AMGNvSANDOZ 2019-08-07

Case 2:16-cv-01118-CCC-MF Document 688 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 165 PageID: 21948
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IMMUNEX CORPORATION; )
AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED; )
and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC.; ) Hon. Claire C. Cecchi
)
Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No.: 2: 16-cv-01118-CCC
V. ) MF
)
SANDOZ INC.; SANDOZ )
INTERNATIONAL GMBH; and SANDOZ ) FINAL PRE-TRIAL
GMBH; ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
This matter having come before the Court for a pretrial conference pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16; and the undersigned counsel listed below from Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP
and Sidley Austin LLP having appeared for Plaintiffs lmmunex Corp. ("Immunex") and Amgen
Manufacturing, Ltd. ("AML"), the undersigned counsel listed below from Gibbons P.C. and
Williams & Connolly LLP having appeared for Plaintiff Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. ("Roche"),
and the undersigned counsel from Hill Wallack LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP having
appeared for Defendants Sandoz Inc., Sandoz International GmbH, and Sandoz GmbH
(collectively "Sandoz" or "Defendants"), and counsel having been notified that a bench trial in
these matters has been scheduled before the Hon. Claire C. Cecchi beginning on September 11,
2018 at 9:30 am., the following Final Pretrial Order is hereby entered:
I. JURISDICTION
This is a patent infringement matter arising under the Patent Laws of the United States,
Title 35, United States Code. For purposes of this action only, no party has contested that this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
I
1338(a). 1 For the purposes of this action only, no party has contested personal jurisdiction or
venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) or 1400(b).
II. OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On July 30, 2015, Sandoz submitted a Biologics License Application ("abbreviated
BLA" or "aBLA") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 262(k) of the Biologics Price Competition and
Innovation Act ("the BPCIA")2 (i.e., a section 35 l (k) application) seeking authorization from the
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to market Erelzi®, a biosirnilar oflmmunex's
ENBREL® (etanercept) product ("Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept"). On September 29, 2015,
the FDA accepted for review Sandoz's aBLA.
On December 18, 2015, Immunex provided Sandoz with a list of patents for which
Immunex believed that a claim of infringement could be reasonably asserted based on
Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept. See 42 U.S.C. § 262(/)(3)(A). The list of patents included
United States Patent Nos. 8,063,182 ("the '182 patent"), 8,163,522 ("the '522 patent")
(collectively referred to as the "Patents-in-Suit"). Plaintiffs' list also included U.S. Patent Nos.
7,915,225 ("the Finck '225 patent"), 8,119,605 ("the Finck '605 patent"), and 8,722,631 ("the
Finck '631 patent") (collectively, "the Finck Patents").3
A. Plaintiffs' Allegations and Request for Relief
Immunex/AML and Roche (collectively "Plaintiffs") allege that Sandoz's submission of
an aBLA referencing Immunex's ENBREL® product is an act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §
1 Plaintiffs further assert that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to§ 220l(a). Defendants disagree.
2 42 U.S.C. § 262(k) of the BPCIA is also known as § 351 (k) of the Public Health Service Act ("PHSA").
---- - ------- -
---- - ----- ---- -
2
27l(e)(2)(C). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Sandoz has infringed claims 11-12 and 35-36 of
the '182 patent and claims 3, 8, and 10 of the '522 patent (the "Asserted Claims").
Plaintiffs also allege that the commercial manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or
importation of Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept into the United States will infringe the
Asserted Claims of the '182 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 27l(a) and the Asserted Claims of the '522
patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).
Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment that Defendants have infringed each and
every one of the Asserted Claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit, and that the Asserted Claims of
Patents-in-Suit are not invalid.
Plaintiffs further request that the Court enter an order enjoining Defendants, as well as all
of Defendants' officers, employees, agents, representatives, affiliates, assignees, and successors,
and all persons acting on behalf or at the direction of, or in concert with Defendants, from
engaging in the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation into the United States of
Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept or any other product that would infringe the Asserted Claims
of the '182 patent or, by its making, infringe the Asserted Claims of the '522 patent, prior to the
respective expiration date of each of the Patents-in-Suit.
Plaintiffs further request that the Court declare that this is an exceptional case pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 285 and award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this
action and/or any further relief as deemed just and proper by this Court.
B. Defendants' Defenses, Allegations, and Request for Relief
This patent infringement action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271, including 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(e)(2)(C), which was enacted in 2010 as part of the BPCIA. The BPCIA established, inter
alia, an abbreviated pathway (a§ 351(k) application) for regulatory approval of follow-on
3
biological products that are "highly similar" to a previously approved biological drug product
("reference product").
Defendants allege that the Asserted Claims are invalid under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting; for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and/or
for lack of written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.4 Defendants allege that
asserted claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent are also invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Defendants do not contest infringement of any valid and enforceable Asserted Claim of
the '182 patent.5 Defendants do not contest infringement of any valid and enforceable Asserted
Claim of the '522 patent, under the Court's August 20, 2018 claim construction ruling, without
prejudice to Defendants' right to appeal that ruling.
Defendants request that the Court enter judgment that each of the Asserted Claims of the
Patents-in-Suit are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, obviousness, inadequate
written description, and/or lack of enablement. Defendants also request that the Court enter
judgment that claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent are invalid for anticipation.
Defendants further request that the Court declare that this is an exceptional case pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award Defendants their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
this action and/or any further relief as deemed just and proper by this Court.
III. PENDING/CONTEMPLATED MOTIONS/TRIAL BRIEFS

The following motions/issues are presently pending before the Court:
4 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to Title 35, United States Code, Section 102, Section 103, Section 112,
and Section 135, are to the pre-America Invents Act ("pre-AIA") version of the Patent Act.
5 February 21, 2018 letter from Eric I. Abraham to Liza M. Walsh; see also May 15, 2018 Joint Pretrial Report to
Judge Cecchi, D.I. 486 ("Joint Pretrial Report").
4
1. The parties dispute the meaning of the word "hinge" in the phrase "-hinge-CH2-
CH3 region of a human [IgG/IgGl]." D.I. 513; D.I 529; D.I. 541. The Court ruled that this is an
issue to be determined at trial. D.I. 572.
2. Defendants have filed the following motion in limine: Motion in Limine
Regarding Priority Date of Claims 35 and 36 of the '182 Patent, D.I. 518; D.I. 531; D.I. 538. 6
3. On August 15, 2018, the Court denied or administratively terminated Plaintiffs'
pending Motions in Limine and denied or administratively terminated Defendants' pending
Motions in Limine and Daubert motions. D.I. 572.
Pretrial briefs will be filed with the Court by each side on August 27, 2018 by 5:00 P.M.
EDT (D.I. 600), with Plaintiffs collectively submitting one brief, and Defendants collectively
submitting one brief. Briefs shall be limited to 45 pages per side (if 12 point font) or 60 pages
per side (if 14 point font).
IV. STIPULATION OF FACTS
A. The Parties
1. Plaintiff Inununex Corporation ("Imrnunex") is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Washington with its principal place of business at One
Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, California 91320. Amgen Inc. acquired Immunex in July
2002. Immunex is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc.
2. Plaintiff Amgen Manufacturing, Limited ("AML") is a corporation existing under
the laws of the Territory ofBennuda, with its principal place of business at Road 31 km 24.6,
Juncos, Puerto Rico 00777. AML is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc.
6
Defendants have agreed to hold in abeyance this motion. See Transcript of Hearing Before the Hon. Claire C.
Cecchi, June 29, 2018, at 101:20-22 ("June 29, 2018 Hearing Transcript''). The Court administratively terminated
this motion on August 16, 2018. D.I. 572 at 15.
5
3. Plaintiff Hoffinann-La Roche Inc. ("Roche") is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 150
Clove Road, Suite 8, Little Falls, New Jersey 07424.
4. Defendant Sandoz Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business at 100 College Road West, Princeton,
New Jersey 08540.
5. Defendant Sandoz International GmbH is a Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung
(Company with Limited Liability) existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany
with its principal place of business at Industriestrafie 25, 83607 Holzkirchen, Germany.
6. Defendant Sandoz GmbH is a Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung (Company
with Limited Liability) existing under the laws of the Republic of Austria with its principal place
of business at BiochemiestraJ3e 10, 6250 Kundl, Austria.
B. The Patents-in-Suit
1. The '182 Patent
7. The '182 patent is titled "Human TNF Receptor Fusion Protein," and issued on
November 22, 2011. The named inventors listed on the face of the '182 patent are Manfred
Brockhaus, Reiner Gentz, Zlatko Dembic, Werner Lesslauer, Hansruedi Loetscher, and Ernst
Jurgen Schlaeger. Each of the named inventors of the '182 patent was formerly an employee of
a corporate affiliate of Plaintiff Roche.
8. Plaintiff Roche is identified as the assignee on the face of the '182 patent.
9. The '182 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/444,790 ("the
Brockhaus '790 application"). The Brockhaus '790 application was filed on May 19, 1995 as a
division of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/095,640 ("the Brockhaus '640 application"), which
issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,610,279 ("the Brockhaus '279 patent") on March 11, 1997. The '640
6
application was filed on July 21, 1993 as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
07/580,013 ("the Brockhaus '013 application").
10. On its face, the '182 patent also claims priority to four foreign patent applications:
(i) Swiss Patent Application No. 3319/89, filed on September 12, 1989; (ii) Swiss Patent
Application No. 746/90, filed on March 8, 1990; (iii) Swiss Patent Application No. 1347/90,
filed on April 20, 1990; and (iv) European Patent Application No. 90116707 ("the Brockhaus
'707 application"), filed on August 31, 1990.
11. The '182 patent issued on November 22, 2011.
12. The '182 patent expires on November 22, 2028.
13. Plaintiffs assert infringement of claims 11-12 and 35-36 of the '182 patent.
14. Claim 1 of the '182 patent is not asserted, but is the independent claim on which
Asserted Claims 11-12 depend.
15. Claim 1 of the '182 patent recites: "A protein comprising: (a) a human tumor
necrosis factor (TNF)-binding soluble fragment of an insoluble human TNF receptor, wherein
the insoluble human TNF receptor (i) specifically binds human TNF, (ii) has an apparent
molecular weight of about 75 kilodaltons on a non-reducing SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and
(iii) comprises the amino acid sequence LPAQVAFXPYAPEPGSTC (SEQ ID NO: 1O); and (b)
all of the domains of the constant region of a human imrnunoglobulin IgG heavy chain other than
the first domain of said constant region; wherein said protein specifically binds human TNF."
16. Claim 11 of the '182 patent recites: "The protein of claim 1, wherein the protein
consists essentially of the extracellular region of the insoluble human TNF receptor and all the
domains of the constant region of a human IgG1 imrnunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first
domain of the constant region."
7
17. Claim 12 of the '182 patent recites: "A pharmaceutical composition comprising
the protein of claim 11 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier material."
Asserted Claims 35-36 depend.
19. Claim 30 of the '182 patent recites: "A protein comprising (a) human tumor
necrosis factor (TNF) binding soluble fragment of the amino acid sequence encoded by the
cDNA insert of the plasmid deposited with the ATCC on Oct. 17, 2006 under accession number
PTA 794 2, (b) all of the domains of the constant region of a human immunoglobulin IgG heavy
chain other than the first domain of said constant region; wherein said protein specifically binds
human TNF."
20. Claim 35 of the '182 patent recites: "The protein of claim 30, wherein the protein
consists essentially of the extracellular region of the human tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor
amino acid sequence encoded by the cDNA insert, and all the domains of the constant region of a
human IgG1 immunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first domain of the constant region."
21. Claim 36 of the '182 patent recites: "A pharmaceutical composition comprising
the protein of claim 35 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier material."
2. The '522 Patent
22. The '522 patent is titled "Human TNF Receptor," and issued on April 24, 2012.
The named inventors listed on the face of the '522 patent are Manfred Brockhaus, Reiner Gentz,
Zlatko Dembic, Werner Lesslauer, Hansruedi Loetscher, and Ernst-Jurgen Schlaeger. Each of
the named inventors of the '522 patent was formerly an employee of a corporate affiliate of
Plaintiff Roche.
23. Plaintiff Roche is identified as the assignee on the face of the '522 patent.
8
24. The '522 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 08/444,791 ("the
Brockhaus '791 application"). The Brockhaus '791 application was filed on May 19, 1995 as a
division of the Brockhaus '640 application, which issued as the Brockhaus '279 patent on March
11, 1997. The Brockhaus '640 application was filed on July 21, 1993 as a continuation of the
Brockhaus '013 application.
25. On its face, the '522 patent also claims priority to four foreign patent applications:
(i) Swiss Patent Application No. 3319/89, filed on September 12, 1989; (ii) Swiss Patent
Application No. 746/90, filed on March 8, 1990; (iii) Swiss Patent Application No. 1347/90,
filed on April 20, 1990; and (iv) European Patent Application No. 90116707 ("the Brockhaus
'707 application"), filed on August 31, 1990.
26. The '522 patent issued on April 24, 2012.
27. The '522 patent expires on April 24, 2029.
28. Plaintiffs assert claims 3, 8, and 10 of the '522 patent.
Asserted Claim 3 depends.
30. Claim 1 of the '522 patent recites: "A method comprising the steps of: (a)
culturing a host cell comprising a polynucleotide, wherein the polynucleotide encodes a protein
consisting of: (i) the extracellular region of an insoluble human TNF receptor, wherein the
insoluble human TNF receptor has an apparent molecular weight of about 75 kilodaltons as
determined on a non-reducing SDS-polyacrylamide gel and comprises the amino acid sequence
LPAQVAFXPYAPEPGSTC (SEQ ID NO: 10), and (ii) all of the domains of the constant region
of a human IgG immunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first domain of said constant region,
9
and (b) purifying an expression product of the polynucleotide from the cell mass or the culture
medium."
31. Claim 3 of the '522 patent recites: "The method of claim 1, wherein the IgG
heavy chain is an lgG 1 heavy chain."
Asserted Claims 8 and 10 depend.
33. Claim 7 of the '522 patent recites: "A method comprising the steps of: (a)
culturing a host cell comprising a polynucleotide, wherein the polynucleotide encodes a protein
consisting of: (i) the extracellular region of an insoluble human TNF receptor, wherein the
insoluble human TNF receptor comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID N0:27 and (ii) all
of the domains of the constant region of a human IgG immunoglobulin heavy chain other than
the first domain of said constant region, and (b) purifying an expression product of the
polynucleotide from the cell mass or the culture medium."
34. Claim 8 of the '522 patent recites: ''The method of claim 7, wherein the human
lgG immunoglobulin heavy chain is an IgG1 heavy chain."
35. Claim 10 of the '522 patent recites: "The method of claim 8, wherein the host cell
is a CHO cell."
C. Etanercept
1. ENBREL®
36. Immunex is the reference product sponsor of the biological drug product
ENBREL® in the United States. The active ingredient in ENBREL® is etanercept.
37. The etanercept drug substance in ENBREL® is a dimeric fusion protein consisting
of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor fused to hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human
IgG 1. The amino acid sequence of etanercept is identified as Sequence A in Joint Exhibit 1.
10
38. ENBREL® (etanercept) is presently approved by FDA for the following
indications: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), psoriatic
arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and plaque psoriasis (PsO).
39. Immunex filed Biologic License Application ("BLA") No. 103795 seeking FDA
approval ofENBREL® (etanercept). FDA approved BLA No. 103795 on November 2, 1998 for
use of ENBREL® (etanercept) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Immunex holds the rights
to BLA No. 103795.
40. Immunex filed supplements to BLA No. 103795, requesting that ENBREL®
(etanercept) be approved for certain acj.ditional indications. FDA approved ENBREL®
(etanercept) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in 1999, psoriatic
arthritis (PsA) in 2002, ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in 2003, and plaque psoriasis (PsO) in 2004.
2. Erelzi®, Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept
41. On July 30, 2015, Sandoz Inc. submitted a Section 35l(k) application, aBLA No.
761042, to FDA, seeking authorization to market Erelzi® as a biosimilar version of Immunex 's
ENBREL® (etanercept) product in the United States.
42. On September 29, 2015, FDA accepted for review Sandoz's aBLA No. 761042.
43. On August 30, 2016, FDA approved Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept for all the
indications in which ENBREL® (etanercept) had been approved at that time: rheumatoid arthritis
(RA), polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing
spondylitis (AS), and plaque psoriasis (PsO).
44. On July 27, 2017, Sandoz filed an amendment to its aBLA No. 761042 seeking
FDA approval for a new proposed label for Erelzi® that removed the indications for psoriatic
arthritis (PsA) and plaque psoriasis (PsO). The amendment was made because these indications
remain protected by the Finck Patents until August 13, 2019.
11
4 5. On January 26, 2018, FDA approved the new label for Erelzi®. The new label for
Erelzi® states that it is indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), polyarticular
juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Erelzi® is not indicated for
the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or plaque psoriasis (PsO).
46. The etanercept drug substance in Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept is a dimeric
fusion protein consisting of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor fused to hinge-CH2-
CH3 region of a human IgG 1. The etanercept drug substance in Defendants' Biosimilar
Etanercept has the amino acid sequence identified as Sequence A in Joint Exhibit 1, which is
the same amino acid sequence as the etanercept drug substance in Immunex's ENBREL®
biological drug product.
D. The Litigation
47. On February 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants asserting
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 27l (e)(2)(C), seeking a declaratory judgment of infringement
under, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 (a), (b ), (g), and further seeking, among other things, damages or other
monetary relief adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants' infringement, an injunction
preventing infringement and future infringement until the later of the expiration dates of the
Patents-in-Suit, a declaration that this is an exceptional case such that Plaintiffs should be
awarded attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and such other relief as the Court
may deem just and proper. D.I. 1.
48. On March 21, 2016, Sandoz Inc. filed its Answer denying infringement of, inter
alia, the Patents-in-Suit. Sandoz Inc. also denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief sought
in the Complaint, and denied that the case is exceptional. Sandoz Inc. also pled its affirmative
defenses that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more sections of Title 35
of the United States Code, invalid under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
12
double patenting, and/or unenforceable due to prosecution laches. Sandoz Inc. requested that: (a)
Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed with prejudice and judgment be entered in favor of Sandoz
Inc.; (b) a declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 entitling Sandoz Inc. to
relief under that statute; and (c) an award of such other and further relief to Sandoz Inc. that the
Court deems just and proper. DJ. 28.
49. On September 20, 2016, Sandoz International GmbH filed its Answer denying
infringement of, inter alia, the Patents-in-Suit. Sandoz International GmbH also denied that
Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief sought in the Complaint, and denied that the case is
exceptional. Sandoz International GmbH also pled its affirmative defenses that the Patents-in
Suit and the Finck Patents are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more sections of Title 35 of the
United States Code, invalid under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting, and/or unenforceable due to prosecution }aches. Sandoz International GmbH
requested that: (a) Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed with prejudice and judgment be entered in
favor of Sandoz International GmbH; (b) a declaration that this case is exceptional under 35
U.S.C. § 285 entitling Sandoz International GmbH to relief under that statute; and (c) an award
of such other and further relief to Sandoz International GmbH that the Court deems just and
proper. D.I. 105.
50. On October 27, 2016 Sandoz GmbH filed its Answer denying infringement of,
inter alia, the Patents-in-Suit. Sandoz GmbH also denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief
sought in the Complaint, and denied that the case is exceptional. Sandoz GmbH also pied its
affinnative defenses that the Patents-in-Suit and the Finck Patents are invalid for failing to
satisfy one or more sections of Title 35 of the United States Code, invalid under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, and/or unenforceable due to prosecution
13
laches. Sandoz GmbH requested that: (a) Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
judgment be entered in favor of Sandoz GmbH; (b) a declaration that this case is exceptional
under 35 U.S.C. § 285 entitling Sandoz GmbH to relief under that statute; and (c) an award of
such other and further relief to Sandoz GmbH that the Court deems just and proper. D.I. 121.
V. STIPULATIONS AND CONSENT ORDERS
51. On August 11, 2016, the Court entered a Consent Preliminary Injunction pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), subject to the terms and conditions of a sealed Stipulation. D.I. 95.
52. On July 11, 2017, Defendants withdrew their prosecution !aches defense against
the Patents-in-Suit. Defendants informed the Court of their withdrawal of this defense during the
July 13, 2017 status conference with the Court. D .I. 199.
53. On October 20, 2017, the Court entered a Consent Order regarding constructive
amendment of Defendants' invalidity contentions and case schedule. D.I. 253.
54. On November 3, 2017, Plaintiffs withdrew their claims of infringement of claims
1-10 and 13-34 of the '182 patent and elected to assert at trial claims 11, 12, 35 and 36 of the
'182 patent and claims 1-3 and 7-10 of the '522 patent. Plaintiffs informed the Court of the same
in a letter to the Court filed under seal on November 3, 2017. D.I. 268.
55. On January 26, 2018, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order regarding
Plaintiffs' motion to strike portions of the Rebuttal Expert Report of Daniel Capon, Ph.D. D.I.
367.
14
56. In the May 15, 2018 Joint Pretrial Report, Plaintiffs identified that they are
asserting at trial infringement of claims 11, 12, 35, and 36 of the '182 patent and claims 1-3 and
7-10 of tbe '522 patent.7 D.I. 486 at 6.
57. In the May 15, 2018 Joint Pretrial Report, Defendants indicated they do not
contest that Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept infringes the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent.
D.I. 486 at 6.
58. In the Joint Pretrial Report, Defendants listed the following defenses: (a)
non-infringement of the Asserted Claims of the '522 patent and (b) three theories of invalidity:
• Obviousness based on one or more of six purported prior art combinations;
• Obviousness-type double patenting based on one or more of three purported
reference families; and

• Lack of written description and enablement. D.I. 486 at 6-7.
59. At the June 29, 2018 hearing, the Court confirmed that Defendants may assert that
claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent are anticipated.8
60. On June 7, 2018, the Court entered an Amended Consent Preliminary Injunction
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), subject to the terms and conditions of a sealed Amended
Stipulation. D.I. 509.
7
On August 13, 2018, Plaintiffs identified that they are asserting at trial only claims 11-12 and 35-36 of the '182
patent, and claims 3, 8, and 10 of the '522 patent.
8 June 29, 2018 Hearing Transcript at 107:11-23.
15
61. Sandoz agreed to hold in abeyance its Motion in Limine Regarding the Priority
Date of Claims 35 and 36 of the '182 Patent. D.I. 518.9
62. On August 21,2018, the Court entered an Order to Preclude Introduction of
Arguments on Defenses and Issues No Longer in the Case. DJ. 516,597.
63. On August 22, 2018,the Court resolved the parties• dispute regarding the
construction of the term "wherein the polynucleotide contains the genetic information for a
protein consisting of," relevant to the Asserted Claims of the '522 patent. D.I. 596. Specifically,
the Court construed the term to mean "wherein the polynucleotide contains the genetic
information for a protein consisting of." Id. Based on the Court's claim construction, and
without prejudice to their right to appeal the Court's claim construction ruling, Defendants
confirmed that they will not contest infringement of the Asserted Claims of the '522 patent at
trial.
64. On September 10, 2018, Defendants stipulated that the Sandoz's submission
aBLA 761042 infringed the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. §
271(e)(2)(C). Defendants also stipulated that Defendants' making, using,offering to sell,or
selling of Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept within the United States, or Defendants'
importation of Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept into the United States, will infringe claims 11-
12 and 35-36 of the '182 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); and Defendants' making, using,offering to
sell, or selling of Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept within the United States, or Defendants'
importation of Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept into the United States, will infringe claims 3,
8, and 10 of the '522 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 27l(g).
9
The Court administratively tenninated this motion on August 16, 2018. DJ. 572 at 15.
16
65. On September 10, 2018, Defendants agreed to Plaintiffs' proposed construction of
the following tenn of the '182 Patent: "all of the domains of the constant region of a human
imrnunoglobulin lgG[ l] heavy chain other than the first domain of said constant region" and the
following term of the '522 Patent: "all of the domains of the constant region of a human lgG
imrnunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first domain of said constant region." (D.I. 618).
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
66. The parties have agreed upon the proper construction of the following claim terms
from the '182 patent and the '522 patent, and the Court has entered orders on the construction of
these claims terms (D.I. 136, D.I. 144):
17
Term Relevant Claims Agreed Construction
"the extracellular region of Asserted Claim 11 of the '182 Plain and ordinary
the insoluble human TNF patent meaning:
receptor"
Asserted Claim 12 of the '182 "that portion of the human
patent (by dependence on TNF receptor that
Asserted Claim 11) protrudes outside the
cell" 10
"the extracellular region of Asserted Claim 35 of the '182

the human tumor necrosis patent
factor (TNF) receptor"
Asserted Claim 36 of the '182
patent (by dependence on
Asserted Claim 35)
"the extracellular region of Asserted Claim 3 of the '522 Plain and ordinary
the human tumor necrosis patent (by dependence on meaning:
factor (TNF) receptor, Claim 1)
wherein the insoluble human "that portion of the human
TNF receptor has an 75 kDa TNF receptor that
apparent molecular weight of protrudes outside the
about 75 kilodaltons as cell" 11
determined on a non-
reducing SDS
polyacrylamide gel and
comprises the amino acid
sequence
LPAQVAFXPYAPEPGSTC
(SEQ ID NO: l O)"
"the extracellular region of Asserted Claims 8 and 10 of

an insoluble human TNF the '522 Patent (by
receptor, wherein the dependence on Claim 7)
insoluble human TNF
receptor comprises the amino
acid sequence of SEQ ID
NO: 27"
100.I. 136.
II D.I. 136.
18
Term Relevant Claims Agreed Construction
"all of the domains of the Claims 1 and 30 of the '182 Plain and ordinary
constant region of a human patent (unasserted, but the meaning:
immunoglobulin IgG[ 1] independent claims from
heavy chain other than the which Asserted Claims 11-12 "'-hinge-CH2-CH3' region
first domain of said constant and 35-36 respectively of a human [IgG/lgG l ]" 12
region" depend)
Asserted Claims 11 and 35 of

the '182 patent (expressly and
by dependence on unasserted
claims 1 and 30, respectively)
Asserted Claims 12 and 36 of

the '182 patent (by
dependence on Asserted
Claims 11 and 35,
respectively)
"all of the domains of the Asserted Claims 3, 8, and 10

constant region of a human of the '522 patent (by
IgG immunoglobulin heavy dependence on Claims 1 and
chain other than the first 7)
domain of said constant
region"
"specifically binds human Claims 1 and 30 of the '182 Plain and ordinary
TNF" patent (unasserted, but the meaning:
independent claims from
which Asserted Claims 11-12 "has the ability to strongly
and 35-36 respectively and stably bind human
depend) TNF" 13
Asserted Claims 11-12 and

35-36 of the '182 patent (by
dependence on Asserted
Claims 1 and 30, respectively)
12 D.I. 144. The plain and ordinary meaning of"hinge" is disputed. The Court has indicated that "both sides will be
pennitted to offer expert testimony as to how a POSA as of August 1990 would have understood the meaning of
'hinge."' D.I. 572 at 9. The Court has further noted that "if additional construction is needed to detennine the scope
of the claims, the Court will do so after further development of the record. Id., footnote 4.
13
D.I. 144.
19
67. The Court has entered an order construing the following claim term of the '522
patent that had been disputed by the parties (D.I. 596):
Term Relevant Claims Court's Construction
"wherein the polynucleotide Asserted Claims 3, 8, and 10 "wherein the

encodes a protein consisting of the '522 patent polynucleotide contains the
of' genetic information for a
protein consisting of'
68. The parties have agreed upon the construction of the following claim term (D.I.
618):
Claim Terms Construction

