Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Genentech, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 13, 2013

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, IMCLONE SYSTEMS LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
GENENTECH, INC., CITY OF HOPE, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO SEAL

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly") and ImClone Systems LLC ("ImClone") bring this patent action against Defendants Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and City of Hope. Plaintiffs make an anti-cancer drug sold under the brand name Erbitux. Plaintiffs have a licensing agreement with Genentech, under which Plaintiffs may practice two patents held by Defendants:

1. U.S. Patent No. 6, 331, 415, titled "Methods of Producing Immunoglobulins, Vectors and Transformed Host Cells for Use Therein" ("Cabilly II"); and
2. U.S. Patent No. 7, 923, 221, titled "Methods of Making Antibody Heavy and Light Chains Having Specificity for a Desired Antigen" ("Cabilly III").

Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth seven causes of action:

1. Cabilly II patent invalidity;
2. Cabilly III patent invalidity;
3. Cabilly II patent non-infringement;
4. Cabilly III patent non-infringement;
5. Unenforceability of Cabilly II and III under 35 U.S.C. § 135(c);[1]
6. Unenforceability of Cabilly II and III due to inequitable conduct; and
7. Declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that Lilly owes Defendants no royalties.
Three motions are now before this Court. First, Defendants move pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where Senior District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer has presided over substantial previous litigation of the Cabilly patents. Dkt. No. 20. Second, Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs' fifth and sixth claims. Dkt. No. 24. Third, Plaintiffs move to seal a document filed in connection with their opposition to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Dkt. No. 38.

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and having had the benefit of oral argument, for the reasons set forth below the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion to transfer this action to the Central District of California. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to later refiling in the Central District. Because the Court does not reach the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs' motion to seal is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs are excused from filing the document they provisionally submitted under seal.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. PARTIES AND POTENTIAL WITNESSES

Plaintiff Lilly is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indianapolis. Plaintiff ImClone is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Defendant Genentech is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in South San Francisco, California. Defendant City of Hope is a California not-for-profit organization with its principal place of business in Duarte, California, a city in the greater Los Angeles area. City of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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