Case 1:14-cv-01453-LPS Document 26 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 174
`
`May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`
`
`The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`United States District Court
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`
`
`Re: Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Cipla Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.,
`C.A. No. 14-1453-LPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dear Chief Judge Stark:
`
`I am writing on behalf of Plaintiffs regarding the April 13, 2015 Scheduling Order
`entered by the Court (D.I. 18) setting trial for March 16, 2017. We respectfully request a call
`with the Court to seek Your Honor’s guidance as to the possibility of obtaining a trial date earlier
`than March 16, 2017 for the reasons set forth below.
`
`This is a Hatch-Waxman case. Defendant Apotex is subject to a 30-month stay of FDA
`approval of its generic product, until April 28, 2017. To avoid a preliminary injunction motion,
`the parties in their Proposed Scheduling Order (D.I. 15) requested a 5-day trial to commence on
`November 14, 2016, intending to provide the Court sufficient time to render a decision prior to
`April 28, 2017. Having a decision prior to the end of the 30-month stay would eliminate the need
`to burden the Court with the significant time and effort of adjudicating a motion for preliminary
`injunction (in addition to the 5-day trial).
`
`In the entered Scheduling Order, however, the Court set trial to begin March 16, 2017
`and end on March 24, 2017 (presumably because the Court has no trial availability between
`November 2016 and March 2017). Plaintiffs are concerned that the current trial date will not
`allow the parties sufficient time to complete post-trial briefing and, more importantly, provide
`the Court with sufficient time to render a decision following the March 16, 2017 trial by the
`expiration of the 30-month stay on April 28, 2017.
`
`To avoid the possibility of an “at-risk” launch, and to avoid burdening the Court with a
`preliminary injunction motion in the midst of trial, Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial date
`earlier than November 2016 in the event that the Court has availability; or revising the current
`schedule so that the parties are “trial ready” by the summer of 2016 should the Court have any
`last-minute availability at that time. Plaintiffs recognize and appreciate that Your Honor has
`many pending cases and it is our intention to both reduce the burden on the Court as well as the
`expense on the parties with an earlier adjudication of this case–again, subject to the Court's
`discretion and availability.
`
`{00986629;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01453-LPS Document 26 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 175
`The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`May 19, 2015
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`We have contacted Defendants, who declined our proposal for a date earlier than the
`originally requested date. Defendants also have declined our request that they agree to forego
`launch until the Court has had an opportunity to issue its trial decision based upon the current
`March 2017 trial date.
`
`We respectfully thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Steven J. Balick
`
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SJB/nlm
`
`cc:
`
`All counsel of record (via electronic mail)
`
`{00986629;v1 }