Gen-Probe Incorporated v. Becton Dickinson and Company
Filing
186
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/15/2011.(knb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEN-PROBE INCORPORATED,
CASE NO. 09cv2319 BEN (NLS)
12
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
13
Plaintiff,
vs.
BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
14
Defendant.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court for claim construction. The parties have filed opening and
17
responsive claim construction briefs and the Court held a claim construction hearing. The parties,
18
Gen-Probe, Inc. (“Gen-Probe”) and Becton Dickinson and Company (“BD”) seek construction of
19
fifteen terms with regard to the Automation Patents and eight terms with regard to the Cap Patents.1
20
Having considered the parties briefing and oral argument, the Court construes the terms as follows.
21
BACKGROUND2
22
The five Automation Patents3 at issue in this action result from the development of a single
23
automated instrument to detect a target nucleic acid indicative of the presence of a target pathogen
24
1
25
26
27
28
The parties have paired or grouped some terms for purposes of analysis. Where appropriate,
the Court has followed that approach for ease in analyzing the claim terms.
2
The Court’s description of the scientific background is limited to that necessary to provide
context for claim construction without outlining in detail every step of the nucleic acid-based
diagnostic assay.
3
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,118,892 (the ’892 Patent), 7,560,255 (the ’255 Patent), 7,482,143 (the ’143
Patent), 7,560,256 (the ’256 Patent), and 7,542,652 (the ’652 Patent).
-1-
09cv2319
1
within a sample. The two Penetrable Cap Patents,4 also at issue in this case, describe a specimen
2
collection vessel that allows the contents of the vessel to be sampled by an automated device.
3
Gen-Probe’s automated instrument, TIGRIS® Instrument System, was launched in 2003 for the
4
detection of two viruses and later approved for use in the detection of additional viruses. In this action,
5
Gen-Probe accuses BD of infringing claims of the Automation Patents through the use and sale of the
6
VIPER XTR and BD Max, BD’s automated nucleic acid test instruments.
7
The Automation Patents describe an automated method of nucleic acid-based testing, a method
8
for detecting the presence of a particular pathogen in a sample. Nucleic acid-based testing involves
9
the creation of a complementary nucleotide sequence that a target pathogen will bind to through
10
complementary base pairing. The complementary nucleotide sequence is used as a probe. The probe
11
is introduced to a sample that may contain the target nucleic acid. If the target binds to the probe, it
12
indicates the target nucleic acid is present in the sample.
13
As explained in the Automation Patents, the performance of this process manually has
14
disadvantages, including human error, carryover contamination, and cross contamination. The
15
Automation Patents automate the steps of this process in a single instrument. Receptacles are moved
16
using transport mechanisms between locations of a processing deck where various steps of the assay
17
are performed. The Cap Patents use a seal or seals on a collection vessel that are penetrated by a fluid
18
transfer device. The seal or seals, in conjunction with the core structure, are intended to prevent the
19
release of aerosols from the sample and limit contamination from fluid on the fluid transfer device
20
after removal.
21
22
23
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to
24
which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
25
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts determine the meaning of disputed
26
claim terms from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent is
27
filed. Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “[T]he
28
4
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,893,612 (the ’612 Patent) and 7,294,308 (the ’308 Patent).
-2-
09cv2319
1
person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the
2
particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
3
including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “Because the meaning of a claim term as
4
understood by persons of skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because patentees
5
frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to ‘those sources available to the public that
6
show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.’”
7
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
8
381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Those sources include ‘the words of the claims
9
themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence
10
concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”
11
Id. (citing Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116).
12
Claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415
13
F.3d at 1312 (internal quotation marks omitted). When construing claim terms, the court should
14
first look to sources in the intrinsic record. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
15
1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). First, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the
16
meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Second, the claims “must be read
17
in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Id. at 1315 (internal quotation marks
18
omitted). The specification is usually “dispositive,” as “it is the single best guide to the meaning of
19
a disputed term.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, the court should consider the
20
patent’s prosecution history, which is the record of proceedings before the Patent and Trademark
21
Office (“PTO”) and includes the prior art cited during the patent examination. Id. at 1317.
22
However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and
23
the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
24
specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id.
25
If the intrinsic evidence resolves the ambiguity in the disputed claim terms, then “it is
26
improper to rely on extrinsic evidence.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. If ambiguities in the claim
27
terms remain, however, courts may consider extrinsic evidence. Id. at 1584. Extrinsic evidence
28
includes expert testimony, inventor testimony, dictionaries, and scientific treatises. Phillips, 415
-3-
09cv2319
1
F.3d at 1317.
2
II.
Automation Patents
3
The Court notes that the disputed claim terms appear across the five Automation Patents at
4
issue in this case and in numerous claims. However, the parties agree that the disputed terms have
5
common meanings across the different patents and claims. Because the claim terms appear across
6
numerous patents and in multiple claims, the Court incorporates the parties’ joint claim
7
construction chart that identifies the specific intrinsic evidence in each of the implicated patents
8
that is relevant to the disputed term rather than reciting each instance of support. The Court’s
9
references to particular language in one patent is not intended to be to the exclusion of other
10
intrinsic evidence in additional patents.
11
Because the disputed claim terms appear across numerous claims and patents, the parties
12
provided exemplary claims in which the disputed terms appear. The Court includes those
13
exemplary claims for each disputed claim term before discussion of each, but does not exclusively
14
rely on the patents from which the exemplary claims are drawn.
15
A.
16
“process comprising the automated steps” and “process comprising
performing the automated steps” and “process comprising performing . . . the .
. . automated steps”
17
A process for detecting the presence of a target nucleic acid in a sample
containing the target nucleic acid, the process comprising the automated steps
of: (’256 Patent, Claim 1.)
18
19
A process for detecting the presence of a target nucleic acid in a sample
containing the target nucleic acid, the process comprising performing the
automated steps of: (’652 Patent, Claim 1.)
20
21
A process for preparing and amplifying a target sequence contained within a
target nucleic acid present in a fluid sample, the process comprising
performing in a stand-alone unit the ordered and automated steps of: (’892
Patent, Claim 1.)
22
23
.
24
Gen-Probe proposes that the “process comprising the automated steps” means “the steps of
25
the claimed process are performed by a machine that, once set up and initialized, requires little or
26
no operator intervention.” BD proposes that “process comprising the automated steps” means that
27
“each individual step of the claimed process is performed without human intervention, but the
28
claim does not preclude human intervention between steps.” Gen-Probe relies primarily on the
-4-
09cv2319
1
specification and BD relies exclusively on the use of the word “comprising.” The Court adopts
2
Gen-Probe’s construction.
3
BD argues that because the word “comprising” is an open-ended term, it does not foreclose
4
the addition of elements or steps, including human intervention between steps. However, this
5
construction specifically adds the potential for human intervention between steps, a reading
6
completely contrary to the specification. This is problematic in two respect. First, the language
7
BD proposes, “human intervention between steps,” does not originate from the claims,
8
specification, or prosecution history. Rather, it is simply an allowance for inclusion of the opposite
9
of an automated process — human intervention between automated steps. Second, BD’s proposed
10
construction contradicts the specification. The specification identifies problems with manual
11
performance of the steps of a nucleic-based assay, including practitioner error, pathogen exposure,
12
and cross contamination. (’892 Patent 4:5-9.) The specification then goes on to explain that these
13
problems are addressed by the invention, described as an automated clinical analyzer. (’892 Patent
14
4:30-39, 45-47.) BD’s proposed construction is improper because it conflicts with the description
15
of the invention in the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (“[C]laims must be construed
16
so as to be consistent with the specification.”).
17
Gen-Probe’s proposed construction is drawn from language in the specification and is
18
consistent with the purpose described in the specification. Gen-Probe’s proposed construction —
19
“the steps of the claimed process are performed by a machine that, once set up and initialized,
20
requires little or no operator intervention” — tracks language from the specification that provides
21
that “once the analyzer . . . is set-up and initialized, it ordinarily requires little or no operator
22
assistance or intervention.” (’892 Patent 60:61-61.) Additionally, the portion of the proposed
23
construction that indicates that the process is “performed by a machine” is consistent with the
24
specification language discussed above that describes the invention as an “automated clinical
25
analyzer.” (’892 Patent 4:45-47.) Finally, Gen-Probe’s proposed construction does not conflict
26
with the use of the word “comprising” in the claim. While “comprising” is an open-ended term
27
allowing for the addition of other elements, Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 502
28
(Fed. Cir. 2007), Gen-Probe’s proposed construction is not closed because it allows for manual set-5-
09cv2319
1
up and limited operator intervention as described in the specification. See CollegeNet, Inc. v.
2
ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming construction that allowed for
3
manual set up of an automatic process with a claim that used the word “comprising”). Because
4
Gen-Probe’s proposed construction is drawn from and consistent with the specification, the Court
5
adopts Gen-Probe’s proposed construction. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he specification is
6
always relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best
7
guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”).
8
B.
9
The process of claim 1, wherein steps a)-f) are performed within a standalone unit. (’256 Patent, Claim 9.)
“stand alone unit” and “self-contained analyzer”
10
11
12
(d) detecting the amplification product of step (c) as an indication of the
presence of the target nucleic acid in the sample, wherein the steps of the
process are performed in a self-contained analyzer. (’652 Patent, Claim 1.)
13
Gen-Probe proposes that “stand alone unit” and “self-contained analyzer” mean “a single
14
unit/analyzer in which all the steps are performed within a shared, open environment.” BD
15
proposes that “stand alone unit” and “self-contained analyzer” mean “a single system that
16
integrates and coordinates the operation of various automated stations for performing the steps of a
17
diagnostic assay.”5 Gen-Probe relies on a overall vision of the invention drawn from the
18
specification and file history distinguishing prior art. BD relies on the description of the invention
19
in the summary of the invention section of the specification. The Court adopts the following
20
construction “a single system that integrates and coordinates the operation of various automated
21
stations or modules for performing the steps of a diagnostic assay.”
22
Gen-Probe argues that “stand-alone unit” and “self-contained analyzer” must possess
23
everything within it necessary to perform the assay because the specification describes the
24
automated clinical analyzer as “preferably a self-contained, stand alone unit” with “[a]ssay
25
specimen materials and reaction receptacles, as well as the various solutions, reagents, and other
26
materials used in performing the assay . . . preferably stored within the analyzer.” (’892 Patent
27
28
5
BD initially did not propose to construe either term, but in response to Gen-Probe’s proposed
construction, BD proposed the above construction.
-6-
09cv2319
1
4:52-58.) But, Gen-Probe goes on to argue that “stand-alone unit” and self-contained analyzer”
2
must also be “a shared, open environment.” This language, or even a description similar to
3
“shared, open environment,” does not appear anywhere in the specification or file history. Rather,
4
Gen-Probe relies on claims that explain various steps occurring at particular stations or target
5
nucleic acids being transferred from one station to another within something. Gen-Probe suggests
6
these steps must necessarily occur “within a shared, open environment.” Additionally, Gen-Probe
7
relies on the file histories, emphasizing that prior art prescribed physical separation of the steps.
8
While the Court agrees that “stand-alone unit” and “self-contained analyzer” describe something
9
that preferably contains all the steps of the assay within itself, there is little support for the vague
10
and ambiguous “shared, open environment” language chosen by Gen-Probe.6
11
BD’s proposed construction tracks language in the summary of the invention section of the
12
specification that describes the analyzer. The specification states that the “analyzer integrates and
13
coordinates the operation of various automated stations, or modules, involved in performing one or
14
more assays [and the] analyzer is preferably a self-contained, stand alone unit.” (’892 Patent 4:48-
15
52.) BD’s proposed construction is more closely aligned with the description of the invention in
16
the specification, although the construction BD offers does not justify using only “automated
17
stations” to the exclusion of “modules.” Accordingly, the Court adopts the following construction:
18
“a single system that integrates and coordinates the operation of various automated stations or
19
modules for performing the steps of a diagnostic assay.”
20
C.
“the target nucleic acid immobilized in step a)” and “the separated target
nucleic acid”
21
22
23
24
25
c) transferring the target nucleic acid immobilized in step a) from the first
station to a second station using a rotatable transport mechanism (’256 Patent,
Claim 1.)
(d) moving a solution comprising the separated target nucleic acid to a
second station of the analyzer; (d) in an incubator of the second station,
subjecting the separated target nucleic acid to an amplification procedure and
forming an amplification product (’255 Patent, Claim 1.)
26
27
6
28
While there is minimal support for this particular language, the language does not conflict with
the inventor’s description, as advanced by BD. Rather, there is simply no support for adding this
vague description of the unit/analyzer.
