throbber
Case 1:23-cv-00401-RGA Document 29 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 204
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`In re Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) Patent
`Litigation
`
`C.A. No. 20-md-2930-RGA
`
`C.A. No. 23-401-RGA
`
`NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS
`CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NANJING NORATECH
`PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LIMITED,
`
`Defendant.
`
`FINAL JUDGMENT REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,101,659
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b)
`
`WHEREAS Plaintiff NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION
`
`(“Novartis”) filed suit on April 10, 2023, alleging that Defendant NANJING NORATECH
`
`PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LIMITED (“Noratech”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,101,659 (“the
`
`’659 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 11,058,667 (“the ’667 Patent”) by virtue of filing ANDA No.
`
`213671 for sacubitril/valsartan tablets, 24 mg/26 mg, 49 mg/51 mg, and 97 mg/103 mg (“the
`
`Noratech ANDA Products”);
`
`WHEREAS, on July 21, 2023, the Court entered a final judgment in MDL No. 20-2930
`
`and certain related cases (MDL No. 20-2930-RGA, D.I. 1120; C.A. No. 19-1979-RGA, D.I. 649;
`
`C.A. No. 19-2021-RGA, D.I. 245; C.A. No. 19-2053-RGA, D.I. 406) (“Delaware Final
`
`Judgment”), finding claims 1-4 of the ’659 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00401-RGA Document 29 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 205
`
`written description for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Trial Opinion dated July 7, 2023
`
`(MDL No. 20-2930-RGA, D.I. 1099);
`
`WHEREAS, on July 24, 2023, Novartis filed notices of appeal to the Federal Circuit
`
`from the Delaware Final Judgment, and its appeals are now pending in the Federal Circuit (MDL
`
`No. 20-2930-RGA, D.I. 1121, 1133; C.A. No. 19-1979-RGA, D.I. 650, 651; C.A. No. 19-2021-
`
`RGA, D.I. 246, 247; C.A. No. 19-2053-RGA, D.I. 407, 408);
`
`WHEREAS Novartis and Noratech agree that the Court’s final judgment in MDL No. 20-
`
`2930 (MDL No. 20-2930-RGA, D.I. 1120) that claims 1-4 of the ’659 patent are invalid for lack
`
`of written description applies in this action under the principles of collateral estoppel, and subject
`
`to the outcome of Novartis’s appeals;
`
`WHEREAS Novartis and Noratech agree that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that the Court
`
`may, subject to appeal, direct entry of a final judgment against Novartis relating to the ’659
`
`patent on collateral estoppel grounds because there is no just reason for delay;
`
`WHEREAS Novartis and Noratech agree that, after Novartis files its appeal from entry of
`
`final judgment in this action, they will submit a joint motion in the Federal Circuit for a stay of
`
`the appeal from this action pending the outcome of Novartis’s appeals from the Delaware Final
`
`Judgment because if the Delaware Final Judgment is reversed or vacated, Novartis would be
`
`entitled to an order from the Federal Circuit vacating the judgment in this action and remanding
`
`this action to this Court for further proceedings or an order from this Court vacating the final
`
`judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5);
`
`IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), there is no just reason to delay
`
`entry of a final judgment on collateral estoppel grounds with regard to the ’659 patent; and it is
`
`further
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00401-RGA Document 29 Filed 08/16/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 206
`
`ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that under the principles of collateral estoppel, Final
`
`Judgment is hereby entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) in favor of Noratech and against
`
`Novartis that claims 1-4 of the ’659 patent are invalid for lack of written description under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that all other pending claims and defenses relating to the ’659 patent are
`
`dismissed as moot, but with the Parties’ express acknowledgement that these other claims and
`
`defenses would revive if this Final Judgment is reversed or vacated; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs and fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00401-RGA Document 29 Filed 08/16/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 207
`
`Dated: August 16, 2023
`
`McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Alexandra M. Joyce (#6423)
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`ajoyce@mccarter.com
`
`HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO &
`HIRZEL LLP
`
`/s/ Dominick T. Gattuso
`Dominick T. Gattuso
`300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 472-7311
`dgattuso@hegh.law
`
`Attorney for Defendant Nanjing Noratech
`Pharmaceutical Co., Limited
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Novartis
`Pharmaceuticals Corporation
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`Don J. Mizerk (pro hac vice)
`120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 655-1500
`don.mizerk@huschblackwell.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`Christina Schwarz
`Christopher E. Loh
`Jared L. Stringham
`VENABLE LLP
`151 West 42nd Street
`New York, New York 10036
`(212) 307-5500
`nkallas@venable.com
`cschwarz@venable.com
`cloh@venable.com
`jlstringham@venable.com
`
`16
`August
`/s/Richard G. Andrews
`Dated this ___ day of ______________, 2023. __________________________________
`United States District Court Judge
`
`4
`
`

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