'182 Patent: "all of the domains of the "the exon-encoded '-hinge-CH2-CH3' region
constant region of a human immunoglobulin of a human [IgG/IgG 1 ]"
IgG[ 1] heavy chain other than the first
domain of said constant region"
'522 Patent: "all of the domains of the

constant region of a human lgG
immunoglobulin heavy chain other than the
first domain of said constant region"
69. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 shows Plaintiffs' version of the language of the Asserted
Claims (including claims from which the Asserted Claims depend) as the Asserted Claims would
be understood through the undisputed, plain-and-ordinary-meaning claim constructions.
70. Defendants object to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 as mischaracterizing how the Asserted
Claims would be understood through the undisputed, plain-and-ordinary-meaning claim
constructions. Plaintiffs paraphrase certain portions of the claims to give the claims an
alternative meaning, rather than merely substituting the disputed claim terms with the agreed-
20
upon constructions. The claims are best understood through the presentation of evidence during
trial.
VII. ISSUES TO BE LITIGATED 14
71.
A. Infringement (3S U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (e)(2)(C) and (g))
1. Plaintiffs' Statement
72. Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C), the submission of an application seeking
approval of a biological product is an act of infringement with respect to a patent that is
identified in the list of patents described in section 351(/)(3) of the PHSA (including as provided
under section 351(/)(7) of such Act). See Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1664, 1670
(2017)...
73. Defendants do not contest that Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept meets each and
every limitation of each of the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent and therefore infringes the
Asserted Claims of the '182 patent under 35 U.S.C § 271(a) and (e)(2)(C).
74. Defendants do also not contest that their method of making of Defendants'
Biosimilar Etanercept meets each and every limitation of each of the Asserted Claims of the '522
patent and therefore infringes the Asserted Claims of the '522 patent under 35 U.S.C § 271(g)
and (e)(2)(C).
75. Defendants therefore do not contest that the commercial manufacture, use, sale,
offer for sale, and/or importation of Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept into the United States
14 The parties provide the following summary of the issues in the case without waiver of their rights to present their
claims and defenses with more specificity during trial.
21
will infringe the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and the Asserted
Claims of the '522 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) and that the submission of Defendants'
Section 351(k) application, aBLA No. 761042, to FDA, seeking authorization to market Erelzi®
as a biosimilar version ofhnmunex's ENBREL® (etanercept) product in the United States is an
act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C).
2. Defendants' Statement
76. Defendants dispute that there are any remaining issues to be litigated at trial
relating to infringement, without prejudice to Defendants' right to appeal. Plaintiffs
mischaracterize the issues not contested by Defendants.
77. As stated in the May 15, 2018 Joint Pretrial Report, Defendants do not contest
that the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent cover Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept, but do not
thereby waive any argument that the specification fails to adequately describe or enable the
Asserted Claims.
78. Defendants do not contest infringement of the '522 patent, under the Court's
claim construction (D.I. 595), without prejudice to their right to appeal the Court's claim
construction ruling.
79. The submission of Defendants' Section 35l(k) application pursuant to the
BPCIA, aBLA No. 761042, to FDA, seeking authorization to market Erelzi® as a biosimilar
version of Immunex's ENBREL® (etanercept) product in the United States does not give rise to
liability for patent infringement. The Supreme Court has explained that the BPCIA "enables the
parties to bring infringement actions at certain points in the application process, even if the
applicant has not yet committed an act that would traditionally constitute patent infringement."
Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 13 7 S. Ct. 1664, 1669 (2017) (emphasis added). The Supreme Cowi
"refer[s] to this kind of preapproval infringement as 'artificial' infringement." Id.
22
80. Defendants' activities in the United States thus far have not infringed any
Asserted Claim of the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 27l(a) or (g). 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(l )
provides a safe harbor for any acts of infringement "solely for uses reasonably related to the
development or submission of any information" to the FDA, which regulates the manufacture,
use and sale of drugs-such as Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept.
B. Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
81. "[I]t is a bedrock principle of our patent system that when a patent expires, the
public is free to use not only the same invention claimed in the expired patent but also obvious or
patentably indistinct modifications of that invention.... The double patenting doctrine has
always been implemented to effectively uphold that principle." Gilead Sci., Inc. v. Natco
Pharma Ltd., 753 F.3d 1208, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Boehringer Inge/heim Int'/ GmbH
v. Barr Labs., Inc., 592 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
82. "Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails two steps.
First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the earlier patent and the claim in the later
patent and determines the differences. . . . Second, the court detennines whether the differences
in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct." Eli Lilly & Co.
v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 200 l ). "A later claim that is not patentably
distinct from an earlier claim in a commonly owned patent is invalid for obvious-type double
patenting. . . . A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the
later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim." Id.
83. "As a general rule, a 'one-way' test applies to determine obviousness-type double
patenting." In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1149 (Fed.Cir. 2013). The two-way test is "a narrow
exception to the general rule of the one-way test," which "is appropriate only in the 'unusual
23
circumstance' where 'the PTO is solely responsible for the delay in causing the second-filed
application to issue prior to the first."' Id. Application of the two-way test requires
circumstances where both "(l) a second-filed application issues prior to a first-filed application,
and (2) 'the PTO is solely responsible for the delay' in the issuance of the first-filed application."
In re Janssen Biotech, Inc., 880 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit has
declined to apply the two-way test where an applicant "had significant control over the rate of
prosecution of the application" and has not limited the analysis to the time period during which
both applications where pending. In re Emert, 124 F.3d at 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
84. "There are two justifications for obviousness-type double patenting. The first is
'to prevent unjustified timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent no matter
how the extension is brought about.' The second rationale is to prevent multiple infringement
suits by different assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention." Hubbell, 709 F.3d
at 1145. Thus, an earlier-expiring patent that either has one or more inventors in common with a
later-expiring patent or shares a common assignee or owner with the later-expiring patent may be
used as an obviousness-type double patenting reference. Id. at 1146 (affirming that
"obviousness-type double patenting applies where an application and a conflicting patent have
one or more inventors in common but the inventive entities are not identical and the applications
were never commonly owned"); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 895 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("(W]e hold
that double patenting of the obviousness type, as applied to commonly-owned applications made
by different inventive entities, is still a viable doctrine.").
85. To guard against the potential for multiple infringement suits by different entities
asserting the same patented invention, the Federal Circuit identifies the entity that has "all
substantial rights" to the patent as the owner who has the authority to enforce the patent.
24
Namely, "a party that has been granted all substantial rights under the patent is considered the
owner regardless of how the parties characterize the transaction that conveyed those rights."
Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F.3d 1245, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Diamond Coating
Techs., LLC v. Hyndai Motor Am., 823 F.3d 615, 618-19 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Common ownership
for purposes of obviousness-type double patenting may be established at any point in time,
including after the time of invention. See Geneva Pharm., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349
F.3d 1373,1377,1382-86 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding patents invalid for obviousness-type double
patenting where the patentee "own[ed] the [reference] patents because [it] has merged with the
original assignees of those patents"); cf STC. UNM v. Intel Corp., 754 F.3d 940,944 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (affinning district court's dismissal for lack of standing where plaintiff assigned an
interest in the patent-in-suit to third-party during litigation to establish co-ownership of reference
patent under terms of terminal disclaimer filed during prosecution to overcome double patenting
rejection, but where co-owner then refused to join litigation). See also In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d
1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (obviousness type double patenting serves "to prevent unjustified
timewise extension of the right to exclude granted by a patent no matter how the extension is
brought about").
86. Section 121 may provide a safe harbor from double patenting invalidation for
certain "patent[s] issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction
under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement."
35 U.S.C.§ 121. The PTO may issue a restriction requirement "when 'independent and distinct
inventions' are claimed in one application." Gerber Garment Tech., Inc. v. Lectra Sys., Inc., 916
F.2d 683,687 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting 35 U.S.C.§ 121). The§ 121 safe harbor "applies only
to the divisional applications that are 'filed as a result of a restriction requirement. Plain
25
common sense dictates that a divisional application filed as a result of a restriction requirement
may not contain claims drawn to the invention set forth in the claims elected and prosecuted to
patent in the parent application. The divisional application must have claims drawn only to the
'other invention.'" Id. at 687.
87. The claims of the divisional application must maintain "consonance" with the
divisions imposed by the PTO's restriction requirement. Specifically, "the line of demarcation
between the 'independent and distinct inventions' that prompted the restriction requirement be
maintained. Though the claims may be amended, they must not be so amended as to bring them
back over the line imposed in the restriction requirement. Where that line is crossed the
prohibition of the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply." Id. at 688.
a. Defendants' Statement of the Issues of Law to be Litigated
(i) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the Finck

'225, '605, and '631 Patents
88. Whether each of the Finck '225 patent, the Finck '605 patent, and the Finck '631
patent are available as obviousness-type double patenting references to invalidate the Patents-in
Suit?
89. Whether a reference patent and a challenged patent are deemed "commonly
owned" for purposes of obviousness-type double patenting, when the owner of the reference
patent acquires all substantial rights to the challenged patent after the date of invention?
90. Whether a later-filed but earlier-expiring patent is available as an obviousness-
type double patenting reference to invalidate an earlier-filed but later-expiring challenged patent,
when the later-filed patent expires earlier than the earlier-filed challenged patent due to the
changes in the grant of U.S. patent term implemented by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GA TT)?
26
91. Whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over
each of claim I of the Finck '225 patent, claim 1 of the Finck '605 patent, or claim 1 of the Finck
'631 patent under the one-way test?
92. Whether Plaintiffs have shown that the Court should apply the two-way test,
instead of the presumptive one-way test, for the Finck '225 patent, the Finck '605 patent, and the
Finck '631 patent as obviousness-type double patenting references to the Patents-in-Suit?
(ii) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the Jacobs

'690 Patent
93. Whether the Jacobs '690 patent is available as an obviousness-type double
patenting reference to invalidate the Patents-in-Suit?
94. Whether a reference patent and a challenged patent are deemed "commonly
owned" for purposes of obviousness-type double patenting, when the owner of the reference
patent acquires all substantial rights to the challenged patent after the date of invention?
claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent under the one-way test?
instead of the presumptive one-way test, for the Jacobs '690 patent as an obviousness-type
double patenting reference to the Patents-in-Suit?
claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent under the two-way test?
27
(iii) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the

Brockhaus '279 Patent
98. Whether the Brockhaus '279 patent is available as an obviousness-type double
patenting reference to invalidate the '182 patent?
99. Whether Plaintiffs have shown that the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent are
entitled to claim the protection of the safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. § 121 against a claim of
obviousness-type double patenting over the Brockhaus '279 patent?
claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent under the one-way test?
instead of the presumptive one-way test, for the Brockhaus '279 patent as an obviousness-type
double patenting reference to the Patents-in-Suit?
claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent under the two-way test?
b. Defendants' Statement of the Issues of Fact to be Litigated
( i) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the Finck

'225, '605, and '631 Patents
103. Whether Plaintiff Immunex received all substantive ownership rights to the
Patents-in-Suit through the 2004 Accord and Satisfaction Agreement, resulting in Plaintiff
Immunex commonly owning each of the Patents-in-Suit and the Finck '225, '605, and '631
patents?
28
104. Whether the "TNFR:Fc" recited in claim 1 of each of the Finck '225, '605, and
'631 patents should be construed to refer to etanercept, as expressly defined in the patent
specification?
105. Whether the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit would have been anticipated
or obvious over claim 1 of each of the Finck '225, '605, and '631 patents, which claims a
method of treating a patient having psoriasis by administering etanercept?
106. Whether the patent applicants were at least partly responsible for the delay in
prosecution of the Patents-in-Suit, which caused the Finck '225 patent to issue before the
Patents-in-Suit and the Finck '605 patent to issue before the '182 patent?
(ii) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the Jacobs

'690 Patent
107. Whether Plaintiff lmmunex received all substantive ownership rights to the
Patents-in-Suit through the 2004 Accord and Satisfaction Agreement, resulting in Plaintiff
Immunex commonly owning each of the Patents-in-Suit and the Jacobs '690 patent?
108. Whether the "chimeric antibody comprising a TNF receptor comprising the
sequence of amino acids 3-163 of SEQ ID NO: I fused to the constant domain of an
immunoglobulin molecule" recited in claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent should be construed to
refer to etanercept, in light the specification and prosecution history of the Jacobs '690 patent as
well as statements by Plaintiff Immunex in marketing ENBREL® (etanercept)?
109. Whether the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit would have been anticipated
or obvious over claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent, which claims a method of lowering the levels
of active TNF-a. by administering etanercept?
29
prosecution of the Patents-in-Suit, which caused the Jacobs '690 patent to issue before the
Patents-in-Suit?
111. Whether claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent would have been anticipated or
obvious over any of Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit?
(iii) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the

112. Whether the patent applicants failed to comply with the PTO's restriction
requirement and maintain consonance of the line demarking the claimed subject matter of the
'182 patent and the Brockhaus '279 patent?
113. Whether the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent would have been obvious over
claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent, which claims a fusion protein comprising a soluble
fragment of the p55 TNF receptor (instead of the p75 TNF receptor) and the hinge-CH2-CH3
domain of a human IgG1 immunoglobulin?
prosecution of the Patents-in-Suit, which caused the Brockhaus '279 patent to issue before the
'182 patent?
115. Whether claim 1 of the Brockhaus '279 patent would have been obvious over any
of Asserted Claims of the '182 patent?
c. Defendants' Statement of the Contested Facts
116. ENBREL® (etanercept) was first sold in the United States in November 1998.
117. Immunex obtained several patents covering etanercept, including U.S. Patent No.
5, 3 95,760 ("the Smith '760 patent"), filed May 10, 1990, and U.S. Patent No. 5,605,690 ("the
Jacobs '690 patent"), filed Feb. 8, 1995, which had been listed on the label for ENBREL®
30
(etanercept) from its launch until their expiration. The Smith '760 patent expired in March 2012
and the Jacobs '690 patent expired in February 2014. Separate from the Patents-in-Suit,
Immunex has already enjoyed the full-term patent protection (lasting for more than 20 years of
exclusivity) covering etanercept.
118. Immunex had also obtained several patents covering a method of treatment by
administering etanercept, including each of the Finck patents. The Finck '225 and Finck '605
patents are presently listed on the label for ENBREL® (etanercept).
119. Each of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit is invalid for obviousness-type
double patenting over each of claim 1 of the Finck '225 patent, claim 1 of the Finck '605 patent,
claim 1 of the Finck '631 patent, and/or claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent. Each of the Asserted
Claims of the '182 patent is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting over claim 5 of the
Brockhaus '279 patent.
(i) Immunex is the Owner of the Patents-in-Suit
120. lmmunex is the owner of the Patents-in-Suit.
121. In November 1998, Roche had licensed to Imrnunex the rights to the Brockhaus
'790 and '791 applications (which ultimately issued as the Patents-in-Suit) to make, use, and sell
its etanercept product for an agreed-upon royalty.
122. In June 2004, Roche and Immunex entered into an "Accord & Satisfaction
Agreement," with the express purpose for Immunex "to acquire all rights licensed pursuant to the
Roche-Immunex Agreement and to eliminate the continuing obligations to pay royalties to
Roche" and for Roche "to sell such rights in accordance with the terms of this [Accord &
Satisfaction]." See 2004 Accord & Satisfaction Agreement, DTX-357. The 2004 Accord &
Satisfaction Agreement transferred to Immunex all substantive ownership rights to the Patents
in-Suit, including the right to exclude all others from practicing the claimed invention, the right
31
to sue for infringement, the right to grant sublicenses, the right to prosecute and maintain the
patent applications at its sole direction, and the right to retain the entirety of any award of
damages from a patent infringement suit. See 2004 Accord & Satisfaction Agreement, DTX-
357.
123. Following execution of the 2004 Accord & Satisfaction Agreement, Roche
retained no ownership rights, let alone substantive rights, to the Patents-in-Suit. Immunex owed
no continuing obligation to Roche, including no obligation to pay a royalty or share in any award
of patent damages concurrent with the execution ofthe 2004 Accord & Satisfaction Agreement.
Thereafter, lmmunex was granted the unilateral power to effectively terminate any rights
retained by Roche. For example, Roche's illusory right to sue for infringement, only iflmmunex
failed to do so, may be obviated by Immunex's sole right to grant sublicenses to any alleged
infringer.
124. As Immunex acquired the right to prosecute and maintain the patent applications
at its sole direction pursuant to the 2004 Accord & Satisfaction Agreement, at the PTO, power of
attorney over prosecution ofthe Patents-in-Suit was transferred exclusively to Immunex.
Prosecution History of the '182 patent, DTX-0003, at AMG-ENBNJ-00002225; Prosecution
History ofthe '522 patent, DTX-0004, at AMG-ENBNJ-00008119. Immunex directed and
controlled the prosecution ofthe applications that led to the Patents-in-Suit. In or around 2005,
Immunex materially amended the specification and changed the scope of the pending claims in
an attempt to purportedly cover etanercept following transfer ofcontrol of the prosecution of the
applications to Immunex.
32
(ii) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the Finck

'225, '605, and '631 Patents
125. The Finck '225 patent (DTX-11) is titled "Soluble Tumor Necrosis Factor
Receptor Treatment of Medical Disorders," and issued on March 29, 2011. The named inventor
listed on the face of the Finck '225 patent is Barbara K. Finck.
126. The Finck '225 patent was assigned to Plaintiff Immunex Corporation upon
issuance. Plaintiff Immunex Corporation is the owner of the Finck '225 patent.
127. The Finck '225 patent expires on August 13, 2019.
128. Claim 1 of the Finck '225 patent recites as follows:
1. A method for treating a patient having psoriasis comprising

administering to the patient a therapeutically effective dose of
TNFR:Fc, wherein the patient attains at least fifty percent
improvement in PASI score.
129. The Finck '225 patent is listed among the patents on the ENBREL® (etanercept)
label.
130. The Finck '605 patent (DTX-12) is titled "Soluble Tumor Necrosis Factor
Receptor Treatment of Medical Disorders," and issued on February 21, 2012. The named
inventor listed on the face of the Finck '605 patent is Barbara K. Finck.
131. The Finck '605 patent was assigned to Plaintifflmmunex Corporation upon
issuance. Plaintifflmmunex Corporation is the owner of the Finck '605 patent.
132. The Finck '605 patent expires on August 13, 2019.
133. Claim 1 of the Finck '605 patent recites as follows:
1. A method for treating a patient having ordinary psonas1s

comprising administering to the patient a therapeutically effective
dose of TNFR:Fc.
134. The Finck '605 patent is listed among the patents on the ENBREL® (etanercept)
label.
33
135. TheFinck '631 patent (DTX-13) is titled "Soluble Tumor N ecrosisFactor
Receptor Treatment ofMedical Disorders," and issued on May 13, 2014. The named inventor
listed on the face oftheFinck '631 patent isBarbara K. Finck.
136. TheFinck '631 patent was assigned to Plaintifflmmunex Corporation upon
issuance. Plaintiff Immunex Corporation is the owner oftheFinck '631 patent.
137. TheFinck '631 patent expires on August 13,2019.
138. Claim 1 oftheFinck '631 patent recites as follows:
1. A method of treatment comprising administering a dose of

TNFR:Fc to a patient having psoriatic arthritis and/or plaque
psoriasis, wherein the dose is administered one time or two times per
week,and wherein the dose administered is 25-50 mg or 50-100 mg,
and wherein the dose is administered by subcutaneous injection.
139. TheFinck '631 patent is listed among the patents on the ENBREL® (etanercept)
label.
140. Claim 1 ofeach oftheFinck '225, '605,and '631 patents anticipates and/or
renders obvious each of the Asserted Claims ofthe Patents-in-Suit.
141. As properly construed, claim 1 ofeach of theFinck '225, '605, and '631 patents
recites a method of treating a patient having psoriasis by administering etanercept. An inherent
property ofetanercept is specific binding to human TNF. When etanercept is administered to
treat a patient having psoriasis,etanercept specifically binds to human TNF. Plaintiffs have not
disputed that, if theFinck '225, '605, and '631 patents were reference patents to the Patents-in
Suit, the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit would not have been patentably distinct under
the standard one-way test.
142. Claim 1 ofeach oftheFinck '225, '605,and '631 patents anticipates each ofthe
Asserted Claims ofthe '182 patent,which claim etanercept and a pharmaceutical composition
34
comprising etanercept. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also found the Asserted
Claims of the '182 patent obvious in light of the claims of the Finck '225, '605, and '631 patents
reciting etanercept.
143. Claim 1 of each of the Finck '225, '605, and '631 patents renders obvious each of
the Asserted Claims of the '522 patent. The only difference between the set of claims is that the
'522 patent further recites a method for producing etanercept. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would have found the claimed method of culturing a host cell (e.g., a CHO cell) comprising a
polynucleotide encoding etanercept and purifying etanercept from the cell mass or the cell
culture medium to be obvious in light of the claims of the Finck '225, '605, and '631 patents
reciting etanercept.
144. Plaintiffs have not shown any objective evidence supporting a finding that the
Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are nonobvious over claim 1 of each of the Finck '225,
'605, and '631 patents.
145. Plaintiffs have not shown that the narrow exception for application of the two
way test applies for evaluating the Finck '225, '605, and '631 patents as obviousness-type double
patenting references to the Patents-in-Suit. The applications underlying the Finck '631 and '605
patents were filed after the applications underlying the Patents-in-Suit. The Finck '631 patent
issued after both of the Patents-in-Suit. Compare Finck '631 patent, DTX-13, with '182 patent,
DTX-1, and '522 patent, DTX-2. The Finck '605 patent issued after the '182 patent. Compare
Finck '605 patent, DTX-12, with '182 patent, DTX-1.
146. The PTO was not solely responsible for the delay in causing the Finck '225 patent
to issue prior to the Patents-in-Suit or the Finck '605 patent to issue prior to the '182 patent. The
patent applicants' dilatory actions during prosecution of the '182 patent included repeatedly
35
filing and obtaining extensions of time to respond to the PTO's rejections, requesting to reopen
prosecution after the PTO found certain claims allowable, and materially amending the
specification and changing the scope of the pending claims in an attempt to purportedly cover
etanercept following transfer of control of the prosecution of the application to Immunex. The
patent applicants' dilatory actions during prosecution of the '522 patent included requesting and
ultimately withdrawing a request to initiate interference proceedings, repeatedly filing and
obtaining extensions of time to respond to the PTO's rejections, and materially amending the
specification and changing the scope of the pending claims in an attempt to purportedly cover
etanercept following transfer of control of the prosecution of the application to Immunex. These
actions contributed to the delay in issuance of the Patents-in-Suit and, ultimately, unjustly
extended their patent term.
(iii) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the Jacobs

'690 Patent
147. The Jacobs '690 patent (DTX-17) is titled "Methods of Lowering Active TNF-n
Levels in Mammals Using Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor," and issued on February 25, 1997.
The named inventors listed on the face of the Jacobs '690 patent are Cindy A. Jacobs and Craig
A. Smith.
148. The Jacobs '690 patent was assigned to Plaintiff Immunex Corporation upon
issuance. Plaintiff Immunex Corporation is the owner of the Jacobs '690 patent.
149. The Jacobs '690 patent expired on February 25, 2014. Immunex has already
received the full 17-year patent term protection under the Jacobs '690 patent for etanercept.
150. Claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent recites as follows:
3. A method for lowering the levels of active TNF-a in a mammal

in need thereof which comprises administering to said mammal a
TNF-lowering amount of a chimeric antibody comprising a TNF
36
receptor comprising the sequence of amino acids 3-163 of SEQ ID

NO: 1 fused to the constant domain of an imrnunoglobulin molecule.
Figure 1 of the Jacobs '690 patent presents a schematic representation of a molecule of
etanercept.
151. _Prior to its expiration, the Jacobs '690 patent was listed among the patents on the
ENBREL® (etanercept) label. See, e.g., DTX-44 at 29; DTX-76 at 34; DTX-77 at 41; DTX-122
at 2; DTX-237 at 35.
152. Claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent anticipates and/or renders obvious each of the
Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
153. As properly construed, the claimed chimeric antibody of claim 3 of the Jacobs
'690 patent recites etanercept. Etanercept is a chimeric antibody comprising a TNF receptor
comprising the sequence of amino acids 3-163 of SEQ ID NO: 1 (i.e., the extracellular region of
the p75 TNF receptor) fused to the constant domain of an immunoglobulin molecule (i.e., fused
to the hinge-CH2-CH3 domain of a human IgG I irnmunoglobulin) as recited in claim 3 of the
Jacobs '690 patent. Jacobs '690 patent, DTX-17, at claim 3. This construction is supported by
the specification of the Jacobs '690 patent, which provides in Figure 1 a schematic representation
of a molecule of etanercept as the preferred embodiment of the patent. Id. at Fig. I. This
construction is further consistent with the prosecution history of the Jacobs '690 patent, where
Irnmunex argued to the PTO that the claimed invention had utility based on the results of a
clinical trial of etanercept. Prosecution History of Jacobs '690 patent, DTX-18, at SAN-
ETAN 0099137-98.
37
154. Prior to the expiration of the Jacobs '690 patent, Immunex listed the Jacobs '690
patent on the FDA-approved label for ENBREL® (etanercept). See, e.g., DTX-44 at 29; DTX-76
at 34; DTX-77 at 41; DTX-122 at 2; DTX-237 at 35.
155. Claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent anticipates each of the Asserted Claims of the
'182 patent, which claim etanercept and a pharmaceutical composition comprising etanercept. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have also found the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent
obvious in light of claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent reciting etanercept.
156. Claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent renders obvious each of the Asserted Claims of
the '522 patent. The only difference between the set of claims is that the '522 patent further
recites a method for producing etanercept. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found
the claimed method of culturing a host cell (e.g., a CHO cell) comprising a polynucleotide
encoding etanercept and purifying etanercept from the cell mass or the cell culture medium to be
obvious in light of claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent reciting etanercept.
Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are nonobvious over claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent.
way test applies for the Jacobs '690 patent as an obviousness-type double patenting reference to
the Patents-in-Suit. The application underlying the Jacobs '690 patent was filed on February 8,
1995 before the applications underlying the Patents-in-Suit were filed on May 19, 1995. See
Jacobs '690 patent, DTX-17, at cover. The Jacobs '690 patent issued before each of the Patents
in-Suit. Id. The PTO was not solely responsible for the delay in causing the Jacobs '690 patent
to issue prior to either the Patents-in-Suit. The patent applicants were partially responsible for
38
the delay in issuance of the Patents-in-Suit, which ultimately unjustly extended the term of the
Patents-in-Suit.
159. Even if the two-way test were applied, the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent
render obvious the properly construed claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent. The only difference
between the set of claims is that the Jacobs '690 patent recites a method comprising
administering etanercept to a mammal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to administer to a mammal a TNF-lowering amount of etanercept to lower the levels of
active TNF-a in light of the claims of the '182 patent reciting etanercept.
render obvious the properly construed claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent. The only difference
between the set of claims is that the Jacobs '690 patent recites a method comprising
administering etanercept to a mammal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to administer to a mammal a TNF-lowering amount of etanercept to lower the levels of
active TNF-a in light of the claims of the '522 patent reciting etanercept.
161. Plaintiffs have not shown any objective evidence supporting a finding that claim 3
of the Jacobs '690 patent is nonobvious over the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
162. Plaintiffs assert that claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent does not recite etanercept.
Plaintiffs contend that claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent requires a chimeric antibody that
includes the CHl domains and the light chain of an immunoglobulin protein. Plaintiffs proposed
construction is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the claims, the specification, and the
prosecution history as well as extrinsic evidence of lrnmunex's representations regarding the
scope of the claims of the Jacobs '690 patent.
39
163. Even if claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent were construed to require a chimeric
antibody that includes the CHl domains and the light chain of an immunoglobulin protein, the
claim renders obvious each of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have motivated to remove the CHI domain and light chain (resulting in
etanercept) in light of the prior art teaching that their removal promotes the expression and
secretion of the recombinant protein.
Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are nonobvious over claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent as
construed by Plaintiffs.
(iv) Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Over the