-7-
09cv2319
1
Gen-Probe proposes that “the target nucleic acid immobilized in step a)” means “at least
2
one target nucleic acid immobilized in step a)” and “the separated target nucleic acid” means “at
3
least one target nucleic acid immobilized in step c).” BD proposes that “the target nucleic acid
4
immobilized in step a)” means “all (or substantially all) of the target nucleic acid immobilized
5
during step a)” and “the separated target nucleic acid” means “all of the separated target nucleic
6
acid that was separated in step c).” Because Gen-Probe’s construction follows from the plain
7
language of the claim and BD’s construction draws primarily from extrinsic evidence, the Court
8
adopts Gen-Probe’s construction. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“The construction that stays true
9
to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will
10
11
be, in the end, the correct construction.”).
The parties essentially dispute whether “the” means “at least one” or “all (substantially
12
all).” BD argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would read “the” to mean an entire group
13
of nucleic acid molecules and encompass all or substantially all of the target nucleic acid.
14
Specifically, with regard to “the separated target nucleic acid,” BD argues “the” includes the
15
entirety of the immobilized target nucleic acid present. BD’s proposed construction is based on
16
particularizing “the” to a population of target nucleic acids. The Court agrees that “‘the’
17
particularizes the subject which it precedes.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d
18
1282, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 1356
19
(Fed. Cir. 2003)). However, BD’s characterization is based on a misinterpretation of extrinsic
20
evidence — Dr. Fred Kramer’s deposition testimony — and is not supported by the specification.
21
Gen-Probe’s proposed construction follows from the plain language of the claims and
22
specification because the indefinite article “a” in the preambles for each of the Automation Patents
23
means one or more and that meaning carries through to subsequent uses of the term in the claims
24
with “the” preceding the term. Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1343
25
(Fed. Cir. 2008); see also NTP, Inc., 418 F.3d at 1306. The claim preambles describe either “a
26
process for preparing and amplifying a target sequence contained within a target nucleic acid” or
27
“a process for detecting the presence of a target nucleic acid in a sample.” (’892 Patent, Claim 1,
28
15, 24; ’255 Patent, Claim 1, 18; ’143 Patent, Claim 1, 11; ’256 Patent, Claim 1, 13; ’652 Patent,
-8-
09cv2319
1
Claims 1, 9.) (emphasis added).) The “a” preceding “target nucleic acid” in the preambles means
2
“at least one.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Under
3
this conventional rule, the claim limitation ‘a,’ without more, requires at least one.”). The claims
4
go on to refer to “the target nucleic acid” and “the separated target nucleic acid.” (’892 Patent,
5
Claim 1, 15, 24; ’255 Patent, Claim 1, 18; ’143 Patent, Claim 1, 11; ’256 Patent, Claim 1, 13; ’652
6
Patent, Claims 1, 9.) (emphasis added). Gen-Probe’s proposed construction results from carrying
7
through the same general plurality from the first use of the term with “a” to the later use of the term
8
with “the.” See Baldwin, 512 F.3d at 1343. Applying this general rule of construction the Court
9
adopts Gen-Probe’s proposed constructions: “the target nucleic acid immobilized in step a)” means
10
“at least one target nucleic acid immobilized in step a)” and “the separated target nucleic acid”
11
means “at least one target nucleic acid immobilized in step c).”
12
D.
13
b) separating other material present in the fluid sample from the target
nucleic acid immobilized in step a)
“other material”
14
15
Gen-Probe proposes that “other material” means “material not immobilized on the solid
16
support.” BD proposes that “other material” means “all (or substantially all) material that is not
17
the target nucleic acid.” Gen-Probe primarily relies on the specification, particularly the preferred
18
embodiment, and BD primarily relies on extrinsic evidence from Gen-Probe’s expert and a video
19
shown to the Patent Examiner after the specification was filed.
20
The parties do not dispute that the purpose of this separation step is to remove much of the
21
non-target material and leave behind an immobilized target nucleic acid. However, as Gen-Probe
22
accurately notes, BD’s proposed construction, to separate “all (or substantially all) material that is
23
not the target nucleic acid” compels an almost perfect separation that is not required by the claims
24
or the specification. This proposed construction requires not only removing everything that is not
25
the target nucleic acid, but also keeping all the target nucleic acid. The claims and specification
26
simply do not require this. Rather, the claims only require immobilization of the target nucleic
27
acid on a solid support. It does not require immobilization of all the nucleic acid nor does it
28
preclude removal of some of the target nucleic acid.
-9-
09cv2319
1
Moreover, as BD conceded during the claim construction hearing, this very absolute
2
language is not drawn from the claims or specification. BD relies instead on Gen-Probe’s expert’s
3
deposition testimony and a promotional video shown to the Patent Examiner after the Automation
4
Patent specification was filed with the PTO. Neither is an ideal source of support for BD’s
5
proposed construction and neither compels the complete separation BD proposes when the claims
6
and specification do not require it. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-18 (finding extrinsic evidence
7
less significant than the intrinsic record and noting that the prosecution history is less useful than
8
the specification for claim construction purposes). While Dr. Kramer indicates in his deposition
9
that the purpose of the wash step is to remove as much of the non-target nucleic acid as possible,
10
removing as much of the non-target material as possible is not the same as removing “all (or
11
substantially all)” non-target material and leaving all the target nucleic acid. Similarly, the video
12
BD relies on describes the ideal — removal of inhibitors and leaving behind only target nucleic
13
acid — but it does not preclude the removal of some target nucleic acid.
14
Gen-Probe’s proposed construction, “material not immobilized on the solid support,” is
15
also more consistent with the claim language and conforms to the specification. In describing the
16
separation step, the specification indicates that “[t]he remaining material within the receptacle
17
vessels should be substantially unaffected, thereby isolating the target nucleic acid.” (’892 Patent
18
42:6-8.) The use of “substantially” accounts for some non-target material binding to the solid
19
support. Additionally, the specification provides for repetition of additional wash cycles. (’892
20
Patent 43:32-38.) The Court adopts Gen-Probe’s proposed construction and finds that “other
21
material” means “material immobilized on the solid support.”
22
E.
23
24
d) amplifying the target sequence in a receptacle containing the target nucleic
acid and amplification reagents provided thereto, the receptacle being formed
to have an open top end and a closed bottom end (’892 Patent, Claim 1.)
25
Gen-Probe proposes that “receptacle” means “a vessel formed with a closed end and an
26
open end, for receiving and holding material.” BD proposes that “receptacle” means “a vessel
27
capable of receiving and holding material.” Gen-Probe primarily relies on the prosecution history
28
in which the PTO allowed deletion of “closed end” without changing the scope of the claims
“receptacle”
- 10 -
09cv2319
1
because it was an inherent feature. BD argues Gen-Probe’s inclusion of “closed end and an open
2
end” renders language in Claim 1 of the ’892 patent superfluous. The Court adopts Gen-Probe’s
3
proposed construction.
