Case 1:21-cv-01015-JLH Document 718 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #: 50181
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`NIPPON SHINYAKU CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`V.
`SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., C.A. No. 21-1015 (JLH)
`Defendant.
`
`SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC. and
`
`THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN
`
`AUSTRALIA,
`Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs,
`
`Vi
`
`NIPPON SHINYAKU CO., LTD.
`and NS PHARMA, INC.
`
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants.
`
`HRRERESISH.JUDGMENT FOLLOWING JURY VERDICT
`
`This action was tried by a jury. Prior to the jury trial, the Court granted summary judgment
`that each side infringed the other side’s asserted patent claims. D.I. 541; D.1. 544. At trial, Plaintiff
`Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. (“Nippon Shinyaku™) asserted claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,385,092
`(“NS Asserted Claim”) and submitted the issue of willfulness to the jury. Sarepta asserted an
`affirmative defense and counterclaim seeking declaratory judgment that the NS Asserted Claim is
`invalid for obviousness.
`
`At trial, Counter-Plaintiffs Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (“Sarepta™) and the University of
`Western Australia (“UWA,” collectively “Counter-Plaintiffs™) asserted claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,994,851 (“Sarepta Asserted Claim”). Nippon Shinyaku asserted a declaratory judgment claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01015-JLH Document 718 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #: 50182
`
`- and Nippon Shinyaku and NS Pharma asserted an affirmative defense that the Sarepta Asserted
`Claim is invalid for lack of adequate written description and enablement.
`
`Nippon Shinyaku and NS Pharma also asserted a counter-counterclaim and affirmative
`defense that the Sarepta Asserted Claim is unenforceable for inequitable conduct, which was tried
`to the bench in the evening after the jury was released, and a Walker Process antitrust counter-
`counterclaim, which was bifurcated from the trial on the substantive patent issues. See D.I. 529.
`The Court has yet to resolve Nippon Shinyaku and NS Pharma’s inequitable conduct claim.!
`
`The jury trial was phased, resulting in two verdicts. First, the jury found that: (1) Sarepta
`proved by clear and convincing evidence that the NS Asserted Claim is invalid as obvious; (2)
`Nippon Shinyaku and NS Pharma did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Sarepta
`Asserted Claim is invalid for lack of adequate written description; (3) Nippon Shinyaku and NS
`Pharma did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Sarepta Asserted Claim is invalid
`for lack of enablement; and (4) Sarepta and UW A did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Nippon Shinyaku and NS Pharma willfully infringed the Sarepta Asserted Claim. D.L. 699.
`Second, the jury found that Sarepta and UWA are entitled to $115,222,850 in damages. D.I. 704.
`Separately, the Parties stipulated that Sarepta and UWA were entitled to reasonable royalty
`damages of $841,501 for ex-U.S. sales of Viltepso through December 15 2024. D.I. 708.
`
`IT IS ORDERED that:
`
`1. Judgment is entered in favor of Sarepta and against Nippon Shinyaku that the NS
`
`Asserted Claim is invalid as obvious.
`
`! Nippon Shinyaku and NS Pharma further agreed that, if the Court found against them on their
`inequitable conduct claim, that would result in a judgment for Sarepta and UWA on the Walker
`Process antitrust claim. D.I. 529; April 18, 2024 Status Conference Tr. 7:21-8:4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01015-JLH Document 718 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #: 50183
`
`2. Judgment is entered in favor of Sarepta and UWA and against Nippon Shinyaku
`and NS Pharma that the Sarepta Asserted Claim is not invalid for lack of adequate written
`description or for lack of enablement.
`
`3. Judgment in the amount of $115,222,850 is entered in favor of Sarepta and UWA
`and against Nippon Shinyaku and NS Pharma in accordance with the jury’s verdict.
`
`4. Judgment in the amount of $841,501 is entered in favor of Sarepta and UWA and
`against Nippon Shinyaku and NS Pharma in accordance with the parties’ stipulation.
`
`This judgment shall have the effect of denying as moot all other pending motions made by
`the parties pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment is subject
`to modification following the Court’s consideration of the parties’ post-trial motions.
`
`The deadline for the prevailing party to move for costs and attorneys’ fees (including under
`35 U.S.C. § 285) is extended to within fourteen (14) days after the time for appeal has expired or
`within fourteen (14) days after issuance of the mandate from the appellate court, and no party shall
`
`file any such motion before that time.
`
`IT SO ORDERED this 1 day of SQQ Wo Cy , 2025,
`
`>/
`
`m‘ dhorable Jehnifer L. Hall
`nited States Distfict Court Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`