`
`
`
`FORM 26. Docketing Statement
`
`Form 26 (p. 1)
`July 2020
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`AMENDED DOCKETING STATEMENT
`
`Case Number:
`
`Short Case Caption:
`
`Filing Party/Entity:
`
`------------------------
`
`Instructions:
`Complete each section or check the box if a section is intentionally
`
`
`
`
`
`
`blank or not applicable. Attach additional pages as needed. Refer to the court's
`
`
`
`
`Mediation Guidelines for filing requirements. An amended docketing statement is
`
`
`
`required for each new appeal or cross-appeal consolidated after first filing.
`
`
`
`Case Origin Originating Number
`
`Type of Case
`
`
`
`Applicable Relief sought on appeal: D None/Not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Relief awarded below (if damages, specify):
`
`D None/Not Applicable
`
`
`
`
`
`Briefly describe the judgment/order appealed from:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nature of judgment (select one): Date of judgment: ______ _
`
`D Final Judgment, 28 USC § 1295
`
`D Rule 54(b)
`
`
`D Other ( explain)
`
`D Interlocutory Order (specify type)--------------
`
`2022-1595; 2022-1714
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
`
`Genentech, Inc. and InterMune, Inc.
`
`U.S. Dist. Ct., Delaware
`
`19-78 (RGA)
`
`Patent Infringement - ANDA
`
`Reversal or vacatur of judgment of non-infringement and invalidity regarding four
`asserted patents; affirmance of judgment of validity regarding two asserted patents.
`
`None
`
`Judgment of non-infringement of each of six asserted patents, invalidity of four patents due to obviousness, validity
`of two patents, where the patents relate to Genentech's Esbriet (pirfenidone) and Defendants' infringement due to
`ANDAs relating to generic versions of same.
`
`4
`
`4/1/22
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 05/09/2022
`
`4
`
`Whether the district court erred in finding non-infringement of all six asserted patents. Whether the district court erred in finding
`invalidity of four of six asserted patents. Whether the district court was correct in finding validity of two asserted patents.
`
`4
`
`N/A
`
`4
`
`The parties have argued their respective positions, which are unlikely to change
`
`Kira A. Davis
`
`5/9/22
`
`/s/ Kira A. Davis
`
`4
`
`N/A
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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
