Case: 22-1595 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 06/14/2022
`
`Nos. 22-1595, 22-1714
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`GENENTECH, INC., INTERMUNE, INC.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`SANDOZ INC., LEK PHARMACEUTICALS D.D.,
`
`
`
`Defendants-Cross-Appellants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00078, Judge Richard G. Andrews
`
`JOINT MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS APPEAL NO. 22-1714
`UNDER RULE 42(b)
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 27 and 42(b) and Federal
`
`Circuit Rule 27, Cross-Appellants Sandoz, Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D. and
`
`Appellants Genentech, Inc. and InterMune, Inc. move and stipulate to a voluntary
`
`dismissal of Appeal No. 22-1714. Cross-Appellants and Appellants shall each bear
`
`their own costs and attorney’s fees. Cross-Appellants and Appellants both agree to
`
`this motion, and thus no response will be filed to this motion.
`
`Appeal No. 22-1714 is consolidated with Appeal No. 22-1595. In Appeal No.
`
`22-1595, Sandoz, Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D. are Appellees. See Dkt. No. 2
`
`in Appeal No. 22-1714 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2022). This motion does not request
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Nos. 22-1595, 22-1714
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`GENENTECH, INC., INTERMUNE, INC.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`SANDOZ INC., LEK PHARMACEUTICALS D.D.,
`
`
`
`Defendants-Cross-Appellants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00078, Judge Richard G. Andrews
`
`JOINT MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS APPEAL NO. 22-1714
`UNDER RULE 42(b)
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 27 and 42(b) and Federal
`
`Circuit Rule 27, Cross-Appellants Sandoz, Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D. and
`
`Appellants Genentech, Inc. and InterMune, Inc. move and stipulate to a voluntary
`
`dismissal of Appeal No. 22-1714. Cross-Appellants and Appellants shall each bear
`
`their own costs and attorney’s fees. Cross-Appellants and Appellants both agree to
`
`this motion, and thus no response will be filed to this motion.
`
`Appeal No. 22-1714 is consolidated with Appeal No. 22-1595. In Appeal No.
`
`22-1595, Sandoz, Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D. are Appellees. See Dkt. No. 2
`
`in Appeal No. 22-1714 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2022). This motion does not request
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 06/14/2022
`
`dismissal of Appeal No. 22-1595, which remains pending.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Kira A. Davis
`Kira A. Davis
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`953 East 3rd Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Tel.: 213.992.4499
`Fax.: 415.236.6300
`
`Counsel for Appellants Genentech,
`Inc. and InterMune, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 14, 2022
`
`/s/ William M. Jay
`William M. Jay
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`1900 N Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel.: 202.346.4000
`Fax.: 202.346.4444
`
`Counsel for Cross-Appellants Sandoz, Inc.
`and LEK Pharmaceuticals D.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 06/14/2022
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`This motion complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
`
`27(d)(2)(A) This motion contains 117 words, excluding the parts of the motion
`
`exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(f).
`
`This motion complies with the typeface and type style requirements of Federal
`
`Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(1)(E). This motion has been prepared in a
`
`proportionally spaced typeface, 14-point Times New Roman font, using Microsoft
`
`Word 2010.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William M. Jay
`William M. Jay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 06/14/2022
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`Counsel for Cross-Appellants Sandoz, Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D.
`
`certifies the following:
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by us is:
`1.
`Sandoz, Inc.
`Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D.
`The name of the real party in interest represented by us is:
`N/A
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
`percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by
`me are:
`Sandoz, Inc.: Novartis AG
`Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D.: Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis AG
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared
`for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency
`or are expected to appear in the court (and who have not or will not enter
`an appearance in this case) are:
`Goodwin Procter LLP: Beth Ashbridge, Cindy Chang*1, Elaine H. Blais,
`Kathleen A. McGuinness, Kevin J. DeJong, Nicholas K. Mitrokostas*,
`Srikanth K. Reddy, Tara R. Melillo Thigpen, Tiffany Mahmood
`Bayard, P.A.: Ronald P. Golden III, Sarah Theresa Andrade, Stephen B.
`Brauerman
`The title and number of any case known to be pending in this or any other
`court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this
`court’s decision in the pending appeal:
`None.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`1 *Denotes that attorney is no longer with Goodwin Procter LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 22 Page: 5 Filed: 06/14/2022
`
`Dated: June 14, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William M. Jay
`William M. Jay
`
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`1900 N Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel.: 202.346.4000
`Fax.: 202.346.4444
`
`Counsel for Cross-Appellants
`Sandoz, Inc. and Lek
`Pharmaceuticals D.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1595 Document: 22 Page: 6 Filed: 06/14/2022
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 14, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be
`
`filed with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit using the CM/ECF system.
`
`I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users
`
`and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/William M. Jay
`William M. Jay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
