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.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Actavis Laboratories Fl., Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

August 2, 2019

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. and COSMO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Plaintiff,
v.
ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL., INC., ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., Defendants.

          Jack B. Blumenfeld and Michael Flynn, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE Thomas P. Steindler, William Rose, and Christopher M. Bruno, McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP, Washington, D.C. Counsel for Plaintiffs Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and Salix Pharmaceuticals Gray Frischling and Yite John Liu, IRELL & MANELLA, LLP, Los Angeles, CA Counsel for Plaintiff Cosmo Technologies

          John C. Phillips, Jr. and David A. Bilson, PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A., Wilmington, DE Elizabeth J. Holland, GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP, New York, NY Samuel Sherry, John T. Bennett, and Christie Larochelle, GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP, Boston, MA Counsel for Defendants Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiffs Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Cosmo Technology Ltd. ("Plaintiffs") filed suit against Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., Actavis Pharma Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. ("Defendants") on August 22, 2018, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10, 052, 286 (the '"286 patent"), 10, 064, 878 (the "'878 patent"), 10, 105, 374 (the "'374 Patent"), 10, 143, 698 (the "'698 Patent"), 10, 154, 964 (the "'964 Patent"), and 10, 172, 799 (the "'799 Patent") (collectively "the patents-in-suit"). (D.I. 1) These patents may be grouped into the "Villa I patents" (the '374, '878, and '698 patents) claiming priority to a 1999 application, [1] and the "Villa II patents" (the '286, '964, and '799 patents) claiming priority to a 2011 application. (D.I. 143 at 1 n.1) The Villa I and Villa II patents claim "controlled release budesonide formulations with a tablet core inside a gastro-resistant coating." (Id. at 6) Closely-related patents were the subject of litigation in Cosmo Technologies Limited et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC, CA. Nos. 16-164-LPS, 15-193-LPS (D. Del. 2017) ("Uceris I'). (Id. at 2) "All six patents [currently in-suit] share the same set of inventors and the same assignee, and their specifications contain identical disclosures of Cosmo's multi-matrix budesonide formulation" as the patents-in-suit in Uceris I (Id. at 8)

         The parties dispute whether the terms "matrix," "mixture," and "compressed blend" require a homogenous system, and whether the term "controls the release kinetics" excludes contribution from "physically discrete elements." Significantly, the parties contest the persuasiveness of the Court's Uceris I decision (construing similar terms) and certain post-allowance prosecution statements made by applicants following the Court's decision in Uceris I, finding non-infringement.

         Consolidated claim construction briefing was submitted on June 17, 2019, an amended version was filed on June 27, 2019 (D.L 143) ("CC"), and the Court held a claim construction hearing on July 2, 2019 (D.I. 147) ("Tr.").

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         The 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. 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.

         "[T]he 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).

         While "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).

         It is 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 should be read into the independent claim." SunRace Roots Enter. Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

         It is also possible that "the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. It bears emphasis that "[e]ven when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction." Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         In addition to the specification, a court "should also consider the patent's prosecution history, if it is in evidence." Marbnan v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The prosecution history, which is "intrinsic evidence," "consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the [Patent and Trademark Office] and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. "[T]he prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be." Id.

         "In some cases, ... the district court will need to look beyond the patent's intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period." Teva, 135 S.Ct. at 841. "Extrinsic evidence consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. For instance, technical dictionaries can assist the court in determining the meaning of a term to those of skill in the relevant art because such dictionaries "endeavor to collect the accepted meanings of terms used in various fields of science and technology." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. In addition, expert testimony can be useful "to ensure that the court's understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the pertinent field." Id. Nonetheless, courts must not lose sight of the fact that "expert reports and testimony [are] generated at the time of and for the purpose of litigation and thus can suffer from bias that is not present in intrinsic evidence." Id. Overall, while extrinsic evidence "may be useful to the court," it is "less reliable" than intrinsic evidence, and its consideration "is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence." Id. at 1318-19. Where the intrinsic record unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583).

         Finally, "[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction." 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) (quoting Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

         CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS

         1. "Matrix"[2]

Plaintiffs "a structure for controlling the release of an active ingredient that does not have layers"

Defendants "a homogeneous structure in all its volume"

Court "a homogeneous structure in all its volume"


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.