Avanir Pharmaceuticals Inc., Avanir Holding Company, Center for Neurological Study v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc.

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS INC., AVANIR
HOLDING COMPANY, CENTER FOR
NEUROLOGICAL STUDY, AND DUANE MORRIS
LLP,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC. AND PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES INC.,
Defendants-Appellants,
AND
ACTAVIS LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2014-1559
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in Consolidated Nos. 1:11-cv-00704-
LPS, 1:11-cv-00705-LPS, 1:11-cv-00757-LPS, 1:11-cv-
00758-LPS, 1:12-cv-00258-LPS, 1:12-cv-01122-LPS, 1:12-
cv-01123-LPS, 1:12-cv-01124-LPS, 1:12-cv-01125-LPS,
and 1:12-cv-01298-LPS, Judge Leonard P. Stark.
Case: 14-1559 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2014

-- 1 of 3 --

AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC. 2
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before REYNA, BRYSON, and T ARANTO, Circuit Judges.
BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Appellants Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Par Phar-
maceuticals Companies, Inc. seek review of the decision of
the United States District Court for the District of Dela-
ware resolving some of the claims at issue in the case.
Because the appeal is premature, we grant the motion
submitted by appellees Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al. to dismiss.
In response to Avanir’s suit against Par for patent in-
fringement, Par counterclaimed, seeking an order direct-
ing Avanir to delete one of the asserted patents from the
Orange Book. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C)(ii)(I). After the
district court disposed of the infringement and patent
invalidity claims, it directed the parties to brief the delist-
ing counterclaim, which still remains pending.
Section 1295(a)(1) of Title 28 authorizes this court to
review “a final decision” of a district court in a patent
infringement case, i.e., a decision that “ends the litigation
on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S.
229, 233 (1945). A decision disposing of some claims in a
multi-claim litigation does not constitute a final judgment
unless the requirements of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure are met. The district court did not
direct entry of judgment under Rule 54(b). Thus, Par’s
notice of appeal is clearly premature.
Accordingly,
Case: 14-1559 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 08/05/2014

-- 2 of 3 --

AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s19
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 5, 2014
Case: 14-1559 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 08/05/2014

-- 3 of 3 --