Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Good Law

777 F. Supp. 779·1991 WL 218639·19 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1668·1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8103

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 17, 1991C 90 0373 DLJCalifornia4,453 words

Opinion

Jensen, J.

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 10, 1991, this Court heard oral argument on the following motions: plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint; defendant’s motion to amend the original answer, add affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and for an extension of time for discovery; defendant’s motion to compel joinder of a necessary party; and lastly, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a special master.

This order addresses only the defendant’s motion to add an interference counterclaim, defendant’s motion for joinder of a necessary party and plaintiff's motion for appointment of a special master. At the hearing the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and asked the parties to submit discovery schedules. Furthermore, a status conference was set for July 17 at 9 a.m. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion to add an interference counterclaim under 35 U.S.C. 291 is DENIED; defendant’s motion to compel joinder of a necessary party is DENIED; and plaintiff’s motion for appointment of special master is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

In the original complaint filed by the Regents of the University of California (“U.C.”) on February 7, 1990, U.C. claimed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.