165. The Brockhaus '279 patent (DTX-9) is titled "Human TNF Receptor," and issued
on March 11, 1997. The named inventors listed on the face of the Brockhaus '279 patent are
Manfred Brockhaus, Reiner Gentz, Zlatko Dembic, Werner Lesslauer, Hansruedi Loetscher, and
Ernst-Jurgen Schlaeger.
166. The Brockhaus '279 patent was assigned to Plaintiff Roche upon issuance.
167. The Brockhaus '279 patent expired on March 11, 2014.
168. Claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent and the claims upon which it depends recite
as follows:
1. A recombinant protein encoded by a polynucleotide which

comprises two DNA subsequences, wherein the first subsequence
encodes a soluble fragment of the insoluble TNF receptor protein,
wherein said insoluble TNF receptor protein has a apparent
molecular weight of about 55 kilodaltons as determined on a non
reducing SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and the second subsequence
encodes all of the domains of the constant region of a human
immunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first domain of said
constant region.
40
2. A protein of claim 1 wherein said human imrnunoglobulin heavy

chain is selected from the group consisting of IgG, IgM, IgA and
IgE.
3. A recombinant protein of claim 2, wherein said human
immunoglobulin heavy chain is IgG.
4. A recombinant protein of claim 3, wherein the IgG is IgG l or
IgG3.
5. A recombinant protein of claim 4, wherein the IgG is lgGl.
169. The '182 patent and the Brockhaus '279 patent share common inventors.
170. Claim 5 of the Brockhaus'279 patent renders obvious each of the Asserted
Claims of the '182 patent.
171. As properly construed, claim 5 of the Brockhaus'279 patent recites a
recombinant protein encoded by a polynucleotide comprising the DNA sequence of a soluble
fragment of the p55 TNF receptor and the DNA sequence for the hinge-CH2-CH3 domain of a
human IgG1 immunoglobulin (i.e., all of the domains of the constant region of a human IgG1
immunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first domain of said constant region). Brockhaus
'279 patent, DTX-9, at claim 5.
172. As properly construed, claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent renders obvious each
of the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent. The only difference between the set of claims is that
the TNF receptor fragment in the'182 patent is the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor,
instead of a soluble fragment of the p55 TNF receptor. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to replace the soluble fragment of the p55 TNF receptor in the
claimed recombinant protein with the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor.
Asserted Claims of the '182 patent are nonobvious over claim 5 of the Brockhaus'279 patent.
41
way test does not apply for the Brockhaus '279 patent as an obviousness-type double patenting
reference to the '182 patent. The application underlying the Brockhaus '279 patent was filed on
July 21, 1993, before the application underlying the '182 patent was filed on May 19, 1995.
Brockhaus '279 patent, DTX-9, at cover; '182 patent, DTX-1, at cover. The Brockhaus '279
patent issued before the '182 patent. Id. The PTO was not solely responsible for the delay in
causing the Brockhaus '279 patent to issue prior to the '182 patent. The patent applicants were
partially responsible for the delay in issuance of the '182 patent, which ultimately unjustly
extended the term of the '182 patent.
render obvious claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent. The only difference between the set of
claims is that the TNF receptor fragment in claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent is a soluble
fragment of the p55 TNF receptor, instead of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the extracellular region
of the p75 TNF receptor with the extracellular region of the p55 TNF receptor (which is a
soluble fragment of the p55 TNF receptor).
176. Plaintiffs have not shown any objective evidence supporting a finding that claim 5
of the Brockhaus '279 patent is nonobvious over the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent.
I 77. Section 121 's safe harbor does not apply to exclude the Brockhaus '279 patent as
an obviousness-type double patenting reference to the '182 patent.
178. During prosecution of the Brockhaus '279 patent (as the Brockhaus '640
application), the examiner issued a restriction requirement dividing the pending claims into three
groups: Group I (the protein and antibody), Group II (the DNA, vector, and host), and Group Ill
42
(method of isolating insoluble homogenous proteins). Prosecution History of Brockhaus '279
patent, DTX-6, at AMG-ENBNJ-00354294-98. The examiner further required an election of
species within the claims of each of Groups I and II: subgroup A (55 kD TNF receptor) and
subgroup B (75 kD TNF receptor). (Id.) The patent applicants elected to continue prosecution
of the claims in Group IA (the protein and antibody of the pSS TNF receptor). Id. at AMG
ENBNJ-00354301. The issued claims of the Brockhaus '279 patent are directed to Group IA.
Brockhaus '279 patent, DTX-9, at claim 5.
179. The patent applicants filed the application underlying the '182 patent (the
Brockhaus '790 application) as a divisional application to continue prosecution of the claims in
Group IA (the protein and antibody of the p55 TNF receptor), which is the same group of claims
as elected in the Brockhaus '279 patent. Prosecution History of the '182 patent, DTX-3, at
AMG-ENBNJ-00001359. The patent applicants continued to present claims directed to the
fusion protein of the p55 TNF receptor during prosecution of the '182 patent.
180. PTO procedures specifically state that the safe harbor protection does not apply
when the claims of the second application are drawn to the same invention as the first invention
or parent. (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, DTX-284, at 30-31.) During prosecution of
the '182 patent, the PTO did not afford the application the safe-harbor protections of Section
121. (Prosecution History of the '182 patent, DTX-3, at AMG-ENBNJ-00001638-40; id. at
AMG-ENBNJ-00004505-11.)
181. The judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is grounded
in 35 U.S.C. § 101-which provides that inventors are entitled to "a patent" for their inventions
(subject to the requirements of the Patent Act). Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst.
ofRheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This section of the Patent Act
43
prohibits an inventor from obtaining "more than one patent on the same invention." Eli Lilly &
Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 619 F.3d 1329, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The doctrine of
obviousness type double patenting extended this prohibition to preclude an applicant from
obtaining two patents that covered "slight variants" of the same invention thus "prevent[ing]
issuance of a patent on claims that are nearly identical to claims" in another patent. Id.
182. Obviousness-type double patenting is applicable only where there is at least one
inventor in common between a challenged patent and a reference patent, or where the "common
ownership" requirement is met. 15 In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
183. No court has ever applied the "all substantial rights test"-which Defendants
attempt to borrow from the law of prudential standing-to determine "common ownership" for
purposes of obviousness-type double patenting.
184. Both of the cases Sandoz relies on for the "all substantial rights test," supra, ,i 97,
apply the test to prudential standing and do not discuss how "common ownership" is defined for
the purposes of obviousness-type double patenting. See Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F .3d
1245, 1249-50 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
823 F.3d 615, 618-19 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
185. No court has ever treated a license agreement as transferring ownership and
creating "common ownership" for purposes of obviousness-type double patenting.
186. No court has ever indicated that anything less than 100% common ownership will
suffice for purposes of the "common ownership" requirement.
15 As explained below, the parties dispute the contours of the common ownership requirement, including the
applicable test for determining common ownership and the relevant time period in which common ownership must
exist.
44
187. Consistent with § 10 l, obviousness-type patenting attaches where patents share a
common inventor or common ownership at the time of invention, prohibiting inventors or those
who own an invention from pursuing multiple patents on the same or patentably indistinct
inventions. Double patenting thus does not apply when patents are licensed or transferred long
after the time of invention, and no court has invoked double patenting to invalidate a patent
based on a license agreement entered into many years after an invention was made.
188. In the limited circumstances where obviousness-type double patenting may apply,
the analysis involves two steps:

• First, the court construes the claims in the earlier patent and the claims in the later
patent and determines the differences.

• Second, the court determines, on a claim-by-claim basis, whether those
differences render the claims patentably distinct.
189. A later claim that is not patentably distinct from, i.e., is obvious over or
anticipated by, an earlier claim is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. Abbvie, 764
F.3d at 1374. The obviousness analysis in the context of obviousness-type double patenting
includes consideration of objective indicia of non-obviousness. Eli Lilly, 689 F.3d at 1381.
190. In assessing whether the claims of a challenged patent and a reference patent are
patentably distinct, the subject matter of each of the claims must be considered as a whole. See
Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschafl Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
("Claims must be read as a whole in analyzing a claim of double patenting.").
191. 35 U.S.C. § 121 provides a safe harbor that prevents an earlier issued patent from
being used as a reference to challenge the validity of a later issued patent if a restriction
requirement was made by the Patent Office during prosecution of the application that resulted in
45
the earlier issued patent and the later issued patent issued from a divisional application of the
application that resulted in the earlier issued patent.
192. If a restriction requirement is made by the Patent Office during prosecution that
requires the applicant to elect a species within a genus, an application and patent that claims that
species falls under the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 121. See St. Jude Med., Inc. v.
Access Closure, Inc., 729 F.3d 1369, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Manual of Patenting
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 806.04(d), 8th Edition, Rev. 8 (July 2010).
193. Sandoz alleges that the Asserted Claims are invalid for obviousness-type double
patenting. 16
194. Pursuant to the Amended Stipulation (D.I. 510 � 3.a), Sandoz has identified three
double-patenting reference families: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,915,225 ("Finck '225 patent"), 8,119,605
("Finck '605 patent"), and 8,722,631 ("Finck '631 patent"); U.S. Patent No. 5,605,690 ("Jacobs
'690 patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 5,610,279 ("Brockhaus '279 patent"). 17
195. Specifically, Sandoz alleges that the Asserted Claims are not patentably distinct
from claim 1 of the Finck '225 patent, which recites:
A method for treating a patient having psonas1s comprising

TNFR:Fc, wherein the patient attains at least fifty percent
improvement in PASI score.
196. Sandoz also alleges that the Asserted Claims are not patentably distinct from
claim 1 of the Finck '605 patent, which recites:
16 Joint Pretrial Report. D.I. 486.
See June 5, 2018 Sandoz's Disclosure of Obviousness Combinations and Double Patenting Reference Families
11
(attached as Joint Exhibit 2).
46
A method for treating a patient having ordinary psoriasis comprising

TNFR:Fc.
claim 1 ofthe Finck '631 patent, which recites:
A method oftreatment comprising administering a dose ofTNFR:Fc

to a patient having psoriatic arthritis and/or plaque psoriasis,
wherein the dose is administered one time or two times per week,
and wherein the dose administered is 25-50 mg or 50-100 mg, and
wherein the dose is administered by subcutaneous injection.
claim 3 ofthe Jacobs '690 patent, which recites:
A method for lowering the levels of active TNF-a in a mammal in

need thereofwhich comprises administering to said mammal a TNF
lowering amount ofa chimeric antibody comprising a TNF receptor
comprising the sequence of amino acids 3-163 of SEQ ID NO:1
fused to the constant domain ofan irnmunoglobulin molecule.
claim 5 ofthe Brockhaus '279 patent, which recites:
A recombinant protein encoded by a polynucleotide which

comprises two DNA subsequences, wherein the first subsequence
encodes a soluble fragment of the insoluble TNF receptor protein,
wherein said insoluble TNF receptor protein has a apparent
molecular weight of about 55 kilodaltons as determined on a non
reducing SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and the second subsequence
encodes all of the domains of the constant region of a human
irnmunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first domain of said
constant region [wherein the inununoglobulin heavy chain is lgG1].
200. Plaintiffs dispute Sandoz's allegations ofobviousness-type double patenting.
201. As with obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, obviousness-type double patenting is
a question oflaw premised on underlying factual inquiries, including findings regarding
objective indicia, considered in a Section 103 obviousness analysis. Eli Lilly, 689 F.3d at 1376.
47
202. Issued patents are presumed valid. See 35 U.S.C. § 282(a). To rebut the
presumption of validity, Defendants bear the burden of proving invalidity by clear and
convincing evidence, Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 110-14 (2011), and that
"ultimate burden never shifts." Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1329
(Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1580 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (explaining that defendant was "required to prove double patenting by clear and
convincing evidence, a heavy and unshifting burden"). Defendants' suggestion that Plaintiffs
bear the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion with respect to certain double-patenting
issues is therefore misplaced. To the extent that fact questions arise-regarding, for example
whether all substantial rights were transferred under the Accord & Satisfaction, or who was
responsible for delays at the Patent Office during a relevant period-Sandoz bears the burden of
proving any necessary facts by clear and convincing evidence.
a. Plaintiffs' Statement of Issues of Law to Be Litigated
203. Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that each of
the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting based on
one or more of the three purported reference families identified by Defendants.
the Asserted Claims of the '522 patent is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting based on
one or more of the three purported reference families identified by Defendants.
205. Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting can apply where the challenged patent and
reference patent share no common inventors and the owner of the challenged patent at the time
of its invention and the owner of the reference patent at the time of its invention are not the same.
48
206. In the absence of any common inventors, what must Defendants prove by clear
and convincing evidence in order to establish the "common ownership" requirement under the
obviousness-type double patenting doctrine, including but not limited to:

• Whether Defendants must prove "common ownership" of the challenged and
reference patents by the same legal entity, and if not, what relationship between
legally distinct entities is sufficient for Defendants to prove "common
ownership";
• Whether Defendants must prove "common ownership" of the challenged and
reference patent by showing identity (or some other specific relationship) between
the entity that owned the challenged patent at the time of its invention and the
entity that owned the reference patent at the time of its invention, rather than at a
later time; and

• If Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
obviousness type double patenting doctrine allows an entity that did not own a
challenged patent at the time of its invention to become a "common owner" after
the-fact-whether such after-the-fact "common ownership" can be established by
acquisition of less than all rights in a patent (rather than ownership-in-fact), and if
so, what requirements such after-the-fact acquisition must have.
patent-term protection afforded by Congress to patents issuing from pre-GAIT patent
applications can be vitiated by operation of the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting based on a patent issuing from a post-GAIT patent application. 18
18 Patents that mature from applications filed before the June 8, 1995 effective date of the Uruguay Round of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Trade-Related Aspects oflntellectual Property are commonly referred
49
The Finck Patents
Finck Patents, which issued from post-GATT applications, are available as potential references
in an obviousness-type double patenting challenge against the Asserted Claims (given that
Patents-in-Suit issued from pre-GATT applications).
Finck Patents satisfy the common ownership requirement necessary to allow them to be available
as potential references in an obviousness-type double patenting challenge against the Patents-in
Suit, including but not limited to:

• Whether the Finck Patents and the Patents-in-Suit are entirely owned by the same
entity;
• Whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the entity
that owned the Patents-in Suit at the time of their invention also owned the Finck
Patents' at the time oftheir invention; and

• If Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, (i) that the
obviousness type double patenting doctrine allows an entity that did not own a
challenged patent at the time ofits invention to become a "common owner" after
the-fact, and (ii) that such after-the-fact "common ownership" can be established
by acquisition ofless than all rights in a patent-whether Defendants have proven
by clear and convincing evidence that the 2004 Accord & Satisfaction conveyed
to as "pre-GATT" patents. E.g., Gilead Sciences Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 753 F.3d 1208, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applications filed after June 8, 1995 are commonly referred to as "post-GATT" patents. Id. The Patents-in-Suit are
pre-GATT patents because they were filed before June 8, 1995.
50
to Irnrnunex sufficient rights to establish lrnmunex as the owner, rather than the
exclusive licensee, of the Patents-in-Suit.
210. If Sandoz bas proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Finck Patents are
available as potential references in an obviousness-type double patenting challenge against the
Patents-in-Suit-whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
"two-way test" for determining patentable distinctness does not apply, notwithstanding the fact
that there was no applicant-caused delay in the prosecution of the Patents-in-Suit during the
period that the applications that resulted in the Finck Patents and the applications that resulted in
the Patents-in-Suit were co-pending, or even during the period that they were allegedly "co
owned."
211. If Sandoz has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Finck Patents are
Patents-in-Suit,:
• The meaning of (i) claim 1 of the Finck '225 patent, (ii) claim 1 of the Finck '605
patent, and (iii) claim 1 of the Finck '631 patent;

• Whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
Asserted Claims are not patentably distinct from (i) claim l of the Finck '225
patent, (ii) claim 1 of the Finck '605 patent, and (iii) claim 1 of the Finck '631
patent;
• Whether the law allows the use of a single limitation from claim 1 of the Finck
'225 patent, claim 1 of the Finck '605 patent, and claim 1 of the Finck '631
patent, rather than the invention claimed as a whole in these claims, to invalidate
the Asserted Claims; and
51
• If Defendants have failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
"two-way test" for determining patentable distinctness does not apply, whether
Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Asserted
Claims would render obvious the methods of treatment (i.e., psoriasis and/or
psoriatic arthritis) claimed in (i) claim 1 of the Finck '225 patent, (ii) claim 1 of
the Finck '605 patent, and (iii) claim 1 of the Finck '631 patent.
The Jacobs '690 Patent
Jacobs '690 patent satisfies the common ownership requirement necessary to allow it to be
available as a potential reference in an obviousness-type double patenting challenge against the
Patents-in-Suit, including but not limited to:

Jacobs '690 patent and the Patents-in-Suit are entirely owned by the same entity;
• Whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the entity
that owned the Patents-in-Suit at the time of their invention also owned the Jacobs
'690 patent at the time of its invention; and

• If Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, (i) the obviousness
type double-patenting doctrine allows an entity that did not own a challenged
patent at the time of its invention to become a "common owner" after-the-fact,
and (ii) that such after-the-fact "common ownership" can be established by less
than all rights in a patent-whether Defendants have proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the 2004 Accord & Satisfaction conveyed to lmmunex
52
sufficient rights to establish Immunex as the owner, rather than the exclusive
licensee, ofthe Patents-in-Suit.
213. IfSandoz has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Jacobs '690
patent is available as a potential reference in an obviousness-type double patenting challenge
against the Patents-in-Suit:

• The meaning ofclaim 3 ofthe Jacobs '690 patent, including the meaning ofthe
term "chimeric antibody comprising the sequence ofthe amino acids 3-163 of
SEQ ID NO: 1 fused to the constant domain ofan immunoglobulin";

Asserted Claims are not patentably distinct from claim 3 ofthe Jacobs '690
patent; and
• Whether the law allows the use ofa single limitation from claim 3 ofthe Jacobs
'690 patent, rather than the invention claimed as a whole in this claim, to
invalidate the Asserted Claims.
The Brockhaus '279 Patent
214. Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the safe
harbor of35 U.S.C. § 121 does not protect the '182 patent against a double-patenting challenge
based on the Brockhaus '279 patent, given that the claims ofthe '182 patent arose after a
restriction requirement made by the USPTO requiring the applicant to elect between subject
matter encompassing the p55 TNF receptor protein or the p75 TNF receptor protein and, as
issued, are in consonance with the subject matter ofthe restriction requirement.
215. Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the safe
harbor of35 U.S.C. § 121 does not protect the '522 patent against a double-patenting challenge
53
based on the Brockhaus '279 patent, given that the claims of the '522 patent arose after a
restriction requirement made by the USPTO requiring the applicant to elect between subject
matter encompassing proteins and antibodies, on the one hand, and DNA, vector, and host, on
the other hand, as well as between subject matter encompassing the p55 TNF receptor protein or
the p75 TNF receptor protein, and are in consonance with the subject matter of the restriction
requirement.
216. If Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the safe harbor
of35 U.S.C. § 121 does not apply to either or both of the Patents-in Suit:
• The meaning of claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent;
Asserted Claims of the 'I 82 patent and/or the '522 patent (as applicable) are not
patentably distinct from claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent; and

• Whether the law allows the use of select limitations from claim 5 of the
Brockhaus '279 patent, rather than the invention claimed as a whole in this claim,
to invalidate the applicable Asserted Claims.
b. Plaintiffs' Statement of Issues of Fact to Be Litigated 19
217. If Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, (i) that the
obviousness type double patenting doctrine allows an entity that did not own a challenged patent
19 Defendants wrongly claim that Plaintiffs' statements regarding the "contested facts" are improper. See, supra,§
VII.A.2, footnote 19. While the parties agreed to follow a model pretrial order, the "contested facts" section of that
model sets out each side's "additional proposed stipulation of facts." Hence, this section includes general scientific
facts, and other basic issues, for which the parties were apparently unable to sufficiently agree to for inclusion in the
"stipulation of facts" section of the model order. The "contested facts" section was not intended to set out (even at a
high level) the issues of fact to be litigated in the case, as borne out by the fact the accused infringer in that case
identified only three "additional proposed stipulation of facts," in a case involving issues of infringement,
anticipation, obviousness, obviousness-type double patenting, lack of written description and enablement,
inequitable conduct, etc.
54
at the time of its invention to become a "common owner" after-the-fact, and (ii) that such after
the-fact "common ownership" can be established by acquisition of less than all rights in a
patent-whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the parties to the
2004 Accord & Satisfaction intended to and did convey to Immunex sufficient rights to establish
Immunex as the owner, rather than the exclusive licensee, of the Patents-in-Suit.20
Patents-in-Suit:
• The differences between (i) claim 1 of the Finck '225 patent and the Asserted
Claims, (ii) claim 1 of the Finck '605 patent and the Asserted Claims, and (iii)
claim 1 of the Finck '631 patent and the Asserted Claims;

• The level of ordinary skill in the art;
• Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that there
was a motivation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to treat psoriasis
and/or psoriatic arthritis with "TNFR:Fc" at the time of the invention; and
• Whether, once established by Plaintiffs, Defendants have rebutted, by clear and
convincing evidence, the objective indicia of non-obviousness.
Patents-in-Suit-whether Sandoz has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was
any delay caused by applicants during any period in which the applications that resulted in the
20 lmmunex is the assignee of the Finck Patents and the Jacobs '690 patent, having obtained assignments from the
inventors of these patents. Roche is the assignee of Patents-in-Suit, having obtained assignments from the inventors
of the Patents-in-Suit.
55
Finck Patents and the applications that resulted in the Patents-in-Suit were co-pending, or even
the period in which they were allegedly co-owned.
220. If Sandoz has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Jacobs '690
against the Patents-in-Suit:

• The differences between claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent and the Asserted
Claims·'21
• Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that there
was a motivation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the
"chimeric antibody" of claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent (which comprises a
fragment of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor "fused to the
constant domain of an immunoglobulin molecule") to arrive at a fusion protein
that meets each and every limitation of the Asserted Claims at the time of the
invention (which consists of the entire extracellular region of the p75 TNF
receptor fused to "all of the domains of the constant region ... other than the first
domain of said constant region"); and

21 Defendants now claim that the "only difference between" claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent and the Asserted
Claims of the '522 patent is that the Asserted Claims "further recites a method for producing etanercept." See,
supra, 1 168. Plaintiffs dispute that this is the only difference between claim 3 of the Jacobs '690 patent and the
subject matter of the Asserted Claims.
56
221. If Sandoz has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Brockhaus '279
against the Patents-in-Suit-whether Sandoz has proven, by clear and convincing evidence:
• The differences between claim 5 of the Brockhaus '279 patent and the applicable
Asserted Claims;
• Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was a
motivation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the "recombinant
protein" of claim 5 of the '279 patent (which comprises a genus of fusion proteins
that include any "soluble fragment of the insoluble" p55 TNF receptor) to arrive at a
fusion protein that meets each and every limitation of the Asserted Claims at the time
of the invention (which consists of the entire extracellular region of the p75 TNF
receptor fused to "all of the domains of the constant region...other than the first
domain of said constant region"); and
c. Response to Defendant's Statement of Contested Facts
222. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' "Statement of Contested Facts" in the section
above. Rather than identifying disputed factual questions, Defendants' statement does nothing
more than provide a summary of Defendants' position (in paragraph form) based on a misleading
and selective portrayal of the facts. In addition, many of the facts that Defendants characterize as
not disputed are, in fact, disputed.
57
C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)
223. "A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or
described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains." 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
224. "Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined;
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or
nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as
commercial success, long felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to
give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.
As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy." Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
225. The Supreme Court has adopted an "expansive and flexible approach" to question
of obviousness. KSR Int'/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). For example, "[w]hen
a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill
can implement a predictable variation,§ 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if
a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." Id. at 417.
58
226. In the context of new chemical compounds, "the accused infringer must identify
some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound." Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 752 F.3d 967,973 (Fed. Cir. 2014). "The motivation to
modify that lead compound can come from any number of sources and need not necessarily be
explicit in the art. '(I]t is sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds possess a
sufficiently close relationship ... to create an expectation, in light of the totality of the prior art,
that the new compound will have similar properties to the old."' Id.
227. Evidence of simultaneous invention by those working in the field is relevant
evidence to show that the motivation to combine the elements of the prior art according to the
claimed invention is not the result of any hindsight bias. International Glass Co. v. U.S., 408
F.2d 395,405 (Ct. Cl. 1969) ("The problem of hindsight [in an obviousness analysis] is greatly
minimized in this case where there is evidence of the level of ordinary skill in the art and how
those skilled in the art approached and solved problems" addressed by the claimed invention.).
''The fact of near-simultaneous invention, though not determinative of statutory obviousness, is
strong evidence of what constitutes the level of ordinary skill in the art." Id. Thus,
"(i]ndependently made, simultaneous inventions, made 'within a comparatively short space of
time,' are persuasive evidence that the claimed apparatus 'was the product only of ordinary
mechanical or engineering skill."' Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Machine Sys. Intern. LLC,
618 F.3d 1294, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that a machine "occurring only a year later
than the earliest possible reduction-to-practice date of the claimed invention, qualified as a
simultaneous invention" supporting obviousness).
228. Copying in the context of regulatory approval of a drug product is not probative
evidence of nonobviousness. The BPCIA established an abbreviated pathway for the approval of
59
biological drugs that meet the requirements for biosimilarity to a previously approved reference
biological drug. 42 U.S.C. § 262(k). Biosimilarity requires evidence that: "(A) that the
biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in
clinically inactive components; and (B) there are no clinically meaningful differences between
the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the
product." 42 U.S.C. § 262(i)(2). FDA Guidance confirms this. In the similar context of
abbreviated new drug applications, copying has been found to have no probative value to the
question of nonobviousness. Bayer Healthcare Phann., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 713 F.3d
1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that copying is "not probative of nonobviousness" in
pharmaceutical cases because "a showing of bioequivalence is required for FDA approval"); see
also Purdue Pharma Prod. L.P. v. Par Phann., Inc., 377 F. App'x 978,983 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(same); Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 07 4417, 2012 WL 1637736, at *20 (D.N.J.
May 7,2012) (same).
Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid as obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art as of August 1990 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103?
230. What are the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art?
231. Whether the scope and content of the prior art as of August 1990 describes each
of the elements of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit?
232. What are the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art?
233. Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art as of August 1990 would have been
motivated to develop a fusion protein consisting of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF
60
receptor and the hinge-CH2-CH3 domain of a human IgG I immunoglobulin, with a reasonable
expectation of success, in light of the prior art?
234. Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art as of August 1990 would have been
motivated to culture a host cell comprising the polynucleotide encoding the claimed fusion
protein and to purify the fusion protein from the cell culture medium, with a reasonable
expectation of success?
235. Whether the objective indicia support the obviousness of the Asserted Claims of
the Patents-in-Suit?
236. Each of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art as of August 31, 1990.
237. Real-world evidence shows that several research groups-namely, Immunex and
Behringwerke, UT Southwestern, and Genentech-before and shortly after August 1990 had the
idea and independently developed TNF receptor-IgG fusion proteins. In particular, independent
of any involvement of Plaintiff Roche, scientists at Immunex and Behringwerke had developed a
p75 TNF receptor-IgG 1 fusion protein prior to August 1990 and had developed the specific
etanercept protein by November 1990. Scientists at Roche did not conceive of or make
etanercept. Immunex relies on its own research to argue that the patents filed by Roche scientists
are nonobvious.
(i) Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
238. A person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the claimed subject matter of
the Patents-in-Suit would include a person who possess a M.D. or Ph.D. in biology, molecular
biology, biochemistry, chemistry, or a similar field with 1-2 years of experience in the field of
61
immunology or molecular immunology, including experience with cloning and expression of
DNA, protein biochemistry, cell culture, protein purification, and immunological assays.
(ii) Scope and Content of the Prior Art As of August 199022
239. The Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art in August 1990 in light of the prior art relating to (1) the TNF
receptors and (2) fusion proteins containing a portion of a receptor fused to a portion of an
immunoglobulin including human IgG1 at different junctions, including the "hinge" region. It is
undisputed that by August 1990 the receptor-IgG1 fusion proteins were shown to enhance the
properties of the soluble receptors. Prior art examples of receptor-IgGI fusion proteins include
fusion proteins that fuse the soluble ligand-binding portion of CD4 to the hinge-CH2-CH3
portion of a human IgG 1 (e.g., the Seed '262 publication, and Byrn 1990) and fusion proteins
that fuse the soluble ligand-binding portion of a homing receptor to the hinge-CH2-CH3 portion
of a human IgGl (e.g., Capon '964 patent and Watson 1990).
240. Tumor necrosis factor-a and-�, collectively referred to as "TNF," are small
proteins that are involved in cell signaling, which is a means by which cells perceive and respond
to their extracellular environment. This was well established as of August 1990 and is not
disputed. The messenger of the signals, such as TNF, is referred to as a "ligand." When a ligand
binds to its receptor on the outside of a cell, the receptor transmits the signal to the inside of the
cell, leading to various physiological effects.
241. By August 1990, scientists had identified two cell-surface receptors that
specifically bind TNF: the p55 TNF receptor and the p75 TNF receptor. See Brockhaus 1990,
22 On July 13, 2018, Defendants identified background references describing aspects of the state of the prior art in
August 1990 for purposes of demonstrating Defendants' case of prima fade obviousness. See Letter from Maureen
Rurka to Vernon M. Winters (July 13, 2018).
62
DTX-36, at 3127. The DNA and amino acid sequences for both receptors were reported in the
prior art by August 1990. See, e.g., Loetscher 1990, DTX-47, at Figure 2A; Schall 1990, DTX-
34, at Figure 1; Smith '760 patent, DTX-45, at Figures 2A-2B; Smith 1990, DTX-24, at Figure 3.
Plaintiffs' experts do not dispute these facts.
242. By August 1990, TNF was known to cause a biological effect on cells by binding
to the TNF receptors that are expressed on the cell surface ofTNF-responsive cells. The
overproduction ofTNF was shown to be associated with significant harmful effects on the body,
including causing diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis where the body's immune system begins
to attack healthy tissue. See, e.g., Brennan 1989, DTX-75, at 244; Hinshaw 1990, DTX-79, at
279; Jacob 1989, DTX-127, at 254. A known strategy for mitigating diseases that are caused by
the overstimulation ofa cell signaling pathway is to inhibit the binding ofthe ligand to its cell
surface receptor. For example, this binding may be inhibited by administering the soluble form
ofthe receptor (i.e., the extracellular region ofthe receptor that is no longer attached to the cell),
which acts as a "decoy" receptor that binds to the ligand, thereby leaving less ligand available to
bind to the cell-surface receptor. See, e.g., Smith '760 patent, DTX-45, at col. 2, 1. 67 - col. 3, I.
6; Capon '964 patent, DTX-43, at col. 4, 11. 16-20. None ofthese facts are in dispute.
243. By August 1990, scientists had isolated in human blood and urine naturally
occurring TNF-binding proteins that were believed to play an important physiological role in
inhibiting the binding ofTNF to its cell-surface receptor. See, e.g., Seckinger 1989, DTX-21, at
11966; Seckinger 1990b, DTX-29, at 5188; Engelmann 1989, DTX-51, at 11974; Engelmann
1990, DTX-49, at 1531. These TNF-binding proteins had been identified as the extracellular
regions ofthe TNF receptors, which had been enzymatically cleaved at the cell surface to form a
63
soluble TNF receptor. See id.; see also Loetscher 1990, DTX-47, at 354; Schall 1990, DTX-34,
at 36 1. None of these facts are in dispute.
244. By August 1990, the prior art taught administering a soluble form of the TNF
receptor or other TNF-binding protein derived from the soluble form of the TNF receptor as a
potential therapeutic agent to target TNF and inhibit its binding to its cell-surface receptors. See,
e.g., Wallach '378 publication, DTX-38; Hohmann 1989, DTX-52; Loetscher 1990, DTX-47;
Schall, DTX-34; Smith '760 patent, DTX-45; Smith 1990, DTX-24. These soluble forms
comprising the extracellular region of the TNF receptor were shown known to bind TNF with
high affinity. This is not disputed.
245. By August 1990, the prior art taught the construction of fusion proteins that fused
the soluble, TNF-binding portion of a p75 TNF receptor to a portion of a human IgG1. For
example, the Smith '760 patent taught that the construction of both a soluble p75 TNF receptor
and a chimeric antibody comprised of the soluble p75 TNF receptor fused to the constant
domains of an IgG 1 immunoglobulin, which are both useful in diagnostic assays to study TNF
and in therapy to bind or scavenge for TNF. See Smith '760 patent, DTX-45, at col. 2, I. 67 -
col. 3, I. 6, col. 9, 11. 17-29, col. 10, 11. 53-61. This is not disputed.
246. By August 1990, the prior art taught that the properties of the soluble receptor
(e.g., CD4, lymphocyte homing receptor, and others) may be enhanced by developing receptor
IgG 1 fusion proteins, including by joining the soluble receptor to the hinge-CH2-CH3 portion of
an IgGl. See, e.g., Seed '262 publication, DTX-33; Capon 1989, DTX-23; Traunecker 1989,
DTX-25; Capon '964 patent, DTX-43; Byrn 1990, DTX-22; Watson 1990, DTX-30. Fusing
soluble receptors to the hinge-CH2-CH3 domain of a human IgG 1 immunoglobulin were shown
to provide several advantages, including (i) extending the half-life of the soluble receptor in vivo,
64
(ii) providing for a bivalent structure that can enhance binding of the receptor to its ligand, and
(iii) allowing for purification of the receptor using standard affinity chromatography techniques.
The DNA and amino acid sequences of the human lgGl irnmunoglobulin, including the
sequences for the hinge-CH2-CH3 portion, were known by August 1990. This is not disputed.
247. By August 1990, the recombinant DNA technology had developed routine
techniques for cutting and fusing DNA molecules together to form a fusion DNA sequence.
Routine techniques allowed for the production of fusion proteins using suitable vectors to
introduce the DNA sequence into host cells and to culture the host cells to express the fusion
protein. This is not disputed.
248. By August 1990, the prior art taught the receptor-IgGl fusion proteins have broad
usefulness as inhibitors to block the binding of a ligand to its receptor in conditions aggravated
by the ligand-receptor binding. See, e.g., Traunecker 1989, DTX-25, at 70; Capon '964 patent,
DTX-43, at col. 4, 11. 16-20, 38-41; Watson 1990, DTX-30, at 2221, 2228. The prior art teaches
the use of these receptor-IgG1 fusion proteins as therapeutic agents in immune and inflammatory
diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis. See, e.g., Capon' 964 patent, DTX-43, at col. 30, IL 42-
48; Watson 1990, DTX-30, at 2228.
(iii) Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of

