1. “Whether the Court should vacate the district court’s judgment of noninfringement by Watson and direct entry of the consent judgment necessary to effectuate the parties’ agreement to settle, because: a. It is ‘just under the circumstances,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2106, to vacate and remand when, during an at-risk generic launch and ongoing multi-party litigation, Watson admitted infringement, and both parties need vacatur and entry of a consent judgment to dispense with their claims and thus premised their agreement on that outcome; or b. the district court, in its denial of Amgen and Watson’s motion for an indicative ruling, committed several errors and applied the wrong legal standards for determining circumstances warranting vacatur.”
2. “If the Court does not vacate in light of the parties’ agreement, whether the judgment of non-infringement should also be vacated because: a. the ruling on the doctrine of equivalents failed to apply the proper legal standard, and credited immaterial distinctions between Watson’s accused ANDA products and claimed elements, when the equivalents analysis ‘should not be the prisoner of a rigid formula,’ Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Case: 19-1650 Document: 38 Page: 17 Filed: 06/24/2019 6 b. Amgen’s trial presentation was belatedly upended by an erroneous construction of independent claim 1 that violates this Court’s Markush group and claim construction case law.”
“The parties jointly move to voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned appeals pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own fees and costs.”
