Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`_________________________________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`INTERNATIONAL GmbH, et al.,
`
` Plaintiffs, Civil Action
` No. 18-cv-12029-ADB
`
`v.
`
`
`
` January 20, 2022
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`
`Defendant. Pages 1 to 22
`_________________________________
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`JOAN M. DALY, RMR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse
`One Courthouse Way, Room 5507
`Boston, MA 02210
`joanmdaly62@gmail.com
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`_________________________________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`INTERNATIONAL GmbH, et al.,
`
` Plaintiffs, Civil Action
` No. 18-cv-12029-ADB
`
`v.
`
`
`
` January 20, 2022
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`
`Defendant. Pages 1 to 22
`_________________________________
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`JOAN M. DALY, RMR, CRR
`Official Court Reporter
`John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse
`One Courthouse Way, Room 5507
`Boston, MA 02210
`joanmdaly62@gmail.com
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`
`Elaine Herrmann Blais
`Douglas J. Kline
`Eric T. Romeo
`Goodwin Procter, LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`617-570-1205
`Email: Eblais@goodwinlaw.com
`Email: Dkline@goodwinlaw.com
`Email: Eromeo@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`
`Andrea L. Martin
`Burns & Levinson LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`617-345-3000
`Email: Amartin@burnslev.com
`
`Ryan P. O'Quinn
`Emily R. Grabanski
`Finnegan LLP
`1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190-6023
`(571) 203-2426
`Email: Oquinnr@finnegan.com
`Email: Emily.gabranski@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT: Lori Wolfe, Teva Inhouse Counsel
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`3
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(The following proceeding was held via Zoom
`
`Videoconferencing before the Honorable Allison D. Burroughs,
`
`United States District Judge, United States District Court,
`
`District of Massachusetts, on January 20, 2022.)
`
`THE CLERK: This is civil action 18-12029, Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals versus Eli Lilly. Will counsel identify
`
`themselves for the record.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`
`Elaine Blais from Goodwin Procter on behalf of Teva. I have
`
`my colleague Eric Romeo and my partner Doug Kline may join us
`
`as well. We also have Lori Wolfe, in-house counsel at Teva.
`
`MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Andrea
`
`Martin for the defendant Eli Lilly. With me is Ryan O'Quinn
`
`and Emily Grabanski.
`
`THE COURT: All right. I think that this meeting
`
`is being called at Lilly's request. So does Lilly want to
`
`start?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Yes, Your Honor. Ryan O'Quinn on
`
`behalf of Lilly. Thank you so much for your time today. We
`
`appreciate the opportunity to hopefully short circuit what
`
`could be a more burdensome motion practice in front of Your
`
`Honor regarding this issue that has already been fully
`
`briefed.
`
`We received Your Honor's order of December 20 and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`4
`
`read it with intent, and we endeavored to comply with it in
`
`good faith. We went back through our proposed amended
`
`pleading, and with a fine tooth comb we removed all
`
`references to individuals that your order said needed to be
`
`removed. And we cabined allegations directed to "the
`
`applicants generally" and where the facts supported them we
`
`directed them instead to the two individuals that the
`
`documentary evidence and the testimonial evidence supported.
`
`All we intended to do and all we want to do is
`
`comply with the order in good faith. So hopefully today's
`
`conference can get a little bit of guidance from you as to
`
`the degree in which our proposed amended pleading needed to
`
`be amended in order to conform with your order.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. O'Quinn, I feel like we are ships
`
`passing in the night here, and it may have been my fault. We
`
`are where we are, but it was our intention that you guys
`
`would just file the drafted amended answer that was filed
`
`with 176, ECF 176. We were sort of eliminating causes of
`
`action and not thinking that you'd do a line edit of the
`
`amended complaint. So we thought we'd be living with 176 and
`
`were surprised to see 238.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I think, Your Honor, I am not sure
`
`how the causes of action could be parsed out. I thought we
`
`had read your order that the answer at 176 was granted leave
`
`to file but needed to be amended to remove the nonspecific
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`5
`
`arguments to Mr. Giering and to the applicants generally.
