John E. Flaherty 

Jonathan M.H. Short 

McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 

Four Gateway Center 

100 Mulberry Street 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

(973) 622-4444 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca LP, 

KBI-E Inc., and Pozen , Inc. 

Stephen M. Hash 

Stephen C. Stout 

VINSON & ELKINS LLP 

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 

Austin, TX 78746-7568 

Tel: (512) 542-8400 

Of Counsel for Plaintiff Pozen Inc.

Einar Stole 

Edward H. Rippey 

Maureen M. Japha 

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 

(202) 662-6000 

Of Counsel for Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB, 

AstraZeneca LP, and KBI-E Inc.

Henry J. Renk 

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER 

& SCINTO 

1290 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10104-3800 

(212) 218-2100 

Of Counsel for Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB, 

AstraZeneca LP, and KBI-E Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

ASTRAZENECA AB, ASTRAZENECA LP, 

KBI-E INC., and POZEN INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES INC. and 

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:13-cv-00091 (JAP)(DEA) 

Consolidated for discovery 

purposes with: 

Case No. 3:11-cv-02317 (JAP)(DEA) 

Case No. 3:11-cv-04275 (JAP)(DEA) 

Case No. 3:11-cv-06348 (JAP)(DEA) 

Motion Date: September 3, 2013

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DRL’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ VALIDITY CONTENTIONS 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 5808
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............................................................................................2

III. PLAINTIFFS SERVED VALIDITY CONTENTIONS IN SUPPORT 

OF THEIR REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF THAT THE 

’907 PATENT IS VALID. ......................................................................................................4 

A. Plaintiffs’ Validity Contentions Respond to DRL’s Anticipated 

Invalidity Arguments. .......................................................................................................4

1. The Hatch-Waxman Act Statutorily Requires ANDA Filers to Include 

the Bases for an Invalidity Certification in Their Notice Letter. ................................4

2. This Case has a Unique Posture Because Invalidity Contentions 

Were Previously Served in a Copending Case. ...........................................................5

B. DRL’s Actions Have Not Narrowed the Issues in DRL II. ..............................................6

IV. IF THE COURT REJECTS DRL’S PREMISE THAT THE CASES ARE 

COMPLETELY SEPARATE, DRL SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO 

USE THE LOCAL RULES TO SIMULTANEOUSLY PURSUE AN 

INVALIDITY ARGUMENT “IN DRL I” AND BLOCK PLAINTIFFS’ 

VALIDITY ARGUMENTS “IN DRL II.” .............................................................................7

V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................9

 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 5809
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page 

Cases

Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 

402 U.S. 313 (1971) .................................................................................................................... 8 

Manildra Mill. Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc., 

76 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 8 

Spectronics Corp. v. H.B. Fuller Co., 

940 F.2d 631 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................... 7 

Super Sack Mfg. Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp., 

57 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 7 

Statutes

21 U.S.C. § 355(c)(3)(D)(i) ............................................................................................................ 5 

21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) ................................................................................................... 5 

21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B)(iv)(II) ...................................................................................................... 5 

Hatch-Waxman Act, Public Law 98-417 (1984) (enacted) ............................................................ 4 

Rules

L. Pat. R. 3.3/3.6(c) ......................................................................................................................... 6 

L. Pat. R. 3.4A/3.6(i)....................................................................................................................... 6 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 5810
1 

I. INTRODUCTION

DRL premises its Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Validity Contentions on the assertion that 

DRL I and DRL II are completely separate cases. Even accepting this premise, DRL’s 

arguments in support of its motion fail. Plaintiffs have affirmatively requested declaratory relief 

that U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 (the “’907 patent”) is valid; validity is therefore at issue in DRL II 

regardless of the defenses DRL pursues. Plaintiffs properly-served Validity Contentions put 

forward evidence in support of their request for declaratory relief, responding to what Plaintiffs 

reasonably believe are DRL’s invalidity arguments. Further, DRL’s purported attempt to narrow 

the issues by not pursuing invalidity as an affirmative defense is inapposite because it does not 

resolve the live issue between the parties: Plaintiffs still have a pending request for declaratory 

relief on validity and DRL refuses to unconditionally stipulate to the ’907 patent’s validity.1

