ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.

These consolidated cases arise out of Defendants' application with the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to manufacture and sell generic versions of a patented drug. Pending before the Court are the parties' respective Bills of Costs (ECF Nos. 531, 555).

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

These cases arise out of the alleged infringement of Plaintiff Ferring B.V.'s ("Ferring") U.S. Patent No. 7,947,739 for tranexamic acid tablets sold under the trademark Lysteda® (the "`739 Patent" or "Tablet Patent"), (see Compl. ¶¶ 13-17, July 7, 2011, ECF No. 1; Compl. ¶¶ 9-13, July 8, 2011, ECF No. 1 in Case No. 3:11-cv-00485), and the alleged infringement of Ferring's U.S. Patent No. 8,022,106 for tranexamic acid formulations and methods of treating menorrhagia therewith (the "`106 Patent" or "Formulas and Treatment Patent"), (see Compl. ¶¶ 13-17, Nov. 25, 2011, ECF No. 1 in Case No. 3:11-cv-00853; Compl. ¶¶ 9-13, Nov. 25, 2011, ECF No. 1 in Case No. 3:11-cv-00854).1 In the `481 and `485 Cases, respectively, Ferring sued several Watson Labs entities (collectively, "Watson Defendants") and several Apotex entities (collectively, "Apotex Defendants") in this Court for infringing the `739 Patent. In the `853 and `854 Cases, respectively, Ferring sued several Watson Defendants and several Apotex Defendants in this Court for infringing the `106 Patent.

The Court consolidated the four cases, with the `481 Case as the lead case. It also granted motions to dismiss the counterclaims for invalidity and to strike affirmative defenses for invalidity in the `481 and `854 Cases, with leave to amend. The Court ruled that affirmative defenses must specify a distinct legal theory of invalidity under Rule 8(c) but need not be pled according to the Iqbal plausibility standard, as the counterclaims must be under Rule 8(a). Watson Defendants and Apotex Defendants amended their answers and counterclaims, accordingly. (See ECF Nos. 93, 94). Apotex Defendants later further amended their answer and counterclaim. The Court denied motions to dismiss the amended counterclaims for invalidity. The Court held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction order. The Court held a bench trial and gave its findings of fact and conclusions of law from the bench. The Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff on its claims of infringement against Watson Defendants and against Watson Defendants on their counterclaims of invalidity. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the infringement claims but affirmed as to the invalidity counterclaims. Both parties have asked the Court for costs.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

"Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Where both parties have prevailed in part, the district court may require that they bear their own costs. See Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1996) ("In the event of a mixed judgment, however, it is within the discretion of a district court to require each party to bear its own costs."); Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. Am. Bowling & Billiard Corp., 150 F.2d 69, 74 (2d Cir. 1945) ("The court below denied costs to either side. On appeal, Brunswick has prevailed on the Clayton Act and trademark issues; American has prevailed on the question of the validity of the patent. We think it appropriate, therefore, that neither side be awarded the costs of the appeal and that the district judge's decision as to costs in the court below be affirmed.").

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff asks for over $365,000 in costs, and Watson Defendants ask for over $277,000. The Court adopts Plaintiff's alternative argument that this is a mixed-judgment case where the parties should bear their own costs. Watson Defendants prevailed against the infringement claims (although they amended their ANDA in the course of litigation, such that Plaintiff did achieve some small measure of success through its infringement claims), and Plaintiff prevailed against the invalidity counterclaims. Both victories were significant. Watson Defendants' loss on Plaintiff's infringement claims would have resulted in significant monetary damages and an injunction preventing future sales, and Plaintiff's loss on Watson Defendants' invalidity counterclaims would have resulted in increased competition against Plaintiff's patented products by Watson Defendants and others, resulting in lost sales and reduced prices as to its remaining market share. The Court in its discretion will award costs to neither party.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Bills of Costs (ECF Nos. 531, 555) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.