Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 33.7 kB
Pages: 6
Date: April 28, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 999 Words, 6,505 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/39319/152.pdf

Download Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware ( 33.7 kB)


Preview Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 152

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 1 of 6

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS OPERATIONS, INC., ) and CORANGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, ) INCORPORATED, and ABBOTT DIABETES ) CARE SALES CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

Civil Action No. 07-753 JJF

DEFENDANT NOVA BIOMEDICAL CORP.'S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Nova Biomedical Corporation OF COUNSEL: Bradford J. Badke Sona De Michael P. Kahn ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 April 28, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 152

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 2 of 6

I.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Nova Biomedical Corporation ("Nova") hereby joins in Defendants

Bayer Healthcare, LLC ("Bayer") and Lifescan, Inc.'s ("Lifescan") Answering Brief In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Entry Of A Protective Order. In further support of entry of the protective order proposed by Bayer and Lifescan, Nova adds the following separate statement as to why Plaintiff Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. ("Roche") employees involved in patent prosecution should not have access to Defendants' CONFIDENTIAL information, and only Roche's outside counsel should have access to Defendants' HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL information. This safeguard is required in light of Roche's past behavior with respect to Nova's confidential information that demonstrates that there is a real possibility of similar misuse here. II. ROCHE'S HISTORY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION MISUSE As this Court is aware, Nova has asserted counterclaims in this action based on Roche's past misuse of Nova's confidential and proprietary information. D.I. 72, ¶¶ 1-22, 37-46. Specifically, Roche misappropriated Nova's trade secrets, engaged in unfair competition, and committed conversion by using Nova's confidential and proprietary information in the development of Roche's competing blood glucose products. D.I. 72, ¶¶ 37-46. As Nova will demonstrate in this action, pursuant to a confidentiality agreement, Roche was given access to Nova's confidential and proprietary information for the purpose of evaluating a potential business relationship with Nova for the distribution of Nova's blood glucose monitoring strips. This confidential and proprietary information included a product demonstration of Nova's blood glucose monitoring strip technology, a description of Nova's manufacturing process, Nova's product specifications, Nova's design of the product, and unpublished copies of two then-pending Nova patent applications (which were comprehensively

-1-

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 152

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 3 of 6

studied by Roche's in-house legal counsel).

Notwithstanding its obligations under the

confidentiality agreement, Roche used the confidential and proprietary information disclosed to it by Nova to develop its own glucose monitoring strips. D.I. 72, ¶¶ 1-22. Given Roche's history of misusing Nova's confidential information, Nova is justifiably concerned about: (a) providing its CONFIDENTIAL information to employees of Roche who are involved in patent prosecution; and (b) providing its HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL information to any employee of Roche. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, in addition to those stated by Defendants Bayer and Lifescan, Roche's motion for entry of a protective order should be denied, and a protective order in the form proposed in Bayer and Lifescan's Answering Brief should be entered. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Nova Biomedical Corporation OF COUNSEL: Bradford J. Badke Sona De Michael P. Kahn ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 April 28, 2008
2308740

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 152

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 4 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rodger D. Smith II, hereby certify that on April 28, 2008, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Philip A. Rovner, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire Richards Layton & Finger PA Mary W. Bourke, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Steven J. Balick, Esquire Ashby & Geddes John W. Shaw, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP I also certify that copies were caused to be served on April 28, 2008, upon the following in the manner indicated: BY HAND AND EMAIL Philip A. Rovner, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire Richards Layton & Finger PA One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Mary W. Bourke, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 152

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 5 of 6

Steven J. Balick, Esquire Ashby & Geddes 500 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 John W. Shaw, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 BY EMAIL Daniel A. Boehnen, Esquire Grantland G. Drutchas, Esquire McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Bergoff LLP 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 [email protected] [email protected] Michael G. Adams, Esquire Ashley L. Ellis, Esquire Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP Three Wachovia Center, Suite 3000 401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 [email protected] [email protected] Edward A. Mas II, Esquire McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. 500 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60661 [email protected] Rachel Krevans, Esquire Wesley E. Overson, Esquire Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] [email protected]

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00753-JJF

Document 152

Filed 04/28/2008

Page 6 of 6

Kenneth P. George Joseph M. Casino Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 [email protected] [email protected]

/Rodger D. Smith II
Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP (302) 658-9200 [email protected]

-3-