Success As of August 1990
249. The prior art collectively teach and would have motivated a person of ordinary
skill in the art to develop a fusion protein capable of specifically binding TNF consisting of the
extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor fused to the hinge-CH2-CH3 portion of an IgGI
immunoglobulin. The amino acid and DNA sequences of both the p75 TNF receptor and the
IgG immunoglobulin were known and published in the prior art by August 1990.
65
250. A person of ordinary skill in the art in August 1990 would have been motivated to
develop a TNF-binding protein, including as a tool to study TNF and its mechanism of action
and as a potential therapeutic agent to inhibit the role ofTNF in mediating certain inflammatory
and immune diseases.
251. A person ofordinary skill in the art in August 1990 would have been motivated to
select the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor, which was shown to specifically bind
TNF, as a starting point in developing a TNF-binding protein. A person of ordinary skill in the
art in August 1990 would have been motivated to fuse the extracellular region of the p75 TNF
receptor to an lgGl irnmunoglobulin, including to extend the half-life of the receptor, enhance
the binding ofthe receptor to TNF, and permit use of standard techniques to purify the receptor.
A person of ordinary skill in the art in August 1990 would have been motivated to fuse the
extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor at the hinge of an IgGl immunoglobulin (thereby,
leaving the hinge-CH2-CH3 domain), because the prior art taught that removal of the CHl
domain and the light chain of an IgG1 immunoglobulin facilitated the expression and secretion
of the fusion protein.
252. A person of ordinary skill in the art in August 1990 also would have been
motivated to select the p75 TNF receptor-IgG chimeric antibody of Smith '760 patent, which
was expected to provide for extended half-life, enhanced binding to TNF, and use of standard
purification techniques, as a starting point in developing a TNF-binding protein. A person of
ordinary skill in the art in August 1990 would have been motivated to remove the CHI domain
and the light chain of the chimeric antibody to facilitate the expression and secretion of the
protein.
66
253. A person of ordinary skill in the art in August 1990 would have been motivated to
culture a host cell (e.g., a CHO cell) comprising a polynucleotide that encodes a fusion protein
consisting of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor fused to the hinge-CH2-CH3
portion of a human IgG 1, and would have been motivated to purify the expressed fusion protein
from the cell mass or culture medium.
254. A person of ordinary skill in the art in August 1990 would reasonably expect that
a fusion protein consisting of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor fused to the hinge
CH2-CH3 portion of an IgG 1 immunoglobulin would specifically bind to human TNF.
255. A person of ordinary skill in the art in August 1990 would have been able to
successfully express and purify a fusion protein consisting of the extracellular region of the p75
TNF receptor fused to the hinge-CH2-CH3 portion of an lgG 1 immunoglobulin using no more
than ordinary skill and routine recombinant DNA and purification methods utilized in the art.
(iv) The Differences Between The August 1990 Prior Art

and the Claimed Subject Matter
256. There are no differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
The prior art discloses all of the elements of the claimed subject matter. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have followed the clear motivation in the art to combine these elements
with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
257. Combinations of the prior art that render the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-
Suit obvious are the following:
• Smith '760 patent in view of the Seed '262 publication;
• Smith '760 patent in view of Byrn 1990;
• Smith '760 patent in view of Watson 1990;
• Smith '760 patent in view of Karjalainen '827 publication;
67
• Smith '760 patent in view of Capon '964 patent in further

view ofTraunecker 1989; and
• Smith 1990 in view of Watson 1990.
(v) The Objective Indicia Support a Finding of

Obviousness23
(a) Simultaneous Invention by Others
258. At least three research groups had, within a short time frame around August 1990,
independently conceived of and developed fusion proteins comprising the extracellular region of
the TNF receptor and the hinge-CH2-CH3 portion of an immunoglobulin.
259. Scientists at Immunex and Behringwerke had developed a fusion protein
comprising a soluble p75 TNF receptor and hinge-CH2-CH3 domains of a human IgGI prior to
August 1990. This research eventually led to creation of etanercept at Immunex by November
1990. Etanercept was developed by scientists at Immunex, independent of any involvement of
Plaintiff Roche.
260. The idea for the creation of a TNF receptor-IgG I fusion protein was discussed in
an October 1989 meeting between Immunex and Behringwerke. See, e.g., DTX-111. At the
time, Immunex had sequenced the full-length p75 TNF receptor and Behringwerke had
experience expressing fusion proteins of receptors fused to the hinge-CH2-CH3 domain of a
human IgG 1 immunoglobulin. With the DNA sequence for the p75 TNF receptor provided by
Immunex, scientists at Behringwerke created the fusion protein in Germany.
261. By June 25, 1990, Behringwerke had sent a sample of the TNF receptor-IgGI
fusion protein in cell culture supernatant to Immunex in the United States. See, e.g., DTX-87.
23 Defendants object to Plaintiffs' statement of the disputed objective indicia to the extent that any of the objective
indicia have not been properly raised or extend beyond the opinions offered by Plaintiffs' experts. Examples of the
improper objective indicia include assertions of commercial success, licensing, and skepticism.
68
Testing by Immunex confirmed that the supernatant had TNF inhibitory activity and that the
TNF receptor-IgGI fusion protein did function as expected. See, e.g., DTX-114. This fusion
protein was comprised of a truncated portion of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor
(which was missing the last five amino acids of the extracellular region) fused to the hinge-CH2-
CH3 domain of a human IgGI immunoglobulin via a three-amino acid linker.
262. On June 28, 1990, scientists at Behringwerke also filed German Patent
Application No. P40 20 607.6 ("Lauffer DE '607 application") describing the construction of a
TNF receptor fusion protein wherein the extracellular region of the TNF receptor is fused to the
hinge-CH2-CH3 portion of a human IgGI irnmunoglobulin. See, e.g., DTX-105. The U.S.
version of this patent application, U.S. Patent Application No. 07/581,703 ("Lauffer '703
application," DTX-102), was filed on September 13, 1990, with the scientists at Immunex later
named as inventors on the application (DTX-103). Imrnunex and Behringwerke were reasonably
diligent in the filing of the Lauffer '703 application in the United States on September 13, 1990.
263. Immunex and Behringwerke's TNF receptor-IgGl fusion protein supports a
finding that the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit would have been obvious. The only
differences between Immunex and Behringwerke's TNF receptor-IgGl fusion protein and the
claimed fusion protein is that Immunex and Behringwerke's fusion protein lacks the five last
amino acids of the extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor and includes three-amino acid
linker. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to construct the TNF
receptor-IgGl fusion protein with the entire extracellular region of the p75 TNF receptor,
without the three-amino acid linker.
264. The Lauffer '703 application supports a finding that the Asserted Claims of the
Patents-in-Suit would have been obvious. The only difference between the TNF receptor-IgG I
69
fusion protein described in the Lauffer '703 application and the asserted claims is that the
Patents-in-Suit specify that the TNF receptor is the p75 TNF receptor. A person of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to construct the Lauffer '703 TNF receptor-IgGl fusion
with the p75 TNF receptor.
265. The research by scientists at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center supports a finding that the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit would have been
obvious. The UT Southwestern scientists had developed a TNF receptor-IgG heavy chain
chimeric protein. Their fusion protein is described in Peppel 1991, which was submitted for
publication in August 1991 and published in December 1991. DTX-26. The UT Southwestern
scientists filed a patent application on April 2, 1992, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,447,851
("Beutler '851 patent") on September 5, 1995. DTX-41. Immunex acquired the Beutler '851
patent.
266. The research by scientists at Genentech supports a finding that the Asserted
Claims of the Patents-in-Suit would have been obvious. The Genentech scientists had developed
a p5 5 TNF receptor-IgG 1 protein. Their fusion protein is described in Ashkenazi 1991, which
was received for review on June 13, 1991 and was published in December 1991. DTX-35.
267. The research at Immunex/Behringwerke, UT Southwestern, and Genentech
demonstrate that scientists prior to and shortly after August 1990 had independently conceived
and developed a fusion protein that fused an extracellular portion of a TNF receptor to the hinge
CH2-CH3 domain of an immunoglobulin.
(b) Plaintiffs' Objective Indicia Lack Nexus to the

Claimed Invention
268. All of Plaintiffs' asserted objective indicia use etanercept as the embodiment of
the claimed invention, and claim that etanercept and its effects are evidence that the Patents-in-
70
Suit are not obvious. But etanercept was developed by Immunex. The work ofthe named
inventors at Roche on the p55 TNF receptor-IgG3 fusion protein was conducted independently
from the work at Immunex on etanercept, and with no knowledge of what specific type ofTNF
receptor protein Immunex was developing. As such, Roche had no involvement in the discovery
of etanercept. None of Plaintiffs' objective indicia, which all rely on Immunex's independent
work in the development of etanercept, can show how Roche's work was inventive in light of the
real-world research that was being conducted by scientists at around the same time.
(c) No Failure By Others
269. Plaintiffs have not shown that individuals others than the named inventors
attempted to develop etanercept but failed to do so.
270. Individuals other than the named inventors at Roche-i.e., the scientists at
Immunex-had developed ENBREL® as an FDA-approved and commercial product. The
named inventors at Roche had no involvement in the creation or development of Enbrel® into a
commercial product. Immunex succeeded in the development ofEnbrel® independent of any
contribution from the named inventors at Roche.
271. Roche attempted to develop their p55 TNF receptor-IgG3 fusion protein but failed
in clinical trials.
(d) No Unexpected Results, Proceeding Against

Conventional Wisdom, or Skepticism
272. Plaintiffs have not shown that etanercept exhibits unexpected results.
273. Plaintiffs have not shown that etanercept surprisingly binds TNF with very high
affinity relative to the soluble form of the p75 TNF receptor. The soluble form of the p75 TNF
receptor can only bind the TNF trimer at only one binding site. But a person of ordinary skill in
the art as ofAugust 1990, would have expected that etanercept, as a dimeric fusion protein with
71
two soluble p75 TNF receptors, would bind the TNF trimer at two bindings sites. The enhanced
binding of etanercept would have been expected when etanercept binds to more than one binding
site on the same TNF trimer. This was known as the ..avidity effect." As taught by the prior art,
such a person would have been motivated to fuse the extracellular region of the p75 TNF
receptor to the hinge-CH2-CH3 domain of a human IgG 1 immunoglobulin based on the expected
enhanced TNF binding activity of the dimeric fusion protein.
274. Plaintiffs have not shown that etanercept surprisingly does not form aggregates in
the presence ofTNF. Aggregates are higher-order complexes formed from the cross-linking of
many receptors. Higher-order complexes may form when a receptor binds to more than one of
its ligands, and each ligand cross-links a receptor to other receptors. A person ofordinary skill
in the art as of August 1990 would not have expected etanercept to form these cross-links
required to create higher-order complexes. Based on the avidity effect, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have expected that etanercept, as a dimeric fusion protein with two soluble p75
TNF receptors, would more strongly bind to two binding sites on the same TNF trimer as
compared to binding to a single binding site on two different TNF trimers. When each
etanercept binds to only one TNF trimer, there is no formation of cross-links between the
etanercept molecules and no formation of higher-order complexes.
275. Plaintiffs have not shown that etanercept surprisingly exhibits little to no effector
function activity of complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) and antibody-dependent cell
mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC). As of August 1990, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have known that initiation of CDC and ADCC activity requires the aggregation of antibodies into
higher-order complexes. Etanercepfs little to no effector function activity would have been
expected in light of the expectation that etanercept would not form higher-order complexes in the
72
presence of TNF. Plaintiffs' comparison of the effector function activity of etanercept relative to
the anti-TNF antibodies adalimumab and infliximab is improper, as these anti-TNF antibodies
were undisputedly not available in the prior art.
276. Plaintiffs have not shown that the little to no effector function activity of
etanercept is a beneficial property. Despite exhibiting some effector function activity, the anti
TNF antibodies adalimumab and infliximab are FDA-approved to treat each of the indications
for which etanercept has been approved. Further, these anti-TNF antibodies have been FDA
approved to treat Crohn 's disease, which is an indication that has not been approved for
etanercept. The efficacy of these anti-TNF antibodies to treat Crohn's disease has been
associated with their effector function activity. Thus, Plaintiffs' allegations of surprising results
have no nexus to the claimed invention.
277. Plaintiffs have not shown that the named inventors were proceeding against the
conventional wisdom or that there was skepticism in the art.
278. Plaintiffs have not shown that the prior art taught away from developing a TNF
receptor-IgG fusion protein. Plaintiffs assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of 1990
would have been concerned that etanercept would exhibit similar effector function activity to
antibodies, and assert that this was expected to be disadvantageous in treating inflammatory
diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis. First, the prior art did not report any concerns of effector
function activities from antibodies that target TNF. The prior art teaching anti-TNF antibodies
and the chimeric TNF receptor antibody do not mention effe.ctor function activity. Second, the
prior art taught administering other lgG I fusion proteins for the treatment of inflammatory
diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, without raising any concern of effector function activity.
73
279. Plaintiffs have not shown that the prior art expressed skepticism in light of
questions that etanercept would raise immunogenicity issues due to its unnatural structure. Each of
the p75 TNF receptor and IgG 1 antibody are naturally produced in humans. Fusing the
soluble p75 TNF receptor directly to the hinge-CH2-CH3 of an IgG1 antibody minimizes any
immunogenicity issues.
280. Contrary to the opinions of Plaintiffs' experts, the research of scientists at hnmunex,
Behringwerke, UT Southwestern, and Genentech show that those actually working in the field at the
time were not discouraged from or skeptical of developing a fusion protein comprising the
extracellular region of the TNF receptor and the hinge-CH2-CH3 portion of an immunoglobulin.
Thus, Plaintiffs' allegations of proceeding against conventional wisdom or skepticism have no nexus
to the claimed invention or the real-world research activities.
(e) No Clinical Success, Commercial Success, Praise,

Long-Felt Need, and Recognition By Others
281. Plaintiffs have not shown that etanercept monotherapy is clinically successful in
treating rheumatoid arthritis, or that it has met a long-felt need. The treatment of rheumatoid
arthritis with ENBREL® alone was not significantly better than the prior art treatment of
methotrexate monotherapy or other treatments that had become available prior to approval of
ENBREL®. ENBREL® monotherapy did not fulfill a long-felt need for the treatment of
rheumatoid arthritis left by prior art therapies. Any clinical success was a result of a
combination of etanercept and methotrexate, and thus lacks a sufficient nexus to the claimed
invention.
282. Plaintiffs have not established that any praise or recognition of ENBREL® was
directed to ENBREL® monotherapy, and thus have not established a sufficient nexus between
the claimed invention and any such praise or recognition by others. Active marketing
74
contributed to the prescription ofENBREL® and other anti-TNF agents. ENBREL® is not
effective in treating all TNF-mediated diseases, for which other anti-TNF agents have been
approved. Specifically, the anti-TNF antibodies adalimumab and infliximab are approved by the
FDA for each indications of etanercept, as well as for the treatment of Crohn's disease. Thus,
any clinical success of etanercept in treating TNF-mediated diseases is not commensurate in
scope with the invention as claimed and therefore lacks the requisite nexus.
283. Plaintiffs' allegations ofclinical success is not probative of any recognized
secondary consideration ofnonobviousness. In addition, Plaintiffs have not shown why any
clinical success years after the priority date would support the nonobviousness ofthe claimed
invention.
284. To the extent that Plaintiffs are now asserting commercial success, Plaintiffs have
not established that Enbrel is a commercial success. Plaintiffs' expert has not conducted a proper
commercial success analysis, and Plaintiffs have not established any connection between the
Patents-in-Suit and the commercial performance ofEnbrel. For example, Plaintiffs' expert
considers only one metric ofcommercial performance, a limited timeframe, and limited
competitors. In addition, during its time on the market, Enbrel has been protected by numerous
other patents, and the Patents-in-Suit did not issue until well after the time period addressed by
Plaintiffs' expert.
(t) Copying Is Not Probative Evidence Of The

Nonobviousness Of the Patents-in-Suit
285. Sandoz began its etanercept project no later than 2005-long before the Patents-
in-Suit issued-and worked on it continuously until filing its aBLA in 2015. Consistent with the
regulatory requirements that were in place in countries outside the U.S., Sandoz sequenced the
commercial product Enbrel® and used the same primary amino acid sequence as the originator
75
for its product. At that time, the patents potentially relevant to etanercept included the Smith
'760 and Jacobs '690 patents, which expired in 2012 and 2014, respectively. Sandoz intended to
launch its product upon expiration of those patents.
286. On November 22, 2011, shortly before the Smith '760 patent was to expire,
Amgen, which had acquired Immunex, issued a press release announcing that it had acquired the
newly-issued '182 patent. Amgen announced that "[t]he patent describes and claims the fusion
protein that is etanercept, and by statute, the '182 patent has a term of 17 years from today"
until November 2028. After Amgen issued its press release, Sandoz began to explore the
possibility of"designing around" the Patents-in-Suit by modifying the amino acid sequence. The
design-around project never entered in vivo testing and was discontinued in 2014 when it became
clear that the same primary amino acid sequence as the originator would be necessary in order to
obtain FDA approval as a biosimilar, similar to the requirements in other countries.
287. Sandoz filed a declaratory judgment action against Immunex, seeking a
declaration that the Patents-in-Suit were invalid and/or not infringed, in 2013. Rather than admit
that it was planning to sue Sandoz for patent infringement, Immunex filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over Sandoz's claims. The case was
dismissed. Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. et al., Case No. 2014-1693 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
288. Having worked on its product for approximately a decade, on July 30, 2015,
Sandoz Inc. submitted a Section 35l(k) application, aBLA No. 761042, to FDA, seeking
authorization to market Erelzi® as a biosimilar version of lmmunex's ENBREL® (etanercept)
product in the United States. On August 30, 2016, FDA approved Defendants' Biosimilar
76
Etanercept for all the indications in which ENBREL® (etanercept) had been approved at that
time.24
289. Sandoz filed and obtained FDA approval of its aBLA pursuant to the Biologics
Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) enacted in 2010, which established an
abbreviated pathway for regulatory approval of follow-on biological products that are "highly
similar" to a previously approved biological drug product. Any copying by Sandoz of the amino
acid sequence for etanercept reflects its efforts to meet the FDA standards for approval of
biosimilar products under the BPCIA-not any nonobviousness of the Patents-in-Suit, which
issued in 2011 and 2012. Thus, Plaintiffs' allegations of copying have no nexus to the claimed
invention.
290. Defendants allege that each of the Asserted Claims is invalid as obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on one or more of six purported prior art combinations.25
291. Pursuant to the Amended Stipulation (DJ. 510 � 3.b, see also, supra, § V.),
Defendants have identified those six prior art combinations as follows: 26

• U.S. Patent No. 5,395,760 ("Smith '760 patent") in view of European Patent
Application Publication No. 0 325 262 ("Seed '262 publication");

• Smith '760 patent in view of Byrn RA et al., Biological properties of a CD4
immunoadhesin, Nature 344:667-670 (1990) ("Byrn 1990");
24
Sandoz subsequently amended its proposed label for Erelzi® to remove the indications for psoriatic arthritis (PsA)
and plaque psoriasis (PsO), because these indications remained protected by the Finck patents until August 13, 2019.
26 See June 5, 2018 Sandoz's Disclosure of Obviousness Combinations and Double Patenting Reference Families
(attached as Joint Exhibit 2).
77
• Smith '760 patent in view ofWatson SR et al., A homing receptor-JgG chimera
as a probe for adhesive ligands of lymph node high endothelial venules, Journal
ofCell Biology 110:2221-2229 (1990) ("Watson 1990");

• Smith '760 patent in view ofEuropean Patent Application Publication No. 0 394
827 ("Karjalainen '827 publication");

• Smith '760 patent in view ofU.S. Patent No. 5,116,964 ("Capon '964 patent") in
further view ofTraunecker A et al., Highly efficient neutralization of HIV with
recombinant CD4-immunoglobulin molecules, Nature 339:68-70 (1989)
("Traunecker 1989"); and

• Smith CA et al., A receptor for tumor necrosis factor defines an unusual family of
cellular and viral proteins, Science 248:1019-23 (1990) ("Smith 1990") in view
ofWatson 1990.
292. Plaintiffs dispute Sandoz's allegations ofobviousness.
293. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) states: "[a] patent may not be obtained ... ifthe differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
294. Obviousness is a question oflaw predicated on factual inquiries. The factual
inquiries (the "Graham factors") include the following:27
( 1) the level ofordinary skill in the art;
(2) the scope and content ofthe prior art;
(3) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; and
27 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. I, 17-18 (1966).
78
(4) objective indicia of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.
295. An alleged infringer cannot prove obviousness "merely by demonstrating that
each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art." See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Instead, a party seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious "must
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan would have had reason to
combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the
skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so." In re
Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1068-
69 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
296. The use of hindsight is not permitted in an obviousness analysis. KSR, 550 U.S.
at 421 (cautioning against "the distortion caused by hindsight bias" and "arguments reliant upon
ex post reasoning"). In addition, the prior art must be considered "in its entirety, i.e., as a
whole," including the portions that suggest that the claimed invention would not have been
obvious. Panduit Corp v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also
Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1305 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
convincing evidence. Microsoft, 564 U.S. at 110-14.
a. Plaintiffs' Statement of the Issues of Law to Be Litigated
the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
one or more of the six purported prior art combinations identified by Defendants.
79
the Asserted Claims of the '522 patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
one or more of the six purported prior art combinations identified by Defendants.
b. Plaintiffs' Statement of the Issues of Fact to Be Litigated
300. Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the predicate
factual underpinnings necessary to support their allegations that one or more of the six purported
prior art combinations renders obvious the subject matter claimed in each of the Asserted
Claims, including, but not limited to, the following:
Level ofSkill in the Art28
301. Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that one
working in the field as of August 31, 1990 and possessing ordinary skill in the art as of August
31, 1990 would have found the subject matter of the Asserted Claims to be obvious.
Scope and Content of the Prior Art
ordinary artisan would have been motivated to develop, with a reasonable expectation of success,
an agent that binds free, circulating TNF for use as:

