`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Mylan Inc.’s Motion to Limit the
`
`Number of Asserted Patent Claims, Dkt. No. 238. In reliance on the representations made by
`
`plaintiff Allergan, Inc., as to the reductions it will make in the number of its asserted claims, the
`
`Court DENIES the motion.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Allergan initially asserted a total of 157 claims in six patents in this case. After the Court
`
`urged Allergan to reduce the number of asserted claims, Allergan lowered the number by about
`
`20 percent to 126 claims. Mylan then filed the present motion seeking to require Allergan to
`
`further reduce the number of its asserted claims in accordance with this district’s Order Focusing
`
`Patent Claims and Prior Art to Reduce Costs, General Order No. 13-20. Mylan urged the Court
`
`to order Allergan to drop all but 16 of its claims by the close of fact discovery. Allergan argued
`
`that forcing it to reduce the number of its asserted claims on that schedule and to that degree
`
`would be highly prejudicial to it. In its surreply brief, however, Allergan has represented that it
`
`will reduce the number of asserted claims to 25 within one week of receiving the defendants’
`
`1
`
`SRMT 2117
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V.
`ALLERGAN IPR2016-01129
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 265 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 9876
`
`final non-infringement and invalidity contentions, and that it will reduce the number of asserted
`
`claims to no more than 15 within two weeks of the close of expert discovery. Allergan’s offer
`
`has substantially narrowed the scope of the parties’ dispute, converting it into an issue focused
`
`on the timing of the reduction in claims rather than on the total number of asserted claims.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`This district’s Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art addresses the problem that
`
`arises when patentees assert a large number of claims or accused infringers assert a large number
`
`of prior art references in patent litigation. The Order requires the parties to reduce the asserted
`
`claims to a manageable number and likewise to reduce the prior art references to a reasonable
`
`number. With respect to the number of claims, the core requirement of the Order is that “[n]o
`
`later than 28 days before the service of expert reports by the party with the burden of proof on an
`
`issue, the patent claimant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no
`
`more than five asserted claims per patent . . . and no more than a total of 16 claims.”
`
`Courts in this district, in appropriate circumstances, have required patentees to reduce the
`
`number of asserted claims, both before and after the issuance of the Order Focusing Patent
`
`Claims. See VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-855, Dkt. No. 283, at 1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 29,
`
`2015); Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Org. v. Mediatek Inc., No. 6:12-cv-578, Dkt. No.
`
`672, at 2 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 2015); Konami Digital Ent. Co., Ltd. v. Harmonix Music Sys., Inc.,
`
`No. 6:08-cv-286, Dkt. No. 247, at 2, 5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2010); Widevine v. Verimatrix, 2:07-
`
`cv-321, at 2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2009) (Rader, J., sitting by designation); Negotiated Data
`
`Solutions, LLC v. Dell, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-528, Dkt. No. 105, at 1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2008);
`
`Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., No. 9:07-cv-104, 2008 WL 2485426, at *1 (E.D. Tex.
`
`June 13, 2008); Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. Bombardier Recreation Prods., Inc., No. 5:06-
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 265 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 9877
`
`cv-222, at 1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007); Data Treasury Corp v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 2:06-cv-
`
`72, at 3-5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2006).
`
`A court must exercise the authority to order a reduction in the number of asserted claims
`
`with care not to prejudice the patentee, particularly in light of the fact that each of the claims of a
`
`patent embodies a property right. The Federal Circuit, while approving a district court order
`
`limiting the number of claims to be tried, has emphasized that claim reduction should not be
`
`ordered “too early in the discovery process” because doing so would deny the patentee “the
`
`opportunity to determine whether particular claims might raise separate issues of infringement or
`
`invalidity in light of the defendants’ accused products and proposed defenses.” In re Katz, 639
`
`F.3d 1303, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`The Court is satisfied that Allergan’s proposed reductions in the number of its asserted
`
`claims is reasonable and satisfies the objectives of this district’s Order Focusing Patent Claims
`
`and Prior Art while avoiding prejudice to Allergan. The defendants’ final non-infringement
`
`contentions were served on Allergan on January 12, 2017, and the defendants’ final invalidity
`
`contentions are to be served on Allergan by February 1, 2017. Opening expert reports are due on
`
`March 2, 2017, and expert discovery is scheduled to close on May 9, 2017. As noted, Allergan
`
`proposes that within one week of receiving the defendants’ final invalidity contentions, it will
`
`reduce to no more than 25 the number of its asserted claims, and within two weeks of the close
`
`of expert discovery it will reduce to no more than 15 the number of its asserted claims. That
`
`schedule will give the defendants 22 days between the service of their final invalidity contentions
`
`and the service of opening expert reports. The defendants can increase that period if they serve
`
`their final invalidity contentions prior to the February 1, 2017, deadline. Twenty-five claims is
`
`not an unmanageable number for an expert to address in an opening report, and 22 days (or more
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 265 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 9878
`
`if the defendants serve their invalidity contentions early) is not an unreasonably short period of
`
`time in which to do so.
`
`The further reduction of the number of asserted claims to no more than 15 within two
`
`weeks of the close of expert discovery is also reasonable. The Court views 15 as a reasonable
`
`number of claims for trial, and postponing the reduction in the number of asserted claims from
`
`25 to 15 until after the close of expert discovery allows Allergan to select its claims for trial with
`
`a relatively settled record as to the defendants’ positions on non-infringement and invalidity, so
`
`as to minimize the risk that Allergan will drop claims that end up being important to its
`
`infringement case at trial. Finally, in light of Allergan’s agreement to limit itself to 15 claims,
`
`and given that the patents are quite similar, the Court sees no reason to impose an additional
`
`restriction on the number of claims to be asserted from each patent.
`
`In its opposition, Dkt. No. 246, at 8, and in its sur-reply brief, Dkt. No. 261, at 4,
`
`Allergan urges that the Court similarly require Mylan to reduce the number of prior art
`
`references on which it is relying for its invalidity defenses. The Court notes that the Order
`
`Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art to Reduce Costs applies by its terms not only to the
`
`number of patent claims asserted by patentees, but also to the number of prior art references
`
`asserted by accused infringers. See Order at 2 (“No later than 28 days before the service of
`
`expert reports by the party with the burden of proof on an issue, the patent defendant shall serve
`
`a Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall identify no more than six asserted prior art
`
`references per patent from among the twelve prior art references previously identified for that
`
`particular patent and no more than a total of 20 references.”).
`
`The issue of the reduction in the number of prior art references has not been fully briefed,
`
`and the Court is not in a position at this time to enter an order directing with specificity how
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 265 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 9879
`
`many prior art references the defendants should be allowed to assert. Nonetheless, the venerable
`
`legal principle that “what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” applies here. See
`
`Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 136 S. Ct. 1412, 1418 (2016). The parties (including not just
`
`Mylan, but the other defendants as well) are directed to meet and confer in an effort to reach
`
`agreement as to the number of prior art references the defendants will be allowed to assert. If the
`
`parties cannot reach agreement and Court intervention is needed, the Court will address the
`
`question after full briefing of the issue.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2017.
`
`_____________________________
`WILLIAM C. BRYSON
`UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
`
`5
`
`