UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(609) 989-2040

CHAMBERS OF

TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. COURTHOUSE

402 E. STATE STREET, RM 6052

TRENTON, NJ 08608

May 11, 2011

LETTER ORDER

Re: AstraZeneca AB, et al. v. Hanmi USA, Inc., et al.

Civil Action No. 11-760 (JAP) 

Dear Counsel:

After fully reviewing the different proposals submitted by the parties, as well as considering the

parties’ arguments made during the Initial Conference that was held on April 28, 2011, the Court enters the

following schedule in this matter: 

ACTION DEADLINE

Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Related Document

Production (L.Pat.R. 3.6(b) & (h))

May 18, 2011

Defendants’ Service of Invalidity Contentions and Related Document

Production ( L.Pat.R. 3.6(c) & (d))

May 25, 2011

Defendants’ Service of Non-infringement Contentions and Related

Document Production (L.Pat.R. 3.6(e) & (f))

May 25, 2011

Parties’ Submission of Consent Discovery Confidentiality Order

(L.Pat.R. 2.2)

June 10, 2011

Plaintiffs’ Service of Infringement Contentions and Related Document

Production (L.Pat.R. 3.6(g) & (h))

July 11, 2011

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 56 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 275
ACTION DEADLINE

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions (L.Pat.R.

3.6(i))

July 11, 2011

Parties’ Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction (L.Pat.R.

4.1(a))

July 25, 2011

Parties’ Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic

Evidence (L.Pat.R. 4.2(a) & (b))

August 15, 2011

Parties’ Exchange of Evidence They Intend to Rely on to Oppose

Other Party’s Construction (L.Pat.R. 4.2(c))

August 29, 2011

Parties’ Submission of Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing

Statement (L.Pat.R. 4.3)

September 14, 2011

Parties’ Completion of Claim Construction Discovery (L.Pat.R. 4.4) October 14, 2011

Parties’ Opening Markman Submissions (L.Pat.R. 4.5(a)) October 31, 2011

Parties’ Completion of Expert Discovery Related to Opening

Markman Submissions (L.Pat.R. 4.5(b))

November 30, 2011

Parties’ Responding Markman Submissions (L.Pat.R. 4.5(c)) December 30, 2011

Parties’ Proposed Schedule for Claim Construction Hearing

(L.Pat.R. 4.6)

January 13, 2012

Claim Construction Order TBD by Court

Parties’ Disclosure of Reliance on Advice of Counsel Not later than 30 days after

the Court’s entry of the

Claim Construction Order

 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 56 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 276
The remaining schedule shall be set after claim construction has been completed. The parties are

reminded that correspondence that is emailed or faxed to Chambers does not need to be mailed to Chambers

unless otherwise instructed by the Court. 

Further, the parties are instructed to follow the following procedure with respect to substantive

discovery disputes that arise in this matter: (1) counsel shall meet and confer in good faith either in-person

or telephonically in an attempt to resolve any discovery dispute before bringing the dispute to the attention

of the Court; and (2) if, after meeting and conferring in good faith, counsel is unable to fully resolve a

substantive discovery dispute, then they shall file a formal motion regarding same. Contrary to Local Civil

Rules 16.1(f)(1) and 37.1(a)(1), counsel shall not present a substantive discovery dispute to the undersigned

via conference call or letter before filing a formal motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A STATUS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

SHALL TAKE PLACE ON AUGUST 9, 2011 AT 11:00 A.M. PLAINTIFFS SHALL

INITIATE THE CALL.

s/Tonianne J. Bongiovanni

TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 56 Filed 05/12/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 277