Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 17 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 343
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
`MEDICAL SCHOOL and CARMEL
`LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`L’ORÉAL S.A. and L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-868-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KATHERINE F. MURRAY
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`I, Katherine F. Murray, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney at Paul Hastings LLP (“Paul Hastings”) representing Defendants
`
`L’Oréal USA, Inc. (“L’Oréal USA”) and L’Oréal S.A. in this case. I offer this declaration in
`
`support of L’Oréal USA’s Opening Brief in Support of L’Oréal USA’s Motion to Dismiss.
`
`2.
`
`On June 30, 2017, Plaintiffs University of Massachusetts Medical School
`
`(“UMass”) and Carmel Laboratories, LLC (“Carmel Labs”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a
`
`complaint (the “Complaint”) against L’Oréal USA and L’Oréal S.A. alleging infringement of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,423,327 (the “’327 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,645,513 (the “’513 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`On July 7, 2017, my colleague, Naveen Modi, sent a letter to Carmel Labs’
`
`counsel, Matthew B. Lowrie, notifying him of L’Oréal USA’s concerns regarding certain
`
`pleading deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Complaint in view of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(a)(2) and 11.
`
`Mr. Modi’s letter also explained that in response to pre-complaint correspondence—in which
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 17 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 344
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs previously alleged infringement of the ’327 and ’513 patents—Plaintiffs were
`
`repeatedly asked to provide a basis for their allegations. Plaintiffs, however, never responded to
`
`these requests. In view of these issues, L’Oréal USA requested that Plaintiffs immediately
`
`provide an adequate basis for their Complaint or dismiss their Complaint.
`
`4.
`
`On July 10, 2017 Plaintiffs’ counsel, Justin Nelson, responded to Mr. Modi’s
`
`letter. Instead of addressing L’Oréal USA’s request, dismissing the Complaint, or agreeing to
`
`further discussions, Plaintiffs’ counsel challenged L’Oréal USA, stating “if . . . you believe in
`
`good faith that we have not adequately pleaded something, then make your motion.”
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the July 7, 2017 letter
`
`from Naveen Modi, counsel for L’Oréal USA, to Matthew D. Lowrie, counsel for Carmel Labs,
`
`wherein L’Oréal USA explains deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Rules 8 and 11,
`
`describes past correspondence, and requests that Plaintiffs provide a basis for their Complaint or
`
`dismiss their Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of the July 10, 2017
`
`email from Justin Nelson, counsel for Plaintiffs, to Naveen Modi counsel for L’Oréal USA
`
`responding to L’Oréal USA’s letter and challenging L’Oréal USA to “make your motion.”
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of Abella, M. L.,
`
`Evaluation of Anti‐Wrinkle Efficacy of Adenosine‐Containing Products Using the FOITS
`
`Technique, International Journal of Cosmetic Science 28, 447-51 (2006), that is referenced in
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 26-27) and cited in an exhibit thereto (D.I. 1-6 at 5).
`
`8.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a Redline Comparison of Plaintiffs’ June 30,
`
`2017 Complaint, D.I. 1, and Plaintiffs’ August 18, 2017 First Amended Complaint, D.I. 13.
`
` I
`
` declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-JFB-SRF Document 17 Filed 08/23/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 345
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`Katherine F. Murray (Pro Hac)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`