      NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


 United States Court of Appeals
     for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

  BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS,
   INC. AND BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG,
              Plaintiffs-Appellees,

                            v.

       WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
       ANDWATSON LABORATORIES, INC.,
            Defendants-Appellants,

                           AND

                    SANDOZ INC.,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
                ______________________

                2012-1397, -1398, -1400
                ______________________

    Appeals from the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada in Nos. 07-CV-1472 and 08-CV-
0995, Judge Kent J. Dawson.
          -------------------------------------------------

     BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG AND
  BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS,
                   INC.,
            Plaintiffs-Appellees,

                            v.

 LUPIN, LTD. AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS,
                     INC.,
             Defendants-Appellants.
             ______________________

                      2012-1424
                ______________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada in no. 10-CV-1166, Judge Kent
J. Dawson.
                ______________________

       ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
             REHEARING EN BANC
              ______________________

    Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE,
 SCHALL, 1 DYK, PROST, MOORE, REYNA, WALLACH, and
              TARANTO, Circuit Judges. 2
PER CURIAM.
REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissents without opinion from
the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
                      ORDER
        A combined petition for rehearing and rehearing
en banc was filed by Plaintiffs-Appellees Bayer, and a
response thereto was invited by the court and filed by
Defendants-Appellants. The petition for rehearing was
considered by the panel that heard the appeals, and
thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and the
response were referred to the circuit judges who are
authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the
appeals en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and
failed.

       Upon consideration thereof,

       IT IS ORDERED THAT:

     (1) The petition of Plaintiffs-Appellees for panel
rehearing is denied.

      (2) The petition of Plaintiffs-Appellees for
rehearing en banc is denied.

     (3) The mandate of the court will issue on
August 19, 2013.




   1   Judge Schall participated in only the decision on
panel rehearing.
   2    Judge O’Malley did not participate.
                  FOR THE COURT


August 12, 2013   /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date              Daniel E. O’Toole
                  Clerk
