Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 68.1 kB
Pages: 1
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 374 Words, 2,344 Characters
Page Size: 612.48 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8236/89-1.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 68.1 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-00884-SLR Document 89 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 1 of 1
CON NOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
% Arronmzvs AT 1.Aw
wtrmmeron, ma
. . . . rn N B wa
§;g;·,$·S¤·G·¤v¤¤¤· r¤Z71'231'2..`E,,2i.
TE" mz) 8B8°G316 illiltnlnzrjnzoda 19899
mx (302) 658-5614 ’
[email protected] TEL: (302) 658 9141
REPLYTO \/Wlmington Of0Ce FAX: (ggg) 658 5614
WEB: vvww.cblh.c0m
Apni 9, 2007 1
Via CM/ECF
Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson E
United States District Court i
District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Ferring B. VY v. Teva Pharms. USA, Civ. No. 04-884-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
We write pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.2(c) to advise the Court of the status of proceedings
in the case of F earring B. Vi v. Barr Labs., No. O2-CV-9851 (S.D.N.Y), that are relevant to
defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees (D.I. 61) pending in the instant case.
Attached is the transcript from the oral argument on Barr’s motion for attorneys’ fees in
the F erring v. Barr case, held on March 1, 2007. The transcript sets forth, at pages 36-40, Judge
Brieant’s decision, denying Barr’s motion for attorneys’ fees (which was virtually identical to the
motion for attorneys’ fees made by Teva in the instant case, and was premised on the same
conduct before the PTO). Judge Brieant specifically held: (a) that the lack of candor constituting
inequitable conduct in the case did not render the case exceptional so as to justify an award of
atto1neys’ fees; and (b) as to other factors alleged by Barr such as litigation misconduct, the court
noted that there was "no gross injustice to be undone in this case by awarding attomeys’ fees in
the defense of this relatively routine patent infringement litigation?
ln view of the foregoing, and as set forth in Ferring’s brief, Teva is very clearly not
entitled to attorneys’ fees in this case.
Respectfully submitted, _
/s/ Francis DiGi0vanni
Francis DiGiovanni
Enclosure
cc: Clerk of the Court (Via hand—delivery)
Dennis J. Mondolino, Esq. (Via e—mail)
J osy W. Ingersoll, Esq. (Via hand-delivery and e-mail)
William F. Long, Esq. (Via e-mail) ¤
53 1770
wurmnueron, mz wrsmrmom, uc tos Aueztes, CA