 

If the Court rejects DRL’s premise that DRL I and DRL II are completely separate cases, 

DRL’s Motion to Strike should likewise be denied. DRL attempts to exploit the Local Rules 

outside of the context under which they normally operate, to act as both a sword and a shield by 

continuing to pursue an invalidity defense “in DRL I” while preventing Plaintiffs from serving 

Validity Contentions “in DRL II.” Further, if Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is not 

granted, invalidity will play a role in both DRL I and DRL II, and DRL’s actions to date will 

have done nothing to narrow the issues between the parties. 

Because validity is at issue in DRL II and none of DRL’s actions have resolved the issue, 

Plaintiffs properly served their Validity Contentions in DRL II and ask that this Court deny 

DRL’s Motion to Strike. 

 

1

 Plaintiffs believe the procedural consequence of DRL’s decision not to serve Invalidity 

Contentions in DRL II is that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment that the ’907 Patent is 

Not Invalid should be granted. Dkt. 152. However, this memorandum addresses only the 

arguments raised in DRL’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Invalidity Contentions. Dkt. 167. 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 5811
2 

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

DRL notified Plaintiffs that it filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) 

relating to Plaintiffs’ VIMOVO® drug product on March 11, 2011. In response, Plaintiffs filed a 

patent infringement lawsuit against DRL (“DRL I”) asserting, among other things, that DRL 

infringed the ’907 patent. Dkt. 1 at 7-9. DRL asserted in its Answer and Counterclaims that the 

’907 patent is invalid (Dkt. 28 at 5 and 9) and served Invalidity Contentions. Plaintiffs served 

Validity Contentions and later sought leave to amend their Contentions. Dkt. 98. After the issue 

was fully briefed (Dkts. 98, 116, 125, 129), the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request. Dkt. 134. 

Separately, DRL notified Plaintiffs that it had filed a second ANDA relating to Plaintiffs’ 

VIMOVO® drug product on November 20, 2012. In its second ANDA, DRL certified to the 

FDA, inter alia, that the ’907 patent is invalid. DRL confirmed this certification of invalidity in 

a Notice Letter sent to Plaintiffs. In that letter, DRL set forth, in detail, the bases for its 

certification to the FDA that it believed the ’907 patent to be invalid. Plaintiffs responded by 

filing a second patent infringement lawsuit against DRL (“DRL II”) alleging, among other 

things, infringement of the ’907 patent and, in response to DRL’s certification, requesting a 

declaration that the ’907 patent is valid. Civ. Case No. 13-cv-91, Dkt. 1 at 9-11 and 19. In 

response, DRL again claimed that the ’907 patent is invalid in its Answer. Civ. Case No. 13-cv91, Dkt. 5 at 9. 

On May 9, 2013, the Court held a status conference at which the parties agreed to 

consolidate DRL II with DRL I for discovery purposes, and both parties agreed to a Scheduling 

Order providing for, among other things, service of DRL’s Invalidity Contentions and Plaintiffs’ 

Validity Contentions.2

 See Dkts. 144, 145. Despite agreeing to a schedule for service of 

 

2

 DRL mischaracterizes Judge Arpert’s entry of a Scheduling Order to “exchange new 

contentions” as being based upon the difference between the formulation of DRL’s first and 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 5812
3 

Invalidity and Validity Contentions, DRL did not serve any Invalidity Contentions on May 23, 

2013, the date set out in the Order. As validity was still an issue in light of Plaintiffs’ request for 

a declaration of validity and DRL’s maintenance of its invalidity defenses, Plaintiffs’ served their 

Validity Contentions on June 13, 2013, the date set out in the Order. Though DRL requested that 

Plaintiffs withdraw their Contentions, DRL concurrently refused to stipulate to the patent’s 

validity in all pending and future litigation. See Dkt. 168, Ex. A and B. The validity of the ’907 

patent thus remains a matter in dispute between the parties, and therefore, Plaintiffs cannot 

withdraw their Validity Contentions in DRL II. 

