[U] More Sovaldi® Patent Wars -- Is There A Completely Sealed Proceeding -- In Massachusetts Federal District Court -- As Well?

UPDATED: This whole item is the result of a typo by counsel in the litigation -- there is NO sealed proceeding -- just a mistake in internal case reference numbers: 1109 -- counsel should have refernced 91109. See this later item. END, UPDATE.

Overnight, in the Delaware Sovaldi^® patent litigation, the parties -- Gilead-entites and Merck-entities, respectively -- have agreed via a Joint Stipulation (6 page PDF file) that essentially any document produced in the California patent litigation by either party will be available to the other parties, in the Delaware patent litigation, and vice versa. No huge surprise there. But what caught my eye, was a reference (for the first time, I believe) to additional patent litigation between Idenix (Merck's affiliate) and Gilead, in the Massachusets federal District Court.

That seems new.

Yep -- I just verified it -- there is no mention of any Massachusetts litigation related to Sovaldi, in the Merck SEC Forms 10-Q or 10-K so far, during this year, 2015. [So we should learn more, when the Q3 2015 SEC Form 10-Q is filed, rather shortly.] And while I think the stipulation quoting it contains a typo as to the case number, I think that piece of litigation (properly designated as 15-1019, not 15-1109) has been sealed, in its entirety:

. . . .Gilead Sciences, Inc., v. Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 15-mc-1109 [sic] (D. Mass). . .

". . .The case you specified is SEALED and you are not authorized to see it. . . ."

That is what the PACER query on the above item returns.

Fascinating. In any event, I think the import of the Delaware stipulation is that the later discovery cutoff in Delaware will effectively apply in California, as either party may request in Delaware anything it needs in California -- or so it would seem -- under this Joint Stipulation. Onward -- smile!