`
`The applicants contains the two other individuals. I'm
`
`hesitant to name their names because those are confidential
`
`information that Teva has asked to redact, but we understood
`
`Your Honor's order to hold that the cause of action for
`
`inequitable conduct had met the standards of Rule 15, 16, and
`
`9B and simply it was basically for a more clear statement.
`
`THE COURT: I have to say, again I'm not sure we
`
`had a great meeting of the minds here, but we were surprised
`
`to see 238 which seems like a total revamp, which was not
`
`what we had intended or really allowed.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I can understand that, Your Honor,
`
`and I apologize for the misunderstanding. We didn't feel
`
`like that was a wholesale revamp. We narrowed the scope of
`
`176 and 238 to we thought obey the Court's order in terms of
`
`wording. If we're mistaken, we certainly can do that. It
`
`didn't seem like there was an easy way for us to kind of
`
`split the baby and carve out references to the applicants
`
`while still keeping the necessary pleadings to meet the
`
`standard of Rule 9B.
`
`So that's why we wanted your guidance rather than
`
`going through another round of motion to strike briefing or
`
`motion for leave to amend briefing. And again we apologize.
`
`All we want to do is conform with your order.
`
`THE COURT: Ms. Blais, or whoever, what does Teva
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`6
`
`have to say on the subject?
`
`MS. BLAIS: Thank you, Your Honor. Look,
`
`inequitable conduct has to be pled with particularity. It
`
`was clear from the motion to amend that Lilly sought to add
`
`the allegations set out in its proposed amended answer which
`
`they refer to in their motion itself which was attached as
`
`Exhibit A. We briefed our opposition to the motion to amend
`
`based on the particular allegations from that Exhibit A.
`
`THE COURT: You're talking about 176, right?
`
`MS. BLAIS: 176, correct. We made an argument
`
`about timeliness. But then on substance we made three
`
`primary arguments. The first one was the allegations made
`
`generally against applicants didn't meet the pleading
`
`standard. We made the point that it was not fair to read
`
`applicants as being limited to the named inventors. Your
`
`Honor agreed with us on that saying that the argument that
`
`applicants could be read to mean the named inventor strained
`
`credulity in context. And we briefed the merits on that
`
`basis.
`
`We also asked you to disregard the allegations --
`
`I'm sorry. Was there a question? No. Okay. We also asked
`
`you to disregard the allegations that were made on
`
`information and belief because fact discovery was closed.
`
`And then we said putting aside those allegations, let's
`
`address the specific allegations made against the three
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`7
`
`individuals. That's how we briefed it, and that is how we
`
`read your order to follow.
`
`You specifically found, as I mentioned, that
`
`applicants could not be read to be limited to the named
`
`inventors, that that's strained credulity. That the
`
`allegations against applicants did not meet the pleading
`
`standard. And that when you stripped those away, you looked
`
`at the remaining factual allegations against the three
`
`individuals. You determined that the allegations against the
`
`prosecuting attorney did not meet the standard, but that the
`
`remaining specific allegations against the two inventors did.
`
`And specifically you ordered that leave was
`
`granted, but except to the extent that the inequitable
`
`conduct claims relied on the prosecuting attorney's June '13
`
`statement or made allegations generally about the applicant.
`
`So we were also very surprised to see a new answer which is
`
`not the answer that they sought leave to file.
`
`We were surprised and we were honestly quite
`
`disappointed because we asked them to share with us what they
`
`planned to file before they filed it, and they refused. So
`
`we got this answer. We ran a redline. The differences are
`
`vast, and they are substantive. So they may say that
`
`applicants clearly included the inventors, but it was broader
`
`than that.
`
`So the original answer when it made allegations
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`8
`
`about knowledge, intent, statements that were made, they were
`
`made about a large group that included multiple companies,
`
`multiple prosecuting firms as well as the inventors. We did
`
`not brief an amendment that was specific to the inventors on
`
`every allegation that was broadly made to the applicants.
