Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories Inc.

Filing 213

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Legrome D. Davis on 9/6/2011. (lid)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ALCON RESEARCH, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARR LABORATORIES INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 09-CV-0318-LDD

MEMORANDUM CONSTRUING DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
5,631,287; 6,011,062; 6,503,497; AND 6,849,253
Legrome D. Davis, J.

I.

September 6, 2011

BACKGROUND
This patent infringement action was initiated by Plaintiff Alcon Research, Ltd. (“Alcon”)

in response to Defendants Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Barr Laboratories, Inc.’s (collectively
“Defendants”) Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) for FDA approval to market
generic versions of Alcon’s Travatan® and Travatan Z® products. Travatan® and Travatan Z®
are topical prescription eye drops that are used to treat glaucoma and ocular hypertension. The
main difference between the two products is that Travatan Z® does not contain a conventional
antimicrobial preservative that could, among other things, cause irritation in the eye.
Alcon contends that Defendants’ generic versions of Travatan® and Travatan Z®
infringe four of Alcon’s patents. Two of these patents—No. 5,631,287 (“the ’287 patent”), and
No. 6,011,062 (“the ’062 patent”) (collectively the “Schneider patents”)—relate to methods of
enhancing the chemical stability of travoprost, which is the active ingredient in Travatan® and
Travatan Z®. Travoprost is a chemical that belongs to a family of compounds known as
prostaglandins. Prostaglandins are highly potent, chemically unstable compounds with low

water solubility. The invention of the Schneider patents involved the discovery that a particular
class of surfactants—polyethoxylated castor oils—could be used to improve the chemical
stability of prostaglandins in aqueous compositions. Claim 1 of the ’287 patent recites:
A method of enhancing the chemical stability of an aqueous composition
comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a prostaglandin, wherein the
method comprises adding a chemically-stabilizing amount of a polyethoxylated
castor oil to the composition.
’287 patent, col. 8, ll. 57-61 (Pl.’s Ex. 1).
The parties disagree on the meaning of several of the terms used in this claim, and
throughout the claims of the Schneider patents, including: (1) “prostaglandin”; (2) “enhancing
the chemical stability” / “chemically stabilizing amount”; (3) “therapeutically effective amount”;
and (4) “aqueous composition.”
The second two patents at issue—No. 6,503,497 (“the ’497 patent”) and No. 6,849,253
(“the ’253 patent”) (collectively the “Chowhan patents”)—relate to aqueous ophthalmic
compositions comprising a certain weight percentage of “borate-polyol complex” having a
certain molar range. The invention of the Chowhan patents is directed at enhancing the
antimicrobial activity of a solution, and thus reducing or eliminating the need for a conventional
ophthalmic preservative. Claim 1 of the ’497 patent recites:
An aqueous ophthalmic composition comprising 0.5 to 6.0 wt. % of a watersoluble borate-polyol complex to enhance the antimicrobial activity of the
composition, and water, said complex containing borate and polyol in a molar
ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:10.
’497 patent, col 11, ll. 1-5 (Pl.’s Ex. 3). Claim 17 of the ’497 patent recites:
An aqueous ophthalmic composition according to any one of claims 1 to 7,
wherein the composition further comprises a preservative effective amount of an
ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent.

2

(’497 patent, col 11, ll. 57-60 (Pl.’s Ex. 3).)
The parties disagree on the meaning of several of the terms as used in these claims, and
throughout the claims of the Chowhan patents, including: (1) “borate-polyol complex”; (2)
“ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent” / “unpreserved”’ (3) “enhance the antimicrobial
activity”; and (4) “aqueous ophthalmic composition.”
The parties seek construction of each of the disputed claims in the Schneider and
Chowhan patents. The Court held a claim construction hearing on April 27, 2011. We have
reviewed the claims, specification, prosecution history, and other relevant evidence, and have
considered the briefing and arguments of the parties. We now construe the terms at issue.
II.

STANDARD OF LAW
Claim construction is a question of law to be determined by the court. Markman v.

