SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 15
Descargar para leer sin conexión
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”) and

Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. hereby move jointly for the entry of a scheduling

order. 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, respective

counsel for the Plaintiffs and Teva conferred by telephone on February 17, 2011 and thereafter to

develop a schedule and discovery plan.

   2. On March 4, 2011, the parties filed their Joint Statement Pursuant to L.R. 16.1(D) and

16.6 and [Proposed] Discovery Plan (Doc. 39) (the “Joint Statement”).

   3. The Court held a scheduling conference on March 15, 2011. During that conference, the

Court modified some of the deadlines in the Joint Statement, but did not otherwise modify the

substance 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 in

conflict with the natural sequence of discovery.1

    5. To avoid potential future confusion and to maintain consistency, the parties have

modified their proposed schedule and discovery plan to reflect the Court’s changes and the

statements made during the scheduling conference.

    6. Where appropriate, the parties moved any scheduled dates falling on weekend days or

holidays to the next business day.

    7. A copy of this modified [Proposed] Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan is attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

    WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and adopt

the 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, before
the 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 4



Respectfully 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                               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 LLP
mmurawski@choate.com                            Exchange Place
CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP                      53 State Street
Two International Place                         Boston, MA 02109
Boston, MA 02110                                Tel.: (617) 570-1000
Tel.: (617) 248-5000                            Fax: (617) 523-1231
Fax: (617) 248-4000                             jrehnquist@goodwinprocter.com
                                                eblais@goodwinprocter.com
SANDOZ INC.                                     awichman@goodwinprocter.com
                                                rfrederickson@goodwinprocter.com
By their attorneys,
                                                            - and -


/s/ Sarah Chapin Columbia______________         David M. Hashmall (pro hac vice)
Sarah Chapin Columbia (BBO #550155)             GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
scolumbia@mwe.com                               The New York Times Building
Melissa Nott Davis (BBO #654546)                620 Eighth Avenue
mndavis@mwe.com                                 New York, NY 10018
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP                      Tel.: (212) 813-8800
28 State Street                                 Fax: (212) 355-3333
Boston, MA 02109                                dhashmall@goodwinprocter.com
Tel.: (617) 535-4000
Fax: (617) 535-3800

 - and -




                                          3
Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47               Filed 03/31/11 Page 4 of 4



Thomas P. Steindler (pro hac vice)
tsteindler@mwe.com
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
600 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3096
Tel.: (202) 756-8254
Fax: (202) 756-8087



Dated: March 31, 2011




                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I hereby certify that on the date indicated below I caused a copy of the foregoing
document to be filed with the Court’s ECF filing system, which will cause an electronic notice to
be 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 for

plaintiffs, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), and

counsel for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Defendant”), conferred by telephone on

February 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 settlement

proposal to the Defendant on March 1, 2011.

       2.      Fact Discovery and Claim Construction Plan: The parties present their joint

discovery and claim construction plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) and Local Rules

16.1(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 confer

on or before April 15, 2011 to discuss relevant search terms and appropriate methodologies for

the 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 preliminary

disclosures of the claims infringed. The Plaintiffs shall specify which claims are allegedly

infringed 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 the

doctrine of equivalents. If the Plaintiffs have not already done so, the Plaintiffs shall produce all

documents supporting their contentions and/or identify any such supporting documents produced

by the accused infringer. Such disclosures may be amended and supplemented up to 30 days

before the date of the Markman Hearing. After that time, such disclosures may be amended or

supplemented only to the extent permitted by this Order or by leave of court, for good cause

shown. 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 preliminary

invalidity and non-infringement contentions. The Defendant shall identify prior art that it

contends anticipates or renders obvious the identified patent claims in question and, for each

such prior art reference, shall specify whether it anticipates or is relevant to the obviousness

inquiry. If applicable, the Defendant shall also specify any other grounds for invalidity, such as

indefiniteness, best mode, enablement, or written description. If the Defendant has not already

done so, the Defendant shall produce documents relevant to the invalidity defenses and/or

identify 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 11



not already done so, the Defendant shall produce documents sufficient to show operation of the

accused product(s) or method(s) that the Plaintiffs identified in their preliminary infringement

disclosures. Such disclosures may be amended and supplemented up to 30 days before the date

of the Markman Hearing. After that time, such disclosures may be amended or supplemented

only to the extent permitted by this Order or by leave of court, for good cause shown, except

that, if the Plaintiffs amend or supplement their preliminary infringement disclosures, the

Defendant may likewise amend or supplement its disclosures within 30 days of service of the

amended or supplemented infringement disclosures. The accused infringer may use the charts

shown 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 an

effort to determine whether the parties can reach agreement concerning which patent claim terms

require construction.

               (f)      On or before October 10, 2011, the parties shall exchange a list of claim

terms to be construed and proposed constructions.

               (g)      October 28, 2011 is the deadline for moving to amend the pleadings or

add parties.

               (h)      On or before October 31, 2011, the parties shall simultaneously exchange

and 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 each

construction. Absent leave of court, the preliminary claim construction briefs shall be limited to

25 pages, double-spaced, of at least 12-point Times New Roman font or equivalent, including

footnotes.

               (i)      On or before November 10, 2011, the parties shall simultaneously

exchange and file reply claim construction briefs. Absent leave of court, the reply briefs shall be

limited 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 of

disputed terms for the court to construe. The parties shall prepare and file a joint claim

construction and prehearing statement (hereinafter, the “joint statement”) that identifies both

agreed 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 time

necessary 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 will

present tutorials on the relevant technology, the form of such tutorials, and the timing for such

tutorials in relation to the claim construction hearing. If the parties plan to provide tutorials in

the form of briefs, declarations, computer animations, slide presentations, or other media the

parties shall exchange such materials five days before the claim construction hearing. In the

alternative, the parties may present tutorials through presentations by the attorneys or experts at

the claim construction hearing.

                       (iii)    The joint statement shall include a proposed order in which the

parties 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 be

construed 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 parties

may 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 invalidity

contentions 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 claim

construction, and upon motion or stipulation of the parties, the Court may grant additional time

for discovery. Such additional discovery shall be limited to issues of infringement, invalidity, or

unenforceability 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 as

to which the party bears the burden of proof at trial. The parties shall exchange rebuttal expert

reports on June 12, 2012. The parties shall exchange any reply expert reports related to

secondary considerations of non-obviousness on July 2, 2012.

               (b)     Expert depositions shall be completed, and expert discovery shall close on

August 13, 2012.

               (c)     If expert discovery has been substantially conducted before a claim

construction ruling, then the Court may grant additional time for supplemental expert discovery.

Such additional discovery shall be limited to issues of infringement, invalidity, or

unenforceability 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 the

Court.

               (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, counterclaims

and defenses thereto. The parties do not believe phased discovery is necessary or appropriate in

this case.

               (b)     The parties agree that each side is limited to ten fact witness depositions

and 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 that

more depositions are needed by either side, the parties will confer in an attempt to agree on a

new limit. If no such agreement can be reached, the party seeking additional depositions will

seek 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 will

attempt to agree with one another to set a new limit. If no such agreement can be reached, the

party 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 document

requests.

               (e)     The parties agree that each side is limited to twenty five requests for

admissions. Should it become apparent that more requests for admissions are needed by either

side, 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 11



can be reached, the party seeking additional requests for admissions will seek leave from this

Court to expand the limitations.

       6.      Service of Process: The parties agree that service of process by e-mail before 6

p.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 respective

clients in accordance with L.R. 16.1(D)(3). A certification signed by Plaintiffs’ counsel and

authorized 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 magistrate

judge at this time.




