Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 6
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`PURDUE PHARMAL.P.,
`PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.,
`and RHODES TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`Vv.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`COLLEGIUM PHARMACEUTICAL,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`meeeeeeee
`
`C.A. No. 15-cv-13099-FDS
`(Lead Docket No.)
`
`STIPULATION AND PROPOSED! ORDER
`
`WHEREAS Plaintiffs Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.
`
`(collectively, ““Purdue’”’), and Rhodes Technologies (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have asserted
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,073,933 (the “933 patent’); 9,522,919 (the “’919
`
`patent”); 10,407,434 (the “’434 patent”); and 9,693,961 (the “’961 patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “patents in suit”) against Defendant Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Defendant”) in
`
`the above-referenced litigation;
`
`WHEREAS on September 15, 2019, Plaintiffs and their debtor affiliates each
`
`commenced a voluntary bankruptcy case under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States
`
`Code (11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
`
`District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) (the “Purdue Bankruptcy Proceedings,”
`
`Lead Case No. 19-bk-23649);
`
`WHEREASon April 1, 2021, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in the above-
`
`referenced litigation throughthe close of expert discovery (Dkt. 253);
`
`WHEREAS on September 17, 2021,
`
`the Bankruptcy Court approved the Twelfth
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`PURDUE PHARMAL.P.,
`PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.,
`and RHODES TECHNOLOGIES,
`
`Vv.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`COLLEGIUM PHARMACEUTICAL,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`meeeeeeee
`
`C.A. No. 15-cv-13099-FDS
`(Lead Docket No.)
`
`STIPULATION AND PROPOSED! ORDER
`
`WHEREAS Plaintiffs Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.
`
`(collectively, ““Purdue’”’), and Rhodes Technologies (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have asserted
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,073,933 (the “933 patent’); 9,522,919 (the “’919
`
`patent”); 10,407,434 (the “’434 patent”); and 9,693,961 (the “’961 patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “patents in suit”) against Defendant Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Defendant”) in
`
`the above-referenced litigation;
`
`WHEREAS on September 15, 2019, Plaintiffs and their debtor affiliates each
`
`commenced a voluntary bankruptcy case under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States
`
`Code (11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
`
`District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) (the “Purdue Bankruptcy Proceedings,”
`
`Lead Case No. 19-bk-23649);
`
`WHEREASon April 1, 2021, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in the above-
`
`referenced litigation throughthe close of expert discovery (Dkt. 253);
`
`WHEREAS on September 17, 2021,
`
`the Bankruptcy Court approved the Twelfth
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 6
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 6
`
`Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Purdue Pharma L.P. andits Affiliated
`
`Debtors(the “Plan of Reorganization”) (19-bk-23649, Dkt. 3786; 3787);
`
`WHEREASon November16, 2021, Plaintiffs and Defendantfiled a stipulation and
`
`proposedorder to temporarily suspendall litigation activity in this action (subject to certain
`
`exceptions) until January 31, 2022 and to amendthe existing Scheduling Order deadlines
`
`(Dkt. 305), and on November 17, 2021, the Court so ordered the stipulation (Dkt. 306);
`
`WHEREASthe Bankruptcy Court’s order approving the Plan of Reorganization was
`
`appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lead
`
`Case No. 21-cv-07532), and on December 16, 2021,
`
`the United States District Court
`
`vacated that confirmation order (21-cv-07532, Dkt. 301);
`
`WHEREASonJanuary 7, 2022, the United States District Court certified its order for
`
`interlocutory appeal, on the condition that the application to the United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Second Circuit for an appeal mustbefiled on an expedited basis, and that the application
`
`must include a request that the appeal be considered on an expedited basis (21-cv-07532, Dkt.
`
`305);
`
`WHEREASon January 18, 2022, Plaintiffs and their debtor affiliates petitioned the
`
`Second Circuit for leave to appeal the United States District Court’s order, and included a
`
`request for the appeal to be considered on an expedited basis (In re Pharma L.P. et al, Lead
`
`Case No. 22-85 (2d Cir.), Dkt. 1);
`
`WHEREASon January 27, 2022, the Second Circuit issued an order (1) granting the
`
`petitions for leave to appeal and the requests to expedite the appeals, (2) further ordering the
`
`following accelerated briefing schedule wherein the joint appendix andfinal briefs are due on
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 3 of 6
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 3 of 6
`
`March 28, 2022; and (3) notifying the parties that “[t]he Court will schedule oral argumentthe
`
`weekof April 25, 2022, or as soon thereafter as practicable” (22-85, Dkt. 219 at 2);
`
`WHEREASon February 8, 2022, the Court ordered a temporary suspension ofall
`
`litigation activity in this action until at least February 28, 2022, and thereafter until further order
`
`of the Court (Dkt. 310);
`
`WHEREASon February 17, 2022, Purduefiled a notice of appeal of PGR2018-00048
`
`in the United States Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) of the
`
`Final Written Decision and denial of Purdue’s request to terminate the PGR concerning the °961
`
`patent.
`
`(Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc., C.A. No. 2022-1482, D.I.
`
`1
`
`(Fed. Cir.);
`
`WHEREASon March 15, 2022, the Court held a telephonic status conference and
`
`ordered counselin this case to confer regarding a short-term extension of the case management
`
`schedule going forward and to submit a proposal by April 4, 2022;
`
`WHEREASonApril 4, 2022, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order to
`
`amend the existing Scheduling Order deadlines and to stay (a) Case No. 17-cv-11814
`
`concerning the ’961 patent, (b) Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Supplemental Declaration of
`
`Panayiotis Constantinides, and (c) the Court’s Markman decision concerning the disputed claim
`
`terms of the 961 patent, pending resolution of Purdue’s appeal of PGR2018-00048 to the
`
`Federal Circuit (Dkt. 314), and on April 5, 2022, the Court so ordered the stipulation (Dkt.
