Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590-18/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

1 PDL says that it has also filed a motion to quash the subpoena in the District

of Massachusetts, the court from which the subpoena issued.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEDIMMUNE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PDL BIOPHARMA, INC.

Defendant. /

No. C08-05590 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Re: Docket No. 405]

Plaintiff MedImmune, LLC (“MedImmune”) seeks a declaration of contractual rights re

a 1997 agreement (“License Agreement”) with defendant PDL Biopharma (“PDL”), as well as a

declaration of noninfringement and invalidity as to the subject PDL patents. PDL accuses

MedImmune of breach of contract and willful infringement.

PDL now moves for a protective order against a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena duces

tecum served by MedImmune on nonparty Genzyme Corporation (“Genzyme”). The subpoena

indisputably was served one week after the January 29, 2010 discovery cutoff. PDL argues that

the subpoena is untimely and, therefore, beyond the bounds of permissible discovery.1

MedImmune opposes the motion. The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral

argument, and the April 6, 2010 hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of

the moving and responding papers, this court grants the motion.

*E-FILED 04-01-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 478 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 5
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

MedImmune first contends that because the Genzyme subpoena is directed to a

nonparty, the requested discovery is not subject to the January 29, 2010 discovery cutoff and

may be sought at any time before trial. Courts are split on this issue. Nevertheless, this court

finds that the better view (espoused by the majority of jurisdictions) is that, with certain

exceptions not present here, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas constitute pretrial discovery that must

be served within the specified discovery period. See, e.g., Dreyer v. GACS, Inc., 204 F.R.D.

120, 122 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (“Most courts hold that a subpoena seeking documents from a thirdparty under Rule 45(a)(1)(C) is a discovery device and therefore subject to a scheduling order’s

general discovery deadlines.”); Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 190 F.R.D. 556,

561 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (“Case law establishes that subpoenas under Rule 45 are discovery, and

must be utilized within the time period permitted for discovery in a case.”); NSight, Inc. v.

PeopleSoft, Inc., No. C04-003836, 2006 WL 988807, *3 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 13, 2006) (noting that

California courts and a majority of other jurisdictions hold that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 discovery is

pretrial discovery that must be served within the designated discovery period). Accordingly,

the Genzyme subpoena is untimely. The only remaining question is whether there is good

cause to excuse MedImmune’s tardiness.

In oversimplified terms, the Genzyme subpoena seeks documents (e.g., all lab

notebooks, files, patent applications, samples, and like material) pertaining to Genzyme’s

humanized antibody program, especially (a) documents once in the possession of Gordon P.

Moore or Clyde W. Shearman, (b) documents concerning the antibodies BMA031, 2H1, or

B6.2, and (c) any document dated before January 1, 1991 that refers to a humanized antibody. 

(See Huang Decl., Ex. 1). In sum, the subpoena seeks discovery re potential prior art with

respect to a claimed February 1989 patent priority date.

Claiming that prior deposition discovery was unfruitful with respect to the identification

of prior art asserted by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a prior patent suit against PDL,

MedImmune says that it simply did not realize the importance of Genzyme’s antibody

humanization efforts or the need to subpoena Genzyme until after MedImmune reviewed certain

handwritten notes produced by PDL on the very last day of the discovery period. PDL claims

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 478 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

that those notes are confidential, and this court finds that a detailed discussion of their contents

is unnecessary. Suffice to say that, according to MedImmune, a particular reference in those

notes prompted a further investigation re Genzyme which reportedly led MedImmune to

discover (a) Genzyme’s 1989 purchase of a company called Integrated Genetics (including

Integrated Genetic’s research on antibody humanization); and (b) the existence of an April 1989

article by Integrated Genetic’s Gordon Moore.

MedImmune, however, has not convincingly explained how the reference in the

handwritten notes relates to Moore or Integrated Genetics. The record presented seems to

suggest that the handwritten notes actually refer to different prior art — all of which PDL

contends MedImmune has known about since at least May 2009. (Maurer Decl. Ex. C at 6-7;

Ex. D at 178:2-180:4). Moreover, MedImmune served its invalidity contentions in May 2009

(eight months before the discovery cutoff), which identified a December 15, 1991 article by

Shearman (on which Moore is also identified as an author) discussing the design and

construction of humanized antibody BMA031, one of the subjects of the Genzyme subpoena. 

MedImmune now argues that it had no reason to investigate the research underlying the

December 15, 1991 Shearman article because that article was cited with respect to a different

1995 priority date (as opposed to the February 1989 claimed priority date now in question). 

MedImmune also contends that, in view of a different February 1991 article by Shearman,

Moore (and others), MedImmune had little reason to believe that humanization of antibody

BMA031 was in progress in early 1989. Yet, in connection with the subpoena at issue,

MedImmune provided the December 15, 1991 Shearman article to Genzyme (albeit, describing

it as an article by Moore) for the apparent purpose of “helping [Genzyme] to focus your search”

to locate the requested lab notebooks. (Huang Reply Decl., Ex. 1). So, although MedImmune

argues that Genzyme’s reported significance was a mystery that was only recently unraveled,

MedImmune has not convincingly demonstrated that the failure to subpoena Genzyme sooner

was due to the fact that PDL produced certain notes on the last day of discovery.

There is palpable prejudice to PDL. PDL argues that because the time for discovery and

the exchange of expert reports has passed, PDL will not have the opportunity to conduct

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 478 Filed 04/01/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

“responsive discovery,” including, apparently, additional fact discovery and the preparation of

additional expert reports. MedImmune contends that there will be no prejudice to PDL because

any production by Genzyme is likely to be “small,” and Judge Fogel has indicated that trial is

unlikely to proceed on the previously set June 2010 date. MedImmune’s assertions as to the

volume of Genzyme’s anticipated production are speculative. Discovery is closed and the

period for the exchange of expert reports and rebuttal reports has passed. At this juncture, this

court declines to permit MedImmune to proceed with discovery that could have been served

sooner and which could now potentially interfere with Judge Fogel’s management of this case.

Accordingly, it is ordered that PDL’s motion for protective order is GRANTED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

April 1, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 478 Filed 04/01/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

5:08-cv-05590-JF Notice electronically mailed to: 

Aaron P. Maurer amaurer@wc.com

Aaron Y Huang aaron.huang@weil.com

Dana K Powers dana.powers@weil.com

David Isaac Berl dberl@wc.com

David Isaac Gindler DGindler@Irell.com, dlieberman@irell.com

Gerson Avery Zweifach gzweifach@wc.com

Gregory Hull greg.hull@weil.com, rebecca.kraus@weil.com

Jeffrey E. Faucette jfaucette@tcolaw.com, cdunbar@tcolaw.com, cwoodrich@tcolaw.com,

mcianfrani@tcolaw.com

Jessamyn Sheli Berniker jberniker@wc.com

Paul B. Gaffney pgaffney@wc.com

Raymond Angelo LaMagna rlamagna@irell.com

Vernon Michael Winters vern.winters@weil.com, nettie.asiasi@weil.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 478 Filed 04/01/10 Page 5 of 5