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In its en banc decision in
Phillips v. AWH, Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Federal Circuit set forth the legal
principles underlying claim construction. That case involved the construction of the term
“baffles” as recited in the claims of a patent directed at modular, steel-shell panels that can be
welded together to form vandalism-resistant walls. Id. at 1309. The Federal Circuit specifically
identified the legal question before it as: “the extent to which [the court] should resort to and rely
on a patent’s specification in seeking to ascertain the proper scope of its claims.” Id. at 1312. In
addressing this question, the Phillips court explained how each type of evidence should be used
by courts in determining how a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a
disputed claim term. See, generally, id. at 1314–17. Although court reemphasized its prior
position that claim terms are “generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as they

3

would mean “to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,” id.
at 1313-14 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)),
the Phillips court stressed the importance of recognizing that the person of ordinary skill in the
art “is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the
disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Ultimately, the court’s decision allotted far greater weight to the
intrinsic record—the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, and the prosecution
history—than to extrinsic evidence such as dictionary definitions and expert testimony. The
court quoted its prior pronouncement in Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d
1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998) that “the best source for understanding a technical term is the
specification from which it arose, informed, as needed, by the prosecution history.” Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1315 (quoting Multiform Desiccants, 133 F.3d at 1478). “While extrinsic evidence ‘can
shed useful light on the relevant art,’ . . . it is ‘less significant than the intrinsic record in
determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and
Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
2004)). Indeed, “extrinsic evidence cannot be used to vary the meaning of the claims as
understood based on a reading of the intrinsic record.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319.
In drawing its conclusions, the first source of evidence the Phillips court considered was
the language of the claims of the patent. Id. at 1314. “To begin with,” the court stated, “the
context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id. Using an
example taken from the claim language at issue, the Federal Circuit observed that “the claim in

4

this case refers to ‘steel baffles,’ which strongly implies that the term ‘baffles’ does not
inherently mean objects made of steel.” Id. The court noted that its cases “provide numerous
similar examples in which the use of a term within the claim provides a firm basis for construing
the term. Id. (citing Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim
term “ingredients” construed in light of the use of the term “mixture” in the same claim phrase);
Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir.1999) (claim term
“discharge rate” construed in light of the use of the same term in another limitation of the same
claim)). The court stated that other claims of the patent in question, and differences between
claims, can also be “valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.” Id.
The court next considered the role of the “descriptive part” of the specification in claim
construction. Id. at 1315. “The claims,” the court stated, “do not stand alone. Rather they are
part of a ‘fully integrated written instrument,’ [and] ‘must be read in view of the specification, of
which they are part.’” Id. (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978-979). In emphasizing the
importance of the specification, the court noted that “the 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.’” 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). To support
its position as to the importance of the specification in claim term construction, the Phillips court
cited extensive Supreme Court and Federal Circuit case law, as well as “the statutory directive
that the inventor provide a ‘full’ and ‘exact’ description of the claimed invention.” Id. at 131516 (citing Hogg v. Emerson, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 437, 482 (1848) (The specification is a
“component part of the patent” and “is as much to be considered with the [letters patent] in
construing them, as any paper referred to in a deed or other contract.”); Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31,

5

38 (1878) (“[I]n case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the
descriptive portions of the specification to aid in solving the doubt or in ascertaining the true
intent and meaning of the language employed in the claims.”); White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51
(1886) (The specification is appropriately resorted to “for the purpose of better understanding the
meaning of the claim.”); Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940)
(“The claims of a patent are always to be read or interpreted in light of its specifications.”);
United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be
construed in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the
invention.”); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 389 (1996) (“[A claim]
term can be defined only in a way that comports with the instrument as a whole.”); Merck & Co.
v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A fundamental rule of claim
construction is that terms in a patent document are construed with the meaning with which they
are presented in the patent document. Thus claims must be construed so as to be consistent with
the specification, of which they are a part.”); Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347,
1352 (Fed. Cir .2001) (“The claims are directed to the invention that is described in the
specification; they do not have meaning removed from the context from which they arose.”); 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1).
Consistent with these principles, the court reaffirmed that an inventor’s own lexicography
and any “intentional disclaimer, or disavowal of claim scope” are dispositive. Id. On this point,
the court stated that “the specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used
in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Id. at 1321 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at
1582; and citing Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir.