`
`And our briefing would have been different if the allegations
`
`had been what are now in their answer.
`
`This matters because again inequitable conduct must
`
`be pled with particularity. The pleading lays out what is in
`
`the case. And so to suddenly have the pleading be different,
`
`it changes the parameters of what is in the case. It changes
`
`what we do on appeal. It has all sorts of ramifications. So
`
`we think they should not be allowed to change the allegations
`
`against applicants to be specific to the inventors without
`
`moving to amend to do so.
`
`And we think in particular that what they've done
`
`with the statement from the prosecuting attorney, which you
`
`said they could not rely on that prosecuting attorney's June
`
`2013 statement, we think what they've done there is
`
`particularly egregious.
`
`And if I may take one moment, I will point out what
`
`paragraph that is. It's paragraph 260. They are still
`
`relying on that statement, but they have now pointed the
`
`finger at the two inventors and said that they through their
`
`representative made this statement that they allege was
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`9
`
`inequitable conduct. That's a very different allegation than
`
`the allegation they made the first time or that we briefed.
`
`THE COURT: I have to say, and I'm not going to
`
`cast blame about this. I can sort of see how this happened,
`
`like how there was a misunderstanding about what we had
`
`intended. But what we had intended is much more in line with
`
`what Teva is now describing. But we are where we are, and
`
`I'm wondering what we should now do about it.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Can I respond briefly, Your Honor?
`
`THE COURT: You can. There's nothing pending now.
`
`There's no motion. So there's nothing --
`
`MR. O'QUINN: We stipulated that the revised
`
`pleading -- that Teva's deadline to answer was pegged to the
`
`resolution of this dispute. So there's no clock ticking per
`
`se, and so we have solved this.
`
`THE COURT: 238 can't stand. It just can't the way
`
`it is. It's just nothing that we had ever anticipated. It's
`
`way different than what was in 176, which is what we were
`
`looking at. I'm not even sure what the options are here. I
`
`guess that we could have Lilly file a new motion to amend and
`
`do this again.
`
`I'm not sure what other options there are at this
`
`point because -- I guess where we had thought 176 would be
`
`the operative answer, I take Lilly's point about why that
`
`might not make the most amount of sense either. I'm not a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`10
`
`patent lawyer. So let me hear from you guys about where you
`
`think we should go from here.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Let me take that. Because I think I
`
`agree that 176 should not be the operative pleading because
`
`the allegations against applicants were not pled with
`
`particularity and are not in the case. And the allegation
`
`regarding the prosecuting attorney's statement didn't meet
`
`the pleading standards and isn't in the case.
`
`So I tend to agree that that pleading not be the
`
`operative pleading because it confuses things going forward.
`
`Our solution was to strike the statements that did not meet
`
`the pleading standard. We still think that's the appropriate
`
`answer. And if Lilly wants to file something else, they
`
`should file a second motion to amend.
`
`We're obviously not enthused about having to brief
`
`another one as we'd like to get to trial in this case. But
`
`if they want to change the allegations, I think the rules are
`
`they have to file a motion to amend and we have to again
`
`address timeliness, which now we're even farther down the
`
`road. And we have to address futility.
`
`THE COURT: I take your point on timeliness, but I
`
`am sort of inclined to chalk this up to a misunderstanding
`
`and not devious conduct on the part of anybody.
`
`MS. BLAIS: I understand that, Your Honor. May I
`
`address it for one moment?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Let me give you a couple of things to
`
`address. Just as a practical matter, I don't think we're
`
`going to trial on this any time soon. We just shut down
`
`trials for yet another week. I think I'm fully booked
`
`through the summer. So we do have some time to get this
`
`properly put together for the most efficient trial possible.
`
`But go ahead, Ms. Blais. Over to you.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Sure. What I would say on timeliness
`
`is I don't tie my timeliness argument to any allegation that
`
`they did something purposely wrong, but they made the choice
`
`to file allegations against applicants. They did that in
`
`October. That was a choice that they made, and that choice
`
`has consequences. Now in December, even if we give them the
`
`benefit of the filing they made in December and say that it
`
`was a mistake, it's still nearly three months later.
