Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01156/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01156-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1 08cv1156 L(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BAVARIAN NORDIC A/S,

Plaintiff,

v.

OXFORD BIOMEDICA PLC, an English

public limited company; BIOMEDICA,

INC., a Delaware corporation; OXFORD

BIOMEDICA(UK) LTD., an English

private limited company,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1156 L(RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF

BAVARIAN NORDIC A/S’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

CONDUCT DISCOVERY RELATED

TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

DISMISS [doc. # 25]

Defendant BioMedica, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,

Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, and Insufficient Pleading [doc. no. 19], which is set for

hearing on November 3, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. Defendants Oxford BioMedica PLC and

Oxford BioMedica (UK) Ltd. filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack

of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction [doc. no. 20], set for the same date and time. In its Motion to

Dismiss, Defendant BioMedica, Inc. alleges that Plaintiff Bavarian Nordic A/S cannot state a

claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “Plaintiff only

alleges acts that cannot constitute patent infringement . . . .” (BioMedica Mot. to Dismiss 6.) 

BioMedica cites the Declaration of Jill D. Martin as support for an argument that it “has not

engaged in any commercial activities involving the TroVax vaccine.” (Id.) The citation,

however, is not germane to an attack on the sufficiency of the Complaint. The Defendant

Case 3:08-cv-01156-MMA-RBB Document 28 Filed 09/15/08 Page 1 of 3
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 08cv1156 L(RBB)

also argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the “[C]omplaint

acknowledges that the TroVax vaccine similarly has not been approved by the FDA.” (Id. at

7.) Finally, Defendant argues that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading

requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.)

Defendants Oxford BioMedica PLC and Oxford BioMedica (UK) (“Oxford”) Ltd.

filed a joint motion to dismiss, and they also argue the Complaint cannot survive scrutiny

under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Bavarian Nordic A/S “only alleges acts that cannot constitute

patent infringement . . . .” (Oxford Defs. Mot. to Dismiss 5.) These Defendants cite the

Declaration of Peter J. Nolan to support their argument that Plaintiff’s allegations relate to

uses “reasonably related to the development of the TroVax vaccine for FDA approval[]” and

that the Defendants have not engaged in a commercial sale or offer to sell the vaccine. (Id.) 

Again, the Declaration is irrelevant to an attack on the sufficiency of the Complaint. 

Defendants also argue that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the vaccine

has not been approved by the FDA. (Id. at 6.) 

In response to these Motions, Bavarian Nordic filed an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to

Conduct Discovery Related to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [doc. no. 24].” Defendants

filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Opposition [doc.

no. 27]. Plaintiff seeks to serve a request for the production of documents and to depose

Martin and Nolan.

In their Opposition, Defendants state “[t]he Court can decide that legal issue in a Rule

12 motion without any discovery.” (Opp’n to Pl’s Ex Parte 1.) They correctly point out that

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion addresses the sufficiency of the Complaint. (Id.) Defendants assert

that their motions “explicitly assume that all of the facts alleged in the Complaint are true.” 

(Id. at 4.) The Defendants’ argument that the Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule

12(b)(6) will be reviewed in light of “the facts alleged, documents attached as exhibits or

incorporated by reference in the pleadings, and matters of which of the judge may take

judicial notice.” 2 James Wm. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.34[2], at 12-87 (3d ed.

2008).

Case 3:08-cv-01156-MMA-RBB Document 28 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\Chmb_lor\CASESCIV\EVEN CASES\BAVARIAN NORDIC\ex parte re discovery 3 08cv1156 L(RBB)

Based on Defendants’ representations, the Court will assume that the challenge to

subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), likewise, is limited to a facial attack on the

sufficiency of the Complaint, accepting all its allegations as true. The Court does not intend

to convert the Motions to Dismiss into summary judgment motions or factual attacks on the

sufficiency of the Complaint. If the Motions to Dismiss are denied, Defendants are not

precluded from later filing a summary judgment motion or other motion relying on evidence

outside the Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 15, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01156-MMA-RBB Document 28 Filed 09/15/08 Page 3 of 3