Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 171 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 4498
`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 168-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 4 PagelD: 4455
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Civil Action Nos. 15-cv-03324 (MLC) (DEA)
`16-cv-0491$ (MLC) (DEA)
`16-cv-09035 (MLC) (DEA)
`
`Civil Action Nos. 15-cv-03327 (MLC) (DEA)
`16-cv-04921 (MLC) (DEA)
`
`Civil Action Nos. 1 5-cv-03326 (MLC) (DEA)
`16-cv-04920 (MLC) (DEA)
`
`HORIZON PHARMA, NC., HORI
`ZON PHARMA USA, INC., and
`POZEN INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
`[NC. and DR. REDDY’S LABORA
`TORIES,
`
`Defendants.
`HORIZON PHARMA, INC., HORI
`ZON PHARMA USA, INC., and
`POZEN NC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
`INC., MYLAN LABORATORIES
`LIMITED, and MYLAN, INC.,
`Defendants.
`HORIZON PHARMA, NC., HORI
`ZON PHARMA USA, NC., and
`POZEN NC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMA
`CEUTICALS NC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`IPROPOSEDJ FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(b)
`
`Patent Owner's Ex. 2077
`IPR2017-01995
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 171 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 4499
`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 168-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 4 PagelD: 4456
`
`WHEREAS, this matter was raised to the Court by way of DRL’s’ letter mo
`tion requesting entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`54(b) (“Motion”).
`
`WHEREAS, on April 24, 2017, DRL moved, pursuant to fed. R. Civ. P.
`12(c) and 12(b)(l), to dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiffs’2 first amended com
`plaint in Case No. 16-cv-04918, which alleged that DRL ANDA Nos. 202461 and
`204206 infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,945,621 (“the ‘621 patent”) (ECF No. 53 in
`No. 16-cv-049l8-SRC-CLW), and on August 18, 2017, the Court issued its Opin
`ion (“First Opinion,” ECF Nos. 98 (sealed)) and Order (“First Order,” ECF 99 in
`No. 16-cv-0491$-SRC-CLW) granting, with prejudice, DRL’s motion to dismiss
`Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement under the ‘621 patent with respect to DPI AN
`DA 204206.
`
`WHEREAS, on May 16, 2018 DRL and Plaintiffs entered a Stipulation that
`applied the Court’s First Order and First Opinion to DPI ANDA No. 202461
`(ECF No. 106 in 15-3324) (“Stipulation”).
`
`WHEREAS, on August 10, 2018, DRL moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`56 and 35 U.S.C. § 112, for an order granting summary judgment and invalidating
`the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,220,698 (“the ‘698 patent”) and 9,393,208 (“the
`‘208 patent”) (ECF No. 118 in No. 15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW), and, on November
`19, 2018, the Court issued its Opinion (“Second Opinion”) and Order (“Second
`Order”) determining that all claims of Plaintiffs’ ‘698 patent and ‘208 patent are
`invalid for indefiniteness pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112. ECF Nos. 162, 163 in No.
`1 5-cv-03324-SRC-CLW.
`
`to facilitate timely appeal of the Court’s First and Second
`WHEREAS,
`Opinions and First and Second Orders, DPI requests entry of judgment under Rule
`54(b) consistent with the first and Second Opinions and First and Second Orders
`as to Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of the ‘621, ‘698, and ‘20$ 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 DPI.
`
`WHEREAS, there is no just reason for delaying entry of final judgment un
`der Rule 54(b) as requested by DPI.
`
`“DRL” refers to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories LTD.
`2 “Plaintiffs” refers to Horizon Pharma, Inc. and Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. (“Horizon”), and
`Pozen Inc. (“Pozen”).
`
`Patent Owner's Ex. 2077
`IPR2017-01995
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 171 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 4500
`Case 2:15-cv-03324-SRC-CLW Document 168-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 4 PagelD: 4457
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`_____________
`
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
`
`For the reasons stated in the Court’s First Opinion and Stipulation,
`1.
`Plaintiffs failed to state a claim of infringement of the ‘621 patent against DRL.
`
`For the reasons stated in the Court’s Second Opinion, all claims of the
`2.
`‘698 and ‘208 patents are invalid for indefiniteness.
`
`For the reasons stated in the Court’s First and Second Opinions, FI
`3.
`NAL JUDGMENT is hereby entered under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civ
`il Procedure in favor of DRL as to Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement of the ‘621,
`‘69$, and ‘20$ patents.
`/
`//
`
`) / 2 2 //
`
`/
`
`DATED:
`
`-
`
`Hoiable Stanley R. Chesler
`United States District Judge
`
`Patent Owner's Ex. 2077
`IPR2017-01995
`Page 3 of 3
`
`