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., et al., 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 

3:11-cv-02317 (JAP)(DEA) 

(consolidated for discovery purposes 

with Civ. A. Nos. 3:11-cv-04275-JAPDEA and 3:11-cv-06348-JAP-DEA 

and 3:13-cv-00091-JAP-DEA) 

Motion Date: August 5, 2013 

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT 

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,926,907 IS NOT INVALID

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 152-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 5589
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

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

Standard for Summary Judgment of Validity ................................................................................. 1 

Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Summary Judgment Because DRL Has Not Produced Any 

Evidence to Support its Affirmative Defense of Invalidity. ........................................................... 2 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 3

 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 152-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 5590
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page 

Cases

ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Pc Guardian Anti-Theft Prods., 

592 F. Supp. 2d. 1208 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................................................................... 2 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................................................ 1, 2 

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 

806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................. 1 

Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. v. View Eng’g., Inc., 

189 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... 1 

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 1 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 152-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 5591
1 

Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca LP, KBI-E Inc., and Pozen Inc. (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”) move for partial summary judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 

(the “’907 Patent”) are not invalid because the undisputed facts establish that Defendants Dr. 

Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”) produced no 

evidence in support of their second affirmative defense of invalidity of the ’907 Patent. 

I. Standard for Summary Judgment for Validity 

Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material 

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When a 

party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 

party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial . . . there can be ‘no 

genuine issue of material fact,’” and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 

“There is a strong presumption of validity for issued patents,” and the accused infringer 

asserting invalidity “bears the burden of showing invalidity by facts supported by clear and 

convincing evidence.” Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. v. View Eng’g., Inc., 189 F.3d 1370, 1377 

(Fed.Cir. 1999). Because clear and convincing evidence is required to overcome a patent’s 

presumption of validity, “[a] court may reach a conclusion that a patent remains valid solely on 

the failure of the patent challenger’s evidence to convincingly establish the contrary.” 

Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (emphasis 

in original). “If the challenger’s evidence be totally inadequate, a patentee’s motion for 

judgment . . . would be appropriately granted before the patentee introduces any rebuttal 

evidence.” Id. 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 152-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 5592
2 

II. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Summary Judgment Because DRL Has Not Produced Any 

Evidence to Support its Affirmative Defense of Invalidity 

DRL has produced no evidence to support its affirmative defense of invalidity or to 

controvert Plaintiffs’ request for a judgment that the ’907 patent is not invalid. Plaintiffs brought

the instant suit against DRL for patent infringement and included in its Complaint a request for 

judgment that the claims of the asserted patents are valid and enforceable. Case No. 3:13-cv-91, 

Dkt No. 1, Complaint at 19. In its Answer, DRL pleaded, among other defenses, an affirmative 

defense of invalidity. Case No. 3:13-cv-91, Dkt No. 5, Answer at ¶ 84. DRL failed to serve 

invalidity contentions in support of its defense, and DRL now admits that it decided to “forgo 

any invalidity contentions.” Case No. 3:11-cv-2317, Dkt. No. 147, Letter from DRL Regarding 

Contentions, June 26, 2013, at 1. Without any invalidity contentions, DRL will not be able to 

put forward any facts to establish invalidity of the ’907 Patent, and therefore cannot satisfy its 

burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. See ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Pc 

Guardian Anti-Theft Prods., 592 F. Supp. 2d. 1208, 1215-16 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (granting 

Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion as to the validity of the patent at issue when Defendant 

conceded it never served any invalidity contentions but argued it asserted invalidity through its 

interrogatory responses and deposition testimony). “One of the principal purposes of the 

summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses[.]” 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 477-78 (1986). Without any evidence to either support 

its affirmative defense of invalidity or controvert Plaintiffs’ prayer for a judgment of validity, 

DRL cannot carry its burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, and Plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment should be granted. 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 152-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 5593
3 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion 

and enter Summary Judgment that the ’907 patent is not invalid. 

Dated: June 28, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/John E. Flaherty

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.

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.

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 152-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 5594