Lovenox trial scheduling
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Lovenox trial scheduling

on

  • 911 views

Momenta MNTA Lovenox scheduling documents

Momenta MNTA Lovenox scheduling documents

Statistics

Views

Total Views
911
Views on SlideShare
911
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Lovenox trial scheduling Lovenox trial scheduling Document Transcript

  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS____________________________________________ )MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. )and SANDOZ INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No. 10-cv-12079-NMG v. ) )TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. )____________________________________________) JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiffs Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) andDefendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. hereby move jointly for the entry of a schedulingorder. In support of this Motion, the parties state and allege as follows: 1. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Rules 16.1 and 16.6, respectivecounsel for the Plaintiffs and Teva conferred by telephone on February 17, 2011 and thereafter todevelop a schedule and discovery plan. 2. On March 4, 2011, the parties filed their Joint Statement Pursuant to L.R. 16.1(D) and16.6 and [Proposed] Discovery Plan (Doc. 39) (the “Joint Statement”). 3. The Court held a scheduling conference on March 15, 2011. During that conference, theCourt modified some of the deadlines in the Joint Statement, but did not otherwise modify thesubstance of the document.
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47 Filed 03/31/11 Page 2 of 4 4. Thereafter, the Court electronically filed the clerk’s notes reflecting the modified dates.However, some of the dates fell on weekend days and holidays, and another date seemed inconflict with the natural sequence of discovery.1 5. To avoid potential future confusion and to maintain consistency, the parties havemodified their proposed schedule and discovery plan to reflect the Court’s changes and thestatements made during the scheduling conference. 6. Where appropriate, the parties moved any scheduled dates falling on weekend days orholidays to the next business day. 7. A copy of this modified [Proposed] Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan is attachedhereto as Exhibit A. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and adoptthe attached [Proposed] Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan.1 According to the clerk’s notes filed on March 15, 2011, expert discovery was to be completed on 4/30/12, beforethe deadlines for rebuttal expert reports (6/12/12), reply expert reports (6/30/12) and expert depositions (8/12/12). 2
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47 Filed 03/31/11 Page 3 of 4Respectfully submitted,MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.By their attorneys, By their attorneys,/s/ Michael E. Murawski /s/ Elaine Herrmann BlaisRobert S. Frank, Jr. (BBO #177240) James C. Rehnquist (BBO #552602)rfrank@choate.com Elaine Herrmann Blais (BBO #656142)Eric J. Marandett (BBO #561730) Adam R. Wichman (BBO #678324)emarandett@choate.com Robert Frederickson III (BBO #670111)Michael E. Murawski (BBO #669857) GOODWIN PROCTER LLPmmurawski@choate.com Exchange PlaceCHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP 53 State StreetTwo International Place Boston, MA 02109Boston, MA 02110 Tel.: (617) 570-1000Tel.: (617) 248-5000 Fax: (617) 523-1231Fax: (617) 248-4000 jrehnquist@goodwinprocter.com eblais@goodwinprocter.comSANDOZ INC. awichman@goodwinprocter.com rfrederickson@goodwinprocter.comBy their attorneys, - and -/s/ Sarah Chapin Columbia______________ David M. Hashmall (pro hac vice)Sarah Chapin Columbia (BBO #550155) GOODWIN PROCTER LLPscolumbia@mwe.com The New York Times BuildingMelissa Nott Davis (BBO #654546) 620 Eighth Avenuemndavis@mwe.com New York, NY 10018MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP Tel.: (212) 813-880028 State Street Fax: (212) 355-3333Boston, MA 02109 dhashmall@goodwinprocter.comTel.: (617) 535-4000Fax: (617) 535-3800 - and - 3
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47 Filed 03/31/11 Page 4 of 4Thomas P. Steindler (pro hac vice)tsteindler@mwe.comMCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP600 13th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005-3096Tel.: (202) 756-8254Fax: (202) 756-8087Dated: March 31, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date indicated below I caused a copy of the foregoingdocument to be filed with the Court’s ECF filing system, which will cause an electronic notice tobe sent to counsel of record.Dated: March 31, 2011 /s/ Michael E. Murawski__________ 4 4834217v1
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS____________________________________________ )MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. )and SANDOZ INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No. 10-cv-12079-NMG v. ) )TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. )____________________________________________) [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Rules 16.1 and 16.6, counsel forplaintiffs, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), andcounsel for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Defendant”), conferred by telephone onFebruary 17, 2011 and thereafter to develop the discovery plan set forth below. 1. Settlement: Pursuant to L.R. 16.1(C), the Plaintiffs presented a written settlementproposal to the Defendant on March 1, 2011. 2. Fact Discovery and Claim Construction Plan: The parties present their jointdiscovery and claim construction plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) and Local Rules16.1(D)(1) and 16.6 below. (a) The Parties have made initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). (b) The parties have discussed electronic discovery and have agreed to conferon or before April 15, 2011 to discuss relevant search terms and appropriate methodologies forthe efficient collection and production of electronic documents.
