In an order on Thursday in Vifor (International) AG v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 25-211-WCB (D. Del.), visiting Judge Bryson set forth his views on stays in an ANDA action where the stay will impact the trial date in light of the 30-month stay and the time needed for post-trial briefing:
Apotex stated that the parties are engaged in settlement negotiations and asked that the proceedings be stayed “to allow the parties to focus on negotiating settlement” and to order that the parties pursue mediation “to resolve this matter efficiently.” . . . Apotex’s request for stay is denied. The fact that the parties are contemplating mediation suggests to the court that settlement, while possible, is by no means assured. The schedule for this case is already tight, with trial scheduled for January 2027, only six months before the 30-month stay expires. The court intends for this case to stay on the current schedule, with no significant further delays.
. . .
As it is, the trial date cannot reasonably be postponed, because during the six months between the end of the trial and the end of the 30-month stay, the parties will be required to submit two sets of post-trial briefings and oral arguments to the court, and the court will be required to enter its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which typically entail a significant commitment of resources. In the court’s experience, six months is the minimum period necessary to complete those tasks in light of all other contemporaneous commitments.
Vifor (International) AG v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 25-211-WCB, D.I. 87 (D. Del. Apr. 23, 2026).
It's worth noting that this was an opposed stay. In a footnote, the Court further explained that, even if the parties agree to amend the schedule, it may not grant the amendment under these circumstances:
Vifor stated that the parties “are in the midst of negotiating an extension of fact discovery by at most a month or two.” D.I. 82 at 1. The parties should not assume that the court will endorse a delay of that length, which would require an adjustment of the dates for expert reports and (potentially) expert discovery. Such a delay could also lead to a compression of the time for the briefing and consideration of motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. As it now stands, the schedule leaves the court only about two months between the completion of briefing of the substantive motions and the pretrial conference, which is the minimum period that would be acceptable to the court. Any further compression of the schedule would not be feasible unless the parties are prepared to forgo filing dispositive motions.
Always good to know. This is consistent with our post about what parties can and can't stipulate to. Changing the deadline for summary judgment reply briefs is always a risky proposition. Even if the Court doesn't outright deny the stip, it's possible that it could impact your trial date.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
