Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00179—SLFl Document 144 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
Fx’tCl—-IAFQDS, LAYTON 6. FINGER
A PRO FE55lONAL. AESGCEATION
Our; Ftoomzv Saunas
920 Nomar Kms Srnzrrr
Fnzoanncm 1. COTFEWELL, ur VVt1..M1NGTON, DELAWARE ISBBOI D|;;c;i§gA$_;;;2ER
°'t‘E°’*°"* <3¤a> ear-vv¤¤ eaaaataatp can
Fax czaoai ea wwe:
W\N\'•'-RL.F.COM
November 21, 2007
VIA ECF
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
L Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: Bayer AG, et al. v. Dr. Reddys Laboratories, Ltd., et al., CA. No. 04-
0179-SLR (D. Del.)
Dear Judge Robinson:
We write on behalf on Plaintiffs Bayer AG, Bayer HealthCare AG, and Bayer
Pharmaceuticals Corporation (collectively "Bayer") concerning the Final Judgment in the above-
captioned action.
On October 25, 2007, the Court issued its opinion ruling in Bayer’s favor and
ordered that the parties jointly submit a proposed Final Judgment on or before November 23,
2007. D.I, 142-43, While the parties have reached agreement on nearly all aspects of the
proposed Judgment, there is one issue that remains in dispute. The Reddy defendants have
asserted that the Final Judgment should include a provision that the injunction be automatically
lifted if certain events occur in the lbture, specifically, if "all of the Assorted Claims are
adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable, by a United States Court of Appeals or in a Final
Judgment of a United States District Court from which no appeal can be taken, or otherwise
become unenforceable? Bayer does not believe such a provision is appropriate. We submit that
there are far too many theoretical permutations as to what might occur in any future proceedings
to properly account for them in the manner Reddy suggests, It is for that reason that the typical
process is for a party to request that a court lift an injunction if it believes that future events
warrant such action, rather than specifying in the injunction itself what events might warrant its
dissolution. Moreover, Bayer is unaware of any precedent in which such language was included
in a Final Judgment, and Reddy has not identiiied any such precedent despite Bayer’s requests
that it do so,
neriezzstsa-r

Case 1:04-cv—00179—SLFl Document 144 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
November 21, 2007
Page 2
Because the parties have been unable to reach agreement on this issue, Bayer is
submitting two forms of the proposed Final Judgment for the Cou.rt’s consideration Exhibit A
contains Bayer’s proposed version; Exhibit B contains Reddy’s proposal. The difference
between the two versions is that Exhibit B contains Reddy’s proposed additional language in
paragraphs 4 and 5. The two versions are othervvise identical.
We are available to discuss this matter further should the Court so desire. We
thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.
Respectfully,
TZ,/\ (- ww W
Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
cc: Counsel of Record
nun-azzurss-1

Case 1:04-cv-00179-SLR

Document 144

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00179-SLR

Document 144

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 2 of 2