Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 455 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 19610
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00337-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`
`Defendant, and
`
`
`ASTRAZENECA
`PHARMACEUTICALS LP and
`ASTRAZENECA UK LTD.,
`
`
` Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED REQUEST FOR DEPOSITION OF SEAGEN MOTION
`DECLARANT MS. CARRIE DISTLER AND FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING
`
`Plaintiff Seagen Inc. (“Seagen”) filed a Motion for Judgment for Supplemental Damages
`
`and Ongoing Royalties (“Motion for Judgment”) and submitted a declaration in support of its
`
`Motion for Judgment from an economist Ms. Carrie Distler. (See Dkt. No. 443.) Therein, Ms.
`
`Distler writes that, if Seagen is entitled to an ongoing royalty, in her opinion a post-verdict
`
`hypothetical negotiation between the parties would lead to an outcome of a royalty of 10% to
`
`12% of non-party Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.’s net sales of Enhertu®. (Id.) Defendants Daiichi Sankyo
`
`Company, Limited, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca UK Ltd.’s (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) dispute both Ms. Distler’s opinion as well as many other opinions and assertions
`
`that she makes in her declaration. To test the veracity of Ms. Distler’s opinions and factual
`
`conclusions, as well as to better understand the content of her declaration and opinions,
`
`Defendants requested that Ms. Distler be made available for deposition on a mutually-agreed
`
`date, for a maximum of 3.5 hours, prior to September 15 (seven days before the joint proposed
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00337-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`
`Defendant, and
`
`
`ASTRAZENECA
`PHARMACEUTICALS LP and
`ASTRAZENECA UK LTD.,
`
`
` Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED REQUEST FOR DEPOSITION OF SEAGEN MOTION
`DECLARANT MS. CARRIE DISTLER AND FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING
`
`Plaintiff Seagen Inc. (“Seagen”) filed a Motion for Judgment for Supplemental Damages
`
`and Ongoing Royalties (“Motion for Judgment”) and submitted a declaration in support of its
`
`Motion for Judgment from an economist Ms. Carrie Distler. (See Dkt. No. 443.) Therein, Ms.
`
`Distler writes that, if Seagen is entitled to an ongoing royalty, in her opinion a post-verdict
`
`hypothetical negotiation between the parties would lead to an outcome of a royalty of 10% to
`
`12% of non-party Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.’s net sales of Enhertu®. (Id.) Defendants Daiichi Sankyo
`
`Company, Limited, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca UK Ltd.’s (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) dispute both Ms. Distler’s opinion as well as many other opinions and assertions
`
`that she makes in her declaration. To test the veracity of Ms. Distler’s opinions and factual
`
`conclusions, as well as to better understand the content of her declaration and opinions,
`
`Defendants requested that Ms. Distler be made available for deposition on a mutually-agreed
`
`date, for a maximum of 3.5 hours, prior to September 15 (seven days before the joint proposed
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 455 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 19611
`
`deadline for Defendants’ response to Seagen’s Motion for Judgment (see Dkt. No. 453)). Seagen
`
`refused, stating without any explanation that Seagen would only produce Ms. Distler for a mere
`
`1.5 hours of deposition. That is an insufficient amount of time to explore her 15-page
`
`declaration full of financial and economic exposition—as well as HER2-positive cancer
`
`treatment market analysis—and her reliance on 31 different exhibits (12 of which contain
`
`financial and market data upon which she relies). Seagen’s position is particularly prejudicial
`
`here, where it seeks up to a 50% increase of the royalty rate it asserts was implicitly found by the
`
`jury. (See Dkt. No. 443.)
`
`In light of the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court order Seagen to
`
`make its motion declarant, Ms. Distler, available for deposition on a mutually-agreed date, not
`
`exceeding 3.5 hours of time on the record, prior to September 15, 2022. Defendants note that
`
`Seagen has not represented that Ms. Distler is not available during this period, and, to the extent
`
`that she is only available at a later date, Defendants are willing to accommodate her schedule and
`
`adjust the briefing deadlines concerning Seagen’s Motion for Judgment.
`
`Defendants also request expedited briefing on its Opposed Request for Deposition of
`
`Seagen Motion Declarant Ms. Carrie Distler (“Opposed Request for Deposition”). There is good
`
`cause for an expedited resolution of this motion in light of the quickly approaching proposed
`
`deadline for Defendants’ response to Seagen’s Motion for Judgment. (See Dkt. No. 453.)
`
`Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court order Seagen to respond to Defendants’
`
`Opposed Request for Deposition within three days.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 455 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 19612
`
`Dated: August 30, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Preston K. Ratliff II
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`State Bar No. 00790553
`The Dacus Firm, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, Texas, 75701
`+1 (903) 705-1117
`+1 (903) 581-2543 facsimile
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`mark@themannfirm.com
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`(903) 657-8540
`(903) 657-6003 (fax)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Daiichi Sankyo Company,
`Limited
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Preston K. Ratliff II
`prestonratliff@paulhastings.com
`Ashley N. Mays-Williams
`ashleymayswilliams@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Telephone: 212.318.6000
`
`Jeffrey A. Pade
`jeffpade@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202.551.1700
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Daiichi Sankyo Company,
`Limited
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 455 Filed 08/30/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 19613
`
`Dated: August 30, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David I. Berl
`
`Jennifer Parker Ainsworth
`Texas State Bar No. 00784720
`WILSON, ROBERTSON & CORNELIUS, P.C.
`909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400
`Tyler, Texas 75701
`Phone: (903) 509-5000
`Facsimile: (903) 509-5092
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`David I. Berl
`dberl@wc.com
`Jessamyn S. Berniker
`jberniker@wc.com
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`tfletcher@wc.com
`Jessica L. Pahl
`jpahl@wc.com
`Kathryn S. Kayali
`kkayali@wc.com
`Kevin Hoagland-Hanson
`khoagland-hanson@wc.com
`Andrew L. Hoffman
`ahoffman@wc.com
`Angela Gao
`agao@wc.com
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202.434.5000
`Facsimile: 202.434.5029
`
`Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendants AstraZeneca
`Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Ltd
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 455 Filed 08/30/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 19614
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to
`
`electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail on August 30,
`
`2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Preston K. Ratliff II
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`On August 26, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), counsel for Defendants met and
`
`conferred with counsel for Seagen. On August 29, 2022, counsel for Daiichi Sankyo Company,
`
`Limited repeated its request for Ms. Distler’s deposition to Seagen and agreed to limit it to a
`
`maximum of 3.5 hours on the record. On August 30, 2022, counsel for Seagen indicated that it
`
`opposed the requested deposition, and therefore opposes the relief sought by this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Preston K. Ratliff II
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
