United States District Court, D. Delaware
H. LUNDBECK A/S, et al., Plaintiffs,
APOTEX INC., et al, Defendants.
B. Blumenfeld and Megan E. Dellinger, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT
& TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE George F. Pappas, Einar
Stole, Christopher N. Sipes, Brianne Bharkhda, Priscilla G.
Dodson, Alaina Whitt, and Allison Schmitt, COVINGTON &
BURLING LLP, Washington, DC Yiye Fu, COVINGTON & BURLING
LLP, Palo Alto, CA Attorneys for Plaintiffs
E. Farnan and Nicole K. Pedi, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,
P.A., Wilmington, DE Bradley C. Graveline, SHEPPARD MULLIN
RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Chicago, IL Jesse A. Salen,
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, San Diego, CA
April E. Weisbruch, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
LLP, Washington, DC Attorneys for Alembic Pharmaceuticals
Limited, Alembic Global Holdings S/A, and Alembic
W. Poff and Pilar G. Kraman, YOUNG CON A WAY STARGATT &
TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, DE Dennies Varughese, Robert C.
Millonig, Daniel J. Ritterbeck, and Stephanie M. Nguyen,
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC
Attorneys for Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
L. Pascale and Robert M. Vrana, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE William L. Mentlik, Tedd W.Van
Burskirk, Aaron S. Eckenthal, LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP, Westfield, N.J. Attorneys for
Cipla Limited and Cipla USA Inc.
Kenneth L. Dorsney, MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE Richard
T. Ruzich, Stephen R. Auten, Ian Scott, and Philip Y.
Kouyoumdjian, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Chicago IL
Attorneys for Apotex Corp., Apotex Inc. and Apotex Research
Kenneth L. Dorsney, MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE Howard
S. Suh and Nicholas P. Chiara, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, New
York, NY Attorneys for Apicore U.S. LLC.
Geoffrey Grivner, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC,
Wilmington, DE Matthew L. Fedowitz, Erin M. Dunston, and
Mythili Markowski, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC,
Alexandria, VA Phillip L. Hirschhorn, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL
& ROONEY PC, New York, NY Attorneys for MSN Private
Laboratories Limited, MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and MSN
Pharmachem Private Limited.
E. Farnan and Sara M. Metzler, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,
P.A., Wilmington, DE B. Jefferson Boggs, MERCHANT & GOULD
PC, Alexandria, VA Christopher J. Sorenson, MERCHANT &
GOULD PC, Minneapolis, MN Attorneys for Macleods
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA, Inc.
Dominick T. Gattuso, HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLC,
Wilmington, DE Laura A. Lydigsen, Joshua E. Ney, and Judy K.
He, BRINKS GILSON & LIONE, Chicago, IL Attorneys for
Sandoz Inc. and Lek Pharmaceuticals d.d.
C. Phillips Jr., David A Bilson, and Megan C. Haney, PHILLIPS
GOLDMAN MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A., Wilmington, DE Paul A.
Braier, P. Branko Pejic, and Michael J. Fink, GREENBLUM &
BERNSTEIN, P.L.C., Reston, VA Attorneys for Unichem
G. Conolly III, CONNOLY GALLAGHER LLP, Wilmington, DE H.
Keeto Sabharwal, Ceric C.Y. Tan, and Yun Wei, PILLSBURY
WINTRHOP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Washington, DC Attorneys for
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc.
C. Phillips Jr, David A. Bilson, and Megan C. Haney, PHILLIPS
GOLDMAN MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A, Wilmington, DE Marc R.
Wezowski, Don J. Mizerk, and David A. Gerasimow, HUSCH
BLACKWELL LLP, Chicago, IL Thomas P. Heneghan, HUSCH
BLACKWELL LLP, Madison, WI Daisy Manning, HUSCH BLACKWELL
LLP, St. Louis, MO Attorneys for Sigmapharm Laboratories,
U.S. District Judge
brought this suit against Defendants asserting infringement
of U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 772684 (the '"684
patent"), 8, 969, 355 (the '"355 patent"),
9, 227, 946 (the '"946 patent"), and 9, 861,
630 (the '"630 patent") (the "Crystalline
Form Patents"), among others. Presently before the Court
is the issue of claim construction. The parties submitted technology
tutorials (D.I. 213, 214), objections to such technology
tutorials (D.I. 229, 231), claim construction briefs (D.I.
200, 201, 230, 232, 251, 253), exhibits (D.I. 201-1, 202-1,
230, 232, 251, 253), and expert declarations (D.I. 203, 204,
205, 206, 233). The Court held a claim construction hearing
on May 29, 2019, at which both sides presented oral argument.
(D.I. 263 ("Tr."))
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 Mar kman v.
Westview 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)
(citation and 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." Id.
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 also must 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 normally used
consistently throughout the patent." Id.
(internal citation omitted).
likewise true that "[differences among claims can also
be a useful guide .... For example, the presence of a
dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise
to a presumption that the limitation in question is not
present in the independent claim." Id. at
1314-15 (internal citation omitted). This "presumption
is especially strong when the limitation in dispute is the
only meaningful difference between an independent and
dependent claim, and one party is urging that the limitation
in the dependent claim ...