`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 31 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`
`INTERNATIONAL GMBH and
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`
`USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No.
`1:18-cv-12029-ADB
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
`TRANSFER, OR, IF NOT TRANSFERRED, THEN TO STAY THIS LITIGATION
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) of the United States District Court for the District of
`
`
`
`Massachusetts, Plaintiffs Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH (“Teva GmbH”) and Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA” and collectively with Teva GmbH, “Teva”) move for
`
`leave to file a five-page sur-reply memorandum of law in further opposition to Defendant Eli
`
`Lilly and Company’s (“Lilly”) Motion To Transfer, Or, If Not Transferred, Then To Stay This
`
`Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review (“Lilly’s Motion”). D. 18. The proposed sur-reply is
`
`attached as Exhibit A hereto.
`
`
`
`Lilly sought leave to file a reply in support of Lilly’s Motion on December 12, 2018. D.
`
`27. This Court granted leave the next day, D. 28, and Lilly filed its reply on December 21, 2018.
`
`D. 29. In its reply, Lilly attaches five new exhibits, and makes certain assertions that warrant a
`
`response. Teva submits that a brief sur-reply memorandum is necessary in order to address the
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 31 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`arguments made in Lilly’s reply, and Teva believes that such a sur-reply will assist the Court in
`
`adjudicating Lilly’s Motion. Lilly’s Motion is not yet scheduled for a hearing, and Teva has
`
`attached the proposed sur-reply to this Motion for leave; the requested sur-reply will therefore
`
`neither delay any proceedings nor prejudice either party. Lilly does not oppose the filing of this
`
`Motion.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Teva respectfully requests that this Court grant Teva’s Motion for leave
`
`to file the attached, five-page sur-reply.
`
`Dated: January 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert Frederickson III
`
`Douglas J. Kline (BBO# 556680)
`Elaine Herrmann Blais (BBO# 656142)
`Robert Frederickson III (BBO# 670111)
`Alexandra Lu (BBO# 691114)
`Eric Romeo (BBO# 691591)
`Martin C. Topol (BBO# 696020)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel.: (617) 570-1000
`Fax: (617) 523-1231
`dkline@goodwinlaw.com
`eblais@goodwinlaw.com
`rfrederickson@goodwinlaw.com
`alu@goodwinlaw.com
`eromeo@goodwinlaw.com
`mtopol@goodwinlaw.com
`
`I. Neel Chatterjee (pro hac vice)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`601 Marshall St.
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Tel.: (650) 752-3100
`Fax: (650) 853-1038
`nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Natasha Daughtrey (pro hac vice)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`601 S. Figueroa St.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 31 Filed 01/03/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Tel.: (213) 426-2500
`Fax: (213) 623-1673
`ndaughtrey@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(2) CERTIFICATION
`
`I, Robert Frederickson III, hereby certify that on January 2, 2019, Teva’s counsel
`conferred via email with Lilly’s counsel regarding the relief requested in this Motion, and that on
`January 3, 2019, Lilly’s counsel stated that Lilly does not oppose this Motion.
`
`
`/s/ Robert Frederickson III
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Robert Frederickson III, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document, filed
`through the CM/ECF system, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as
`identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies shall be served by first class
`mail postage prepaid on all counsel of record who are not served through the CM/ECF system on
`January 3, 2019.
`
`
`/s/ Robert Frederickson III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
