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
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Michael S. Sommer (admitted pro hac vice)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019
[e-mail]

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
[e-mail]

Sara Tolbert (admitted pro hac vice)
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH «& ROSATI

650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
[e-mail]

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

[e-mail]
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.: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

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