throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`IN RE: OZEMPIC
`(SEMAGLUTIDE)
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`)))
`
`
`)
`
`MDL NO. 22-MD-3038 (CFC)
`ANDA CASE
`
`C.A. No. 22-294 (CFC)
`CONSOLIDATED
`ANDA CASE
`
`)))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))))))))
`
`NOVO NORDISK INC. and
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`RIO BIOPHARMACEUTICALS
`INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD.’S AND DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC.’S STIPULATION CONCERNING INVALIDITY
`GROUNDS
`Defendants Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “DRL”) submit this stipulation concerning its invalidity grounds.
`
`On October 20, 2023, DRL filed petition number IPR2024-00009 with the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) requesting inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,335,462 (“the ’462 patent”) (the “Petition”) and joinder to IPR2023-
`
`00724 (“the Mylan IPR”). The Petition asserted the same grounds of invalidity as
`
`the Mylan IPR:
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1099, p. 1 of 3
`
`

`

`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`Claims
`Anticipated by WO421
`1-3
`Anticipated by Lovshin
`1-3
`1-10 Obvious over WO421 considering the ’424 publication
`1-10 Obvious over WO537 considering Lovshin
`1-10 Obvious over NCT657 and NT773 considering the ’424
`publication
`
`On _____, 2024, the PTAB instituted IPR2024-00009 and joined DRL as a
`
`party (“Institution Decision”) to the Mylan IPR. Accordingly, DRL stipulates1 that
`
`it is bound by the estoppel provisions set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in this civil
`
`action as of the date of the Institution Decision. For the avoidance of doubt, DRL
`
`also stipulates that it is bound by the estoppel provisions set forth in 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(e)(2) in this civil action as of the date of the Institution Decision as such
`
`provisions would apply to Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceutical, Inc. in the Mylan IPR.
`
`This stipulation is not intended, and should not be construed, to limit DRL’s ability
`
`to assert invalidity of the ’462 patent in this civil action on any other ground beyond
`
`the scope of the estoppel provisions set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).
`
`1 Pursuant to Director Vidal’s Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant
`Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, Petitioner DRL offered a stipulation before
`the PTAB consistent with the stipulation set forth in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ( precedential as to§ II.A).
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1099, p. 1 of 3
`
`

`

`HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO &
`HIRZEL LLP
`
`Dominick T. Gattuso (#3630)
`300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 472-7300
`dgattuso@hegh.law
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Dr.
`Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr.
`Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.
`
`Dated: March __, 2024
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1099, p. 1 of 3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket