/

, Re: Orexo AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. I

Civil Action No. 11-3788 (FLW) (LHG) Ordered this day

Dear Judge Goodman:

Our firm, along with our co-counsel Milbank,

represents Plaintiff Orexo AB in the above-referenced matter. We vrife on behTf of

all parties to seek the Court’s approval to adjust the case schedule based upon the

following agreement between the parties:

(a) Mylan will revise and re-serve its Invalidity Contentions on or before

Friday, March 30, and, Mylan would also have the option of revising and re-serving

its Non-Infringement Contentions.

(b) Orexo will serve its Infringement Contentions and Response to

Validity Contentions on or before Friday, April 20.

(c) Thereafter, all discovery deadlines will be pushed back by three

weeks, up to but not including the January 25, 2013 close of fact discovery deadline.

The January 25, 2013 date and all dates thereafter will remain as scheduled in this

Court’s February 7, 2012 Pre-Trial Scheduling Order.

The Parties enclose a proposed revised schedule as Exhibit A setting forth

all affected dates for the Court’s consideration. If the Court finds this revised

schedule acceptable, we ask that the Court “So Order” the revised dates as set forth

in the attached schedule.

Respectfully.

s/John E. Flaherty

John E. Flaherty

VIA ECF AND FEDERAL EXPRESS

Honorable Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J.U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse

402 East State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

kt W

:/1

11 —tT /

4

44

JC;flfl Hahr:v

C 975639 7993r I

jflaherty/nrcr;arteLur;I

McCarter & English, LLP

Four Gateway Center

100 Mulberry Street

Newark, NJ 071024056

C 9735225444F. 973524<7070

www<rnccarter<com

cc: Ail Counsel (via email)
February 7, 2012 Pretrial Proposed Revised

Scheduling Order Pretrial Scheduling

Order

Defendants’ Revised N/A March 30, 2012Invalidity Contentions andNon-infringement

Contentions

Plaintiff’s Infringement March 30, 2012 April 20, 2012

Contentions and

Response to Validity

Contentions

Plaintiff’s Responses to March 30, 2012 April 20, 2012

Invalidity Contentions

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ April 13, 2012 May 4, 2012

identification of terms

each contend should be

construed by the Court

and those terms to be

governed by 35 U.S.C.

§ 112(6).

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ April 27, 2012 Mt1&r2Ot2

must file any motion to

amend the pleadings or /

join new parties with leave

of Court

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ May 4, 2012 May 25, 2012

simultaneous exchange of

Preliminary Claim

Constructions

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ May 18, 2012 June 8, 2012

exchange of identification

of intrinsic and extrinsic

evidence on which each

party intends to rely in

opposing other party’s

proposed claim

constructionsReturn date for Plaintiffs May 21, 2012 JflA±22

or Defendants’ motion to

4 ,,

amend the pleadings or cJ’

join new parties with leave

of Court

MEl 1318113iv1
meet and confer regarding

Joint Claim Construction

and Pre-hearingStatement

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ June 1, 2012 June 22, 2012

completion of the JointClaim Construction and

Pre-hearing StatementPlaintiff’s and Defendants’ June 29, 2012 July 20, 2012

completion of discoveryrelating to claim

construction

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ July 16, 2012 August 6, 2012

filing and service of

Markman briefs

Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ July 27, 2012 August 17, 2012

meet and confer to

propose schedule for

Claim Construction

Hearing

Conclusion of any August 15, 2012 September 5, 2012

discovery from an expert

witness who submitted acertification or declaration

under L. Pat. R. 45(a)Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ September 14, 2012 October 5, 2012

filing and service of

responding Markman

briefsPlaintiff’s and Defendants’ December 28, 2012 January 18, 2013

deadline for producing and

providing material related

to party’s reliance onadvice of counsel as part

ofnse

patent-related claim or

MEl 13181 131v1