NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.