Novo-Nordisk A/S v. Pfizer, Inc.
Exubera Patent Lawsuit:
Pfizer’s Answer

Drug Litigation Home > Pages 7 - 9 of 12 in Pfizer's Answer

                  44.       Admitted.

                  45.        Pfizer admits that an actual controversy exists and that Novo purports to request that the Court determine and declare the rights and obligations ofthe parties as set forth in subparts a through c. All other allegations in paragraph 45 are denied.

                  46.       The complaint of Novo fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

                  47.        Pfizer has not infringed, is not infringing and will not infringe any claim of the ’581 patent.

                  48.        Pfizer has not infringed, is not infringing and will not infringe any claim of the ‘620 patent.

                  49.        Pfizer has not infringed, is not infringing and will not infringe any claim of the ‘240 patent.

                  50.        Pfizer has not infringed, is not infringing and will not infringe any claim of the ‘880 patent.

- 7 -

Sixth Affirmative Defense

                  51.        Pfizer has not infringed, is not infringing and will not infringe any claim of the ‘686 patent.

Seventh Affirmative Defense

                  52.        One or more claims of the ‘581 patent are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of Title 35, United States Code, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.

Eighth Affirmative Defense

                  53.        One or more claims of the ‘620 patent are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of Title 35, United States Code, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.

Ninth Affirmative Defense

                  54.        One or more claims of the ‘240 patent are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of Title 35, United States Code, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.

Tenth Affirmative Defense

                  55.        One or more claims of the ‘880 patent are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of Title 35, United States Code, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Eleventh Affirmative Defense

Eleventh Affirmative Defense

                  56.        One or more claims of the ‘686 patent are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of Title 35, United States Code, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.

- 8 -

Twelfth Affirmative Defense

                  57.        The patents-in-suit are unenforceable because they have been and are being asserted against Pfizer in this litigation without proper grounds or reasonable belief that any valid claim of any of the patents is infringed by Pfizer&rsqu;s activities.

                  58.        Novo Nordisk A/S, by itself or through any of its Affiliates, does not hold an approved New Drug Application for any inhaled form of insulin.

                  59.        Novo and its counsel’s filing and publicity ofthe instant action and its request for a preliminary injunction are without merit and are designed improperly to promote and protect Novo’s business interests while interfering with Pfizer’s legitimate Exubera activities.

                  60.       

                  61.        By the instant action, Novo and its counsel seek to deny diabetic patients access to the only FDA-approved system for the delivery of insulin through inhalation.

                  62.        Novo and its counsel know or should know that no valid claim of any patent-insuit can be construed to cover Pfizer’s activities, and the consequent misuse ofthe patents renders them unenforceable against Pfizer.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

                   WHEREFORE, Pfizer requests that judgment be entered as to Novo’s Complaint as follows:

- 9 -