`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE SITAGLIPTIN PHOSPHATE
`(‘708 & ‘921) PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`MDL No. 19-2902-RGA
`
`C.A. Nos. 19-311-RGA
`
` 19-312-RGA
` 19-313-RGA
`
` 19-314-RGA
`
` 19-317-RGA
`
` 19-318-RGA
`
` 19-319-RGA
`
` 19-347-RGA
` 19-1489-RGA
` 20-776-RGA
`
`Case 1:19-md-02902-RGA Document 167 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3907
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`TENTATIVE MARKMAN ORDER
`
`
`
`
`The Court has read the briefing (D.I. 136), and, for the benefit of the parties, provides its
`
`tentative rulings on the disputed terms, in the same order as they are presented in the briefing, in
`
`advance of tomorrow’s Markman hearing.
`
`1. Does not exclude hydrates.
`2. Merck’s alternative construction, without “fixed.”
`3. Indefinite. “Absorption bands” has no understood meaning, and it is not a
`“typographical error” that I can correct.
`4. Defendants’ construction – the crystallization begins at 25 degrees Celsius.
`5. No disclaimer. Surfactant.
`6. No disclaimer. Sitagliptin.
`7. No disclaimer. Sodium lauryl sulfate.
`8. Merck’s alternative construction, without “fixed.”
`
`Where the tentative ruling is in Merck’s favor, Defendants should present argument first.
`
`There is no need for argument on terms 7 and 8. Thus, the order of presentation should be 5, 6,
`
`1, 2, 3, 4.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of August 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard G. Andrews______
`United States District Judge
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Merck Exhibit 2276, Page 1
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
`IPR2020-00040
`
`