Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Gilead Sciences Inc. et al

Filing 433

MEMORANDUM ORDER re (374 in 1:14-cv-00846-LPS, 385 in 1:13-cv-01987-LPS, 330 in 1:14-cv-00109-LPS) MOTION for Reconsideration filed by L' Universite Montpellier II, Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc., Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/16/16. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-01987-LPS, 1:14-cv-00109-LPS, 1:14-cv-00846-LPS (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUD! di CAGLIARI,
CENTRE NATIONAL de la RECHERCHE
SCIENTIFIQUE, and
L'UNIVERSITE de MONTPELLIER,
I

Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 13-1987-LPS

v.
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. and GILEAD
PHARMASSET LLC,
Defendants.

IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI di CAGLIARI,
CENTRE NATIONAL de la RECHERCHE
SCIENTIFIQUE, and
L'UNIVERSITE de MONTPELLIER,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 14-109-LPS

v.
GILEAD PHARMASSET LLC,
Defendant.

IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC and
UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI di CAGLIARI,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 14-846-LPS

v.
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 16th day of November, 2016:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC, Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari, Centre

National de la Recherche Scientifique, and L'Universite Montpellier (together, "Plaintiffs" or
Idenix) have moved for reconsideration (C.A. No. 13-1987 D.I. 385) of a portion of the Court's
July 26, 2016 Order (D.I. 379) denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike (D.I. 295) three defenses
asserted by Defendants Gilead Pharmassett LLC and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (together, "Gilead" or
"Defendants"). Idenix's motion for reconsideration (D.I. 385) is DENIED.
2.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5, a motion for r~consideration should be granted only

"sparingly." The decision to grant such a motion lies squarely within the discretion of the district
court. See Dentsply Int'!, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F. Supp. 2d 385, 419 (D. Del. 1999);

Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1241 (D. Del. 1990). These types of motions
are granted only if the Court has patently misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented by the parties, or made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.

See Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998); Brambles, 735 F.
Supp. at 1241. "A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court
rethink a decision already made." Smith v. Meyers, 2009 WL 5195928, at *1 (D. Del. Dec. 30,
2009); see also Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa.
1993). It is not an opportunity to "accomplish repetition of arguments that were or should have
been presented to the court previously." Karr v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1093 (D. Del. 1991).
A party may seek reconsideration only if it can show at least one of the following: (i) there has
been an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new evidence not available

when the court made its decision; or (iii) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or fact to
prevent manifest injustice. See Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. LouAnn, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). In no instance should reconsideration be granted if it would not result in
amendment of an order. See Schering Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d at 295.
3.

Idenix has failed to show that reconsideration is warranted. It does not point to a

change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact.
4.

To the extent Idenix is arguing that the Court's prior order results in "manifest

injustice," the Court is unconvinced. The Court adequately ameliorated the prejudice arising
from denial of the motion to strike by providing Idenix with an opportunity for additional
discovery.
5.

The only thing "new" in the record since the Court's ruling on the motion to strike

is that whereas Idenix previously sought to strike three Gilead defenses as untimely, Idenix now
proposes, in light of the Court's denial of its motion to strike, that the Court strike only one of the
three defenses. Nothing precluded Idenix from advocating this (seemingly more reasonable)
position earlier, at the time the Court confronted what it described as a "close call" on the motion
to strike. (D.I. 380 at 141; see also id. at 135-36) Having chosen to present the Court with a
difficult "all or nothing" choice, and the Court having done the work to make that choice,
Idenix's "new" position now does not provide a meritorious basis for reconsideration.

~~f~~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE