United States District Court, D. Nevada
AMARIN PHARMA, INC. and AMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, Plaintiffs,
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
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
LR 26-1 STATEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL SCHEDULING
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.
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 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
THE PARTIES' PROPOSED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
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.
Initial Disclosures & Scheduling Order
January 29, 2018
Asserted Claims and Supplemental Infringement
February 16, 2018
Supplemental Noninfringement, Invalidity, and
March 16, 2018
Responses to Supplemental Noninfringement,
Invalidity, and Unenforceability Contentions
April 6, 2018
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNDER LR 26-1(b) AND FED. R. CIV. P.
Initial Disclosures: The parties agree to serve
initial disclosure statements pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(a)(1) on January 29, 2018.
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
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.
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.
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 ...