`
`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-cv-00868-VAC-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KATHERINE F. MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`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, Inc. (“L’Oréal USA”) and
`
`L’Oréal S.A. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,423,327 (the “’327 patent”) and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,645,513 (the “’513 patent”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 9 Filed 08/04/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 161
`
`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 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 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 the July 10, 2017
`
`email from Justin Nelson, counsel for Plaintiffs, to Naveen Modi counsel for L’Oréal
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00868-VAC-SRF Document 9 Filed 08/04/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 162
`
`USA responding to L’Oréal USA’s letter and challenging L’Oréal USA to “make your
`
`motion.”
`
`Evaluation of Anti‐Wrinkle Efficacy of Adenosine‐Containing Products Using the FOITS
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy Abella, M. L.,
`
`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).
`
` declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
` I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`Katherine F. Murray (Pro Hac)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated August 4, 2017
`
`