The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc., No. 11 C 1285, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2013) (St. Eve, J.).
Judge St. Eve denied plaintiff The Medicines Company’s (“TMC”) motion to compel discovery withheld as privileged in this patent dispute. Initially, the Court held that TMC failed to comply with Local Rule 37.2 by filing its motion to compel without having a meet and confer. But the Court addressed the merits of the motion to avoid “needless delay.”
Drafts of defendant Mylan’s expert report were not discoverable. Mylan’s counsel had not written the reports, they had merely provided a prior declaration, portions of which were used verbatim in the report. TMC was, however, free to impeach the expert based upon his copying of the declaration. Finally, TMC did not show the “substantial need” required to overcome the Rule 16(b) protections of the draft reports.
The Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc., No. 11 C 1285, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2012) (St. Eve, J.).
Judge St. Eve construed the claims in this patent case related to bivalirudin. Of particular note:
- “Pharmaceutical Batches” was construed as “may include a single batch, wherein the single batch is representative of all commercial batches (see generally, Manual of Policies and Procedures, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, MAPP 5225.1, Guidance on the Packaging of test Batches at 1) made by a compounding process, and wherein the levels of, for example, Asp9 -bivalirudin, total impurities, and largest unknown impurity, and the reconstitution time represent levels for all potential batches made by said process. ‘Batches’ may also include all batches prepared by a same compounding process.”
- “Efficiently Mixing” was construed as “a pH-adjusting solution and the first solution are mixed not using inefficient mixing conditions such as described in Example 4.”
As usual, the Court very helpfully provided a glossary of constructions at the end of the opinion. Hopefully, this is a practice every judge will adopt.