                                                8
Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1       Filed 03/31/11 Page 9 of 11



Respectfully 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.com
Eric J. Marandett (BBO #561730)           Elaine Herrmann Blais (BBO #656142)
emarandett@choate.com                     eblais@goodwinprocter.com
Michael E. Murawski (BBO #669857)         Adam R. Wichman (BBO #678324)
mmurawski@choate.com                      awichman@goodwinprocter.com
CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP                Robert Frederickson III (BBO #670111)
Two International Place                   rfrederickson@goodwinprocter.com
Boston, MA 02110                          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Tel.: (617) 248-5000                      Exchange Place
Fax: (617) 248-4000                       53 State Street
                                          Boston, MA 02109
SANDOZ INC.                               Tel.: (617) 570-1000
                                          Fax: (617) 523-1231
By their attorneys,
                                                                - and –
/s/ Sarah Chapin Columbia_____
Sarah Chapin Columbia (BBO #550155)       David M. Hashmall (pro hac vice)
scolumbia@mwe.com                         dhashmall@goodwinprocter.com
Melissa Nott Davis (BBO #654546)          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
mndavis@mwe.com                           The New York Times Building
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP                620 Eighth Avenue
28 State Street                           New York, NY 10018
Boston, MA 02109                          Tel.: (212) 813-8800
Tel.: (617) 535-4000                      Fax: (212) 355-3333
Fax: (617) 535-3800
                      - and -
Thomas P. Steindler (pro hac vice)
tsteindler@mwe.com
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
600 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3096
Tel.: (202) 756-8254
Fax: (202) 756-8087

Dated: March 31, 2011



                                      9
Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1    Filed 03/31/11 Page 10 of 11




SO 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 foregoing
document to be filed with the Court’s ECF filing system, which will cause an electronic notice to
be sent to counsel of record.

Dated: March 31, 2011                                   /s/ Michael E. Murawski




 4810866v3

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Motion for extension of time to file expert witness disclosures
Motion for extension of time to file expert witness disclosuresMotion for extension of time to file expert witness disclosures
Motion for extension of time to file expert witness disclosuresCocoselul Inaripat
 
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERSchedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERmzamoralaw
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
 

La actualidad más candente (6)

Motion for extension of time to file expert witness disclosures
Motion for extension of time to file expert witness disclosuresMotion for extension of time to file expert witness disclosures
Motion for extension of time to file expert witness disclosures
 
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERSchedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
 
Expert witness disclosure
Expert witness disclosureExpert witness disclosure
Expert witness disclosure
 
Pdf 11
Pdf 11Pdf 11
Pdf 11
 
Doc 39
Doc 39Doc 39
Doc 39
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
 

Similar a Lovenox trial scheduling

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Rob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie Mattox
Rob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie MattoxRob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie Mattox
Rob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie Mattoxtallahasseeobserver
 
Darvocet ordergenerics
Darvocet ordergenericsDarvocet ordergenerics
Darvocet ordergenericsmzamoralaw
 
Document 112 (Main)
Document 112 (Main)Document 112 (Main)
Document 112 (Main)Byliner1
 
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreementDoc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreementmalp2009
 
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreementDoc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreementmalp2009
 
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga CapsNestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga Capsmzamoralaw
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
 
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To DismissVogelDenise
 
041017 EEOC RESPONSE TO FIRST HERITAGE CREDIT LLC's STATEMENT OF POSITION
041017 EEOC RESPONSE TO FIRST HERITAGE CREDIT LLC's STATEMENT OF POSITION041017 EEOC RESPONSE TO FIRST HERITAGE CREDIT LLC's STATEMENT OF POSITION
041017 EEOC RESPONSE TO FIRST HERITAGE CREDIT LLC's STATEMENT OF POSITIONVogelDenise
 

Similar a Lovenox trial scheduling (20)

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
 
Doc.39
Doc.39Doc.39
Doc.39
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
 
Doc.39
Doc.39Doc.39
Doc.39
 
Doc 39
Doc 39Doc 39
Doc 39
 
Rob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie Mattox
Rob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie MattoxRob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie Mattox
Rob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie Mattox
 
Darvocet ordergenerics
Darvocet ordergenericsDarvocet ordergenerics
Darvocet ordergenerics
 
Document 112 (Main)
Document 112 (Main)Document 112 (Main)
Document 112 (Main)
 
Necc removal
Necc removalNecc removal
Necc removal
 
Johnson johnson-courts-decision
Johnson johnson-courts-decisionJohnson johnson-courts-decision
Johnson johnson-courts-decision
 
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreementDoc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
 
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreementDoc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
Doc1051 john maxwell settlement agreement
 
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga CapsNestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
 
Doc.63
Doc.63Doc.63
Doc.63
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...
 
