Columbia v. Seirus - Columbia Opposition To Motion For Extension of Time

Case: 18-1329 Document: 26-1 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2018
Case Nos. 18-1329, -1331, -1728

________________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
________________________________
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC.,
Defendant - Cross-Appellant.
______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California
Case No. 3:17-cv-01781-HZ, Judge Marco A. Hernandez
___________________________
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S

OPPOSITION TO SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC.’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE
BRIEF
______________________________
David W. Axelrod
Nicholas F. Aldrich
Sara Kobak
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt P.C.
1211 S.W. 5th Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-222-9981
Facsimile: 503-796-2900
Attorneys for Columbia Sportswear
North America, Inc.
Plaintiff-Appellant Columbia Sportswear North America Inc.
(“Columbia”) opposes Defendant-Cross-Appellant Seirus Innovative
Accessories, Inc.’s (“Seirus”) motion for a 60-day extension of time to
submit its combined principal and response brief in this case. The
requested delay is unnecessary, without good cause, and is calculated to
prejudice Columbia. Seirus seeks to delay this appeal to advance
parallel proceedings that Seirus belatedly initiated with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in an effort to avoid the
jury’s verdict in this longstanding suit.
Because no good cause exists for Seirus’s extension request, the
request should be denied. To the extent any extension is granted, the
extension should be limited to 30 days, with notice that no further
extensions will be granted to Seirus.
I. SEIRUS HAS FAILED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE
Seirus seeks a 60-day extension to file its brief, moving the due
date from July 10 to September 10. According to Seirus’s motion, the
60-day extension is necessary because Mr. Craig Countryman, one of its
attorneys on appeal who has had no substantive or other role in the
judicial proceedings so far, has “several upcoming deadlines. . . in other
2
pending appeals in this Court” that also are due in July 2018. In
making that assertion, Mr. Countryman cites four other pending
appeals. [Appeal Dkt. 25-2.] Mr. Countryman does not explain,
however, why those appeals require any adjustment to this briefing
schedule. In three of those appeals, Mr. Countryman and his firm have
not made any extension requests and, thus, those deadlines presumably
could be extended if necessary. See Kobak Decl. ¶¶ 2-4 & Exs. A-C
(attaching docketing statements from GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 18-1976; Kingston Technology Co., Inc.
v. Polaris Innovations Limited, No. 18-1778; Mayo Foundation v. Iancu,
No. 18-2031). The fact that counsel has not sought requests in his other
pending cases belies that there is good cause to extend the deadline in
this case, particularly given the substantial prejudice it would cause, as
discussed further below.
In the fourth cited appeal, iCeutica Pty Ltd v. Lupin Limited, No.
18-1658, Mr. Countryman sought a 60-day extension of time from the
original deadline of May 8 to July 9, 2018, the day when Seirus’s brief
3
in this case was scheduled to be due.1 Notably, Mr. Countryman cited
the deadline in this case as a reason for that extension request. See
Kobak Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E, p. 2. Although he now tries to rely on the
deadline in iCeutica as a reason for an extension in this case, his
iCeutica motion asked that the deadline in iCeutica be reset to coincide
with the opening brief deadline in this case. Compare Kobak Decl. ¶ 6,
Ex. E, p. 2 with Kobak Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D. This Court granted his request
to have both briefs due on the same date. Counsel’s new request to
have the brief in this appeal extended because of a conflict with the re-
scheduled deadline in iCeutica is not good cause when counsel himself
deliberately requested the same due date and represented that the
extension in iCeutica was necesitated by this case.2
Seirus also has not stated any other plausible good-cause basis for
an extension of two full months. The parties are appealing following a
jury trial held in September 2017. The parties briefed the JMOL and
1 On May 31, 2018, the Clerk of this Court adjusted Seirus’s due date by
one day, from July 9 to July 10. [Appeal Dkt. No. 23.]
2 With due condolences to Mr. Countryman’s need for medical treatment,
Mr. Countryman appears to continue to have a full calendar of appeal

briefs due. His declaration fails to indicate what he has due 60 days
after the current deadline or how extending this particular deadline will
alleviate pressure on his work load.
4
new trial issues that will make up the bulk of this appeal more than six
months ago. The district court denied all post-trial motions in a single
paragraph in March of this year. Seirus has thus already had several
months to prepare for its own appeal. Seirus also has forty days to
draft its response to Columbia’s appeal. Columbia’s opening brief raises
the same issues on the same record. Seirus thus has already had
months to prepare its arguments for all issues.
Seirus also cannot claim a lack of sufficient resources. Seirus is
represented by a large firm, four attorneys from which have already
entered appearances in this appeal, and numerous attorneys from
which represented Seirus during trial. Accordingly, Seirus will not be
prejudiced by having to file its brief on time.
II. SEIRUS’S MOTION FOR DELAY IS CALCULATED TO

