Case: 22-1595 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2022
`
`FORM 33. Response to Notice of Oral Argument
`
`Form 33
`July 2020
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Filing Party
`
`Case Number:
`
`Short Case Caption:
`
`RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
`2022-1595
`Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
`Sandoz Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D.
`Instructions. No more than two counsel may argue per side and no more than one
`counsel may argue per party without leave of court. See Fed. Cir. R. 34(e). Each
`arguing counsel must complete and submit a separate form.
`If a party intends to waive argument, please check the waiver box; do not indicate
`argument is for zero minutes. For non-waived argument, please complete the
`remainder of the form indicating for which parties counsel will argue and the amount
`of time counsel will argue. Rebuttal time is only allowed for Appellants and Cross-
`Appellants. Unless otherwise ordered, panel cases must not exceed 15 mins; en banc
`cases must not exceed 30 mins.
`
`The filing party intends to waive oral argument.
`Oral Argument Waiver:
`For Non-Waived Argument, List
`Sandoz, Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals
`All Parties Arguing on Behalf of:
`D.D.
`(Attach additional pages if needed)
`William M. Jay
`Arguing Counsel Name:
`15
`202-210-6626
`Rebuttal Time:
`Phone:
`Argument Time:
`Arguing counsel is dividing time with counsel for another party or set of
`parties (additional counsel must file a separate Response).
`I acknowledge that (1) oral argument is scheduled as stated in the court’s notice
`and may proceed even if I have waived argument, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(e)–(f));
`(2) arguing counsel can only change through filing an amended version of this form;
`and (3) counsel who have not entered appearances in the case and are not listed on
`this form cannot present oral argument.
`09/06/2022
`Date: _________________
`Signature:
`
`/s/ William M. Jay
`William M. Jay
`
`Name:
`
`

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.

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.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket