`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`NOVO NORDISK INC. and NOVO
`NORDISK A/S,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1:17CV227 JFB-SRF
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter is before the court on the report and recommendations of the
`
`magistrate judge regarding claim construction, Filing No. 61. No objections have been
`
`filed by any of the parties.
`
`
`
`The standard of review is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 72(b). The district court “shall make a de novo determination of those
`
`portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
`
`objection is made” and “may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
`
`magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Similarly, Rule 72(b)(3)
`
`requires de novo review of any recommendation that is dispositive of a claim or defense
`
`of a party.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court has construed the statutory grant of authority conferred on
`
`magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636 to mean that nondispositive pretrial matters are
`
`governed by § 636(b)(1)(A) and dispositive matters are covered by § 636(b)(1)(B).
`
`Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873-74 (1989); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
`
`Under subparagraph (B), a district court may refer a dispositive motion to a magistrate
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF Document 68 Filed 08/08/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 898
`
`
`
`
`
`judge “to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the
`
`court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition.” 28 U.S.C. §
`
`636(b)(1)(B); see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99–100 (3d Cir. 2017). The
`
`product of a magistrate judge, following a referral of a dispositive matter, is often called a
`
`“report and recommendation.” Id. “Parties ‘may serve and file specific written objections
`
`to the proposed findings and recommendations’ within 14 days of being served with a
`
`copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`72(b)(2)).
`
`“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
`
`district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
`
`specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” EEOC,
`
`866 F.3d at 99 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
`
`The court has carefully reviewed the report and recommendations and finds the
`
`magistrate judge is correct as a matter of fact and law. The court finds the determinations
`
`are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court will adopt the findings and
`
`recommendation of the magistrate judge.
`
`THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT the report and recommendations of the
`
`magistrate judge, Filing No. 61, is adopted in its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated this 8th day of August, 2018.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
`Senior United States District Judge
`
`
`
`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
