Shire LLC, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Incl et al v. IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 106

ORDER RE 103 SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT, SCHEDULING ORDER, AND ORDER ON PRESUMPTIVE LIMIT OF HOURS FOR INVENTORS' DEOPSITIONS. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/12/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Markman hearing set for 5/2/2012 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/15/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2011)

*E-Filed 6/15/11*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
12
MENLO PARK

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

M C D ERMOTT W ILL & E MERY LLP

10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
WILLIAM G. GAEDE, III (136184)
[e-mail]
275 Middlefield Road, Suite 100
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
JOSEPH R. ROBINSON (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
HEATHER MOREHOUSE ETTINGER (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
340 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10173
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
WILLIAM R. ZIMMERMAN (SBN 195859)
[e-mail]
SHEILA N. SWAROOP (SBN 203476)
[e-mail]
BENJAMIN A. KATZENELLENBOGEN (SBN 208527)
[e-mail]
2040 Main Street
Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Impax Laboratories, Inc.
THE BANCHERO LAW FIRM LLP
E. JEFFREY BANCHERO (SBN 93077)
[e-mail]
SCOTT R. RABER (SBN 194924)
[e-mail]
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
JOHN L. NORTH (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
JEFFREY J. TONEY (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
LAURA FAHEY FRITTS (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
1360 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1150
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,Watson Laboratories,
Inc.—Florida,Watson Pharma, Inc., and Anda, Inc.

28
DM_US 28921621-2.085199.0893

SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT
SUBMISSION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 10-CV-05467 RS

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4
5
6

SHIRE LLC, SUPERNUS
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AMY F.T.
ARNSTEN, PH.D., PASKO RAKIC, M.D., and
ROBERT D. HUNT, M.D.,

7
8
9

Plaintiffs,

IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.–FLORIDA,
WATSON PHARMA, INC., and ANDA, INC.,

11

Defendants.

SUPPLEMENTAL CASE
MANAGEMENT SUBMISSION,
SCHEDULING ORDER, AND ORDER
ON PRESUMPTIVE LIMIT OF
HOURS FOR INVENTORS’
DEPOSITIONS
AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

Hon. Richard Seeborg

12
MENLO PARK

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

M C D ERMOTT W ILL & E MERY LLP

10

v.

No. 10-CV-05467 RS

13

At the Case Management Conference of June 2, 2011, the Court indicated that it would

14

adopt a modified version of Plaintiffs’ proposed case schedule. The Court also directed the

15

parties to further confer regarding discovery. Pursuant to the Court’s instructions at the Case

16

Management Conference and the Court’s June 2, 2011 Order requiring the parties to submit an

17

updated proposed schedule and discovery plan, the parties submit the following:

18
19

UPDATED CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Event

Date

Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions
and Document Production Accompanying Disclosure (PLR 3.1, 3.2)

10/03/2011

Disclosure of Preliminary Invalidity Contentions and Document
Production Accompanying Disclosure (PLR 3.3, 3.4)

11/17/2011

Exchange List of Claim Terms each Party contends should be Construed
by the Court (PLR 4.1(a))

12/01/2011

Deadline to Meet and Confer to Limit Terms in Dispute and Identify 10
Terms likely to be Most Significant to Resolving Dispute (PLR 4.1(b))

12/08/2011

28
DM_US 28921621-2.085199.0893

-1-

SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT
SUBMISSION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 10-CV-05467 RS

1
2

Event

Date

Exchange Proposed Constructions for Each Term Identified by the Parties,
including Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence Supporting each Construction
(PLR 4.2(a)(b))

12/22/2011

Deadline to Meet and Confer for Purposes of Finalizing Preparation of
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (PLR 4.2(c))

01/09/2012
01/16/2012

7

File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, including
identification of 10 claim terms who construction will be most significant
to resolution of the case (PLR 4.3)

8

Complete Claim Construction Discovery (PLR 4.4)