DRL’s decision to not serve validity contentions in an effort to cut off Plaintiffs’ 

opportunity to amend their invalidity responses in DRL I has triggered an extensive letter-writing 

campaign and several conferences and motions practice with the Court. In response to DRL’s 

insistence that it was not relying on Contentions served in DRL I and admission that it produced 

no evidence to contradict validity in DRL II, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 

that the ’907 Patent is Not Invalid. Dkt. 152. DRL then wrote Judge Pisano a letter requesting a 

hearing to discuss the Summary Judgment Motion and Contention issue. Dkt. 158. As a result, 

Judge Pisano scheduled a Telephone Conference on July 22, 2013, during which Judge Pisano 

suggested that DRL could moot both issues by agreeing that it would not challenge the validity 

of the ’907 patent in any present or future litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs proposed such a 

stipulation (Dkt. 168, Ex. A), and DRL refused to agree, instead countering with a stipulation 

limited to only DRL II and expressly reserving the right to challenge validity elsewhere, 

including in DRL I. Dkt. 168, Ex. B. 

 

second ANDA products. Dkt. 167 at 3. Judge Arpert stated the default, absent objection, is to 

enter a Scheduling Order calling for both Infringement/Non-Infringement and Invalidity/Validity 

Contentions. Neither party objected; therefore, the Order calling for both was entered. Dkt. 145. 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 5813
4 

III. PLAINTIFFS SERVED VALIDITY CONTENTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR 

REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF THAT THE ’907 PATENT IS 

VALID. 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint in DRL II requests declaratory relief affirming the validity of the 

’907 patent. DRL’s strategic decision not to pursue an invalidity defense by not serving 

Invalidity Contentions in DRL II did nothing to divest the Court of jurisdiction on this issue in 

DRL II. The bases for the existence of a dispute between Plaintiffs and DRL regarding the 

validity of the ’907 patent have not changed: DRL has not withdrawn its certification to the FDA 

as to the validity of the ’907 patent; DRL has not revised or amended its Notice Letter to 

Plaintiffs detailing the bases for its certification that the ’907 patent is invalid; DRL has not 

amended or sought to amend its answer in which it affirmatively plead that the ’907 patent is 

invalid; and DRL has not unconditionally stipulated to the ’907 patent’s validity. 

Plaintiffs put forward their Validity Contentions as evidence to support their request for a 

declaration of validity. That Plaintiffs will benefit from the presumption of validity should not 

preclude the introduction of supporting evidence for a live issue in the case. 

A. Plaintiffs’ Validity Contentions Respond to DRL’s Anticipated Invalidity 

Arguments.

In its opening brief, DRL asserts “there is no predicate for any [] ‘responsive’ contentions 

supporting validity” because “DRL has no contentions challenging validity in DRL II.” Dkt. 167 

at 1. However, because of the nature of Hatch-Waxman litigation and the unique posture of this 

case, Plaintiffs were well aware of DRL’s invalidity arguments, and Plaintiffs’ Validity 

Contentions respond to those arguments. 

1. The Hatch-Waxman Act Statutorily Requires ANDA Filers to Include 

the Bases for an Invalidity Certification in Their Notice Letter. 

Based upon the statutory requirements under the Hatch-Waxman Act, DRL revealed its 

intent to challenge the ’907 patent’s validity to both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 5814
5 

(“FDA”) and Plaintiffs before DRL II was ever filed. The Hatch-Waxman Act directs that 

certain steps must be taken in conjunction with an ANDA. For each patent that will not expire 

before the ANDA filer’s intended launch, the ANDA filer must certify to the FDA that “in the 

opinion of the applicant and to the best of his knowledge” the patent is “invalid or will not be 

infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the new drug for which the application is 

submitted.” 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). Following this certification, the ANDA filer 

must send the patent and New Drug Application (“NDA”) holders a Notice Letter including, 

among other things, “a detailed statement of the factual and legal basis of the opinion of the 

applicant that the patent is invalid or will not be infringed.” 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B)(iv)(II). 