PREJUDICE COLUMBIA
Rather than based on good cause, Seirus’s motion, like multiple
motions it filed in the District Court, was instead filed with an intent to
stall this case in an effort to use parallel proceedings to undermine the
jury’s verdict and its own stipulation.
Columbia filed this case over three years ago, in January 2015,
accusing Seirus of infringing three Columbia patents, including U.S.
5
Design Patent No. D657,093 (the “D’093 Patent”). Seirus
counterclaimed for declarations of noninfringement and invalidity of all
three patents. After failing throughout discovery to assert any
invalidity contentions concerning the D’093 Patent, Seirus stipulated in
early 2016 to entry of a “Judgment of Validity of U.S. Patent D657,093”
dismissing its invalidity counterclaim with prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(b), which the district court
entered. [Dkt. 81.] Though Seirus now contends otherwise, that
judgment is final and not subject to any appeal.
For the next year and a half, the parties litigated the remaining
issues in this case. Seirus filed numerous motions seeking continuances
of the trial. [Dkt Nos. 144, 163, 176.] One of those requests was
granted, and the district court granted Seirus’s motion to postpone the
trial for six months. [Dkt. No. 144.] And just two weeks before the
start of trial, the district court granted Seirus’s motion to transfer
venue from Oregon to the Southern District of California based on TC
Heartland v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). [Dkt.
No. 254.]
More than two-and-a-half years after the case was filed, a two-
6
week jury trial was completed. The jury found that Seirus was liable to
Columbia for more than $3 million for its infringement of the D’093
Patent. Both parties filed lengthy motions for judgment as a matter of
law (“JMOL”) and a new trial under Rules 50 and 59. The Court denied
the motions, and both parties appealed.
After the appeals were noticed, Seirus initiated an attempt to
make an end-run around its own stipulated “Judgment of Validity” and
the jury’s verdict on infringement, by filing a petition for ex parte
reexamination of the D’093 Patent at the PTO. That reexamination is
pending.
In now seeking a briefing extension, Seirus is attempting to delay
this appeal and pull off a repeat of what occurred in Fresenius USA, Inc.
v. Baxter Intern., Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Fresenius,
after a jury trial and appeal, the asserted claims were held not invalid
and infringed. This Court remanded the case to the district court for
issues related to damages and an injunction. Meanwhile, in an effort to
avoid the jury verdict and this Court’s mandate, Fresenius sought
reexamination of the patent at the PTO. On reexamination, the PTO
found that all asserted claims were invalid, and this Court
7
affirmed. This Court’s mandate in the reexamination appeal issued
before the district court entered final judgment on the remanded
issues. Because the district court’s final judgment on the jury’s verdict
had not been entered by the time the patent was rendered invalid in
reexamination, this Court held that the decade-old litigation was moot.
Fresenius thus sets up a “race to the courthouse” after a jury
verdict of patent infringement. Upon losing in judicial proceedings, the
infringer can rush to the PTO and belatedly seek reexamination of the
patent. Under Fresenius, should the PTO find the patent invalid in a
case without a final judgment on validity, the jury verdict will only
stand if the district court judgment is affirmed or, if any issue is
remanded, final judgment is entered on remand, before the
reexamination proceedings are complete.
In this case, a final judgment under Rule 54(b) was entered on the
validity of the D’093 Patent, and no timely appeal was filed from that
judgment. Even though the final judgment on the validity of the D’093
cannot be disturbed at this late date, Seirus is seeking to delay
appellate proceedings in this Court in hopes that it can obtain a
favorable decision from the PTO before these judicial proceedings are
8
concluded to enable it to attempt to challenge the judgment of validity
on which a final judgment under Rule 54(b) was entered in 2016.
Because such gamesmanship is not good cause for delaying this
appeal, this Court should deny Seirus’s request to extend the briefing
schedule.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
9
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court should deny Seirus’s request for an
extension of time to file its opening brief.
To the extent any extension is granted, such extension should be
limited to 30 days, with notice that no further extensions will be
granted to Seirus.
Dated this 12th day of June, 2018.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Nicholas F. Aldrich

David W. Axelrod
Nicholas F. Aldrich
Sara Kobak
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt
1211 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
daxelrod@schwabe.com
naldrich@schwabe.com
skobak@schwabe.com
Telephone: 503-222-9981
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant

Columbia Sportswear
North America, Inc.
10
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4, counsel for Plaintiff-
Appellant Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. certifies:
1. The full name of every party or amicus curiae represented by
me is: Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc.
2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in
the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: Not
Applicable.
3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies
that own 10 percent of more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae
represented by me are: Columbia Sportswear Company
4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates
that appeared for the party now represented by me in the trial court or
agency or amicus curiae , or are expected to appear in this Court, are:
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT P.C.: David W. Axelrod,
Nicholas (Nika) F. Aldrich, David R. Boyajian, Devon Z.
Newman, Brenna K. Legaard, Sara Kobak, and Angela E. Addae.
5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be
pending in this or any other court or agency that will directly affect or
11
be directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal is:
None.

Nicholas F. Aldrich
12
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This response complies with the type-volume limitation of
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A) because this brief
contains 1,535 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by
Federal Circuit Rule 27(d).
2. This response complies with the typeface requirements of
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed R. App.
P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally
spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2016 in 14 point Century
Schoolhouse.
Dated: June 12, 2018.

