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

Filing 218

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 216 TO DISMISS IMPAX'S COUNTERCLAIM REGARDING THE '290 PATENT AND AMY F.T. ARNSTEN, PASKO RAKIC, AND ROBERT D. HUNT; TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS; AND NOT TO APPEAL FINDING OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '290 PATENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/15/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

William R. Zimmerman (SBN 195859)
[e-mail]
Sheila N. Swaroop (SBN 203476)
[e-mail]
Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen (SBN 208527)
[e-mail]
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
2040 Main Street
Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10

Colin B. Heideman (SBN 238674)
[e-mail]
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11
12

Attorneys for Defendant
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.

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

Joseph R. Robinson (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Heather Morehouse Ettinger (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
The Chrysler Building / 405 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10174
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Matthew D. Murphey (SBN 194111)
[e-mail]
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
Irvine, CA 92614-2545
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants
SHIRE LLC and SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC

25
26
27
28
No. 10-CV-05467 RS
Joint Stipulation

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

4

SHIRE LLC and SUPERNUS
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

5
Plaintiffs,
6
v.
7
8
9

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

10

Defendants.

11
12

IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.,

13

Counterclaimant,
v.

14

16

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

17

Counterdefendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 10-CV-05467 RS
JOINT STIPULATION TO
DISMISS IMPAX’S
COUNTERCLAIM REGARDING
THE ’290 PATENT AND AMY F.T.
ARNSTEN, PASKO RAKIC, AND
ROBERT D. HUNT; TO AMEND
INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS; AND
NOT TO APPEAL FINDING OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘290
PATENT

Honorable Richard Seeborg

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

No. 10-CV-05467 RS
Joint Stipulation

1

WHEREAS, on August 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint [Dkt.

2

No. 210] that removed all allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,854,290 (“the ’290

3

patent”), including Counts 1-4 for infringement, direct infringement, induced infringement, and

4

contributory infringement and including Prayers for Relief 1 and 4-11. (Compare Dkt. No. 19

5

with Dkt. No. 210.);

6

WHEREAS, on August 20, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment that Impax’s

7

proposed ANDA products do not and cannot infringe any claim of the ’290 patent. (See Dkt

8

No. 208.);

9

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2012, the ‘290 patent was dedicated to the public;

10

WHEREFORE, in view of the dedication of all claims of the ’290 patent to the public

11

and the Court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement regarding the ’290 patent,

12

Plaintiffs Shire LLC and Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Amy F.T.

13

Arnsten, Pasko Rakic, and Robert Hunt (collectively, “’290 Inventors”) and Defendant Impax

14

Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”), through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and

15

agree as follows:

16

1)

17

The following, all of which pertain to the ’290 patent, are dismissed with

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) and 41(c):

18

a) Impax’s First Counterclaim, Declaration of Noninfringement of the ’290

19

Patent, (see Impax’s Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Dkt No. 212) at ¶¶ 22-

20

23);

21

b) Impax’s Fourth Counterclaim, Declaration of Invalidity of the ’290

22

Patent, (see Impax’s Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Dkt No. 212) at ¶¶ 28-

23

29);

24

c) Impax’s Eighth Counterclaim, Declaration of Unenforceability of the

25

’290 Patent, (see Impax’s Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Dkt No. 212) at

26

¶¶ 36-45); and

27
28

d) Impax’s Demands for Judgment B, E, and H, (see Impax’s Answer to
Second Amended Complaint (Dkt No. 212)); and
-2-

No. 10-CV-05467 RS
Joint Stipulation

1
2

e) ‘290 Inventors Amy F.T. Arnsten, Pasko Rakic, and Robert D. Hunt.
2)

Impax will not take any discovery from any party or third party that would be

3

relevant to only claims or counterclaims regarding the ’290 patent and will not seek any

4

discovery, whether relevant to the ‘290 patent or not, from any of the ‘290 Inventors.

5

3)

The dismissal of Impax’s First, Fourth, and Eighth Counterclaims and Demands

6

for Judgment B, E, and H, and the dismissal of the ‘290 Inventors, is without prejudice to these

7

claims being raised regarding products other than the Impax products presently proposed in

8

ANDA No. 202238 and does not impact Impax’s right to seek a finding of exceptional case or

9
10

an award of fees or costs against Plaintiffs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 arising out of the litigation of

11

the ’290 patent. This is not a judgment that this case is exceptional or that any person is liable

12

for such an award if granted.

13

4)

Plaintiffs will not appeal, or otherwise dispute or contest, the Court’s finding that

14

the Impax products presently proposed in ANDA No. 202238 do not infringe the ’290 patent,

15

and will not oppose entry of a corresponding final judgment. (See Dkt. No. 208.)

16

5)

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, Impax may amend its Invalidity Contentions once

17

more to include additional prior art references discovered after the Court’s ruling on claim

18

construction, which were produced to Plaintiffs prior to October 5, 2012, a list of which is

19

attached hereto as Exhibit A. Impax’s Fifth Amended Invalidity Contentions shall comply with

20

the applicable Local Rules regarding form and content and shall be served within 14 days of the

21

Court’s Order approving this Stipulation.

22

Respectfully submitted,

23

KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP

24
Dated: October 10, 2012
25
26

By:

/s/ Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen
William R. Zimmerman
Sheila N. Swaroop
Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen
Colin B. Heideman

27
28

Attorneys for Defendant
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.
-3No. 10-CV-05467 RS
Joint Stipulation

1

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

2
3

Dated: October 10, 2012

By:

4

/s/ Joseph R. Robinson
Joseph R. Robinson
Heather Morehouse Ettinger
Matthew Murphey

5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SHIRE LLC and SUPERNUS
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC

6
7
8

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

9
10

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1, I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of the foregoing

11

document has been obtained from counsel for Plaintiffs Shire LLC and Supernus

12

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as indicated by a “conformed” signature (s/).

13
By:

14

/s/ Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen
Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen

15
16
17
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: 10/15/12
HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23

14130565

24
25
26
27
28
-4-

No. 10-CV-05467 RS
Joint Stipulation