The patent and/or NDA holders can then sue for infringement or the ANDA filer can file for a 

declaratory judgment. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(c)(3)(D)(i). 

DRL followed these regulatory steps and sent the appropriate certifications to the FDA 

for its second ANDA product directed to VIMOVO®. DRL also sent Plaintiffs the required 

corresponding Notice Letter on November 20, 2012, detailing the factual and legal bases for its 

certifications to the FDA. Numerous bases for invalidity of the ’907 patent were included in the 

letter.3

 Therefore, before filing suit in DRL II, Plaintiffs were already aware of DRL’s 

challenges to the ’907 patent’s validity and preemptively requested declaratory relief on the 

issue. 

2. This Case has a Unique Posture Because Invalidity Contentions Were 

Previously Served in a Copending Case.

DRL II arises under unique circumstances: a previously filed case (DRL I) is already 

pending before the same Judge in the same Court that involves the same patent and the same 

 

3

 As DRL certified to the FDA that the ’907 patent is invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed 

and then in the Notice Letter provided a detailed accounting of the bases for this certification, 

including a 22 page account of its contention that the ’907 patent is invalid, it is disingenuous for 

DRL to argue, as it has, that it has not certified to the FDA that the ’907 patent is invalid. 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 5815
6 

innovator drug. Because of this unusual posture, Plaintiffs are very much aware of DRL’s 

invalidity positions regarding the ’907 patent. Therefore, when Plaintiffs chose to put forward 

evidence to rebut DRL’s invalidity defense and support their request for a declaration that the 

’907 patent is valid, Plaintiffs addressed the bases of invalidity that were raised in both DRL’s 

second Notice Letter and the Invalidity Contentions served in DRL I. 

This case is distinguishable from the usual situation in which only one case is pending 

between the parties. In the latter situation, under the normal operation of the Local Rules, if a 

party challenging validity does not serve Invalidity Contentions, the party defending validity 

need not, and has no motivation to, serve Validity Contentions because it is assured the validity 

of its patent is not contested. See Local Patent Rules 3.3/3.6(c) and 3.4A/3.6(i). Indeed, if this 

were the case here and Plaintiffs were assured that their request for declaratory relief that the 

’907 patent is valid would be granted or that DRL would not challenge the patent’s validity in 

any litigation, Plaintiffs would not have filed Validity Contentions. However, DRL refuses any 

such assurance. See Dkt. 168, Ex. A (letter from Plaintiffs to DRL proposing a stipulation, in 

which DRL would have agreed to not challenge the validity of the claims of the ’907 patent in 

any current or future proceeding) and Ex. B (letter from DRL rejecting Plaintiffs’ proposed 

stipulation). Therefore, Plaintiffs served Validity Contentions in DRL II because they had, and 

continue to have, no assurance that DRL will not challenge the validity of the ’907 patent. 

B. DRL’s Actions Have Not Narrowed the Issues in DRL II. 

Because DRL refuses to stipulate to the validity of the ’907 patent, Plaintiffs’ request for 

declaratory relief on patent validity remains unresolved. Therefore, DRL’s decisions to not serve 

Invalidity Contentions and to not pursue an invalidity defense in DRL II do not impact whether 

validity is at issue in DRL II. 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 5816
7 

DRL has repeatedly asserted that it does not challenge the validity of the ’907 patent in 

DRL II. See e.g., Dkt. 147 at 2, Dkt. 164 at 1, Dkt 167 at 4. However, DRL’s assertions ring 

hollow because DRL refuses to fully stipulate to the validity of the ’907 patent. At the July 22, 

2013 Telephone Conference with Judge Pisano, DRL related its opinion that Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 152) should not be entertained by the Court because invalidity is 

not at issue in DRL II due to DRL’s deliberate decision to not serve Invalidity Contentions. See 

also, Dkt. 158. Judge Pisano’s response was that DRL could moot the motion if it stipulated to 

the validity of the ’907 patent in all present and future litigations.4

 DRL refused to so stipulate. 

