Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. |
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. |
1:2020cv00792 |
June 11, 2020 |
US District Court for the District of Delaware |
Richard G Andrews |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 7, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 16 REQUEST for Oral Argument by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. re #8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Under the Two Dismissal Rule. (Rahmeier, Thatcher) |
Filing 15 REPLY BRIEF re #8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Under the Two Dismissal Rule filed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.. (Rahmeier, Thatcher) |
Filing 14 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Lana S. Shiferman - filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Certification)(Brauerman, Stephen) Modified on 8/3/2020 (nms). |
SO ORDERED, re #14 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Lana S. Shiferman, filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/3/2020. (nms) |
Filing 13 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re #8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Under the Two Dismissal Rule filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 8/7/2020. (Brauerman, Stephen) |
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jonathan Herstoff for Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (myr) |
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Edgar H. Haug for Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (myr) |
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Porter F. Fleming for Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (myr) |
Pro Hac Vice Attorney Camille Y. Turner for Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (myr) |
SO ORDERED, re #12 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Edgar H. Haug, Porter F. Fleming, Jonathan Herstoff, and Camille Y. Turner of Haug Partners LLP, filed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/22/2020. (nms) |
Filing 12 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Edgar H. Haug, Porter F. Fleming, Jonathan Herstoff, and Camille Y. Turner of Haug Partners LLP - filed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.. (DiGiovanni, Francis) |
Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Thatcher A. Rahmeier on behalf of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (Rahmeier, Thatcher) |
Filing 10 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: identifying Corporate Parent Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Corporate Parent Takeda Pharmaceutical International AG for Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. filed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.. (DiGiovanni, Francis) |
Filing 9 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Under the Two Dismissal Rule, filed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 7/31/2020. (DiGiovanni, Francis) Modified on 7/17/2020 (nms). |
Filing 8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Under the Two Dismissal Rule - filed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.. (DiGiovanni, Francis) Modified on 7/17/2020 (nms). |
Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. served on 6/26/2020, answer due 7/17/2020. (Brauerman, Stephen) |
Filing 6 REDACTED VERSION of #2 Complaint, by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.. (Brauerman, Stephen) |
Case Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews. Please include the initials of the Judge (RGA) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) |
Filing 5 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.. (Brauerman, Stephen) |
Filing 4 ORDER Granting #1 MOTION For Leave to File Complaint Under Seal. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/11/2020. (nms) |
Filing 3 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (lak) |
Filing 2 [SEALED] COMPLAINT for Declaratory Judgment - filed against Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number ADEDC-2987737) - filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet) (lak) Modified on 6/17/2020 (nms). |
Filing 1 MOTION for leave to file Complaint under Seal - filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (lak) |
Remark: Case submitted for routine judicial assignment. (lak) |
Remark: Exit electronic copies to Duty Judge (RGA). (lak) |
No Summons Issued. (lak) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Delaware District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.