Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00884-SLR Document 65 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
--~·»~~· --—— · ---—-- ~·~»- —-————--------- -~»»»-»~ -----—— ·· ———--— ·~-»» ——-----—- X
FERRING B.V. :
Civil Action No. O4l·8S4—SLR
Plaintiff, :
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES ;
LIMITED :
Defendants. 2
..,.....i - ,.........l.iliw................"Ia................iM Q.
FERRING B.V.’S REPLY TO TEVA’S OPPOSITION
TO FERRING B.V.’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff Ferring B.V. ("Ferring") herein replies to Teva’s Opposition to Ferri.ng’s
Motion for an Extension of Time.
In its Opposition, Teva improperly launches into a diatribe on the merits of its
rnotion to dismiss (ag., whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice) and on
the merits of a potential application for stay by Ferring. Teva’s arguments on these issues
should be disregarded, and Ferring’s motion for an extension of time should be granted.
Notably, in its motion to dismiss, Teva specified whether dismissal should
he with or without prejudice. Suddenly, however, upon Ferring’s request for a short
extension of tirne, Teva——t`or the first ti1ne———de1nands dismissal with prejudice.
Consistent with its representation to this Court, Ferring intends to seek dismissal
of its complaint. (D.I. 40, p. 2). In view of Teva’s pending attorneys’ fee motion and
I*erring’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, Ferring intends to seek
dismissal without prejudice. This is something that will be properly addressed in
1

Case 1:04-cv-00884-SLR Document 65 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 2 ot 4
Ferring’s opposition to Teva’s rnotion to dismiss.
Further, in its Opposition, Teva improperly discusses the merits of a potential
application for stay by Ferring. This is entirely improper and irrelevant to what is a
standard request for an extension of time in view of legitimate attorney hardships. As
stated in Ferring’s Motion, the firm retreat and July international Trade Commission trial
hy Ferring’s counsel, together with the Xuly 4th holiday, warrant the grant of Ferring’s
proposed extension of time. Ferring’s request for an extension of time is not an attempt
to delay this matter, as Teva’s argues, but rather, is based on the complicated issues
presented compared to the short response time provided by the Local Rules.
Teva’s so—called "prejudice" should Ferring’s requested extension he granted is a
red herring. Teva simply cannot demonstrate how it will be prejudiced by an extension
of 9 business days. Again, in an attempt to show prejudice, Teva improperly addresses
the issue of a potentiai stay, for which Ferring has not yet even applied. Teva’s hollow
cries of prejudice should be disregarded.
Finally, Ferring’s Motion for Extension of Time is now ripe for adjudication.
Ferring therefore respectfully requests expedited consideration on its Motion, in light of
the immanent due date of Ferring’s Opposition to Teva”s Motion to Disniiss and for an
Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs, currently July 3, 2006.
2

Case 1:04-cv-00884-SLR Document 65 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 3 of 4
Date: June 26, 2006 /s/ Stephanie O’B]f1’I'i€
Francis DiGiovanni (#3189)
Stephanie O’By1·ne (#4446)
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
_ The Nemours Buiiding
1007 North Orange Street
Wilmington, DE 198992207
(302) 8886316
Atmrizeyefor Plc1i11t@"Ferring B. V
OF COUNSEL:
Dennis J. Mondoiino
Christine A. Pepe
McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP
340 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-547-5414
3

Case 1:04-cv-00884-SLR Document 65 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the June 26, 2006, I electrorticaily fiied Ferring B.V.`s
Reply to Teva’s Opposition to Ferring B.V.’s Motion for Extension of Time with the
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which wiii send notification of such filing(s) to the
following;
J osy W. ingersoii, Esq.
Young Conaway Stargatt & Tayior, LLP
The Brandywine Building
2000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899
I further certify that on the same date I served a copy of said document by hand
and e—rnail to the above—listed counsel, and by e-mail on the foilowing counsel:
William F. Long
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
999 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 303096996
/s/ Stephanie O’By.rne
Stephanie O’Byrne {#4446)
iiintnli
i