Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250 RegisterActionDate "2011-09-26" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Various motions were filed before the case's reassignment to this Court, and remain under advisement as the parties pursue discovery. For one of those motions, Pfizer's motion to reconsider a jurisdictional ruling, it appears that Apotex sought leave to file a sur-reply R. 187 , but it is not clear whether the previously assigned judge granted leave. This Court does so, and R. 187 is granted. In addition, over a year ago, Apotex filed two motions for summary judgment: (a) as to non-infringement of Pfizer's '104 and '971 patents R. 176 , and (b) as to non-infringement of Pfizer's '156 patent R. 182 . In response, after an in-court hearing with the previously assigned judge, Pfizer moved R. 216 to deny the summary judgments motions without prejudice, or alternatively for a stay, because discovery had not yet begun in earnest (much less been completed), and because Pfizer had (and still has) a pending motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the '104, '971, and '156 counter-claims. Pfizer's motion was itself fully briefed, while briefing was stayed as to Apotex's summary judgment motions. After review of the motions, the Court denies Apotex's summary judgment motions [R. 176, 182] without prejudice, and correspondingly grants Pfizer's motion [R. 216]. It is true that a summary judgment motion before the close of discovery may properly accelerate the disposition, or narrowing, of a case. But Pfizer convincingly argues that it does need discovery, and almost surely claim construction (on multiple claims) depending on the outcome of discovery, before responding to the non-infringement dispositive motions. Nor does it appear that the ANDA and the Drug Master File will alone be sufficient to determine non-infringement -- at least without giving Pfizer an opportunity to take discovery on how their contents were generated. It might be that Apotex will be able to re-file its summary judgment motions when fact discovery is complete but before expert discovery has begun or is completed, although it would be sensible for Apotex to raise that issue at subsequent in-court status hearings rather than expend time and resources on preparing the motion (or motions) without at least a preview to the Court. The status hearing of 11/09/11 at 8:30 a.m. remains in place. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 09/26/2011)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250 AdministrativeID "253" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de173 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de179 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de184 @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de250 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-07231_de213 @default.