`
`And that matters as we are nearly finished with
`
`expert discovery. We're finishing expert depositions on
`
`February 1. We've had 13 expert depositions to take of
`
`defendant, and we're almost done with them. Then we're
`
`moving to summary judgment. So changing this, it has
`
`consequences. It has consequences for the shape of the case
`
`and for what we spend on this case and where we spend our
`
`efforts. That's why I raised the timeliness point. Even if
`
`they did it in good faith, it's still three months later and
`
`three months farther into the case.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: I'm sort of envisioning an answer,
`
`again this is not my -- it's not my area of expertise. I'm
`
`going to be honest about that. I am envisioning an answer
`
`that is a subset of 176, not an expansion of it.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Your Honor, can I speak to that
`
`briefly?
`
`THE COURT: I'm not sure it should really affect
`
`your expert discovery. Mr. O'Quinn is going to tell me why
`
`I'm wrong on that.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I believe you're right. 238 in our
`
`view was a subset of 176. It is narrower in different
`
`respects. To the timeliness point, I feel like the clock
`
`stopped for purpose of good cause timeliness when the motion
`
`was filed and when the motion was granted. I don't think we
`
`can be dinged for that in perpetuity thereafter.
`
`There is no trial date set in this case. The only
`
`date that's pushing up on is the date for dispositive motion
`
`briefing. If we're going to need to do this again, I think
`
`we'll have to move those dates, like you said, to get this
`
`right and get it properly put together.
`
`Like I said, I apologize for the misunderstanding
`
`on our part, but Teva's position seems to be that anywhere
`
`that they control-F in their document and find the words
`
`applicants or Giering, that entire paragraph has to be
`
`stricken. I just don't think that can be what Your Honor
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`13
`
`intended. Particularly because some of the paragraphs that
`
`Teva proposes to cite are paragraphs that Your Honor credited
`
`in the December 20 order. We're at kind of two extremes
`
`here. Neither of them can really be correct. So that's why
`
`we are here kind of seeking some guidance of what to do
`
`instead.
`
`THE COURT: They hit control-F because they think
`
`that's what you did to replace applicants with those two
`
`names. So they are just trying to undo what you did.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: That's fair. There are multiple
`
`sentences and multiple factual allegations and citations in
`
`those paragraphs. The presence of the word applicants does
`
`not magically mean that that entire paragraph and everything
`
`it stands for should disappear. At least that's not how we
`
`interpret it. Apologies if we misinterpreted.
`
`THE COURT: I'd have to really go back and parse
`
`through and see if every mention of applicants needs to be
`
`stripped away. My suspicion is, Mr. O'Quinn, that you're
`
`right, and that not every one needs to be stripped away. But
`
`I don't have it in front of me, and I haven't looked at it in
`
`that way.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Teva has proposed a redline, Your
`
`Honor, of number 176. Maybe the way forward is we use that
`
`as a starting point and Teva and Lilly can negotiate from
`
`Teva's proposed redline. I think that can narrow the scope
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`14
`
`of any potential disputes, and we can go from there and
`
`hopefully not need to do any further motions or conferences.
`
`THE COURT: It's pretty clear to me that we need a
`
`new answer. What if I decide that you've made a motion to
`
`file a new answer and I grant the motion, and then you guys
`
`hopefully come to some kind of meeting of the minds on an
`
`appropriate answer. And if you can't, we'll start from
`
`there. Does that make sense?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: That works for us.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Just so I understand. I think it is a
`
`good idea to start with what we attached as Exhibit B to our
`
`letter which was our attempt to comply, to indicate what we
`
`think you meant in the order. We're all just trying to
`
`figure this out.
`
`We could meet and confer about what we have
`
`stricken. And if there are disputes about any of the
`
`language that we're unable to resolve, we can bring it back
`
`to you for consideration. Does that work?
