Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 74 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 4 PagelD #: 315
`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 74 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 315
`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 73 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 4 PagelD #: 311
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) C.A. No. 15-772 (GMS) (SRF)
`) CONSOLIDATED
`
`OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC and
`GENENTECH,INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`APOTEX INC, and APOTEX CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`STIPULATEDORDER
`
`WHEREAS, on January 9, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted
`
`an Inter Partes Review, Case No. IPR2016-01284, concerning certain claims of the patent-in-
`
`suit in this Action, U.S. Patent No. 6,900,221 B1 (the “221 patent”) (the “IPR Proceeding”’);
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiffs OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Genentech,Inc. (together,
`
`“Plaintiffs”) have asserted claims 44, 46, 47 and 53 of the 221 Patent against Defendants Apotex
`
`Inc. and Apotex Corp. (together, “Defendants”) in this Action;
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants have conferred and agreed that a stay ofthis
`
`Action pending the PTAB’s decision in the IPR Proceeding, including any appeal to the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”), is in the best interest ofall
`
`parties and promotesjudicial economy;
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED,subjectto the approval of the Court,
`
`that:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs will not continue to assert claim 47 of the 221 Patent against Defendants
`
`in this Action, and Plaintiffs and Defendants will work jointly and in good faith to remove that
`
`claim from the IPR Proceeding;
`
`OSI EXHIBIT 2016
`OSI EXHIBIT 2016
`APOTEXV. OSI
`APOTEX V. OSI
`IPR2016-01284
`IPR2016-01284
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 74 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 316
`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 74 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #: 316
`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 73 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #: 312
`
`2.
`
`Defendants’ ANDA No. 208396 (the “ANDA”) and the products described
`
`therein (the “Apotex ANDA Product”) do notinfringe claims 1-43, 45, 47-52, and 54-79 of the
`
`221 patent;
`
`3.
`The ANDAand the Apotex ANDAProductinfringe claims 44, 46 and 53 ofthe
`221 Patent (the “Asserted Claims”);
`|
`
`4,
`
`This Action is stayed pending the decision of the PTABin the IPR Proceeding,
`
`including any appeal to the Federal Circuit and any remand proceedings;
`
`5.
`
`The only arguments concerning the validity and/or enforceability of the Asserted
`
`Claims reserved by Defendants in this Action are those that are the subject of the IPR Proceeding,
`
`and Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that the outcomeofthose validity and/or enforceability
`arguments in this Action will be governed by the decision ofthe PTAB in the IPR Proceeding,
`
`including any appeal to the Federal Circuit and any remand proceedings, without the need for
`
`any further proceedingsas to those issues in this Action;
`
`6.
`
`Within five (5) days of issuance of a mandate by the Federal Circuit affirming or
`
`reversing the PTAB’s decision in the IPR Proceeding,the parties shall jointly notify the Court in
`
`writing of the completion of the appeal and shall enter a joint stipulation of final judgmentin this
`
`Action concerning the validity of claims 44, 46, and 53 of the 221 patent, consistent with the
`
`Federal Circuit decision, and infringement of claims 1-79 of the 221 patent (reflecting items 2-3
`
`above), which the parties agree will not be appealable; and
`
`7.
`
`In the event of a Federal Circuit mandate directing a remand to the PTAB, the
`
`parties shall within five (5) days of issuance notify the Court. Once further proceedings in
`
`connection with any such remand have concluded, including any further proceedingsin the
`
`Federal Circuit, the parties shall within five (5) days of the conclusion of those proceedings
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 74 Filed 01/25/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 317
`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 74 Filed 01/25/17 Page 3 of 4 PagelD #: 317
`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 73 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 4 PagelD #: 313
`
`notify the Court in writing and shall entera joint stipulation of final judgmentin this Action
`
`concerning the validity of claims 44, 46, and 53 of the 221 patent, consistent with the outcome of
`
`the remand proceedings, and infringementof claims 1-79 of the 221 patent(reflecting items 2-3
`
`above), which the parties agree will not be appealable.
`
`Morris, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`COZEN O’ CONNOR
`
`/s/ DerekJ. Fahnestock,
`
`/s/Joseph f. Bellew
`
`Joseph J. Bellew (#4816)
`1201 N. Market Street
`Suite 1001
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 295-2000
`jbellew@cozen.com
`
`Attorneysfor Defendants Apotex Inc.
`and Apotex Corp.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Kerry B. McTigue
`Barry P. Golob
`W. Blake Coblentz
`Aaron S. Lukas
`Ryan P. Blaney
`Ryan P. Bottegal
`Eric J. Choi
`1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 912-4800
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Maryellen Noreika (#3208)
`Derek J. Fahnestock (#4705)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`mnoreika@mnat.com
`dfahnestock@mnat.com
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`AmyK. Wigmore
`Amanda L. Major
`Tracey C. Allen
`Allison B. Drory
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DorR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`
`Kevin M. Yurkerwich
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`
`January 20, 2017
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 74 Filed 01/25/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 318
`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 74 Filed 01/25/17 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #: 318
`Case 1:15-cv-00772-GMS-SRF Document 73 Filed 01/20/17 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #: 314
`
`
`
`10748624
`
`