisen Expert Report) at ¶159
`
`(emphasis added). RX-1156 is simply an example of such a read-through consistent with Dr.
`
`Eisen’s existing opinion and thus does not amount to a new opinion. Similarly, the testimony at
`
`Q/A 49 that Medytox moves to exclude is a single sentence statement based on RX-1172, merely
`
`an example of an existing opinion found in Dr. Eisen’s report that
`
`
`
` See id. at ¶¶ 185, 192-96.
`
`Should Your Honor exclude RX-1156 and RX-1172, only those portions of Q/As 44 and
`
`49 that rely on these exhibits as shown with green highlighting in Appendix A should be
`
`excluded.
`
`D. Dr. Eisen’s Testimony regarding FDA’s 69A Isolate Is Not Untimely
`
`As stated above, Respondents withdraw, a portion of Q/A 77 that references RX-1158,
`
`RX-1159, Q/A 79, Q/A 80, RDX-0004C.0017, and RDX-0004.0018, from Dr. Eisen’s witness
`
`2 Medytox’s expert alleges that
`
`
`
` See CX-0003C.9-10 (Lenski Witness
`Statement) at Q/A 51-55. The contested testimony presents evidence supporting Dr. Eisen’s
`previously disclosed opinion that
`
` in response to Dr. Lenski’s
`
`opinions.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`statement. The contested opinions and exhibits that remain―portions of Q/A 77 found on RX-
`
`0004C.032-33, Q/A 78, RX-1157, RDX-0004C.0015, and RDX-0004C.0016―should not be
`
`excluded for at least the following reasons.
`
`First, the portions of Q/A 77 and Q/A 78 referencing RX-1157 are directly responsive to
`
`a new opinion that Dr. Keim provided for the first time in his witness statement. See EDIS Doc.
`
`ID 812636 (Hugel MIL No. 3) at 5-6 (seeking to exclude CX-0002C.58-59 (Keim WS) at Q/A
`
`176-179, 181-182). Dr. Keim’s untimely opinions regarding lab leaks rely heavily on
`
`challenging the veracity of FDA’s reporting about the date that 69A was isolated in 1980. See
`
`CX-0002C.58 (Keim WS) at Q/A 180. Having chosen not to address Hugel’s laboratory leak
`
`arguments in his expert report, Dr. Keim now presents new arguments through trial testimony
`
`and Medytox is moving to preclude Respondents’ experts from responding to those new
`
`arguments. Fairness demands that Respondents should be allowed to present evidence rebutting
`
`Medytox’s belated new arguments. See Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper
`
`Wrappers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-756, Order No. 29 (Oct. 31, 2011) at
`
`7-8 (denying complainant’s motion to exclude documents because “fairness requires” that
`
`respondents be allowed to respond to complainants’ “belatedly espoused” contentions and “it
`
`would be an injustice to limit the evidence to the assertions [of] one party’s experts when there
`
`are… legitimate opposing contentions.”).
`
`Second, Dr. Eisen has repeatedly identified the source of FDA’s 69A isolate
`
`(CFSAN002369) as spinach from 1980. For example, Dr. Eisen stated in his expert report it was
`
`reported that “the [strain] sequenced [by the FDA] was isolated in 1980 from spinach.”
`
`Appendix B (Eisen Expert Report) at ¶ 133; see also id. at ¶¶ 132, 134. Dr. Eisen also testified
`
`about the meaning of the 1980 collection date in the GenBank entry. See Appendix C (Eisen
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Dep. Tr.) at 113:19-118:20, 165:17-166:16. The opinion at Q/A 77 is therefore not new and RX-
`
`1157―a public website accessible by anyone explaining the meaning of “collection
`
`date”―simply corroborates this existing opinion. Accordingly, Medytox is not prejudiced by
`
`Dr. Eisen’s Q/A 77 referencing RX-1157. Indeed, Medytox’s motion does not articulate how Dr.
`
`Eisen’s citation of publicly available website to support a previously disclosed opinion creates
`
`prejudice to Medytox. Because Dr. Eisen’s opinion was disclosed, and Medytox has not been
`
`prejudiced, Medytox’s request to exclude the challenged portion of Q/A 77 should be denied.
`
`See Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`1209, Order No. 22 at 4 (March 28, 2023) (denying motion to exclude because the challenged
`
`Q/As were “not substantially different” than the expert’s previous opinions and there was no
`
`prejudice to movant).
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request that the Administrative Law
`
`Judge deny Medytox’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude Dr. Eisen’s testimony in Q/As 22 and
`
`35 referencing RX-0567 and RX-1153; Q/As 60, 64-68, 69, and 70 referencing RX-1008, RX-
`
`1011-21, RX-1063, RX-1142, and RX-1154; Q/As 44 and 49 referencing RX-1156 and RX-
`
`1172; the portion of Q/A 77 on RX-0004C.032-33 and Q/A 78 referencing RX-1157 and
`
`demonstrative slides RDX-0004C.0015 and RDX-0004C.0016. Regardless of the ALJ’s
`
`decision of Medytox’s motion, exhibits RX-0567, RX-1008, RX-1001-21, RX-1063, RX-1142,
`
`RX-1153, RX- 1154, RX-1156, RX-1157, RX-1158, RX-1159, and RX-1172 should remain on
`
`Respondents’ exhibit list for potential use on cross-examination.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Dated: February 1, 2024
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephanie L. Roberts
`Eric S. Namrow
`Stephanie L. Roberts
`Kandis C. Gibson
`Min Woo Park
`Emily K. Burge
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1111 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004-2541
`Telephone: (202) 739-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
`
`Krista Vink Venegas, Ph.D.
`Zachary D. Miller
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`110 N. Wacker Dr.
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 324-1775
`Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
`
`Tae-Woong Koo, Ph.D.
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 843-4000
`Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
`
`Daniel Zaheer
`Kobre & Kim LLP
`150 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 582-4800
`
`Michael Kim
`Benjamin Sirota
`Martine Forneret
`Kobre & Kim LLP
`800 3rd Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 488-1200
`
`Zach Ruby
`Kobre & Kim LLP
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`1919 M Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 664-1950
`
`Daniel Lee
`Naomi Yang
`Kobre & Kim LLP
`9F, Tower B, The-K Twin Towers
`50, Jong-ro 1-gil, Jongno-gu
`Seoul, 03142 South Korea
`Telephone: +82 2 369 1212
`
`Counsel for Respondents Hugel, Inc. and
`Hugel America, Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Goutam Patnaik
`Goutam Patnaik
`David J. Shaw
`Tuhin Ganguly
`DESMARAIS LLP
`1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 451-4900
`
`Counsel for Respondent Croma Pharma
`GmbH
`
`11
`
`

