       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.
