Plaintiff, I 12456(PGS)(DEA)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., DR.

REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., and

GLAND PHARMA, INC.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 51) ofthe Court’s

October 12, 2012 order denying a motion for summaryjudgment (ECF No. 48). The Plaintiffasserts

two arguments.

First, Defendant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories argues that the Court focused on the process used

to make Bivalirudin and overlooked facts that demonstrated that Plaintiffsold Bivalirudin before the

critical date that met each limitation of the asserted claims. More specifically defendant argues:

Here, had the Court not overlooked the Angiomax® product sold by

plaintiff before the critical date (rather than focusing on the processused to make that product), the Court would have concluded that the

asserted claims were anticipated by the plaintiff’s sale ofAngiomax®

before the critical date, Further, had the Court applied the correct

legal standard for anticipation under the onsale bar, it would have

concluded that the sale of a single batch of Angiornax® meeting the

claim limitations was all that was needed to anticipate the claims,

Second, Dr. Reddy asserts that the Court erred by employing the standard of proof for

inherent anticipation rather than the standard for onsale bar of a patent.
contemplate a Court looking to matters which were not originally presented.” Damiano v. Sony

Music Entertainment, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 623, 634 (D.N.J. 1996) (quoting Florham Park chevron,

Inc., v. Chevron US.A., Jhc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988)).

The Third Circuit has held that the “purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct

manifest errors oflaw or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” ffarsco C’orp. v. Ziotincki,

779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171(1986). “Reconsideration motions,

however, may not be used to relitigate old matters, nor to raise arguments or present evidence thatcould have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment.” NL Indus., Inc., 935 F. Supp. at 516; See

Wright, Miller & Kane, Fed. Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1. Such motions will only be

granted where (1) an intervening change in the law has occurred, (2) new evidence not previously

available has emerged, or (3) the need to correct a clear error oflaw or prevent a manifest injustice

arises. See, North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995,).

11.

With regard to the first issue, the Court did not overlook the allegation ofPlaintiffthat it sold

Bivalirudin before the critical date that met all limitations ofthe asserted claims. Instead, the Court

found factual issues existed that prevented making such a conclusion. The Court’s distinction was

that a new process produced a substantially different product from the original product because thenew product had substantially less Asp 9levels. As such, what was sold before was different than

what was sold afier the critical date.
(10/12/12 T8, 12-14).

In addition, in the introductory paragraph of the oral opinion, the Court noted:

This is a motion for summary judgment, seeking to invalidate the

patent because it was anticipated; that is, the new product was the

same as the old product that was sold prior to the critical date. See, 35

U.S.C. Section 102(b).

(10/12/12 T2, 1-6)

Hence, the Court used the on sale bar standard to determine the case; but as the Court

emphasized, there are numerous fact questions that arise no matter what standard is used. Based on

the above, the Court does not see any reason to reconsider the oral opinion.

ORDER

IT IS on thish day of March, 2013

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

(L

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U,S,D,J,