4
The only difference between the parties’ proposed constructions is Gen-Probe’s addition of
5
the requirement that the receptacle have an open end and a closed end. This construction is
6
supported by the file history and does not render any claim language superfluous. The PTO
7
accepted the deletion of “closed end” from the description of receptacle without limiting the scope
8
of the claim because it was an inherent feature of a receptacle (’255 Patent File History, 10/19/07
9
Request for Continued Examination at 13.) And it necessarily follows that if it has a closed end, it
10
must have an open end if it is going to receive and hold anything, as the parties agree that it must.
11
Additionally, this construction does not make the language of Claim 1 of the ’892 Patent
12
superfluous because there is a difference. Gen-Probe’s proposed construction is “a vessel formed
13
with a closed end and an open end . . . ,” while Claim 1 of the ’892 patent specifies that the
14
receptacle have an “open top end and a closed bottom end.” Because Gen-Probe’s proposed
15
construction is supported by the file history and does not render any claim language superfluous,
16
the Court finds that receptacle means “a vessel, formed with a closed end and an open end, for
17
receiving and holding material.”
18
F.
19
The process of claim 1, wherein the solution is formed in a reaction
receptacle (’255 Patent, Claim 6.)
“reaction receptacle”
20
Gen-Probe proposes that “reaction receptacle” means “a receptacle in which a chemical
21
22
reaction occurs.” BD proposes that “reaction receptacle” means “a vessel in which each reaction
23
of the diagnostic assay is performed.” Both the proposed constructions are consistent with the
24
specification, but BD’s proposed construction limits the claim to the only embodiment described in
25
the specification. Specifically, BD’s construction would require the use of a single receptacle in
26
which all the reactions are performed without the sample ever leaving the receptacle. The Court
27
adopts BD’s proposed construction.
28
///
- 11 -
09cv2319
1
Much of the parties’ dispute as to this term centers around whether claims can be limited to
2
a single preferred embodiment. The Court is mindful that claims cannot be limited to a preferred
3
embodiment in the specification if the claims are clearly broader than that embodiment. Liebel-
4
Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In Liebel-Flarsheim v.
5
Medrad, the Federal Circuit addressed the two competing rules of construction, “twin axioms,”
6
that the Court faces in determining if the claims should be limited to the embodiment described in
7
the specification. Id. at 904. “On the one hand, claims must be read in view of the specification,
8
of which they are a part. On the other hand, it is improper to read a limitation from the
9
specification into the claims.” Id. Here, the Court faces “the fine line between reading a claim in
10
light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the specification,” with BD
11
advocating the former and Gen-Probe protesting the latter. Id. Even when the preferred
12
embodiment is the only embodiment, the claims are not limited to that embodiment. Id. at 907
13
(discussing Wang Labs., Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1999) and
14
finding that Wang “does not stand for the proposition that if a patent specification describes only a
15
particular embodiment, the claims must be limited to that subject matter”).
16
To adopt Gen-Probe’s proposed construction, the Court would have to completely ignore
17
the specification that describes a reaction receptacle as the place where the steps of the diagnostic
18
assay occur and disregard claim language consistent with this description. While the claims are not
19
as detailed as the specification, the claims are not clearly broader than the preferred embodiment
20
described in the specification. As BD notes, some steps outlined in the claim suggest the steps of
21
the assay all occur in a reaction receptacle, including “forming a solution comprising the separated
22
target nucleic acid and amplification reagent in a reaction receptacle,” “moving the reaction
23
receptacle to a second station,” and “amplifying the target sequence in a receptacle.” (’255 Patent,
24
Claim 18; ’892 Patent, Claims 1 and 24.)
25
Additionally, the specification supports BD’s proposed construction. The summary of the
26
invention section of the specification explains that reaction receptacles are picked up and retrieved
27
by a transport mechanism that “transports the reaction receptacles between the stations of the
28
analyzer.” (’892 Patent 4:62-66.) The specification describes the reactions of the assay being
- 12 -
09cv2319
1
performed by moving a receptacle through the analyzer to the various stations where specimens or
2
reagents are added, the contents of the receptacles are subject to separation, and ascertaining the
3
results of the assay by observing the amount of light emitted from the receptacle. (’892 Patent 5:1-
4
30.) The transport mechanism is described as moving a reaction receptacle between locations on
5
the processing deck “during the performance of an assay within the reaction receptacle.” (’256
6
Patent 12:14-19.) The specification even specifically notes the steps of the assay can be performed
7
on multiple reaction receptacles, suggesting that all the steps are performed in the receptacle.
8
(’892 Patent 4:30-35.) Because the claims are not clearly broader than the embodiment described
9
and the specification supports BD’s construction, the Court adopts BD’s proposed construction. A
10
“reaction receptacle” means “a vessel in which each reaction of the diagnostic assay is performed.”
11
G.
“Amplifying the target sequence in a . . . receptacle containing the target
nucleic acid and amplification reagents provided thereto”7
12
13
d) amplifying the target sequence in a receptacle containing the target nucleic
acid and amplification reagents provided thereto (’892 Patent, Claim 1.)
14
15
Gen-Probe proposes that “Amplifying the target sequence in a . . . receptacle containing the
16
target nucleic acid and amplification reagents provided thereto” means “amplifying the target
17
sequence in a receptacle to which the target nucleic acid and amplification reagents have been
18
provided.” BD proposes that “[amplification reagents] provided thereto” means “added to the
19
receptacle in which the target nucleic acid was already present.” The parties dispute whether the
20
target nucleic acid and amplification reagents are provided to the receptacle in a particular order.
21
Gen-Probe argues that the target nucleic acid and amplification reagents can be combined in the
22
receptacle in no particular order. BD argues that the amplification reagents must be added to the
23
target nucleic acid in the receptacle. The Court adopts BD’s construction because it is consistent
24
with the claim language.
25
26
BD’s construction is certainly more consistent with the description in the specification, but
as discussed above, the Court cannot import limitations from the preferred embodiment into the
27
28
7
Gen-Probe seeks construction of the entire phrase, while BD focuses only on “provided
thereto.”
- 13 -
09cv2319
1
claims when the claims themselves are clearly broader. Kara Tech., Inc. v. Stamps.com, Inc., 582
2
F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a single embodiment “is not enough . . . to limit the patentee’s
3
clear broader claims.”). However, the claim language itself is not as broad as Gen-Probe suggests
4
and the language of the claims supports BD’s proposed construction. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
5
1313-14 (finding that “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of
6
particular claim terms” and “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly
7
instructive”).
