Ferring B.V. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 317

ORDER GRANTING 264 , 266 , 270 , 274 and 276 Motions to Seal (the documents requested to be sealed have already been filed under seal; no further action by the Clerk is required); DENYING as moot 267 Motion to Stay; DENYING as moot 275 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 03/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

FERRING B.V.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. - (FL) et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
FERRING B.V.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
APOTEX, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
FERRING B.V.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
FERRING B.V.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
APOTEX, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:11-cv-00481-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

3:11-cv-00485-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

3:11-cv-00853-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

3:11-cv-00854-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

1

These four consolidated cases arise out of Defendants’ application with the Food and

2

Drug Administration (“FDA”) to manufacture and sell generic versions of a patented drug.

3

Pending before the Court are five motions to seal, a motion for leave to file a reply, a motion to

4

stay, and a motion for oral argument on a motion to compel.

5

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6

These cases arise out of the alleged infringement of Plaintiff Ferring B.V.’s (“Ferring”)

7

U.S. Patent No. 7,947,739 for tranexamic acid tablets sold under the trademark Lysteda® (the

8

“‘739 Patent” or “Tablet Patent”), (see Compl. ¶¶ 13–17, July 7, 2011, ECF No. 1; Compl. ¶¶

9

9–13, July 8, 2011, ECF No. 1 in Case No. 3:11-cv-00485), and the alleged infringement of

10

Ferring’s U.S. Patent No. 8,022,106 for tranexamic acid formulations and methods of treating

11

menorrhagia therewith (the “‘106 Patent” or “Formulas and Treatment Patent”), (see Compl. ¶¶

12

13–17, Nov. 25, 2011, ECF No. 1 in Case No. 3:11-cv-00853; Compl. ¶¶ 9–13, Nov. 25, 2011,

13

ECF No. 1 in Case No. 3:11-cv-00854).1 In the ‘481 and ‘485 Cases, respectively, Ferring sued

14

several Watson Labs entities (collectively, “Watson Defendants”) and several Apotex entities

15

(collectively, “Apotex Defendants”) in this Court for infringing the ‘739 Patent. In the ‘853 and

16

‘854 Cases, respectively, Ferring sued several Watson Defendants and several Apotex

17

Defendants in this Court for infringing the ‘106 Patent.

18

The Court consolidated the four cases, with the ‘481 Case as the lead case. It also granted

19

motions to dismiss the counterclaims for invalidity and to strike affirmative defenses for

20

invalidity in the ‘481 and ‘854 Cases, with leave to amend. The Court ruled that affirmative

21

defenses must specify a distinct legal theory of invalidity under Rule 8(c) but need not be pled

22

according to the Iqbal plausibility standard, as the counterclaims must be under Rule 8(a).

23

Watson Defendants and Apotex Defendants amended their answers and counterclaims,

24
1

25

Unless otherwise noted, the docket numbers in this document refer to Case No. 3:11-cv-

00481.
Page 2 of 4

1

accordingly. (See ECF Nos. 93, 94). Apotex Defendants later further amended its answer and

2

counterclaim. The Court has denied motions to dismiss the amended counterclaims for

3

invalidity. The Court has held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction order.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asks the Court to seal: (1) its Objections (ECF No. 265) to the magistrate judge’s

6

order granting Defendants’ motion to compel; (2) its Motion to Stay (ECF No. 267), which is

7

also pending before the Court; (3) its Motion for Leave to File a Reply (ECF No. 275), which is

8

also pending before the Court; and (4) that Reply (ECF No. 275-1) itself. Defendants ask the

9

Court to seal their Response (ECF No. 272) to Plaintiff’s previous motion to reconsider, as well

10

as their Response (ECF No. 271) to Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order granting

11

Defendants’ motion to compel. The Court grants the five motions to seal the six pleadings,

12

which have already been filed under seal.

13

Next, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendants’

14

motion to compel until the Court resolves Plaintiff’s objections thereto. Plaintiff also requests

15

oral argument on its objections and leave to file a reply in support. These three motions are

16

moot, as the Court has already ruled on the objections.

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///
Page 3 of 4

1

CONCLUSION

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 264, 266, 270, 274, 276)

3

are GRANTED. The documents requested to be sealed have already been filed under seal. No

4

further action by the Clerk is required.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (ECF No. 267), the Motion for

6

Hearing (ECF No. 268), and the Motion for Leave to File a Reply (ECF No. 275) are DENIED as

7

Moot.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day ofof March, 2013.
25th day March, 2013.

10
11

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4 of 4