Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00171-G|\/IS Document 116-18 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 1 of 4

Case 1 :04-cv-00171-GMS Document 116-18 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
--·--·------·--·---- -··-·~-- -----—· · —-—------—--—-—--·—--—- X
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED,
Plaintifzi Civil Action No. 04-171
I v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES
LIMITED,
Defendants. p
--—-- ··-------·-··——·····-••·········-·····-·—-·····-·—— ·--— ·- --—---·---- —·-—-X
DEFENDANT TEVA USA'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES TO TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., ("Teva USA") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
33, responds to Plaintiffs' Glaxo Group Limited's ("Glaxo") First Set of Interrogatories as
Q. follows. Because discovery and investigation in this case is ongoing, Teva USA may
learn additional facts and information that may affect its contentions or other responses.
Teva USA expressly reserves the right to update its responses should such infomation
become known.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
l. Teva USA objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the
production of informatiort protected from discovery under the attorney~client privilege,
the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.
2. U Teva USA objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is overly
broad, vague, or unduly burdensome.
C, ”

Case 1 :04-cv-OO171-GMS Document 116-18 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 3 of 4
INTERROGATORY N O. 8:
For each and all of Teva USA‘s allegations of unenforceability of the claims of
the patent-in-suit, explain the factual and legal bases for each allegation and identify all
knowledgeable individuals and the documents reviewed, considered and/or relied on in
support thereof] including all prior art references.
RESPONSE: I
Teva USA incorporates its General Objections. Teva USA objects to this
interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production of infomation protected from
discovery under the attorney~client privilege, the attomey work product doctrine, or any
other applicable privilege. Teva USA further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad
and unduly burdensome and as seeking information that is neither relevant nor reasonably
L . calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it seeks a response
Q on "each and all of Teva USA's allegations ofunenforceability of the claims ofthe
patent—in·-suit," Teva USA further objects to this interrogatory as seeking information Q
that istneither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence to the extent it seeks a response on "each and all of Teva USA's allegations of
unenforceability ofthe claims ofthe patent-in-suit," because Glaxo has not specified
which claims it intends to assert. Teva USA also objects to the interrogatory on the
grounds that the phrase "the documents reviewed, considered and/or relied on in support
thereof" is vague and ambiguous, and, tothe extent understood, calls for the disclosure of
attorney work product.
Teva USA further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous to the
extent that discovery is in the early stages, and that the Court has not yet construed the
12

Case 1 :04-cv-OO171-GMS Document 116-18 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 4 of 4
claim terms in the asserted claims. Teva USA reserves the right to modify, supplement,
and change this response upon further discovery, prosecution of Teva USA's ANDA, and
after the Court construes the claims. l
Subject to these and the general objections, Teva USA states that, upon -
infomation and belieii the Applicant ofthe '249 patent and/or his agents knowingly
withheld knowledge of a prior Tagamet solution containing ethanol from the Patent
Office. This solution was more relevant in some respects than the prior art cited during
the prosecution of the '249 patent. Upon information and belief} the Applicant and/or his
agents did so with the intent to mislead the Patent Office.
Upon information and belief} the Applicant and/or his agents (including Dr.
Hempenstall) also kznowingly withheld stability data from the Patent Office during the
_ prosecution ofthe ’249 patent. Upon information and beliex§ the withheld data was
L il`` ` highly material to the patentability of the '249 patent, and the Patent Examiner should
have been allowed to review this data to determine for himself whether Dr. Hempenstall‘s
clainis were accurate. A Upon infomation and belief the Applicant andfor his agents
(including Dr. Hempenstall) did so with the intent to mislead the Patent Office. A
As a result of the Applicants and/or his agents' inequitable conduct during the
prosecution of the ’249 patent, all the claims ofthe '249 patent are unenforceable.
INTERROGATORY N0. 9:
For Teva USA's denial ofthe allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint with
respect to Teva Israel, explain the factual and legal bases for such denial and identify all
knowledgeable individuals and the documents reviewed, considered and/or relied on in
support thereof
ti.
13 l

Case 1:04-cv-00171-GMS

Document 116-18

Filed 07/10/2006

Page 1 of 4

13

Case 1:04-cv-00171-GMS

Document 116-18

Filed 07/10/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00171-GMS

Document 116-18

Filed 07/10/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00171-GMS

Document 116-18

Filed 07/10/2006

Page 4 of 4