UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Similar documents
Case 5:11-cv LHK Document 3322 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 7

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Case 4:11-cv SBA Document 93 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 5

Case4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11

Case3:12-cv VC Document70 Filed06/23/15 Page1 of 3

CASE NO. 16-CV RS

Case 4:09-cv CW Document 579 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 5

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Funambol, Inc. Doc. 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case5:11-cv LHK Document Filed12/02/13 Page1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case3:12-cv VC Document77 Filed06/25/15 Page1 of 5

Case 5:14-cv BLF Document 798 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 7

Case3:12-cv VC Document46 Filed01/12/15 Page1 of 5

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 3:13-cv WHO Document 90 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 97 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 2:12-cv SVW-PLA Document 21 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:204

Attorneys for Defendants TerraForm Global, Inc. and Peter Blackmore UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

Case 4:08-cv SBA Document 180 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 5:08-cv JW Document 49 Filed 02/05/2009 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case3:10-cv WHA Document1210 Filed06/20/12 Page1 of 6

Case5:11-cv LHK Document1777 Filed08/15/12 Page1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:10-cv EGS Document 44 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 5:14-cv BLF Document 795 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:14-cv BLF Document 163 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case3:14-cv RS Document66 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 9

Case3:15-cv VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 5:16-cv EJD Document 22 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 3:06-cv VRW Document 16 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case5:08-cv PSG Document519 Filed08/22/13 Page1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No TODD S. GLASSEY AND MICHAEL E. MCNEIL,

Case 3:13-cv SV Document13 FUec101/22/14 Pagel of 7

Case 3:15-cv BJD-JRK Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 2283

Case4:11-cv YGR Document22 Filed02/16/12 Page1 of 5

Case5:11-cv LHK Document902 Filed05/07/12 Page1 of 7

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 3:12-cv DPJ-FKB Document 189 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:18-cv JFK Document 62 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6

Case4:09-cv CW Document42 FUedi 0/07/09 Pagel of 9

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 43 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 20 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:217

Case 3:13-cv SC Document 39 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 5

Case3:09-cv RS Document78 Filed05/03/11 Page1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION. Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case3:12-cv SI Document33 Filed10/21/14 Page1 of 10

PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION. Case 2:13-cv KJM-DAD Document 80 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 181 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case5:08-cv PSG Document498 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6

Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against

Case3:14-mc JD Document1 Filed10/30/14 Page1 of 13

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 193 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 6

Case5:12-cv HRL Document9 Filed08/09/12 Page1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT AIR FRANCE-KLM WITHOUT PREJUDICE [F.R.C.P. 4141(a)(1)(A)(ii)]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 4:16-cv CW Document 75-4 Filed 08/14/18 Page 1 of 7

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

appropriate measure of damages to which plaintiff Janssen Biotech,

Case3:08-cv VRW Document33 Filed07/13/09 Page1 of 5

Case 3:15-cv JST Document 90 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:14-cv TSC Document 113 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PlainSite. Legal Document. California Northern District Court Case No. 3:11-cv County of Marin v. Deloitte Consulting LLP et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 2:17-cv JLR Document 179 Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case3:10-cv WHA Document1105 Filed05/08/12 Page1 of 8

U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:16-cv RS

Case 3:12-cv VC Document 119 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 13 (Counsel listed on signature page)

mew Doc 4198 Filed 02/15/19 Entered 02/15/19 18:11:40 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

March 11, Re: Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp. et al., No Panel: Judges Farris, Reinhardt & Tashima

Transcription:

