IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

NOVO NORDISK A/S AND NOVO NORDISK INC.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:24-cv-11543 v.

REJUVAE BOUTIQUE, PLLC, Defendant.

AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT BY CONSENT Plaintiffs Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc. (“Novo Nordisk” or “Plaintiffs”), with the agreement of Defendant Rejuvae Boutique, PLLC (“Defendant”), respectfully move this Court to enter a final judgment in this action in favor of Plaintiffs. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs state as follows: 1. Novo Nordisk filed this Complaint on November 8, 2024 (Dkt #1) alleging false advertising, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices in violation of sections 43(a) of the Lanham Act,

(a), common law, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. 2. The parties have agreed to a confidential settlement agreement to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims. 3. Attached as Exhibit A is Defendant’s signed consent to the proposed final judgment and permanent injunction (“Final Judgment”). 4. Upon entry of the Final Judgment, this matter will be resolved in full. 5. Under the Final Judgment, this Court retains jurisdiction solely for the purpose of enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement, the Final Judgment, and as otherwise provided in the Final Judgment.1

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the parties respectfully move this Court to enter the attached Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant. DATED: July 9, 2025

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Brigid Carmichael /s/ Armin Ghiam Suyash Agrawal Armin Ghiam Hillary W. Coustan HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP Brigid Carmichael 200 Park Avenue MASSEY & GAIL LLP 52nd Floor 50 E Washington St., Ste. 400 New York, New York 10166 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (212) 908-6207 (312) 379-0949 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Defendant [email protected] Rejuvae Boutique, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc.

1 “When a court issues an injunction, it automatically retains jurisdiction to enforce it”. Hyzy v. Baker, No. 18-CV- 5276,

, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 24, 2019) citing United States v. Fisher,

(7th Cir. 1988).