Nicholas F. Aldrich
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR
NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SEIRUS
INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE BRIEF was served
by the Appellate CM/ECF System, on the 12th day of June, 2018, on the
following parties:
Christopher S. Marchese (SBN

170239)
marchese@fr.com
Seth M. Sproul (SBN 217711)
sproul@fr.com
Oliver J. Richards (SBN 310972)
orichards@fr.com
Craig E. Countryman
countryman@fr.com
Fish & Richardson P.C.
12390 El Camino Read
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: 858-678-5070
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-

Appellant Seirus Innovative
Accessories, Inc.
By: /s/ Nicholas F. Aldrich

Nicholas F. Aldrich
1
Case Nos. 18-1329, -1331, -1728

________________________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
________________________________
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC.,
Defendant - Cross-Appellant.
______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California
Case No. 3:17-cv-01781-HZ, Judge Marco A. Hernandez
___________________________
DECLARATION OF SARA KOBAK IN SUPPORT OF COLUMBIA

SPORTSWEAR NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE BRIEF
______________________________
David W. Axelrod
Nicholas F. Aldrich
Sara Kobak
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt P.C.
1211 S.W. 5th Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-222-9981
Facsimile: 503-796-2900
Attorneys for Columbia Sportswear
North America, Inc.
I, Sara Kobak, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney with the firm of Schwabe, Williamson &

Wyatt, counsel for Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc.
(“Columbia”). I have personal knowledge of the facts recited below and
if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify as stated
herein. I make this declaration in support of Columbia’s Opposition to
Seirus’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Brief.
2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the docket
report for GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Fed. Cir. No. 18-1976.
3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the docket
report for Kingston Technology Co., Inc. v. Polaris Innovations Limited,
Fed. Cir. No. 18-1778.
4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the docket
report for Mayo Foundation v. Iancu, Fed. Cir. No. 18-2031.
5. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of
Appellants’ Unopposed Motion for a 60 Day Extension of Time to File
Its Opening Brief in iCeutica Pty Ltd. and Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC
v. Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 18-
1658.
6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the
Declaration of Craig E. Countryman in support of Appellants’
Unopposed Motion for a 60 Day Extension of Time to File Its Opening
Brief in iCeutica Pty Ltd. and Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Lupin
Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 18-1658.
2
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE
TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND
THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS DECLARATION IS MADE FOR
USE AS EVIDENCE IN COURT AND IS SUBJECT TO PENALTY
FOR PERJURY.
/s/ Sara Kobak

Sara Kobak
3
6/12/2018 Case: 18-1329 Document: 26-218-1976 Docket4
Page: Filed: 06/12/2018
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 18-1976 Docketed: 05/16/2018

Nature of Suit: 830 Patent Infringement (Fed. Question)
GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Fee Status: fee paid
Case Type Information:

1) Civil Private
2) -
3) -
Originating Court Information:

District: 0311-1 : 1:14-cv-00878-LPS-CJB
Trial Judge: Leonard P. Stark, Chief Judge
Date Filed: 07/03/2014
Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA:
05/14/2018 05/15/2018
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
Cross-appeal
18-1976 18-2023 05/31/2018
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC Juanita Rose Brooks, Attorney

Plaintiff - Appellant Direct: 858-678-5070
Email: brooks@fr.com
Fax: 858-678-5099
[LD NTC Retained]
Fish & Richardson, PC
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Michael Ari Amon, Attorney

Direct: 858-678-5070
Email: amon@fr.com
Fax: 858-678-5099
[COR NTC Retained]
San Diego, CA 92130
Craig E. Countryman
Email: countryman@fr.com
[COR NTC Retained]
San Diego, CA 92130
Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Attorney

Direct: 612-335-5070
Email: EFlanagan@fr.com
Fax: 612-288-9696
[COR NTC Retained]
Suite 3200
60 South Sixth Street
3200 RBC Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Michael J. Kane
Direct: 612-337-2502
Email: mkane@fr.com Exhibit A
https://ecf.cafc.uscourts.gov/n/beam/servlet/TransportRoom Page 1 of 8 1/8
Page: Filed: 06/12/2018
[COR NTC Retained]
3200 RBC Plaza
Douglas E. McCann, Attorney

Direct: 302-652-5070
Email: dmccann@fr.com
Fax: 302-652-0607
[COR NTC Retained]
222 Delaware Avenue
17th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899
Jonathan Elliot Singer, -

Direct: 858-678-5634
Email: singer@fr.com
Fax: 858-678-5099
[COR NTC Retained]
San Diego, CA 92130
William Woodford
Direct: 612-766-2004
Email: woodford@fr.com
[COR NTC Retained]
3200 RBC Plaza
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED Juanita Rose Brooks, Attorney

Plaintiff - Appellant Direct: 858-678-5070
[LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
Michael Ari Amon, Attorney

Direct: 858-678-5070
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
Craig E. Countryman
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Attorney

Direct: 612-335-5070
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
Michael J. Kane
Direct: 612-337-2502
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
Douglas E. McCann, Attorney

Direct: 302-652-5070
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
Jonathan Elliot Singer, -

Direct: 858-678-5634
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
William Woodford
Direct: 612-766-2004 Exhibit A
Page: Filed: 06/12/2018
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. William M. Jay

