Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00884-SLR Document 74 Filed 09/ 1 3/2006 Page 1 ot 2
ae I CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 8: HUTZ LLP
fj ~m*··—····—··r· 11’’1`··‘ rsr·r"s"rvrsrrr“rM"“"r""‘"""—’_‘Y‘“"“"””"”*"*"”r*éw‘ The Nemours Beildiag
i A ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1007 North Orange Street
R0. Box 2207
Wiimington DE 19899
TEL (302) 558 9i4i
rmt (302) 658 5614
_ _ _ _ 1.990 M Street, NW, Suite 800
Francis Diglomanm Washington DC 20036
F°a"“°* mr2o21 231 71 ll
we (sez) ssassis in r2o2> aes seas
mx (302) 0586014
Z2’§£§ii’$gi»$i&ri}2£%bZi`itT§§" www-mice
September 13, 2006
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson `
United States District Court
l District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Fencing B. li v. T eva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., ct al.,
Civil Action No. 04-884-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
On behalf of plaintiff Ferring B.V., we respectfully submit two recent items that relate to
the Motion to Dismiss and for Atto1neys’ Fees (D.I. 61) tiled by defendant Teva and the
Opposition and Cross—Motion to Stay (I).I. 69) filed by plaintiff Ferring BV. ("Ferring").
First, attached heretoas Exhibit A is an excerpt from the transcript of a hearing held on
July 21, 2006, in the case ofit/[cyer Inc. et ai. v. F erring B. VC ci al., No. 05—CV-2237 (S.D.N.Y.).
That case is presided over by Judge Brieant, who found inequitable conduct in Ferriag B. ii and
Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Barr Labs., C.A. No. 02·—CV-9851 (S.D.N.Y.) ("Fcrriag v.
Barr"). The Meyer v. Ferring case involves antitrust claims based upon the Fencing v. Barr
decision. As the Court knows, Teva relies upon the Ferring v. Barr decision in support of its
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The Meyer v. Ferriag transcript is relevant because Judge Brieant
therein acknowledges that he himself considers the Ferring v. Barr decision of inequitable
conduct to be a close case. Sec Ex. A at 5 ("I was terribly disappointed to note that that Judge
Newman, who I hold in very great esteem, had dissented, and I think the fact that she did shows
that the whole thing wasn’t totally free from doubt."). Judge Brieant’s very own statement of
“doubt" concerning the decision supports a deniai of Teva’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. See
Di. 70 at 21-22 (the closeness ofthe case miiitates against an award of attorneys’ fees).
Second, attached hereto as Exhibit B is the Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari
recently filed by Ferring and Aventis Pharmaceuticals inthe Farming v. Barr case. The filing and

Case 1:04-cv-00884-SLR Document 74 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
Cowwouv Bova LODGE & Hurz LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
September 13, 2006
Page 2 of 2
strength ofthe petition further supports a denial of Teva’s Motion to Dismiss and for Attorneys’
Fees.
Counsel is available at the Court’s convenience should the Court have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis DiGiovanni
Enclosures
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (by hand)
Dennis J. Mondolino, Esq. (by email)
Iesy W. Ingersoll, Esq. (by hand)
William F. Long, Esq. (by e—mail)
487375]