Some action in the Ampha Patent case. I'll copy/paste the conclusion:
B. Conclusion
Because the Court finds that Amphastar’s motion is not ripe
for consideration and declines to exercise jurisdiction in any
event, it forgoes the issue of whether Momenta is entitled to
additional discovery before it can be required to file a
responsive pleading. Momenta’s motion to defer consideration
will be allowed and Amphastar’s motion to enforce liability on
the bonds will be denied without prejudice. Amphastar may renew
its motion after the Federal Circuit resolves Momenta’s appeal
from this Court’s entry of final judgment.
III. Amphastar’s request for an additional bond
In a subsequent “renewed motion” to enforce Momenta’s
liability on the bonds, Amphastar requests that the Court order
Momenta to post an additional security “to account for the lost
-15-
interest and delay damages” that continue to accrue. The Court
declines to do so, because:
1) Local Rule 62.2 is inapplicable in that the bond has yet
to be reduced to a money judgment and
2) modification of the bond or security pursuant to Local
Rules 67.1(h) and 67.1(i) is unwarranted. The Court concludes
that requiring an additional bond would not be in keeping with
the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) to “provide the plaintiff
with notice of the maximum extent of its potential liability.”
Global NAPs, 489 F.3d at 21 (citing Continuum, 873 F.2d at 803).
ORDER
In accordance with the foregoing,
1) Defendants’ motion to enforce liability on bonds for
damages arising from wrongfully-issued TRO and
preliminary injunction (Docket No. 521) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
2) Plaintiffs’ motion to defer consideration of motion to
enforce liability on the bonds (Docket No. 530) is
ALLOWED; and
3) Defendants’ renewed motion to enforce liability on the
bonds (Docket No. 594) is DENIED.
