Novo Nordisk Inc., and Novo Nordisk A/s v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc.

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 M OORE, L INN and O’MALLEY , Circuit Judges.
L INN, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 12/20/2013

-- 1 of 3 --

NOVO NORDISK INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. 2
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,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(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.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
Case: 12-1388 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2013

-- 2 of 3 --

NOVO NORDISK INC. v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. 3
s26
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 20, 2013
Case: 12-1388 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2013

-- 3 of 3 --