Defendant - Cross-Appellant Direct: 202-346-4000
Email: wjay@goodwinlaw.com
Fax: 202-346-4444
[LD NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
Elaine Blais, Attorney

Direct: 617-570-1000
Email: eblais@goodwinprocter.com
Fax: 617-523-1231
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
J. Anthony Downs
Direct: 617-570-1000
Email: jdowns@goodwinprocter.com
Fax: 617-523-1231
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Robert Frederickson, III

Direct: 617-570-1000
Email: rfrederickson@goodwinprocter.com
Fax: 617-523-1231
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Christopher T. Holding, Esq., Attorney

Direct: 617-570-1000
Email: cholding@goodwinprocter.com
Fax: 617-523-1231
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Ira J. Levy, Esq., Attorney

Direct: 212-813-8800
Email: ilevy@goodwinprocter.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
The New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Alexandra Lu
Direct: 617-570-1000
Email: ALu@goodwinlaw.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Andrew Riley
Direct: 212-813-8800
Email: ARiley@goodwinlaw.com Exhibit A
Page: Filed: 06/12/2018
[COR NTC Retained]
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405
Lana S. Shiferman, Attorney

Direct: 617-570-1000
Email: lshiferman@goodwinprocter.com
Fax: 617-523-1231
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Daryl L. Wiesen, Attorney

Direct: 617-570-1000
Email: dwiesen@goodwinprocter.com
Fax: 617-523-1231
[COR NTC Retained]
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Exhibit A
Page: Filed: 06/12/2018
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (CORK) LIMITED,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
Defendant - Cross-Appellant
Exhibit A
Page: Filed: 06/12/2018
05/16/2018 1 Appeal docketed. Received: 05/15/2018. [522228]
59 pg, 922.65 KB Entry of Appearance due 05/30/2018. Certificate of Interest is due on 05/30/2018. Docketing Statement
due 05/30/2018. Appellant's brief is due 07/16/2018. [CMT] [Entered: 05/16/2018 01:56 PM]
05/30/2018 2 Entry of appearance for Craig E. Countryman as of counsel for Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and
2 pg, 75.94 KB SmithKline Beecham (Cork) Limited. Service: 05/30/2018 by email. [525608] [18-1976] [Craig Countryman]
[Entered: 05/30/2018 05:46 PM]
05/30/2018 3 Entry of appearance for Michael A. Amon as of counsel for Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and
[Entered: 05/30/2018 05:48 PM]
05/30/2018 4 Entry of appearance for Juanita R. Brooks as principal counsel for Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and
[Entered: 05/30/2018 05:50 PM]
05/30/2018 5 Entry of appearance for William M. Jay as principal counsel for Appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc..
2 pg, 149.31 KB Service: 05/30/2018 by email. [525615] [18-1976] [William Jay] [Entered: 05/30/2018 05:51 PM]
05/30/2018 6 Entry of appearance for Elizabeth M. Flanagan as of counsel for Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and
[Entered: 05/30/2018 05:53 PM]
05/30/2018 7 Entry of appearance for Michael J. Kane as of counsel for Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and SmithKline
2 pg, 76.4 KB Beecham (Cork) Limited. Service: 05/30/2018 by email. [525622] [18-1976] [Craig Countryman] [Entered:
05/30/2018 05:54 PM]
05/30/2018 8 Entry of appearance for Anthony J. Downs as of counsel for Appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc..
2 pg, 171.74 KB Service: 05/30/2018 by email. [525623] [18-1976] [J. Downs] [Entered: 05/30/2018 05:55 PM]
05/30/2018 9 Entry of appearance for Douglas E. McCann as of counsel for Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and
[Entered: 05/30/2018 05:55 PM]
05/30/2018 10 Entry of appearance for Jonathan E. Singer as of counsel for Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and
[Entered: 05/30/2018 05:57 PM]
05/30/2018 11 Entry of appearance for William Woodford as of counsel for Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and
[Entered: 05/30/2018 05:59 PM]
05/30/2018 12 Certificate of Interest for the Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and SmithKline Beecham (Cork) Limited.
3 pg, 156.93 KB Service: 05/30/2018 by email. [525636] [18-1976] [Craig Countryman] [Entered: 05/30/2018 06:01 PM]
05/30/2018 13 Docketing Statement for the Appellants GlaxoSmithKline LLC and SmithKline Beecham (Cork) Limited.
05/30/2018 14 Entry of appearance for Christopher T. Holding as of counsel for Appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc..
2 pg, 167.65 KB Service: 05/30/2018 by email. [525638] [18-1976] [Christopher Holding] [Entered: 05/30/2018 06:03 PM]
05/30/2018 15 Entry of appearance for Daryl L. Wiesen as of counsel for Appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc..
2 pg, 72.41 KB Service: 05/30/2018 by email. [525641] [18-1976] [Daryl Wiesen] [Entered: 05/30/2018 06:08 PM]
05/30/2018 16 Entry of appearance for Robert Frederickson III as of counsel for Appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
2 pg, 170.63 KB Inc.. Service: 05/30/2018 by email. [525642] [18-1976] [Robert Frederickson] [Entered: 05/30/2018 06:12
PM]
05/30/2018 17 Entry of appearance for Alexandra Lu as of counsel for Appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.. Service:
2 pg, 164.58 KB 05/30/2018 by email. [525644] [18-1976] [Alexandra Lu] [Entered: 05/30/2018 06:16 PM]
05/30/2018 18 Certificate of Interest for the Appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.. Service: 05/30/2018 by email.
3 pg, 95.47 KB [525645] [18-1976] [William Jay] [Entered: 05/30/2018 06:26 PM]
05/30/2018 19 Docketing Statement for the Appellee Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.. Service: 05/30/2018 by email.
4 pg, 216.85 KB [525646] [18-1976] [William Jay] [Entered: 05/30/2018 06:27 PM]
05/31/2018 20 Note to file: The following cases are associated: 18-1976 Lead with 18-2023 Cross-Appeal. FURTHER
ENTRIES WILL BE ADDED TO THE LEAD APPEAL ONLY. [525731] [18-1976, 18-2023] [CMT] [Entered:
05/31/2018 10:07 AM]
05/31/2018 21 Official caption revised to reflect docketing of cross-appeal. The official caption is reflected on the
electronic docket under the listing of the parties and counsel. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court.
[525737] [CMT] [Entered: 05/31/2018 10:16 AM]
05/31/2018 22 Exhibit
Entry of appearance for Elaine Herrmann Blais as of counsel for Cross-Appellant Teva A
Pharmaceuticals