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
 
Johnson johnson-u.s.-complaint
Johnson johnson-u.s.-complaintJohnson johnson-u.s.-complaint
Johnson johnson-u.s.-complaint
 
041017 EEOC RESPONSE TO FIRST HERITAGE CREDIT LLC's STATEMENT OF POSITION
041017 EEOC RESPONSE TO FIRST HERITAGE CREDIT LLC's STATEMENT OF POSITION041017 EEOC RESPONSE TO FIRST HERITAGE CREDIT LLC's STATEMENT OF POSITION
041017 EEOC RESPONSE TO FIRST HERITAGE CREDIT LLC's STATEMENT OF POSITION
 

Más de James Hilbert

Protalix analyst day presentation
Protalix analyst day presentationProtalix analyst day presentation
Protalix analyst day presentationJames Hilbert
 
Aldoxorubicin p2-sts-01 ctos poster 10-31-13
Aldoxorubicin p2-sts-01 ctos poster 10-31-13Aldoxorubicin p2-sts-01 ctos poster 10-31-13
Aldoxorubicin p2-sts-01 ctos poster 10-31-13James Hilbert
 
Asco 2012 abstract_45010_oral_final
Asco 2012 abstract_45010_oral_finalAsco 2012 abstract_45010_oral_final
Asco 2012 abstract_45010_oral_finalJames Hilbert
 
Company presentation
Company presentationCompany presentation
Company presentationJames Hilbert
 
5 understanding some basic trial designs in sarcomas (inclusive a placebo one...
5 understanding some basic trial designs in sarcomas (inclusive a placebo one...5 understanding some basic trial designs in sarcomas (inclusive a placebo one...
5 understanding some basic trial designs in sarcomas (inclusive a placebo one...James Hilbert
 
Transforming time for prostate cancer therapies
Transforming time for prostate cancer therapiesTransforming time for prostate cancer therapies
Transforming time for prostate cancer therapiesJames Hilbert
 
1 s2.0-s1470204510701327-main
1 s2.0-s1470204510701327-main1 s2.0-s1470204510701327-main
1 s2.0-s1470204510701327-mainJames Hilbert
 
Phase 2b emerge study of cdx 011
Phase 2b emerge study of cdx 011Phase 2b emerge study of cdx 011
Phase 2b emerge study of cdx 011James Hilbert
 
Bmn 110 ph12 results
Bmn 110 ph12 resultsBmn 110 ph12 results
Bmn 110 ph12 resultsJames Hilbert
 
The combos study an expert interview with william s
The combos study  an expert interview with william sThe combos study  an expert interview with william s
The combos study an expert interview with william sJames Hilbert
 
$MAPP Phase 3 results
$MAPP Phase 3 results$MAPP Phase 3 results
$MAPP Phase 3 resultsJames Hilbert
 
Novel therapies in hcc
Novel therapies in hccNovel therapies in hcc
Novel therapies in hccJames Hilbert
 
Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel/Cisplatin in NSCLC
Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel/Cisplatin in NSCLCDocetaxel Versus Docetaxel/Cisplatin in NSCLC
Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel/Cisplatin in NSCLCJames Hilbert
 
Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer i...
Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer i...Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer i...
Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer i...James Hilbert
 
$SNGX Nnational.2.1.2010
$SNGX Nnational.2.1.2010$SNGX Nnational.2.1.2010
$SNGX Nnational.2.1.2010James Hilbert
 
Cbli 2011 05 25 barda
Cbli 2011 05 25 bardaCbli 2011 05 25 barda
Cbli 2011 05 25 bardaJames Hilbert
 

Más de James Hilbert (20)

Protalix analyst day presentation
Protalix analyst day presentationProtalix analyst day presentation
Protalix analyst day presentation
 
Aldoxorubicin p2-sts-01 ctos poster 10-31-13
Aldoxorubicin p2-sts-01 ctos poster 10-31-13Aldoxorubicin p2-sts-01 ctos poster 10-31-13
Aldoxorubicin p2-sts-01 ctos poster 10-31-13
 
