From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Genentech, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Mar 18, 2013
Case No. 4:13-cv-00919-YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 4:13-cv-00919-YGR

03-18-2013

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and IMCLONE SYSTEMS LLC, Plaintiffs, v. GENENTECH, INC., and CITY OF HOPE Defendants.

DANIEL JOHNSON, JR. MICHAEL J. LYONS MICHAEL F. CARR WALTER SCOTT TESTER MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ROBERT SMYTH, PH.D. TODD B. BUCK, PH.D. Attorneys for Plaintiffs ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and IMCLONE SYSTEMS LLC DURIE TANGRI LLP DARALYN J. DURE (SBN 169825) DAVID McGOWAN (SBN 154289) GENEVIEVE P. ROSLOFF (SBN 258234) Attorneys for Defendant GENENTECH, INC. DAVID I. GINDLER (SBN 117824) JOSEPH M. LIPNER (SBN 155735) IRELL & MANELLA LLP Attorney for Defendant CITY OF HOPE


DANIEL JOHNSON, JR.
MICHAEL J. LYONS
MICHAEL F. CARR
WALTER SCOTT TESTER
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ROBERT SMYTH, PH.D.
TODD B. BUCK, PH.D.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and
IMCLONE SYSTEMS LLC
DURIE TANGRI LLP
DARALYN J. DURE (SBN 169825)
DAVID McGOWAN (SBN 154289)
GENEVIEVE P. ROSLOFF (SBN 258234)
Attorneys for Defendant
GENENTECH, INC.
DAVID I. GINDLER (SBN 117824)
JOSEPH M. LIPNER (SBN 155735)
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
Attorney for Defendant
CITY OF HOPE
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

STIPULATED EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY, UNENFORCEABILITY, AND NONINFRINGEMENT


Judge: Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Plaintiffs Eli Lilly and Company and ImClone Systems LLC (collectively "Lilly") and Defendants Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope (collectively "Defendants"), pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, respectfully request that the Court enter the following stipulation regarding the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity, Unenforceability, and Noninfringement. The parties now AGREE and STIPULATE to extend the time to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint by thirty days, from March 22, 2013 to April 22, 2013.

1. Reason for the Extension of Time.

At the request of Defendants, the parties have met and conferred and jointly agree, for the convenience of the parties, to the requested extension.

2. Prior Time Modifications.

There have been no previous time modifications in this case.

3. Effect of Modification.

The requested extension will have no effect on the rest of the schedule in this action.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: _____________

DANIEL JOHNSON, JR.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and

IMCLONE SYSTEMS LLC

DURIE TANGRI LLP

By: _____________

DARALYN J. DURIE

Attorneys for Defendant

GENENTECH, INC.

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

By: ____________

DAVID I. GINDLER

Attorney for Defendant

CITY OF HOPE

FILER'S ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, I, Daralyn J. Durie, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

___________

DARALYN J. DURIE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that all counsel of record is being served on March 18, 2013 with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system.

____________

Daralyn J. Durie


Summaries of

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Genentech, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Mar 18, 2013
Case No. 4:13-cv-00919-YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)
Case details for

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Genentech, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and IMCLONE SYSTEMS LLC, Plaintiffs, v. GENENTECH…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Mar 18, 2013

Citations

Case No. 4:13-cv-00919-YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)