You are all of course familiar with the classic tale of chicken little. You may be less familiar with the plot of if the ill-fated Disney move of the same name. They both start the same, chicken sleeping under a tree has something fall on him, tells everyone the sky is falling and starts a panic.
Here the stories diverge. In the folktale, chicken little and his panicked friends meet a while fox, who tricks them into taking shelter in his cave, and then eats them. You can see the lesson.
In the film, chicken little is scorned, but later redeems himself by helping the local baseball team win the pennant (?). Afterwards, he is again hit by a piece of the sky, which turns out to be high tech camouflage used to hide alien spaceships in low orbit. The ships descend upon the hapless town, and the whole thing turns out to be a big misunderstanding. The lesson is somewhat less clear. This film made 300 million dollars.
Those of you who read Law360 (who somehow scooped me on this, but whose article does not recount the plot of a 20-year-old children's movie in unnecessary detail) will have guessed that this is all leading up to Judge Andrews' Oral Order yesterday in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2053-RGA. D.I. 512 (D. Del. Apr. 2, 2025):
Yesterday, MSN said the sky was falling and it needed emergency relief. I granted it. Today, MSN has filed an emergency motion requesting additional relief for essentially the same falling sky. I decline to enter any additional relief at this time or to consider the motion on an emergency basis.
For those wondering about the context here, the Federal Circuit just recently issued its mandate in the case ruling that the asserted patent was valid and infringed. Judge Andrews then promptly entered a final judgment, which included an order setting the effective date for approval of MSN's ANDA until after the end of Novartis' pediatric exclusivity period.
It's unclear from the docket exactly what happened next, but it appears that MSN emailed chambers requesting the Court enter a TRO preventing Novartis from sending the final judgment to the FDA. Apparently, MSN disputed whether a pediatric exclusivity period should apply, and wanted to prevent the FDA from re-setting their approval date until Judge Andrews resolved the issue in a 60(b) motion. Judge Andrews agreed:
MSN's request for temporary emergency relief is granted. Novartis and its agents are ORDERED to maintain the status quo. That is, Novartis is directed not to provide the final judgment entered today to the FDA. I do not see any harm to Novartis from brief delay, because MSN cannot launch. But Novartis can certainly respond to MSN's letter, and I will reconsider the issue after receiving any response from Novartis.
Id., D.I. 509.
The very next day, MSN filed another emergency motion, noting that "FDA’s counsel is already aware of the Court’s Final Judgment and the Court’s Temporary Restraining Order" and "is currently unclear of what to do with this Court’s order to reset the approval date of MSN’s ANDA." Accordingly they asked the Court to take the further step of actually staying that portion of its judgment, rather than simply preventing Novartis from sharing it.
This, of course, led to Judge Andrews' colorful denial.
Like the Disney version of chicken little, I'm not quite sure what the lesson here is. My main thought is that, if you have to request emergency relief, you may as well go whole hog and ask for all the relief you might need right off the bat.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
