For the reasons set out above, the Court finds that they do. Cf. IGI Labs., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt LLC, Civil Action No. 13-2044-RGA, 2014 WL 1652790, at *1-2 (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2014) (denying a motion to dismiss induced infringement counterclaims, where the patents at issue covered "using diclofenac for treating osteoarthritis of the knee via applying the diclofenac, waiting for it to dry, and applying either a second medication, sunscreen or insect repellant" and the plaintiff's label "instructs the reader to '[w]ait until the treated area is dry before applying sunscreen, insect repell[e]nt, lotion, moisturizer, cosmetics, or other topical medication'"); Bone Care Int'l, 2012 WL 2126896, at *11 (finding that a labeling instruction to administer a drug "for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism ['SHPT'] in patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis" would induce infringement of a patent claiming use of the drug for both treatment of SHPT and end stage renal disease, because a majority of patients with end stage renal disease have SHPT).

35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). The court in IGI Laboratories, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt LLC, 2014 WL 1652790 (D. Del. April 22, 2014), in addressing counterclaims under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), described this section "as creating a highly artificial act of infringement . . . so that courts could promptly resolve infringement and validity disputes before the ANDA applicant had engaged in the traditional statutorily defined act of infringement." Id. at *1 (citing AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. Apotex Corp., 669 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).