Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
765 F. Supp. 2d 87
D. Mass.2011Background
- Momenta owns two enoxaparin sodium manufacture patents; PTO issued in Aug 2009 and Sept 2010.
- Momenta began marketing the first generic enoxaparin product in July 2010.
- Teva announced in Feb 2010 its plan to sell a generic enoxaparin after FDA approval.
- Plaintiffs allege Teva prepared to sell a product infringing their patents; seek injunctive relief and damages.
- Plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery; Teva was initially a defendant but later dismissed; scheduling conference set for Mar 15, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause supports expedited discovery before 26(f) conference | Momenta needs discovery to decide on preliminary injunction | Teva argues improper purpose and lack of irreparable harm | Denial of expedited discovery; no good cause |
| Whether irreparable harm supports expedited discovery | Infringement imminence threatens irreparable harm | Potential market entry damages are calculable; no irreparable harm | No irreparable harm found; discovery denied |
| Whether delaying discovery until after a 26(f) conference is proper | Early discovery necessary to address injunction issues | Case law generally disfavors pre-26(f) expedited discovery | Court proceeds with normal discovery schedule after Rule 26(f) conference |
Key Cases Cited
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 82 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (irreparable harm not established; damages calculable)
- Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (prematurity and irreparable harm factors in expedited discovery)
- McMann v. Doe, 460 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D. Mass. 2006) (multifactor reasonableness standard for expedited discovery)