• A therapeutic to treat disorders such as autoimmune disease and inflammation,
amongst other agents and mechanisms that could have been explored to
potentially treat these disorders and given that the physiological role ofTNF in
these disorders was unclear; or alternatively
28 Plaintiffs propose the following level of skill in the art: A research scientist with an M.D. or Ph.D. and 1-2 years
of relevant post-doctoral research experience in immunology, molecular biology, ce!Jular biology, and/or
biochemistry, with experience in DNA cloning, protein expression and purification, cell culture, and basic
immunological structures and functions). Compare, supra,� 250 (Defendants' proposal).
80
• A research reagent, despite the availability of other TNF-binding agents that
existed in the art for such use.
ordinary artisan, if motivated to develop an agent that binds free, circulating TNF for use as
therapeutic or research reagent, would have been further motivated, with a reasonable
expectation of success, to choose and select TNF-R, given that the physiological role of TNF-R
was unclear, and despite the availability of other TNF-binding agents that existed in the art.
ordinary artisan, if motivated to develop a TNF-R-based TNF binding agent for use as
therapeutic or research reagent, would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of
success, to choose p75 TNF-R, despite availability or disclosure of other TNF-binding agents
that existed in the art, including but not limited to, other TNF-R molecules, such as p55 TNF-R.
ordinary artisan, if motivated to develop a p75 TNF-R-based TNF binding agent for use as a
therapeutic or a research reagent, would have looked to the Smith '760 patent or Smith 1990
patent for guidance.
ordinary artisan, if motivated to develop a p75 TNF-R-based TNF binding agent for use as a
therapeutic or a research reagent and looking to the Smith '760 patent or Smith 1990 for
guidance, would have been further motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to
choose the full extracellular region of p75 TNF-R, or the "recombinant chimeric antibody
molecule" disclosed in the Smith '760 patent from among the various potential TNF-R based
TNF-binding agents disclosed in the two references.
81
ordinary artisan, if motivated to develop a p75 TNF-R-based TNF binding agent for use as
therapeutic or research reagent, and looking to the Smith '760 patent or Smith 1990 for guidance,
would have found the other potential TNF-R based TNF-binding agents disclosed in the two
references to be unsuitable and thus would have sought further guidance from other relevant art.
308. Whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the ordinary
artisan, if motivated to develop an agent that binds free, circulating TNF for use as a therapeutic to
treat disorders such as autoimmune disease and inflammation or use as a research reagent, would
have considered as relevant to such development, art from fields relating to (i)
cell-surface adhesion molecules designed to treat non-inflammatory conditions, such as
HIV/AIDS, by eliciting the effector functions of antibodies and thereby provoking an inflammatory
response (the Seed '262 publication, Byrn 1990, the Karjalainen '827
publication,29 the Capon '964 patent and Traunecker 1989); or (ii) histochemical "probes" used
to study the distribution of chemical structures affixed to the surface of cells (Watson 1990).
309. Whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that an
ordinary artisan, if motivated to develop a p75 TNF-R-based TNF binding agent for use as
therapeutic or in vitro research reagent by choosing the "recombinant chimeric antibody
molecule" disclosed in the Smith '760, and if further motivated to look to art outside the field for
guidance, would have disregarded the teaching in the Smith '760 patent that such molecules have
"unmodified constant region domains."
Karjalainen '827 publication, having been published after August 31, 1990, is prior art against
29 The parties dispute whether the Karjalainen '827 publication is prior art.
82
the Asserted Claims.
Differences Between the Claimed Subiect Matter and the Prior Art
ordinary artisan, if motivated to develop the full extracellular region of p75 TNF-R or the
"recombinant chimeric antibody molecule" in the Smith '760 patent for use as a therapeutic or
research reagent, would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to
modify the structure of these proteins to "extend the half-life of the receptor, enhance the binding
of the receptor to TNF, and permit use of standard [antibody-based] techniques to purify the
receptor" by fusion to an immunoglobulin heavy chain constant region and make a fusion protein
covered by the Asserted Claims given:

• The availability of other known methods and agents that could have been used
address these issues if they were of concern to an ordinary artisan based on the
prior art;
• The art taught that immunoglobulin fusion proteins were designed to treat AIDS
by provoking an inflammatory response via the effector function of antibodies;
and
• Teachings in the art that "[ o]ne of the most important issues" confronting the use
of immunoglobulin fusion proteins was "the extent of autoimmune damage."
ordinary artisan, if motivated to develop the "recombinant chimeric antibody molecule" in the
Smith '760 patent for use as a therapeutic or research reagent, would have been motivated, with a
reasonable expectation of success, to modify the structure of this protein to "facilitate[] the
expression and secretion" of the antibody given, for example, that the Smith '760 patent
83
expressly states that the chimeric antibody molecule should have "unmodified constant region
domains."
ordinary artisan, ifmotivated to develop the full extracellular region ofp75 TNF-R or the
"recombinant chimeric antibody molecule" in the Smith '760 patent for use as a therapeutic or
research reagent, would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation ofsuccess, to
express either protein in Chinese hamster ovary cells.
ordinary artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation ofsuccess, to
combine the Smith '760 patent and the Seed '262 publication, and ifso, whether Defendants
have proven by clear and convincing evidence:

• That the combination discloses each and every element ofany ofthe Asserted
Claims; and
• That the combination would have motivated the ordinary artisan, with a
reasonable expectation ofsuccess, to (i) make a fusion protein that meets each and
every element ofthe Asserted Claims ofthe '182 patent, and (ii) carry out a
process for making a fusion protein that meets each and every element ofthe
Asserted Claims ofthe '522 patent.
ordinary artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation ofsuccess, to
combine the Smith '760 patent and Byrn 1990, and ifso, whether Defendants have proven by
clear and convincing evidence:
84
• That the combination discloses each and every element of any of the Asserted
Claims; and
reasonable expectation of success, to (i) make a fusion protein that meets each and
every element of the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent, and (ii) carry out a
process for making a fusion protein that meets each and every element of the
Asserted Claims of the '522 patent.
ordinary artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to
combine the Smith '760 patent and Watson 1990, and if so, whether Defendants have proven by
clear and convincing evidence:

Claims; and
317. Assuming the Karjalainen '827 publication is prior art (which the parties dispute,
see, supra,� 320, footnote 36), whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing
evidence that the ordinary artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of
success, to combine the Smith '760 patent and the Karjalainen '827 publication, and if so,
whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence;
85
Claims; and
ordinary artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation, of success to
combine the Smith '760 patent and the Capon '964 patent and Traunecker 1989, and if so,
whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence:

Claims; and
ordinary artisan would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to
combine Smith 1990 and Watson 1990, and if so, whether Defendants have proven by clear and
convincing evidence:
86
Claims; and
Objective Jndicia ofNon-Obviousness
320. Whether, once established by Plaintiffs, Defendants have rebutted, by clear and
convincing evidence, the objective indicia supporting nonobviousness, including but not limited
to the following:
• Clinical success that provides evidence of commercial success, given the
widespread and rapid adoption of ENBREL® in the United States; 30

• Praise in light of laudatory statements regarding ENBREL® by numerous
physicians and patients;

• Long-felt, but unmet need, and the failure of others, in light of the advantages of
ENBREL® in, for example, patients that previously could not be successfully
30 Defendants argue that "allegations of clinical success is not probative of any recognized secondary consideration
ofnonobviousness." See, supra,� 295. Defendants presented a version ofthis argument in their Daubert motion
against Drs. Fleischmann and Vellturo, D.I. 521, which Plaintiffs addressed, D.I. 533. The Court has denied
Defendants' motion. D.I. 572 at 9. Defendants also allege that "Plaintiffs' expert has not conducted a proper
commercial success analysis." See, s11pra, 1 296. Defendants are incorrect on this point. Both Drs. Fleischmann
and Vellturo addressed commercial success as demonstrated by clinical success. Courts have upheld this type of
analysis. See, e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharm U.S.A. Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 643,671 (D. Del. 2012), aff'd, 555 F.
App'x 961 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (addressing commercial success as objective indicium and stating "the court finds
credible the testimony of the plaintiffs expert ... who explained that Lyrica has the largest share of prescriptions for
branded products to treat diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia combined in the United States
and is one of the two leading branded products prescribed for the treatment offibromyalgia"); Janssen Pharm., Inc.
v. Watson Labs, Inc., 2012 WL 3990221, *18 (D.N.J. Sep. 11, 2012) (using, in part, prescriptions written as
evidence of commercial success).
87
treated with prior art therapies, and the fact that others, among other things,
attempted to develop TNF binding proteins for the treatment of inflammatory
disorders, but failed;

• Skepticism in light of questions that etanercept would raise immunogenicity
issues due to its unnatural structure;
• Licensing by others of the patented technology;

• Unexpected results, such as the fact that etanercept exhibits little to no effector
function activity, binds TNF with very high affinity relative to soluble forms of
p75 TNF-R, and does not form aggregates with TNF are unexpected properties,
given, for example, that the physical and structural factors that give rise to these
advantages were not known in August 1990 and remain unclear even today; and
• Copying, given Sandoz's intentional use of the identical amino acid sequence of
the etanercept drug substance found in ENBREL®, and decision to use the same
the CHO host cell expression system used to make the etanercept drug substance
found in ENBREL® after identifying "design around" variants of etanercept that
Sandoz recognized could have been approved by FDA. 31
31 Defendants argue that copying is "not probative" ofnonobviousness (see, supra, 'lMI 240, 297-301) for the same
reasons that they sought to strike the testimony oflmmunex and AML's expert, Dr. Jones. D.I. 521; D.I. 532; D.I
539. The Court declined to exclude Dr. Jones's testimony. D.I. 572. Again, Defendants ignore case law from the
Federal Circuit holding that, even in the "Hatch-Waxman" context, copying can be a relevant objective indicia
where, as here, copying is not required for regulatory approval. E.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.,
874 F.3d 724, 731 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("[The Hatch-Waxman Act) does not ... require the generic manufacturer to
copy the ... process ofmanufacturing the drug" (emphasis original)). Plaintiffs also dispute Defendants'
characterization of their efforts to develop Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept. Plaintiffs further object to these
statements as they seek to introduce facts relating to arguments that the Court has ordered Defendants are precluded
from making at trial, such as arguments relating to the prosecution }aches defense that Defendants have withdrawn.
DJ. 597.
88
321. Whether Defendants have rebutted, by clear and convincing evidence, the
presumption that that there is a nexus between etanercept and the Asserted Claims given that the
Asserted Claims cover etanercept.
322. Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, objective
indicia supporting obviousness, including but not limited to:

• Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, any facts
that qualify as "simultaneous invention," including, for example, by proving
whether and when multiple other groups made etanercept and whether, if they did
so, whether the work was made independently of the claimed inventions and
whether the level of skill in the art and state of the art was the same at the time of
the alleged "simultaneous invention" as it was as of the August 31, 1990
invention date of the Asserted Claims; 32 and

• Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, how any
facts tending to show "simultaneous invention," if proven, may be used as indicia
supporting obviousness in light of the requirement that the motivation to combine
and reasonable expectation of success must be based on the prior art and the
knowledge of the ordinary artisan at the time of the invention; and

• Whether Defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, how any
facts tending to show "simultaneous invention," if proven, may be used as indicia
supporting obviousness in light of the Patent Act's provision for "interference"
proceedings that recognize that multiple groups may simultaneously seek patents
on the same or similar subject matter. E.g., Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH
32 The Patents-in-Suit claim priority to the Brockhaus '707 application, which was published on March 20, 1991.
89
v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("Because the
statute, 35 U.S.C. § 135, (establishing and governing interference practice)
recognizes the possibility ofnear simultaneous invention by two or more equally
talented inventors working independently, that occurrence may or may not be an
indication of obviousness when considered in light of all the circumstances.").
D. Written Description (35 U.S.C. § 112)
324. A patent's specification "shall contain a written description of the invention, and
of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as
to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and use the same." 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r I.
325. Thus, the first paragraph of§ 112 contains two separate requirements: a "written
description"and "enablement." See Ariad Pharm., Inc., v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane).
326. Whether a specification satisfies the written description requirement is a question
of fact. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc., 744 F.3d 725, 729 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
327. For a patent specification to incorporate "another document by reference [e.g., a
patent application], the incorporating document must identify the incorporated document with
90
detailed particularity, clearly indicating the specific material for incorporation." Kyocera
Wireless Corp. v. Int 'I Trade Comm 'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
328. To comply with the written description requirement, a patentee must describe "the
invention, with all its claimed limitations" as of the filing date. ICU Med., Inc. v Alaris Med.
Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A specification contains
adequate written description if "the description ... clearly allow[s] persons of ordinary skill in
the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed," and "had possession of the
claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351 (quotation and
alterations omitted).
329. "[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure," and "the test requires an
objective inquiry into the four comers of the specification" to determine whether it "show[s] that
the inventor actually invented the invention claimed." Id. The Federal Circuit has "repeatedly
stated that actual 'possession' or reduction to practice outside of the specification is not enough";
"the specification itself .. . must demonstrate possession." Id. at 1352. A "description that
merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement." Id.
330. A "mere wish or plan" for obtaining the claimed invention is not an adequate
written description. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
331. The original disclosure must provide adequate direction which reasonably would
lead persons skilled in the art to "single out" the invention from the various alternatives
discussed in the disclosure. See id.; Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Paulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1325-
26 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Ruschig,
54 C.C.P.A. 1551, 379 F.2d 990, 995 (C.C.P.A. 1967). In particular, "where a patentee adds
91
claims during prosecution that. ...were not included in the original priority application, courts
require a detailed description and identification of the later-claimed invention in the original
disclosure, particularly where the specification discloses numerous possibilities with scant
guidance on which to select." Novozymes AIS v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Even if the specification "provides formal textual support for each
individual limitation recited in the claims" it must describe the actual, functioning species that
falls within the claims. Id. at 1349.
332. "When a patent claims a genus using functional language to define a desired
result, the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that
achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species
sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." AbbVie Deutsch/and GmbH &
Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Thus,
when a specification only describes one type of structurally similar proteins which are not
representative of the full scope of the genus, there is no written description support for proteins
that differ significantly from those described. Id. at 1300. "A court may rely on post-priority
date evidence to determine if a patent discloses a representative number of species." Amgen Inc.
v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
333. Merely describing one embodiment of a claimed invention does not necessarily
satisfy the written description requirement; instead, description of a "single embodiment would
support [] a generic claim only if the specification would reasonably convey to a person of skill
in the art that [the inventor] had possession of the claimed subject matter." LizardTech, Inc. v.
Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If"the specification ... fail[s]
92
to demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [a] claim" at
the time of filing, it "provides inadequate support for the claim under section 112." Id. at 1345.
334. A "mere wish or plan" for obtaining the claimed invention is not an adequate
written description. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for lack of written description?
336. Whether the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for lack of written
description because the specification as of September 1990 did not describe the invention, with
all its claimed limitations?
description because the specification as of September 1990 did not describe the extracellular
region of the insoluble human TNF receptor with an apparent molecular weight of about 75
kilodaltons (i.e. the full p75 extracellular region)?
description because the specification as of September 1990 does not describe all the domains of
the constant region of a human IgG1 immunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first domain of
the constant region (i.e. the hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG/IgGl )?
description because the specification as of September 1990 does not describe a fusion protein
combining the full p7 5 extracellular region and the hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human
IgG/IgGl?
93
description because the specification as of September 1990 does not describe a fusion protein
combining the full p75 extracellular region and the hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG/IgG1
that specifically binds human TNF?
341. Each of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to meet
the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1 1.
342. The Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are generally directed to a fusion
protein comprised of the full p75 extracellular region and the hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human
IgG/IgG 1, wherein the fusion protein specifically binds human TNF. A person of ordinary skill
in the art reading the specification would not have understood that the Roche inventors had
invented and possessed a fusion protein comprising the full p75 extracellular region and hinge
CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG/IgG1 as of September 1990.
343. The Roche inventors filed the U.S. application leading to the Patents-in-Suit in
September 1990. The Roche inventors were employed by Plaintiff Roche. The Roche inventors
were not employed by Plaintiffs Imrnunex at the time of filing the application leading to the
Patents-in-Suit. From the late 1980s through at least the late 1990s, the Roche inventors worked
on a p55 TNF receptor-IgG3 fusion protein. Roche's p55 TNF receptor-IgG3 fusion protein
failed in clinical trials. The Roche inventors did not take any p75 TNF receptor-IgG 1 fusion
protein to clinical trials. Also during the late 1980s and through the 1990s, Imrnunex was
working on a fusion protein comprised of the full p75 extracellular region and hinge-CH2-CH3
region of a human IgGngG1, later approved to be marketed as ENBREL® starting in 1998.
344. The specification as of September 1990 describes the invention as "TNF-binding
proteins... containing the amino acid sequence depicted in FIG. 1. .. or in FIG. 4 .... " See, e.g.,
94
'182 patent, DTX-1, at col. 3, 11. 4-11. The specification as of September 1990 provides in
Figure 1 a full p55 TNF receptor. The specification provides in Figure 4 a fragment of a
purported p75 TNF receptor with mutations. The protein described in Figure 4 is a different
protein than the full p75 extracellular region.
345. The specification as of September 1990 describes as the invention the Figure 4
protein-not a protein with the full p75 extracellular region. The specification as of September
1990 does not describe the full p75 extracellular region to one of ordinary skill in the art. As
compared to the actual sequence of 235 amino acids comprising the full p75 extracellular region,
the Figure 4 fragment deleted amino acids 1-70 of the full p75 extracellular region, contains
three amino acid mutations, and has one extra amino acid. Although it was not known in 1990
because the specification does not report any TNF binding data, it is now known that the amino
acid deletions result in significant consequence, including likely affecting the Figure 4 protein's
ability to specifically bind TNF.
346. The specification describes the Figure 4 fragment as ''preferred" and a smaller
fragment of Figure 4 containing one less amino acid as "especially preferred". See, e.g., '182
patent, DTX-1, at col. 5, ll. 35-40. The specification discloses that despite repeated sequencing,
the inventors obtained only the "preferred" Figure 4 fragment, and not the sequence of the full
p75 TNF receptor. The Roche inventors chose to describe only the sequence of the Figure 4
fragment and fragments thereof as their invention in the specification. The Roche inventors did
not describe the sequence of the full p75 extracellular region in the specification.
347. The specification as of September 1990 does not incorporate by reference the full
p75 TNF extracellular region described in the scientific literature. It directs a person of ordinary
skill in the art to the sequence disclosed in Smith 1990 only as an example of a deletion of one
95
amino acid in the Figure 4 fragment. See, e.g., '182 patent, DTX-1, at col. 5, 11. 22-24. A
deletion of one amino acid in the Figure 4 fragment would not include the full extracellular
region of the p75 TNF receptor.
348. None of the examples in the specification as of September 1990 provide any
instruction for making a fusion protein comprised of the full p75 extracellular region and the
hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG/IgG1. The specification provides in Example 11 a
cloning procedure that mentions the TNF receptor sequence for only the p55 TNF receptor-not
the p75 TNF receptor. The method of Example 11 cannot be used to obtain a fusion protein
comprised of the full p75 extracellular region and the hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human
IgG/IgG1, like etanercept.
349. A p55 TNF receptor-IgG3 fusion protein has structurally distinct component parts
as compared to a p75 TNF receptor-IgGl fusion protein. First, the p55 and p75 TNF receptors
were shown to be structurally distinct with different amino acid sequences. Second, the IgG3
antibody has a unique structure and activity among the different subtypes of the human IgG
isotype, including a having a characteristic repeated hinge region (62 amino acids, compared to
the 13-15 amino acids in the IgGl hinge, depending on the definition).
350. In June 2004, Roche and Immunex entered into an "Accord & Satisfaction
Agreement" that transferred to Immunex all substantive ownership rights to the Patents-in-Suit.
See 2004 Accord & Satisfaction Agreement, DTX-357. Thereafter, Immunex took over
prosecution of the applications that led to the Patents-in-Suit.
351. Immunex materially amended the specification and changed the scope of the
pending claims in an attempt to purportedly cover etanercept following transfer of control of the
prosecution of the application to hnmunex. For example, in November 2006, Immunex amended
96
the specification to reference the plasmid PTA 7942. Plasmid PTA 7942 was unavailable at the
timing of filing the patent application. Plasmid PTA 7942 was only deposited on October 17,
2006 with the American Type Culture Collection. Inconsistencies in the amino acid sequences
of Plasmid PTA 7942 and the Figure 4 fragment reflect that the Figure 4 fragment encodes a
different protein than that encoded by Plasmid PTA 7942.
352. The specification as of September 1990 does not describe the hinge-CH2-CH3
region of a human IgG/IgG1.
353. The parties stipulated that the claimed phrase "all the domains of the constant
region of a human IgG1 immunoglobulin heavy chain other than the first domain of the constant
region" has its "plain and ordinary meaning: • -hinge-CH2-CH3' region of a human
[IgG/IgGl]."' D.I. 144 at 1.
354. The specification as of September 1990 does not mention the term "hinge". A
person of ordinary skill in the art in September 1990 would have understood that a hinge region
of a human IgG/IgG1 has more than one plain and ordinary meaning and that the Patents-in-Suit
lack written description for which hinge to use.
355. The specification does not describe a fusion protein combining the full p75
extracellular region and hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG/IgG1, or that the named
inventors possessed such a fusion protein or had devised a procedure for making such a fusion
protein. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the named inventors
had described and shown possession of the claimed the fusion protein based upon the examples
of the Patents-in-Suit.
97
356. The specification does not teach a fusion protein combining the full p75
extracellular region and hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG/IgG1 that specifically binds
TNF.
357. Defendants allege that each of the Asserted Claims is invalid for failure to satisfy
the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.33
358. Plaintiffs dispute Defendants' allegations oflack of written description.
359. 35 U. S.C. § 112 states a patent's specification must "contain a written description
of the invention.,,
360. Written description requires "an objective inquiry into the four corners of the
specification from the perspective" of an ordinary artisan to detennine if it "describe[s] an
invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show[s] that the inventor actually invented
the invention claimed." Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (en bane).
361. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must "reasonably
convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter
as of the filing date." Id.
362. For inventions relating to biological materials, written description may be
established by a deposit of a sample of the biological material with an independent depository
accessible to the public, and identification of the deposited material in the patent specification at
any time prior to the issuance of the patent. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d
956, 965-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also 37 C.F.R. § l.804(a) (". .. an original deposit [of
98
biological material] ...may be made ...subject to§ 1.80 9, during pendency of the application
for patent.").
363. The identification of deposited material in a patent specification can be made at
any time prior to the issuance of the patent and does not constitute new matter. In re Lundak,
77 3 F. 2d 12 16, 12 18-20, 12 2 3 (Fed.Cir. 1985); see also 37 C.F.R.§ l .80 4(a) ("... an original
deposit [of biological material] ...may be made ...subject to§ 1.80 9, during pendency of the
application for patent.").
364. "[E]xarnples are not necessary to support the adequacy of a written description"
and "there is no per se rule that an adequate written description of an invention that involves a
biological macromolecule must contain a recitation of known structure." Falko-Gunter Falkner
v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357 , 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Ariad, 5 98 F .3d at 135 2 ("the written
description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction to practice; a
constructive reduction to practice that in a definite way identifies the claimed invention can
satisfy the written description requirement").
365. Where "accessible literature sources clearly provided, as of the relevant date,
genes and their nucleotide sequences ... , satisfaction of the written description requirement
does not require either the recitation or incorporation by reference (where permitted) of such
genes and sequences." Falko-Gunter Falkner, 448 F.3d at 1368; see also Capon v. Eshhar et al.,
418 F.3d 13 49, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (written description requirement does not impose "aper se
rule requiring recitation in the specification of the nucleotide sequence of claimed DNA, when
that sequence is already known in the field").
99
366. Whether a specification satisfies the written description requirement is a question
of fact. See Vas-Cathlnc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 199I);seealsoAriad,
598 F.3d at 1351.
convincing evidence. Microsoft, 564 U.S. at 110-14.
a. Plaintiffs' Statement of the Issues of Fact to Be Litigated
specification of the Patents-in-Suit fails to convey to an ordinary artisan that the inventors
possessed the subject matter of the Asserted Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 at the time of the
invention (i .e., August 31, 1990) given, for example, the following:
• The specification describes fusion proteins which consist of a soluble fragment of
non-soluble TNF binding proteins and an immunoglobulin fragment, i.e., "all
domains except the first domain of the constant region of the heavy chain";
• The p75 TNF-R sequences disclosed in the specification provide identifying
information sufficient to show that the inventors possessed the entire p75 TNF-R
protein, and DNA encoding the entire protein;

• The specification describes routine methods for identifying the entire amino acid and
DNA sequence of the p75 TNF-R, which if followed, would have resulted in the same
sequences disclosed in the literature;
• The specification lists the Smith 1990 reference as a publication disclosing sequences
of the p75 TNF-R protein;
100
• Amino acid and nucleotide sequences disclosed in the specification identify the p75
TNF-R protein as the same protein disclosed in the prior art Smith 1990 reference
(which disclosed these sequences);

• The Patent Office allowed an amendment to the specification identifying ATCC
Accession No. PTA 7942, a publicly available biological deposit, which includes a
plasmid with a cDNA insert that encodes the p75 TNF-R amino acid sequence;
• The DNA and amino acid sequences of the heavy chain constant region of lgG
immunoglobulins, including IgGl and IgG3, were known in the art;

• The specification describes pCD4-Hyl and pCD4-Hy3 as publicly available vectors
that can be used to make the fusion protein of the Asserted Claims;
• Soluble forms ofTNF-R were known in the art to bind TNF with high affinity and the
extracellular binding domain of p-75 TNF-R was known in the art; and
• Recombinant DNA technology was a mature field and recombinant DNA techniques
were routine.
b. Response to Defendant's Statement of Contested Facts
E. Enablement (35 U.S.C. § 112)
370. The second requirement of§ 112 is "enablement." See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
101
371. Enablement is a question of law, with factual inquiries underlying the
determination. ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935,940 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
372. To meet the enablement requirement,the specification of a patent must teach
those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without
undue experimentation. MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Techs., Inc., 687 F.3d 1377,
1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
373. "Enablement serves the dual function in the patent system ofensuring adequate
disclosure of the claimed invention and of preventing claims broader than the disclosed
invention." Magsil Corp., 687 F.3d at 1380-1381.
374. To determine if the experimentation necessary is undue,courts consider: "(I) the
quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount ofdirection or guidance presented,(3) the
presence or absence of working examples,(4) the nature of the invention,(5) the state of the
prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the
art, and (8) the breadth of the claims." In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
375. Where the prior art alone establishes enablement of claimed subject matter, "[a]
patent cannot both be non-obvious and enabled." In re '318 Patent Infringement Litig., 578 F.
Supp. 2d 711, 736 (D. Del. 2008), af:fd, 583 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A patent "cannot
simply rely on the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill to serve as a substitute for the missing
information in the specification." ALZA Corp., 603 F.3d at 941.
376. Conversely, "a description that does not render a claimed invention obvious does
not sufficiently describe that invention for purposes of§ 112,,i l ." Regents of Univ. of
California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559,1567 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis omitted).
102
377. Patent protection is granted "in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention,
not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable." Genentech, Inc. v.
Novo Nordisk AIS, 108 F. 3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "It is the specification, not the
knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to
constitute adequate enablement." Id. Thus, "when there is no disclosure of any specific starting
material or ofany ofthe conditions under which a process can be carried out, undue
experimentation is required; there is a failure to meet the enablement requirement that cannot be
rectified by asserting that all the disclosure related to the process is within the skill of the art."
Id.
Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for lack of enablement?
379. Whether the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to meet
the enablement requirement of35 U.S.C. § 112, 11.
380. Each of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to meet
the enablement requirement of35 U.S.C. § 112, � l.
381. The Roche inventors filed the application leading to the Patents-in-Suit in 1990.
The Roche inventors were employed by Plaintiff Roche. The Roche inventors were not
employed by Plaintiffs Immunex and Amgen at the time of filing the application leading to the
Patents-in-Suit. The Roche inventors worked on a p55 TNF receptor-lgG3 fusion protein, which
failed in clinical trials.
103
382. The Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are generally directed to a fusion
protein comprised of the full p75 extracellular region and hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human
IgG/IgGl , wherein the fusion protein specifically binds human TNF.
383. The specification does not allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize
that the Roche inventors invented and possessed a fusion protein comprised of the full p75
extracellular region and hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG/IgG1 as of September 1990.
384. The specification does not teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the
full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation as of September 1990.
385. The specification fails to describe, among other things, (1) the full p75
extracellular region, (2) the hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG/IgG1, (3) a fusion protein
combining the full p75 extracellular region and the hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a human IgG, and
(4) such a fusion protein that specifically binds TNF.
386. Without disclosure in the specification of the specific constituent parts for making
a fusion protein combining the full p75 extracellular region and the hinge-CH2-CH3 region of a
human IgG/lgG1 or of how the process for making a fusion protein can be carried out, undue
experimentation is required to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention.
387. The specification does not supply the purported novel aspects of the claimed
invention. The failure to provide an enabling disclosure cannot be rectified by asserting that all
the disclosure related to the claimed invention is within the skill of the art.
388. Defendants allege that each of the Asserted Claims is invalid for lack of
enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. 34
34
Joint Pretrial Report. D.I. 486.
104
389. Plaintiffs dispute Defendants' allegations of lack of enablement.
390. 35 U.S.C. § 112 states a patent specification must contain a written description
"of the manner and process of making and using [the invention],in such full,clear,concise,and
exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the
same ...."
391. To satisfy the enablement requirement, a patent specification must teach one of
ordinary skill in the art "'how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without
undue experimentation."' MartekBiosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363,1378
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
392. "A claim is sufficiently enabled even if 'a considerable amount of
experimentation' is necessary,so long as the experimentation 'is merely routine,or if the
specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction
in which the experimentation should proceed."' Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy,
Inc., 782 F.3d 671,684 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737 (Fed. Cir.
1988)).
393. Enablement is a question of law based on underlying facts. See In re Vaeck, 947
F.2d 488,495 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
394. Facts relevant to the enablement requirement (the "Wands factors") include "(1)
the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3)
the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the
prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the
art, and (8) the breadth of the claims." Wands, 858 F.2d at 737.
105
convincing evidence. Microsoft, 564 U. S.at110-14.
396 . Whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that the
Asserted Claims of the '1 82 patent are invalid because the specification fails to enable the
claimed subject matter.
Asserted Claims of the ' 522 patent are invalid because the specification fails to enable the
claimed subject matter.
specifications of the Patents-in- Suit would not have enabled an ordinary artisan to make and use
the subject matter of each of the Asserted Claims without undue experimentation, given, for
example, the following:

