Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
Filing
1148
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered MOTION ALLOWED 1140 Motion Entry of Final Judgment. (Franklin, Yvonne)
Case l:ll-cv-11681-NMG
Document 1140 Filed 02/23/18 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and
SANDOZ INC.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.: 1:11-cv-l 1681-NMG
V.
AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
and INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION
SYSTEMS, LTD.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Case l:ll-cv-11681-NMG Document 1140 Filed 02/23/18 Page 2 of 6
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d), Defendants Amphastar
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and International Medication Systems, Ltd. (collectively "Amphastar")
respectfully request entry of finaljudgment against Plaintiffs Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Sandoz, Inc. (collectively "Momenta").
I.
BACKGROUND
The jury rendered its verdict in this matter on July 21, 2017 (Dkt. No. 1081). Thejury
found:
1.
Defendants Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and International Medication
Systems, Ltd. (collectively "Amphastar") infringe claims 6, 15, 16, 53, 54, and 62 (the "Asserted
Claims") of U.S. Patent No. 7,575,886 ("the '886 patent") for use of the 15-25% procedures and
Disaccharide Building Block ("DBB") procedure;
2.
Momenta should be awarded $0.00 for lost profits and reasonable royalties due to
the infringement;
3.
The Asserted Claims of the '886 patent are not anticipated;
4.
The Asserted Claims of the '886 patent are not obvious;
5.
The Asserted Claims of the '886 patent are invalid because the claims are not
enabled; and
6.
The Asserted Claims of the '886 patent are invalidbecausethe claims lack written
description.
The Court then entered a Memorandum and Order on February 7,2018 (Dkt. No. 1139)
ruling on Amphastar's equitable defenses. The Court's Orderspecified that:
1.
Momenta waived its rightto enforce the '886 patent against Amphastar for use of
its 15-25% procedures;
Case l:ll-cv-11681-NMG Document 1140 Filed 02/23/18 Page 3 of 6
2.
Momenta is equitably estopped from enforcing the '886 patent against Amphastar
for use of its 15-25% procedures;
3.
Momenta did not waive its right to enforce the '886 patent against Amphastar for
use of its DBB procedure; and
4.
Momenta is not equitably estopped from enforcing the '886 patent against
Amphastar for use of its DBB procedure.
II.
THE COURT SHOULD ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure58(a) provides that a final judgment "must be set out in a
separate document." Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a); see also, Fiore v. Washington County Community
Mental Health Ctr., 960 F.2d 229,232-33 (1st Cir. 1992)(adopting a uniform approachfor all
orders denying post-judgment motions under separate rules as orders constituting judgments
"subject to Rule 58's separate document requirement."); Willhauck v. Halpin, 919 F.2d 788, 79394 (1st Cir. 1990) (providing thata district court fails to meet the"separate document" mandate
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 when its finaljudgment is not recorded on a separate document).
Furthermore, Rule 58(d) states that a "partymay request thatjudgmentbe set out in a separate
document as required by Rule 58(a)." Fed. R. Civ. P.58(d). Inthis case, the Court's February 7,
2018 Memorandum and Orderwas entered pursuant to Rule 52(a). (Dkt. No. 1139at 5-6). To
date, no final judgment under Rule 58has been entered. Therefore, under Rule 58(d), Amphastar
respectfully requests that theCourt enter the Proposed Final Judgment attached as Exhibit A.
Case l:ll-cv-11681-NMG Document 1140 Filed 02/23/18 Page 4 of 6
Dated: February 23, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
and INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION
SYSTEMS, LTD.
By their attorneys,
/s/ Robert A. Delafield II
Douglas Carsten (admitted pro hac vice)
Natalie J. Morgan (admittedpro hac vice)
Joshua Mack (admitted pro hac vice)
Chao Qi (admitted pro hac vice)
Alina Litoshyk (admitted pro hac vice)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
dcarsten@wsgr.com
nmorgan@wsgr.com
imack@wsgr.com
cqi@wsgr.com
alitoshvk@wsgr.com
Michael S. Sommer (admitted pro hac vice)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019
msommer@wsgr.com
Robert A. Delafield II (admitted pro hac vice)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
Austin, TX 78746
bdelarield@wsgr.com
Sara Tolbert (admitted pro hac vice)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH «& ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
stolbert@wsgr.com
Daryl L. Joseffer (admittedpro hac vice)
Sheldon Bradshaw (admitted pro hac vice)
KING & SPALDING
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
Case l:ll-cv-11681-NMG Document 1140 Filed 02/23/18 Page 5 of 6
dioseffer@kslaw.com
sbradshaw@.kslaw.com
Alan D. Rose (BBO # 427280)
Meredith Wilson Doty (BBO # 652220)
Antonio Moriello (BBO # 685928)
ROSE, CHINITZ & ROSE
One Beacon Street, 23rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Tel.: 617-536-0040
adr@rose-law.net
mwd@rose-law.net
am@rose-law.net
Case l:ll-cv-11681-NMG Document 1140 Filed 02/23/18 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1
I hereby certify that counsel for Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and International
Medication Systems, Ltd. has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, Momenta Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Sandoz Inc. in an effort to narrow or resolve the issues raised in this motion. Plaintiffs
have objected to the motion.
/s/ Robert A. Delafield II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the EOF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing(NEF)
and paper copies will be sent via mail to those indicated as non-registered participants on
February 23, 2018.
/s/ Robert A. Delafield II
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?