Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

April 17, 2018

ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., Plaintiff,
v.
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          HON. LEONARD P. STARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 150) on November 30, 2017, recommending that the Court adopt certain claim constructions for disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 9, 662, 398 ('"398 patent");

         WHEREAS, on December 14, 2017, Alcon Research, Ltd. ("Alcon") objected to the Report (D.I. 152), specifically objecting to the recommended constructions of "native guar, " "nepafenac, " and "a galactomannan at a concentration of 0.1 to 0.4 w/v %, said galactomannan selected from the group consisting of guar, native guar, and hydroxypropyl guar;"

         WHEREAS, on December 28, 2017, Watson Laboratories, Inc. ("Watson") responded to Alcon's objections (D.I. 155);

         WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, Alcon filed a reply to Watson's response (D.I. 162);

         WHEREAS, on February 19, 2018, Watson filed a surreply to Alcon's reply (D.I. 163);

         WHEREAS, on February 26, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the objections (see D.I. 168) ("Tr.");

         WHEREAS, the Court has considered the parties' claim construction disputes addressed in the Report de novo, see St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 691 F.Supp.2d 538, 541-42 (D. Del. 2010); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3);

         NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Alcon's objections (D.I. 152) to the Report's construction of the aforementioned terms are SUSTAINED. The constructions set forth in the Report (D.I. 150) are NOT adopted. The Court construes the disputed terms as follows:

A. "Native guar, " as used in claims 1, 13, 14, 21, and 32, is construed to mean "naturally occurring guar, including such guar which has been processed to make it suitable for ophthalmic pharmaceutical use, so long as such guar also lacks the kind of chemical substitutions of the galactose and mannose groups of its galacatomannan polysaccharides discussed in the '398 patent at col. 4 ll. 1-7."
B. "Nepafenac, " as used in claims 1, 13-15, and 32, is construed to mean "a known compound having the formula C15H14N2O2 and having the following structure:
(Image Omitted)
C. "A galactomannan at a concentration of 0.1 to 0.4 w/v %, said galactomannan selected from the group consisting of guar, native guar, and hydroxypropyl guar, " as used in claim 1, is construed to mean "guar, native guar, or hydroxypropyl guar ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.