RNAi Litigation

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, Plaintiff -VS- MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN, E.V., a corporation organized under the laws of Germany, et al, (Whitehead, MIT, UMass, and Alnylam), Defendant.

MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATTI B. SARIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, US District Courthouse in Boston and the honorable Judge Patti B. Saris.

..

Appearances:

STEVE W. BERMAN, ESQ. and MARK S. CARLSON, ESQ. (not shown), Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, Washington, 98101, for the Plaintiff.

DAVID I. GINDLER, ESQ., Irell & Manella, LLP,
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California,90067, for the Defendants.

Proceedings:

THE CLERK: Court calls Civil Action 11-10484, the University of Utah v. Max-Planck. Could counsel please identify themselves.

MR. BERMAN: Good afternoon, your Honor. Steve Berman for the University of Utah.

THE COURT: Welcome back, under a different case.

MR. CARLSON: Mark Carlson for the University of Utah.

THE COURT: Are you from Utah?

MR. CARLSON: No. I’m with Mr. Berman.

THE COURT: Oh, all right. Thank you.

MR. GINDLER: Good afternoon. David Gindler of Irell & Manella for the defendants.

THE COURT: And you’re back as well.

MR. GINDLER: I’m back.

THE COURT: All right. And you’re from the LA firm?

MR. GINDLER: I’m from the Los Angeles firm of Irell & Manella.

THE COURT: All right. And whom are you representing?

MR. GINDLER: I represent all of the defendants.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you very much. Now, we have two motions. There’s this little bit of a side skirmish, if I can call it that, on the Rule 41, but I don’t think that’s as of critical dimension. So have you worked through a plan? You want to argue the jurisdictional matter first and then go to the sufficiency, or you’re going to do it all at once?

MR. GINDLER: I think it makes sense to deal with the jurisdictional question first.

THE COURT: And then hear a response?

MR. GINDLER: Then hear a response.

THE COURT: And by “jurisdictional,” I’m including the Rule 19 issue.

MR. GINDLER: Yes, and so am I.

THE COURT: Okay, go for it. And how long? I’m figuring if you went fifteen minutes on the first motion to dismiss, fifteen minutes on the response, fifteen minutes on the second motion to dismiss, fifteen minutes on the response, and, of course, we might build in a little rebuttal time here.

MR. GINDLER: I think that makes sense, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

Leave a Reply