Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 13 Filed 07/26/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 116
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
`AND PFIZER INC.,
`
`
` Plaintiffs and
`Counterclaim-Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD.
`AND DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
`INC.,
`
`
` Defendants and
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 17-401-LPS
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) and
`
`Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer,” together with BMS, “Plaintiffs”), hereby reply to the Counterclaims of
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (“Dr. Reddy’s Ltd.”) and
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“Dr. Reddy’s Inc.,” together with Dr. Reddy’s Ltd., “DRL”), D.I.
`
`11, as follows. Plaintiffs deny any allegation contained in DRL’s Answer and Counterclaims not
`
`expressly admitted in this Reply.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS1
`
`1.
`
`This Paragraph contains statements to which no answer is required. To the extent
`
`an answer is required, denied.
`
`
`1
`Plaintiffs have incorporated the headings that appear in DRL’s Counterclaims. Plaintiffs
`do not necessarily agree with the characterization of such headings and do not waive any right to
`object to those characterizations.
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
`AND PFIZER INC.,
`
`
` Plaintiffs and
`Counterclaim-Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD.
`AND DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
`INC.,
`
`
` Defendants and
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 17-401-LPS
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”) and
`
`Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer,” together with BMS, “Plaintiffs”), hereby reply to the Counterclaims of
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (“Dr. Reddy’s Ltd.”) and
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“Dr. Reddy’s Inc.,” together with Dr. Reddy’s Ltd., “DRL”), D.I.
`
`11, as follows. Plaintiffs deny any allegation contained in DRL’s Answer and Counterclaims not
`
`expressly admitted in this Reply.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS1
`
`1.
`
`This Paragraph contains statements to which no answer is required. To the extent
`
`an answer is required, denied.
`
`
`1
`Plaintiffs have incorporated the headings that appear in DRL’s Counterclaims. Plaintiffs
`do not necessarily agree with the characterization of such headings and do not waive any right to
`object to those characterizations.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 13 Filed 07/26/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 117
`
`2.
`
`This Paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the
`
`extent an answer is required, Plaintiffs admit that DRL purports to bring these Counterclaims as an
`
`action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, of one or more claims of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,945 (“the ’945 patent”) under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Plaintiffs
`
`admit that the ’945 patent was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`of the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs admit that BMS is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware, having a place of business at Route 206 and Province Line Road, Princeton,
`
`New Jersey 08540. Otherwise, denied.
`
`6.
`
`Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the
`
`extent an answer is required, Plaintiffs admit that DRL purports to bring these Counterclaims
`
`under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment
`
`Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`8.
`
`This Paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the
`
`extent an answer is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that the Court has jurisdiction over the
`
`subject matter of the Counterclaims. In addition, Plaintiffs admit that there is currently an actual
`
`controversy between DRL and Plaintiffs regarding the ’945 patent.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 13 Filed 07/26/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 118
`
`9.
`
`This Paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the
`
`extent an answer is required, Plaintiffs do not contest personal jurisdiction in this Court for
`
`purposes of the Counterclaims.
`
`10.
`
`This Paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the
`
`extent an answer is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that venue with respect to the Counterclaims
`
`is proper in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`This Paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the
`
`extent an answer is required, Plaintiffs admit that there is currently an actual controversy between
`
`DRL and Plaintiffs regarding the ’945 patent.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’945 patent)
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the answers set forth in response to Paragraphs 1
`
`through 13.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’945 patent)
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the answers set forth in response to Paragraphs 1
`
`through 18.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 13 Filed 07/26/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 119
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`Denied.
`
`Plaintiffs state that they reserve the right to respond to any purported or alleged
`
`bases for invalidity of the ’945 patent provided by DRL. Otherwise, denied.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`DRL’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiffs deny that DRL is entitled to any of the relief sought in its Counterclaims or to any
`
`relief whatsoever.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (Bar No. 100245)
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`919 N. Market Str., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 777-0300
`Fax: (302) 777-0301
`farnan@farnanlaw.com
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Amy K. Wigmore (admitted pro hac vice)
`Gregory H. Lantier (admitted pro hac vice)
`Tracey C. Allen (admitted pro hac vice)
`Heather M. Petruzzi (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jeffrey T. Hantson (admitted pro hac vice)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`202-663-6000
`202-663-6363
`
`Andrew J. Danford (admitted pro hac vice)
`Timothy A. Cook (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00401-LPS Document 13 Filed 07/26/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 120
`
`Kevin M. Yurkerwich (admitted pro hac vice)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`617-526-6000
`617-526-5000
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Bristol-Myers Squibb
`Company and Pfizer Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
