Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 356

ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that Watson Laboratories, Inc.s 355 Motion is GRANTED and it is further ORDERED that Watson may file a reply brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment Re Obviousness up to 30-pages and the reply brief and its Opposition to the Motion to Strike shall be due 1/6/2012. (Responses due by 1/6/2012. Replies due by 1/6/2012.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 12/21/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Michael D. Rounds (Nevada Bar # 4734)
Ryan E. Johnson (Nevada Bar # 9070)
WATSON ROUNDS
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, NV 89511
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Mark T. Jansen (admitted pro hac vice)
Gia L. Cincone (admitted pro hac vice)
Byron Chin (admitted pro hac vice)
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 8th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Cedric C.Y. Tan (admitted pro hac vice)
Kristin M. Cooklin (admitted pro hac vice)
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Suite 900, 607 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20005-2018
[phone] (tel)
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.,

v.

Defendant/
Counter-Plaintiff,

DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.,
Counter-Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-0116 (LRH-RAM)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.’S EX PARTE
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE
LIMITS FOR REPLY AND FOR MORE
TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO WATSON’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE
OBVIOUSNESS AND OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
The Hon. Larry R. Hicks

1

Upon consideration of Watson Laboratories, Inc.’s Ex Parte Motion For An

2

Extension of Page Limits For Reply And For More Time To Reply To Plaintiff’s

3

Opposition For Summary Judgment Re Obviousness And Opposition To Plaintiff’s

4

Motion To Strike (“Motion”) and the entire record before this Court,

5

It is hereby ORDERED that Watson Laboratories, Inc.’s Motion is GRANTED

6

and it is further ORDERED that Watson may file a reply brief in support of its Motion

7

for Summary Judgment Re Obviousness up to 30-pages and the reply brief and its

8

Opposition to the Motion to Strike shall be due January 6, 2012.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED:

12

DATED this 21st day of December, 2011.
___________________________________

13
14

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE,
DATED: ___________________________

15
16
17

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-