Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

MCDERMOTT 

WILL & EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MPK 98634-1.073241.0011 STIPULATED ORDER GRANTING PLTFS’ M/PRECLUDE 102(g) DEFENSE

CASE NO. C-04-5429 CW (EMC) 

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 

WILLIAM G. GAEDE, III (136184) 

wgaede@mwe.com 

ANDREW A. KUMAMOTO (178541) 

akumamoto@mwe.com 

DAVID L. LARSON (112342) 

dlarson@mwe.com 

3150 Porter Drive 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 

Telephone: (650) 813-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 813-5100 

Attorneys for Tercica, Inc. 

HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

M. PATRICIA THAYER (90818) 

patricia.thayer@hellerehrman.com 

ETHAN C. GLASS (216159) 

ethan.glass@hellerehrman.com 

333 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 

Telephone: (415) 772-6794 

Facsimile: (415) 772-6268 

Attorneys for Genentech, Inc 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, TERCICA, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

 v. 

INSMED INCORPORATED, a Virginia 

Corporation, and CELTRIX 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

Defendants.

No. C-04-5429 CW (EMC) 

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER

REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO PRECLUDE SECTION 102(g) PRIOR 

ART FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

PATENT LOCAL RULES 3-3 AND 3-4 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 211 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 4
MCDERMOTT 

WILL & EMERY LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MPK 98634-1.073241.0011 1

STIPULATED ORDER GRANTING 

PLTFS’ M/PRECLUDE 102(g) DEFENSE

CASE NO. C-04-5429 CW (EMC) 

 WHEREAS, defendants served, on or about July 11, 2005, their Preliminary Invalidity 

Contentions (PIC) pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-3 and 3-4;

 WHEREAS, defendants included in their PIC references to certain alleged prior art and 

stated:

“To the extent that Plaintiffs attempt to claim an earlier priority date for the 

asserted claims of the ‘151 patent, the experimental data in the [January 1991] 

Maack and Sommer abstracts listed above may also qualify as anticipating 

prior art to the ‘151 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(g).”; 

 WHEREAS, on August 5, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion To Preclude Section 102(g) 

Prior Art for Failure to Comply With Patent Local Rules 3-3 and 3-4; 

 WHEREAS, the Court on September 21, 2005, heard arguments on plaintiffs’ subsequent 

motion to preclude the alleged prior art under 102(g), and ordered defendants to produce evidence 

in their possession, if any, supporting the defense by October 3, 2005; and 

 WHEREAS, defendants on October 3, 2005, provided to plaintiffs’ counsel the letter 

attached as Exhibit A stating, among other things, that “Defendants have determined that the 

evidence they have found is insufficient to assert a defense under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) as to the 

‘151 patent.” 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following paragraph is stricken from Defendants’ 

July 11, 2005, Preliminary Invalidity Contentions: 

“Plaintiffs, in their Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary 

Infringement Contentions (Patent L.R. 3-1), indicate that the priority date of 

the asserted claims of the ’151 patent is February 12, 1991. To the extent that 

Plaintiffs attempt to claim an earlier priority date for the asserted claims of the 

’151 patent, the experimental data in the Maack and Sommer abstracts listed 

above may also qualify as anticipating prior art to the ’151 patent under 35 

U.S.C. § 102(g). Accordingly, should Plaintiffs modify their current position, 

Insmed and Celtrix reserve the right to modify their contentions to the extent 

such modification is appropriate in light of any additional information gained 

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 211 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 211 Filed 10/14/05 Page 3 of 4
October 14, 2005

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 211 Filed 10/14/05 Page 4 of 4