Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-02214/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-02214-4/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNTEX (USA) LLC, and ALLERGAN, INC.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

APOTEX INC, APOTEX CORP., and NOVEX

PHARMA,

Defendants. /

No. C 01-02214 MJJ

Related Case:

No. C 05-02116 MJJ

ORDER EXTENDING TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

On December 16, 2005, Plaintiffs Syntex (USA) LLC, and Allergan, Inc. filed an Ex Parte

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction (Doc.

#429). In their Motion, Plaintiffs sought to prevent Defendants Apotex Inc., Apotex Corp., and Novex

Pharma (collectively “Defendants”) from commercially manufacturing, using, offering to sell, or selling

within the United States, or importing into the United States any drug product the approval for which

is sought through ANDA 76-109. On December 29, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for a

Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #447). The parties subsequently stipulated that the Temporary

Restraining Order would remain in effect until the Court’s hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction and concurrent re-hearing on Defendants’ obviousness challenge to the patent-insuit in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). (See Docs. #463, #473.) On February 23, 2006, the Court held a hearing on

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and on Defendants’ obviousness challenge to the validity

of the patent-in-suit.

Case 3:01-cv-02214-MJJ Document 475 Filed 02/23/06 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

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), the Court may extend a temporary restraining

order beyond the initial 10-day period for good cause. Here, because the findings made in the Court’s

previous Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO remain unchanged, and because resolution of the

Defendants’ challenge to the validity of the patent-in-suit based on obviousness will be dispositive of

this action, the Court finds that good cause exists to extend the temporary injunction currently in place

until the Court issues its Order resolving these matters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/23/2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cv-02214-MJJ Document 475 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2