Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 80 Filed 04/19/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2678
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00337-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ORAL HEARING
`REGARDING DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(DKT. 22) AND MOTION TO TRANSFER (DKT. 24)
`
`Defendant Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited (“Daiichi Sankyo Japan”) respectfully
`
`requests an oral hearing that collectively addresses Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s Motion to Dismiss for
`
`Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Motion to Dismiss,” Dkt.
`
`22) and Motion to Transfer on the Basis of Inconvenience under 28 U.S.C. §1404 to the District
`
`of Delaware (“Motion to Transfer”; Dkt. 24). As of April 15, 2021, with the filing of Seagen Inc.’s
`
`(“Seagen”) sur-replies (Dkt. 76 and Dkt. 77), these motions are fully briefed.1 In addition, Daiichi
`
`Sankyo Japan respectfully suggests that oral argument on those two motions could be heard at the
`
`
`1 Seagen does not oppose Defendant’s Motion for Oral Hearing on its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 22)
`and Motion to Transfer (Dkt. 24). In scheduling such a hearing, however, Seagen disagrees that
`briefing is complete, and that Defendant’s motions should be collectively heard at one hearing
`with Seagen’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 58). Seagen’s motion seeks discovery that is relevant to
`Defendant’s motions. The Court should have a complete record before hearing these
`motions. Seagen has requested permission to supplement its oppositions to Defendant’s motions
`accordingly. (Dkt. 66 at 15; Dkt. 67 at 21.) Thus, it is Seagen’s position that any hearing on
`Defendant’s motions should occur only after Seagen’s motion has been decided and after Seagen
`has filed its supplemental briefs.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SEAGEN INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00337-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ORAL HEARING
`REGARDING DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(DKT. 22) AND MOTION TO TRANSFER (DKT. 24)
`
`Defendant Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited (“Daiichi Sankyo Japan”) respectfully
`
`requests an oral hearing that collectively addresses Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s Motion to Dismiss for
`
`Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Motion to Dismiss,” Dkt.
`
`22) and Motion to Transfer on the Basis of Inconvenience under 28 U.S.C. §1404 to the District
`
`of Delaware (“Motion to Transfer”; Dkt. 24). As of April 15, 2021, with the filing of Seagen Inc.’s
`
`(“Seagen”) sur-replies (Dkt. 76 and Dkt. 77), these motions are fully briefed.1 In addition, Daiichi
`
`Sankyo Japan respectfully suggests that oral argument on those two motions could be heard at the
`
`
`1 Seagen does not oppose Defendant’s Motion for Oral Hearing on its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 22)
`and Motion to Transfer (Dkt. 24). In scheduling such a hearing, however, Seagen disagrees that
`briefing is complete, and that Defendant’s motions should be collectively heard at one hearing
`with Seagen’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 58). Seagen’s motion seeks discovery that is relevant to
`Defendant’s motions. The Court should have a complete record before hearing these
`motions. Seagen has requested permission to supplement its oppositions to Defendant’s motions
`accordingly. (Dkt. 66 at 15; Dkt. 67 at 21.) Thus, it is Seagen’s position that any hearing on
`Defendant’s motions should occur only after Seagen’s motion has been decided and after Seagen
`has filed its supplemental briefs.
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 80 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2679
`
`same time as oral argument on Seagen’s related Motion to Compel (Dkt. 58). Seagen recently
`
`requested argument on that Motion to Compel, but argument has not yet been scheduled. (Dkt.
`
`71.) Given the interconnected nature of these three motions, it would be practical and efficient to
`
`hear argument on all three motions at the same time.
`
`In further support thereof, Daiichi Sankyo Japan states as follows:
`
`1. On January 5, 2021, Daiichi Sankyo Japan filed its Motion to Transfer and Motion to
`
`Dismiss. (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 24.)
`
`2. Seagen sought jurisdictional and venue discovery in connection with these motions,
`
`and as a part of that discovery process, also brought a Motion to Compel. Seagen’s
`
`Motion to Compel requests additional jurisdictional and venue discovery that it seeks
`
`for use in supplementing its responses to the Motion to Dismiss (as to the personal
`
`jurisdiction argument, but not the subject matter jurisdiction argument) and the Motion
`
`to Transfer. (Dkt. 58.)
`
`3. The Court previously granted a motion to expedite briefing on Seagen’s Motion to
`
`Compel due to the connection with Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s pending Motion to Dismiss
`
`and Motion to Transfer. (Dkt. 61.)
`
`4. Seagen’s Motion to Compel is fully briefed at Dkt. 58 and Dkt. 60, and briefing of
`
`Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Transfer also is complete
`
`(see Motion to Dismiss, Dkts. 22, 67, 69, 77; Motion to Transfer, Dkts. 24, 66, 70, 76).
`
`As briefing is finalized for these motions, no undue delay would result in hearing all
`
`three motions together.
`
`5. Hearing argument on these three motions at the same time would serve the interests of
`
`judicial economy. For example, if this Court agrees with Daiichi Sankyo Japan that it
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 80 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 2680
`
`lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it will obviate the need for this Court to address the
`
`Motion to Transfer, the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the
`
`Motion to Compel.
`
`6. Daiichi Sankyo Japan conferred with Seagen and is authorized to represent that Seagen
`
`disagrees that briefing is complete, and that Defendant’s motions should be collectively
`
`heard at one hearing with Seagen’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 58).
`
`Accordingly, Daiichi Sankyo Japan respectfully requests oral hearing to encompass
`
`argument on Daiichi Sankyo Japan’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 22) and Motion to Transfer (Dkt.
`
`24), and further respectfully suggests that such argument be scheduled at the same time as
`
`argument on Seagen’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 58).
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Deron R. Dacus
`Deron R. Dacus
`State Bar No. 00790553
`The Dacus Firm, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, Texas, 75701
`+1 (903) 705-1117
`+1 (903) 581-2543 facsimile
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`mark@themannfirm.com
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`(903) 657-8540
`(903) 657-6003 (fax)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Daiichi
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 80 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 2681
`
`Sankyo Company, Limited
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Preston K. Ratliff II
`Joseph M. O’Malley, Jr.
`Ashley N. Mays-Williams
`Paul Hastings LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 318-6000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Daiichi
`Sankyo Company, Limited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00337-JRG Document 80 Filed 04/19/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 2682
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above foregoing
`
`document has been served, via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3), upon all
`
`counsel of record on April 19, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Deron R. Dacus
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited has
`
`compiled with the meet and confer requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h). The personal conference
`
`required by Local Rule CV-7(h) was conducted on April 16, 2020 via email between Deron Dacus
`
`(representing Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited) and Melissa Smith (representing Seagen Inc.)
`
`This motion is unopposed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Deron R. Dacus____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
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