• The narrow breadth of the claims, which cover a specific fusion protein consisting
of the extracellular region of p75 TNF-R fused to the "-hinge-CH2-CH3 region of
a human IgG immunoglobulin";

• The disclosure provided in the specification, the state of the art, and the general
lmowledge in the art. See Written Description, Issues of Fact to be Litigated,
supra, § VII.E.2; and

• The level of skill in the art as recognized by Defendants and Plaintiffs. See,
supra, § VII.D.2.b, footnote 35.
106
F. Anticipation and Obviousness of Claims 35 and 36 of the '182 Patent (35

u.s.c. §§ 102, 103)
400. "[A] patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed
application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later
application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112." In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Section
112 written description requires that the application "reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art
that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharms.,
Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added); see also Lockwood v.
Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
401. "When the applicant adds a claim or otheiwise amends his specification after the
original filing date . . . the new claims or other added material must find support in the original
specification." TurboCare Div. ofDemag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d
1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
402. When presented with invalidating prior art, the patentee has "the burden of going
foiward with evidence ...that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of
a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." Tech Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316,
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To claim the benefit of an earlier application, the patentee must "show not
107
only the existence of the earlier application, but why the written description in the earlier application
supports the claim" before the burden of production shifts to the accused infringer. Id.
403. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or

patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication

in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country,
more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in
the United States, or .. .
35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b).
404. "A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or
described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains." 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a).
405. Whether Plaintiffs have shown that claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent are
entitled to claim priority to the European Patent Application No.90116707 ("the Brockhaus '707
application") filed on August 31, 1990, when those claims recite the amino acid sequence of the
plasmid PTA 7942, which was not referenced in the patent specification until a November 2006
amendment?
406. Whether Defendants have proven by clear and convincing evidence that claims 35
and 36 of the '182 patent are invalid as anticipated or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art as of November 2006 pursuant to 35 U.S.C.§§ 102, 103?
108
407. Whether the Brockhaus '707 application provides written description support for
the claimed plasmid PTA 7942?
408. Whether prior to the November 2006 amendment to the patent specification
adding reference to the claimed plasmid PTA 7942, any ofthe applications from which the '182
patent derives provide written description support for the plasmid?
409. Whether the prior art as ofNovember 2006 anticipates or renders obvious each of
claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent?
410. The Brockhaus '707 application does not describe the amino acid sequence
encoded by the claimed plasmid PTA 7942. None ofthe other pre-November 2006 applications
from which the '182 patent derives provide written description support for the claimed plasmid
PTA 7942.
411. Asserted claims 35 and 36 ofthe '182 patent would have been anticipated by the
prior art as ofNovember 2006, and/or would have been obvious to a person ofordinary skill in
the art in November 2006.
412. The Jacobs '690 patent (DTX-17) issued on February 25, 1997. The patent
describes in Example 2 the construction and expression ofan exemplary soluble human
TNFR/Fc fusion protein and provides in Figure 1 a schematic representation ofthe etanercept
molecule. Other developments in the prior art between August 1990 and November 2006
include the approval ofENBREL® in the United States on November 2, 1998, the sale of
ENBREL® in the United States for more than one year prior to November 2006, and the
publication ofstudies describing the administration ofENBREL® and its uses.
109
413. The prior art describing etanercept anticipates claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent,
which claim etanercept and a pharmaceutical composition comprising etanercept. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have also found the Asserted Claims of the '182 patent obvious in
light of etanercept. The objective evidence does not support a finding that asserted claims 35
and 36 of the '182 patent is nonobvious over the prior art describing etanercept.
414. Defendants allege that claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent are invalid as
anticipated by the prior art or obvious in view of the prior art.=
415. Plaintiffs dispute Defendants' allegations of anticipation and obviousness.
416. A claim is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application if the
earlier application includes a written description of the subject matter of the claim and the earlier
application enables the claimed subject matter. Frazer v. Schlegel, 498 F.3d 1283, 1287 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); Martek, 579 F.3d at 1369.
417. The earlier application "need not describe the claimed subject matter in precisely
the same terms as found in the claims at issue." Martek, 579 F.3d at 1369. Instead, the test for
the sufficiency of the support in the earlier filed application is "whether the disclosure of the
application relied upon 'reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that
time of the later claimed subject matter."' Id.
418. To satisfy the enablement requirement, a patent specification must teach one of
ordinary skill in the art "'how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without
undue experimentation."' Id. at 1378.
419. Subject matter supported by the original disclosure of a patent application may be
added to the specification by an amendment after the application is filed. TurboCare Div. of
Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. G.E., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118-19 (Fed Cir. 2001). If a
110
proposed amendment adds subject matter that is not supported by the original disclosure, it adds
"new matter" to the specification and claims covering the amended subject matter are rejected by
the Patent Office for failing to satisfy the written description requirement of35 U.S.C.§ 112.
TurboCare at 1119-20; see also In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214-15 (CCPA 1981).
420. The question of whether an amendment adds new matter to the disclosure is
essentiallythe same as the question ofwhether the original disclosure provides written
description support for the added subject matter, which is a question of fact. Rasmussen, 650
F.2d at 1214-15; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
421. The identification ofdeposited material in a patent specification is not new matter
if made prior to the issuance of the patent. Lundak, 773 F.2d at 1223; see also 37 C.F.R. §
1.804(a) (". .. an original deposit [ofbiological material] .. . maybe made ... subject to§
1.809, during pendency of the application for patent.").
422. An alleged infringer seeking to invalidate a patent based on the argument that the
claims of the patent are not entitled to the effective filing date of the earliest filed application for
which the patent claims prioritymust prove that the earlier filed application does not provide
written description support and enable the subject matter of the claims by clear and convincing
evidence. See, e.g., Martek, 579 F.3d at 1369, n. 3.
423. Further, the Federal Circuit has held that "in the context of a validity challenge
based on new matter, the fact that the [Patent Office] has allowed an amendment. ..is entitled to
an especially weightypresumption of correctness." Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research
Org. v. Buffalo Tech. (USA), Inc., 542 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citingBrooktree Corp.
v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1574-5 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
111
424. The ultimate detennination of whether a specific claim is entitled to the effective
filing date of an earlier application is a question of law. E.L du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.
MacDermid Printing Sols., L.L.C., 525 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
and 36 of the '182 patent are not entitled to claim the benefit of an August 31, 1990 filing date of
European Patent Application No. 90116707.
Patent Office's determination that the amendment to the specification to identify biological
deposit ATCC No. PTA 7942 recited in claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent prior to the issuance
of the '182 patent was improper by proving by clear and convincing evidence that the Patent
Office erred in determining that the amendment was supported by the original disclosure and
therefore did not add new matter.
and 36 of the '182 patent are invalid as anticipated by the prior art given that these claims are
entitled the benefit of the August 31, 1990 filing date of European Patent Application No.
90116707.
specification of the Patents-in-Suit fails to convey to an ordinary artisan that the inventors
possessed the subject matter of claims 35 and 36 of the '182 patent at the time of the August 31,
1990 filing of European Patent Application No. 90116707 given, for example:
• The disclosure of the application (see, supra,§ VII.E.2 (Plaintiffs' Statement
regarding Written Description); and
112
• The Patent Office's determination that the amendment to the specification to
identify biological deposit ATCC No. PTA 7942 recited in claims 35 and 36 of
the '182 patent was supported by the original disclosure and therefore did not
constitute new matter and was proper.
429. Plaintiffs ob ject to Defendants' "Statement of Contested Facts" in the section
and selective portrayal of the relevant facts. In addition, many of the facts that Defendants
characterize as not disputed are, in fact, disputed.
G. Exceptional Case (35 U.S.C. § 285)
430. 35 U.S.C. § 285 states that the "court in exceptional cases may award reasonable
attorney fees to the prevailing party."
431. An "exceptional" case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is "one that stands out from others
with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the
governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was
litigated." Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014).
432. The determination of whether a case is exceptional is "generally ... 'rooted in
factual determinations."' Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1744,
1748-49 (2014).
433. Factors supporting a finding that a case is exceptional, such as deliberate copying
of an invention, need not be pied for the Court to consider the evidence at trial. Barry v.
113
Medtronic, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 3d 107, 114-115 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017); see also Read Corp. v.
Portee, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-27 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
434. Plaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a case is
exceptional. Octane Fitness, 134 S. Ct. at 1758.
435. Whether Plaintiffs can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts at trial
relevant to the question of whether this case is exceptional-which Plaintiffs have pied in their
Complaint (see D.I. 1 at 35).
436. Whether Plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that this is an
exceptional case such that the court should award attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, given
Defendants' conduct during litigation (e.g., improper privilege redactions), assertion of meritless
defenses such as prosecution laches and invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 102(g), and deliberate
copying of the subject matter of the Asserted Claims following attempts to "design around" the
Patents-in-Suit.
below. Rather than identifying disputed factual questions, Defendants' statement does nothing
438. "The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the
prevailing party." 35 U.S.C. § 285.
114
439. A case may be found to be "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for any one or
more of the following reasons: lack of substantive strength of litigating position, unreasonable
conduct, or subjective bad faith. Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct.
1749, 1756-57 (2014).
440. To show that a party's litigating position warrants an "exceptional case" finding,
it is not sufficient to rely exclusively on the fact that the position did not ultimately prevail. See
id. at 1753 (noting § 285 attorney fees are not "a penalty for failure to win a patent infringement
suit"). Further, the filing of an application to the FDA for approval of a biological product is an
artificial act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C) that, alone, cannot give rise to an
award for attorney's fees. See Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1664, 1674-75 (2017);
Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 376 F.3d 1339, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Instead, "a district
court may award fees in the rare case in which a party's unreasonable conduct-while not
necessarily independently sanctionable-is nonetheless so 'exceptional' as to justify an award of
fees." Id. at 1757.
441. The absence of inequitable conduct before the PTO, vexatious, unjustified, and
otherwise bad faith litigation, a frivolous suit, or willful infringement weighs against an
exceptional case finding. AstraZeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., 232 F. Supp. 3d 636 (D.
Del. 2017);Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc. v. Perrigo Co., No. CV 13-11640-RWZ, 2017 WL
1496916, at *5 (D. Mass. Apr. 24, 2017) (denying plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, because
defendant's defense of the suit was neither frivolous nor vexatious); Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v.
Mut. Phann. Co., Inc., No. 07CV1299SRCCLW, 2016 WL 3965201, at *1 (D.N.J. July 22,
2016) (denying Defendants' motion for attorney's fees because Plaintiff did not engage in sham
litigation and it is inappropriate to find a case exceptional based on a "battle of the experts").
115
442. Whether the mere filing of an abbreviated Biologics License Application (aBLA)
can support a finding of exceptional case?
443. Whether Plaintiffs' actions in this litigation have given rise to an exceptional case
such that the court should award Defendants' attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285?
444. Whether Defendants' actions in this litigation have given rise to an exceptional
case such that the court should award Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285?
445. Defendants' actions in defending this litigation do not demonstrate an exceptional
case. For example, Defendants' litigating position does not lack substantive strength, and
Defendants have not engaged in unreasonable conduct or subjective bad faith.
446. Nor does Sandoz's "copying" of Enbrel demonstrate an exceptional case. Sandoz
began its etanercept project no later than 2005 and worked on it continuously until filing its
aBLA in 2015. The Patents-in-Suit did not issue until 2011 and 2012, despite having been
pending with the PTO since 1995.
VIII. REMEDIES
447. On June 7, 2017, the parties agreed to postpone discovery on remedies, including
a permanent injunction, until after trial on the merits. 35
35 June 7, 2017 e-mail from Julia Mano Johnson to Marc Haefner.
116
IX. WITNESSES
A. Plaintiffs' Witnesses
Fact Witnesses
1. Hansruedi Loetscher, Ph.D. Qive): Dr. Loetscher is an inventor of the '182 and
'522 patents. He received an undergraduate degree in Biochemistry at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, which is a specialized school for high achieving technical students in
Switzerland. He also received a Ph.D. from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in 1981.
He then completed post-doctoral research at the University of Oregon.
2. Dr. Loetscher recently retired from F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG's facility in Basel,
Switzerland, where he worked from 1984 through 2016. Prior to his retirement, Dr. Loetscher
served as the Global Head of Neuroscience Discovery and as the Section Head of
Neurodegeneration and Regeneration, where he led efforts to find treatments for Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's diseases. In his over 30-year scientific career, Dr. Loetscher authored over 70
scientific publications, including in Nature, the Journal ofBiological Chemistry, Drug Discovery
Today, the Journal ofImmunology, and the Journal ofInvestigative Dermatology.
3. Dr. Loetscher is expected to testify about, among other things, the research and
development of the subject matter of the '182 patent and the '522 patent.
4. Werner Lesslauer, Ph.D. (by deposition}: Dr. Lesslauer is an inventor of the
'182 and '522 patents. He received a Medical Degree from the University of Basel in 1962. He
received a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from the University of Basel in 1966. His post-doctoral
work focused on the biophysical study of biological membranes. In 1979, he presented a written
manuscript and trial lecture at the University of Bern, where he received a venia docendi, a
qualification to become a Privatdozent, or Associate Professor. After teaching and conducting
research in biology and biochemistry at the University of Bern for several years, he began work
117
as a Staff Scientist at F. Hoffinan-La Roche AG in 1987. He worked at Roche in Basel,
Switzerland for 12 years, where he retired as a Vice-Director of Research. Following his
retirement, Dr. Lesslauer took a visiting faculty position in the Department ofEpidemiology and
Public Health at Yale University School of Medicine. He has authored over 100 publications,
including in Cell, Nature, the Journal ofBiological Chemistry, the Journal ofImmunology, and
the Journal ofExperimental Medicine.
5. Dr. Lesslauer is expected to testify about, among other things, the research and
development of the subject matter ofthe '182 patent and the '522 patent.
6. Laura Hamill Qive): Ms. Hamill is currently Amgen's Senior Vice President of
U.S. Domestic Operations. She bas worked at Amgen since 2002. She previously worked at
Immunex, where she was Vice President in the fuflammation Division and where she was
responsible for all aspects ofENBREL® (etanercept), except sales ofENBREL®. Ms. Hamill is
expected to testify about, among other things, ENBREL® and various commercial and marketing
issues relating to ENBREL®.
7. Stuart Watt Qive): Mr. Watt has worked at Amgen for over 25 years. He started
as a patent attorney in Amgen's legal department in 1992, and currently serves as Amgen's Vice
President ofLaw and Intellectual Property Officer. Mr. Watt is expected to testify about, among
other things, Immunex's licensing ofthe Patents-in-Suit. Mr. Watt will also serve as Immunex
and AML's corporate representative during trial.
8. Dr. Taruna Arora {by deposition): Dr. Arora is a former scientist at Amgen.
She started as a Research Scientist in 2003, was promoted to Senior Scientist in 2005, and was
promoted to Principal Scientist in 2008. She left Amgen in 2011. Plaintiffs will call Dr. Arora
to, among other things, provide a foundation for, and to authenticate, certain documents,
118
including laboratory notebooks and the declaration she submitted during prosecution of the
Patents-in-Suit.
9. Dr. Tadahiko Kohno (by deposition): Dr. Kohno is a former scientist at Amgen
and Synergen Inc. ("Synergen"). He worked as a scientist at Synergen from 1985 until Amgen
acquired Synergen in 1994. He continued working as a scientist at Amgen until he retired as
Scientific Director in 2007. Plaintiffs will call Dr. Kohno to provide testimony regarding, among
other things, ENBREL® (etanercept) and research related to the p55 TNF receptor protein.
10. Dr. Christine Berndt {by deposition): Dr. Berndt is the Global Project Leader
for the Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept program. Plaintiffs will call Dr. Berndt as an adverse
witness to testify about, inter alia, Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept and various commercial,
business, and marketing issues relating to Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept.
11. Dr. Peter Alliger (by deposition): Dr. Alliger is a Technical Project Manager at
Sandoz. Plaintiffs will call Dr. Alliger as an adverse witness to testify about, inter alia,
Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept, Defendants' awareness of the Patents-in-Suit, and
Defendants' research and development efforts.
12. Dr. Cindy Cao, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Cao is a former Executive Director
for Regulatory Affairs Biopharmaceuticals at Sandoz. Plaintiffs will call Dr. Cao as an adverse
witness to testify, inter alia, about Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept and various regulatory
issues relating to Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept.
13. Dr. Mark McCamish Qive or by deposition): Dr. McCamish is the former
Global Head ofBiophannaceutical Development at Sandoz. Plaintiffs will call Dr. McCamish as
an adverse witness to testify about, inter alia, Defendants' efforts to "design around" the '182
patent and the '522 patent, Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept, Defendants' awareness of the
I 19
Patents-in-Suit, Defendants' research and development efforts, and various regulatory, business,
commercial, and marketing issues relating to Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept.
14. Dr. Zhengyu Liu {by deposition): Dr. Liu is the fonner U.S. Regulatory Lead of
the U.S. Biopharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs Group at Sandoz. Plaintiffs will call Dr. Liu as
an adverse witness to testify about, inter alia, Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept and various
regulatory issues relating to Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept.
15. Dr. Martin Schiestl {by deposition): Dr. Schiestl is the Chief Science Officer at
Sandoz. Plaintiffs will call Dr. Schiestl as an adverse witness to testify about, inter alia,
Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept and Defendants' research and development efforts.
16. Dr. Gautier Sala Qive): Dr. Sala is Executive Director, Biophannaceutical
Regulatory Affairs at Sandoz. Plaintiffs will call Dr. Sala as an adverse witness to testify about,
inter alia, Defendants' awareness of the Patents-in-Suit, and Defendants' research and
development efforts directed to designing around the Patents-in-Suit. Plaintiffs object to
Defendants assertion that Dr. Sala may "testify regarding the research and development of the
product that is the subject of Sandoz's aBLA No. 761042." Dr. Sala was designated as a Rule
30(b)(6) witness by Sandoz solely on topics related to the design-around efforts during
discovery; he was not subject to a Rule 30(b)(l ) deposition. If the Court allows Defendants to
call Dr. Sala to "testify regarding the research and development of the product that is the subject
of Sandoz's aBLA No. 761042," Plaintiffs reserve the right to likewise call Dr. Sala on the same
subject matter.
17. Gregory Oakes {by deposition): Mr. Oakes is a fonner Vice President and Head
of Biopharmaceuticals North America at Sandoz Inc. Plaintiffs will call Mr. Oakes as an adverse
120
witness to testify about, inter alia, Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept and various business,
commercial, and marketing issues relating to Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept.
18. Dr. Ruediger Jankowsky {by deposition): Dr. Jankowsky is a fonner Global
Program Leader for Biopharmaceutical Development for Defendants. Plaintiffs will call Dr.
Jankowsky as an adverse witness to testify about, inter alia, Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept
and Defendants' research and development efforts.
Expert Witnesses36
19. Roy Fleischmann, M.D. (live): Professor Fleischmann is an expert in the field of
rheumatic diseases and disorders. He received an A.B. in Zoology from Columbia College in
New York City in 1964. He received an M.D. from State University of New York, Downstate
Medical Center in 1969. He is the Founder and Co-Medical Director of the Metroplex Clinical
Research Center in Dallas, Texas, and a Clinical Professor in the Department of Internal
Medicine at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. His career has
spanned over 40 years and has involved numerous clinical trials in the field of rheumatology,
including rheumatoid arthritis. Metroplex Clinical Research Center was one of the sites where
clinical trials with ENBREL® (etanercept) were conducted, and Metroplex continues to be
involved in the investigation and development of drugs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
20. Professor Fleischmann has published over 200 articles in peer-reviewed journals
in the field of rheumatology. He is currently the editor in chief of Rheumatology and Therapy,
and serves on the editorial boards of Expert Opinion on Dntg Safety, Rheumatology (Oxford),
and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Professor Fleischmann serves as a journal referee for 20
36 Plaintiffs reserve the right to have Dr. Kittendorfs expert report, or portions thereof, read into evidence. See,
infra,§ X.
121
publications, including Arthritis and Rheumatology, Arthritis Care and Research, the Journal of
Rheumatology, and Nature Rheumatology. He has held numerous leadership positions, including
serving as President of Texas Rheumatism Society and serving on the Board of Directors of the
Arthritis Foundation, North Central Chapter. He has been voted one of D Magazine's "Best
Doctors in Dallas" and one of Texas Monthly's "Best Doctors in Texas." He is also a Master of
the American College of Rheumatology, an honor he received based on his achievements in drug
development and teaching.
21. Professor Fleischmann is expected to provide expert testimony concerning, inter
alia, objective indicia of non-obviousness, including the clinical success of ENBREL®
(etanercept), praise and recognition received by ENBREL®, and the long-felt medical need met
byENBREL®.
22. Randolph Wall, Ph.D. Oive): Professor Wall is an expert in the fields of
immunology, molecular biology, and antibody engineering. He received a B.A. in Botany and
Bacteriology from the University of South Florida in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Microbiology from
Indiana University in 1970. He is currently Distinguished Professor in the Department of
Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics in The Molecular Biology Institute,
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and the David Geffen School of Medicine at
UCLA. Professor Wall's career spans over 45 years and has included many important
discoveries and pioneering projects. As a post-doctoral researcher, for example, Dr. Wall
discovered the fundamental properties involved in the generation and function of messenger
RNA (mRNAs), an achievement essential for the development of recombinant cloning of cDNA
from mRNA. He co-founded Ingene, a biotechnology company that was one of the first to
generate genetically engineered "chimeric" antibodies.
122
23. Professor Wall has taught courses in many subjects, including molecular biology,
immunology, and virology. He has published over 100 articles, reviews, and book chapters. He
has served on the editorial boards of the Journal ofImmunology and Molecular Cellular Biology.
He has also served on panels and committees for the National Science Foundation, National
Cancer Institute, and National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of
Health.
24. Professor Wall is expected to provide expert testimony concerning, inter alia, the
level of ordinary skill in the art, claim construction, Defendants' infringement of the '522 patent
and the following validity issues related to the '182 patent and the '522 patent: non-obviousness,
lack of obviousness-type double patenting, and the adequacy of the disclosures of the '182 patent
and the '522 patent.
25. Graham Jones, Ph.D. (by expert report and deposition): Professor Jones is an
expert in the fields of analytical chemistry, biopharmaceutical drug research, and regulatory
science. He received a B.Sc. in Chemistry, with high honors, from the University of Liverpool
in 1986. He received a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the Imperial College of Science
Technology and Medicine in London in 1989, where he was awarded the Cancer Research
Foundation Fellowship. He was a NATO Fellow at Harvard University from 1989-1991, where
he worked under E.J. Corey, the recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1990. Professor
Jones also received a D.Sc. from the University of Liverpool in 2006 for career contributions in
the field of chemistry.
26. Professor Jones is a Professor of Medicine and Director of Research
Collaborations at Tufts University Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, where he also
serves as the Associate Director of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute. He
123
previously served as the Executive Director of the Biophannaceutical Analysis Training
Laboratory (BATL), a research facility formed in collaboration with the FDA for the purposes of
advanced training and outreach in areas such as biological drug characterization, biological
product regulation, and the development of training programs for FDA employees in the broad
areas of biotechnology and analytical chemistry. He also established a Professional Science
Master's program in Regulatory Science at Northeastern University. Following the enactment of
the BPCIA, Professor Jones testified before the FDA in a panel hearing that helped the Agency
establish its practices and policies in implementing the BPCIA, as reflected in the FDA's
"Guidance for Industry" publications on demonstrating biosimilarity.
27. Professor Jones has authored over 150 publications in the areas of analytical
chemistry, biopbannaceutical drug research, and regulatory science. He bas also served as an
editor for the International Journal ofMedicinal Chemistry and Advances in DNA Sequence
Specific Agents, and a reviewer for the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Nature, and
Science. He has also served as an advisor to the American Chemical Society, and the National
Green Chemistry Initiative. He also advises several governmental agencies, including the
National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense. He
has given dozens of invited lectures in the U.S. and internationally.
28. Professor Jones is expected to provide expert testimony concerning, inter alia, the
FDA 's practices and policies regarding demonstrating biosimilarity, and the science underlying
the FDA's policies, as relevant to Sandoz's copying oflmmunex's etanercept as an objective
indicium of non-obviousness.
29. Warner Greene, M.D., Ph.D. Qive): Professor Greene is an expert in the fields
of molecular biology, immunology, and virology. He received a B.A. in Biology, with Great
124
Distinction, from Stanford University in 1971. He obtained an M.D. and Ph.D., with honors,
from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis in 1977. He is the Founder and
Director of the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology in San Francisco, and is also the
Nick and Sue Hellman Distinguished Professor of Translational Medicine at the University of
California, San Francisco. He has over 40 years of experience as a biomedical researcher,
including study of tumor necrosis factor signaling pathways and the characterization of cytokine
receptors.
30. Professor Greene has been recognized as one of the 100 most cited scientists in
the world by the Institute for Scientific Information. He has served on the editorial boards of
several journals, including the Journal ofImmunology, Cytokine, Molecular Biology ofthe Cell,
and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. He has also served as a reviewer for numerous
journals, including Nature, Science, Immunity, and the Journal ofExperimental Medicine. He
has held numerous leadership positions, including Vice President of the American Society for
Clinical Investigation and President of the Association of American Physicians. He has given
dozens of honorary lectures in the U.S. and internationally. Professor Greene's work has been
honored by the American Federation for Clinical Research and the American Rheumatism
Association.
31. Professor Greene is expected to provide expert testimony concerning, inter alia,
the work of others attempting to create a TNF receptor fusion protein at or around the time of the
invention, the lack of obviousness-type double patenting, and the unexpected properties of
ENBREL® (etanercept), as an objective indicium of non-obviousness.
32. Christopher Vellturo, Ph.D. (live): Dr. Vellturo is the Founder and President of
Quantitative Economic Solutions, LLC, a microeconomic consulting firm, located in Boston,
125
Massachusetts. He is an expert in the field of economics, including in the areas of industrial
organization and econometrics. He received a Sc.B. in Applied Mathematics and Economics,
magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Brown University in 1983. He also received a
Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1989.
33. Dr. Vellturo has published on many topics, including market definition, price
discrimination, merger and acquisition-related efficiencies, and differentiated product analysis.
His research has appeared in academic journals, including Antitrust, the Antitrust Law Journal,
and the Journal ofEconomics and Management. He has served as a journal referee for
American Economic Review and the Rand Journal of Economics. He was honored with the
M.I.T. Departmental Fellowship in 1986 and the Bradley Fellowship in Public Economics for
1987-1989.
34. Dr. Vellturo is expected to provide expert testimony concerning, inter alia, the
demand for and success ofENBREL® (etanercept) and its nexus to the Asserted Claims, as
objective indicia ofnon-obviousness.
35. James Naismith, Ph.D. Qive): Professor Naismith is an expert in the fields of
structural biology, chemistry, and biochemistry. He received a B.Sc. in Chemistry, with First
Class Honors, from the University of Edinburgh in 1989. Following graduate studies in
Structural Biology and Chemistry, Dr. Naismith received a Ph.D. in 1992 from the University of
Manchester, where he was awarded the Hibbert Prize for his dissertation. He is currently the
Professor ofStructural Biology at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. His post
doctoral research at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Dallas, Texas focused on the
structure and function ofthe proteins involved in tumor necrosis factor signaling.
126
36. Professor Naismith is also the Director of the Research Complex at Harwell, a
multidisciplinary research center in Oxford, England that provides facilities for researchers to
undertake new and cutting-edge research in both the life and physical sciences and the interface
between these two fields. His over 20-year research career has focused on the structure and
function of proteins. He was involved in research to elucidate the three-dimensional structure of
the p55 TNF receptor protein, and was the first to publish a solved structure for the p55 TNF
receptor extracellular domain.
37. He has served as an editor or on the editorial board of the Journal ofBiological
Chemistry, the Journal ofMolecular Biology, and the Biochemical Journal. He has also served
as a journal referee for Science, Nature, Biochemistry, and the Journal of the American Chemical
Society. His research has been recognized by several respected scientific organizations. Among
other recognitions, he has been named a fellow of the Royal Society (UK) for Improving Natural
Knowledge, the world's oldest scientific institution. He is also a fellow of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh, the Academy Medical Sciences (UK), the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and the European Molecular Biology Organization. He has received
numerous awards for his research accomplishments, including from the Royal Society of
Chemistry, the Biochemical Society, and the Chinese Academy of Science. He is the only
person to win both the Corday-Morgan Medal for contributions to chemistry and the Colworth
Medal for contributions to biochemistry.
38. Professor Naismith is expected to provide expert testimony concerning, inter alia,
the adequacy of the disclosures of the '182 patent and the '522 patent and the unexpected
properties of ENBREL® (etanercept), as an objective indicia of non-obviousness.
127
39. Stephen G. Kunin, J.D. Qive): Mr. Kunin is the former Deputy Commissioner
for Patent Examination Policy in the Office of the Commissioner for Patents in the United States
Patent Office (USPTO). He is an expert in USPTO policies, practices, and procedures. He
received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, with honors, from Washington University in 1970. He
received a J.D., with honors, from the National Law Center of the George Washington
University in 1975. He is currently a partner at the law firm of Maier & Maier PLLC, and he has
served as the Intellectual Property L.L.M. and J.D. Programs Director at the George Mason
School of Law, where he taught patent law and intellectual property courses.
40. Mr. Kunin has over 47 years of experience in the field of intellectual property and
patents, including over 30 years at the USPTO. His career at the USPTO began in 1970 as a
patent agent and culminated in ten years of service as the Deputy Commissioner for Patent
Examination Policy. In his role as Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Kunin was involved in
establishing and developing USPTO patent policies and patent examiner guidelines, as set forth
in the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). He also oversaw the operation
of the Office of Patent Legal Administration, the Patent Cooperation Treaty Legal
Administration, and the Office of Petitions.
41. Mr. Kunin has authored over 20 publications on patent law, and he has served on
the editorial board of the AIPLA Quarterly Law Journal. He has received many awards during
his career, including a USPTO Career Achievement Award, the Vice President's Reinventing
Government Hammer Award, four Gold Medal Awards for Outstanding Service from the
Department of Commerce, four Silver Medal Awards for Outstanding Service, and a Bronze
Medal Award for Outstanding Service. In 2001, he was named one of the most influential
people in intellectual property law by Intellectual Property Today. In 2002, Global Counsel
128
named him one of the most inspiring regulators in federal government. Since entering private
practice, Mr. Kunin has been ranked several times by Chambers U.S.A. as one of the nation's top
intellectual property lawyers.
42. Mr. Kunin is expected to provide expert testimony concerning, inter alia, the
USPTO's practices and procedures regarding (i) the application of the "safe harbor" provision of
35 U.S.C. § 121, as relevant to the issue of obviousness-type double patenting, and (ii) the "two
way test" for patentable distinctness.