Case:-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 Rachel Krevans (SBN ) Market Street San Francisco, California 0- Telephone:..000 Facsimile:.. rkrevans@mofo.com Grant J. Esposito (pro hac vice) 0 West th Street New York, NY 00-0 Telephone:..000 Facsimile:..00 gesposito@mofo.com Erik J. Olson (SBN ) Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 0 Telephone: 0..00 Facsimile: 0..0 ejolson@mofo.com Attorneys for Defendant Sandoz Inc. Vernon M. Winters (SBN 0) Alexander D. Baxter (SBN ) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP California Street, Suite 000 San Francisco, CA 0-0 Telephone:..00 Facsimile:..00 vwinters@sidley.com Nicholas Groombridge (pro hac vice) Eric Alan Stone (pro hac vice) Jennifer H. Wu (pro hac vice) Jennifer Gordon Peter Sandel (pro hac vice) Michael T. Wu (pro hac vice) Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 00-0 Telephone:..000 Facsimile:..0 ngroombridge@paulweiss.com Wendy A. Whiteford (SBN 0) Lois M. Kwasigroch (SBN 0) One Amgen Center Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 0- Telephone: 0..000 Facsimile: 0..00 wendy@amgen.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMGEN INC. and AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED, vs. SANDOZ INC., SANDOZ INTERNATIONAL GMBH, and SANDOZ GMBH, Plaintiffs, Defendants. Case No. :-cv-0-rs NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY OF PATENT PROCEEDINGS JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY Case No. :-cv-0-rs

Case:-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 NOTICE OF MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (together, Amgen ) and Defendant Sandoz Inc. ( Sandoz ) hereby jointly move for an order from the Court lifting the current stay in the case as to Amgen s claims of patent infringement and Sandoz s related counterclaims. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the proposed order submitted herewith, all papers and pleadings on file in this action, and all matters of which the Court may take judicial notice. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule -(b), the parties request that this Motion be determined without oral argument. STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF The parties move the Court for an order lifting the current stay of Amgen s patent infringement claims and Sandoz s related counterclaims, and scheduling a case management conference on October, 0. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The parties seek to lift the current stay of these proceedings so that they can reach an adjudicated resolution of Amgen s patent infringement claims and Sandoz s related counterclaims. On March, 0, the Court issued its order on the parties cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings and Amgen s motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissing Amgen s claims under the California unfair competition laws and for conversion. Dkt. No. 0. On March, at the parties request, the Court stayed all proceedings not addressed by the Court s March Order, pending the Federal Circuit s opinion on appeal. The circuit issued a panel opinion on July, 0, finding that Sandoz did not violate the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 00 ( BPCIA ) by failing to disclose its abla by the statutory deadline, and that Sandoz s pre-approval notice of commercial marketing was ineffective. Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 0-, 0 WL 00 (Fed. Cir. Jul., 0). The parties are each currently seeking en banc review of aspects of that opinion. JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY Case No. :-cv-0-rs

Case:-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 The Federal Circuit has now ruled on the BPCIA issues and state law claims raised in Amgen s appeal. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court lift the stay on the proceedings in this case so that the parties may resolve Amgen s patent infringement claims and Sandoz s related counterclaims. The district court has discretion to lift a stay of litigation. Ho Keung Tse v. Apple, Inc., No. C 0-0 SBA, 0 WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. 0). If the circumstances originally supporting a stay have changed, a stay is appropriately lifted. Id. That is the case here. The parties sought a stay of the patent infringement claims in this case to allow the Federal Circuit to review the parties claims and counterclaims relating to the interpretation of the BPCIA, which are separable from and not intertwined with the patent infringement and validity claims and counterclaims. The Federal Circuit previously issued an injunction pending appeal preventing Sandoz from launching its product, and the panel opinion extended that injunction through September, 0. Amgen v. Sandoz, 0 WL 00, at *. The parties agree that, in light of the Federal Circuit s resolution of the appeal, the stay may be lifted and Amgen s patent infringement claims should proceed. The parties request the Court lift the stay and schedule a case management conference on October, 0, when the Court has indicated it is available. The parties also propose that they submit a case management statement with a proposed case schedule ten days prior to the case management conference. Except for the date for Sandoz International GmbH and Sandoz GmbH to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint for either entity, the parties propose that all pending or previously-set deadlines in this matter, including but not limited to the date for the Invalidity Contentions and accompanying document production under Patent L.R. - and -, be tolled until new dates to be set by the Court in a further scheduling order. The parties further agree and propose that, to ensure an orderly start to the case and to enable the Court to discuss all procedural matters with the parties, no discovery will be served and no motions will be filed (except for any motion on behalf of Sandoz International GmbH or Sandoz GmbH in response to the complaint) until after the case management conference, and JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY Case No. :-cv-0-rs