`
`THE COURT: That works. In another case I just
`
`issued an order saying no more letters, for now on everything
`
`had to be done by motion or by letter two pages or under. If
`
`you guys have -- I'm not going to do that here. If you can
`
`bring those things to my attention in the form of a letter or
`
`something less than an formal motion practice, that's fine.
`
`It might be more efficient. Let's go with that. I'm going
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 15 of 22
`
`15
`
`to presume that he's made a motion. The motion is granted.
`
`And we'll wait to have an amended answer filed. And then
`
`we'll see where we are.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Your Honor, may I ask you about the
`
`trial date? You said you're booked through the summer. I
`
`wonder would it be possible for us to get on your calendar,
`
`even if it's not until the fall, like we have something that
`
`we're actually shooting for?
`
`THE COURT: Yes. I sort of have different pieces
`
`of paper on which I had my trial schedule, and I left my
`
`master calendar at home. And I have an almost master
`
`calendar that we can look at if you want. Karen, you're
`
`going to have to help me because I'm missing the fall dates.
`
`THE CLERK: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: How long a trial are you envisioning?
`
`MS. BLAIS: We think it's probably two weeks. Do
`
`you do 9 to noon?
`
`THE COURT: Full days.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Full days. We still think it's
`
`probably two weeks. We have 13 experts between us in
`
`addition to five inventors and a number of fact witnesses.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: We will need probably some amount for
`
`a bench trial on two different counterclaims we have now for
`
`inequitable conduct. Probably for the convenience of the
`
`parties and witnesses we would want that to be contiguous
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 16 of 22
`
`16
`
`with the jury trial so the witnesses don't have to travel
`
`twice. That would probably be two or three days depending on
`
`what stays in the case.
`
`THE COURT: So let's say three weeks all in
`
`counting jury selection. Realistically, and I don't want to
`
`go through a million dates, when do you think the summary
`
`judgment motions will be fully briefed?
`
`MS. BLAIS: The current schedule has them fully
`
`briefed by March 31.
`
`THE COURT: But that's going to slip, right?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Potentially.
`
`MS. BLAIS: We haven't discussed it. It's
`
`certainly our intention to keep to the date as of this
`
`moment.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I think Lilly doesn't think it would
`
`be appropriate to go through summary judgment briefing with
`
`allegations not answered or moved in the case.
`
`THE COURT: It might make it easier. If you file
`
`those say the end of March, I guess we could theoretically be
`
`ready for a fall trial. Karen, when do we have three weeks
`
`after Labor Day?
`
`THE CLERK: Looks like September 26. If we're
`
`doing Tuesday impanelments, the 27th. That's the last week
`
`in September and the first two weeks in October.
`
`THE COURT: Hold on a minute.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 17 of 22
`
`17
`
`THE CLERK: All of October is free it looks like.
`
`THE COURT: You guys can pick. I think I'm booked
`
`until September, but I think I'm guessing that. My guess is
`
`from September 27 on we're pretty open.
`
`THE CLERK: We are.
`
`THE COURT: Do you want to pick your three weeks?
`
`Don't forget in there is -- the week of October 4 we're going
`
`to lose a day for Yom Kippur. The next week we'll lose a day
`
`for Columbus Day. Karen, I think we lose September 26 for
`
`Rosh Hashanah, right?
`
`THE CLERK: It's not listed on the calendar right
`
`now.
`
`THE COURT: My guess we don't impanel to the 28th.
`
`THE CLERK: The 26th is Monday.
`
`THE COURT: I'll lose that day, but not everybody
`
`will. You're saying we can still impanel on the 27th?
`
`THE CLERK: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: Do you guys want to confer on this and
`
`let me know which three weeks you want, or do you want to
`
`pick one now?
`
`MS. BLAIS: I think, Your Honor, conferring about
`
`it probably is the best thing with the agreement that we will
`
`find dates starting in September 27, and I think Karen said
`
`you have all of October open.
