Cosmo Technologies Limited, et al. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 15-164 – LPS; 15-193-LPS, August 31, 2016 (Unsealed September 2, 2016).
Stark, C.J. Defendants’ Rogatory motion is granted.
Defendants seek the assistance of the Italian authorities in compelling the testimony of the named inventor of the patent-in-suit. Defendants deposed the other inventors and then moved to supplement their motion with evidence discovered after the initial briefing. The court finds the supplemental brief will assist the court and grants that motion. Defendants argue that his testimony as unlikely to be duplicative and that documents relating to him are few. Plaintiff contends, however, that the motion is untimely. The court finds that waiting until after completion of document production was reasonable and the motion is not untimely. Although taking a deposition in Italy after the close of fact discovery is not a trivial concern, there is sufficient time left in the schedule to allow for the deposition. Defendants’ potential prejudice outweighs any perceived prejudice to plaintiff.