Case:-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of each party will describe in the case management statement its plans for discovery and any motions it intends to bring at the initial stages of the case. A proposed order accompanies this motion. 0 0 JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY Case No. :-cv-0-rs

Case:-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 Date: September, 0 /s/ Rachel Krevans Rachel Krevans (SBN ) Market Street San Francisco, California 0- Telephone:..000 Facsimile:.. rkrevans@mofo.com Attorneys for Defendant Sandoz Inc. OF COUNSEL: Grant J. Esposito (pro hac vice) 0 West th Street New York, NY 00-0 Telephone:..000 Facsimile:..00 gesposito@mofo.com Erik J. Olson (SBN ) Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 0 Telephone: 0..00 Facsimile: 0..0 ejolson@mofo.com /s/ Vernon M. Winters Vernon M. Winters (SBN 0) Alexander D. Baxter (SBN ) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP California Street, Suite 000 San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -00 vwinters@sidley.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited OF COUNSEL: Nicholas Groombridge (pro hac vice) Eric Alan Stone (pro hac vice) Jennifer H. Wu (pro hac vice) Jennifer Gordon Peter Sandel (pro hac vice) Michael T. Wu (pro hac vice) PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 00 Telephone: () -000 Facsimile: () -0 ngroombridge@paulweiss.com Wendy A. Whiteford (SBN 0) Lois M. Kwasigroch (SBN 0) AMGEN INC. One Amgen Center Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 0- Telephone: (0) -000 Facsimile: (0) -00 wendy@amgen.com JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY Case No. :-cv-0-rs

Case:-cv-0-RS Document Filed0/0/ Page of ATTESTATION I, Vernon M. Winters, am the ECF user whose user ID and password are being used to file the foregoing document. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule -(i)(), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Rachel Krevans. 0 0 Dated: September, 0 /s/ Vernon M. Winters JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY Case No. :-cv-0-rs

Case:-cv-0-RS Document- Filed0/0/ Page of 0 AMGEN INC. and AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED, vs. SANDOZ INC., SANDOZ INTERNATIONAL GMBH, and SANDOZ GMBH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, Defendants. Case No. :-cv-0-rs [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY OF PATENT PROCEEDINGS 0 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO LIFT STAY Case No. :-cv-0-rs

Case:-cv-0-RS Document- Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 Amgen brought this action, asserting claims of unfair competition and conversion under California state law and patent infringement; Sandoz counterclaimed. The Court dismissed Amgen s claims under California state law. Dkt. No. 0. The Court then granted Rule (b) judgment on the dismissed claims and stayed all remaining claims in this action, pending the Federal Circuit s resolution of Amgen s appeal. Dkt. No.. The circuit issued a panel opinion on July, 0. Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 0-, 0 WL 00 (Fed. Cir. Jul., 0). The parties are each currently seeking en banc review of aspects of that opinion. The parties now jointly request that the Court lift the stay on the remaining claims. Having considered the parties joint motion to lift the stay of patent proceedings in this case, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS as follows: The stay on all remaining proceedings in this case (see Dkt. No. ) is lifted. A case management conference is scheduled for October, 0, at 0:00 AM. The deadline for Sandoz International GmbH and Sandoz GmbH to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint for either entity remains tolled until twenty days after the entry of this Order. See Dkt. No., at. The parties shall submit a case management statement by September, 0, proposing a new schedule for this case, including new dates for the Invalidity Contentions and accompanying document production under Patent L.R. - and -. These deadlines and any other pending or previously-set deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Civil Local Rules, Patent Local Rules, or any order of this Court, except for the deadline for Sandoz International GmbH and Sandoz GmbH to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint, shall be tolled until new dates to be set by the Court in a further scheduling order. No discovery shall be served and no motions shall be filed (except for any motion on behalf of Sandoz International GmbH or Sandoz GmbH in response to the complaint) until after the case management conference. Each party shall [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT Case No. :-cv-0-rs MOTION TO LIFT STAY

Case:-cv-0-RS Document- Filed0/0/ Page of describe in the case management statement its plans for discovery and any motions it intends to bring at the initial stages of the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: September, 0 HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 0 0 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AMGEN S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CHANGE TIME Case No. :-cv-0-rs