Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 170 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 4495
`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 168-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 4 PagelD: 4451
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Civil Action Nos. 15-cv-03324 (MLC) (DEA)
`16-cv-04918 (MLC) (DEA)
`16-cv09035 (MLC) (DEA)
`
`Civil Action Nos. 15-cv-03327 (MLC) (DEA)
`16-cv-04921 (MLC) (DEA)
`
`Civil Action Nos. 15-cv-03326 (MLC) (DEA)
`16-cv-04920 (MLC) (DEA)
`
`HORIZON PHARMA, INC., HORI
`ZON PHARMA USA, INC., and
`POZEN
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
`INC. and DR. REDDY’S LABORA
`TORIES,
`
`Defendants.
`HORIZON PHARMA, INC., HORI
`ZON PHARMA USA, INC., and
`POZEN iNC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
`INC., MYLAN LABORATORIES
`LIMITED, and MYLAN, NC.,
`Defendants.
`HORIZON PHARMA, INC., HORI
`ZON PHARIVIA USA, INC., and
`POZEN INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMA
`CEUTICALS iNC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b)
`
`LEGAL142315517.2
`
`Patent Owner's Ex. 2076
`IPR2017-01995
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`____________
`
`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 170 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 4496
`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 168-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 4 PagelD: 4452
`
`WHEREAS, this matter was raised to the Court by way of Mylan’s’ letter
`motion requesting entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`54(b) (“Motion”).
`
`WHEREAS, on December 20, 2016, Mylan moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), to dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiffs’2 first amended
`complaint in Case No. 16-cv-04921, which alleged that Mylan infringed U.S. Pa
`tent No. 8,945,621 (“the ‘621 patent”) (ECF No. 25 in No. 16-cv-04921-SRC-
`CLW), and on August 18, 2017, the Court issued its Opinion (“First Opinion”) and
`Order (“First Order”) granting, with prejudice, Mylan’s motion to dismiss the
`claims of infringement under the ‘621 patent. ECF Nos. 74 (sealed), 75 in No. 16-
`cv-0492 1 -SRC-CLW.
`
`WHEREAS, on August 10, 2018, Mylan moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`56 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, for an order granting summary judgment and invalidating
`the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,220,698 (“the ‘698 patent”) and 9,393,208 (“the
`‘208 patent”) (ECF No. 118 in No. 15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW), and, on November
`19, 2018, the Court issued its Opinion (“Second Opinion”) and Order (“Second
`Order”) determining that all claims of Plaintiffs’ ‘698 patent and ‘208 patent are
`invalid for indefiniteness pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112. ECF Nos. 162, 163 in No.
`1 5-cv-03324-SRC-CLW.
`
`the Court dismissed without prejudice
`WHEREAS on October 1, 2018,
`Mylan’s counterclaims with respect to the ‘698 and ‘208 patents (ECF No. 154 in
`No. 15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW).
`
`to facilitate timely appeal of the Court’s First and Second
`WHEREAS,
`Opinions and First and Second Orders, Mylan requests entry of judgment under
`Rule 54(b) consistent with the First and Second Opinions and First and Second Or
`ders as to Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of the ‘621, ‘698, and ‘208 patents.
`
`WHEREAS, the balance of the equities and interests of judicial administra
`tion favor entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) as requested by Mylan.
`
`WHEREAS, there is no just reason for delaying entry of final judgment un
`der Rule 54(b) as requested by Mylan.
`
`‘“Mylan” refers to Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited, and Mylan Inc.
`(“Mylan”).
`2 “Plaintiffs” refers to Horizon Pharma, Inc. and Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. (“Horizon”), and
`Pozen Inc. (“Pozen”).
`
`-
`
`Patent Owner's Ex. 2076
`IPR2017-01995
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 170 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 4497
`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 168-1 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 4 PagelD: 4453
`
`_____________
`
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
`
`For the reasons stated in the Court’s First Opinion, Plaintiffs failed to
`1.
`state a claim of infringement of the ‘621 patent against Mylan.
`
`For the reasons stated in the Court’s Second Opinion, all claims of the
`2.
`‘69$ and ‘208 patents are invalid for indefiniteness.
`
`For the reasons stated in the Court’s First and Second Opinions, Fl
`3.
`NAL JUDGMENT is hereby entered under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civ
`il Procedure in favor of Mylan as to Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of the ‘621,
`‘692, and ‘208 patents.
`
`DATED // % //
`
`HonorableStan1ey R. Chesler
`United States District Judge
`
`Patent Owner's Ex. 2076
`IPR2017-01995
`Page 3 of 3
`
`