Connetics Corp. v. Pentech Pharms., Inc., No. 07 C 2230, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2009) (Gottschall, J.).
Judge Gottschall granted defendants' motion to amend their answers to include new invalidity and unenforceability affirmative defenses and counterclaims in this ANDA patent case involving plaintiff's patented pharmaceutical LUXIQ. The Court held that the amended answers and counterclaims were appropriate, although they were sought after the Court's deadline to amend the pleadings for reasons similar to Judge Lienenweber's analysis in a motion to amend adding the same defenses and claims in a related case -- click here to read the Blog's post on that opinion. Of particular note, the Court held that the delay at issue is delay of the trial, not a party's delay in seeking to amend. In this case, the Court had recently extended fact discovery. So, plaintiffs had time to seek discovery on the defenses and counterclaims without delaying the trial date.
Posted under ANDA, Cipla, Cobrek, Delay, Gottschall, LUXIQ, Motion to Amend, Pentech, Pleading Requirements, Stiefel Research
This post was written by Syndicated on July 8, 2009
