Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.

Case: 12-1388 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2013
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
NOVO NORDISK INC., AND NOVO NORDISK A/S,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD., AND AUROBINDO
PHARMA USA INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________
2012-1388
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey in No. 12-CV-1026, Judge Freda L.
Wolfson.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before MOORE, LINN and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
LINN, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
The parties jointly move to summarily affirm in part
and summarily reverse in part the judgment of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“Dis-
trict of New Jersey”).
Case: 12-1388 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2013
2 NOVO NORDISK INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD.
Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S (“Novo
Nordisk”), the plaintiffs in this patent infringement
action, appeal from a final judgment that the patent claim
in suit, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,677,358 (“the ’358
patent”) was invalid and the patent was unenforceable
due to inequitable conduct. The district court entered
judgment based on the parties’ stipulation that a decision
from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan (“Eastern District of Michigan”)
against Novo Nordisk in a separate action should have
collateral estoppel effect on this case.
This court recently decided the matter on appeal from
the Eastern District of Michigan in Novo Nordisk A/S v.
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 719 F.3d 1346(Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Novo/Caraco”). There, this court held
that claim 4 of the ’358 patent was invalid as obvious, but
that the patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable
conduct. In light of Novo/Caraco and the parties’ stipula-
tions, this court grants the parties’ motion to enter judg-
ment in this case consistent with Novo/Caraco.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted to the extent that this court
affirms the District of New Jersey’s judgment that claim 4
of the ’358 patent is invalid, and reverses the District of
New Jersey’s judgment that the ’358 patent is unenforce-
able due to inequitable conduct. The case is remanded for
appropriate proceedings consistent with this order.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
Case: 12-1388 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2013
NOVO NORDISK INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. 3
s26
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 20, 2013