Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00229-G|\/IS Document 55 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
>
MERCK & CO., Inc. )
) ;
Plaintiff, )
>
)
RANBAXY INC. and RANBAXY )
LABORATORIES LIMITED, )
) Z
Defendant. )
) C.A. No. 07-229 (GMS) L
) .
RANBAXY INC. and RANBAXY ) l
LABORATORIES LIMITED, ) A
`
Counterclaim Plaintiff, )
) E
v. )
)
MERCK & CO., Inc. )
>
Counterclairn Defendant. )
RANBAXY’S OPPOSITION TO MERCK’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF i
TIME TO FILE ITS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR Q
LEAVE TO FILE ITS FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 2
Defendants Ranbaxy Inc. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (collectively
"Ranbaxy”’), respectfully submit this opposition to Merck’s Motion for Extension of
Time (D.I. 53). While Ranbaxy understands the Merck’s need for an extension to Y
accommodate schedules, an extension of one week is not warranted in this instance. l
First, the resolution of l\/lerci<’s Motion for Leave to File Its First Supplemental
Complaint (D.I. 48) (the “Motion"), could be case dispositive and its outcome is likely to
inform Ranbaxy’s business decisions related to the launch of its proposed product.
stri-1251074-1

Case 1:07-cv-00229-G|\/IS Document 55 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3 l
Accordingly, Ranbaxy would like brieting on the Motion to be completed as soon as
possible so that the Motion is on the Court’s docket and ready for consideration by the
Court at the Court’s convenience.
Second, Merck’s Motion seeks to supplement its Complaint based on a Certificate
of Correction issued by the PTO on November 6, 2007. Rather than file its Motion O
shortly after receiving the Certiticate of Correction, Merck waited until the deadline for j
tiling of motions to amend, knowing that the briefing schedule would likely overlap with
the Mor/cmort hearing.
Given the importance to Ranbaxy of receiving a decision on the Motion and the
fact that Merck self-selected the date of filing, Ranbaxy respectfully requests that (
Merck’s Motion for Extension of Time be denied. i
or couivsar; . . [email protected] @mgm
Frederick . Cottrell lll (#2555)
Mark Boland Cottrell @rlt`.com
Kermeth J. Burchfiel Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
Michael Dzwonczyk [email protected]
Chid S. Iyer Richards, Layton & Finger
Renita S. Rathinam One Rodney Square
Chandran B. Iyer 920 N. King Street -
Sughrue Mion PLLC Wilmington, DE 19899
2lO0 Pemisylvania Ave., N.W. Attorneys for Defendant/Counterc/oimant
Washington, D.C. 20037 Rartbctxy Laboratories Limited and Roribcixy .
(202) 293—7060 Inc. 2
Dated: February 6, 2008
RLFI-325lO'i'4~l 2

Case 1:07-cv-00229-G|\/IS Document 55 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 6, 2008, I electronically tiled the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court using Cl\/lfECF and caused the same to be served on the
defendant at the addresses and in the manner indicated below:
HAND DELIVERY and E-MAIL:
Mary B. Graham
James W. Parrett, Jr. ;
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunneli LLP i
1201 North Market Street j
Wilmington, DE 19899 `
I hereby certify that on February 6, 2008, the foregoing document was sent to the A
following non-registered participants in the manner indicated: ;
Raymond N. Nimrod
Jenner & Block LLP E
919 N. Third Avenue l
27** Floor
New York, NY 10022—3908
Aaron A. Barlow _
Gregory D. Bonitield
Jenner & Block LLP
330 N. Wabash Avenue .
Chicago, IL 60611-7603 i
gg; pa ,i - mwwc
Kelly E arnan (#4395)
RLFI-3168916-1