`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`CAMDEN VICINAGE
`
` SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Nos. 14-667-JBS-KMW
` 14-4149-JBS-KMW
` 14-5144-JBS-KMW
`
`LTD., et al.,
` Plaintiffs,
`v.
`
`LUPIN, LTD., et al.,
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`This Scheduling Order confirms the directives given to
`
`counsel during the telephone status conference held on
`February 25, 2015; and the Court noting the following appearances:
`Bryan C. Diner, Esquire, Melissa Chuderewicz, Esquire, Justin J.
`Hasford, Esquire, and Jessica M. Lebeis, Esquire, all appearing on
`behalf of the plaintiffs; and Michael E. Patunas, Esquire, Emily
`Rapalino, Esquire, and Daniel P. Margolis, Esquire, all appearing
`on behalf of the defendants; and for good cause shown:
`IT IS this 27th day of February, 2015, hereby ORDERED:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NO.
`1
`
`DATE
`
`
`April 23, 2015
`
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`EVENT
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims for Lupin ’813 and
`’606 cases and Metrics, Innopharma, Apotex and
`Paddock cases
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions and Non-
`Infringement Contentions and document production
`for Lupin ’813 and ’606 cases and Metrics,
`Innopharma, Apotex and Paddock cases, limited to
`100 pages per patent3
`
`Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions and Response to
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions and document
`production for Lupin ’813 and ’606 cases and
`Metrics, Innopharma, Apotex and Paddock cases
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`SENJU EXHIBIT 2012
`LUPIN v. SENJU
`IPR2015-01105
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00667-JBS-KMW Document 63 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 285
`
`EVENT
`Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction for
`Lupin ’813 and ’606 cases and Metrics, Innopharma,
`Apotex and Paddock cases
`
`Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and
`Extrinsic Evidence for Lupin ’813 and ’606 cases and
`Metrics, Innopharma, Apotex and Paddock cases
`
`Exchange of Identification of Evidence to Oppose
`Other Parties’ Proposed Claim Construction for
`Lupin ’813 and ’606 cases and Metrics,
`Innopharma, Apotex and Paddock cases
`
`Submit Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement for all cases
`Completion of Claim Construction Discovery for all
`cases
`Opening Markman submissions for all cases
`
`Completion of discovery from an expert who
`submitted a certification with opening Markman
`submission for all cases
`
`DATE
`
`
`May 22, 2015
`
`
`May 29, 2015
`
`
`June 12, 2015
`
`
`June 26, 2015
`
`July 27, 2015
`August 10, 2015
`
`September 9, 2015
`
`
`Responding Markman submissions for all cases
`
`October 9, 2015
`
`
`November 2, 2015
`Thirty (30) days after
`entry of Court’s
`claim construction
`order per L. Pat.
`R. 3.8
`
`To be determined by
`the Court
`
`To be determined by
`the Court
`
`To be determined by
`the Court
`
`Claim Construction Hearing for all cases
`
`
`
`Disclosure of reliance on advice of counsel for all
`cases
`
`Completion of fact discovery for all cases
`
`
`Opening expert reports due for all cases
`
`
`Rebuttal expert reports due for all cases
`
`
`
`NO.
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00667-JBS-KMW Document 63 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 286
`
`
`
`NO.
`17
`
`EVENT
`
`Reply expert reports for all cases
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Completion of expert discovery for all cases
`
`
`Dispositive motions due for all cases
`
`
`Motions in limine due for all cases
`
`Pretrial conference for all cases
`
`Trial for all cases
`
`DATE
`
`
`To be determined by
`the Court
`
`To be determined by
`the Court
`
`To be determined by
`the Court
`
`To be determined by
`the Court
`
`To be determined by
`the Court
`
`March 7, 20161
`
`23. Any application for an extension of time beyond the
`
`deadlines set herein shall be made in writing to the undersigned
`and served upon all counsel prior to expiration of the period
`sought to be extended, and shall disclose in the application all
`such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons
`necessitating the application showing good cause under FED. R. CIV.
`P. 16(b), and whether adversary counsel agree with the application.
`The schedule set herein will not be extended unless good cause is
`shown.
`
`
`
`
`
`THE FAILURE OF A PARTY OR ATTORNEY TO OBEY THIS ORDER
`MAY RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P.
`16(f).
`
`s/ Karen M. Williams
`KAREN M. WILLIAMS
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle
`
`
`
`1 All parties should note that the March 7, 2016 trial date has been confirmed by the Honorable
` Jerome B. Simandle.
`
`Page 3 of 3