02/17/2012

9

Deadline to Amend Pleadings

02/17/2012

Deadline for Plaintiffs serving and filing Opening Claim Construction
Brief (PLR 4.5(a))

03/02/2012

12

Deadline for Defendants serving and filing Opposition to Claim
Construction Brief (PLR 4.5(b))

03/23/2012

13

Reply in support of Claim Construction Brief (PLR 4.5(c))

14

Markman Hearing (PLR 4.6)

15

Further Case Management Conference,

3
4
5
6

MENLO PARK

11
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

M C D ERMOTT W ILL & E MERY LLP

10

16
17
18

04/06/2012

Statement due on week prior:

05/02/12 @ 10:00 a.m.
7/12/12 @ 10:00 a.m.

Following the issuance of the Markman ruling, the Court will schedule a second Case
Management Conference to schedule the remainder of the case through trial.
STIPULATION AND DISPUTE ON DISCOVERY SCOPE

19

Stipulation on Depositions. The parties agree that Plaintiffs shall be entitled to sixteen

20

(16) depositions of fact witnesses, of which no more than eight (8) will be of the Watson

21

Defendants and no more than eight (8) will be of Impax. Impax shall be entitled to eight (8)

22

depositions of fact witnesses; and the Watson Defendants shall be entitled to eight (8) depositions

23

of fact witnesses.

24
25

Dispute on Presumptive Length of Named Inventor Depositions. The parties disagree
on the presumptive time limit for the depositions of the named inventors of the Patents-in-Suit.

26

Plaintiffs’ position is that an inventor deposition should be limited to seven hours in

27

accordance with the Federal Rules, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties on a deposition-

28
DM_US 28921621-2.085199.0893

-2-

SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT
SUBMISSION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 10-CV-05467 RS

1

by-deposition basis. If the parties cannot agree, either party may seek a decision from the Court.

2

Defendants’ position is that the time limit for named inventors’ depositions should be

3

enlarged to ten hours given the presumptive importance of their testimony. Defendants do not

4

anticipate that every inventor deposition will take ten hours. However, Defendants do anticipate

5

seeking a ten hour limit from Plaintiffs for each inventor deposition and believe it would be more

6

efficient to resolve this issue now to avoid seeking piecemeal Court intervention with respect to

7

each of the five inventor depositions.

8
9

Stipulation on Interrogatories.

Plaintiffs may serve no more than ten (10)

“joint” interrogatories on the Watson Defendants and Impax.1

In addition to the joint

interrogatories, Plaintiffs may serve no more than ten (10) interrogatories on the Watson

11

Defendants and no more than ten (10) interrogatories on Impax.

12
MENLO PARK

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

M C D ERMOTT W ILL & E MERY LLP

10

The Watson Defendants and Impax together may serve no more than ten (10)

13

joint interrogatories on Plaintiffs.

14

Defendants may serve no more than ten (10) interrogatories on Plaintiffs, and Impax may serve

15

no more than ten (10) interrogatories on Plaintiffs.

16

In additional to the joint interrogatories, the Watson

ORDER

17

The Court adopts the foregoing Case Management Schedule and the parties’ stipulations

18

on the number of depositions and interrogatories. As to the issue of the presumptive number of

19

hours for the inventors’ depositions, the Court orders that a presumptive limit of [seven (7)] [ten

20

(10)] hours shall apply to all named inventor depositions in this matter. If a party would like to

21

modify the presumptive time limit, the parties first must meet and confer on the issue. If the

22

parties cannot resolve the dispute, the parties then may seek relief from the Court.

23
24

DATED:

6/15/11
HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
Judge of the United States District Court

25
26
27
28

1

“Joint” interrogatories are defined as interrogatories that are identical irrespective of defendant.

DM_US 28921621-2.085199.0893

-3-

SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT
SUBMISSION AND SCHEDULING ORDER
CASE NO. 10-CV-05467 RS