`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`ALLERGAN, INC., and THE SAINT
`REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`MYLAN, INC., MYLAN
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and
`AKORN, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB
`
`§§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`This action came on for trial before the Court. The issues having been duly tried and a
`
`decision having been duly rendered in the form of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
`
`entered this day,
`
`It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED
`
`(1) that the 13 asserted claims of the patents in suit—claims 26 and 27 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,629,111; claims 1, 11, 13, 14, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,648,048; claim 35 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,685,930; and claims 13, 16, 22, 26, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,248,191—are declared to be
`
`invalid on the ground of obviousness, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2006);
`
`(2) that the 13 asserted claims listed above are not invalid on the ground of anticipation,
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (2006);
`
`MYLAN - EXHIBIT 1165
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
`IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131, -01132
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB Document 524 Filed 10/16/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 26164
`
`(3) that the 13 asserted claims listed above are not invalid on the ground of improper
`
`inventorship, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) (2006);
`
`(4) that the 13 asserted claims listed above are not invalid on the ground of lack of
`
`enablement, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (2006);
`
`(5) that although the plaintiffs have proved infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) as to
`
`each of the defendants on each of the 13 asserted claims listed above, the Court’s finding that all
`
`of the asserted claims are invalid requires that the defendants be granted judgment on each of the
`
`plaintiffs’ claims of patent infringement and entitlement to a declaratory judgment of patent
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), 271(b), 271(c), and 271(e)(2), with respect to the
`
`asserted claims; and
`
`(6) that each of defendant Akorn, Inc.’s counterclaims seeking an award of attorney fees
`
`and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s request for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 are
`
`denied on the ground that this is not an exceptional case.
`
`Costs are awarded to the defendants and against the plaintiffs in accordance with 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1920.
`
`Any other relief sought by the plaintiffs is denied. Any other relief sought by the
`
`defendants is denied.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`SIGNED this 16th day of October, 2017.
`
`_____________________________
`WILLIAM C. BRYSON
`UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
`
`