8
9
The claim language describes a series of steps that can generally be summarized as:
immobilizing the target nucleic acid on a solid support; separating other material from the target
10
nucleic acid; and washing the solid support. These steps are followed by “d) amplifying the target
11
sequence in a receptacle containing the target nucleic acid and amplification reagents provided
12
thereto, the receptacle being formed to have an open top end and a closed bottom end . . .” (’892
13
Patent, Claim 1.) Gen-Probe’s assertion that the amplification reagents and target nucleic acid can
14
be combined in the receptacle in any order is not consistent with the claim language because the
15
claim language indicates that the target nucleic acid is already present, having been prepared for
16
amplification through the prior three steps.
17
Additionally, Gen-Probes’s proposed construction essentially reads “provided thereto” out
18
of the claim. Gen-Probe’s interpretation would more reasonably follow from the language of the
19
claim without “provided thereto” because it would read, “amplifying the target sequence in a
20
receptacle containing the target nucleic acid and amplification reagents.”
21
Finally, the file history also weighs against Gen-Probe’s proposed interpretation because its
22
proposed construction follows from language that was eliminated and replaced by the above claim
23
language during examination. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex Sys. v. BENQ America Corp., 533
24
F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“While there are times that the prosecution history lacks the
25
clarity of other intrinsic sources, the prosecution history may be given substantial weight in
26
construing a term where that term was added by amendment.”). During examination, the patent
27
examiner suggested and Gen-Probe accepted substituting the above claim language for the phrase,
28
“after step c) combining together in a receptacle the target nucleic acid and reagents under
- 14 -
09cv2319
1
conditions sufficient to amplify the target sequence.” (’892 Patent File History, 08/01/06 Notice of
2
Allowability at 2.) This broader language comes much closer to Gen-Probe’s suggestion that the
3
target nucleic acid and amplification reagents can be combined in any order, but that language was
4
eliminated.
5
As discussed above, the claim language and steps outlined suggest that the target nucleic
6
acid is present, having been the subject of two prior steps, and the amplification reagents are
7
provided to the target nucleic acid for amplification. The Court adopts BD’s proposed
8
construction: “provided thereto” means “added to the receptacle in which the target nucleic acid
9
was already present.”
10
H.
11
a) at a first station, immobilizing the target nucleic acid on a magnetically
responsive particle (’256 Patent, Claim 1.)
“station”
12
13
Gen-Probe proposes that “station” means “a location integrated and coordinated with one
14
or more other locations within a shared, open environment to perform one or more assays.” BD
15
proposes that “station” means “a separately housed module capable of receiving a reaction
16
receptacle.” Gen-Probe relies on the use of the term in the claims, specification, and prosecution
17
history in arguing that stations are merely locations within the automated clinical analyzer and
18
draws part of its proposed construction language from the description in the summary of the
19
invention section of the specification. BD also relies on the specification and argues that the term
20
is always used to refer to a separately housed physical module that receives a reaction receptacle.
21
The Court adopts the following construction: “a location integrated and coordinated with one or
22
more other locations to perform one or more assays.”
23
BD’s proposed construction is based primarily on the uses of term in the specification to
24
describe separately housed modules on the processing deck and the interchangeability of the terms
25
station and module, justifying defining a station as a module. The Court agrees that station is used
26
throughout the specification to describe locations that are often covered by a separate housing and
27
capable of receiving a reaction receptacle. But, adopting BD’s proposed construction requires that
28
every station described in the specification be a separately housed module that is capable of
- 15 -
09cv2319
1
receiving a reaction receptacle. That is not the case. As Gen-Probe notes, there are at least two
2
places in the specification where BD’s proposed construction of station conflicts with the
3
description of a station in the specification. The “tip wash/disposal station” is not separately
4
housed and not capable of receiving a reaction receptacle and the “specimen transfer station” is not
5
separately housed. (’892 Patent 11:45-54; 27:63-67.) This is problematic because a “construction
6
that excludes a preferred embodiment . . . ‘is rarely, if ever correct,’” SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex
7
Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583), and the
8
term is not defined by implication because it is not used consistently throughout the specification.
9
Cf. AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that a term is
10
defined by implication if it used “throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent
11
with only a single meaning”).
12
Additionally, the Court finds that the terms “station” and “module” are not interchangeable.
13
BD argues that the terms are interchangeable because the summary of the invention section states
14
that “the automated clinical analyzer integrates and coordinates the operation of various automated
15
stations, or modules, . . . .” (’892 Patent 4:47-49 (emphasis added).) BD does not cite, and the
16
Court is not aware of, any authority finding that terms are interchangeable simply because they are
17
connected by “or” in one place in the specification. But, even if the Court assumes this use
18
suggests the terms are interchangeable, the use of them distinctly in the specification suggests that
19
the terms are not interchangeable. The specification discusses diagnostic assays “which require the
20
use of one or more of the stations, components, and modules described herein” and goes on to
21
explain that the particular assay described is “merely for the purpose of illustrating the operation
22
and interaction of the various stations, components, and modules of the analyzer. (’892 Patent
23
15:20-26.) BD’s proposed construction of “station” conflicts with the use of the term in the
24
specification and improperly construes “station” as module.
25
Gen-Probe’s proposed construction, “a location integrated and coordinated with one or
26
more other locations within a shared, open, environment to perform one or more assays” is
27
partially drawn directly from the description of the invention in the specification. (’892 Patent
28
4:47-50 (“the clinical analyzer integrates and coordinates the operation of various automated
- 16 -
09cv2319
1
stations, or modules, involved in performing one or more assays . . .”).) Gen-Probe’s use of
2
location to describe a station is broad, but consistent with use of the term “station” throughout the
3
entire specification. However, as previously discussed in addressing “stand alone unit” and “self
4
contained analyzer,” Gen-Probe’s insertion of “shared, open environment” is not supported by the
5
claims or specification. Accordingly, the Court adopts Gen-Probe’s proposed construction,
6
without this unsupported language, “a location integrated and coordinated with one or more other
7
locations to perform one or more assays.”
8
9
10
11
I.
“housing”
The process of claim 8, wherein the first and second stations and the transport
mechanism are contained within a housing of the stand-alone unit. (’256
Patent, Claim 9.)
Gen-Probe proposes that “housing” means “a covering for an interior open environment.”
