Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20191203f33 Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . This is a consolidated patent infringement case brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act where Plaintiffs Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited seek to prevent Defendants West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited ("West-Ward"), Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. ("Hikma"), and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, "DRL") from launching generic competitor drugs to Plaintiffs' drug Vas
More

ORDER

This is a consolidated patent infringement case brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act where Plaintiffs Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited seek to prevent Defendants West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited ("West-Ward"), Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. ("Hikma"), and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, "DRL") from launching generic competitor drugs to Plaintiffs' drug Vascepa. Before the Court are the parties' supplemental briefs as to why exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 to Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be filed under seal, filed in response to the Court's prior order (ECF No. 278 at 19-25). (ECF Nos. 283, 290.)

The parties agree that exhibits 13, 14, 15, and 16 do not need to be sealed, and have filed unredacted versions of those exhibits. (ECF Nos. 283 at 2, 290 at 2; see also ECF Nos. 283-1, 283-2, 290-2, 290-3 (unredacted versions of exhibits).)

That leaves only Plaintiffs' request to file a version of exhibit 12 that has only their employees' signatures redacted. (ECF No. 290 at 2-3.) The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that redacting their employees' signatures is appropriate. (Id.) See also Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Consumer Def., LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00030-JCM-PAL, 2018 WL 3997260, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2018) (granting motion to seal documents containing signatures). The Court has also reviewed the proposed redacted exhibit, and confirms it only includes redactions of employee signatures. (ECF No. 290-1.) The Court will thus grant that request.

As the parties have already filed unsealed versions of the exhibits that were the subject of the Court's prior order, and Plaintiffs have filed an appropriately redacted version of exhibit 12, no further action is required as to these exhibits and their corresponding motions to seal.

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