Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-308 - ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-308 - ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. et al
April 28, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY and ORDER on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Expert Reports [doc. 74]: DRL's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Expert Reports [doc. 74] is granted. The following portions of the Chabner Report, dated March 21, 2017, attached as Appendix 1 to the sealed proposed order found at ECF No. 76, are stricken. See Entry. It is ordered that Lilly not argue or introduce evidence regarding the stricken infringement contentions, opinions, and underlying bases therefor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 4/28/2017. (SWM)
September 6, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS IN PLAINTIFF'S REPLY - This matter is before the Court on Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, LTD's and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.'s (collectively, "DRL") Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Expert Reports Served On Defendants On March 21, 2017 (Filing No. 74), and Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company's ("Lilly") Objections to Order on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Expert Reports ("the Order") (Filing No. 97). Also before the Court is a Motion to Strike New Arguments in Plaintiff's Reply That Were Neither Raised in its Objections nor Made to the Magistrate Judge (Filing No. 112). The Court SUSTAINS Lilly's Objection to Order to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Expert Reports (Filing No. 97) in its entirety. In addition, the Court DENIES DRL's Motion to Strike New Arguments in Plaintiff's Reply Brief (Filing No. 112). The Court specifically concludes that Lilly disclosed in its infringement contention the information contained in paragraphs 38-47, 60- 61, 63-73, and 77-82 of Dr. Chabner's report, as well as paragraphs 15 and 16 of Dr. Pinal's report. The Court also concludes that DRL is not prejudiced by the inclusion of Lilly's expert reports and that the CMP did not provide sufficient notice that September 6, 2016 amounted to the "final" contentions' deadline. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/6/2017. (RSF)
December 14, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY - 132 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Lilly's literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents claims remain pending for trial. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/14/2017. (MEJ)
January 12, 2018
PDF | More
ENTRY - 213 Motion to Amend/Correct is granted in part. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/12/2018. (MEJ)
June 22, 2018
PDF | More
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING FEBRUARY 1, 2018 BENCH TRIAL -Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court concludes that Lilly has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted claims of the '209 Patent would be infringed by Dr. Reddy's product under the doctrine of equivalents based upon inducement and contributory infringement. The Court finds that Dr. Reddy's product indirectly infringes the asserted claims of the '209 Patent, and finds in favor of Eli Lilly And Company and against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. Final judgment shall issue separate from this Entry. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/22/2018.(NAD)
July 27, 2018
PDF | More
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND FINAL JUDGMENT - The Court GRANTS Lilly's Motion to Amend Final Judgment (Filing No. 244) and accepts Lilly's proposed order (Filing No. 244-1). An amended entry of final judgment will follow in a separate order. The Court grants Dr. Reddy's Motion (Filing No. 250), and has considered its Surreply. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/27/2018. (NAD)