12
BD proposes that “housing” means “a covering.” The parties agree that a housing is a covering,
13
but Gen-Probe argues that it must be a covering for an interior open environment. The Court
14
adopts BD’s construction.
15
Gen-Probe emphasizes three uses of housing within the specification: (1) “Analyzer
16
includes a housing built over an internal frame structure . . . ;” (2) “An extension portion 102 . . .
17
extends above the top portion of housing 60 so as to provide vertical clearance for moving
18
components within the housing 60;” and (3) “The processing deck . . . separates the interior of the
19
housing . . .” However, none of these references require or describe an “interior open
20
environment” covered by the housing. Like Gen-Probe’s attempts to import an “open, shared
21
environment” into other claim terms, this also lacks sufficient support in the intrinsic record and
22
would only serve to add ambiguity to a simple term. The Court adopts BD’s proposed construction
23
for housing. A “housing” means a “covering.”
24
J.
25
26
c) transferring the target nucleic acid immobilized in step a) from the first
station to a second station using a rotatable transport mechanism; (’256
Patent, Claim 1.)
27
Gen-Probe proposes that “transport mechanism” means “a device that moves a material.”
28
“transport mechanism”
BD proposes that “transport mechanism” means “a device that can carry a reaction receptacle.”
- 17 -
09cv2319
1
Gen-Probe provides no explanation for its proposed construction except to assert that it is the most
2
logical and legally sound in light of the claims and specification. However, Gen-Probe essentially
3
asks the Court to completely ignore the specification, including the specific description of a
4
transport mechanism in the specification, as only a preferred embodiment. BD relies on the
5
definition of transport mechanism in the specification and numerous other descriptions of its
6
function in the specification. The Court adopts BD’s proposed construction.
7
As previously discussed in construing the term “reaction receptacle,” the claims cannot be
8
limited to a preferred embodiment in the specification, even when that preferred embodiment is the
9
only embodiment, if the claims are clearly broader than that embodiment. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
10
Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d at 904, 907. But, the claims are not clearly broader than the specification.
11
See Kara Tech., 582 F.3d at 1347. Additionally, the specification defines a transport mechanism
12
and describes it throughout as a mechanism for transporting a reaction receptacle. See Phillips,
13
415 F.3d at 1315 (finding that the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a
14
disputed term” and usually dispositive of the term’s meaning).
15
Claim 27 of the ’255 Patent describes the reaction receptacle being moved between the first
16
and second station with a transport mechanism that includes a receptacle carrier assembly. (’255
17
Patent, Claim 27.) This claim language indicates that the transport mechanism is “a device that
18
can carry a reaction receptacle,” as proposed by BD, rather than just a “device that moves a
19
material,” as proposed by Gen-Probe. Additionally, reading the claims “in view of the
20
specification, of which they are a part,” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at
21
979), the Court finds that transport mechanism means “a device that can carry a reaction
22
receptacle.” The transport mechanism is described as “automatically transport[ing] the reaction
23
receptacles between the stations of the analyzer.” (’892 Patent 4:65-67.) It is also more
24
specifically defined as “engag[ing] and manipultat[ing] a reaction receptacle and mov[ing] it from
25
one location on the processing deck to another as the reaction receptacle is sequentially moved
26
from one station to another during the performance of an assay within the reaction receptacle” and
27
including a receptacle carrier assembly. (’256 Patent 12:7-19; ’255 Patent 11:67-12:1 (describing
28
the transport mechanism as having a receptacle carrier assembly).) Figure 14 of the ’892 Patent
- 18 -
09cv2319
1
also depicts the transport mechanism engaged with a reaction receptacle. (’892 Patent 6:10-15.)
2
Descriptions of other component and the transport mechanism also support BD’s proposed
3
construction. (’892 Patent 5:30-31 (“Reaction receptacles can be independently transported
4
between stations by the transport mechanism”); ’255 Patent 11:67-12:65-67 (explaining that
5
reaction receptacles are placed into or removed from the temperature ramping station by the
6
transport mechanism); ’255 Patent 12:40-44 (describing an incubator as having an opening through
7
which a transport mechanism can insert and retrieve a reaction receptacle)).
8
9
10
The Court adopts BD’s proposed construction. “Transport mechanism” means “a device
that can carry a reaction receptacle.”
K.
aspirating non-immobilized components of the sample” and “aspirating . . .
other material present in the fluid sample”
11
12
13
14
15
b) subjecting the magnetically responsive particle to a magnetic field and
aspirating non-immobilized components of the sample; (’256 Patent,
Claim 1.)
The process of claim 6, wherein the separating step comprises subjecting the
solid support to a magnetic field and aspirating the other material present
in the fluid sample
16
Gen-Probe proposes that “aspirating non-immobilized components of the sample” and
17
“aspirating . . . other material present in the fluid sample” means “removing non-immobilized
18
components of the sample/other material present in the fluid sample through contact with a
19
suctioning device.” BD proposes that “aspirating non-immobilized components of the sample”
20
means “removing, by suction, non-immobilized components of the sample” and “aspirating . . .
21
other material present in the fluid sample” means “removing by suction all material present in the
22
fluid sample that is not the target nucleic acid.” The parties agree that aspirating means suction,
23
but dispute whether aspirating means removal by suction or removing with a suctioning device.
24
Additionally, BD again attempts to require the removal of “all material present in the fluid sample
25
that is not target nucleic acid.” The Court has already rejected this construction in construing
26
“other material” and also rejects it here because it is not supported by the claims or specification.
27
Gen-Probe argues that aspirating requires the use of a suctioning (aspirating) device based
28
on the specification’s explanation of the manual process being automated and a dictionary
- 19 -
09cv2319
1
definition. BD argues that there is no basis in the claims, specification, or prosecution history for a
2
structural requirement for a suctioning device. The Court adopts the following constructions:
3
“aspirating non-immobilized components of the sample” means “removing non-immobilized
4
components of the sample by suction” and “aspirating . . . other material present in the fluid
5
sample” means “removing other material present in the fluid sample by suction.”
6
The only suggestion of a suctioning device is in the portion of the background section of
7
the specification that discusses the problems with the manual performance of a nucleic acid-based
8
assay. (’892 Patent 4:5-29.) As Gen-Probe notes, this portion of the specification mentions the
9
use of an aspirator device and performance of aspirating with hand-held non-fixed instruments.
10
(’892 Patent 4:11-12, 16-17.) However, this portion of the specification is not describing the
11
invention, it is laying the groundwork for the next portion of the background section that explains
12
how the proposed invention solves the problems associated with the manual process. Accordingly,
13
the aspirator device mentioned in the specification is not describing the claimed process, it is
14
actually distinguishing it.
