Case: 24-1094 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 11/13/2023
`
`F ORM 26. Docketing Statem ent
`
`For m 26 (p . 1)
`July 2020
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`DOCKETING STATEMENT
`
`Ca se Number:
`
`Sh o rt Case Caption:
`
`Filing P arty/Entity:
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`Instructions: Complete each section or check the box if a section is intentionally
`blank or not applicable. Attach addit ional pages as needed. Refer to t h e court's
`Mediation Guidelines for filing requirements. An amended docketing stat ement is
`required for each n ew appeal or cross-appeal con solidat ed after first filing.
`
`Cas e Origin
`
`Originating Nu mber
`
`Type of Case
`
`Relief sought on appeal: D Non e/Not Applicable
`
`Relief awarded below (if damages, specify): D Non e/Not Applicable
`
`Briefly describe the judgment/order appealed from:
`
`Natur e of judgment (select one):
`D Final Judgmen t , 28 USC § 1295
`□ Rule 54(b)
`D Interlocu tory Order (specify type) ______________ _
`D Other ( explain)
`
`Dat e of ju dgment : _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`2024-1094
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
`
`District of Massachusetts
`
`1:18-cv-12029-ADB
`
`Patent
`
`Reversal of the judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Eli Lilly and Company; reinstatement of
`the jury verdict; vacatur of the denial of Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for post-trial relief as moot
`
`The district court granted judgment as a matter of law in Defendant-Appellee Eli Lilly and
`Company's favor and determined that all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,856,046,
`9,884,907, and 9,884,908 are invalid.
`
`The district court granted in part Defendant-Appellee Eli Lilly and Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law and reversed the jury's verdict finding
`that Eli Lilly and Company had not proven claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045, claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,884,907, and claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,884,908 invalid for lack of written description or lack of enablement by clear and convincing evidence. The district court denied as moot
`Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for post-trial relief.
`
`4
`
`9/28/23
`
`

`

`Case: 24-1094 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 11/13/2023
`
`F ORM 26. Docketing Statem ent
`
`Form 26 (p . 2)
`July 2020
`
`Name and docket number of an y r elated cases pen din g before th is court, and t h e
`name of the writing judge if an opinion was issu ed. D None/Not Applicable
`
`Issu es to be raised on a ppeal : D None/Not Applicable
`
`Have t h er e been discu ssion s with oth er part ies relating to settlement of th is case?
`D
`
`Yes □ No
`
`If "yes," wh en were the last su ch discu ssions?
`D Befor e the case was filed below
`D During t h e pendency of t h e case below
`D Following the ju dgment/order a ppealed from
`
`If "yes," wer e the settlement discu ssions mediat ed?
`
`D Yes
`
`0 No
`
`If they were mediated, by w horn?
`
`Do you believe that this case m ay be amen able t o mediation ? D Yes D No
`
`Explain .
`
`Provide any other inform ation r elevant to the inclusion of t his case in t h e court's
`mediation program.
`
`Dat e:
`
`Sign ature:
`
`Name:
`
`Save for Filing
`
`4
`
`(1) Whether the district court erred in holding, after trial, that claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045, claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,884,907, and claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No.
`9,884,908 were invalid for lack of written description.
`(2) Whether the district court erred in holding, after trial, that claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045, claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,884,907, and claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No.
`9,884,908 were invalid for lack of enablement.
`
`4
`
`4
`
`The parties were unable to come to a resolution in prior settlement discussions
`during the district-court proceedings, and it is unlikely that their positions have
`changed.
`
`Kevin P. Martin
`
`11/13/23
`
`/s/ Kevin P. Martin
`
`4
`
`4
`
`