Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Limited v. Eli Lilly and Company

Filing 69

STIPULATION AND ORDER for page length extension on parties' opening and responding briefs re summary judgment. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea) (MBea).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., Case No. 2:07-cv-15087 Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. _______________________________________/
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR PAGE-LENGTH EXTENSION ON PARTIES' OPENING AND RESPONDING BRIEFS RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") stipulate and agree to the entry of this Order as follows: 1. According to the Court's May 29, 2008, Scheduling Order, the parties' deadline

Hon. George Caram Steeh Mag. Judge R. Steven Whalen

for filing motions for summary judgment is August 14, 2009. Sun intends to move the court for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid as obvious over the prior art. 2. Given the complexity of the scientific, legal, and factual issues that will need to

be briefed in connection with such a motion, the parties agree that the twenty-page limit provided in Local Rule 7.1(c)(3)(A) for briefs supporting a motion and response is insufficient for a full analysis and presentation of the issues.

-1-

3.

The parties therefore agree to an extension of the twenty-page limit for briefs

supporting the motion and the response to the motion, as follows: an additional five (5) pages for both briefs, such that the text of Sun's brief in support of the motion (including footnotes and signatures), and the brief in support of Lilly's response to the motion (including footnotes and signatures), may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the text of Sun's brief in support of its motion for summary judgment re obviousness (including footnotes and signatures), and the brief in support of Lilly's response to the motion (including footnotes and signatures), may not exceed twentyfive (25) pages. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2009 s/George Caram Steeh HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dated: August 14, 2009 By: _/s/ Peter E. Perkowski______________ Peter E. Perkowski Gail J. Standish WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 [phone] [e-mail] James F. Hurst WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Richard W. Paige (P45199) Moheeb H. Murray (P63893) BUSH SEYFERTH & PAIGE PLLC 3001 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 600 Troy, MI 48084 Scott R. Samay WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Attorneys for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

[SIGNATURE BLOCKS CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE]

-3-

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dated: August 14, 2009 By: _/s/ Robert F. Shaffer____________________ Jeffrey G. Muth (P65041) BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 300 Ottawa Avenue, NW - Suite 500 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 [phone] [e-mail] Charles E. Lipsey FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 11955 Freedom Drive Suite 800 Reston, VA 20190-5675 Robert D. Bajefsky Robert F. Shaffer FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 901 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Robert F. McCauley FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 3300 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203 Attorneys for Eli Lilly and Company

-4-