Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:04-cv—00884-SLR D0cument71-16 Filed 07/17/2006 Page10f4
E h 'b 't 1 0

1 so 1 4. was 15;02vtdt-oossalstlttttvobtiurhlent 71-16 Filed 07/17/2006 'litaglétz or it- Z/' j
Slglslgtlsnd °im§2i§§i§z%E
~· n ' n · -
& . .
Brennaiiur 'wirtiittiii
manners mm
wmtmm s. wisc
DIRECT LINE: 4o4.S53.8s47
Internet: bill10¤g@¤¤l>1¤w·¤¤m
February 14, 2005

Dennis J`. Mondolino, Esq.
Esther H. Steinliauer, Esq.
Morgan Lewis &: Bockius LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Fax: (212) 309-6001
Re: Ferring v. Teva, Civil Action No. 04-384 (SLR) (D. Del.)
Dear Counsel:
Jack Minnear advised me that during last weelds telephone call, Ms. Steinhauer asserts! .
that Ferring would not voltmtarily dismiss its patent iniringement claims in the above-captionen
matter. I write to request that you reconsider that position.
As you are aware, Judge Brieant’s February 7 , 2005 Memorandum and Order held that
the ‘398 patent is unenforceable for inequitablc conduct and not infringed by desmopressin
acetate tablets. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Blender-Tongzte and that case’s progeny proven .
Fening nom attempting to enforce patent rights held in other jurisdictions to have been procurt cl
through inequitable conduct. As such, Fcrring does not have a reasonable basis in law or fact t1 1
oppose the entry of summary judgment in Teva’s favor on its non-infringement and
uuenfomeability defenses and countexclaims. Ferrlng’s infringement claims should be
dismissed.
In light of clear precedent prohibiting further attempts to enforce the *398 patent by
Ferring, further activity by Ferring in this action is inappropriate. We do not understand why
further discovery efforts or any other actions would be warranted, aside from possible motions
designed to effectuate a dismissal of this case.
Atlanta n Austin n Houston n New York n Tallahassee ¤ Washington, D1

»· 1u_y.$1¢1. Ztllifdse 1 :09.HMv-00snu14is1L i Dennis J. Mondolino, Esq.
Esther H. Steinhsuer, Esq.
~ February 14, 2005
Page 2
Please let us know no later than Friday, February 18, 2005 Whether Ferxing will
reconsider its refusal to voluntarily dismiss the case. IfFerring does not do so, Teva intends to
seek summary judgment on the basis of collateral estoppel and to seek sanctions including,
without limitation, its a1:tomcys’ fees and other expenses.
Sincerely yours,
l,1}.:!.~ ii ZEN
William F. Long °
cc: Francis DiGiova.nni, Esq.
J osy Ingersoll, Esq. ‘
so mrsus.4

" Case 1:04-cv—00884-SLR Document 71-16 Filed 07/17i2006 Page 4 of 4
r ’M ,Li&Bk`Ll.P Q, nl '
léiiiit itil. °° Morgan L€W1S
;‘;;k§(';'g£ggg8‘°°6° C O U N S E L 0 R S A T L A W
Far: 212:309:60OI
WWW.II'l0fg8l’IIEWiS.COI'I'l
Dennis J. Mondolino
Partner
(212) 309-2107
[email protected]
February 15, 2005 °
VIA FACSIMILE A
William F. Long, Esq.
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
999 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2300
Atlanta, Georgia 10309-3996
Re: Ferring BM v. Teva
Civ. Action No. 04-884 (SLR)
Dear l\/lr. Long:
This responds to your letter of February 14, 2005.
Ferring declines Teva’s request to voluntarily dismiss its patent infringement suit
in the above-captioned matter but would agree to a stay of all discovery pending
Ferring’s appeal ofthe New York district court’s decision to the Federal Circuit. A stay
will preserve this Court’s resources in the event of a reversal. Should Teva file a
summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel, we will oppose and request a
stay pending the above-mentioned appeal.
Very truly yours,
?2.,..,Zf%e4t%.. ,
Dennis J. ondolino
cc: Josy W. Ingersoll, Esq. (via facsimile) l
‘ y Francis DiGiovanni, Esq. (via facsimile) _ ‘ V
1-NY/1875347.1 A n A F