Plaintiff's request to delay ruling on defendant's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement pending additional discovery under FRCP 56(f) was denied because (i) prior to filing of the lawsuit, "[defendant] offered to provide [plaintiff] with samples of Defendants' product for testing in an effort to stave off litigation; they also provided Plaintiff with so-called independent expert testing that confirmed noninfringement. . . .[but defendant] asserted that Plaintiff was more interested in suing and obtaining a 30-month injunction against FDA approval of [defendant's] product than in learning the truth," (ii) after testing defendant's product, plaintiff acknowledged that it did not infringe the patents-in-suit, but nevertheless "insisted that it need substantial additional discovery before it could decide whether to continue the lawsuit," and (iii) although plaintiff claimed defendant's 30(b)(6) witness was unprepared and could not answer questions about defendant's manufacturing process, plaintiff failed to move to compel additional testimony.
Astrazeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., 1-07-cv-06790 (NYSD March 10, 2009, Decision and Order)