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.

Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 30, 2018

AMARIN PHARMA, INC. and AMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, Plaintiffs,
v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant.

          NICHOLAS J. SANTORO, JASON D. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER N. SIPES, EINAR STOLE, MICHAEL N. KENNEDY, MEGAN P. KEANE COVINGTON & BURLING LLP COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS AMARIN PHARMA, INC. AND AMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED

          JOHN P. DESMOND, BRIAN R. IRVINE, DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC C. ROZENDAAL, MICHAEL E. JOFFRE, CHANDRIKA VIRA STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

          STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED

         I. LR 26-1 STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW

         In this case, Plaintiffs Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceutical Ireland Limited (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Amarin”) assert that Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) has infringed twelve of Amarin's patents based on Teva's filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that seeks approval to market a generic version of Amarin's Vascepa® 500 mg product. In light of the similarity in the factual and legal issues, the Court has consolidated this case with three others, see ECF No. 91, in which Amarin asserts that Teva and two other defendant groups each infringed fourteen Amarin patents by filing an ANDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Amarin's Vascepa® 1 g product, specifically Civ. A. Nos. 2:16-cv-02525, 2:16-cv-02562, 2:16-cv-02658 (the “1 g action”). The Court has already entered a schedule in the 1 g action. See ECF No. 60.

         In light of the consolidation of this case with the 1 g action and the similarities in legal and factual issues among the cases, the parties propose a case schedule that will ultimately keep all four cases on the same schedule. With the few exceptions identified below, the parties respectfully propose that the Court align the deadlines in this case with those already set in the 1 g action. The parties agree that the proposed discovery period is appropriate given the complexity of this patent infringement action. Moreover, the 30-month stay pertaining to this case does not expire until on or about February 29, 2020[1] and the proposed schedule provides sufficient time for the case to be resolved in advance of expiration of the stay. Consolidating the two case schedules will also streamline the matter and conserve both party and court resources.

         II. THE PARTIES' PROPOSED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

         The parties stipulate and agree that, with the exception of the dates specified below, the deadlines already imposed in the consolidated 1 g action, see ECF No. 60, as modified by ECF Nos. 88, 92, 103, 107, 110, should govern in this case.

Events

Proposed Date

Initial Disclosures & Scheduling Order

January 29, 2018

Asserted Claims and Supplemental Infringement Contentions

February 16, 2018

Supplemental Noninfringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability Contentions

March 16, 2018

Responses to Supplemental Noninfringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability Contentions

April 6, 2018

         III. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNDER LR 26-1(b) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)

         (1) Initial Disclosures: The parties agree to serve initial disclosure statements pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) on January 29, 2018.

         (2) Subjects of Discovery: The parties agree that all matters within the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 will be subjects of discovery (without prejudice to a party's right to object to discovery or seek a protective order). The parties propose conducting fact discovery followed by expert discovery.

         (3) E-Discovery: The parties agree that the Discovery Confidentiality Order entered in the 1 g action, ECF No. 69, will also apply to this case.

         (4) Privileged Material: The parties agree that the Discovery Confidentiality Order entered in the 1 g action, ECF No. 69, will also apply to this case.

         (5) Discovery Limitations: The parties agree that the discovery limitations in the 1 g action will also apply to this case, except that Teva may serve up to 5 ...


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.