Dated: November 8, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, Megan E. Glor Attorneys at Law s/ Megan E. Glor Megan E. Glor, OSB No. 930178 Attorney for Plaintiff Keith Bostrom PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 52(a) - ​Page 31 of 31 Case 3:16-cv-00596-YY Document 22 Filed 11/08/16 Page 36 of 36

Second Amended Complaint is granted; and it is FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 52(c) that the following declaratory judgment is entered against the federal defendants and Duramed: Case 1:07-cv-00668-JDB Document 45-2 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 1 of 3 2 (a) FDA and its Commissioner lack the authority to approve the same drug product for si- multaneous OTC-Rx distribution under the same labeling (Second Am. Compl. ¶142(A)(iv)); (b) Any drug product labeled for simultaneous OTC-Rx distribution is misbranded (Second Am. Compl. ¶142(A)(v)); (c) Under 21 C.F.R. §310.200(b) and 21 U.S.C. §353(b)(3), FDA must conduct a rulemaking to exempt a new drug from Rx requirements of 21 U.S.C. §353(b)(1) (Second Am. Compl. ¶142(A)(xiii)); and (d) FDA lacks statutory authority to create or approve a drug for “behind-the-counter” distri- bution as a discrete category of drug that is neither Rx-only nor fully OTC (Second Am. Compl. ¶142(A)(x)); and it is FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 52(c) that the following injunctive relief is en- tered against the federal defendants and Duramed: (a) The federal defendants’ approval of the Supplemental New Drug Application number 2l- 045/S011 for levonorgestrel tablets, 0.75 mg (“Plan B”) dated August 24, 2006, is va- cated (Second Am. Compl. ¶142(B)(i)); and (ii) The federal defendants are enjoined from approving any subsequent version of that or any related Supplemental New Drug Application or New Drug Application for OTC dis- tribution unless such approval is fully consistent with the declaratory relief rendered herein (Second Am. Compl. ¶142(B)(ii)); and it is Dated: ______________________, 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 1:07-cv-00668-JDB Document 45-2 Filed 03/18/2008 Page 2 of 3 3 Copy to: LAWRENCE J. JOSEPH 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 669-5135 Telecopier: (202) 318-2254 Counsel for Plaintiffs JANE M. LYONS Assistant United States Att

Ritchie, 451 F.3d at 1023 (concluding that “[r]ule 52(c) expressly authorizes the district judge to resolve disputed issues of fact.”)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)). Case 2:16-cv-08064-DSF-AGR Document 150 Filed 12/03/18 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:3636 SMTD LAW LLP A L IM IT ED LIA BI LI TY PA RT N ER S HI P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF AND THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT’S JOINT RENEWED RULE 52(C) MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT III. DISCUSSION A. Defendants/Cross-Claimants Have Proffered Evidence of Damages Caused by Nasatka’ s Breaches of Its Subcontract As a result of Nasatka’ s breaches of the Subcontract, Insight incurred damages due to the delays associated with Nasatka’ s failure to timely provide the PLC system and failures to make warranty calls to correct deficiencies in their Work.

; SEC v. Mgmt. Dynamics, Inc., 515 F.2d 801, 814 (2nd Cir. 1975) (“We find it plain that the entry of a permanent injunction without appropriate findings violates the command of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).”).8 Here, this Court never entered any findings of fact or conclusions of law concerning a permanent injunction in its January 24, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order (10-cv-681 Doc.

No. 240 at 17. Case 1:15-cv-00419-WES-PAS Document 242 Filed 03/08/19 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 8385 [10] reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request to amend or reverse the Decision under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 59(e). B. The Decision Should Not Be Made Appealable 1.

l Procedure 52(b) should be denied. Case 1:14-cv-00220-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/27/14 Page 6 of 8 7 Dated: June 27, 2014 Respectfully submitted, COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION LLC By Counsel /s/ Jessica D. Fegan John D. Wilburn (Federal Bar No. 16902) Stephen P. Mulligan (admitted pro hac vice) MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1800 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 712-5000 Facsimile: (703) 712-5281 jwilburn@mcguirewoods.com Jessica D. Fegan (Federal Bar No. 28660) MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2001 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-1728 Facsimile: (202) 828-3328 jfegan@mcguirewoods.com Counsel for Columbia Gas Transmission LLC Case 1:14-cv-00220-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/27/14 Page 7 of 8 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 27th day of June, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing Opposition to Motion for Additional Findings and Amended Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent a notice to the following: Carolyn Elefant LAW OFFICES OF CAROLYN ELEFANT 2200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Fourth Floor Washington, D.C. 20037 Counsel for Defendants Balama Farms, Inc., Kenneth Bosley, and Phyllis Bosley /s/ Jessica D. Fegan Jessica D. Fegan (Federal Bar No. 28660) MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2001 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-1728 Facsimile: (202) 828-3328 jfegan@mcguirewoods.com Counsel for Columbia Gas Transmission LLC Case 1:14-cv-00220-JFM Document 35 Filed 06/27/14 Page 8 of 8

“A judgment on partial findings must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c). III. ARGUMENT A. Innovatio Has Failed to Establish the Value of Any of the Patented Features The law is clear that a patent owner is entitled only to be compensated for the use of its own invention, rather than for non-infringing features or components.

It is therefore appropriate for the Court to amend that erroneous factual finding and reverse the judgment of eligibility, under Rule 52(b). See Golden Blount, 438 F.3d at 1358 (Rule 52(b) “provides the district court discretion to amend any of its own findings” and to “reverse the judgment”). Second, it would also be appropriate for the Court to strike this eligibility theory under Rule 59(e) because the theory is based on the clearly erroneous legal conclusion that the claims require “determin[ing] a washing program” objectively.

Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF/PSG GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.’S MOTION UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 52(c) Case 5:13-cv-04057-BLF Document 400 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 2 1 Gilead’s Motion Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c) Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF/PSG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 At the close of Defendants’ case-in-chief on Gilead’s equitable defenses of unclean hands and waiver, Gilead respectfully moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c) for judgment as a matter of law, for the reasons to be set forth during forthcoming argument at the Court’s earliest convenience, and in briefing to follow. Dated: March 30, 2016 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: /s/ Elizabeth M. Flanagan Elizabeth M. Flanagan Attorneys for Plaintiff GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). Standard respectfully requests the Court convert this briefing to a motion for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, and the hearing into a bench trial on the AR. A de novo standard of review applies in this case.