Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
Citation: 25 F. App'x 923Docket: Nos. 01-1191, 01-1218
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; November 29, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (HMR) requested the consolidation of several appeal cases with a new, undocketed appeal and sought permission to submit a corrected opening brief. Amgen opposed part of this request and sought to reinstate a prior district court order extending its time to file a second notice of cross-appeal, as well as to resume the briefing schedule. The court examined whether Amgen's second notice of appeal was timely. The original district court ruling found claims 4-9 of an Amgen patent were not infringed, and Amgen timely appealed regarding claims 4-8. After the appeal deadline, Amgen sought an extension to include claim 9, which the district court granted. However, this extension was later vacated by the appellate court due to the absence of findings on "excusable neglect." The court remanded the case for the district court to clarify its reasoning for granting the extension. On October 9, 2001, the district court justified its extension to prevent a possible anomaly where claims 4-8 could be overturned while claim 9, due to a typographical error, remained unchallenged. The appellate court reviews the district court’s extension decision under an abuse of discretion standard and applies the Supreme Court’s definition of "excusable neglect." This definition allows for late filings resulting from inadvertence, mistake, or circumstances beyond a party’s control, with the court considering factors such as potential prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the movant’s good faith. In this instance, the appellate court found minimal danger of prejudice to HMR since Amgen had expressed its intent to appeal, and the delay was minor, allowing for comprehensive argumentation by Amgen. The delay in filing was attributed to a typographical error, which, while arguably within Amgen's control, did not represent an attempt to disregard court-ordered deadlines. Amgen was acting in good faith when seeking an extension. The district court's decision to grant Amgen’s motion for an extension of time was found to be within its discretion. HMR’s appeals against this decision were deemed unnecessary; the proper method to contest the timeliness of an appeal is through a motion. Consequently, HMR's appeals challenging the extensions are dismissed. Additionally, HMR's motions to consolidate and amend the opening brief are declared moot. Amgen's motion to resume the briefing schedule is granted, with its opening brief due within 30 days of the order's filing. The order will be sent to the merits panel assigned to the appeals, and it is interpreted as a grant for an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal. Amgen's motion to reinstate the district court's March 27, 2001 order is deemed unnecessary. The appeals dismissed include HMR's appeal of the March 27 order and its pending appeal of the October 9 order, which will also be dismissed upon receipt.