Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00884-SLR Document 81 Filed 11/O3/2006 Page 1 of 2
y CON NOLLY BOVEZ LODGE 8e HUTZ LLP
ri ATTORNEYS AT TM l2§2$‘i.'2Zi'2?.“l;i‘2i....
P.O. Box 2207
Wilmington DE 19899
rm. (302) 658 9141
FAX (302) 658 5614
F..mS Dtemmt lZiS..l.iE.'€§é‘£’.l.2“*iE 8°“
Partner vn (202) 221 7111
m. (302) 888-6316 m<2o2> 293 6229
Z“i.f?§’ “"‘5‘i"‘ tl. .0...
..21... .$glil¥}L`£°Z» rm WEB WW-=T*T·T¤·TT
November 3, 2006 1
VIA ECF — ELECTRONIC FILING
Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court
District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Ferring B. Vi v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 04-8 84-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
We write briefly in response to Teva’s letter dated October 31, 2006.
Yesterday, Ferring filed a Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice. In its Motion, Ferring
requested that the Court also dismiss Teva’s declaratory judgment counterclaims as moot and
retain jurisdiction solely for the purpose of deciding Teva’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Ferring
believes that this is the most efficient and practical resolution to this proceeding.
Lest there be any doubt, Ferring continues to vigorously oppose Teva’s motion for
attorneys’ fees presently before this Court (D.l. 61). ln its October 31 letter, Teva argued that
the denial of certiorari "supports its motion for attorneys’ fees." However, the facts remain that
the Ferring v. Barr decision of inequitable conduct was a close case and a highly contested
decision both within the Federal Circuit and more broadly within the patent community. The
Supreme Court’s denial of Ferring’s petition for certiorari in no way minimizes this. Judge
Newmarfs lengthy and strident dissent and the fact that three Federal Circuit Judges (Judges
t Newman, Lourie and Gajarsa) would have reheard Ferring’s Federal Circuit appeal en banc are
evidence enough. Notably, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Pharmaceutical Research and
1 Manufacturers of America, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization filed very strong
amicus curiae briefs in support of Ferring’s certiorari petition.
Finally, Teva’s assertion that the Supreme Court’s denial of Ferring’s certiorari petition
somehow "adds another judgment," one from the "highest [court] in the land," is incorrect. A
W denial of certiorari is obviously not a judgment. The Supreme Court receives nearly 10,000

Case 1:04-cv-00884-SLR Document 81 Filed 11/O3/2006 Page 2 of 2
CONNOLLY Bova Looe; & Hurz LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
November 3, 2006
Page 2 of 2
petitions per year and accepts less than 125.1 Similarly, contrary to Teva’s representation to this
Court, Ferring did not “strongly suggest[]" that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari. While
of course hopeful, Ferring never made a representation concerning the odds that its petition
would be accepted, but rather only argued that it was in the interest of efficiency and finality to
stay this proceeding pending resolution of the Supreme Court proceedings.
Counsel for Ferring is available at the Court’s convenience should the Court seek any
additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis DiGiovanni
cc: Clerk of the Court (via ECF and hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esq. (via hand)
. William F. Long, Esq. (via e-mail)
Dennis J. Mondolino, Esq. (via e-mail)
497853_1
1 Statistics from the Supreme Court Public Information Office for the 2005 term (9,608 petitions
l filed, 122 accepted). .
l