Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex Corp. et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/5/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APOTEX CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 8240

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On November 19, 2013 this Court issued a sua sponte
memorandum order (“Order”) questioning the appropriateness of the
choice of forum selected by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(“Millennium”) in its patent infringement Complaint against
Apotex Corp. and Apotex, Inc. (collectively “Apotex,” treated as
a singular noun purely as a matter of convenience).

Although the

Order designated November 27 as the due date for Millennium’s
response, that date came and went without the arrival of any
response in this Court’s chambers.

Both because of the

Thanksgiving holiday and to allow for the time designated in this
District Court’s LR 5.2(f) for the delivery of a paper copy of
all court filings to the chambers of District Judges who prefer
to work with hard copies, this Court simply held off on the
matter until December 3, at which point it had its courtroom
deputy check the docket.
That follow-up inquiry revealed that Millennium had indeed
filed a statement on November 27, although its counsel did not

comply with LR 5.2(f).

Under that LR it is each judge’s choice

as to the maintenance vel non of in-chambers paper files, so that
counsel has to check each judge’s website when determining
whether electronic filing alone is enough.

This Court’s website

has made it plain that noncompliance by counsel results in the
imposition of a $100 fine, which this Court has set as the price
to pay for the most common noncompliance (nondelivery of a copy
of a newly-filed complaint).

Consistently with that policy,

Millennium is ordered to deliver promptly to this Court’s
chambers a check for $100 payable to the Clerk of Court.
That, however, is a digression that should not obscure this
Court’s appreciation for the thoughtfulness of the statement that
Millennium has provided.

It is clear from that statement that

the filing of this action in this forum was expressly authorized
by Apotex, so that no consideration should be given to a sua
sponte transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a)(“Section 1404(a)”).

As

for a possible party-initiated Section 1404(a) motion to
transfer, see this week’s Supreme Court decision in Atl. Marine
Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., No. 19-929 (Dec. 3,
2013).

Millennium’s further explanation as to the interchange

between its counsel and Apotex’ counsel makes it clear that this
Court should simply hold off until Apotex clarifies its position
as to either challenging or consenting to jurisdiction and venue
in Delaware.

For that purpose this Court sets a status hearing

2

to be held at 9:15 a.m. December 13, 2013.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

December 5, 2013

3