`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`NUVO PHARMACEUTICALS (IRELAND)
`DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY, HORIZON
`MEDICINES LLC,
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`v.
`
`DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES INC., DR. REDDY'S
`LABORATORIES, LTD., MYLAN, INC., MYLAN
`PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN
`LABORATORIES LIMITED,
`Defendants
`
`LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellants
`______________________
`
`2017-2487, 2017-2488
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court for the
`District of New Jersey in Nos. 3:11-cv-02317-MLC-DEA,
`3:11-cv-04275-MLC-DEA, Judge Mary L. Cooper.
`______________________
`
`Decided: August 7, 2019
`______________________
`
`JAMES B. MONROE, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for
`
`
`
`2
`
`NUVO PHARMACEUTICALS v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES
`
`plaintiffs-appellees. Plaintiff-appellee Horizon Medicines
`LLC also represented by CHARLES COLLINS-CHASE.
`
` STEPHEN M. HASH, Baker Botts, LLP, Austin, TX, for
`plaintiff-appellee Nuvo Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Desig-
`nated Activity Company. Also represented by JEFFREY
`SEAN GRITTON.
`
` SAILESH K. PATEL, Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL, for
`defendants-appellants.
` ______________________
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and WALLACH,
`Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Lupin Ltd. (Appeal No. 2017-2487) and Lupin Pharma-
`ceuticals, Inc. (Appeal No. 2017-2488) appeal from the final
`judgment of the United States District Court for the Dis-
`trict of New Jersey. Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`No. 3:11-cv-04275-MCL-DEA (D.N.J. July 21, 2017) (final
`judgment). That final judgment sustained the validity of
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,926,907 (“the ’907 patent”) and
`8,557,285 (“the ’285 patent”), and found the appellants in-
`fringed those patents.
`The appellants assert that the district court erred in
`sustaining the validity of the ’907 and ’285 patents, and
`consequently erred in the judgment of infringement. The
`appellants are correct. In Nuvo Pharmaceuticals (Ireland)
`Designated Activity Company v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
`Inc., 923 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019), this court held that the
`’907 and ’285 patents are invalid for failure to satisfy the
`written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The
`patents asserted against the appellants are invalid. The
`final judgment of the district court against the appellants
`is reversed.
`
`REVERSED
`
`
`
`NUVO PHARMACEUTICALS v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES INC.
`
`3
`
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`