<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Patent News Daily &#187; Gottschall</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patentnewsdaily.com/category/gottschall/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patentnewsdaily.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:16:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Motion to Amend Pleadings:  Relevant Delay is to Trial Date</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/ChicagoIpLitigationBlog/~3/WlBJ3zv9n6s/</link>
		<comments>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/ChicagoIpLitigationBlog/~3/WlBJ3zv9n6s/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Syndicated</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ANDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cipla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cobrek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gottschall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LUXIQ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motion to Amend]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pleading Requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stiefel Research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chicagoiplitigation.com/2009/07/articles/pleading-requirements/motion-to-amend-pleadings-relevant-delay-is-to-trial-date/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><strong><em>Connetics Corp. v. Pen</em>tech Pharms., Inc.</strong>, No. 0<strong><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">7</span></span></strong> C 2230, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2009)&#160;(Gottschall, J.).</p>
<p>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.&#160; 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.&#160; 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.&#160; In this case, the Court had recently extended fact discovery.&#160; So, plaintiffs had time to seek discovery on the defenses and counterclaims without delaying the trial date.</p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<p>&#160;</p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ChicagoIpLitigationBlog/~4/WlBJ3zv9n6s" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><em>Connetics Corp. v. Pen</em>tech Pharms., Inc.</strong>, No. 0<strong><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">7</span></span></strong> C 2230, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2009)&nbsp;(Gottschall, J.).</p>
<p>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; In this case, the Court had recently extended fact discovery.&nbsp; So, plaintiffs had time to seek discovery on the defenses and counterclaims without delaying the trial date.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ChicagoIpLitigationBlog/~4/WlBJ3zv9n6s" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/ChicagoIpLitigationBlog/~3/WlBJ3zv9n6s/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
