United States District Court, D. Delaware
INDIVIOR INC., INDIVIOR UK LIMITED, and MONOSOL RX, LLC, Plaintiffs,
MYLAN TECHNOLOGIES INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and MYLAN N.V., Defendants.
M. Attaway, Esq., WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Daniel A. Ladow, Esq. (argued), J.
Magnus Essunger, Esq., TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Atlanta,
Georgia; Jeffrey B. Elikan, Esq., COVINGTON & BURLING
LLP, Washington. D.C.; Cassandra A. Adams, Esq., STEPTOE
& JOHNSON LLP, New York, New York. Attorneys for
A. Palapura, Esq., POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; David M. Hanna, Esq., WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI, San Francisco, California. Elham
Firouzi Steiner, Esq. (argued), WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI, San Diego, California. Attorneys for Defendant.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
before me is the issue of claim construction of multiple
terms in U.S. Patent No. 8, 603, 514 (the '"514
Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8, 475, 832 (the
'"832 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8, 017, 150
(the '"150 Patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 8,
900, 497 (the '"497 Patent"). I have considered
the parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief. (D.I. 75). I
have issued two relevant orders since the filing of that
brief: the Stipulation Regarding Amended Joint Claim
Constructions (D.I. 82) and the Consent Decree and Final
Judgment Regarding the '832 Patent (D.I. 83), which
resolve disputes as to several terms. I held oral argument on
December 16, 2016. ("Tr.").
is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a
patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled
the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal
quotation marks omitted). '" [T]here is no magic
formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.'
Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight
to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and
policies that inform patent law.'" SoftView LLC
v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4,
2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324)
(alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a
court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent
specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370
(1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually,
it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315
(internal quotation marks omitted).
words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.... [Which is] the meaning that the term
would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
effective filing date of the patent application."
Id. at 1312-13 (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term
is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the
entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation
marks omitted). "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of
claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art
may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim
construction in such cases involves little more than the
application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
understood words." Id. at 1314.
court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent
claims, the specification, and the prosecution history-the
court's construction is a determination of law. See
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831,
841 (2015). The court may also make factual findings based
upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which
"consists of all evidence external to the patent and
prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1317-19. Extrinsic evidence may assist the court
in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of
terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.
Id. Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable
and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its
prosecution history. Id.
claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a
certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of
the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir.
1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that
would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct
interpretation." Osram GMBH v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
AGREED UPON CONSTRUCTIONS
parties agree to, and I adopt, the following construction of
"rapidly" (claim 1 of the '497 patent): plain
and ordinary meaning. (D.I. 75 at p. 2).
"further drying said visco-elastic film to form a
self-supporting edible film having a substantially uniform
distribution of said at least one active component (claim 1
of the '497 patent)
Plaintiffs 'proposed construction: the term
should be given its plain and ordinary meaning b.
Defendants' modified proposed construction:
further drying said visco-elastic film through a separate and
distinct drying step to form a self-supporting edible film
having a ...