****
Plaintiffs may offer testimony live or by deposition from the above-listed witnesses, as
identified above. For witnesses that will be testifying by expert report, the report will be
admitted into evidence. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to have all or parts of the report read into
evidence. Plaintiffs reserve the right to call additional witnesses (who are not presently
identifiable) as may be necessary, on reasonable notice to the opposing party. In the event
Plaintiffs seek to call a substitute witness, Plaintiffs agree to make an application to the Court to
amend the Joint Final Pretrial Order.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to call and/or cross-examine any of Defendants' witnesses,
including by counter-designation of deposition testimony.
Plaintiffs also reserve the right to call, either live or by deposition: (a) additional
witnesses to provide foundational testimony should any party contest the authenticity or
admissibility of any material proffered at trial; (b) substitute witnesses for any identified
witnesses whose employment or other relationship with Plaintiffs changes such that he or she is
no longer able, available or willing to testify on Plaintiffs' behalf at trial; and/or (c) additional
witnesses to respond to issues raised after the submission of this list.
129
Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to further modify, supplement and/or amend this
Final Pretrial Order and attachments in light of issues that remain open and until entry of the
Final Pretrial Order.
B. Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Witnesses
Defendants object to the presentation of deposition testimony for any witness that is
within Plaintiffs' control and current employees. As set forth in Defendants' Daubert motion,
Defendants object to the proposed testimony of Plaintiffs' experts Dr. Graham Jones and Dr.
Christopher Vellturo. See D.I. 520; D.I. 532; D.I. 533; D.I. 539.
With respect to all live witnesses, Sandoz reserves all objections as to relevance and
admissibility.
Defendants object to Plaintiffs' proposal to have parts of expert reports read into
evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 106 for lack of completeness and under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403
for unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading, undue delay, wasting time, and needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence. Defendants further object as Plaintiffs have not disclosed which portions
of which expert reports that it seeks to have read into evidence.
To the extent that Plaintiffs are allowed to have parts of an expert report read into
evidence, Defendants reserve the right to counter-designate other portions of the report or the
expert's testimony that should be read into evidence for completeness. Defendants further
reserve the right to have all or parts of the report read into evidence for witnesses that will be
testifying by expert report.
C. Defendants' Witnesses
Sandoz identifies the following witnesses whom it may call live or by deposition at trial:
130
Expert Witnesses
43. Carl P. Blobel, M.D., Ph.D. Qive): Dr. Blobel is a Professor of Medicine and of
Physiology and Biophysics at the Weil Medical College of Cornell University in New York, NY,
as well as the Virginia F. and William R. Salomon Chair in Musculoskeletal Research and
Director ofthe Arthritis and Tissue Degeneration Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery in
New York, NY. Dr. Blobel is expected to offer testimony in accordance with his expert reports.
Such testimony concerns issues relating to invalidity of the asserted claims of the '182 and '522
patents, including for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and obviousness-type double patenting.
44. Daniel Capon, Ph.D. Qive): Dr. Capon is a scientist with 37 years of experience
in the field ofbiotechnology, including at Genentech, Inc., Cell Genesys, Inc., Xenotech, Inc.,
and ViroLogic, Inc. Dr. Capon is expected to offer testimony in accordance with his expert
reports. Such testimony concerns issues relating to invalidity of the asserted claims ofthe '182
and '522 patents, including for lack of adequate written description and enablement under 35
u.s.c. § 112.
45. Mary Kuntz Crow, M.D. Qive): Dr. Crow is a rheumatologist and the
Physician-in-Chief, Chair of the Department ofMedicine, and Chief of the Division of
Rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, NY. Dr. Crow is expected to
offer testimony in accordance with her expert report. Such testimony concerns issues relating to
the asserted objective indicia ofnonobviousness of the '182 and '522 patents, including what
Plaintiffs characterize as the alleged "clinical success," previously unmet need, and industry
praise ofEnbrel® and the nexus of these objective indicia to the asserted claims of the '182 and
'522 patents.
131
46. Nicholas P. Godici (live): Mr. Godici is an independent consultant with over 44
years ofexperience in the patent field, including at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and at
the intellectual property law firm of Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP. Mr. Godici is
expected to offer testimony in accordance with his expert report. Such testimony concerns issues
relating to invalidity ofthe asserted claims ofthe '182 and '522 patents, including for
obviousness-type double patenting.
47. Jeffrey D. Kittendorf, Ph.D. {by expert report and deposition)37 : Dr.
K.ittendorfis a Research Assistant Scientist at the University of Michigan Life Sciences Institute.
Dr. Kittendorfsubmitted a declaration regarding DNA sequencing ofplasmid DNA samples. Dr.
K.ittendorfis expected to testify regarding the subject matter of his declaration.
48. DeForest McDuff, Ph.D. {live): Dr. McDuffis a Partner at Insight Economics.
Dr. McDuff is expected to offer testimony in accordance with his expert reports. Such testimony
concerns issues relating to the asserted objective indicia ofnonobviousness of the '182 and '522
patents, including what Plaintiffs characterize as the alleged "clinical success" ofEnbrel®.
49. Arne Skerra, Ph.D. Qive): Dr. Skerra is the Chair ofBiological Chemistry at the
Technical University of Munich, Center of Life Sciences at Weihenstephan, Freising, Gennany.
Dr. Skerra is expected to offer testimony in accordance with his expert report. Such testimony
concerns issues relating to the asserted objective indicia ofnonobviousness of the '182 and '522
patents, including the alleged unexpected results ofEnbrel®.
37 Defendants propose that they will offer into evidence the expert report of Dr. Kittendorf in lieu oflive testimony.
In addition, Plaintiffs will designate sections of the deposition of Dr. Kittendorf to be read into evidence, and
Defendants will do the same, subject to the ordinary rules governing deposition designation and counter-designation.
In the event that Plaintiffs object to Sandoz introducing deposition testimony from Dr. Kittendorf, Sandoz reserves
the right to call Dr. Kittendorf live.
132
50. Johann Gudionsson, M.D., Ph.D. (by deposition)38: Dr. Gudjonsson is a
dermatologist employed at the University ofMichigan and was retained as an expert for
Plaintiffs in this litigation. Gudjonsson submitted a claim construction declaration and an
opening infringement report and was deposed during claim construction expert discovery. Dr.
Gudjonsson's testimony concerns issues relating to binding ofTNF by etanercept, particularly as
claimed by the Finck patents. His testimony is relevant to elements of double patenting of the
patents-in-suit over the Finck patents. Despite having the opportunity to counter-designate
testimony, Plaintiffs have refused to do so.
Fact Witnesses
51. Taruna Arora, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Arora is a former Principal Scientist
at Amgen, who was involved in research relating to etanercept. Dr. Arora also submitted a
declaration to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in support of the prosecution of the '182 and
'522 patents. Dr. Arora is expected to testify regarding Arngen's research relating to etanercept
and the subject matter of her declaration.
52. Patricia Beckmann, Ph.D. {by deposition): Dr. Beckmann is a former Staff
Scientist and Scientific Liaison at Immunex, who was involved in research relating to TNF
receptors and etanercept. Dr. Beckmann is expected to testify regarding Immunex's research
relating to TNF receptors and etanercept.
38 Plaintiffs have chosen not to call Dr. Gudjonsson live or by deposition. Defendants intend to introduce his
*
deposition testimony. Vandenbraak v. Alfieri, 2005 WL 1242158, at 1 (D. Del. May 25, 2005) ("It is proper to
admit by designation "an opinion propounded by the sponsoring party's expert, whether or not the latter has come to
rue it."). The introduction of Dr. Gudjonsson's testimony at trial is necessitated by Plaintiffs' position on the
contested issues on double patenting. Although Plaintiffs have not offered any expert opinion disputing that, if the
Finck patents were available as reference patents for double patenting, Sandoz will present unrebutted expert
testimony that each of the elements of the Patents-in-Suit are met by the Finck patents' claims. Dr. Gudjonsson's
testimony is relevant to elements of double patenting.
133
53. Manfred Brockhaus, Ph.D. {by deposition): Dr. Brockhaus is a fonner
Scientific Expert at Hoffmann-La Roche, who was involved in research relating to TNF
receptors. Dr. Brockhaus is a named inventor of the '182 and '522 patents. Dr. Brockhaus is
expected to testify regarding the research and development of the claimed subject matter of the
'182 and '522 patents.
54. Cindy Cao, Ph.D. {by deposition): Dr. Cao is a fonner Executive Director for
Regulatory Affairs Biophannaceuticals at Sandoz. Dr. Cao is expected to testify regarding
regulatory issues relating to Sandoz's aBLA No. 761042.
55. Terri Davis-Smith (by deposition): Ms. Davis-Smith is a former Senior
Research Associate at Immunex and Associate Scientist I at Amgen, who was involved in
research relating to etanercept and other TNF receptor fusion proteins. Ms. Davis-Smith also
submitted a declaration to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in support of the prosecution of
the '182 and '522 patents. Ms. Davis-Smith is expected to testify regarding Immunex and
Arngen's research relating to TNF receptor fusion proteins, including etanercept, and the subject
matter of her declaration.
56. Zlatko Dembic, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Dembic is a former Senior Scientist
at Hoffmann-La Roche, who was involved in research relating to TNF receptors. Dr. Dembic is
a named inventor of the '182 and '522 patents. Dr. Dembic is expected to testify regarding the
research and development of the claimed subject matter of the '182 and '522 patents.
57. Kathleen Fowler, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Fowler is a former Associate
General Counsel at Amgen, who was involved in the prosecution of the '182 and '522 patents.
Dr. Fowler is expected to testify regarding prosecution of the '182 and '522 patents before the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
134
58. Steven Gillis, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Gillis is a founder and former Vice
President and Director of Research and Development at Immunex, who was involved in
managing the drug discovery and development operations of the company. Dr. Gillis is expected
to testify regarding Immunex's research relating to TNF receptor fusion proteins, including
etanercept.
59. Raymond Goodwin, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Goodwin is a fonner Principal
Scientist at Immunex, who was involved in research relating to TNF receptors and TNF receptor
fusion proteins. Dr. Goodwin is expected to testify regarding lmmunex 's research relating to
TNF receptors and TNF receptor fusion proteins, including etanercept.
60. Ueli Gubler, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Gubler is a former Senior Research
Leader at Hoffmann-La Roche, who was involved in research relating to TNF receptors. Dr.
Gubler is expected to testify regarding Roche's research relating to TNF receptors.
61. Laura Hamill (live): Ms. Hamill is the Senior Vice President of U.S. Business
Operations at Amgen, who is responsible for the commercial and business organization for all of
Amgen's products in the U.S. Ms. Hamill is expected to testify regarding the commercial sale
and promotion ofEnbrel®.
62. George Johnston, Jr. (by deposition): Mr. Johnston is the former Chief Patent
Counsel at Hoffmann-La Roche, who was involved in the preparation, negotiation, and drafting
of license agreements. Mr. Johnston is expected to testify regarding ownership and licensing of
the '182 and '522 patents.
63. Michael Kirschner (by deposition}: Mr. Kirschner is a former Vice President of
Intellectual Property at Immunex and Senior Associate General Counsel at Amgen, who was
135
involved in third-party intellectual property issues relating to Enbrel®, including patent
licensing. Mr. Kirschner is expected to testify regarding patent licensing relating to Enbrel®.
64. Tadahiko Kohno, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Kohno is a former Scientific
Director at Amgen, who was involved in research relating to etanercept. Dr. Kohno is expected
to testify regarding Amgen' s research relating to etanercept.
65. Leander Lauffer, Ph.D. {by deposition): Dr. Lauffer is a former Vice President
of Business Development at Behringwerke, who was involved in a collaboration with Immunex
to develop TNF receptor fusion proteins. Dr. Lauffer is expected to testify regarding
Behringwerke's research regarding fusion proteins, including its collaboration with Immunex to
develop TNF receptor fusion proteins and etanercept.
66. Werner Lesslauer, Ph.D. {by deposition): Dr. Lesslauer is a former Vice
Director of Research at Hoffmann-La Roche, who was involved in research relating to TNF
receptors and TNF receptor fusion proteins. Dr. Lesslauer is a named inventor of the '182 and
'522 patents and submitted declarations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in support of
the prosecution of these patents. Dr. Lesslauer is expected to testify regarding the research and
development of the claimed subject matter of the '182 and '522 patents and the subject matter of
his declarations.
67. Zhengyu Liu, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Liu is a former U.S. Regulatory Lead,
U.S. Biopharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs Group at Sandoz. Dr. Liu is expected to testify
regarding regulatory issues relating to Sandoz's aBLA No. 761042.
68. Hansruedi Loetscher, Ph.D. Qive): Dr. Loetscher is a former Global Head of
Neuroscience Discovery at Hoffmann-La Roche, who was involved in research relating to TNF
receptors and TNF receptor fusion proteins. Dr. Loetscher is a named inventor of the '182 and
136
'522 patents. Dr. Loetscher is expected to testify regarding the research and development of the
claimed subject matter of the '182 and '522 patents.
69. Stewart Lyman, Ph.D. (by deposition): Dr. Lyman is a former Director of
Extramural Research at Immunex. Dr. Lyman submitted declarations to the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office in support of the prosecution of the '182 and '522 patents. Dr. Lyman is
expected to testify regarding the subject matter of his declarations.
70. Mark McCamish, M.D., Ph.D. Qive or by deposition): Mr. McCamish is the
former Global Head of Biopharmaceutical Development at Sandoz. Mr. McCamish is expected
to testify regarding the product that is the subject ofSandoz's aBLA No. 761042.
71. John Parise {by deposition): Mr. Parise is the formerSenior Counsel and
Managing Attorney at Hoffmann-La Roche, who was involved in the negotiation and drafting of
license agreements. Mr. Parise is expected to testify regarding ownership and licensing of the
'182 and '522 patents.
72.
73. Stuart Watt Qive): Mr. Watt is the former Vice President and Law and
Intellectual Property Officer at Amgen, who was involved in the prosecution of the '182 and
'522 patents and in the negotiation and drafting of licensing agreements. Mr. Watt is expected to
testify regarding ownership and licensing of the '182 and '5 22 patents.
****
The above list is not a commitment that Defendants will call any particular witness at
trial, or a representation that any of the witnesses listed are available, may be subject to
subpoena, or will appear at trial. Defendants may offer testimony live or by deposition from the
above-listed witnesses. For witnesses that will be testifying by expert report, the report will be
137
admitted into evidence. Defendants reserve the right to call additional witnesses (who are not
presently identifiable) as may be necessary, on reasonable notice to the opposing party. In the
event Defendants seek to call a substitute witness, Defendants agree to make an application to
the Court to amend the Joint Final Pretrial Order.
Defendants reserve the right to call and/or cross examine any of Plaintiffs' witnesses,
including by counter-designation of deposition testimony. To the extent that Plaintiffs call as a
live witness any witness listed to be called by Sandoz by deposition, Sandoz reserves the right to
present live testimony from that witness.
Defendants also reserve the right to call, either live or by deposition: (a) additional
witnesses to provide foundational testimony should any party contest the authenticity or
admissibility of any material proffered at trial; (b) substitute witnesses for any identified
witnesses whose employment or other relationship with Defendants changes such that he or she
is no longer able, available or willing to testify on Defendants' behalf at trial; and/or (c)
additional witnesses to respond to issues raised after the submission of this list; and/or additional
witnesses for rebuttal or impeachment purposes to issues raised by Plaintiffs.
For those depositions that have been videotaped, Defendants may present deposition
excerpts by videotape, transcript, or both (as part of the same presentation). If any witness listed
as a person who Defendants intend to call to testify in person is unavailable, Defendants reserve
the right to offer deposition testimony from such witness in lieu of live testimony.
Defendants further reserve the right to introduce testimony through deposition or live
examination for any witness that Plaintiffs identify on their list, for any expert witness that
submitted an expert report on behalf of Plaintiffs in this action, or as necessary to establish
authenticity or admissibility of any trial exhibit if the authenticity or admissibility of the exhibit
138
is challenged by Plaintiffs. Defendants reserve the right to offer counter-designations to any
deposition designations offered by Plaintiffs. Defendants reserve the right to present testimony
from any witness has been deposed in this matter.
Defendants expressly reserve the right to further modify, supplement and/or amend this
Final Pretrial Order and attachments in light of issues that remain open and until entry of the
Final Pretrial Order, or as otherwise permitted by the Court.
D. Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Witnesses
Plaintiffs object to the presentation of deposition testimony for any witness that is within
Defendants' control (as except as agreed to by the parties below) and current employees.
Plaintiffs further object to Defendants assertions that Dr. McCamish may attend "live or by
deposition." Plaintiffs also object to Defendants assertion that Dr. Sala may "testify regarding
the research and development of the product that is the subject of Sandoz's aBLA No. 761042."
Dr. Sala was designated as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness by Sandoz solely on topics related to the
design-around efforts during discovery; he was not subject to a Rule 30(b)(l) deposition.
Plaintiffs also object to the admission of deposition testimony from Dr. Gudjonsson as
irrelevant and misleading given the issues for which he was deposed (claim construction of the
Finck Patents) is no longer at issue in this case. Defendants' designation of Dr. Gudjonsson's
deposition testimony on August 17, 2018 was also untimely, as the date for exchanging
deposition designations was June 26, 2018, based on the agreed schedule that the parties
submitted to the Court. D.I. 499, Exhibit B.
X. DEPOSITIONS
The parties have exchanged deposition designations, counter-designations and related
objections. Deposition designations, with associated objections and counter-designations are
attached hereto as Appendix A (Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations) and Appendix B
139
(Defendants' Deposition Designations). It is expected and agreed that whichever party calls a
witness by deposition will present the designated testimony as well as any counter-designated
testimony.
The parties reserve their rights to supplement and amend their respective designations
and counter-designations in light ofany orders regarding the scope ofthe trial or in light ofany
new information submitted by the other party.
The parties further reserve their rights to present deposition testimony by any fact witness
identified by the parties not excluded pursuant to any objections; supplement their designations
for fact witnesses who are not available to testify at trial; and designate additional deposition
testimony from fact witnesses to authenticate evidence ifrequired. The parties may also use any
and all deposition testimony, whether or not designated, for cross-examination, impeachment, or
rebuttal.
The parties have agreed not to designate deposition testimony oftheir own expert
witnesses, with the exceptions ofDr. Jones and Dr. Kittendorf. Plaintiffs will offer into evidence
the expert report ofDr. Jones in lieu oflive testimony. Defendants will designate sections ofthe
deposition ofDr. Jones to be read into evidence, and Plaintiffs will do the same, subject to the
ordinary rules governing deposition designation and counter-designation. Similarly, Defendants
will offer into evidence the expert report and deposition testimony ofDr. Kittendorfin lieu of
live testimony. Plaintiffs will designate sections ofthe deposition ofDr. K.ittendorfto be read
into evidence, and Defendants will do the same, subject to the ordinary rules governing
deposition designation and counter-designation. In addition, if one side indicates at any time that
one or more ofits experts will not be testifying live at trial for any reason, the opposing side shall
have the opportunity to designate the deposition testimony ofsuch expert(s). Following such
140
designation by the opposing side, any counter-designation of deposition testimony by the
expert's side shall be narrowly limited in scope to the specific issues that are the subject of the
opposing side's designations. Such counter-designations shall not extend to subject matter for
which the expert should otherwise have been brought to trial to provide live testimony.
Joint key to Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Objections:
141
Obj. Description
AA Asked and answered; Fed. R. Evid. 61 l(a)
BE Best evidence; Fed. R. Evid. 1002
BTS Beyond the scope of examination or of 30(b)(6) topic; Fed. R. Evid. 611,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)
CP Compound question
F No foundation or asswnes facts not in evidence; Fed. R. Evid. 104,602,703,

901
H Hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter asserted; Fed. R. Evid. 801,802,
803,805
I Incomplete designation; Fed. R. Evid. 106, 403
IC Improper counter designation
L Leading; Fed. R. Evid. 611(c)
LAW Lawyer argument or colloquy
LC Legal conclusion; Fed. R. Evid. 701
MIS Mischaracterization of testimony or evidence
0 Unqualified opinion testimony; Fed. R. Evid. 701, 703
OB Attorney objection improperly designated
p Privileged; Fed. R. Evid. 501,Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3),(4)
PK Lack of personal knowledge; Fed. R. Evid. 602
R Not relevant; Fed. R. Evid. 401,402
SP Speculation,Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 702
T Improper use of deposition at trial; Fed. R. Civ. P. 32
u Unfairly prejudicial, misleading,confusing, and/or cumulative/waste of time;

Fed. R. Evid. 403
142
V Vague or ambiguous; Fed. R. Evid. 61 l(a)
ov Overbroad
DSFI Document speaks for itself
NAR Calls for a narrative
NR Non-responsive answer
MS Motion to strike
PE Parol evidence
IE Improper expert testimony
Additional Plaintiffs' Objections:
Obj. Description
cu Misleading, Confusing and/or Cumulative/Waste of time; Fed. R. Evict.

