IP Verse

Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. V. Apotex Inc. - 1:24-cv-00064

Explore the details of the Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. V. Apotex Inc. case under case number 1:24-cv-00064 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:24-cv-00064
Filing Date
Jan 17, 2024
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
Apotex Inc. -
Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Jun 30, 2025NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Plaintiffs Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eagle Sub1 LLC's Responses and Objections to Defendants' Second Set of Common Interrogatories (No. 10) and (2) Plaintiffs Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eagle Sub1 LLC's Responses and Objections to Defendants' Third Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 63-64) filed by Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eagle Sub1 LLC.(Joyce, Alexandra)PACER Document
Jul 1, 2025NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants Apotex, Inc., Apotex Corp., Slayback Pharma LLC, and Baxter Healthcare Corp.'s First Set of Common Requests for Admission to Plaintiff Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed by Baxter Healthcare Corporation.(Rovner, Philip)PACER Document
Jul 7, 2025Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke Discovery Dispute Teleconference held on July 7, 2025. The Court heard the parties' arguments regarding Defendants' Joint Motion to Resolve Discovery Dispute. (Civil Action No. 24-64-JLH, D.I. 125; Civil Action No. 24-65-JLH, D.I. 106; Civil Action No. 24-66-JLH, D.I. 99) The Court ruled on the parties' dispute concerning the deposition of Dr. Christopher Buxton. The transcript shall serve as the Court's Order in that regard. As to the parties' two remaining disputes, the Court took the matter under advisement and will issue an Order. Appearances: A. Joyce, A. Grabowski, K. Welsh, R. Vallabhaneni and M. Chin for Plaintifs; C. Hitch, C. Ferenc and L. Eiten for Defendants Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.; D. Taylor, R. Ast-Gmoser, J. Lief and C. Huttner for Defendant Slayback Pharma LLC; P. Rovner, N. Leibowitz and J. Bellin for Defendant Baxter Healthcare Corporation. (Clerk: E. Rose; Court reporter: Stacy Ingram) Associated Cases: 1:24-cv-00064-JLH, 1:24-cv-00065-JLH, 1:24-cv-00066-JLH(sam)PACER Document
Jul 10, 2025ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed Defendants' Motion for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Disputes, ("Motion"), filed in these three related actions, (Civil Action No. 24-64-JLH (hereafter, the docket the Court will cite to unless otherwise noted), D.I. 125; Civil Action No. 24-65-JLH, D.I. 106; Civil Action No. 24-66-JLH, D.I. 99), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 145; D.I. 151; D.I. 155), and has held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on July 7, 2025. Three discovery disputes were raised in the Motion briefing; the Court resolved one orally during the hearing, and hereby ORDERS as follows regarding the remaining two disputes: (1) With regard to Defendants' request that the Court order Plaintiff to search for and produce documents related to the role of sodium hydroxide in Plaintiff's bendamustine products, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the request, in that it ORDERS that Plaintiff must conduct a reasonable search for and produce documents that pertain to "whether [Plaintiff] considers sodium hydroxide part of the 'pharmaceutically acceptable fluid' of its [liquid bendamustine] formulations[,]" (D.I. 145 at 2), or "whether sodium hydroxide [is] incorporated into the fluid of [Plaintiff's] liquid bendamustine formulations[,]" (D.I. 155 at 1). For the reasons Defendants articulated in their briefing and during the hearing, documents that bear on that particular subject matter may be relevant to issues regarding, inter alia, lost profits, commercial success, and even possibly to the infringement inquiry in this case. (D.I. 145 at 1-2; id., ex. 4, col. 14:2-9; D.I. 155 at 1; D.I. 177 at ¶¶ 29-30, 34-35); see also Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that "[o]ur case law does not contain a blanket prohibition against comparing the accused product to a commercial embodiment" and that "when a commercial product meets all of the claim limitations, then a comparison to that product may support a finding of infringement"); TEK Glob., S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int'l, Inc., 920 F.3d 777, 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (same). Moreover, the record is not sufficient for the Court to agree with Plaintiff's assertion that any documents uncovered as part of this search would necessarily be cumulative to what has already been produced in this litigation, or would necessitate searching that is "not proportional to the needs of this case." (D.I. 151 at 1-2) The Court has no great record before it that would go to the issue of proportionality. And, although Plaintiff may have previously produced documents relating to sodium hydroxide (primarily as part of a re-production of documents from prior litigation), (id.), it is undisputed that it has not made a particular attempt in this case to search for documents responsive to the relevant request for production at issue here, (D.I. 145 at 2; D.I. 155 at 1). It should be required to make such an attempt. See, e.g., Azurity Pharms., Inc. v. Bionpharma Inc., Civil Action No. 21-1286-MSG, D.I. 489 at 3 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2024).; (2) With regard to Defendants' request that the Court order Plaintiff to produce documents and communications related to Plaintiff's 2025 royalty purchase agreement ("agreement"), the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the request, in that it ORDERS that Plaintiff must conduct a reasonable search for and produce documents and communications related to the agreement—to the extent such documents/communications include content relating in some way to the value of the patents-in-suit. There is no dispute that the executed deal documents for the agreement and the underlying repayment model pertaining thereto should all be produced, as they are relevant to damages issues. (D.I. 151 at 3) And, in the Court's view, the type of evidence described above—even were it to be found in draft documents or relate to figures different than what ended up in the final agreement—could well still be relevant to damages, as it could amount to helpful data points bearing on how one might reasonably assign value to these patents (something that is often difficult to determine). See Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., Civil Action No. 22-305-JLH, D.I. 342 at 155-57 (D. Del. Sept. 5, 2024); id., D.I. 449 at 2-3 (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2025); see also In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00283, 2024 WL 693714, at 2 (D. Utah Feb. 20, 2024); Kajeet, Inc. v. Qustodio, LLC, Case No.: SA CV 18-1519-JAK (PLAx), 2019 WL 8060078, at 8 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019); Charles E. Hill & Assocs., Inc. v. ABT Elecs., Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (E.D. Tex. 2012).; and (3) At this time, the Court declines to micromanage or further define the parameters of what would constitute a reasonable search for the above-referenced types of documents—such as by deciding which or how many custodians' documents much be searched, or what search strings must be used, or the like. (D.I. 151 at 2) At the hearing, it was clear that the parties did not sufficiently meet and confer as to those "scope" issues in the past; they will be required to do so here, in order to try to reach agreement on the extent of Plaintiff's future searching. See also Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI"), at ¶ 1(b) ("Parties are expected to use reasonable, good faith and proportional efforts to…identify[] appropriate limits to discovery[.]"). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/10/2025. Associated Cases: 1:24-cv-00064-JLH, 1:24-cv-00065-JLH, 1:24-cv-00066-JLH(sam)PACER Document
Jul 31, 2025NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs' Objections and Responses to Defendants' First Set of Common Requests for Admission to Plaintiff Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed by Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eagle Sub1 LLC.(Joyce, Alexandra)PACER Document
Aug 11, 2025MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Brett Sandford - filed by Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eagle Sub1 LLC. (Silver, Daniel)PACER Document
Aug 11, 2025SO ORDERED, re (196 in 1:24-cv-00064-JLH, 172 in 1:24-cv-00065-JLH) Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Brett Sandford filed by Eagle Sub1 LLC, Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 8/11/2025. Associated Cases: 1:24-cv-00064-JLH, 1:24-cv-00065-JLH(ceg)PACER Document