Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-45/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Celtrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Genentech, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Insmed Incorporated
Counter-claimant
Insmed Therapeutic Proteins
Defendant
Tercica, Inc.
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware

corporation, and TERCICA, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INSMED INCORPORATED, a Virginia

corporation; CELTRIX PHARMACEUTICALS,

INC., a Delaware corporation; and

INSMED THERAPEUTIC PROTEINS, INC. a

Colorado Corporation,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-5429 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

RECONSIDERATION OF

COURT'S JUNE 30,

2006 ORDER

Defendants Insmed, Inc., Celtrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and

Insmed Therapeutic Proteins, Inc. move for partial reconsideration

of the Court's June 30, 2006 Order on Claim Construction and CrossMotions for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Defendants ask the

Court to reconsider the portion of the Order granting Plaintiffs

Genentech, Inc. and Tercica, Inc. summary judgment that Defendants

infringed claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,331,414 ('414

patent). Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that the Court's

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 751 Filed 10/31/06 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

original order was correct and should not be altered. The matter

was decided on the papers. 

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties and

evidence cited therein, the Court determines that its construction

of "expression" and "human IGF-I" is not internally contradictory. 

Nor is the Court persuaded by any of the other arguments Defendants

present in their motion and reply, especially those arguments that

Court previously rejected in its order. The Court will not alter

its June 30, 2006 order. Defendants' motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/31/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 751 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2