`
`317);
`
`WHEREASon April 29, 2022, the Second Circuit held oral argumenton the petition
`
`filed by Plaintiffs and their debtoraffiliates, and a decision on that petition is expected to issue
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 6
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 6
`
`in the next three months;
`
`WHEREASon August 17, 2022, the Court scheduled a telephonic status conference for
`
`November16, 2022;
`
`WHEREAS, on November7, 2022, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
`
`order to further amend the existing Scheduling Order deadlines by approximately 90 days
`
`(Dkt. 326), and stated that “the parties agree that, at this time, a temporary suspension of the
`
`existing case management schedule is appropriate in anticipation of the Second Circuit’s
`
`decision on the petition filed by Plaintiffs and their debtor affiliates” and “respectfully
`
`request[ed] that the telephonic status conference scheduled for November 16, 2022 be adjourned
`
`until the week of February 13-17, 2023 (i.e., approximately 90 days later, subject to the Court’s
`
`availability and approval)” (id. at 4-5), and on November 17, 2022 the Court so ordered the
`
`stipulation (Dkt. 328);
`
`WHEREAS, on November 17, 2022, the Court rescheduled the telephonic status
`
`conference to February 15, 2023 at 2:00pm (Dkt. 329);
`
`WHEREASthe Second Circuit has not yet issued its decision on the petition filed
`
`by Plaintiffs and their debtoraffiliates;
`
`WHEREASthe parties agree that, at
`
`this time, a continuation of the temporary
`
`suspension of the existing case management schedule is appropriate in anticipation of the
`
`Second Circuit’s decision on the petition filed by Plaintiffs and their debtoraffiliates;
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREEDbytheparties, subject to the approval
`
`of the Court:
`
`1.
`
`The existing Scheduling Order deadlines are amendedasfollows:
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 5 of 6
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`nendedDeadline.
`
`at
`ely90 days
`
`
`later
`August 2, 2023
`
`September 13, 2023
`October 25, 2023
`
`rrentDeadline
`Close ofFact Discovery. | ‘May 4, 2023
`Parties’ Opening Expert
`June 15, 2023
`Disclosures
`Parties’ Rebuttal Expert
`July 27, 2023
`Disclosures
`Deposition of Parties’
`Trial Experts
`
`August 24, 2023
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`November22, 2023
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendant respectfully request that the telephonic status
`
`conference scheduled for February 15, 2023 be adjourned until the week of May 15-19, 2023
`
`(i.e., approximately 90 days later, subject to the Court’s availability and approval).
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendant agree this stipulation and proposed order has no impact
`
`on non-party discovery.
`
`4,
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendantagreethis stipulation and proposed order will not be
`
`used to argue for further suspensionsor extensionsof the case schedule.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendantagreethis stipulation and proposed order will not be
`
`used to argue for or against any requests for injunctiverelief.
`
`AGREED AND STIPULATEDTO:
`
`Date: February 8, 2023
`
`/s/ Christopher M. Morrison
`Christopher M. Morrison (BBO# 651335)
`JONES DAY
`100 High Street
`21st Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 960-3939
`Facsimile: (617) 449-6999
`cmotrison@jonesday.com
`
`John J. Normile (pro hac vice)
`Gasper J. LaRosa (pro hac vice)
`
`/s/ Christopher P. Sullivan
`Christopher P. Sullivan (BBO #485120)
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`800 Boylston Street
`Suite 2500
`Boston, MA 02199
`(617) 267-2300
`CSullivan@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`Jake M. Holdreith (pro hac vice)
`Christopher A. Pinahs (pro hac vice)
`Emily J. Tremblay (pro hac vice)
`
`
`
`Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 6 of 6
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS
`Case 1:15-cv-13099-FDS Document 331 Filed 02/10/23 Page 6 of 6
`
`Ellen K. Levish (pro hac vice)
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 349-8500
`JHoldreith@RobinsKaplan.com
`CPinahs@RobinsKaplan.com
`ETremblay@RobinsKaplan.com
`ELevish@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`Oren D. Langer(pro hac vice)
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`1325 Avenue of the Americas
`Suite 2601
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 980-7400
`OLanger@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`Attorneysfor Defendant
`
`Kevin V. McCarthy (pro hac vice)
`Adam M. Nicolais (pro hac vice)
`JONES DAY
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281
`Telephone: (212) 326-3939
`Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
`jjnormile@jonesday.com
`gjlarosa@jonesday.com
`kmecarthy@jonesday.com
`anicolais@jonesday.com
`
`Gregory Castanias (pro hac vice)
`Jennifer L. Swize (pro hac vice)
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Telephone: (202) 879-3939
`Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
`gcastanias@jonesday.com
`jswize@jonesday.com
`
`Pablo D. Hendler (pro hac vice)
`POTOMAC LAW Group, PLLC
`1177 Avenue of the Americas, 5" Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (914) 893-6883
`Facsimile: (202) 318-7707
`phendler@potomaclaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`SO ORDEREDthis 74 day of
`
`023.
`
`Hon. F. Dennis Saylor IV
`United States District Judge
`
`
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
