Tafas v. Dudas et al

Filing 116

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Page Limit by SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC, Glaxo Group Limited. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reilly, Craig) Modified text on 12/26/2007 (klau, ).

Tafas v. Dudas et al

Doc. 116

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 116

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ____________________________________ : TRIANTAFYLLOS TAFAS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : 1:07cv846 (JCC/TRJ) : JON W. DUDAS, et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: CONSOLIDATED WITH ____________________________________ : SMITHKLINE BEECHAM : CORPORATION, : d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : 1:07cv1008 (JCC/TRJ) : JON W. DUDAS, et al., : : Defendants. : ____________________________________: GLAXOSMITHKLINE'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PAGE LIMIT Pursuant to Rules 7(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 7(F)(3) of the Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Plaintiffs in case No. 1:07cv1008, SmithKline Beecham plc, SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, and Glaxo Group Limited d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline (collectively referred to as "GSK"), move the Court to allow GSK to file an opening brief exceeding the page limit on the following grounds:

1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 116

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 2 of 5

1.

By order entered November 29, 2007 (Order, ¶ 1, Docket # 93), and corrected and

amended on December 10, 2007 (Order, ¶ 1, Docket # 102), the Court set a forty-page limit for each party's summary judgment brief. GSK now seeks leave to file an opening brief of fortyfive (45) pages. The other parties (plaintiff in No. 1:07cv846, "Tafas," and defendants, "PTO") do not object to GSK's motion. 2. For "good cause" shown, the Court may permit a party to exceed the page limit

otherwise set by local rule or order. See E.D.VA.CIV.R. 7(F)(3). Good cause for an enlargement of the limitations set by the local rules cannot be made by "ritualistic recitations" that a case is "complex," or bald assertions that it presents "multiple issues." Cf. Lykins v. Attorney General, 86 F.R.D. 318, 318-19 (E.D. Va. 1980) (enforcing local rule limitation on number of interrogatories). Rather, a specific showing of good cause is required. The requisite showing is made below. 3. In an effort to fully inform the Court on the wide range of issues the Court must

consider before rendering its summary judgment rulings, GSK has prepared a detailed opening memorandum of law (i) stating the undisputed, material facts, (ii) an analysis of the Final Rules, and (iii) addressing the following legal issues: (A) the standard for relief; (B) the nature and extent of the PTO's rulemaking authority; (C) whether the Final Rules are contrary to statutory law; (D) whether the Final Rules apply retroactively; (E) whether the Final Rules are arbitrary and capricious; (F) whether the Final Rules are impermissibly vague; and (G) whether the final rules are a "logical outgrowth" of the published proposed rules. Manifestly, his case is complex, as recognized by the page limit extension already granted and the Court's detailed memorandum opinion granting the preliminary injunction (Docket # 64). GSK has exercised concise writing and disciplined editing, but still finds it necessary to seek an additional five pages.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 116

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 3 of 5

4.

Moreover, the Court will have to consider and decide issues of great public

importance, for which thorough briefing will be needed. As Justice Brandies once noted, "A judge rarely performs his functions adequately unless the case before him is adequately presented." To enable the Court to adequately perform its important judicial review function in this case, the parties' thorough presentations will be indispensable to a just result. WHEREFORE, GSK seeks leave to file an opening brief of forty-five (45) pages. Date: December 20, 2007 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Craig C. Reilly VSB # 20942 RICHARDS MCGETTIGAN REILLY & WEST, P.C. 1725 Duke Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Tel: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Fax: [phone] Counsel for Plaintiffs Of Counsel for Plaintiffs: John M. Desmarais Peter J. Armenio KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022 Tel: [phone] F. Christopher Mizzo Jeffrey Bossert Clark D. Sean Trainor VSB # 43260 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, SmithKline Beecham plc, and Glaxo Group Limited d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline

3

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 116

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing pleading was filed electronically this 20th day of December 2007 using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification by electronic means to the following counsel of record:
CHUCK ROSENBERG UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Lauren A. Wetzler R. Joseph Sher Andrew Price Assistant United States Attorneys Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [e-mail] Counsel for All Defendants Joseph D. Wilson, Esq. KELLY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3050 K Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007-5108 [e-mail] Counsel for Plaintiff Triantafyllos Tafas (# 1:07cv846) Rebecca Malkin Carr PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N St NW Washington, DC 20037 [e-mail] and Scott J. Pivnick PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard McLean, Virginia 22102-4856 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. James Murphy Dowd WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 1455 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20004 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Dawn-Marie Bey KIRKPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 700 13th Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 [e-mail] Counsel for Amici Hexas, LLC, The Roskamp Institute, and Tikvah Therapeutics, Inc. Randall Karl Miller ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 1600 Tysons Blvd Suite 900 McLean, VA 22102 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Biotechnology Industry Organization and Counsel for Amicus Monsanto Company Thomas J. O'Brien MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20004 [phone] (phone) [phone] (fax) to'[e-mail] Counsel for Amicus American Intellectual Property Law Association Charles Gorenstein BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH AND BIRCH, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Suite 100 East Falls Church, Virginia 22042 [e-mail] Counsel for Amicus Intellectual Property Institute William Mitchell College of Law

4

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 116

Filed 12/20/2007

Page 5 of 5

Notice through the CM/ECF system also will be sent to the proposed amicus curiae parties whose motions for leave to appear are still pending. /s/ Craig C. Reilly VSB # 20942 RICHARDS MCGETTIGAN REILLY & WEST, P.C. 1725 Duke Street, Suite 600 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 TEL: [phone] EMAIL: [e-mail] fax: [phone] Counsel for GSK plaintiffs (# 1:07cv1008)

2