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

Drug Litigation Home > Pages 10 - 12 of 12 in Pfizer's Answer

                  1.        For a judgment in Pfizer’s favor: a denying in its entirety the relief sought in the Prayer For Relief set forth in Novo’s Complaint; b declaring that Novo takes nothing by its suit in this action; and c dismissing Novo’s Complaint in this action with prejudice.

                  2.        For a judgment in Pfizer’s favor declaring that: (a) U.S. Patent No. 5,672,581 has not been infringed and is not being infringed by the making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or the importing into the United States, of any Pfizer Exubera product; (b) U.S. Patent No. 5,884,620 has not been infringed and is not being infringed by the making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or the importing into the United States, of any Pfizer Exubera product; (c) U.S. Patent No. 5,941,240 has not been infringed and is not being infringed by the making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or the importing into the United States, of any Pfizer Exubera product; (d) U.S. Patent No. 6,167,880 has not been infringed and is not being infringed by the making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or the importing into the United States, of any Pfizer Exubera product; (e) U.S. Patent No. 7,028,686 has not been infringed and is not being infringed by the making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or the importing into the United States, of any Pfizer Exubera product.

                  3.        For a judgment in Pfizer’s favor declaring that each of (a) U.S. Patent No. 5,672,581, (b) U.S. Patent No. 5,884,620, (c) U.S. Patent No. 5,941,240, (d) U.S. Patent No. 6,167,880 and (e) U.S. Patent No. 7,028,686 is invalid and void in law and is unenforceable against Pfizer.

                  4.        For an award to Pfizer of its attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs in defending against Novo’ s baseless allegations ofinfringement. Novo’s assertions of infringement months after its actual notice of Pfizer’s intention to launch Exubera, its publicity ofthe lawsuit and its

- 10 -

seeking of a preliminary injunction were not designed or intended to protect or enforce any legitimate rights in its patents-in-suit but were undertaken for unrelated commercial purposes and with knowledge that its patents are invalid if construed to cover Pfizer’s activities, thereby making this an "exceptional case" as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 285 entitling Pfizer to its reasonable attorneys’ fees. Moreover, Novo’ s counsel has, by the allegations ofNovo’s complaint and the conduct of this litigation, multiplied the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously, and thus is personally liable for excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred because of such conduct under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and an award ofthose costs, expenses and attorney fees is requested.

                  5.        5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deemjust and appropriate.

- 11 -

- 12 -