InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 22
Posts 2093
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/14/2007

Re: floblu14 post# 19196

Friday, 05/24/2019 12:42:41 PM

Friday, May 24, 2019 12:42:41 PM

Post# of 20689
Re: settlement of this amazing litigation. Here is a link to a joint memo filed by Momenta, Amphastar and Sandoz.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/idhnzccdzxde4rs/Momenta%20Pharmaceuticals%2C%20Inc%20et~.pdf?dl=0

Here is a description of the settlement agreement:



Settlement Agreement
On May 20, 2019, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”). The
Agreement provides that the parties will dismiss the Patent and Antitrust Actions following entry
of an order vacating the Patent Judgment in this Action (the “Vacatur Order”). The Agreement
further provides that in the event that this Court does not grant this motion for an indicative
ruling within 45 days and enter a Vacatur Order within 90 days, the parties shall jointly request
withdrawal of the joint motion seeking a Vacatur Order. If the Patent Judgment is vacated, the
Agreement will resolve all pending disputes in the Patent Action (including all disputes
concerning the Rule 60(b)(3) Motion, and the Motion For Sanctions For Violation Of Protective
Orders), the Patent Appeal before the Federal Circuit, and the Antitrust Action. The Agreement
provides that Momenta and Sandoz forever waive the ability to assert the ’886 patent and U.S.
Patent No. 7,790,466 (the “’466 patent”) against Amphastar, and will further provide Amphastar
with a covenant not to sue Amphastar on the ’886 and ’466 patents. Because the settlement is
contingent on vacatur of the Patent Judgment, the parties move for an indicative ruling under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 that this Court would grant a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate
the Patent Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the parties’ joint motion should be granted.