6/12/2018 Case: 18-1329 Document: 26-218-1976 Docket
Page: 10 Filed: 06/12/2018
2 pg, 152.19 KB USA, Inc.. Service: 05/31/2018 by email. [526032] [18-1976] [Elaine Blais] [Entered: 05/31/2018 07:44 PM]
05/31/2018 23 Entry of appearance for Ira J. Levy as of counsel for Cross-Appellant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc..
2 pg, 156.63 KB Service: 05/31/2018 by email. [526033] [18-1976] [Ira Levy] [Entered: 05/31/2018 07:48 PM]
05/31/2018 24 Entry of appearance for Andrew E. Riley as of counsel for Cross-Appellant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
2 pg, 155.52 KB Inc.. Service: 05/31/2018 by email. [526034] [18-1976] [Andrew Riley] [Entered: 05/31/2018 07:51 PM]
05/31/2018 25 Entry of appearance for Lana S. Shiferman as of counsel for Cross-Appellant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
2 pg, 155.79 KB Inc.. Service: 05/31/2018 by email. [526036] [18-1976] [Lana Shiferman] [Entered: 05/31/2018 07:54 PM]
Exhibit A
Page: 11 Filed: 06/12/2018
Clear All
Documents and Docket Summary

Documents Only
Include Page Numbers
Selected Pages: 0 Selected Size: 0 KB
View Selected
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
06/12/2018 11:54:24
PACER Login: schwabeww Client Code: 011111-022222
Description: Docket Report (filtered) Search Criteria: 18-1976
Billable Pages: 3 Cost: 0.30
Exhibit A
Page: 12 Filed: 06/12/2018
General Docket

Kingston Technology Co., Inc. v. Polaris Innovations Ltd.
Appeal From: United States Patent and Trademark Office

1) BCA or PTO
2) Patent Trial and Appeal Board
3) -

District: PATO-1 : IPR2016-01623
Trial Judge: Ken B. Barrett, Administrative Patent Judge
Trial Judge: Jean R. Homere, Administrative Patent Judge
Trial Judge: Sally C. Medley, Administrative Patent Judge
04/05/2018 04/05/2018
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
COMPANION
18-1768 18-1778 04/19/2018
18-1768 18-1831 04/19/2018
KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. Craig E. Countryman

Appellant Email: countryman@fr.com
[LD NTC Retained]
San Diego, CA 92130
Michael John Ballanco, Esq., -

Direct: 202-626-6371
Email: ballanco@fr.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Fish & Richardson PC
Suite 1000
1000 Maine Avenue SW
David Michael Hoffman, Counsel

Direct: 512-226-8154
Email: hoffman@fr.com
Fax: 512-320-8935
[COR NTC Retained]
Fish & Richardson, P.C.
Suite 810
111 Congress Avenue
One Congress Plaza
4th floor
Austin, TX 78701
v.
POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED Nathan Nobu Lowenstein, Attorney

Appellee Direct: 310-307-4500
Email: lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com
[LD NTC Retained]
Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
1880 Century Park East
Suite 815 Exhibit
B
Page: 13 Filed: 06/12/2018
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Esq.