6

2004) (“Even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification
may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by
a reading of the patent documents.”) After considering the way in which the Patent and
Trademark Office interprets claims, and determining that this provides further support for
placing great weight on the specification in construing claim terms, the court concluded: “[i]t is
therefore entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on
the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.” Id. at 1317.
The Phillips court next provided a brief explanation of the prosecution history’s utility in
construing claim terms. The court noted that “[l]ike the specification, the prosecution history
provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent,” id., and it reaffirmed
its prior position that “the 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. (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582–83).
Finally, the Federal Circuit limited the weight of extrinsic evidence—i.e., expert and
inventory testimony, dictionaries and learned treatises—in claim construction. In so doing, the
court rejected the “dictionaries first” method set down by a prior three-judge panel of the Federal
Circuit in Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1329 (Laurie, J., dissenting) (noting “the court now has decided not to
follow” the “‘dictionaries first’ procedure.”). Under the Texas Digital approach, the construing
court was first to look to texts—dictionaries, encyclopedias, treatises—to ascertain the ordinary,
objective meaning of a term. Texas Digital, 308 F.3d at 1202; see also Kumar v. Ovonic Battery

7

Co., Inc., 351 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Under our precedent in Texas Digital . . . we
look first to the dictionary definition of a contested term.”). Then, “because words often have
multiple dictionary meanings, the intrinsic record must be consulted to determine which of the
possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the term in question by the
inventor.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319 (discussing the Texas Digital approach). If more than one
dictionary definition is consistent with the intrinsic record, “‘the claim terms may be construed
to encompass all such meanings.’” Id. (quoting Texas Digital, 308 F.3d at 1203.) However, the
en banc court stated in Phillips that “[i]n effect, the Texas Digital approach limits the role of the
specification in claim construction to serving as a check on the dictionary meaning of a claim
term . . . . ” Id. at 1320. “The main problem with elevating the dictionary to such prominence,”
the Phillips court stated, “is that it focuses the inquiry on the abstract meaning of words rather
than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent. Properly viewed, the
‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire
patent.” Id. at 1320. Therefore, the Texas Digital approach “improperly restricts the role of the
specification in claim construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3s at 1320.
Ultimately, the court concluded that extrinsic evidence was less reliable than intrinsic
evidence, reasoning as follows:
First, extrinsic evidence by definition is not part of the patent and does not have
the specification’s virtue of being created at the time of patent prosecution for the
purpose of explaining the patent’s scope and meaning. Second, while claims are
construed as they would be understood by a hypothetical person of skill in the art,
extrinsic publications may not be written by or for skilled artisans and therefore
may not reflect the understanding of a skilled artisan in the field of the patent.
Third, extrinsic evidence consisting of expert reports and testimony is generated
at the time of and for the purpose of litigation and thus can suffer from bias that is
not present in intrinsic evidence . . . . Fourth, there is a virtually unbounded
universe of potential extrinsic evidence of some marginal relevance that could be
8

brought to bear on any claim construction question . . . . Finally, undue reliance
on extrinsic evidence poses the risk that it will be used to change the meaning of
claims in derogation of the indisputable public records consisting of the claims,
the specification and the prosecution history, thereby undermining the public
notice function of patents.
Id. at 1318-19 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, “while extrinsic
evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art, . . . it is less significant than the intrinsic
record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language. ” Id. 415 F.3d at 1317
(internal citations an quotation marks omitted).
With these clearly-articulated legal principles guiding us, we now construe each of the
claims terms at issue in the present dispute.
III.

DISCUSSION1
A.

The Chowhan Patents
1. Borate-Polyol Complex

The parties disagree as to the meaning of the term “borate-polyol complex” as it is used
within the ’497 and ’253 patents. Alcon’s proposed construction is: “A mixture of borate and
polyol in aqueous solution.” (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 25.) Defendants’ proposed construction is:
“A compound which is formed by the reaction of borate and polyol, wherein the polyol molecule
is bonded to a central borate atom.” (Def.s’ Opening Br. at 14.) Relying heavily on the context
in which the term is used within the claims themselves, we adopt Alcon’s definition.
In their opening brief, Defendants base their construction of “borate-polyol complex” on

