Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[mouton29]

I posted this on the BV board:

Re: Momenta v. Amphastar district court litigation

Two items of note, first, the Markman decision has been entered. Here is a link to a drop box pdf of the decision, I converted it using Acrobat OCR software which is usually reliable. I don't use drop box much so I hope this works. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ibo8vr1h630hlm5/Y1fAB5PL3D/Markman%20decision.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat.pdf

Many of the constructions are in favor of Momenta, some in favor of TEVA and Amphastar, some are deferred.

Also, on the discovery battle, that seems to have gone mostly to MNTA, the court ordered Amphastar to send a copy of the original 2000 page ANDA and to physically transport the 48 volumes containing the full ANDA, with further battles of what gets redacted to come. Here is a copy of that order.



06/27/2012 ELECTRONIC Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings: Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 6/27/2012 re 275 MOTION filed by Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz Inc. Counsel for defendants represents that all documents which have been ordered produced pursuant to the Court's Order of June 12, 2012 which have not yet been produced in unredacted form are in the ANDA, the ANDA amendments and the correspondence with the FDA which comprise 78 volumes. After considerable colloquy with counsel, the Court ORDERS the following: (1) The defendants shall produce the complete original ANDA application in an electronic form (approximately 2,000 pages) to counsel for the defendants by cob July 5, 2012; (2) on or before July 5, 2012, counsel for the defendants shall physically transport to plaintiffs' counsel's office in Boston a complete copy of all amendments to the ANDA together with a copy of same which contains the redactions which counsel for the defendants proposes in order to protect highly confidential and proprietary information; (3) counsel for the plaintiffs shall review both the redacted and unredacted copies and make a determination as to whether he or she agrees to the redactions; (4) as to any redactions to which plaintiffs' counsel agrees, the unredacted ANDA will be retained by defendants' counsel; (5) as to any redactions which are disputed, plaintiffs' counsel shall make a record identifying the page(s) and paragrph(s) or line(s) redacted and counsel for the defendants shall insure that the unredacted portions are brought to the Court at a hearing to determine whether or not the redactions shall stand. At the conclusion of this inspection, counsel for the parties shall attempt to reach agreement as to what correspondence with the FDA is sought and what correspondence is not sought. (Hopefully what will be sought will be substantially less than the 78 volumes) Thereafter, the defendants shall produce what correspondence plaintiffs seek. In the Court's view, this process, if undertaken in good faith, will resolve the dispute as to document production raised by the Court's Order. Nonetheless, the Court remains available to hear any disputes. (Court Reporter: Digital Recording - For transcripts or CDs contact Deborah Scalfani by email at [e-mail].)(Attorneys present: Frank, Murawski, Coen, Lee, Sgteindler, Weir,) (Entered: 06/27/2012)