Direct: 310-307-4503
Email: weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
Fax: 310-307-4509
[COR NTC Retained]
Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
1880 Century Park East
Suite 815
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Exhibit B
Page: 14 Filed: 06/12/2018
KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
Appellant
v.
POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
Appellee
Exhibit B
Page: 15 Filed: 06/12/2018
38 pg, 596.04 KB Entry of Appearance due 04/20/2018. Certificate of Interest is due on 04/20/2018. Docketing Statement
due 04/20/2018. Certified List due on 05/16/2018. [CFT] [Entered: 04/06/2018 12:35 PM]
04/19/2018 2 Note to file: 18-1778, 18-1831 (COMPANION started 04/19/2018) with 18-1768. These cases shall be
considered companion cases and assigned to the same merits panel for oral argument. [515393] [18-1768,
18-1778, 18-1831] [CFT] [Entered: 04/19/2018 03:50 PM]
04/20/2018 3 Entry of appearance for Nathan Nobu Lowenstein as principal counsel for Appellee Polaris Innovations
2 pg, 411.1 KB Limited. Service: 04/20/2018 by email. [515731] [18-1778] [Nathan Lowenstein] [Entered: 04/20/2018
03:14 PM]
04/20/2018 4 Entry of appearance for Kenneth Weatherwax as of counsel for Appellee Polaris Innovations Limited.
2 pg, 411.58 KB Service: 04/20/2018 by email. [515732] [18-1778] [Nathan Lowenstein] [Entered: 04/20/2018 03:16 PM]
04/20/2018 5 Certificate of Interest for the Appellee Polaris Innovations Limited. Service: 04/20/2018 by email. [515734]
3 pg, 288.98 KB [18-1778] [Nathan Lowenstein] [Entered: 04/20/2018 03:18 PM]
04/20/2018 6 Docketing Statement for the Appellee Polaris Innovations Limited. Service: 04/20/2018 by email. [515735]
4 pg, 435.93 KB [18-1778] [Nathan Lowenstein] [Entered: 04/20/2018 03:19 PM]
04/20/2018 7 Entry of appearance for Craig E. Countryman as principal counsel for Appellant Kingston Technology
2 pg, 83.96 KB Company, Inc.. Service: 04/20/2018 by email. [515837] [18-1778] [Craig Countryman] [Entered: 04/20/2018
07:44 PM]
04/20/2018 8 Entry of appearance for David M. Hoffman as of counsel for Appellant Kingston Technology Company, Inc..
04/20/2018 9 Entry of appearance for Michael J. Ballanco as of counsel for Appellant Kingston Technology Company,
2 pg, 85.24 KB Inc.. Service: 04/20/2018 by email. [515840] [18-1778] [Craig Countryman] [Entered: 04/20/2018 07:48
PM]
04/20/2018 10 Certificate of Interest for the Appellant Kingston Technology Company, Inc.. Service: 04/20/2018 by email.
3 pg, 156.36 KB [515841] [18-1778] [Craig Countryman] [Entered: 04/20/2018 07:50 PM]
04/20/2018 11 Docketing Statement for the Appellant Kingston Technology Company, Inc.. Service: 04/20/2018 by email.
3 pg, 114.44 KB [515843] [18-1778] [Craig Countryman] [Entered: 04/20/2018 07:51 PM]
05/01/2018 12 Amended Certificate of Interest for the Appellant Kingston Technology Company, Inc.. Service: 05/01/2018
3 pg, 242.07 KB by email. [518162] [18-1778] [Michael Ballanco] [Entered: 05/01/2018 02:47 PM]
05/16/2018 13 Certified list from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Service: 05/16/2018 by email. Appellant's
68 pg, 1.43 MB brief is due 07/16/2018. [522268] [CFT] [Entered: 05/16/2018 03:00 PM]
Exhibit B
Page: 16 Filed: 06/12/2018
Clear All

Documents Only
View Selected

Transaction Receipt
06/12/2018 11:57:51
Exhibit B
Page: 17 Filed: 06/12/2018
General Docket

Nature of Suit: 830 Patent Infringement (Fed. Question)
Mayo Foundation v. Iancu
Appeal From: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

1) Civil US
2) -
3) -

District: 0422-1 : 1:17-cv-01153-TSE-JFA
Trial Judge: T. S. Ellis, III, United States District Judge
05/30/2018 05/31/2018
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
None
MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND Ahmed Jamal Davis, -

RESEARCH Direct: 202-783-5070
Plaintiff - Appellant Email: davis@fr.com
Fax: 202-783-2331
[NTC]
Fish & Richardson PC
Suite 1000
1000 Maine Avenue SW
v.
ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office R. Trent McCotter
Defendant - Appellee Direct: 703-299-3845
Email: trent.mccotter@usdoj.gov
[LD NTC Government]
Office of the United States Attorney
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Exhibit C
Page: 18 Filed: 06/12/2018
MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Defendant - Appellee
Exhibit C
Page: 19 Filed: 06/12/2018
9 pg, 310.28 KB Entry of Appearance due 06/15/2018. Certificate of Interest due 06/15/2018. Docketing Statement due
07/02/2018. Appellant's brief due 07/31/2018. [MJL] [Entered: 06/01/2018 09:59 AM]
06/01/2018 2 Entry of appearance for R. Trent McCotter as principal counsel for Appellee Iancu. Service: 06/01/2018 by
1 pg, 50.51 KB email. [526246] [18-2031] [R. Trent McCotter] [Entered: 06/01/2018 12:59 PM]
Exhibit C
Page: 20 Filed: 06/12/2018
Clear All

Documents Only
View Selected

Transaction Receipt
06/12/2018 12:01:35
Exhibit C
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-1 Page:
Page:21
1 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (1 of 9)
No. 18-1658, -1661