1

We consider the claims in the order they were presented in the Markman hearing on
April 27, 2011. Argument on the first term, “borate-polyol complex,” occupied a majority of the
time at the hearing and the most significant portion of the parties’ briefs. Accordingly, it
commands the bulk of our treatment in this Memorandum as well.
9

their expert’s opinion as to the meaning of the term, and an example of an interaction between
borate and polyol as depicted in a mouth wash formulation that appeared in the treatise
Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences in 1980. (Def.s’ Opening Br., Doc. No. 147 at 14-15
(citing Decl. of Professor Richard Pizer, Doc. No. 150, and Remington’s Pharmaceutical
Sciences at 1445 (Mack Publishing Co. 1980) (“Remington’s”).) Defendants begin their
discussion of the term by stating: “[c]hemical complexes are understood by persons of ordinary
skill to be a molecular entity in which a central atom[] is bonded to two or more moities, which
may be ions, atoms, or molecules (also called ligands).” (Def.s’ Opening Br. at 14.) Defendants
cite their retained expert, Professor Richard Pizer, for this proposition. (Def.s’ Opening Br. at
14.) A review of Professor Pizer’s declaration reveals his opinion as to the general definition of
the term “borate-polyol complex.” (Pizer Decl., Doc. No. 150 at ¶ 16). The definition he
provides for the term is identical to Defendants’ proposed definition. (Pizer Decl., Doc. No. 150
at ¶ 12.)
After setting out their initial definition, Defendants then explain why this definition is
consistent with the description in the ’479 and ’253 patents. Defendants’ state:
According to the specification of the Chowhan patents “[t]he water-soluble
borate-polyol complexes of the present invention may be formed by mixing
borate with the polyol(s) of choice in an aqueous solution.” A person of skill in
the art would understand that when borate and polyol are mixed in an aqueous
solution, a chemical reaction takes place to form one or more new molecular
species, referred to as borate polyol complexes, where the central atom (boron) is
bonded to one or more polyol moities.
(Def.s’ Opening Br. at 15 (citing Pizer Decl. and “Remington’s”.)
Alcon, on the other hand, focuses on the language in the specification and the claims
themselves that the borate polyol-complexes contain “a molar ratio of borate to polyol

10

[]generally between about 1:0.1 and about 1:10, and [] preferably between about 1:0.25 and
about 1:2.5.” (Alcon’s Opening Br., Doc. No. 145 at 20 (citing ’497 patent, col 3, ll. 31-33).)
“Importantly,” Alcon states,
there is absolutely no mention of whether the borate and the polyol chemically
combine in such ratios—this information is not important to practicing the
invention or determining whether claims are infringed. In fact, the specification
makes clear that “complex” does not refer to a chemical combination because
borate and polyol cannot chemically combine in the various claimed ratios within
the range of 1:0.1 to 1:10.
(Pl.’s Opening Br. at 20-21.) Alcon then relies on statements made by the inventor during the
prosecution of the patents regarding the amounts of borate and polyol which, Alcon argues,
makes clear that the inventor “did not mention doing any complicated analytical chemistry to
determine how many molecules reacted with other molecules of polyol; rather he clearly and
simply added up the total borate and total polyol added to create the solution.” (Pl.’s Opening Br.
at 23.) Accordingly, the argument goes, “borate-polyol complex” refers to the “combination of
all the borate and all the polyol that were present in the solution, without regard to how much, if
any, chemically bonded to each other.” (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 23.)
In determining the proper construction of this term, we look first, as the Federal Circuit
did in Phillips, to the language of the claim itself. 415 F.3d at 1324-25. Claim 1 of the ’497
patent recites:
An aqueous ophthalmic composition comprising 0.5 to 6.0 wt. % of a watersoluble borate-polyol complex to enhance the antimicrobial activity of the
composition, and water, said complex containing borate and polyol in a molar
ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:10.
(’497 patent, col 11, ll. 1-5 (Pl.’s Ex. 3).) As educated laymen, we recognize that a “composition
comprising . . . borate-polyol complex . . . and water” describes some sort of aggregate

