Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Case 1'11-cv-11061-NMG Document li4Q Filed Ud/és/lo Fage 1 oro UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and _ ) SANDOZ INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.: 1:11-cv-11681-NMG ) AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ) and INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION ) SYSTEMS, LTD., ) ) Defendants. ) CO) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Meében S| Geler, USDT 3/15/18 / Case Lill-CVv-LLOol-NVIG VocumMent Li4U0 Filed Ucico/lo rage < ofo Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d), Defendants Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and International Medication Systems, Ltd. (collectively “Amphastar”) respectfully request entry of final judgment against Plaintiffs Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz, Inc. (collectively “Momenta”). L BACKGROUND The jury rendered its verdict in this matter on July 21, 2017 (Dkt. No. 1081). The jury found: 1. Defendants Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and International Medication Systems, Ltd. (collectively “Amphastar”) infringe claims 6, 15, 16, 53, 54, and 62 (the “Asserted Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,575,886 (“the ’886 patent”) for use of the 15-25% procedures and Disaccharide Building Block (“DBB”) procedure; 2. Momenta should be awarded $0.00 for lost profits and reasonable royalties due to the infringement; 3. The Asserted Claims of the ’886 patent are not anticipated; 4, The Asserted Claims of the ’886 patent are not obvious; 5. The Asserted Claims of the ’886 patent are invalid because the claims are not enabled; and 6. The Asserted Claims of the ’886 patent are invalid because the claims lack written description. The Court then entered a Memorandum and Order on February 7, 2018 (Dkt. No. 1139) ruling on Amphastar’s equitable defenses. The Court’s Order specified that: 1. Momenta waived its right to enforce the ’886 patent against Amphastar for use of its 15-25% procedures; Vase Liit-CV-LLOOL-NMG VOCcumMent LL4U Filed Udies/lo rage o O1o 2. Momenta is equitably estopped from enforcing the ’886 patent against Amphastar for use of its 15-25% procedures; 3. Momenta did not waive its right to enforce the °886 patent against Amphastar for use of its DBB procedure; and 4, Momenta is not equitably estopped from enforcing the 886 patent against Amphastar for use of its DBB procedure. I. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) provides that a final judgment “must be set out in a separate document.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a); see also, Fiore v. Washington County Community Mental Health Ctr., 960 F.2d 229, 232-33 (1st Cir. 1992) (adopting a uniform approach for all orders denying post-judgment motions under separate rules as orders constituting judgments “subject to Rule 58’s separate document requirement.”); Willhauck v. Halpin, 919 F.2d 788 , 79394 (1st Cir. 1990) (providing that a district court fails to meet the “separate document” mandate of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 when its final judgment is not recorded on a separate document). Furthermore, Rule 58(d) states that a “party may request that judgment be set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d). In this case, the Court’s February 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order was entered pursuant to Rule 52(a). (Dkt. No. 1139 at 5-6). To date, no final judgment under Rule 58 has been entered. Therefore, under Rule 58(d), Amphastar respectfully requests that the Court enter the Proposed Final Judgment attached as Exhibit A. Case l:ll-cv-11681-NMG Documenti140 Filed Ud¢ics/ls Page 40r6 Dated: February 23, 2018 Respectfully submitted, AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and INTERNATIONAL MEDICATION SYSTEMS, LTD. By their attorneys, /s/ Robert A. Delafield II Douglas Carsten (admitted pro hac vice) Natalie J. Morgan (admitted pro hac vice) Joshua Mack (admitted pro hac vice) Chao Qi (admitted pro hac vice) Alina Litoshyk (admitted pro hac vice) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 dearsten(@wsgr.com nmorgan(@wser.com jmack@wser.com cqi@wsgr.com alitoshyk@wsegr.com Michael S. Sommer (admitted pro hac vice) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 msommer@wsgr.com Robert A. Delafield II (admitted pro hac vice) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy. Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor Austin, TX 78746 bdelafield@wser.com Sara Tolbert (admitted pro hac vice) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 stolbert@wsgr.com Daryl L. Joseffer (admitted pro hac vice) Sheldon Bradshaw (admitted pro hac vice) KING & SPALDING 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Case 1:11-cv-11681-NMG Document 1140 Filed Odizs/lo Page djoseffer@kslaw.com sbradshaw@kslaw.com Alan D. Rose (BBO # 427280) Meredith Wilson Doty (BBO # 652220) Antonio Moriello (BBO # 685928) ROSE, CHINITZ & ROSE One Beacon Street, 23rd Floor Boston, MA 02108 Tel.: 617-536-0040 adr@rose-law.net mwd@rose-law.net am@rose-law.net Case Lill-cv-LL0cl-NMG Document 1140 Filed 02/25/16 rage 5 oro CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1 [hereby certify that counsel for Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and International Medication Systems, Ltd. has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. in an effort to narrow or resolve the issues raised in this motion. Plaintiffs have objected to the motion. /s/ Robert A. Delafield I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent via mail to those indicated as non-registered participants on February 23, 2018. /s/ Robert A. Delafield I