See Dkt. 168, Ex. A and B. 

Because of DRL’s refusal to stipulate to the validity of the ’907 patent, Plaintiffs’ request 

for a declaration that the ’907 patent is valid is not resolved and therefore is still at issue in DRL

II. Plaintiffs properly served their Validity Contentions in support of their validity position, and 

DRL’s Motion to Strike should be denied. 

IV. IF THE COURT REJECTS DRL’S PREMISE THAT THE CASES ARE 

COMPLETELY SEPARATE, DRL SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO USE 

THE LOCAL RULES TO SIMULTANEOUSLY PURSUE AN INVALIDITY 

ARGUMENT “IN DRL I” AND BLOCK PLAINTIFFS’ VALIDITY 

ARGUMENTS “IN DRL II.” 

If the Court declines to adopt DRL’s proposition that DRL I and DRL II are completely 

separate cases, DRL’s Motion to Strike should likewise be denied. DRL I and II arose out of 

DRL’s decision to serially file separate ANDAs directed toward VIMOVO®. The cases involve 

the same parties, the same patent, the same District Court, and the same Judge. The cases have 

 

4 As set out in Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 168), 

such a stipulation would be analogous to a patentee divesting the court of jurisdiction in the 

typical declaratory judgment context by granting the accused infringer “a covenant not to assert 

the patent at issue against the putative infringer with respect to any of its past, present, or future

acts.” Super Sack Mfg. Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp., 57 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 

(citing Spectronics Corp. v. H.B. Fuller Co., 940 F.2d 631, 636-38 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 5817
8 

further been consolidated for discovery purposes and will likely be tried together. Because of the 

unique posture of the two cases, DRL attempts to leverage the Local Rules to prevent Plaintiffs 

from serving Validity Contentions in DRL II, while preserving and continuing to pursue its 

invalidity arguments in DRL I. Regardless of whether DRL served Invalidity Contentions in 

DRL II, invalidity is at issue; if the patent is held invalid in DRL I, DRL II stands to benefit 

regardless of whether DRL separately challenges invalidity in DRL II. See Blonder-Tongue 

Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 350 (1971) (overruling prior precedent “to the 

extent it forecloses a plea of estoppel by one facing a charge of infringement of a patent that has 

once been declared invalid.”); Manildra Mill. Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc., 76 F.3d 1178, 1183 

(Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A judicial declaration that one is free from another's right to exclude alters the 

legal relationship between the parties. The patentee no longer can enforce his patent against the 

would-be infringer litigant, or any other would-be infringer.”) (citing Blonder-Tongue, 402 U.S.

at 349-50). 

Further, DRL’s insistence that it is not asserting an invalidity defense in DRL II does not 

narrow the issues to be investigated, litigated or adjudicated. All practical considerations—

DRL’s actions, the interests of all parties involved, and judicial economy—indicate DRL I and 

DRL II will be tried together. At this single trial, DRL’s line drawing between the two cases will 

have no practical impact on the number of issues to be resolved. Though DRL argues “there is 

no certainty that DRL I and DRL II will be tried together,” (Dkt. 167 at 8) it is contrary to 

common sense to believe that consolidated cases brought by the same Plaintiffs, against the same 

defendant, involving the same patent, before the same Judge, which have already been 

consolidated for discovery purposes will be tried separately. In fact, a consolidated case benefits 

DRL by minimizing costs associated with going to trial and any potential delay on DRL’s 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 5818
9 

ANDA products’ respective market entries. DRL has already expressed an interest in proceeding 

to trial as quickly as possible to avoid such an outcome. See Dkt. 77, DRL Opp’n to Anchen 

Motion to Consolidate at 8 (“DRL’s ability to receive and make full use of its exclusivity 

requires DRL to complete this case quickly[.]”). Further, DRL previously agreed to a schedule 

that would try both cases together and has expressed no interest in trying the cases separately. 

