Sovaldi® Patent Spats UPDATE: No Sealed Case In MA -- Just A Typo, By Counsel

In the Joint Stipulation filed in Delaware earlier in the week, a reference to compliance with a prior order on discovery, entered in Massachusetts federal District Court led to an open, but sealed case in that District Court. I thought that. . . odd, to say the least. So I mentioned it.

After digging around a bit in the federal court archives in Massachusetts, through PACER, overnight -- I found the case number that counsel meant to reference. That case ends with a 91109 not 1019. And the case which is sealed is 1109. So it was a pure typo by the lawyers involved in the litigation that led to yesterday's now stricken story. So it goes.

Even so, it is interesting that the Massachusetts proceeding is apparently an effort to enforce discovery against one person (originally arising in the California litigation), who I am guessing is resident in Massachusetts. The matter has been inactive since mid-April 2015 -- so I am guessing that the dispute has been resolved. And that would explain why there is no mention of it in the SEC filings, to date. Here is the latest from that case 15-mc-91109 (a 6 page PDF file):

. . . .Petitioner Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”) respectfully moves this Court for an Order compelling Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Idenix”) to produce all documents and things requested and designate witnesses for the topics in Gilead’s subpoenas to Idenix by no later than May 1, 2015. . . .

Now you know -- all administ-trivia actually. . . . Onward now, to a scary, safe and fun-filled Halloween weekend 2015!