Ttrsc
TtrscTtrsc
Ttrsc
 
Alny
AlnyAlny
Alny
 
Asco 2012 abstract_45010_oral_final
Asco 2012 abstract_45010_oral_finalAsco 2012 abstract_45010_oral_final
Asco 2012 abstract_45010_oral_final
 
Company presentation
Company presentationCompany presentation
Company presentation
 
5 understanding some basic trial designs in sarcomas (inclusive a placebo one...
5 understanding some basic trial designs in sarcomas (inclusive a placebo one...5 understanding some basic trial designs in sarcomas (inclusive a placebo one...
5 understanding some basic trial designs in sarcomas (inclusive a placebo one...
 
Transforming time for prostate cancer therapies
Transforming time for prostate cancer therapiesTransforming time for prostate cancer therapies
Transforming time for prostate cancer therapies
 
1 s2.0-s1470204510701327-main
1 s2.0-s1470204510701327-main1 s2.0-s1470204510701327-main
1 s2.0-s1470204510701327-main
 
Phase 2b emerge study of cdx 011
Phase 2b emerge study of cdx 011Phase 2b emerge study of cdx 011
Phase 2b emerge study of cdx 011
 
Bmn 110 ph12 results
Bmn 110 ph12 resultsBmn 110 ph12 results
Bmn 110 ph12 results
 
The combos study an expert interview with william s
The combos study  an expert interview with william sThe combos study  an expert interview with william s
The combos study an expert interview with william s
 
$MAPP Phase 3 results
$MAPP Phase 3 results$MAPP Phase 3 results
$MAPP Phase 3 results
 
Novel therapies in hcc
Novel therapies in hccNovel therapies in hcc
Novel therapies in hcc
 
12702889
1270288912702889
12702889
 
Nsclc 2nd line
Nsclc 2nd lineNsclc 2nd line
Nsclc 2nd line
 
Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel/Cisplatin in NSCLC
Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel/Cisplatin in NSCLCDocetaxel Versus Docetaxel/Cisplatin in NSCLC
Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel/Cisplatin in NSCLC
 
Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer i...
Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer i...Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer i...
Second or third additional chemotherapy drug for non-small cell lung cancer i...
 
$SNGX Nnational.2.1.2010
$SNGX Nnational.2.1.2010$SNGX Nnational.2.1.2010
$SNGX Nnational.2.1.2010
 
Cbli 2011 05 25 barda
Cbli 2011 05 25 bardaCbli 2011 05 25 barda
Cbli 2011 05 25 barda
 

