Viatris Healthcare Ltd v. Sedia Biosciences Corporation
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-08790
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Viatris Healthcare v. Sedia Biosciences, Judge Subramanian set deadlines for materials and responses to an arbitration-confirmation petition.
Viatris Healthcare (Pty) Ltd must meet the filing and service deadlines; Sedia Biosciences Corporation may respond by the stated deadline.
What happened
Viatris Healthcare (Pty) Ltd asked the Southern District of New York to confirm an arbitration award against Sedia Biosciences Corporation.
The court said proceedings to confirm an arbitration award are treated like a motion for summary judgment and set a schedule for additional supporting materials, opposition, and reply papers.
Judge Arun Subramanian also ordered Viatris to serve the petition, supporting papers, and order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and file proof of service. The order did not decide whether to confirm the award.
The detailed version
- Viatris Healthcare Ltd v. Sedia Biosciences Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-08790
- Subramanian
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
On October 23, 2025, Viatris Healthcare (Pty) Ltd filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award against Sedia Biosciences Corporation. The opinion states that proceedings to confirm an arbitration award are treated like a motion for summary judgment, meaning the court may consider the parties' supporting materials when deciding whether to confirm the award.
Deadlines and Service
The court ordered Viatris to file and serve any additional materials supporting its petition by November 13, 2025. Sedia's opposition, if any, is due December 4, 2025, and Viatris's reply, if any, is due December 11, 2025.
Viatris must serve the petition, all supporting papers, and the order on Sedia under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than November 13, 2025. Viatris must file an affidavit confirming service by November 14, 2025.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian issued this scheduling and service order. The order did not rule on the petition's request to confirm the arbitration award.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.