`
`THE CLERK: November looks like it's available,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 18 of 22
`
`18
`
`too.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: I'm booking seriatim through the week.
`
`So we've gone through September.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Okay. We'll get back to you. Let's
`
`try to get back to you tomorrow if we possibly can so we can
`
`snag that time, but we'll confer with each other and our
`
`clients and get back to you.
`
`THE COURT: The only thing I'm going to also say is
`
`the last three weeks I've had to boot trials forward.
`
`Everything is going to slide forward a little bit. So you
`
`may want to give me a little wiggle room at the end of
`
`September for criminal cases that need to be tried.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Understood.
`
`THE COURT: But whatever three weeks you pick,
`
`including that last week of September, we'll try and hold
`
`them for you.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Okay. Terrific.
`
`THE COURT: Actually. I have a better idea. Pick
`
`four weeks in September. Then I'll pull a week at the front
`
`or the back depending on how everything else looks, and then
`
`we'll hold you to your dates.
`
`MS. BLAIS: I think there are only four weeks in
`
`October.
`
`THE COURT: From that last week in September
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 19 of 22
`
`19
`
`through November find a chunk of four weeks. Just understand
`
`that I may chop the first and last one. Everybody can keep
`
`their schedules free for a month and we'll use three of the
`
`four weeks.
`
`Mr. O'Quinn, I'm assuming what you're suggesting
`
`is -- you're suggesting that the jury will rule on the counts
`
`that they're going to rule on, and we just -- all the
`
`evidence before them would only be called on to rule on
`
`certain counts. You're not talking about two separate
`
`proceedings, right?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Well, inequitable conduct is a matter
`
`for you, Your Honor, not for the jury.
`
`THE COURT: I get it.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: There may be some overlap in
`
`evidence, but it's hard to tell right now. More than likely
`
`there will have to be at least some session just before Your
`
`Honor with separate evidence.
`
`MS. BLAIS: We definitely agree with that because
`
`some of this evidence, at least the way that they are
`
`spinning it, for lack of a better way, has the possibility of
`
`being fairly prejudicial in front of the jury. We're going
`
`to have to be careful about how we parse this.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Definitely pick four weeks. And
`
`that will give me some flex time, and it will give us some
`
`time on the unequitable conduct if we need it.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 20 of 22
`
`20
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Just let us know. I'm continuing to
`
`schedule things just like I just scheduled this one. Let us
`
`know when you can.
`
`MS. BLAIS: We will.
`
`MR. O'QUINN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`MS. BLAIS: Thank you very much.
`
`THE COURT: Do you need a deadline on the amended
`
`answer, or can I just count on you to work prudently but
`
`expeditiously?
`
`MR. O'QUINN: I think we will work prudently and
`
`expeditiously.
`
`MS. MARTIN: Your Honor, do we want to try to get a
`
`summary judgment hearing set, or is that premature?
`
`THE COURT: That's premature, Ms. Martin.
`
`MS. MARTIN: While we're making dates.
`
`THE COURT: I only have summary judgment hearings
`
`when I think they're going to be helpful. And you'll be
`
`shocked to know that I don't always find you people helpful.
`
`If we feel like we need a hearing, we'll schedule it. I
`
`don't schedule them in everything as a matter of course,
`
`particularly during COVID. I just don't like to do them
`
`unless we need them.
`
`MS. MARTIN: For the trial date is it best to just
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 21 of 22
`
`21
`
`email Ms. Folan?
`
`THE COURT: That's fine. She'll let me know. All
`
`right?
`
`MS. BLAIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: If there's nothing else for today, the
`
`case is recessed. Thanks, everyone.
`
`(Court recessed at 1:29 p.m.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 258 Filed 01/26/22 Page 22 of 22
`
`22
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I certify that the foregoing is a correct
`
`transcript of the record of proceedings in the above-entitled
`
`matter to the best of my skill and ability.
`
`/s/ Joan M. Daly January 26, 2022
`
`______________________ ____________________
`
`Joan M. Daly, RMR, CRR Date
`Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
