`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
` CIVIL NO. 1:22-CV-61
`
`
` (KLEEH)
`
`
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant/Counter-Claimant.
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 428, 429]
`AND RELATED MOTIONS [ECF NOS. 439, 483, 484]
`
`Pending before the Court are motions for summary judgment
`
`filed by both parties. The Court finds that genuine disputes
`regarding material facts exist in this case, to the extent that
`summary judgment for either party is inappropriate under Rule 56
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties’ motions for
`summary judgment are DENIED [ECF Nos. 428, 429]. As such,
`Regeneron’s amended motion to strike arguments raised in Mylan’s
`reply brief is DENIED AS MOOT [ECF No. 484]. Regeneron’s original
`motion to strike is also DENIED AS MOOT [ECF No. 483].
`
`Mylan also filed a Rule 56(d) motion to defer and conduct
`further discovery to adequately oppose summary judgment. Because
`the Court is denying both motions for summary judgment, the motion
`to defer is DENIED AS MOOT [ECF No. 439].
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00061-TSK-JPM Document 525 Filed 06/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 41449
`REGENERON V. MYLAN
`
`
`
`
`
` 1:22-CV-61
`ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NOS. 428, 429]
`AND RELATED MOTIONS [ECF NOS. 439, 483, 484]
`
`counsel of record.
`
`Entered: June 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
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
