Case 1:14-cv-01453-LPS Document 62 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1818
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 14-1453-LPS
`
`))))))))))
`
`MEDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and
`CIPLA LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`APOTEX’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL
`
`Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Apotex Inc. and
`Apotex Corp.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Tung-On Kong
`David M. Hanna
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`One Market Street
`Spear Tower Suite 3300
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Tel: (415) 947-2000
`
`Nicole W. Stafford
`Robert A. Delafield, II
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`900 S. Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, Texas 78746-5546
`Tel: (512) 338-5400
`
`Adam Burrowbridge
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`1700 K Street, NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 973-8992
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015
`1212676 / 42112
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01453-LPS Document 62 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1819
`
`In advance of the technology tutorial set in this matter and Pursuant to paragraph 10 of
`
`the Scheduling Order entered by the Court on April 13, 2015 (D.I. 18), Defendants Apotex Inc.
`
`and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”) hereby respectfully submit this response to address certain
`
`objectionable material included in Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s and Cipla Ltd.’s (together,
`
`“Plaintiffs”) technology tutorial and any related oral presentation that Plaintiffs may provide with
`
`respect to the technology tutorial.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Apotex objects to Plaintiffs’ tutorial because they contain argument, rather than scientific
`
`explanation or discussion, in contravention of the Court’s scheduling order. The Scheduling
`
`Order (D.I. 18) explicitly states that “the tutorial should focus on the technology at issue and
`
`should not be used for argument.” (D.I. 18 at ¶10). Plaintiffs’ materials however contain 5 slides
`
`that merely incorporate argument from Plaintiff’s claim construction brief regarding
`
`interpretation of claim terms and claim scope. All of these matters are best addressed in briefing
`
`and /or argument rather than surreptitiously included in Plaintiffs’ technology tutorial.
`
`II.
`
`Specific Objections
`
`Slide No 3: This slide makes disputed factual allegations about the scope of the patents
`
`and improperly states that the patents are directed to formulations useful for preventing or
`
`minimizing allergic reactions, whereas the patents are broader than that and pertain to any
`
`condition where an antihistamine or steroid is indicated. Further, Plaintiffs suggest disputed
`
`claim construction related to the technology that at best would be the subject of a scheduled
`
`claim construction hearing. Apotex objects to this slide (and any oral presentation plaintiffs have
`
`set forth with regard to the same information) in its entirety on the grounds that it is
`
`argumentative, it is misleading and factually inaccurate, it misstates what the claimed technology
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01453-LPS Document 62 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1820
`
`is, it improperly and prematurely makes a disputed claim construction argument, and it exceeds
`
`the agreed upon scope of the technology tutorial. The undersigned respectfully requests that the
`
`Court exclude this slide and any oral presentation related thereto. A true and correct copy of that
`
`slide is attached hereto as Ex. A.
`
`Slide Nos. 7 and 8: These slides make disputed factual allegations about the impact of
`
`allergic rhinitis and do not pertain to the technology in question. Apotex objects to these slides
`
`(and any oral presentation plaintiffs have set forth with regard to the same information) in its
`
`entirety on the grounds that it is argumentative, is misleading and it exceeds the agreed upon
`
`scope of the technology tutorial. The alleged costs associated with allergic rhinitis is in no way
`
`relevant to the technology in question. The undersigned respectfully requests that the Court
`
`exclude these slides and any oral presentation related thereto. A true and correct copy of slide
`
`Nos. 7-8 are attached hereto as Ex. B and Ex. C respectively.
`
`Slide No 21: This slide makes disputed factual allegations about the scope of the patents
`
`and improperly states that the patents are directed to a single formulation when the patents
`
`expressly state that the invention can be in separate formulations given separately or
`
`sequentially. Further, it argues disputed claim construction related to the technology that at best
`
`would be the subject of a scheduled claim construction hearing. Apotex objects to this slide (and
`
`any oral presentation plaintiffs have set forth with regard to the same information) in its entirety
`
`on the grounds that it is argumentative, it is misleading and misstates scope of the claimed
`
`technology and it exceeds the agreed upon scope of the technology tutorial. The undersigned
`
`respectfully requests that the Court exclude this slide and any oral presentation related thereto. A
`
`true and correct copy of that slide is attached hereto as Ex. D.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01453-LPS Document 62 Filed 12/23/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1821
`
`Slide No. 25: This slide improperly touts the benefits of Plaintiffs NDA product which is
`
`an alleged embodiment of the patents at issue. This slide makes disputed factual allegations
`
`about the scope of the patents and improperly states that the patents are solely directed to a single
`
`formulation when the patents expressly state that the invention can be in separate formulations
`
`given separately or sequentially. Further, it argues disputed claim construction related to the
`
`technology that at best would be the subject of a scheduled claim construction hearing. The
`
`undersigned respectfully requests that the Court exclude this slide and any oral presentation
`
`related thereto. A true and correct copy of that slide is attached hereto as Ex. E.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Tung-On Kong
`David M. Hanna
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`One Market Street
`Spear Tower Suite 3300
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Tel: (415) 947-2000
`
`Nicole W. Stafford
`Robert A. Delafield, II
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`900 S. Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, Texas 78746-5546
`Tel: (512) 338-5400
`
`Adam Burrowbridge
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`1700 K Street, NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 973-8992
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015
`1212676 / 42112
`
`Respectfully submitted
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Apotex Inc. and
`Apotex Corp.
`
`-3-