Judge Robinson Denies Plaintiff’s Request for Additional Discovery

July 11, 2017

Publication| Intellectual Property

In Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, C.A. No. 14-1268-SLR (D. Del. June 2, 2017), Judge Robinson denied the plaintiff’s request for additional discovery and agreed with the limited discovery plan suggested by the defendants. The Court had previously granted the plaintiff limited discovery consistent with its allegations that representatives of the defendants told physicians that Mitigare could be prescribed for acute gout flares, thereby inducing infringement of the patent-in-suit. However, because the plaintiff admitted that the discovery to date had not revealed evidence supporting its allegations, the Court found that the broad discovery requested by the plaintiff amounted to “impermissible pre-suit discovery.” Therefore, the Court declined the request for additional, broad discovery.

Key Points: The Court is unlikely to permit broad discovery when the issues before it are narrow in scope.

  • sign up for our newsletter

    To keep our clients and friends updated on the latest legal news, Richards Layton distributes practice area e-alerts and newsletters. If you are interested in receiving these publications, please subscribe below.