Lovenox trial scheduling

  • 1. 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”) and Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. hereby move jointly for the entry of a scheduling order. 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, respective counsel for the Plaintiffs and Teva conferred by telephone on February 17, 2011 and thereafter to develop a schedule and discovery plan. 2. On March 4, 2011, the parties filed their Joint Statement Pursuant to L.R. 16.1(D) and 16.6 and [Proposed] Discovery Plan (Doc. 39) (the “Joint Statement”). 3. The Court held a scheduling conference on March 15, 2011. During that conference, the Court modified some of the deadlines in the Joint Statement, but did not otherwise modify the substance of the document.
  • 2. 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 in conflict with the natural sequence of discovery.1 5. To avoid potential future confusion and to maintain consistency, the parties have modified their proposed schedule and discovery plan to reflect the Court’s changes and the statements made during the scheduling conference. 6. Where appropriate, the parties moved any scheduled dates falling on weekend days or holidays to the next business day. 7. A copy of this modified [Proposed] Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and adopt the 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, before the deadlines for rebuttal expert reports (6/12/12), reply expert reports (6/30/12) and expert depositions (8/12/12). 2
  • 3. Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47 Filed 03/31/11 Page 3 of 4 Respectfully 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 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 LLP mmurawski@choate.com Exchange Place CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP 53 State Street Two International Place Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02110 Tel.: (617) 570-1000 Tel.: (617) 248-5000 Fax: (617) 523-1231 Fax: (617) 248-4000 jrehnquist@goodwinprocter.com eblais@goodwinprocter.com SANDOZ INC. awichman@goodwinprocter.com rfrederickson@goodwinprocter.com By their attorneys, - and - /s/ Sarah Chapin Columbia______________ David M. Hashmall (pro hac vice) Sarah Chapin Columbia (BBO #550155) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP scolumbia@mwe.com The New York Times Building Melissa Nott Davis (BBO #654546) 620 Eighth Avenue mndavis@mwe.com New York, NY 10018 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP Tel.: (212) 813-8800 28 State Street Fax: (212) 355-3333 Boston, MA 02109 dhashmall@goodwinprocter.com Tel.: (617) 535-4000 Fax: (617) 535-3800 - and - 3
  • 4. Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47 Filed 03/31/11 Page 4 of 4 Thomas P. Steindler (pro hac vice) tsteindler@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 600 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3096 Tel.: (202) 756-8254 Fax: (202) 756-8087 Dated: March 31, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date indicated below I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be filed with the Court’s ECF filing system, which will cause an electronic notice to be sent to counsel of record. Dated: March 31, 2011 /s/ Michael E. Murawski__________ 4 4834217v1
  • 5. 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 for plaintiffs, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), and counsel for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Defendant”), conferred by telephone on February 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 settlement proposal to the Defendant on March 1, 2011. 2. Fact Discovery and Claim Construction Plan: The parties present their joint discovery and claim construction plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) and Local Rules 16.1(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 confer on or before April 15, 2011 to discuss relevant search terms and appropriate methodologies for the efficient collection and production of electronic documents.
  • 6. 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 preliminary disclosures of the claims infringed. The Plaintiffs shall specify which claims are allegedly infringed 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 the doctrine of equivalents. If the Plaintiffs have not already done so, the Plaintiffs shall produce all documents supporting their contentions and/or identify any such supporting documents produced by the accused infringer. Such disclosures may be amended and supplemented up to 30 days before the date of the Markman Hearing. After that time, such disclosures may be amended or supplemented only to the extent permitted by this Order or by leave of court, for good cause shown. 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 preliminary invalidity and non-infringement contentions. The Defendant shall identify prior art that it contends anticipates or renders obvious the identified patent claims in question and, for each such prior art reference, shall specify whether it anticipates or is relevant to the obviousness inquiry. If applicable, the Defendant shall also specify any other grounds for invalidity, such as indefiniteness, best mode, enablement, or written description. If the Defendant has not already done so, the Defendant shall produce documents relevant to the invalidity defenses and/or identify any such supporting documents produced by the Plaintiffs. Further, if the Defendant has 2
  • 7. Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 3 of 11 not already done so, the Defendant shall produce documents sufficient to show operation of the accused product(s) or method(s) that the Plaintiffs identified in their preliminary infringement disclosures. Such disclosures may be amended and supplemented up to 30 days before the date of the Markman Hearing. After that time, such disclosures may be amended or supplemented only to the extent permitted by this Order or by leave of court, for good cause shown, except that, if the Plaintiffs amend or supplement their preliminary infringement disclosures, the Defendant may likewise amend or supplement its disclosures within 30 days of service of the amended or supplemented infringement disclosures. The accused infringer may use the charts shown below. PRIOR ART BASIS OF CLAIM OR OTHER INVALIDITY LIMITATION EVIDENCE CONTENTION CLAIM ACCUSED BASIS OF NON- LIMITATION COMPONENT INFRINGEMENT CONTENTION 3
