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

Filing 119

ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE by Judge Seeborg (rslc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2011)

Download PDF
1 *E-Filed 09/29/11* 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SHIRE LLC; SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AMY F.T. ARNSTEN, PH.D.; PASKO RAKIC, M.D.; and ROBERT D. HUNT, M.D., No. C 10-5467 RS ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE Plaintiffs, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.−FLORIDA; WATSON PHARMA, INC.; and ANDA, INC., Defendants. ___________________________________/ 19 20 21 On September 22, 2011, plaintiffs Shire LLC, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amy 22 Arnsten, Pasko Rakik, and Robert Hunt brought a motion to modify the Case Management 23 Scheduling Order entered by the Court on June 15, 2011. Plaintiffs contend that they served 24 discovery on defendants on June 3, 2011, seeking a copy of the Abbreviated New Drug Application 25 (ANDA) filed by defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Impax) and of the one filed by Watson 26 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc.–Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc., and Anda, Inc. 27 (collectively, the “Watson defendants”), as well as samples of defendants’ respective products. 28 Plaintiffs assert the information is necessary for the preparation of its Infringement Contentions NO. C 10-05467 RS ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE 1 which are presently due October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs argue that Impax has not produced either of the 2 requested materials and the Watson defendants have produced only a copy of their ANDA. Plaintiffs now move for a four-month extension of all dates in the Scheduling Order through 3 materials and to analyze them. If plaintiffs require that amount of time to prepare their infringement 6 contentions, they must move for relief sooner than eleven days before the present deadline. Thus, 7 plaintiffs’ motion for a four-month extension is denied. As the parties indicate they had been 8 working toward a one-month extension, the Court will instead extend the deadlines by that amount 9 of time in the hope that the parties can resolve this dispute in a timely manner. If necessary, 10 For the Northern District of California the claim construing briefing. They suggest that they need this time to obtain the requested 5 United States District Court 4 however, the parties should bring motions to compel or for a protective order to resolve their 11 dispute. It will not be addressed in a motion to enlarge time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3. 12 Moreover, any motion for attorneys’ fees and costs must be brought pursuant to Civil Local Rule 13 54-5. At this point, a further extension in the deadline for infringement and invalidity contentions 14 15 is not likely to be granted. Thus, the parties should submit their contentions with the information 16 available in advance of the amended schedule below. If the parties later obtain relevant, new 17 information, they may file motions to amend their respective contentions, if they can demonstrate 18 good cause pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-6. Accordingly, the following new dates in the Case Management Schedule shall be adopted: 19 • 20 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions1 and Document Production Accompanying Disclosure, November 3, 2011 21 • 22 Disclosure of Infringement Contentions and Document Production Accompanying Disclosure, December 16, 2011 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Although the parties refer to “preliminary” infringement and invalidity contentions, the present version of the Northern District’s Patent Local Rules has dropped use of that term. The change reflects the fact that, although they were previously called preliminary contentions, the Rules “are designed to require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed.” Integrated Circuit Sys. v. Realtek Semiconductor Co., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2004). NO. C 10-05467 RS ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE 2 1 • 2 3 December 30, 2011 • • • • For the Northern District of California File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Including Identification of 10 Claim Terms That Will Be Most Significant to Resolution of the Case, February 13, 2012 10 United States District Court Deadline to Meet and Confer for Purposes of Finalizing Preparation of Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, February 6, 2012 8 9 Exchange Proposed Constructions for Each Term Identified by the Parties, Including Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence Supporting Each Construction, January 23, 2012 6 7 Deadline to Meet and Confer to Limit Terms in Dispute and Identify 10 Terms Likely to Be Most Significant to Resolving Dispute, January 9, 2012 4 5 Exchange List of Claim Terms Each Party Contends Should be Construed by the Court, 11 • Complete Claim Construction Discovery, March 16, 2012 12 • Deadline to Amend Pleadings, March 16, 2012 13 • Deadline for Opening Claim Construction Brief, March 30, 2012 14 • Deadline for Opposition to Claim Construction Brief, April 20, 2012 15 • Reply in Support of Claim Construction Brief, May 4, 2012 16 • Markman Hearing, May 30, 2012 at 10:00 AM 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 Dated: 09/29/11 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NO. C 10-05467 RS ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?