IP Verse

Pierre Fabre Medicament Sas V. Rubicon Research Private Limited - 1:24-cv-00811

Explore the details of the Pierre Fabre Medicament Sas V. Rubicon Research Private Limited case under case number 1:24-cv-00811 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-00811
Filing Date
Jul 12, 2024
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA)

Parties Involved in the Case

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

NameRepresented By
Rubicon Research Private Limited -
Pierre Fabre Medicament SAS -
Universite de Bordeaux -
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux -

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

Sep 26, 2024Pro Hac Vice Attorney William B. Coblentz, Aaron S. Lukas, Keri L. Schaubert for Rubicon Research Private Limited 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. (cdd)PACER Document
Oct 16, 2024ORAL ORDER- re 22 Scheduling Order. IT IS ORDERED that the following dates are scheduled before Judge Hall: (1) A hearing on claim construction is set for July 31, 2025 at 10:00 AM. (2) The pretrial conference is set for June 1, 2026 at 1:00 PM. (3) A 3-day bench trial is set to begin on June 8, 2026. On or before October 18, 2024, the parties shall docket an amended chart of deadlines that includes the foregoing dates. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 10/16/2024. (lih) (Entered: 10/16/2024)PACER Document
Oct 21, 2024CORRECTING ENTRY: The correcting entry filed today has been deleted due to entry being filed in the wrong case. (lih)PACER Document
Apr 14, 2025SO ORDERED, re 45 Stipulation and Order to Extend Time for the parties to file the Joint Claim Construction Chart to April 15, 2025. Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 4/14/2025. (ceg)PACER Document
May 7, 2025SO ORDERED, re 48 Stipulation and Order to Extend Time for Defendant to serve its Answering Claim Construction Brief to May 30, 2025. (*Reset Deadlines for Claim Construction Briefing: Claim Construction Answering Brief due by 5/30/2025). Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 5/7/2025. (ceg)PACER Document
May 16, 2025ORAL ORDER- DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 50 Joint MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall submit a revised joint request for a discovery dispute teleconference specifically identifying by written request number, e.g., "Interrogatory 1.; RFA 1.," etc., which written discovery requests remain in dispute and confirming that the parties have met and conferred on those specific requests without reaching any compromise on them. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 5/16/2025. (lih) (Entered: 05/16/2025)PACER Document
May 19, 2025SO ORDERED- re 52 Joint MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute. A Discovery Dispute Motion Hearing is set for 6/9/2025 at 11:00 AM before Judge Sherry R. Fallon. In preparation for this teleconference the parties shall follow the Discovery Matters and Disputes procedure as set forth in the Order regarding discovery matters available at www.ded.uscourts.gov/judge/magistrate-judge-sherry-r-fallon. Plaintiffs should obtain court reporting services for the conference, with the cost to be shared equally between both sides. No later than 5/30/2025 at 11:00 a.m., the parties shall send a joint email to [email protected] containing (i) the name of the court reporter; (ii) the name of the court reporting agency; and (iii) confirmation that the court reporter has been provided with the court's Webex dial-in information. The Court may choose to resolve the disputes prior to the telephone conference and will, in that event, cancel the conference. Set Deadlines: (Moving Submission due by no later than 11:00 A.M. on 6/2/2025, Responsive submission due by no later than 11:00 A.M. on 6/3/2025). Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 5/19/2025. (lih) (Entered: 05/19/2025)PACER Document
May 20, 2025ORAL ORDER re 54 Joint MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute. The parties request an expedited discovery dispute hearing on what appears to be a time-sensitive issue. Despite the time-sensitive nature of the dispute, the parties did not mention it in their previous motions for a teleconference to resolve discovery disputes filed on May 15 and May 19, 2025. (D.I. 50; D.I. 52) In accordance with the court's earliest availability, on May 19, 2025, the court entered an order scheduling a discovery dispute teleconference for June 9, 2025 on the parties' dispute regarding written discovery requests. (D.I. 53) IT IS ORDERED that the instant dispute shall be consolidated with the prior dispute in a telephonic hearing on June 9, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. The same briefing schedule shall also apply to the present dispute, with the movant's opening submission due no later than 11:00 a.m. on June 2, 2025 and the responsive submission due no later than 11:00 a.m. on June 3, 2025. The parties shall advise the court if the dispute is rendered moot due to the passage of the claim construction answering brief deadline on May 30, 2025. The court may choose to resolve the disputes prior to the telephone conference and will, in that event, cancel the conference. Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 5/20/2025. (Polito, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/20/2025)PACER Document
Jun 3, 2025ORAL ORDER- re 59 Letter. In accordance with the court's discovery dispute procedures, which provide that "[t]he moving party should attach a proposed order to its letter brief as an exhibit" setting forth the nature of the requested relief, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before close of business on June 3, 2025, Plaintiffs shall docket a Proposed Order and link it to their opening letter submission at D.I. 59. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 6/3/2025. (lih) (Entered: 06/03/2025)PACER Document
