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)

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