Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex Corp. et al
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
APOTEX CORP., et al.,
13 C 8240
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).
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)”).
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,
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
For that purpose this Court sets a status hearing
to be held at 9:15 a.m. December 13, 2013.
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
December 5, 2013
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?