_______________________________________________________________ ___
United States Court Of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit
ICEUTICA PTY LTD. AND IROKO PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LUPIN LIMITED AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC..
Cross-Appellants.
__________________________________________________________ ________
APPEALS FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, CASE NO. 17-CV-
00394, JUDGE MARVIN J. GARBIS
______________ ____________________________________________________
APPELLANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A 60 DAY EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE ITS OPENING BRIEF
______________ ____________________________________________________
Craig E. Countryman
San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 678-5070
Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants
April 18, 2018
Exhibit D
Page 1 of 5
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-1 Page:
Page:22
2 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (2 of 9)
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants certifies the following:
1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: iCeutica Pty
Ltd. and Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC
2. The name of the real party in interest represented by me is: iCeutica Pty
Ltd. And Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC
3. The parent corporation of the party represented by me is: iCeutica Pty:
wholly-owned subsidiary of iCeutica Inc.; Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC: wholly-owned
subsidiary of Iroko Intermediate Holdings, Inc.
4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared
for the party now represented by me in the agency or that are expected to appear in this
Court are:
Fish & Richardson P.C.: Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Elizabeth M. Flanagan, Ahmed
J. Davis, W. Chad Shear, Megan Chacon
5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this
or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s
decision in the pending appeal: None.
Dated: April 18, 2018 /s/ Craig E. Countryman

Craig E. Countryman
Exhibit D
Page 2 of 5
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-1 Page:
Page:23
3 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (3 of 9)
Appellants respectfully move under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26
and Federal Circuit Rule 26 for a 60-day extension of time to file their opening brief,
which would move the due date from May 8, 2018 to July 9, 2018. Appellants have
not previously sought or obtained an extension in this appeal.
Appellants submit that there is good cause for the extension, as described in
the attached declaration of their counsel, Mr. Craig E. Countryman, due to several
upcoming deadlines that counsel has in other pending appeals in this Court and other
courts in the same timeframe as the briefing in this case. (See Countryman Decl. ¶ 2.)
No party opposes this motion or will file a response.
Appellants thus respectfully request the Court grant its motion and set the
deadline for their responsive brief to be July 9, 2018.
Dated: April 18, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Craig E. Countryman

Craig E. Countryman
San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 678-5070
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellants

ICEUTICA PTY LTD. AND IROKO
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
1 Exhibit D
Page 3 of 5
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-1 Page:
Page:24
4 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (4 of 9)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND FILING
I certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document using the Court’s
CM/ECF filing system on April 18, 2018. All counsel of record were served via
CM/ECF on April 18, 2018.

Craig E. Countryman
2 Exhibit D
Page 4 of 5
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-1 Page:
Page:25
5 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (5 of 9)
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT
The motion complies with the type-volume limit of Fed. R. App. P 27(d)(2)(A)
because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2)
and Fed Cir. R. 27(d), this motion contains 140 words.
This motion has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using
Microsoft Word in Garamond, 14-point font.
Dated: April 18, 2018 /s/ Craig E. Countryman

Craig E. Countryman
San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 678-5070
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellants

ICEUTICA PTY LTD. AND IROKO
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
1 Exhibit D
Page 5 of 5
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-2 Page:
Page:26
1 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (6 of 9)
No. 18-1658, -1661

_______________________________________________________________ ___
United States Court Of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit
ICEUTICA PTY LTD. AND IROKO PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LUPIN LIMITED AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC..
Cross-Appellants.
__________________________________________________________ ________
APPEALS FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, CASE NO. 17-CV-
00394, JUDGE MARVIN J. GARBIS
______________ ____________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF CRAIG E. COUNTRYMAN IN SUPPORT OF

APPELLANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A 60 DAY EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE ITS OPENING BRIEF
______________ ____________________________________________________
Craig E. Countryman
San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 678-5070
Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants
April 18, 2018
Exhibit E
Page 1 of 4
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-2 Page:
Page:27
2 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (7 of 9)
I, Craig E. Countryman, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed and admitted to practice before this Court
and a principal in the law firm of Fish & Richardson P.C. I am counsel for iCeutica
Pty. Ltd. and Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC, in the above-captioned appeal and will be
the principal drafter of its opening brief. I have personal knowledge of the facts in
this declaration, and if called and sworn as a witness, could testify competently to
them. I make this declaration in support of this motion for a 60-day extension of
time to file Appellants’ responsive brief.
2. Good Cause: There is good cause for this extension of time. I have
several professional commitments, as set forth below, that have interfered or will
interfere with my ability to complete the brief by the current due date.
o I have an opening brief due in Nader Asghari-Kamrani, et al. v. United Services
Automobile Association, No. 18-1120, currently due April 18, 2018.
o I am helping to prepare for an oral argument on May 2, 2018 for Assa Abloy
AB v. Spectrum Brands, Inc.., Nos. 17-1817, -1841
o I am helping to prepare for an oral argument on May 4, 2018 for BP Corporation
North America v. INVISTA., No. 17-1890.
o I have a responsive brief due in Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Microsoft
Corporation, No. 18-1120, currently due May 11, 2018.
1 Exhibit E
Page 2 of 4
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-2 Page:
Page:28
3 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (8 of 9)
o I have a reply brief due in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Elm 3DS Innovations,
LLC., No. 17-2474, -5475, -2476, -2478, -2479, 2480, -2482, -2483, -2018-
1050, -1079, -1080, -1081, -1082, currently due June 5, 2018.
o I have a responsive brief due in Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Serirus
Innovative Accessories, Inc., Nos. 18-1329, -1331, -1728, currently due July 9, 2018.
I declare under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 18th day of April 2018, at San Diego, California.
Respectfully submitted,

