Impax Laboratories Inc., et al. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-984-RGA (D. Del. Feb....
description
Transcript of Impax Laboratories Inc., et al. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-984-RGA (D. Del. Feb....
,1: . '
I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE i
IMP AX LABO RA TORIES INC., et al., I
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 14-984-RGA
LANNETT fIOLDINGS INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiffs have requested permission to file a motion for summary judgment of
infringemenr (D.I. 70). Defendants oppose. (D.I. 72). I
Defendants say Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' discovery is barely started. That may
be so, but siiice the issue for infringement is (1) construction of the claims, which has already
been done (D.I. 60), and (2) comparison of the claims with the accused ANDA product, !
Plaintiffs' allegedly deficient discovery responses seems to be a makeweight argument.
Defendants ~lso say that there is a genuine factual dispute over the composition of the accused 'I
ANDA product. While I am not convinced this is the case, I also think that expert reports, which i I I
will not be fj.nished until late May at the earliest, will be necessary to decide whether there is, or
is not, a dispute, and, if there is, what the evidence will show about who has the better argument. I I
I
Thus, I am dubious about how helpful a summaryjudgment motion might be.
I
Further (if a "further" is needed), the schedule for this case really does not have sufficient
I time built into it for orderly summary judgment practice.
Thus' I do not believe that summary judgment practice would be efficient or productive. I I