Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Plaintiff: Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc.
Defendant: Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., International Medication Systems, Ltd., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2011cv11681
Filed: September 21, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Barnstable
Presiding Judge: Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 19, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 1148 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered MOTION ALLOWED 1140 Motion Entry of Final Judgment. (Franklin, Yvonne)
February 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 1139 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. In accordance with the foregoing, Amphastar's motion for judgment that the equitable defenses of waiver and estoppel apply is, with respect to the 15-25% procedures, ALLOWED but, with respect to the DBB procedure, DENIED. So Ordered.(Franklin, Yvonne)
July 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 1079 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIn accordance with the foregoing, plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law (Docket No. 1069) is, with respect to the defenses based upon patent eligible subject matter and indefiniteness, ALLOWED but otherwise DENIED without prejudice. So ordered.(Caruso, Stephanie)
July 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 1034 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered denying 909 Motion in Limine; denying 929 Motion in Limine; denying 934 Motion in Limine See attached Order. (Caruso, Stephanie)
June 29, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 1009 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIn accordance with the foregoing, the evidence relative to the equitable defenses will be admissible at the impending jury trial. So ordered.(Caruso, Stephanie)
June 16, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 898 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIn accordance with the foregoing, defendants motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 823) and plaintiffs motions for summary judgment and for a separate hearing (Docket Nos. 817, 819) are DENIED.(Caruso, Stephanie)
April 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 813 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. re 769 Order on Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. "Accordingly, the Electronic Order is rejected with respect to the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge that defendants may not amend their preliminary infringement contentions (which they may now amend) but is otherwise accepted and adopted. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)." See attached order.(Caruso, Stephanie)
February 28, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 801 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered "Motion denied" 772 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Permit a Single Deposition of the U.S. Pharmacopeia (Caruso, Stephanie)
June 21, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 658 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED MEMORANDUM & ORDER entered granting 624 Motion to Amend (Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions) "plaintiffs renewed motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions with respect to the DBB test (Docket No. 624) is ALLOWED. So ordered." (Caruso, Stephanie)
May 9, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 620 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 545 BRIEF by Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz Inc. Submission for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. "For the foregoing reasons, and in consideration of plaintiffs submission for fees and costs (Docket No. 545), plaintiffs are awarded $343,863 in fees and $8,522 in costs."(Caruso, Stephanie)
March 12, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 602 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:" In accordance with the foregoing,1) Defendants' motion to enforce liability on bonds for damages arising from wrongfully-issued TRO and preliminary injunction (Docket No. [52 1]) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 2) Plaintiffs' motion to defer consideration of motion to enforce liability on the bonds (Docket No. 530 ) is ALLOWED; and 3) Defendants' renewed motion to enforce liability on the bonds (Docket No. 594 ) is DENIED.So ordered." (Moore, Kellyann)
January 24, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 584 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion for entry of final judgment (Docket No. 507 ) is, to the extent of entry of judgment at this juncture, ALLOWED, but otherwise DENIED. So ordered."(Moore, Kellyann)
January 22, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 582 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "In accordance with the foregoing, defendants' objections to the Memorandum and Order entered at Docket No. 517 are OVERRULED. So ordered."(Moore, Kellyann)
July 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 497 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 456 MOTION to Amend filed by Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz Inc., granting 346 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Watson Pharma, Inc., Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis, Inc., International Medication Systems, Ltd. (Patch, Christine)
July 31, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 320 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered granting 292 Motion for Clarification re 289 Memorandum & ORDER (Patch, Christine)
June 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 289 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(Moore, Kellyann)
January 19, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 140 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "In accordance with the foregoing, 1) defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or Transfer (Docket No. 100 ) is DENIED, and 2) plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery if the Court Finds the Present Record Insufficient (Docket No. 67 ) is DENIED as moot. So ordered."(Moore, Kellyann)
November 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 116 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In accordance with the foregoing, defendants motion to stay or dissolve the preliminary injunction pending appeal (Docket No. 96 ) is DENIED without prejudice.So ordered."(Moore, Kellyann)
October 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 92 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: "In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Docket No. 18 is ALLOWED, and defendants are enjoined according to the terms of the Preliminary Injunction filed concurrently with this Order."(Moore, Kellyann)
October 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 81 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. re 39 ORDER. "In accordance with the foregoing, the temporary restraining order issued by this Court on October 7, 2011 (Docket No. 39) is hereby extended on the same terms for an additional seven (7) days until the close of business on Friday, October 28, 2011." Plaintiffs are directed to submit, on or before 12:00 noon Tuesday, October 25, 2011, a memorandum of law, not to exceed five pages, addressing the purported distinction between the patent terms "separation method" and "determining" discussed by defendants at oral argument and in their sur-reply memorandum (Docket No. 79). (Patch, Christine)
October 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 60 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion for Discovery (Patch, Christine)
October 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 39 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; 1)until the close of business on Friday, October 21, 2011, the defendants, and any entity or persons acting on their behalf, shall not advertise, offer for sale or sell in the United Sta tes any generic enoxaparin product that allegedly infringes one or more of the patents issued to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and at issue in this case; and2)the plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), shall, on or before the close of business on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, post a security bond in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to secure any costs and damages that may be incurred or suffered by the defendants should it later be determined that this temporary restrainin g order was improvidently entered.After defendants have filed their responsive pleadings, a comprehensive hearing on the merits will be held on Thursday, October 20, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom #4, Moakley Federal Courthouse. So ordered.(Nicewicz, Craig)

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Represented By: Robert S. Frank, Jr.
Represented By: Jessica Gan Lee
Represented By: Eric J. Marandett
Represented By: Courtney M. Schou
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sandoz Inc.
Represented By: Sarah Chapin Columbia
Represented By: Melissa Nott Davis
Represented By: Robert S. Frank, Jr.
Represented By: Jessica Gan Lee
Represented By: Eric J. Marandett
Represented By: Courtney M. Schou
Represented By: Thomas P. Steindler
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Represented By: Steven M. Bauer
Represented By: Herman L. Goldsmith
Represented By: Isaac A. Hubner
Represented By: Mark Mansour
Represented By: Anthony T Pierce
Represented By: Jonathan P Robell
Represented By: James E. Sherry
Represented By: Jan P Weir
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: International Medication Systems, Ltd.
Represented By: Steven M. Bauer
Represented By: Herman L. Goldsmith
Represented By: Isaac A. Hubner
Represented By: Mark Mansour
Represented By: Anthony T Pierce
Represented By: Jonathan P Robell
Represented By: James E. Sherry
Represented By: Jan P Weir
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Represented By: Steven M. Bauer
Represented By: Herman L. Goldsmith
Represented By: Isaac A. Hubner
Represented By: Mark Mansour
Represented By: Anthony T Pierce
Represented By: Jonathan P Robell
Represented By: James E. Sherry
Represented By: Jan P Weir
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Watson Pharma, Inc.
Represented By: Steven M. Bauer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?