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 2 of 11 (c) On or before April 15, 2011, the Plaintiffs shall serve preliminarydisclosures of the claims infringed. The Plaintiffs shall specify which claims are allegedlyinfringed and identify the accused product(s) or method(s) that allegedly infringe those claims.The Plaintiffs shall also specify whether the alleged infringement is literal or falls under thedoctrine of equivalents. If the Plaintiffs have not already done so, the Plaintiffs shall produce alldocuments supporting their contentions and/or identify any such supporting documents producedby the accused infringer. Such disclosures may be amended and supplemented up to 30 daysbefore the date of the Markman Hearing. After that time, such disclosures may be amended orsupplemented only to the extent permitted by this Order or by leave of court, for good causeshown. The patentee may use a table such as that represented below. BASIS OF CLAIM ACCUSED INFRINGEMENT LIMITATION COMPONENT CONTENTION (d) On or before June 15, 2011, the Defendant shall serve preliminaryinvalidity and non-infringement contentions. The Defendant shall identify prior art that itcontends anticipates or renders obvious the identified patent claims in question and, for eachsuch prior art reference, shall specify whether it anticipates or is relevant to the obviousnessinquiry. If applicable, the Defendant shall also specify any other grounds for invalidity, such asindefiniteness, best mode, enablement, or written description. If the Defendant has not alreadydone so, the Defendant shall produce documents relevant to the invalidity defenses and/oridentify any such supporting documents produced by the Plaintiffs. Further, if the Defendant has 2
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 3 of 11not already done so, the Defendant shall produce documents sufficient to show operation of theaccused product(s) or method(s) that the Plaintiffs identified in their preliminary infringementdisclosures. Such disclosures may be amended and supplemented up to 30 days before the dateof the Markman Hearing. After that time, such disclosures may be amended or supplementedonly to the extent permitted by this Order or by leave of court, for good cause shown, exceptthat, if the Plaintiffs amend or supplement their preliminary infringement disclosures, theDefendant may likewise amend or supplement its disclosures within 30 days of service of theamended or supplemented infringement disclosures. The accused infringer may use the chartsshown below. PRIOR ART BASIS OF CLAIM OR OTHER INVALIDITY LIMITATION EVIDENCE CONTENTION CLAIM ACCUSED BASIS OF NON- LIMITATION COMPONENT INFRINGEMENT CONTENTION 3
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 4 of 11 (e) On or before September 26, 2011, the parties shall meet and confer in aneffort to determine whether the parties can reach agreement concerning which patent claim termsrequire construction. (f) On or before October 10, 2011, the parties shall exchange a list of claimterms to be construed and proposed constructions. (g) October 28, 2011 is the deadline for moving to amend the pleadings oradd parties. (h) On or before October 31, 2011, the parties shall simultaneously exchangeand file preliminary claim construction briefs. Each brief shall contain a list of terms construed,the party’s proposed construction of each term, and evidence and argument supporting eachconstruction. Absent leave of court, the preliminary claim construction briefs shall be limited to25 pages, double-spaced, of at least 12-point Times New Roman font or equivalent, includingfootnotes. (i) On or before November 10, 2011, the parties shall simultaneouslyexchange and file reply claim construction briefs. Absent leave of court, the reply briefs shall belimited to 15 pages, double-spaced, of at least 12-point Times New Roman font or equivalent,including footnotes. (j) On or before November 23, 2011, the parties shall finalize the list ofdisputed terms for the court to construe. The parties shall prepare and file a joint claimconstruction and prehearing statement (hereinafter, the “joint statement”) that identifies bothagreed and disputed terms. 4
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 5 of 11 (i) The joint statement shall note the anticipated length of timenecessary for the claim construction hearing and whether any party proposes to call witnesses,including a statement that such extrinsic evidence does not conflict with intrinsic evidence. (ii) The joint statement shall also indicate whether the parties willpresent tutorials on the relevant technology, the form of such tutorials, and the timing for suchtutorials in relation to the claim construction hearing. If the parties plan to provide tutorials inthe form of briefs, declarations, computer animations, slide presentations, or other media theparties shall exchange such materials five days before the claim construction hearing. In thealternative, the parties may present tutorials through presentations by the attorneys or experts atthe claim construction hearing. (iii) The joint statement shall include a proposed order in which theparties will present their arguments at the claim construction hearing, which may be term-by-term or party-by-party. (iv) The joint statement shall limit the number of claim terms to beconstrued and shall prioritize the disputed terms in order of importance. (v) The joint statement shall include a joint claim construction chart,noting each party’s proposed construction of each term, and supporting evidence. The partiesmay use the form shown below. ACCUSED PATENTEE’S COURT’S TERM INFRINGER’S CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION 5
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 6 of 11 (k) The Markman Hearing shall be held on December 13, 2011. (l) If necessary, the parties may amend their preliminary infringement/non-infringement and invalidity disclosures, noting whether any infringement or invaliditycontentions are withdrawn, within 30 days after the Court’s ruling on claim construction. (m) If the fact discovery period has expired before a ruling on claimconstruction, and upon motion or stipulation of the parties, the Court may grant additional timefor discovery. Such additional discovery shall be limited to issues of infringement, invalidity, orunenforceability depending on the claim construction. (n) Fact discovery will close on April 2, 2012. 3. Expert Discovery: (a) On April 30, 2012, the parties shall exchange expert reports on issues asto which the party bears the burden of proof at trial. The parties shall exchange rebuttal expertreports on June 12, 2012. The parties shall exchange any reply expert reports related tosecondary considerations of non-obviousness on July 2, 2012. (b) Expert depositions shall be completed, and expert discovery shall close onAugust 13, 2012. (c) If expert discovery has been substantially conducted before a claimconstruction ruling, then the Court may grant additional time for supplemental expert discovery.Such additional discovery shall be limited to issues of infringement, invalidity, orunenforceability dependent on the claim construction. 4. Summary Judgment and Trial: (a) All dispositive motions shall be filed by September 17, 2012. (b) Oppositions to dispositive motions shall be filed by October 15, 2012. 6
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 7 of 11 (c) Reply briefs to dispositive motions shall be filed only with leave of theCourt. (d) A Pretrial Conference shall be held on January 10, 2013. (e) The trial in this case shall begin on February 4, 2013. 5. Limits on Discovery: (a) The parties agree that discovery will focus on all claims, counterclaimsand defenses thereto. The parties do not believe phased discovery is necessary or appropriate inthis case. (b) The parties agree that each side is limited to ten fact witness depositionsand further agree that each deposition, including any corporate deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P.30(b)(6), will be limited to a maximum duration of seven hours. Should it become apparent thatmore depositions are needed by either side, the parties will confer in an attempt to agree on anew limit. If no such agreement can be reached, the party seeking additional depositions willseek leave from the Court to expand the limitations. (c) The parties agree that each side is limited to twenty five interrogatories.Should it become apparent that more interrogatories are needed by either side, the parties willattempt to agree with one another to set a new limit. If no such agreement can be reached, theparty seeking additional interrogatories will seek leave from this Court to expand the limitations. (d) The parties agree that there shall be no limit on the number of documentrequests. (e) The parties agree that each side is limited to twenty five requests foradmissions. Should it become apparent that more requests for admissions are needed by eitherside, the parties will attempt to agree with one another to set a new limit. If no such agreement 7
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 8 of 11can be reached, the party seeking additional requests for admissions will seek leave from thisCourt to expand the limitations. 6. Service of Process: The parties agree that service of process by e-mail before 6p.m. Eastern time will be considered the equivalent of service by hand in accordance with Fed.R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2). 7. Certifications: The undersigned counsel have conferred with their respectiveclients in accordance with L.R. 16.1(D)(3). A certification signed by Plaintiffs’ counsel andauthorized representatives is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A certification signed by Defendants’counsel and authorized representative will be filed in advance of the Scheduling Conference. 8. Trial by Magistrate Judge: The parties do not consent to a trial by magistratejudge at this time. 8
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 9 of 11Respectfully submitted,MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.By their attorneys, By their attorneys,/s/ Michael E. Murawski____________ /s/ Elaine Herrmann Blais_____Robert S. Frank, Jr. (BBO #177240) James C. Rehnquist (BBO #552602)rfrank@choate.com jrehnquist@goodwinprocter.comEric J. Marandett (BBO #561730) Elaine Herrmann Blais (BBO #656142)emarandett@choate.com eblais@goodwinprocter.comMichael E. Murawski (BBO #669857) Adam R. Wichman (BBO #678324)mmurawski@choate.com awichman@goodwinprocter.comCHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP Robert Frederickson III (BBO #670111)Two International Place rfrederickson@goodwinprocter.comBoston, MA 02110 GOODWIN PROCTER LLPTel.: (617) 248-5000 Exchange PlaceFax: (617) 248-4000 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109SANDOZ INC. Tel.: (617) 570-1000 Fax: (617) 523-1231By their attorneys, - and –/s/ Sarah Chapin Columbia_____Sarah Chapin Columbia (BBO #550155) David M. Hashmall (pro hac vice)scolumbia@mwe.com dhashmall@goodwinprocter.comMelissa Nott Davis (BBO #654546) GOODWIN PROCTER LLPmndavis@mwe.com The New York Times BuildingMCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 620 Eighth Avenue28 State Street New York, NY 10018Boston, MA 02109 Tel.: (212) 813-8800Tel.: (617) 535-4000 Fax: (212) 355-3333Fax: (617) 535-3800 - and -Thomas P. Steindler (pro hac vice)tsteindler@mwe.comMCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP600 13th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005-3096Tel.: (202) 756-8254Fax: (202) 756-8087Dated: March 31, 2011 9
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 10 of 11SO ORDERED.Dated: ____________, 2011 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Court Judge 10
  • Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 11 of 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date indicated below I caused a copy of the foregoingdocument to be filed with the Court’s ECF filing system, which will cause an electronic notice tobe sent to counsel of record.Dated: March 31, 2011 /s/ Michael E. Murawski 4810866v3