Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., LTD et al v. Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC

Filing 339

ORDER DENYING TAKEDA's REQUEST FOR 54(b) JUDGMENT (Docket No. 281 in Case No. 11-00840 JCS, Docket No. 246 in Case No. C-11-1609 JCS, Docket No. 249 in Case No. 11-1610 JCS). Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on April 30, 2013. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, et

8

al.,

Related Cases: C-11-01609, C-11-01610
Plaintiff,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, et al.,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,

16

et al.,

17
18

Plaintiff,
v.

19

ANCHEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

20

AND TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

21

Defendants.

22

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,

23

ET AL.,

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER RE TAKEDA’S REQUEST FOR
RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT

v.

10
11

Case No.: 11-00840 JCS

Plaintiffs,
v.
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendant.

Docket No. 281

1
2

On April 18, 2013, Takeda filed a Motion For Leave To File A Motion For
Reconsideration Of Takeda‟s Motion For Leave To Amend Its Infringement Contentions To

4

Assert Infringement Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents; Or In The Alternative, For Judgment Of

5

Noninfringement Of U.S. Patent No. 7,790,755 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“the Motion”). On

6

April 22, 2013, the Court denied Takeda‟s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

7

the Court‟s prior order denying Takeda‟s motion to amend its infringement contentions. The

8

Court reserved the question of whether it should grant Takeda‟s request that the Court, in the

9

alternative, enter immediate judgment of noninfringement under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules

10

of Civil Procedure. Defendants have submitted an opposition brief on that question. The Court

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

now DENIES Takeda‟s request.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Rule 54(b) provides as follows:
(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.
When an action presents more than one claim for relief--whether as
a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim--or when
multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final
judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties
only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for
delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities
of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the
claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of
a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and
liabilities.

21

Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). To determine whether entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) is appropriate, the

22

Court first asks whether one or more claims has been finally resolved. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.

23

Gen Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). If it has, the Court then addresses whether there is any “just

24

reason for delay” in entering final judgment. Id. at 8. In Curtiss-Wright, the Supreme Court

25

explained that in making this determination, the court acts like a “dispatcher;” it must decide

26

“the „appropriate time‟ when each final decision . . . is ready for appeal,” exercising its discretion

27

in the interest of “sound judicial administration.” Id. (citations omitted). The disctrict court also

28

must take into consideration the equities involved. Id.
2

1

Here, the court‟s determination that the „755 Patent has not been infringed is a final
decision. Thus, entry of final judgment of noninfringment is appropriate under Rule 54(b) if the

3

Court finds that there is “no just reason for delay.” The Court finds that this standard is not met.

4

Given that trial on the remaining claims is imminent (approximately one month away), the

5

equities do not strongly support entry of a final judgment of noninfringement of the „755 Patent

6

under Rule 54(b). Nor has Takeda demonstrated that a separate judgment of noninfringment of

7

the „755 Patent will “streamline the ensuing litigation.” See Hildes v. Andersen, 2010 WL

8

4658742, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2010). Moreover, if the Court grants Takeda‟s request for entry

9

of final judgment of noninfringmenet of the „755 Patent, the Federal Circuit will be required to

10

familiarize itself with the same technologies and products in separate actions. Such piecemeal

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

litigation is disfavored and is not in the interest of judicial efficiency. W.L. Gore & Associates,

12

Inc. v. International Medical Prosthetics Research Associates, 975 F.2d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir.

13

1992) (“[a]ppellate courts have historically disfavored piecemeal litigation and permitted appeals

14

from complete and final judgments only”).

15

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Takeda‟s request for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: April 30, 2013

20
21
22

________________________
Joseph C. Spero
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

3