This firm, together with Quinn Emanuel, represents plaintiff Corcept in the above captioned case. We write to briefly respond to Teva’s February 8, 2019 letter purporting to “provide background on this case” and “set forth Teva’s position with respect to its proposed schedule” (D.I. 57).
As an initial matter, Teva’s gratuitous assertion that Corcept’s infringement allegations in this case are “frivolous and baseless” is unwarranted and incorrect. This is at least the third time Teva has raised this narrative with the Court. Teva first did so in connection with its motion to dismiss Corcept’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Wigenton denied Teva’s motion on October 23, 2018 (D.I. 32). Teva next raised this issue in its December 5, 2018 letter to the Court in connection with its request for early summary judgment (D.I. 42). Your Honor denied Teva’s request on the December 10, 2018 teleconference. Corcept will respond to Teva’s substantive assertions regarding non-infringement at the appropriate time.
Moreover, as referenced in Teva’s letter, this morning Corcept filed a new lawsuit, Civil Action. No. 19-5066 (SDW)(CLW), asserting infringement of three additional patents that, like the patents-in-suit, have been listed in the Orange Book for Corcept’s KORLYM® product: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,166,242 (“the ’242 patent”), 10,166,243 (“the ’243 patent”), and 10,195,214 (“the ’214 patent”). The ’242 and ’243 patents issued on January 1, 2019 and are in the same family as the ’526 patent that is currently in suit. The ’214 patent issued on February 5, 2019. In the interest of efficiency and to avoid unnecessary duplication, Corcept intends to seek consolidation of this newly-filed action with the instant action.
While Teva alleges that it “is currently studying that complaint and assessing how to efficiently resolve both cases,” not only has Teva known since at least January 11 that Corcept would be filing this new complaint, but it was also Teva’s idea to consolidate the cases in the first place. On a January 15 meet-and-confer, Teva’s counsel asked Corcept’s counsel to propose a schedule that factored in consolidation of any Orange-Book-listed patents that Corcept intended to assert, specifically referencing two new patents for which Teva had recently submitted paragraph IV certifications (the ’242 and ’243 patents). On that same meet and confer, Corcept informed Teva that it intended to assert an additional patent that had been allowed by the Patent Office, but had not yet issued, and identified the patent application number for Teva that ultimately issued as the ’214 patent. Thus, Teva has been aware of the patents Corcept seeks to consolidate for weeks and for which Teva had previously suggested consolidation. While Teva has now backtracked on consolidation, Corcept maintains that consolidation is appropriate and looks forward with discussing that issue with Your Honor at the upcoming conference.
Thank you for Your Honor’s kind attention to this matter.