Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Amarin Pharma Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp, 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20171219c47 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 95) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'s ("Teva") motion to vacate the pre-claim construction settlement conference ("settlement conference") set for January 8, 2018. Docket No. 95. Plaintiffs Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited ("Amarin") filed a response. Docket No. 99. Defendants West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited ("West-Ward
More

ORDER

(Docket No. 95)

Pending before the Court is Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'s ("Teva") motion to vacate the pre-claim construction settlement conference ("settlement conference") set for January 8, 2018. Docket No. 95. Plaintiffs Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited ("Amarin") filed a response. Docket No. 99. Defendants West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited ("West-Ward") filed a response. Docket No. 100. Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. ("Dr. Reddy") filed a response. Docket No. 101. Defendant Teva filed a reply. Docket No. 104.

Defendant Teva submits that the settlement conference should be vacated because: (1) attempts at settlement on the same patents in a prior litigation have been unsuccessful, decreasing the likelihood of success at settlement in this litigation and (2) it would be inconvenient for Defendant to travel and attend the settlement conference, especially given the low likelihood of success at settlement. Docket No. 95 at 2.

In response, Plaintiff Amarin submits that the parties have not completed their claim construction briefs. Docket No. 99 at 2. Plaintiff Amarin also submits that if all the parties cannot attend the settlement conference in person, that the settlement conference should be vacated and scheduled after an order has been issued on the claim construction. Id. Additionally, Defendant West-Ward submits that it does not oppose vacating the settlement conference and rescheduling it after an order has been issued on the claim construction, nor does it oppose proceeding with the settlement conference without all parties present. Docket No. 100 at 2. Further, Defendant Dr. Reddy submits that it does not oppose vacating the settlement conference and rescheduling it after an order has been issued on the claim construction. Docket No. 101 at 2. In reply, Teva notes that no party has objected to postponing the currently-scheduled settlement conference. Docket No. 104 at 2. Teva reiterates its position that the settlement conference will be more productive after the Court has issued a claim construction ruling. Id.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Defendant Teva's motion. Docket No. 95. The Court hereby VACATES the settlement conference on January 8, 2018. Docket No. 92. The Court will set a post-claim construction settlement conference after a claim construction order has been issued.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer