ViiV Healthcare Company v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

VIITV HEALTHCARE COMPANY, ) SHIONOGI & CO., LTD., and VITV ) HEALTHCARE UK (NO. 3) LIMITED, _ ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) Civil Action No. 18-224-CFC ) ) GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM ORDER Pending before me is Defendant Gilead Sciences, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,129,385 specifically excludes compounds with bicyclic A-rings. D.I. 253. In its concise statement of material undisputed facts filed in support of its motion, Gilead states that “[t]he terms monocyclic and bicyclic are mutually exclusive.” DI. 254911. Plaintiffs deny this asserted fact and cite record evidence (i.e, expert deposition testimony) that appears on its face to create a genuine issue about whether the terms monocyclic and bicyclic are mutually exclusive. See D.I. 270-5 JJ 16-20. Because there is a disputed fact that Gilead has said is material to its motion for summary judgment, I will deny the motion. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (holding that summary judgment will not lie if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact). WHEREFORE, this 6" day of July 2020, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 253) is DENIED.

United States Disp