40339
A. Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations
1. Alliger, Peter (June 30, 2017) - Tab A.
2. Arora, Taruna (August 9, 2017)-Tab B.
3. Berndt, Christine (July 28, 2017) - Tab C.
4. Cao, Cindy (June 20, 2017) - Tab D.
5. Kobno, Tadahiko (June 15, 2017)-Tab E.
6. Lesslauer, Werner (May 23-24, 2017) - Tab F.
39 Defendants have not agreed to Plaintiffs' proposal for a separate "CU" objection, which is duplicative of the
agreed upon "U'' objection based on the same Fed. R. Evid. 403. Defendants objections for "U" encompass all
objections based on Fed. R. Evid. 403, including for "Misleading, Confusing and/or Cumulative/Waste of time"
testimony. Defendants do not waive these objections.
143
7. Liu, Zhengyu (June 9, 2017)-Tab G.
8. Loetscher, Hansruedi (May 11 -12, 2017) - Tab H.
9. McCamish, Mark (June 8, 2017) -Tab I.
10. Oakes, Gregory (June 14, 2017) - Tab J.
11. Schiestl, Martin (June 7, 2017)-Tab K.
12. Sala, Gautier (March 9, 2018) - Tab L.
13. Jankowsky, Rudiger (September 20, 2013) - Tab M.
14. Jones, Graham (January 12, 2018)- Tab 0.
15. Kittendorf, Jeffrey (January 16, 2018) - Tab P.
B. Defendants' Deposition Designations
Defendants designate the deposition testimony of the witnesses identified in Tab N for
possible introduction as substantive evidence at trial.
1. Arora, Taruna (August 9, 2017)
2. Beckmann, Patricia (June 16, 2017)
3. Brockhaus, Manfred (May 25, 2017)
4. Cao, Cindy (June 20, 2017)
5. Davis-Smith, Terri (June 20, 2017)
6. Dembic, Zlatko (July 11, 2017)
7. Fowler, Kathleen (July 14, 2017)
8. Gillis, Steven (June I 5, 2017)
9. Goodwin, Raymond (June 2, 2017)
10. Gubler, Ueli (July 7, 2017)
11. Gudjonsson, Johann (December 21, 2016)
12. Hamill, Laura (July 10, 2017)
144
13. Johnston, George (June 30,2017)
14. Jones,Graham(January 12,2018)
15. Kirschner, Michael(June 29, 2017)
16. Kittendorf, Jeffrey (January 16, 2018)
17. Kohno,Tadahiko(June 15,2017)
18. Lauffer,Leander (May 19, 2017)
19. Lesslauer,Werner (May 23,2017)
20. Lesslauer, Werner(May 24,2017)
21. Liu,Zhengyu(June 9,2017)
22. Loetscher,Hansruedi (May 11, 2017)
23. Loetscher,Hansruedi (May 12, 2017)
24. Lyman,Stewart(June 27,2017)
25. McCamish, Mark(June 28,2017)
26. Parise, John (June 28,2017)
27. Watt,Stuart (June 21, 2017)

* * *
Defendants disclose these deposition designations without waiving any of its rights to
modify,amend,or otherwise supplement its deposition designations. Defendants reserve the
right to designate additional deposition testimony not included on this list to meet unanticipated
evidence adduced at trial and/or to rebut any testimony offered or designated by Plaintiffs.
Defendants reserve the right to designate additional deposition testimony not included on this list
when used for cross-examination,impeachment, or rebuttal purposes. Defendants reserve the
right to rely on any of Plaintiffs' affirmative designations as counter-designations. Defendants
145
reserve the right to designate additional deposition testimony not included on this list when used
to authenticate evidence, if required. Defendants reserve the right to rely on testimony not
included on this list based upon the Court's ruling on any motions filed by the parties or orders
regarding the scope of the trial. Providing these designations is not a commitment that
Defendants will introduce all of the designated testimony at trial. Defendants reserve the right to
rely on less than the designated testimony for any reason.
XI. TRIAL EXHIBITS
The parties have exchanged trial exhibit lists and related objections.
The parties have created the attached joint trial exhibit list (Tab WW) of exhibits that
will be deemed admitted by the Court subject to the confidentiality procedure set out by the
Court at the conference on September 10, 2018.
Plaintiffs intend to introduce into evidence the exhibits listed in Tab XX. Defendants'
objections to Plaintiffs' exhibits are also listed in Tab XX. Defendants reserve the right to
object to any exhibit for the purpose for which it is used at trial.
Defendants intend to introduce into evidence the exhibits listed in Tab YY. Plaintiffs'
objections to Defendants' exhibits are also listed in Tab YY. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
object to any exhibit for the purpose for which it is used at trial.
The parties have endeavored to include on the lists at Tab ZZ all (i) laboratory notebooks
produced by Plaintiffs in this action, (ii) documents from Roche's database of research reports
produced by Roche in this action, and (iii) Sandoz's aBLA referencing ENBREL®, and thus
believe the lists are exhaustive as to those documents. The parties have jointly agreed that
documents listed in Tab ZZ are authentic and admissible, but reserve the right to object to their
introduction on relevance grounds. To the extent that it is later determined that any trial exhibit
falling into these categories was not included at Tab ZZ, the parties agree that the chart at Tab
146
ZZ will be supplemented to reflect the inclusion of such document, including documents
subsequently produced.
The joint key to Plaintiffs' and Defendants' objections to proposed exhibits are as
follows:
�r,-;',-�----------. -------�----�
L��------ ��-----�
A Authenticity; Fed. R. Evid. 901
BE Best Evidence Rule; Fed. R. Evid. 1002
cu Misleading, Confusing and/or Cumulative/Waste of time; Fed. R. Evid. 403
F No foundation or assumes facts not in evidence; Fed. R. Evid. 104, 602, 703,
901
FL Foreign Language
H Hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter asserted; Fed. R. Evid. 801,
802,803,805
I Incomplete Document; Fed. R. Evid. 106, 403
ID Incorrect Description
LC Legal conclusion; Fed. R. Evid. 701
LP Admissible for a Limited Purpose; Fed. R. Evid. 105
MD Multiple Documents
NL Not Legible
R Not relevant; Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402
SRM Subsequent Remedial Measure; Fed. R. Evid. 407
so Settlement Offer; Fed. R. Evid. 408
u Unfairly prejudicial; Feel R. Evid. 403
147
Additional Plaintiffs' Objections: 40
�- --- -1�
L______ -----�� - - .- -- .�- .....;.�-��-1
----=-----------�
L�
F.R.C.P.26 Outside the scope of the expert report
Unelected Unelected references
The parties agree that any party may further supplement the exhibit list on the following
schedule:
(a) Parties to exchange supplemental exhibit list on August 30, 2018 along with new
exhibits identified in the supplemental exhibit list.
(b) Parties to exchange objections to the supplemental exhibits identified in the
supplemental exhibit list on August 31, 2018.
Absent an extraordinary showing of good cause or based on stipulations addressed in this
Final Pretrial Order in connection with supplementing exhibit lists, only the exhibits listed on the
parties' exhibit lists shall be introduced at the time of trial in a party's case-in-chief and/or
responsive case. The parties reserve the right to offer additional exhibits for cross-examination,
impeachment, or rebuttal. The parties reserve the right to offer any exhibits listed by the other
party, to the same effect as though it were listed on their own exhibit lists, including introducing
such exhibits into evidence, that are not excluded pursuant to any objection. The parties reserve
the right to add exhibits to this list to authenticate evidence, if required. The parties reserve the
right to add exhibits to this list based upon the Court's ruling on any motions by the parties or
orders regarding the scope of the trial. The parties further reserve the right to use any exhibit
40
Defendants object to Plaintiffs' additional objections for "F.R.C.P. 26" and "Unelected references." These
proposed objections were not presented to Defendants at the time the parties were exchanging exhibit objections.
Defendants dispute that these are valid objections to trial exhibits.
148
admitted into evidence, subject to any limitations as to its admission. Any description of a
document on a party's exhibit list is provided for ease of identification only and shall not be used
as an admission or otherwise as evidence. The listing of a document on a party's exhibit list is
not an admission that such document is relevant or admissible when offered by another party.
The parties reserve the right to object to the admission of any exhibit on this list based on the
claims actually tried and other evidence admitted in this case. Nothing herein shall be construed
as a stipulation or admission that a document or designated testimony is entitled to any weight in
deciding the merits of the case. The parties are not required to list exhibits that will be used, if at
all, only for impeachment purposes.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS
The parties have agreed to the following trial procedures for the advanced notification of
each witness to be called at trial, live or by designation, and all exhibits and demonstratives to be
used with each such witness:
Agreement Regarding Experts: Absent a showing of good cause, any expert not listed
in this Final Pretrial Order shall not be pennitted to testify at the time of trial, unless the expert's
deposition testimony has been properly designated and counter-designated as set forth above at
Section VIII. Additionally, the curriculum vitae of every expert expected to testify at the time of
trial is attached to this Final Pretrial Order. The curriculum vitae or summary of the expert's
qualifications may be read into the record at the time the expert takes the stand. If a party seeks
to have a summary of an expert's qualifications read into the record, that party shall provide a
copy of the summary to the opposing party at the time the expert is identified as a witness that
the party intends to call. The same dates and procedures for objections to demonstratives and
exhibits, set forth below, shall be used regarding any objections to the summary.
149
Witnesses: The parties will identify by email to the opposing parties the witnesses they
intend to call and the order in which they expect to call said witnesses by 7:00 p.m.41 two
calendar days before such witness will be called to testify. The email addresses of the recipients
that should be emailed this information, as well as the information described in paragraphs
below, shall be exchanged by the parties by no later than the date of the Pretrial Conference. The
identification of witnesses shall include both live witnesses and witnesses whose testimony will
be provided by deposition. For example, if the party expects to conduct the examination on
Monday, notice should be given to the opposing party by 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. Each party
shall update its list of expected witnesses for the following day by 7:00 p.m. at the end of each
trial day, so long as the party has remaining witnesses that it intends to call on direct for that
portion of the case. The parties will cooperate in good faith to keep the other side informed of
the anticipated length of the questioning (both direct and cross) of each witness.
Deposition Designations: Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the party
offering deposition testimony (other than for the purpose of impeachment) shall identify the
deposition testimony to be offered from previously-exchanged designations by 7:00 p.m. at least
three calendar days prior to the testimony being offered into the record. A party may choose not
to introduce deposition testimony designated in this Proposed Final Pre-trial Order, but may not
designate additional deposition testimony after the filing of this Proposed Final Pre-trial Order
absent a showing of good cause (for example, a fact witness previously expected to testify live
becomes unavailable, or a party responds to testimony that presents unfair surprise or prejudice).
The party receiving the designations shall infonn the opposing party of any counter-designations
and objections by 8:30 p.m. two calendar days prior to the testimony being offered into the
41 Unless stated otherwise, all times are according to the Eastern Time Zone.
150
record, and the parties will meet and confer by 9:30 p.m. that same day. If good faith efforts to
resolve the objections fail, the party objecting to the deposition testimony shall bring its
objections to the Court's attention at the beginning of the following trial day. Audio and/or
visual clips of the identified deposition testimony shall be exchanged by 7:00 p.m. the day prior
to the testimony being offered into the record.
Exhibits: Each party will provide a list of trial exhibits to be used in connection with
direct examination by 7:00 p.m. at least two calendar days before their intended use, and the
receiving party will provide its list of objections no later than 8:30 p.m. the night before their
intended use. The parties will meet and confer regarding any objections to such exhibits by 9:30
p.m. that same night. If good faith efforts to resolve the objections fail, the party objecting to the
exhibits shall bring its objections to the Court's attention at the beginning of the trial day.
Failure to comply with these procedures, absent an agreement by the parties, will result in waiver
of the use of an exhibit or waiver of.an objection to the exhibit.
Demonstratives: Demonstratives to be used in connection with direct examination will
be exchanged by 7:00 p.m. the night before their intended use, with an agreement that any
changes to the demonstratives made after such exchange will be only font/layout/format/to
correct typographical errors and not edits of substance, unless made in response to and for the
purpose of resolving an objection. The receiving party will provide its list of objections no later
than 8:30 p.m. the night before their intended use. The parties will meet and confer regarding
any objections to such demonstratives by 9:30 pm that same night. If good faith efforts to
resolve the objections fail, the party objecting to the exhibits shall bring its objections to the
Court's attention at the beginning of the trial day.
151
Demonstratives containing only trial exhibits, including with highlights, underlines,
callouts, etc., need not be exchanged provided that the demonstrative is not argumentative.
Demonstratives created during testimony or demonstratives used in connection with cross
examination need not be exchanged. The parties agree that copies of any demonstratives used
during trial shall be submitted to the Court prior to the conclusion of trial.
Notice of Intention to Rest: By 7:30 p.m. the night before it intends to rest its case, the
resting party shall give the other party notice of its intention to rest. This notice is intended to
give the parties enough notice to allow them to comply with the other provisions ohhis order.
XIII. TRIAL COUNSEL
Plaintiffs Immunex and AML will be represented at trial by:
Liza M. Walsh
Marc D. Haefner
Christine I. Gannon
Eleonore Ofosu-Antwi
Colleen M. Maker
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
One Riverfront Plaza
1037 Raymond Boulevard, 6th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973) 757-1100
David T. Pritikin (admitted pro hac vice)

Steven J. Horowitz (admittedpro hac vice)
Richard M. Chen (admitted pro hac vice)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 853-7000
Vernon M. Winters (admitted pro hac vice)

James A. High Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
Sue Wang (admitted pro hac vice)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 772-1200
152
Jeffrey P. Kushan (admitted pro hac vice)

Peter S. Choi (admitted pro hac vice)
Ryan C. Morris (admitted pro hac vice)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 736-8700
Samuel N. Tiu (admitted pro hac vice)

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, California 90013
(213) 896-6000
Sona De (admitted pro hac vice)

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 839-5300
Wendy Whiteford (admitted pro hac vice)

J. Drew Diamond (admitted pro hac vice)
Dennis Smith (admitted pro hac vice)
Joseph E. Lasher (admitted pro hac vice)
AMGEN INC.
One Amgen Center Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1789
(805) 447-1000
Plaintiff Roche will be represented at trial by:
David E. De Lorenzi
Charles H. Chevalier
Christine A. Gaddis
GIBBONS P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5310
(973) 596-4500
David I. Berl (admitted pro hac vice)

Aaron Maurer (admitted pro hac vice)
Thomas S. Fletcher (admitted pro hac vice)
Seth R. Bowers ( admitted pro hac vice)
WILLIAM & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth St. NW
153
(202) 434-5000
Defendants will be represented at trial by:
Eric I. Abraham
Christy L. Saveriano
HILL WALLACK LLP
21 Roszel Road
Princeton, NJ 08543-5226
(609) 924-0808
George C. Lombardi (admitted pro hac vice)

Maureen L. Rurka (admitted pro hac vice)
Julia Mano Johnson (admitted pro hac vice)
James M. Hilmert (admitted pro hac vice)
Dan H. Hoang (admitted pro hac vice)
Loren G. Rene (admitted pro hac vice)
Karalena M. Guerrieri (admitted pro hac vice)
Michael A. Meneghini (admitted pro hac vice)
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703
(312) 558-5600
Merritt D. Westcott (admitted pro hac vice)

1111 Louisiana Street, 25th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002-5242
(713) 651-2600
Noorossadat Torabi (admitted pro hac vice)

275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
Menlo Park, California 94025
(650) 858-6500
1111
-,■
154
XV. ESTIMATED LENGIB OFTRIAL AND ORDER OFPRESENTATION

The parties estimate that trial will require approximately 35 hours for each side before the
Court. 42
The parties will provide opening statements of no more than 90 minutes per side, with
Defendants presenting first and Plaintiffs presenting second. The parties will present closing
statements at a time convenient to the Court. Trial shall proceed with the following order of
presentation:
• Defendants will present their invalidity case;
• Plaintiffs will present their response to Defendants' invalidity case and introduce
objective indicia of nonobviousness;

• Defendants will present their rebuttal on invalidity and response to Plaintiffs'
presentation of objective indicia of nonobviousness; and

• Plaintiffs will present their rebuttal regarding objective indicia of nonobviousness.
* * *
The Court may amend this Order as it deems appropriate and rule on any issues as they
may arise during trial.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: September 10, 2018 Isl Liza M Walsh

Liza M. Walsh
Marc D. Haefner
Christine I. Gannon
Eleonore Ofosu-Antwi
Colleen M. Maker
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
One Riverfront Plaza
1037 Raymond Boulevard, 6th Floor
42 See Joint Pretrial Report. D.l. 486.
155
Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 757-1100
OF COUNSEL:
David T. Pritikin (admitted pro hac vice)

Steven J. Horowitz (admitted pro hac vice)
Richard M. Chen (admitted pro hac vice)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 853-7000

James A. High Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
Sue Wang (admitted pro hac vice)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
(415) 772-1200
Jeffrey P. Kushan (admitted pro hac vice)

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street N.W.
(202) 736-8700

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
(213) 896-6000

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 839-5300

AMGEN INC.
156

(805) 447-1000
Attorneys for Immunex Corporation and

Amgen Manufacturing, Limited
Date: September 10, 2018 Isl Charles H Chevalier

David E. De Lorenzi
Charles H. Chevalier
Christine A. Gaddis
GIBBONS P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5310
(973) 596-4500
OF COUNSEL:
David I. Berl (admitted pro hac vice)

Aaron Maurer (admitted pro hac vice)
Thomas S. Fletcher (admitted pro hac vice)
Seth R. Bowers (admitted pro hac vice)
WILLIAM & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth St. NW
(202) 434-5000
Attorneys for Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
Date: September I 0, 2018 Isl Eric l Abraham
Eric I. Abraham
Christy L. Saveriano
HILL WALLACK LLP
21 Roszel Road
Princeton, NJ 08543-5226
(609) 924-0808
OF COUNSEL:
George C. Lombardi (admitted pro hac vice)

Maureen L. Rurka (admitted pro hac vice)
Julia Mano Johnson (admitted pro hac vice)
James M. Hilmert (admitted pro hac vice)
157
Dan H. Hoang (admitted pro hac vice)

Loren G. Rene (admitted pro hac vice)
Karalena M. Guerrieri (admittedpro hac vice)
Michael A. Meneghini (admitted pro hac vice)
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703
(312) 558-5600
Thomas M. Melsheimer (admitted pro hac vice)

2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 900
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 453-6500
Merritt D. Westcott (admitted pro hac vice)

1111 Louisiana Street, 25th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002-5242
(713) 651-2600
James S. Richter
200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10166
(212) 294-6700
Noorossadat Torabi (admitted pro hac vice)

275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
Menlo Park, California 94025
(650) 858-6500
Attorneys for Defendants Sandoz Inc., Sandoz

International GMBH, and Sandoz GMBH
IT IS SO ORDERED this_\__
\ day of September, 2018.
Hon. Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.
158
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney certifies that a copy of the foregoing FINAL PRE-TRIAL
ORDER was served by electronic mail on all counsel of record.
Dated: September 10, 2018 Isl Liza M Walsh
OF COUNSEL: Liza M. Walsh

Marc D. Haefner
David T. Pritikin (admitted pro hac vice) Christine I. Gannon
Steven J. Horowitz (admitted pro hac vice) Eleonore Ofosu-Antwi
Richard M. Chen (admitted pro hac vice) Colleen M. Maker
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
One South Dearborn One Riverfront Plaza
Chicago, Illinois 60603 1037 Raymond Boulevard, 6th Floor
(312) 853-7000 Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973) 757-1100
James A. High Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Immunex Corporation and
Sue Wang (admitted pro hac vice) Amgen Manufacturing, Limited
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
(415) 772-1200
Jeffrey P. Kushan (admittedpro hac vice)

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street N.W.
(202) 736-8700

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
(213) 896-6000

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 Seventh A venue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 839-5300

AMGEN INC.
(805) 447-1000
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DIS'I'.RICT OF NEW JERSEY
IMMUNEX CORPORATION; )
AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED; )
and HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC.; ) Hon. Claire C. Cecchi
)
Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-01118-CCC-MF
V. )
)
SANDOZ INC.; SANDOZ )
INTERNATIONAL GMBH; and SANDOZ )
GMBH; ) ,JOINT EXHIBIT LIST
)
Defendants. ) PRETRIAL ORDER TAB WW
Exhibit Number Title

JTX-1 U.S. Patent No. 8,063,182 B1 Brockhaus et al.
JTX-2 U.S. Patent No. 8,163,522 BI Brockhaus et al.
JTX-3 File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 08/444,790 (U.S. Patent
No. 8,063, 182 )
JTX-4 File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 08/444,791 (U.S. Patent
No. 8,163,522)
JTX-5 U.S. Patent 5,610,279 to Brockhaus et al.
JTX-6 European Patent Application 90116707.2 (Manfred)
JTX-7 English Translation of European Patent Application No. 90116707.2,
Publication No. 0417563A2
JTX-8 European Patent Publication No. 0417563A2
JTX-9 File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/095,640 (U.S. Patent
No. 5,610,279)
JTX-10 File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 07/580,013
JTX-11 European Patent Application No. EP 90116707
JTX-12 Accord and Satisfaction, dated 6/7/2004
JTX-13 License Agreement for Etanercept Among Immunex Corporation,
Hofmann-La Roche Inc., and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., dated
11/6/1998

JTX-14 Brockhaus Clarification and Consolidation Agreement, dated 6/7/2004
JTX-15 Commercial Exploitation Agreement, dated 1/1/2015
JTX-16 Corrected Declaration of Jeffrey D. Kittendorf, Ph.D., with Exhibits
A-E
JTX-17 Rebuttal Expert Report Of Graham B. Jones, Ph.D., with Exhibits 1-4
JTX-18 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest, U.S.
Dept. of Health Services (4th Ed.) (1987)
JTX-19 Ellison et al., The nucleotide sequence of a human immunoglobulin
Cyl gene, Nucleic Acids Research, 10(13):4071-4079 (1982)
JTX-20 Sakano et al., Domains and the hinge region of an immunoglobulin
heavy chain are encoded in separate DNA segments, Nature 277:627-
633 (1979)
JTX-21 Loetscher et al., Molecular Cloning and Expression of the Human 55
kd Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor, Cell 61:351-359 (April 1990)
JTX-22 Brockhaus et al., Identification of two Types of tumor necrosis factor
receptors on human cell lines by monoclonal antibodies, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA, 87:3127-31 (April 1990)
JTX-23 Dembic et al., Two Human TNF Receptors Have Similar
Extracellular, But Distinct Intracellular, Domain Sequences, Cytokine,
2(4): 231-237 (July 1990)
JTX-24 Smith et al., A Receptor for Tumor Necrosis Factor Defines an
Unusual Family Of Cellular and Viral Proteins, Science 248:1019-
1023 (May 1990)
JTX-25 Traunecker et al., Highly efficient neutralization of HIV with
recombinant CD4-immunoglobulin molecules, Nature 339:68-70
(1989)
JTX-26 Eck et al., The structure of tumor necrosis factor-a at 2.6 A resolution,
implications for receptor binding, J. Biol. Chem. 264(29): 17595-
17605 (1989)
JTX-27 Moreland et al., Recombinant soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor
(p80) fusion protein: toxicity and dose finding trial in refractory
rheumatoid arthritis, J. Rheumatol. 23:1849-55 (1996)
JTX-28 Moreland et al., Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a recombinant
human tumor necr_osis factor receptor (p75)-Fc fusion protein, N. Engl
J. Med. 337:141-47 (1997)
JTX-29 Moreland et al., Etanercept Therapy In Rheumatoid Arthritis: A
randomized, Controlled Trial, Ann. Intern. Med. 130:478-486 (1999)
2

JTX-30 Weinblatt et al., A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis
factor receptor:Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
receiving methotr<?xate, N. Engl. J. Med. 340:253-9 (1999)
JTX-31 Bathon et al., A Comparison of Etanercept and Methotrexate in
Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis, N. Engl. J. Med. 343:1586-
93 (2000)
JTX-32 U.S. Patent No. 6,143,866 Brewer et al.
JTX-33 U.S. Patent No. 5,639,597 Lauffer et al.
JTX-34 Enbrel - Highlights of Prescribing Information (10/2017)
JTX-35 Slud, Patients press for Enbrel, CNN Money (2001)
JTX-36 Table 1 from Lawrence, S., Billion Dollar Babies - Biotech Drugs as
Blockbusters, Nature Biotechnology 25:380-382 (2007)
JTX-37 Top 50 pharmaceutical products by global sales, for 2011-2014
PMLive
JTX-38 Top 50 pharmace4tical products by global sales, GlobalData
JTX-39 U.S. Patent No. 7,915,225
JTX-43 Swiss Patent Application No. CH 3319/89
JTX-46 Engelmann, H., et al., A Tumor Necrosis Factor-binding Protein
Purified to Homogeneity from Human Urine Protects Cells from
Tumor Necrosis Factor Toxicity, J. Biol. Chem. 264(20):11974-80
(1989
JTX-47 Engelmann, et al.;Two Tumor Necrosis Factor-binding Proteins
Purified from Human Urine, The Journal of Biological Chemistry,
Vol. 265, No. 3 (1990)
JTX-48 Seckinger, P., et al., Characterization of a tumor necrosis factor a
(TNF-a) inhibitor: Evidence of immunological cross-reactivity with
the TNF receptor, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87 :5188-5192 (1990)
JTX-49 Stites, D., et al., Immunoglobulins I: Structure & Function, in Basic &
Clinical Immunology, Ch. 4 (6th ed.1987)
3

JTX-50 Segal, D.M., et al., The Role of Non-Immune IgG in Controlling IgG-
Mediated Effector Functions, Molecular Immunol. 20: 1177-89 (1983)
JTX-51 Duncan, A.R. and Winter G., The Binding Site For Clq on IgG,
Nature 332:738-740 (1988)
JTX-52 Pennica, D., et al., Human tumor necrosis factor: precursor structure,
expression and homology to lymphotoxin, Nature 312:724-29 (1984)
JTX-53 Shin, S., et al., Production and Properties of Chimeric Antibody
Molecules, Methods in Enzymol. 178:459-476 (1989)
JTX-54 Oi, V., et al, Immunoglobulin Gene expression in transformed
lymphoid cells, P�pc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Immunol. 80:825-829
(1983)
JTX-55 U.S. Patent 5,336,603 Capon et al.
JTX-56 Byrn, R.A., et al., Biological properties of a CD4 immunoadhesion,
Nature 344:667-670 (1990)
JTX-57 European Patent Application Publication No. 0 325 262 Seed
JTX-58 Capon, D., et al., Designing CD4 immunoadhesins for AIDS therapy,
Nature 337:525-30 (1989)
JTX-59 Watson, S.R., et al., A Homing Receptor-IgG Chimera as a Probe for
Adhesive Ligands of Lymph Node High Endothelial Venules, J. Cell
Biol., 110:2221-29 (1990)
JTX-60 European Patent Application Publication No. 0 394 827 Karjalainen
JTX-61 U.S. Patent No. 5,116,964 Capon et al.
JTX-62 European Patent Application Publication No. 0 308 378 Wallach
JTX-63 Hohmann, HP, et al., Two different cell types have different major
receptors for human tumor necrosisfactor (TNFa), J. Biol. Chem.
264(25): 14927-14934 (1989)
JTX-64 Schall, T., et al., Molecular Cloning and Expression of a Receptor for
Human Tumor Necrosis Factor, Cell 61:361-370 (1990)
JTX-65 U.S. Patent No. 5,395,760 Smith et al.
JTX-66 Smith, R.A., et al., The Active Form of Tumor Necrosis Factor Is a
Trimer, J. Biol. Chem. 262(15):6951-6954 (1987)
JTX-67 U.S. Patent 5,447,851 Beutler
JTX-68 Peppel, K., et al., A tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor-IgG heavy
chain chimeric protein as a bivalent antagonist ofTNF activity, J. Exp.
Med. 174:1483-89 (1991)
4

JTX-69 Ashkenazi, A., et al., Protection against endotoxic shock by a tumor
necrosis factor receptor immunoadhesin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
88:10535-39 (1991)
JTX-70 Crothers, D.M. and Metzger H., The influence ofpolyvalency on the
binding properties of antibodies, Immunochemistry 9:341-357 (1972)
JTX-71 Smith, R.A., et al., Multimeric Structure ofTumor Necrosis Factor
Receptor ofHeLa Cells, J. ofBiological Chemistry, 264(25):14646-
652 (1989)

AMGNvSANDOZ 2019-08-07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMGNvSANDOZ 2019-08-07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMGNvSANDOZ 2019-08-07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:16-cv-01118-CCC-MF Document 688 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 165 PageID: 21948

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) or 1400(b).

II. OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On July 30, 2015, Sandoz submitted a Biologics License Application ("abbreviated

Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to market Erelzi®, a biosirnilar oflmmunex's

ENBREL® (etanercept) product ("Defendants' Biosimilar Etanercept"). On September 29, 2015,

the FDA accepted for review Sandoz's aBLA.

Immunex believed that a claim of infringement could be reasonably asserted based on

Finck '631 patent") (collectively, "the Finck Patents").3

A. Plaintiffs' Allegations and Request for Relief

Immunex/AML and Roche (collectively "Plaintiffs") allege that Sandoz's submission of

an aBLA referencing Immunex's ENBREL® product is an act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. §

---- - ----- ---- -

patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).

Patents-in-Suit are not invalid.

of Defendants' officers, employees, agents, representatives, affiliates, assignees, and successors,

respective expiration date of each of the Patents-in-Suit.

B. Defendants' Defenses, Allegations, and Request for Relief

prejudice to Defendants' right to appeal that ruling.

Patents-in-Suit are invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, obviousness, inadequate

III. PENDING/CONTEMPLATED MOTIONS/TRIAL BRIEFS

Judge Cecchi, D.I. 486 ("Joint Pretrial Report").

issue to be determined at trial. D.I. 572.

2. Defendants have filed the following motion in limine: Motion in Limine

3. On August 15, 2018, the Court denied or administratively terminated Plaintiffs'

pending Motions in Limine and denied or administratively terminated Defendants' pending

Motions in Limine and Daubert motions. D.I. 572.

per side (if 14 point font).

IV. STIPULATION OF FACTS

1. Plaintiff Inununex Corporation ("Imrnunex") is a corporation organized and

2002. Immunex is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc.

2. Plaintiff Amgen Manufacturing, Limited ("AML") is a corporation existing under

Juncos, Puerto Rico 00777. AML is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc.

3. Plaintiff Hoffinann-La Roche Inc. ("Roche") is a corporation organized and

Clove Road, Suite 8, Little Falls, New Jersey 07424.

New Jersey 08540.

5. Defendant Sandoz International GmbH is a Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung

6. Defendant Sandoz GmbH is a Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung (Company

of business at BiochemiestraJ3e 10, 6250 Kundl, Austria.

1. The '182 Patent

a corporate affiliate of Plaintiff Roche.

07/580,013 ("the Brockhaus '013 application").

'707 application"), filed on August 31, 1990.

11. The '182 patent issued on November 22, 2011.

12. The '182 patent expires on November 22, 2028.

Asserted Claims 11-12 depend.

molecular weight of about 75 kilodaltons on a non-reducing SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and

domain of the constant region."

the protein of claim 11 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier material."

Asserted Claims 35-36 depend.

the protein of claim 35 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier material."

2. The '522 Patent

Brockhaus '013 application.

'707 application"), filed on August 31, 1990.

26. The '522 patent issued on April 24, 2012.

27. The '522 patent expires on April 24, 2029.

28. Plaintiffs assert claims 3, 8, and 10 of the '522 patent.

Asserted Claim 3 depends.