Jun 6, 2025ORAL ORDER re 52 and 54 Joint Motions for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute. Having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute letter submissions and related filings, (D.I. 59; D.I. 60; D.I. 61; D.I. 63; D.I. 65; D.I. 66), IT IS ORDERED that the discovery disputes are addressed as follows: (1) Defendant's motion to compel the expedited production of Dr. June Wu's expert report(s), declaration(s), and/or testimony from related Civil Action No. 22-1442-JLH is DENIED as moot. Defendant seeks permission to rely on these documents in its sur-reply claim construction brief, and Plaintiffs confirm that they do not oppose this request. (D.I. 63 at 1) (2) Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant to supplement its response to Interrogatory 4 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs spend most of their letter submission presenting arguments on Interrogatories 2 and 3, even though they concede the sufficiency of Defendant's responses to these interrogatories is no longer in issue. (D.I. 59 at 1 n.1, 2-3) Interrogatory 4 asks Defendant to "[d]escribe the reasons why You decided to seek regulatory approval to market and sell" the proposed product. (Id., Ex. A at 12) Defendant responded that it sought regulatory approval for its ANDA after determining that "it had the capacity and capability to develop" the proposed product. (Id., Ex. A at 13) Plaintiffs speculate that there must be more to disclose about Defendant's decision, suggesting that Defendant's reasoning may be relevant to objective indicia of non-obviousness as it relates to Defendant's invalidity counterclaim based on obviousness. (D.I. 59 at 4) Plaintiffs then detour into an argument that Defendant's initial invalidity contentions make no mention of obviousness. (Id.) The court will not compel a supplemental response based on speculation when Defendant is obligated to supplement its responses as discovery progresses under Rule 26(e). (3) Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant to supplement its responses to Request for Admission ("RFA") Nos. 5-6, 8, 10, 14-17, 21, 23-27, 30, and 32-34 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs served these RFAs to seek information on which claim terms are disputed, and the RFAs cite to documents intended to pinpoint the particular claim element that may be in issue. (D.I. 59 at 2) The Advisory Committee note to the 1970 Amendment states "Rule 36 serves two vital purposes, both of which are designed to reduce trial time. Admissions are sought, first to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case, and secondly, to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be." Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, advisory committee's note to 1970 amendment. Defendant frustrates the purpose of Rule 36 by effectively rephrasing the RFAs. Defendant's admission of the accuracy of specific language Defendant has lifted directly from the corresponding document to which the RFA cites, but does not quote, is not the equivalent of admitting or denying the request as phrased. (See, e.g., D.I. 61, Ex. B at 19; D.I. 65 at 3); Cf. Guinan v. A.I. DuPont Hosp. for Children, 2008 WL 938874, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2008) (explaining that it is appropriate to ask a party to admit that a document contains the language quoted in the RFA). The requesting party is left uncertain as to what portion of the request is admitted and is left to wonder whether it must incur the time and expense to prove the matter on which it requested admission. See Rowe v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 2008 WL 4514092, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2008) (compelling defendant to supplement RFA responses to admit or deny the requests "as phrased."); Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 1992 WL 394425, at *10 n.6 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 1992) ("A party is not free to simply refer to other material, but must admit, deny, deny in part and admit in part, or state that it is unable to admit or deny the statement."). For these reasons, Defendant shall follow Rule 36(a)(4) by admitting, specifically denying, or stating in detail why it cannot truthfully admit or deny each challenged RFA. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) ("A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a party of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest."). IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall complete the supplementation on or before June 18, 2025. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery dispute teleconference set for June 9, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. is CANCELLED. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 6/6/2025. (lih) (Entered: 06/06/2025)PACER Document
Jul 7, 2025ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' letter (D.I. 76 ), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, at the July 31, 2025 Markman Hearing, the parties shall have two hours split evenly between the two sides. Ordered by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 7/7/2025. (ceg) (Entered: 07/07/2025)PACER Document
Jul 12, 2024COMPLAINT filed for PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Rubicon Research Private Limited ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ADEDC-4449886.) - filed by Pierre Fabre Medicament SAS, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Universite de Bordeaux. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(oam) (Entered: 07/12/2024)Attachment
Jul 12, 2024COMPLAINT filed for PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Rubicon Research Private Limited ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ADEDC-4449886.) - filed by Pierre Fabre Medicament SAS, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Universite de Bordeaux. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(oam) (Entered: 07/12/2024)Attachment
Jul 12, 2024COMPLAINT filed for PATENT INFRINGEMENT against Rubicon Research Private Limited ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ADEDC-4449886.) - filed by Pierre Fabre Medicament SAS, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Universite de Bordeaux. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(oam) (Entered: 07/12/2024)Attachment
Jul 29, 2025MOTION for Exemption of Persons from this Court's May 17, 2024 Standing Order regarding Personal Electronic Devices - filed by Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Pierre Fabre Medicament SAS, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Universite de Bordeaux. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order).(Jones, Keith) Modified on 7/29/2025 (ceg). (Entered: 07/29/2025)PACER Document
Jul 29, 2025Motions No Longer Referred: 85 MOTION for Exemption of Persons from this Court's May 17, 2024 Standing Order regarding Personal Electronic Devices. Motion no longer referred to Judge Fallon. Referred in error by CM/ECF. (ceg)PACER Document
Jul 29, 2025ORDER granting 85 Plaintiffs' Motion for Exemption of Persons from this Court's May 17, 2024 Standing Order regarding Personal Electronic Devices for purposes of the July 31, 2025 Markman Hearing. Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 7/29/2025. (ceg) (Entered: 07/29/2025)PACER Document