,1: . '

I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE i

IMP AX LABO RA TORIES INC., et al., I

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 14-984-RGA

LANNETT fIOLDINGS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiffs have requested permission to file a motion for summary judgment of

infringemenr (D.I. 70). Defendants oppose. (D.I. 72). I

Defendants say Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' discovery is barely started. That may

be so, but siiice the issue for infringement is (1) construction of the claims, which has already

been done (D.I. 60), and (2) comparison of the claims with the accused ANDA product, !

Plaintiffs' allegedly deficient discovery responses seems to be a makeweight argument.

Defendants ~lso say that there is a genuine factual dispute over the composition of the accused 'I

ANDA product. While I am not convinced this is the case, I also think that expert reports, which i I I

will not be fj.nished until late May at the earliest, will be necessary to decide whether there is, or

is not, a dispute, and, if there is, what the evidence will show about who has the better argument. I I

I

Thus, I am dubious about how helpful a summaryjudgment motion might be.

I

Further (if a "further" is needed), the schedule for this case really does not have sufficient

I time built into it for orderly summary judgment practice.

Thus' I do not believe that summary judgment practice would be efficient or productive. I I

I ... Ii. I .

I

I therefore DENY Plaintiffs' request.

I . ~Oi IT I~ SO ORDERED this dJ_ day of February 2016.