Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-16/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INSMED INCORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5429 CW (EMC)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF THE

COURT’S FEBRUARY 23, 2006 ORDER

(Docket No. 309)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. It

hereby DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

The Court has reviewed the two documents submitted for in camera review. The Court

hereby orders that Document GTI 019 0023351 be produced subject to redaction of all text in the

paragraphs except for paragraphs two (starting with “There are no published reports . . .”), the

bolded quote that follows, and paragraph three (starting with “The wording is vague.”). These

excepted paragraphs and the bolded headings and subheadings throughout the document shall

remain unredacted. The study by Talkington-Verser et al. is the only study referred to in GTI 019

0023351 that is cited in the ‘151 specification (Col. 2, lns. 44-69). Neither the other BioGrowth

studies nor the patents cited in that paragraph of the specification are discussed in the document. 

Hence, except for the discussion of the Talkinton-Verser study, the slight probative value, if any, of

this document does not justify overcoming the attorney-client privilege. U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554,

572 (1989) (public disclosure works a more substantial intrusion than in camera review).

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 337 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Document GTIP 019 0008933 shall not be produced as the relevant redacted notations are

those of patent counsel, not Dr. Clark. The redacted notes appears to have little probative value as

to the issues of Dr. Clark’s state of mind and knowledge raised by Defendants.

The redacted version of GTI 019 0023351 shall be produced within five days of this Order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 309.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 337 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 2