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

Case 1 :06-cv-00741-SLR Document 19 Filed O1/23/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
C FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CELGENE CORPORATION, NOVARTIS )
PHARMACBUTICALS CORPORATION and )
NOVARTIS PHARMA AG, ) Civii Action No. 06-74l~SLR
i )
Plaintiffs, )
. v. )
)
I ABRIKA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and )
ABRIKA PHARMACEUTICAL, LLLP, )
E · )
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDAN'I`S’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
A SUR~RE.PLY OR FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
i Defendants motion for leave to file a fourth brief in this Court on plaintiffs’ pending
motion to strike or stay shouldlbe denied. Defendants previously indicated in the briefing that
they would file a jurisdictionai motion in New Jersey. They have now done so and, by virtue of
their motion seeking leave, so informed this Court. No additionai discussion or argument on this
i point is needed.
The only other basis stated for additionai briefing is plaintiffs citation to unpublished
orders in the Abbott Laboratories v. Arzdrx cases. Piaintiffs’ original moving papers cited case
C law estabiishing that a tirst—tiled action takes priority even when the plaintiff tiles a second~·filed
E protective action in another venue. Defendants criticized plaintiffs’ cases because the underlying
cause of action in those cases was not a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement ciairn. In reply,
plaintiffs identified Hatch—Wax1nan cases in which priority was given to the first-filed action and
the second action was stayed. Defendants desire to have the last word on this issue does not
justify further briefing.

Case 1 :06-cv—OO741-SLR Document 19 Filed O1/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
Finally, as an alternative to additional written brieiing, defendants seek oral argument on
plaintiffs motion. However, plaintiffs submit that the `oriefs already on tile are more than
sufficient to resolve the motion. No oral argument is needed.
Defendants? motion for leave to file a sur-reply or for oral argument should be denied.
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
OF COUNSEL:
Anthony M. lnsogna By: /s/ Philip A. Rovner
Lester J. Savit Philip A. Rovaer (#3215)
JONES DAY Hercules Plaza
12750 High B1uffDrive, Suite 300 P. O. Box 951
San Diego, CA 92130-2083 Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(858) 314-1200 (302) 984-6000
provner@potteranderson,com
F. Dominic Cerrito
‘ JONES DAY Attorneys for Plairttyjir
222 East 41% Street
New York, New York 10017-6702
1 (212) 326-3939
Attorneys for Plairztmfelgerze Corporation
Robert L. Baechtold
Henry J. Renk
Nicholas N. Kallas
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
30 Rockefeller Plaza
( New York, New York 10112
A (2l2)2l8—2l00
Attorneys for Plaintyjiv Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
and Novartis Pharma AG
Dated: January 23, 2007
774000
I 2

? Case 1 :06-cv—OO741-SLR Document 19 Filed O1/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip A. Rovner, hereby certify that on January 23, 2007, the within document
was filed with the Clerk ofthe Court using CM/ECP which will send notification of such
filing(s) to the following; that the document was served on the following counsel as indicated;
l and that the document is avaliable for viewing and downloading from CM/ECP.
( BY HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL
Andre G. Bouchard, Esq.
John M. Seaman, Esq.
Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, P.A.
I 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
Wilmington, DE 19801
abouchard@bmf—law.com
;`seama;n@,bmf~law.oom
I hereby certify that on January 23, 2007 I have sent the foregoing document by
E-mail to the following non-registered participants in the manner indicated:
James D. Veltrop, Esq.
Jonathan A. Harris, Esq.
Chad A. Landnion, Esq.
Jo—Anne M. Kokoski, Esq.
? Axinn, Veitrop & Harkrider LLP
, 90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103
[email protected]; ;'a’n@,q avhlaw.com;
[email protected]; ]·1'I]k(@1€i.Vl’1iB.W.COI'1'1
/s/ Philip A. Rovner
Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
Hercules Plaza
P. O. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 984-6000
i [email protected]
Q 768868