Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04919/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04919-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND

GMBH, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C08-4909 SI (BZ)

EIGHTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Following a telephone conference with respect to

Genentech’s request to take discovery in order to prepare its

opposition to Sanofi’s motion for leave to amend (Docket No.

259), at which all parties were represented by counsel, the

Court finds as follows:

1. Discovery with respect to Avastin and Xolair is

relevant to the issues raised by Genentech’s complaint for

declaratory relief.

2. Such discovery is not needed to permit Genentech to

oppose Sanofi’s motion to amend its complaint and its

infringement contentions. In my opinion, that motion should

Case 3:09-cv-04919-SI Document 74 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 2
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

be decided on grounds other than whether these two products

infringe Sanofi’s patents. 

3. Under Rule 16 and Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the timing of

such discovery should not interfere with the resolution of the

motion for leave to amend or the present schedule for serving

infringement and invalidity contentions and for claims

construction.

It is therefore ORDERED that Genentech’s request to take

discovery with respect to Avastin and Xolair to assist it in

opposing Sanofi’s motion for leave to amend its complaint and

its infringement contentions is DENIED, without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that such discovery may be taken

after Judge Illston rules on Sanofi’s motion, in the event the

motion is granted or in the event the motion is denied and

Genentech continues to seek a declaratory judgment that these

two products do not infringe Sanofi’s patents.

Dated: February 3, 2010 

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\GENENTECH\DISC ORD 8.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-04919-SI Document 74 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 2