`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAIICHI
`SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED, and
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,
`
`
`
`
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 20-1524-LPS
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s April 28, 2021 Order (D.I. 34), and further to their May 21, 2021
`
`and June 21, 2021 Joint Status Reports (D.I. 35, 36), the parties provide this update regarding the
`
`action pending in the Eastern District of Texas1 and Seagen Inc.’s (“Seagen’s”) patent at issue in
`
`the above-captioned action and the Texas case (“the ’039 patent”).
`
`On June 28, 2021, Judge Gilstrap denied Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.’s (“DSC”) Motion to
`
`Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and DSC’s
`
`Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the District of Delaware, filed in the Texas case.
`
`Ex. A. Accordingly, Seagen’s patent infringement claims against DSC will not be transferred to
`
`this Court and shall proceed in accordance with the schedule in the Texas case (see Ex. A at 23).
`
`Furthermore, on June 24, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute
`
`DSC’s and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP’s petitions for post-grant review of the ’039 patent.
`
`Exs. B-C. See also D.I. 32 at 8:1-4 (discussing pending petitions at oral argument on Seagen’s
`
`Motion to Stay or Dismiss). In addition, on July 16, Seagen dropped from the Texas case Claims
`
`
`1 Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, No. 2:20-337 (E.D. Tex.) (“Texas case”).
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 37 Filed 07/21/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 846
`
`6-8 of the ’039 patent. Claims 6-8 of the ’039 patent remain pending in the above-captioned
`
`action.
`
` In light of the foregoing decisions, Seagen respectfully submits that the stay of this
`
`action, which currently expires on July 27, 2021, should be extended to remain in place until the
`
`final adjudication of or dismissal of the Texas case. Seagen further proposes that the parties
`
`submit a further Joint Status Report to this Court within ten (10) days of entry of final judgment
`
`or a dismissal of the Texas case.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs, on the other hand, respectfully submit that the stay of this action, which
`
`currently expires on July 27, 2021, should be extended another 90 days to permit the parties to
`
`reach mutual agreement as to (1) the non-overlapping patent claims (Claims 6-8 of the ’039
`
`patent) and (2) whether the stay should be extended until the final adjudication of or dismissal of
`
`the Texas case.
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`
`
`/s/ Steven J. Balick
`
`
`
`
`Steven J. Balick (No. 2114)
`Andrew C. Mayo (No. 5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, Delaware 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Daiichi
`Sankyo, Inc. and Daiichi
`Sankyo Company, Limited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
`& TAYLOR, LLP
`
`/s/ Samantha G. Wilson
`
`
`
`
`Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`agaza@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01524-LPS Document 37 Filed 07/21/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 847
`
`
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`/s/ Alexandra M. Joyce
`
`
`
`
`Michael P. Kelly (No. 2295)
`Daniel M. Silver (No. 4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (No. 6423)
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`mkelly@mccarter.com
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`ajoyce@mccarter.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
`
`Dated: July 21, 2021
`
`
`
`
`28390236.1
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