  • 8. 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 an effort to determine whether the parties can reach agreement concerning which patent claim terms require construction. (f) On or before October 10, 2011, the parties shall exchange a list of claim terms to be construed and proposed constructions. (g) October 28, 2011 is the deadline for moving to amend the pleadings or add parties. (h) On or before October 31, 2011, the parties shall simultaneously exchange and 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 each construction. Absent leave of court, the preliminary claim construction briefs shall be limited to 25 pages, double-spaced, of at least 12-point Times New Roman font or equivalent, including footnotes. (i) On or before November 10, 2011, the parties shall simultaneously exchange and file reply claim construction briefs. Absent leave of court, the reply briefs shall be limited 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 of disputed terms for the court to construe. The parties shall prepare and file a joint claim construction and prehearing statement (hereinafter, the “joint statement”) that identifies both agreed and disputed terms. 4
  • 9. 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 time necessary 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 will present tutorials on the relevant technology, the form of such tutorials, and the timing for such tutorials in relation to the claim construction hearing. If the parties plan to provide tutorials in the form of briefs, declarations, computer animations, slide presentations, or other media the parties shall exchange such materials five days before the claim construction hearing. In the alternative, the parties may present tutorials through presentations by the attorneys or experts at the claim construction hearing. (iii) The joint statement shall include a proposed order in which the parties 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 be construed 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 parties may use the form shown below. ACCUSED PATENTEE’S COURT’S TERM INFRINGER’S CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION 5
  • 10. 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 invalidity contentions 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 claim construction, and upon motion or stipulation of the parties, the Court may grant additional time for discovery. Such additional discovery shall be limited to issues of infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability 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 as to which the party bears the burden of proof at trial. The parties shall exchange rebuttal expert reports on June 12, 2012. The parties shall exchange any reply expert reports related to secondary considerations of non-obviousness on July 2, 2012. (b) Expert depositions shall be completed, and expert discovery shall close on August 13, 2012. (c) If expert discovery has been substantially conducted before a claim construction ruling, then the Court may grant additional time for supplemental expert discovery. Such additional discovery shall be limited to issues of infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability 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
  • 11. 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 the Court. (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, counterclaims and defenses thereto. The parties do not believe phased discovery is necessary or appropriate in this case. (b) The parties agree that each side is limited to ten fact witness depositions and 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 that more depositions are needed by either side, the parties will confer in an attempt to agree on a new limit. If no such agreement can be reached, the party seeking additional depositions will seek 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 will attempt to agree with one another to set a new limit. If no such agreement can be reached, the party 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 document requests. (e) The parties agree that each side is limited to twenty five requests for admissions. Should it become apparent that more requests for admissions are needed by either side, the parties will attempt to agree with one another to set a new limit. If no such agreement 7
  • 12. Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 8 of 11 can be reached, the party seeking additional requests for admissions will seek leave from this Court to expand the limitations. 6. Service of Process: The parties agree that service of process by e-mail before 6 p.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 respective clients in accordance with L.R. 16.1(D)(3). A certification signed by Plaintiffs’ counsel and authorized 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 magistrate judge at this time. 8
  • 13. Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 9 of 11 Respectfully 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.com Eric J. Marandett (BBO #561730) Elaine Herrmann Blais (BBO #656142) emarandett@choate.com eblais@goodwinprocter.com Michael E. Murawski (BBO #669857) Adam R. Wichman (BBO #678324) mmurawski@choate.com awichman@goodwinprocter.com CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP Robert Frederickson III (BBO #670111) Two International Place rfrederickson@goodwinprocter.com Boston, MA 02110 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Tel.: (617) 248-5000 Exchange Place Fax: (617) 248-4000 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 SANDOZ INC. Tel.: (617) 570-1000 Fax: (617) 523-1231 By their attorneys, - and – /s/ Sarah Chapin Columbia_____ Sarah Chapin Columbia (BBO #550155) David M. Hashmall (pro hac vice) scolumbia@mwe.com dhashmall@goodwinprocter.com Melissa Nott Davis (BBO #654546) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP mndavis@mwe.com The New York Times Building MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 620 Eighth Avenue 28 State Street New York, NY 10018 Boston, MA 02109 Tel.: (212) 813-8800 Tel.: (617) 535-4000 Fax: (212) 355-3333 Fax: (617) 535-3800 - and - Thomas P. Steindler (pro hac vice) tsteindler@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 600 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3096 Tel.: (202) 756-8254 Fax: (202) 756-8087 Dated: March 31, 2011 9
  • 14. Case 1:10-cv-12079-NMG Document 47-1 Filed 03/31/11 Page 10 of 11 SO ORDERED. Dated: ____________, 2011 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Court Judge 10
  • 15. 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 foregoing document to be filed with the Court’s ECF filing system, which will cause an electronic notice to be sent to counsel of record. Dated: March 31, 2011 /s/ Michael E. Murawski 4810866v3