15
The dictionary definitions relied on by Gen-Probe are equally unpersuasive in requiring the
16
use of a suctioning device. The first definition cited supports BD’s proposed construction because
17
it defines “aspirate” as “to remove by aspiration.” STEDMAN ’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 156 (27th
18
ed. 2000). This is consistent with removal by suctioning. Gen-Probe attempts to rely on
19
definitions for “aspirator,” but this is not appropriate because there is no mention of an aspirator or
20
any other device in the claims or description of the claimed invention to aspirate. There is simply
21
no support for incorporation of a suctioning device into the claims.
22
As noted above, the Court also rejects BD’s proposed construction of “aspirating . . . other
23
material present in the fluid sample” because it improperly attempts to incorporate the removal of
24
all non-target nucleic acid. Accordingly, the Court adopts the following constructions that do not
25
import any requirements that lack support in the claims and specification: “aspirating non-
26
immobilized components of the sample” means “removing non-immobilized components of the
27
sample by suction” and “aspirating . . . other material present in the fluid sample” means
28
“removing other material present in the fluid sample by suction.”
- 20 -
09cv2319
1
III.
Penetrable Cap Patents
2
As with the Automation Patents discussed above, the disputed claim terms appear across the
3
two Cap Patents at issue in this case and in numerous claims. However, the parties agree that the
4
disputed terms have common meanings across the different patents and claims.
5
6
The following exemplary claim is provided for all Penetrable Cap Patents disputed claim terms
unless otherwise noted:
7
A cap comprising: a core structure comprising a closed side wall adapted to
grip an open-ended vessel and having an opening formed therein; and axially
aligned first and second frangible seals affixed to the core structure, the first
frangible seal being situated beneath the second frangible seal in a spacedapart relationship and covering the opening in the core structure so as to provide
a fluid barrier, wherein the first and second frangible seals are constructed and
arranged to remain affixed to the core structure when penetrated by a fluid
transfer. (’308 Patent, Claim 1.)
8
9
10
11
12
A.
13
In addition to their dispute about the meaning of the terms, the parties also dispute what the
14
relevant claim term is. Gen-Probe believes the relevant claim term is “frangible seal” because the
15
words always appear together as “frangible seal” in the patent claims, but BD argues for two separate
16
terms “frangible,” and “seal” to obtain a separate construction of the term seal. As to the term
17
“frangible seal” Gen-Probe proposes that “frangible seal” means “a breakable seal that irreparably
18
tears or fractures when penetrated by the fluid transfer device.” BD proposes that “frangible” means
19
“penetrable and does not require either tearing or leaving a hole,” and that “seal” means “material that
20
covers the opening in the core structure.”8 As to the proposed constructions, Gen-Probe primarily
21
relies on the descriptions in the specification which explain that the frangible seal should tear or
22
fracture resulting in the creation of air passageways. BD relies on the preference in the specification
23
for tearing or fracturing to argue that it is not required because it is preferable. The Court adopts Gen-
24
Probe’s proposed construction of “frangible seal.”
“frangible seal” or “frangible” and “seal”
25
BD has not provided the Court with any authority for dissecting a term, “frangible seal,” into
26
two separate terms for purposes of construction when the term consistently appears only as “frangible
27
8
28
BD initially argued that “seal” meant “covers the opening in the core structure and forms a
substantially leak-proof barrier,” but BD has now agreed with the construction Gen-Probe proposed
if the Court decided to separate the term into “frangible” and “seal.”
- 21 -
09cv2319
1
seal” throughout multiple claims of multiple patents. Accordingly, the Court will construe the term
2
“frangible seal” as it always appears throughout the claims. Additionally, BD’s proposed construction
3
is not consistent with dictionary definitions of “frangible.” As to “frangible seal,” Gen-Probe’s
4
proposed construction is not only supported by the specification, but also by the definition of
5
“frangible.”
6
As previously noted, the Court must construe the claim terms in light of the specification, as
7
the specification is the primary basis for construing a disputed term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. Here,
8
the specification repeatedly describes tearing of the frangible seal by a fluid transfer device to create
9
air passageways that allow the venting of air from within the collection device. (’612 Patent 4:62-66
10
(“When the cap is penetrated by the pipette tip, air passageways are formed between the pipette tip and
11
the frangible seal or seals of the cap, thereby facilitating the venting of air from within the vessel.”);
12
’612 Patent 9:43-50 (“In order to facilitate the venting of air from within a collection device 10, the
13
frangible seal 32 is preferably constructed so that it tears when the seal is penetrated by a fluid transfer
14
device, thereby forming air passageways 70 between the seal and the fluid transfer device.”); ’612
15
Patent 13:52-66 (“When a cap 30A-E of the present invention is pierced by a fluid transfer device
16
. . . one or more tears are preferably formed in the frangible seal 32 . . . . . As Figure 18 illustrates,
17
these tears in the frangible seal form air passageways 70 which facilitate the venting of air displaced
18
from within a collection device.”)
19
Additionally, multiple dictionaries, particularly a technical dictionary definition of “frangible”
20
support Gen-Probe’s proposed construction. The Court can rely on dictionaries in claim construction
21
and technical dictionaries are particularly helpful because they provide guidance on commonly
22
accepted definitions in the various fields of science and technology. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (noting
23
the usefulness of dictionaries in claim construction and explaining that technical dictionaries are
24
particularly helpful because they “collect accepted meanings of terms used in various fields of science
25
and technology”). Something that is “frangible” is defined as “breakable, fragile, or brittle.”
26
MCGRAW -HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 849 (6th ed. 2003); see also THE
27
NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY 672 (2001) (defining “frangible” as “fragile; brittle”). These
28
definitions are consistent with a “frangible seal” being “a breakable seal that irreparably tears or
- 22 -
09cv2319
1
2
3
fractures when penetrated by the fluid transfer device.”
“Frangible seal” means “a breakable seal that irreparably tears or fractures when penetrated by
the fluid transfer device.”
4
B.
5
Gen-Probe proposes that “affixed to” means “physically attached or fastened to and not integral
6
with.” BD proposes that “affixed to” means “connected with the core structure and may be, but need
7
not be, integral with the core structure.” The parties’ dispute whether the frangible seal, “affixed to”
8
the core structure, is or is not an integral component of the core structure. The parties agree that
9
“affixed to” is most commonly used in the claims to describe a frangible seal being affixed to a surface
10
ledge, including the surface ledge of the core structure. However, the parties disagree about whether
11
“affixed to” means the frangible seal is or is not integral with the core structure.
