Depomed, Inc. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 37

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND re 36 Stipulation, filed by Depomed, Inc., Lupin Limited, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/16/09. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP WILLIAM G. GAEDE, III (136184) [e-mail] TERRANCE P. MCMAHON (071910) [e-mail] ANDREW A. KUMAMOTO (178541) [e-mail] 275 Middlefield Road, Suite 100 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Depomed, Inc. RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP PAUL J. MOLINO (Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] WILLIAM A. RAKOCZY (Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] THEODORE J. CHIACCHO (Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] HEINZ J. SALMEN (Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] 6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] DURIE TANGRI LLP DARALYN DURIE (169825) [e-mail] SONALI MAITRA (254896) [e-mail] 332 Pine Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Ltd.

11
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW

12
S I L I C O N VALLEY

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEPOMED, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Virginia Corporation, and LUPIN LIMITED, an Indian Corporation, Defendants.
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-05587 PJH

No. 09-CV-05587 PJH CORRECTED STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

MPK 159855-1.082221.0015

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

WHEREAS, Defendants' response to Plaintiff's complaint is presently due December 16, 2009; WHEREAS, on December 11, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint; WHEREAS, on December 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motion for extension. WHEREAS, counsel conferred and agreed that Defendants may extend the time within which to file their Response to Plaintiff's Complaint; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, through their respective counsel, as follows: 1. The time for Defendants Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Ltd. to answer or

11
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW

12
S I L I C O N VALLEY

otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended 45 days, up to and including January 30, 2010; 2. Defendants have identified the District of Maryland as a jurisdiction in which they See Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

will not contest a protective suit filed by Plaintiff.

Pharmaceuticals, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13782 (N.D. Ill. 2006) and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion To Extend (Dkt. 29) for specifics on the issue under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The parties agree that such identification is without prejudice and shall in no way bear upon whether personal jurisdiction and venue in this jurisdiction is appropriate, nor bear upon whether Maryland is a more convenient forum. 3. Plaintiff intends to file a protective complaint in the District of Maryland to

preserve Depomed's substantive interests under the Hatch-Waxman Act to preserve Depomed's patent rights, consistent with the foregoing authority. 4. The parties have agreed to immediately stay any second-filed Maryland protective

suit upon filing, and have agreed that such stay shall remain in effect in a second-filed Maryland action pending resolution of any jurisdictional issues that may arise from Defendants' response to the Complaint in this first-filed action.

MPK 159855-1.082221.0015

2

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND [PRPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-05587 PJH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

SO STIPULATED this 15th day of December 2009. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

By:

/s/ William G. Gaede, III William G. Gaede, III Attorneys for Depomed, Inc.
DURIE TANGRI LLP

By:

/s/ Daralyn Durie Daralyn Durie Attorneys for Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Ltd.

11
A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW

12
S I L I C O N VALLEY

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION Pursuant to General Order 45.X(B), I hereby attest that concurrence has been obtained from Daralyn Durie indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. /s/ William G. Gaede, III William G. Gaede, III

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

-oOoPURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
ISTRIC ES D TC AT T

RT U O

DATED: 12/16/09

UNIT ED

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

S

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

MPK 159855-1.082221.0015

3

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND [PRPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-05587 PJH

A

C

LI

FO

Judge P

hyllis J.

Hamilt

R NIA

O IT IS S HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Court Judge on
NO

ED ORDER

RT

H