Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 128 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 5674
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS
`LP, and ASTRAZENECA UK LTD
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Ltd.’s (together,
`
`“AstraZeneca”) Unopposed Motion to Intervene (the “Motion to Intervene”). (Dkt. No. 126). In
`
`the same, AstraZeneca moves to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 as a defendant. (Id.).
`
`Courts may permit a party to intervene if the party files a timely motion and “has a claim
`
`or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`24(b)(1)(B). The Court must consider whether intervention “will unduly delay or prejudice the
`
`adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
`
`AstraZeneca is involved in the domestic commercialization and sale of Defendant Daiichi
`
`Sankyo Co. Ltd.’s (“Daiichi Sankyo Japan”) drug Enhertu, which is the accused product in this
`
`case. AstraZeneca has defenses that share common questions of law and fact, including similar
`
`non-infringement and invalidity defenses. Reid v. General Motors Corp., 240 F.R.D. 257, 260
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2006). Intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the rights of Plaintiff Seagen,
`
`Inc. (“Seagen”) or Defendant Daiichi Sankyo Japan because Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo Japan, and
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 128 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 5675
`
`AstraZeneca have agreed to allow the intervention in a manner that does not disrupt the existing
`
`schedule or expand the scope of the case. In particular, the parties have agreed that AstraZeneca
`
`will join Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s invalidity contentions and they will file claim construction
`
`briefing and “any other permitted briefs, such as in support of summary judgment or pretrial
`
`proceedings, jointly on a ‘per side’ basis, and without any expansion of page limitations.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 126 at 4). The Court also notes that the Motion to Intervene was timely.
`
`Therefore, having considered the Motion to Intervene, and noting it is unopposed, the Court
`
`is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is ORDERED as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Limited
`(collectively, “AstraZeneca”) are permitted to intervene pursuant to Rule 24
`as defendants. They are directed to file their Answer, attached as Exhibit A
`to their motion, within two (2) business days of this Order. Papers filed in
`this action going forward shall use the caption above.
`
`AstraZeneca shall have until Friday, August 6, 2021 to comply with
`Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Court’s Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 51) and is not
`obligated to re-produce documents already produced in this action by
`Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited (“Daiichi Sankyo Japan”). AstraZeneca
`shall have until Friday, August 6, 2021 to comply with Paragraph 6 of the
`Court’s Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 51) and is not obligated to re-log
`privileged information already logged by Daiichi Sankyo Japan. Each party
`shall produce to AstraZeneca any documents that such party previously
`produced in this action by Friday, August 6, 2021.
`
`The Discovery Limitations set forth in Paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b) of the
`Court’s Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 51) that are “per party” shall apply “per
`side.” Daiichi Sankyo Japan and AstraZeneca shall coordinate in seeking to
`take the deposition of any Seagen-affiliated witness and no witness shall be
`deposed for more than seven hours based on the fact that there are multiple
`defendants. If Seagen needs to conduct an in-person deposition of a witness
`affiliated with AstraZeneca who is based in the United Kingdom and who
`has been identified in AstraZeneca’s initial disclosures, to avoid the need to
`invoke procedures under the Hague Evidence Convention, AstraZeneca UK
`shall make such a witness available for deposition in the United States,
`subject to any travel restrictions imposed by either the United States or the
`United Kingdom as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`4.
`
`AstraZeneca US and AstraZeneca UK are “Parties” to the Court’s
`Protective Order (Dkt. No. 55).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 128 Filed 07/28/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5676
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`AstraZeneca US and AstraZeneca UK are “Parties” to the E-Discovery
`Order (Dkt. No. 65).
`
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan and AstraZeneca shall file a single Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief, and AstraZeneca will join in Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s
`Invalidity Contentions. No change is being made to the P.R. 3.3 & 3.4
`deadlines.
`
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan and AstraZeneca shall file any other permitted briefs,
`such as in support of summary judgment or pretrial proceedings, jointly on
`a “per side” basis, and without any expansion of page limitations.
`
`The Clerk of Court is directed to add AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Ltd
`
`as Intervenor-Defendants on CM/ECF and to amend the case caption accordingly.
`
`
`
`3
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of July, 2021.
`
`