Finally, patent cases require lengthy time commitments from the Court, and a consolidated trial 

will conserve judicial resources. Thus, DRL’s alleged attempt to “narrow” the issues and “not 

litigate” invalidity in DRL II will have no practical impact on DRL’s preparation for trial,5

 the 

trial itself, or the number of issues adjudicated. 

If the Court decides that DRL I and DRL II are not completely separate cases, DRL’s 

distinction between its invalidity defense in DRL I and its invalidity defense, or lack thereof, in 

DRL II should not permit DRL to hide behind the usual operation of the Local Rules and prevent 

Plaintiffs from serving their Validity Contentions. The distinction is inapposite because an 

invalidity holding in either case will affect both. The facts remain: DRL does challenge the ’907 

patent’s validity, DRL served Invalidity Contentions in DRL I, DRL chose to file a second 

ANDA that resulted in DRL II, and DRL I’s holding with respect to validity will impact DRL II. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs should be allowed to present their validity arguments in DRL II.

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny DRL’s 

Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Validity Contentions. 

 

 

5

 Plaintiffs note that DRL has completed minimal discovery on invalidity to date. Not litigating 

invalidity “in DRL II” will have minimal impact, if any, on the tasks that remain to be completed 

by DRL before the close of discovery. 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 5819
10 

Dated: August 20, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

By: s/ John E. Flaherty 

John E. Flaherty 

Jonathan M.H. Short 

McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 

Four Gateway Center 

100 Mulberry Street 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

(973) 622-4444 

Counsel for Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB, 

AstraZeneca LP, KBI-E Inc., and Pozen 

Inc. 

Stephen M. Hash 

Stephen C. Stout 

VINSON & ELKINS LLP 

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 

Austin, TX 78746-7568 

Tel: (512) 542-8400 

Of Counsel for Plaintiff Pozen Inc.

Einar Stole 

Edward H. Rippey 

Maureen M. Japha 

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004-2401 

(202) 662-6000 

Of Counsel for Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB 

and AstraZeneca LP 

Henry J. Renk 

FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO

1290 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10104-3800 

Tel: (212) 218-2250 

Of Counsel for Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB, 

AstraZeneca LP, and KBI-E Inc.

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 5820
11 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on August 20, 2013, I caused a true and correct copy of 

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DRL’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ VALIDITY 

CONTENTIONS to be served on the below listed counsel of record via email: 

Alan H. Pollack 

Stuart D. Sender 

Dmitry V. Shelhoff 

BUDD LARNER, PC 

150 John F. Kennedy Parkway, CN100 

Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999 

(973) 379-4800 

Counsel for Defendants Dr. Reddy's 

Laboratories, Ltd., and Dr. Reddy's 

Laboratories, Inc. 

Karen A. Confoy 

Christopher R. Kinkade 

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, PC 

997 Lenox Drive 

Bldg 3 

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 

(609) 844-3033 

Counsel for Defendants Lupin Ltd. and Lupin 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Robert Green 

Jessica Tyrus 

Caryn Borg-Breen 

Christopher Griffith 

LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD. 

Two Prudential Plaza 

180 N. Stetson Avenue, Suite 4900 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 616-5600 

Of Counsel for Defendants Lupin Ltd. and 

Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Sean R. Kelly 

Katherine A. Escanlar 

SAIBER LLC 

18 Columbia Turnpike 

Florham Park, NJ 07932 

Tel: (973) 622-3333 

Counsel for Defendant Anchen 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

Anthony W. Shaw 

Richard J. Berman 

Crystal R. Canterbury 

Aziz Burgy 

Bradford Frese 

ARENT FOX LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20036-5339 

Tel: (202) 857-6000 

Of Counsel for Defendant Anchen 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

By: s/ John E. Flaherty 

 John E. Flaherty 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 170 Filed 08/20/13 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 5821