Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shire LLC; Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Amy F.T. 11 v. Impax Laboratories

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


September 29, 2011

SHIRE LLC; SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AMY F.T. 11 ARNSTEN, PH.D.; PASKO RAKIC, M.D.;
AND ROBERT D. HUNT, M.D.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.;
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.-FLORIDA; WATSON PHARMA, INC.; AND ANDA, INC.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

*E-Filed 09/29/11*

ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE

On September 22, 2011, plaintiffs Shire LLC, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amy Arnsten, Pasko Rakik, and Robert Hunt brought a motion to modify the Case Management 23 Scheduling Order entered by the Court on June 15, 2011. Plaintiffs contend that they served 24 discovery on defendants on June 3, 2011, seeking a copy of the Abbreviated New Drug Application 25 (ANDA) filed by defendant Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Impax) and of the one filed by Watson 26 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc.--Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc., and Anda, Inc. 27 (collectively, the "Watson defendants"), as well as samples of defendants' respective products. 28 Plaintiffs assert the information is necessary for the preparation of its Infringement Contentions which are presently due October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs argue that Impax has not produced either of the 2 requested materials and the Watson defendants have produced only a copy of their ANDA. 3

Plaintiffs now move for a four-month extension of all dates in the Scheduling Order through the claim construing briefing. They suggest that they need this time to obtain the requested 5 materials and to analyze them. If plaintiffs require that amount of time to prepare their infringement 6 contentions, they must move for relief sooner than eleven days before the present deadline. Thus, 7 plaintiffs' motion for a four-month extension is denied. As the parties indicate they had been 8 working toward a one-month extension, the Court will instead extend the deadlines by that amount 9 of time in the hope that the parties can resolve this dispute in a timely manner. If necessary, 10 however, the parties should bring motions to compel or for a protective order to resolve their dispute. It will not be addressed in a motion to enlarge time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3. United States District Court Moreover, any motion for attorneys' fees and costs must be brought pursuant to Civil Local Rule 13 54-5. 14

For the Northern District of California At this point, a further extension in the deadline for infringement and invalidity contentions

15 is not likely to be granted. Thus, the parties should submit their contentions with the information 16 available in advance of the amended schedule below. If the parties later obtain relevant, new 17 information, they may file motions to amend their respective contentions, if they can demonstrate 18 good cause pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-6. 19

Accordingly, the following new dates in the Case Management Schedule shall be adopted:

* Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions*fn1 and Document Production 21

Accompanying Disclosure, November 3, 2011

* Disclosure of Infringement Contentions and Document Production Accompanying 23 Disclosure, December 16, 2011

* Exchange List of Claim Terms Each Party Contends Should be Construed by the Court, 2 December 30, 2011

* Deadline to Meet and Confer to Limit Terms in Dispute and Identify 10 Terms Likely to Be 4

Most Significant to Resolving Dispute, January 9, 2012

* Exchange Proposed Constructions for Each Term Identified by the Parties, Including 6

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence Supporting Each Construction, January 23, 2012

* Deadline to Meet and Confer for Purposes of Finalizing Preparation of Joint Claim 8 Construction and Prehearing Statement, February 6, 2012

* File Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Including Identification of 10 10 Claim Terms That Will Be Most Significant to Resolution of the Case, February 13, 2012

* Complete Claim Construction Discovery, March 16, 2012

* Deadline to Amend Pleadings, March 16, 2012 13

* Deadline for Opening Claim Construction Brief, March 30, 2012

* Deadline for Opposition to Claim Construction Brief, April 20, 2012

* Reply in Support of Claim Construction Brief, May 4, 2012

* Markman Hearing, May 30, 2012 at 10:00 AM 17 18

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.