Craig E. Countryman
2 Exhibit E
Page 3 of 4
Case:
Case:18-1329
18-1658 Document:
Document:26-2
13-2 Page:
Page:29
4 Filed:
Filed:04/18/2018
06/12/2018 (9 of 9)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND FILING
I certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document using the Court’s
CM/ECF filing system on April 18, 2018. All counsel of record were served via
CM/ECF on April 18, 2018.

Craig E. Countryman
3 Exhibit E
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the DECLARATION OF SARA
KOBAK IN SUPPORT OF COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR NORTH
AMERICA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SEIRUS INNOVATIVE
ACCESSORIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE RESPONSIVE BRIEF was served by the Appellate CM/ECF
System, on the 12th day of June, 2018, on the following parties:
Christopher S. Marchese (SBN

170239)
marchese@fr.com
Seth M. Sproul (SBN 217711)
sproul@fr.com
Oliver J. Richards (SBN 310972)
orichards@fr.com
Craig E. Countryman
countryman@fr.com
12390 El Camino Read
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: 858-678-5070
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-

Appellant Seirus Innovative
Accessories, Inc.
By: /s/ Nicholas F. Aldrich

Nicholas F. Aldrich

Columbia v. Seirus - Columbia Opposition To Motion For Extension of Time

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Columbia v. Seirus - Columbia Opposition To Motion For Extension of Time

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case: 18-1329 Document: 26-1 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2018

Case Nos. 18-1329, -1331, -1728

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES, INC.,

Appeals from the United States District Court

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S

Plaintiff-Appellant Columbia Sportswear North America Inc.

(“Columbia”) opposes Defendant-Cross-Appellant Seirus Innovative

Accessories, Inc.’s (“Seirus”) motion for a 60-day extension of time to

requested delay is unnecessary, without good cause, and is calculated to

prejudice Columbia. Seirus seeks to delay this appeal to advance

parallel proceedings that Seirus belatedly initiated with the United

States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in an effort to avoid the

jury’s verdict in this longstanding suit.

Because no good cause exists for Seirus’s extension request, the

request should be denied. To the extent any extension is granted, the

extension should be limited to 30 days, with notice that no further

extensions will be granted to Seirus.

I. SEIRUS HAS FAILED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE

date from July 10 to September 10. According to Seirus’s motion, the

60-day extension is necessary because Mr. Craig Countryman, one of its

attorneys on appeal who has had no substantive or other role in the

judicial proceedings so far, has “several upcoming deadlines. . . in other

making that assertion, Mr. Countryman cites four other pending

appeals. [Appeal Dkt. 25-2.] Mr. Countryman does not explain,

however, why those appeals require any adjustment to this briefing

(attaching docketing statements from GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva

Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 18-1976; Kingston Technology Co., Inc.

v. Polaris Innovations Limited, No. 18-1778; Mayo Foundation v. Iancu,

this case, particularly given the substantial prejudice it would cause, as

discussed further below.

18-1658, Mr. Countryman sought a 60-day extension of time from the

in this case was scheduled to be due.1 Notably, Mr. Countryman cited

Kobak Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E, p. 2. Although he now tries to rely on the

deadline in iCeutica as a reason for an extension in this case, his

iCeutica motion asked that the deadline in iCeutica be reset to coincide

scheduled deadline in iCeutica is not good cause when counsel himself

extension in iCeutica was necesitated by this case.2

an extension of two full months. The parties are appealing following a

Mr. Countryman appears to continue to have a full calendar of appeal

draft its response to Columbia’s appeal. Columbia’s opening brief raises

months to prepare its arguments for all issues.

Seirus also cannot claim a lack of sufficient resources. Seirus is

represented by a large firm, four attorneys from which have already

entered appearances in this appeal, and numerous attorneys from

which represented Seirus during trial. Accordingly, Seirus will not be

prejudiced by having to file its brief on time.

II. SEIRUS’S MOTION FOR DELAY IS CALCULATED TO

Rather than based on good cause, Seirus’s motion, like multiple

stall this case in an effort to use parallel proceedings to undermine the

jury’s verdict and its own stipulation.

accusing Seirus of infringing three Columbia patents, including U.S.

Design Patent No. D657,093 (the “D’093 Patent”). Seirus

counterclaimed for declarations of noninfringement and invalidity of all

three patents. After failing throughout discovery to assert any

invalidity contentions concerning the D’093 Patent, Seirus stipulated in

early 2016 to entry of a “Judgment of Validity of U.S. Patent D657,093”

dismissing its invalidity counterclaim with prejudice under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(b), which the district court

entered. [Dkt. 81.] Though Seirus now contends otherwise, that

judgment is final and not subject to any appeal.

issues in this case. Seirus filed numerous motions seeking continuances