Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 387 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 15108
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant,
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, and
`ASTRAZENECA UK LTD,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`SEAGEN’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING ON ITS MOTION FOR ENTRY
`OF POST-TRIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE
`
`In accordance with Local Rule CV-7(e), Seagen moves for an expedited briefing
`
`schedule for its Motion for Entry of Post-Trial Briefing Schedule, filed on April 22, 2022. Given
`
`the limited life left on the asserted ’039 patent and the jury verdict of willful infringement in
`
`favor of Seagen, it is in the interest of justice to proceed expeditiously towards the entry of a
`
`final, appealable judgment. Defendants have reviewed Seagen’s April 22 motion and oppose
`
`this motion for expedited briefing.
`
`Defendants’ desire for delay is plain. In the parties’ meet and confer on April 22, 2022,
`
`Defendants confirmed that they intend to seek a stay of the entry of judgment in favor of their
`
`recently-instituted proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.1 As Seagen explained
`
`
`1 Defendants previously requested to stay this case in favor of the proceedings before the PTAB.
`The Court denied the request. (Trial Tr. Vol. V at 49:22–51:02).
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-CV-00337-JRG
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant,
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, and
`ASTRAZENECA UK LTD,
`
`
`Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`SEAGEN’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING ON ITS MOTION FOR ENTRY
`OF POST-TRIAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE
`
`In accordance with Local Rule CV-7(e), Seagen moves for an expedited briefing
`
`schedule for its Motion for Entry of Post-Trial Briefing Schedule, filed on April 22, 2022. Given
`
`the limited life left on the asserted ’039 patent and the jury verdict of willful infringement in
`
`favor of Seagen, it is in the interest of justice to proceed expeditiously towards the entry of a
`
`final, appealable judgment. Defendants have reviewed Seagen’s April 22 motion and oppose
`
`this motion for expedited briefing.
`
`Defendants’ desire for delay is plain. In the parties’ meet and confer on April 22, 2022,
`
`Defendants confirmed that they intend to seek a stay of the entry of judgment in favor of their
`
`recently-instituted proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.1 As Seagen explained
`
`
`1 Defendants previously requested to stay this case in favor of the proceedings before the PTAB.
`The Court denied the request. (Trial Tr. Vol. V at 49:22–51:02).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 387 Filed 04/25/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 15109
`
`to Defendants, however, any such run-out-the-clock scenario would discount the substantial
`
`investment the parties made in reaching a jury trial verdict, and could ultimately result in
`
`simultaneous competing appeals before the Federal Circuit.
`
`Defendants should not be permitted to delay entry of the final judgment in this case in
`
`hopes of potentially obtaining a second bite at the apple from Patent Office proceedings—
`
`proceedings that are unlikely to result in an appealable decision for a year. Seagen therefore
`
`requests that the Court order Defendants to respond to Seagen’s Motion for Entry of Post-Trial
`
`Briefing Schedule by April 28, 2022, and set an expeditious schedule for resolving post-trial
`
`issues as contemplated by Seagen’s proposed schedule.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 387 Filed 04/25/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 15110
`
`Dated: April 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Wesley Hill
`Michael A. Jacobs
`MJacobs@mofo.com
`Matthew A. Chivvis
`MChivvis@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.268.7000
`Facsimile: 415.268.7522
`
`Bryan Wilson
`BWilson@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
`Telephone: 650.813.5600
`Facsimile: 650.494.0792
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: 903.934.8450
`Facsimile: 903.934.9257
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`jw@wsfirm.com
`Wesley Hill
`Texas Bar No. 24032294
`wh@wsfirm.com
`Charles Everingham IV
`Texas State Bar No. 00787447
`ce@wsfirm.com
`Andrea L. Fair
`Texas State Bar No. 24078488
`andrea@wsfirm.com
`WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`Telephone: 903.757.6400
`Facsimile: 903.757.2323
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Seagen Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 387 Filed 04/25/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 15111
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 25th day of April, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Wesley Hill__________________
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`On April 12, 2022, Seagen proposed a schedule to Defendants to take the prosecution
`
`laches issue up by submission to the Court, with briefing completed by May 27, 2022.
`
`Defendants said they would evaluate the proposal, but suggested they were unlikely to agree. On
`
`April 20, 2022, Seagen followed up, proposing one briefing schedule for all pending post-verdict
`
`issues. Defendants again suggested they were unlikely to agree. The parties held a meet and
`
`confer on April 22, 2022. In that discussion, Defendants did not agree to the proposed schedule,
`
`and instead suggested they intend to seek a stay of this litigation in light of the April 7, 2022,
`
`institution decision by the PTAB. Seagen noted it would thus be filing the Motion for Entry of
`
`Post-Trial Briefing Schedule opposed, and requested that Defendants agree to expedited briefing.
`
`Defendants requested that they be permitted to evaluate the motion before stating a position on
`
`expedited briefing, but again noted they intend to seek a stay. After filing the Motion for Entry
`
`of Post-Trial Briefing Schedule on April 22, 2022, Seagen followed up on Defendants’ position
`
`regarding expedited briefing on Seagen’s motion. Defendants did not agree to an expedited
`
`briefing schedule. Accordingly, this motion is opposed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Wesley Hill______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
