United States District Court, D. Delaware
UCB, INC., UCB MANUFACTURING IRELAND LIMITED, UCM PHARMA GMBH and LTS LOHMANN THERAPIE-STSTEME AG, Plaintiffs,
ZYDUS WORLDWIDE DMCC and CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD, d/b/a/ ZYDUS CADILA, Defendants.
B. Blumenfeld, Maryellen Noreika, Derek J. Fahnestock,
Eleanor G. Tennyson, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
LLP, Wilmington, DE
S. Trainor, Jr., Kevin X. McGann, Silvia Medina, WHITE &
CASE LLP, New York, NY
C. Richardson, Traci Medford-Rosow, RICHARSON & ROSOW
LLC, New York, NY Attorneys for Plaintiffs
C. Phillips, Jr., Megan C. Haney, David A. Bilson, PHILLIPS
GOLDMAN MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A., Wilmington, DE
Michael J. Gaertner, James T. Peterka, Andy J. Miller, Nina
Vachhani, Jennifer M. Coronel, LOCKE LORD LLP, Chicago, IL
L. Wayda, Paul B. Sudentas, LOCKE LORD LLP, New York, NY
Attorneys for Defendants
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
UCB, Inc., UCB Manufacturing Ireland, Limited, UCB Pharma
GmbH, and LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG (collectively,
"Plaintiffs" or "UCB") filed suit against
Defendants Zydus Worldwide DMCC and Cadila Healthcare Ltd.,
d/b/a Zydus Cadila (collectively, "Defendants" or
"Zydus"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
6, 884, 434, 8, 617, 591, and 8, 246, 979.
before the Court is the issue of claim construction. Lhe
parties dispute only one term appearing in the '434
patent. Lhe '434 patent describes and claims transdermal
therapeutic systems to treat symptoms of Parkinson's
disease. See '434 Patent at 1:9-27.
parties submitted briefs (see D.I. 96, 99, 105, 107)
and the Court held a claim construction hearing on April 5,
2018. (See D.I. 127
ultimate question of the proper construction of a patent is a
question of law. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz,
Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 837 (2015) (citing Markman v.
Weshiew Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388-91 (1996)).
"It 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) (internal
quotation marks omitted). "[T]here is no magic formula
or catechism for conducting claim construction."
Id. at 1324. Instead, the court is free to attach
the appropriate weight to appropriate sources "in light
of the statutes and policies that inform patent law."
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 (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a claim term
is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the
entire patent." Id. at 1321 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The patent 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." Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
"the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as
to the meaning of particular claim terms, " the context
of the surrounding words of the claim must also be
considered. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Furthermore,
"[o]ther claims of the patent in question, both asserted
and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of
enlightenment. . . [b]ecause claim terms are ...