Novo Nordisk Inc. et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon on 8/8/2018. (crb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

NOVO NORDISK INC. and NOVO
NORDISK A/S,
1:17CV227 JFB-SRF
Plaintiffs,
ORDER

v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,

Defendant.

This matter is before the court on the report and recommendations of the
magistrate judge regarding claim construction, Filing No. 61. No objections have been
filed by any of the parties.
The standard of review is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(b). The district court “shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made” and “may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Similarly, Rule 72(b)(3)
requires de novo review of any recommendation that is dispositive of a claim or defense
of a party.
The Supreme Court has construed the statutory grant of authority conferred on
magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636 to mean that nondispositive pretrial matters are
governed by § 636(b)(1)(A) and dispositive matters are covered by § 636(b)(1)(B).
Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873-74 (1989); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Under subparagraph (B), a district court may refer a dispositive motion to a magistrate

judge “to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the
court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99–100 (3d Cir. 2017). The
product of a magistrate judge, following a referral of a dispositive matter, is often called a
“report and recommendation.” Id. “Parties ‘may serve and file specific written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations’ within 14 days of being served with a
copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2)).
“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” EEOC,
866 F.3d at 99 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
The court has carefully reviewed the report and recommendations and finds the
magistrate judge is correct as a matter of fact and law. The court finds the determinations
are not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the court will adopt the findings and

recommendation of the magistrate judge.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the report and recommendations of the
magistrate judge, Filing No. 61, is adopted in its entirety.

Dated this 8th day of August, 2018.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
2