Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

I Case 1 :04-cv-OO171-GIVIS Document 69-7 Filed O9/28/2005 Page 1 of 4
. M n. Lewis & Beddus ur '
I iciigizirk s Morgan Lewis
‘_?:?v;*;;ggl;gggg8'D0B0 coousetons AT LAW
Fax: 212.309.60et
B m·.w.m¤rgaelewts.c¤m
Thomas J. Puppa
212-309-2118
I tpu;¤[email protected]
I June 20, 2005
VIA FACSIMILE
5 John M. Berns, Esq. n
Merchant & Gould
I 3200 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street -
Minneapolis, MN 55402
l Re: Glaxo Group Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Limited, Civil Action No. 04- l 7l·—KAJ
I Dear John:
l write in response to your letter dated June 14, 2005 and further to my e-mail dated June 15,
I 2005. There remain several outstanding discovery issues on which the parties appear to be at a
standstill. These issues have been addressed in my recent letters to you dated June 6, and June 9,
2005 and were discussed by us over the telephone on June 3, 2005.
Of immediate concern is the laclc of production of documents relating to the development (at
Novopharm and Teva) ofthe generic formulation. In addition, there remain outstanding
i discovery items from our first teleconference with Judge Jordan including such items as lab
notebooks, batch records, stability and other experimental data. At this point tinther depositions
without the requested infomation would not be productive.
l Another important issue concerns Teva’s refusal to provide a statement concerning infringement
ofthe “non-ethanol" claim limitations that would be admissible at trial. Such a statement would
l eliminate the need for discovery on all claim limitations to which infringement is admitted. To
date Glaxo has been more than willing to accept a statement in almost any form providing it be
binding on Teva and eliminate the need for Glaxo to prove infringement of those limitations at

I Case 1 :04-cv-OO171-GIVIS Document 69-7 Filed O9/28/2005 Page 2 of 4
I l J0h11IV1.B€1’I1S,ESQ. oouusntons AT LAW
June 20, 2005
I Page 2
trial. The lack of such a statement by Teva, either through a supplemental interrogatory response
I or in the form of an admission, is what is driving this dispute.
Glaxo also plans to inform the Court of its intent to use evidence from the Pharmaclyne trial
E relating to the invention claimed in the patent in suit.
As my previous letters have indicated, Glaxo has been more than willing to resolve this without
I further Court intervention. But as time is fast disappearing from the Court ordered schedule,
Glaxo believes it must now inform the Court of this continuing impasse.
Very truly yours,
i‘’‘`i Thomas J. Puppa

I Case 1 :O4—cv—OO171-GI\/IS Document 69-7 Filed O9/28/2005 Page 3 0f 4
4 . ··»•·¤•¤ JOB STATUS REPORT =•==•· AS Op JUN 20 2005 6:25 PM PAGE- Ol i
“ ‘ MORGAN LEW1 S
I J OB #797
DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE M I N SE
GO1 6/20 6: 2OP 61240035#16123329081# EC—·~S OOC/22S OOISGS Sgifruil
I 002 6:21P 302 658 5614 EC--S 0O"lS" 003 OK 1,1
_ 003 6:24P 61240035#13025711253# EC——-S OO' E2' 003 GK 1.1
I
H¤=¤¤¤.1.w»u&s¤a¤us»¤v MOfg3.H LEWIS
I CQUNSILOII AT LAY
we 212:10¤.600¤
not 212.309.6%*3
cfu: B‘U.432.96B2
I wnmmganhwksccul
FAX MESSAGE
:¤.s::x¤•••»¤¤rsn¤¤¤g•n»mu
Nam.: John M_ Barns, Egg, Firm: MB!Ch3¤¥ & Gmlld ¤a.v1·¤•n:¤ »£$
FM m-33y,gGg; Lamm 612»3v1-sm ““:“m_
Hmm: ` N“’“m¤.•¤n~¢·;$n¤1»x¤u=
i Mme: Jcsy W. I¤gcr¤¤¤. Esq- *”*¤*•= ¥¤‘¤;1S·L<`§i¤P¤¤W=Y» $***8*** &
3}* °1` ¤¤¤•·¤arr,v0uan¤e¤s·¢
mx 302-571-E253 Lwm 302-$71~66?2 g,$*.,*‘*.,,.. I
NUMUBYZ ‘ ¤§i?iAT|¢!|.M"I§•JT#|.¤8
I Hamm Francis DiGi¤vaz:m3, Esq. em Connolly Hove Lodge & Hut: gain i· w·_}
I-LP s'P»“i»’“""T.».»'§1"‘".»2¤'..»» .
I mq znmsss-$614 ;•¤w¤¤¤· 302-888-6316 m*”.§i”"’“w~m“°’“
Number: -
I \ Ngmg; '{jbqmgg ]_ Puppg Dwi ROR 311116 20, 2005
0,,,,,,,- mepmm 212-309-2118
wm: 212 $09-6001 ge ¤¤¤·¤¤¢¤**’=¤·== 3 l
I N : ` {bm thdudrmenwamvl

I Case 1 :04-cv-00171-GIVIS Document 69-7 Filed O9/28/2005 Page 4 0f 4
iJ01’é&§'1, Le1vie 8. Bcckius LLP '
Avenue
I " NBWYOYKNY cgygqsgyioas AT LAW
SE1.: 212.309.6000
·= Ax; 222.209.02vs
.x: 87'M32.9552
R W\NW.mOFQEDEEWiS.COm
I SAX MSSSASS
Name: Jem M. Beme, Esq. Sm: Merchant & Gouid
I Sex 612-3;s2»90s1 mepmne 6;;-371-53;.; §§S·¤··S¤rrsS¤· eeMe.S§q"§*¢q‘€
ANATTORNEY-C1.lENT
N umben N um ber: §_:gxqS;$ml¤r?n me AS suc:-a as
N m . J H E . . Teeqeééii e‘é?iS"L%i,"e“i‘“e;§
3 B' OSY Ingcllsc > Sq- Ann- Young, COHBWEY, Stargatt & N0`FTHE¥N1’ENDE9RECiP¤ENTOR
AN AGENT RESPOI~S¥BL£ RJR
I T3)/`EOI LLP gEE;;§;»Nr;6YgrU12RLui wrenusn
FAX 302-571-1253 Teuepmee 302-57]-6572 ggg;·e¤+meyw.K?;Z“Y
2S 22 NUSSSS ~~-¤S=
.;S1;r _ _ _ _ I . 1 , R
Nam FSSSSSS D¤GSSvSSr¤, Esq. em Connolly Bqve Lodge & Hum Si-’§"’e.—e"§%%§”qEr2’§?i‘&5eAe
`’`i`` LLP §§§"A'.EF‘f.m°:i¤“S§*e‘$“.L‘;"‘°" ‘"
i EMM 302-6586614 Tenepeqne 302-SSS-·63l6
Um R Number: · ·
H Nam: Thomas J. Puppa Gate sen: Jung gg, 2935
096*2*0* TSiSphSr=S 212-309—21 18
I ~¤i¤0¤ Nqmeee
- · K 2 12609-GOO} pgwyq 43 Number of Pages: 3
Number; {including ccver page)

Case 1:04-cv-00171-GMS

Document 69-7

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00171-GMS

Document 69-7

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00171-GMS

Document 69-7

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00171-GMS

Document 69-7

Filed 09/28/2005

Page 4 of 4