`

`CERTAIN BOTULINUM TOXIN
`PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES FOR
`MANUFACTURING OR RELATING TO
`SAME
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1313
`
`I, Nina Armah, hereby certify that on February 8, 2024, copies of the foregoing
`RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE COMPLAINANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
`TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS FROM THE INITIAL WITNESS
`STATEMENT OF JONATHAN EISEN, PH.D. - PUBLIC VERSION were served as
`follows:
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`☒ Via EDIS
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Overnight Delivery
`☐ First Class Mail
`☐ Not Served
`☒ Via EDIS
`☒ Via Email/Box Upload
`☐ Via Overnight Delivery
`☐ First Class Mail
`☐ Not Served
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Overnight Delivery
`☐ First Class Mail
`☐ Not Served
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Overnight Delivery
`☐ First Class Mail
`☐ Not Served
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Overnight Delivery
`☐ First Class Mail
`☐ Not Served
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Overnight Delivery
`☐ First Class Mail
`☐ Not Served
`
`The Honorable Bryan F. Moore
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Moore1313@usitc.gov
`
`Megan Wantland, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Megan.Wantland@usitc.gov
`Jeffrey Hsu, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Jeffrey.Hsu@usitc.gov
`Irina Kushner
`ALJ Attorney Advisor
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Irina.Kushner@usitc.gov
`
`Brian Gold
`ALJ Attorney Advisor
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Brian.Gold@usitc.gov
`
`

`

`Counsel for Complainant Medytox Inc.
`S. Alex Lasher
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`alexlasher@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Nina Tallon
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`David Bilsker
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`James E. Baker
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Fl
`New York, NY 10910-1601
`
`John Rhie
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`4501-03 Lippo Centre, Tower One
`89 Queensway, Admiralty
`Hong Kong
`qe-medytox-itc1313@quinnemanuel.com
`Counsel for Respondent Croma Pharma GmbH
`Goutam Patnaik
`David J. Shaw
`Tuhin Ganguly
`Peter Zhu
`Delon Lier
`DESMARAIS LLP
`1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 400
`Washington, DC 20006
`CromaMedytoxService@desmaraisllp.com
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Overnight Delivery
`☐ First Class Mail
`☐ Not Served
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Overnight Delivery
`☐ First Class Mail
`☐ Not Served
`
`/s/ Nina Armah
` Nina Armah
`
`2
`
`

`

`Confidential
`
`Exhibits
`
` Redacted
`
`Entirely
`
`