“affixed to”
12
The claims describe the frangible seal being affixed to a surface ledge, the core structure, and
13
the top surface of the closed side wall. (’612 Patent, Claims 1 and 6; ’308 Patent, Claims 1 and 11.)
14
The specification describes the frangible seal being affixed to the core structure after the core structure
15
is created from injection molding and being sufficiently cured. (’612 Patent 8:38-44 (emphasis
16
added).) The specification also outlines in detail the components of the integrally molded core
17
structure and it does not include the frangible seal. (’612 Patent 7:12-23.) These descriptions conflict
18
with the frangible seal being integral with the core structure, as proposed by BD, and support Gen-
19
Probe’s assertion that a frangible seal is not integral with the core structure. Additionally, the
20
specification goes on to explain that “[t]he frangible seal is preferably not an integral component of
21
the core cap.” (’612 Patent 9:7-9.) Construing the claim terms in light of the specification, as the
22
Court must, the Court adopts Gen-Probe’s proposed construction. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The
23
term “affixed to” means “physically attached or fastened to and not integral with.”
24
C.
25
The cap of claim 1 further comprising a filter interposed between the first and
second frangible seals. (’308 Patent, Claim 14.)
“filter”
26
27
28
- 23 -
09cv2319
1
Gen-Probe proposes that “filter” means:
2
a material which (1) performs either a wiping function to remove fluids present on the
outside of a fluid transfer device or an absorbing function to hold or otherwise
sequester fluids removed from the outside of a fluid transfer device (or both), and (2)
has pores or small or narrow spaces or crevices between its parts which admit the
passage of a gas
3
4
5
BD proposes that “filter” means:
6
7
8
any material that both (1) performs a wiping function to remove fluids present on the
outside of a fluid transfer device and/or performs an absorbing function to hold or
otherwise sequester fluids removed from the outside of a fluid transfer device, and (2)
has pores or interstices which admit the passage of gas.
9
10
When the patentee gives a claim term a special definition, “the inventor’s lexicography
11
governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
12
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The parties agree that the specification provides a special definition for filter.
13
According to the specification, a filter is:
14
15
16
17
a material which performs a wiping function to remove fluids present on the outside of
a fluid transfer device and/or an absorbing function to hold or otherwise sequester fluids
removed from the outside of a fluid transfer device. For reasons discussed below, the
filters 33 of the present invention are composed of a material or combination of materials
having pores or interstices which admit the passage of gas.
(’612 Patent 10: 29-37.)
18
Gen-Probe asks the Court to substitute “small or narrow spaces or crevices between its parts”
19
for interstices because the word interstices may be unknown to a jury. BD objects to this alteration
20
because the special definition in the specification should control. The Court agrees that the special
21
definition in the specification controls the meaning of the term “filter” and adopts the following
22
construction. “Filter” means:
23
24
a material which (1) performs a wiping function to remove fluids present on the outside
of a fluid transfer device and/or absorbing function to hold or otherwise sequester fluids
removed from the outside of a fluid transfer device and (2) has pores or interstices
which admit the passage of gas
25
26
27
28
D.
“penetrated by” or “penetrated” and “penetrating”
wherein the first and second frangible seals are constructed and arranged to
remain affixed to the core structure when penetrated by a fluid transfer. (’308
Patent, Claim 1.)
- 24 -
09cv2319
1
2
3
A method for removing a fluid substance from the closed system of claim 17,
the method comprising the steps of: (1) penetrating the first and second
frangible seals with a fluid transfer device; (’308 Patent, Claim 18.)
Gen-Probe identified “penetrated by” as the relevant claim term in the Joint Claim Construction
4 Chart. However, Gen-Probe’s briefing addresses BD’s proposed constructions. BD proposes that
5 “penetrated” means “to have passed through and does not require either tearing or leaving a hole” and
6 “penetrating” means “passing through and does not require either tearing or leaving a hole.” Gen-Probe
7 argues that no construction is necessary, but if the Court construes it, the terms should mean “passed
8 through by.”
9
The Court has already rejected BD’s attempt to import “does not require either tearing or leaving
10 a hole” in construing “frangible seal” and finds that the Court need not construe the terms. The terms
11 “penetrated by,” “penetrated,” and “penetrating” are common terms that need no clarification. See
12 Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc., 477 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1068 (N.D. 2007). “A district court need not
13 construe every single disputed word.” Id. (citing U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554,
14 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
15
E.
16
BD proposes that “core structure” in all claims of the ’308 Patent, except Claim 2,9 means “the
“core structure”
17 cap need not be a unitary piece; it need not be plastic; and it need not have a generally cylindrical
18 shape.” Gen-Probe argues that no construction is necessary, but if the Court construes it, “core
19 structure” means “principal structure” or “basic structure” and “must have an opening formed in it and
20 be designed to grip an open-ended vessel.” BD does not dispute these characteristics of the core
21 structure, but argues that the Court must construe “core structure” as not being a number of things —
22 unitary piece, plastic, and generally cylindrical shaped — based on claim differentiation.
23
“Differences among claims can . . . be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular
24 claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. As the Phillips Court explained, “a dependent claim that adds
25 a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the
26 independent claim.” Id. at 1315 (citing Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 910). Claim 1 of the ’308 Patent
27
9
28
BD concedes in briefing that the proposed construction could not apply to the term “core
structure” in Claim 2 of the ’308 Patent because the basis for BD’s proposed construction is claim
differentiation from the Claim 2 limitation.
- 25 -
09cv2319
1 describes the core structure. Claim 1 does not include any limitations regarding a unitary piece of
2 plastic piece or having a generally cylindrical shape. Dependent Claim 2 claims “[t]he cap of claim 1,
3 where the core structure is a unitary plastic piece having a generally cylindrical shape.” Because
4 dependent Claim 2 of the ’308 Patent “adds a particular limitation,” id. at 1315 — “a unitary plastic
5 piece having a generally cylindrical shape,” (’308 Patent, Claim 2) — the “limitation gives rise to a
6 presumption that [this] limitation . . . is not present in the independent claim,” Claim 1. See Phillips,
7 415 F.3d at 1315. Accordingly, the Court construes “core structure” in independent Claim 1 as “need
8 not be a unitary plastic piece having a generally cylindrical shape.”
9
10
CONCLUSION
The Court construes the disputed claim terms as discussed above.
11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14 DATED: November 15, 2011
15
16
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 26 -
09cv2319
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?