11

combination of borate and polyol and water. Whether “borate-polyol complex” means that
borate and polyol must form a “compound” or a “new molecular species,” as Defendants argue,
or whether borate and polyol may exist side-by-side in a “mixture,” irrespective of any
interaction between them, as Alcon argues, is not clear to us from the face of the term alone.
The Phillips court, however, found key insights as to the meaning of the term “baffles” through
the language of the claims themselves. Id. In that case, the court declined to construe the term
in a way which would have rendered certain claim language “unnecessary” or “redundant.” Id.
The court’s reasoning here squares with the Federal Circuit’s stated rule that “[a]ll the
limitations of a claim must be considered meaningful.” Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939
F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Adding to this rule of construction, the Federal Circuit has
more recently stated that “[a] claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical
‘cannot be correct.’” Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249,
1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 440 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2006); and Bd. of Regents v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (refusing
to adopt a claim construction that “would effect [a] nonsensical result.”); see also, Markman, 517
U.S. at 390 (stating that claims are to be construed to “preserve the patent’s internal coherence.”
). In this case, we consider the inherent coaction of the claims, and find that Defendants’
construction of “borate-polyol complex” would render a significant portion of the claims patent
facially nonsensical and meaningless such that it cannot be correct. Alcon’s construction of the
term, however, jibes with the rest of the claim language.
The language of claim 1 makes clear that the borate-polyol “complex contain[s] borate
and polyol in a molar ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:10.” (’497 patent, col 11, ll. 1-5 (Pl.’s Ex. 3).) Extrinsic

12

evidence provided by both parties “sheds useful light,” as it may, see Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
(“extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art”), on the fact that borate and polyol
cannot form compounds at the ends of the molar ratios provided in this claim.2 Requiring the
term “borate-polyol complex” to mean a “compound,” as Defendants suggest, while at the same
time reciting molar amounts of borate and polyol at which they cannot actually form compounds,
would render the range recited in the claim, and the claim itself, nonsensical and incoherent.
Therefore, such a construction cannot be correct. Indeed, Defendants’ proposed
definition—which refers to “the polyol molecule” (singular) binding to “a central borate atom”
(singular)—implies that the borate-polyol complex is limited to a 1:1 molar ratio. Clearly, a
borate-polyol complex limited to a 1:1 molar ratio is discordant with a “complex containing
borate and polyol in a molar ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:10.” Unquestionably, Defendants’ proposed

2

The lead inventor of the ’497 and ’253 patents, Dr. Chowhan, testified that a single
borate molecule may bond chemically with polyol in only two possible ways: in a 1:1 ratio or a
1:2 ratio. (Alcon Rebuttal Br., Doc. No. 165 at 21 (citing Chowhan Decl., Ex. 6).) Defendants’
own experiment verifies that, under a formulation described in the patents, bonding occurs in
these molar ratios. (See Def.s’ Rebuttal Br. at 7 (“The NMR peak at ä = -13.286 corresponds to
the borate-polyol complex in a 1:1 molar ratio, and the peak at ä = -9.241 corresponds to the
borate-polyol complex in a 1:2 ratio.”).) Defendants argue, however, that borate and polyol can
form compounds at ratios higher than 1:1 or 1:2 and provide examples of borate and certain
polyols reacting at ratios stated as high as 1:3 or 1:4. (See Def.s’ Rebuttal Br. at 8 (“For
example, mannitol, one of the preferred polyols disclosed by the Chowhan patents . . . has three
pairs of adjacent -OH groups, each pair of which has the potential to react with a borate ion.”);
see also Markman Hr’g Tr. at 86:1-10 (Apr. 27, 2011) (“So, for example, Borax, . . . a common
borate used for cleaning . . .would give you a - - a larger say here four to one molar ratio under
our construction.”).) Although Defendants offer these examples to demonstrate that borate and
polyol can interact at ratios higher than 1:1 or 1:2, they do not dispute that there is no known
way for borate to bond with polyols such as propylene glycol or sorbital in ratios of 1:01 or 1:10,
as claimed in claim 10 of the ’253 patent, despite the fact that Alcon raised this point in its
rebuttal brief, (Alcon Rebuttal Br., Doc. No. 165 at 21), and at the Markman hearing, (Markman
Hr’g Tr. at 90:13-22). We find the extrinsic evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that borate
and polyol cannot form compounds at the ends of the molar ratios provided in the claims.
13

construction renders the molar range described in the claim meaningless. The interpretation, on
the other hand, that “borate-polyol complex” refers to a “mixture,” which may contain bonded
and unbonded borate and polyol, is entirely consistent with the claim’s requirement that the
“complex contain[] borate and polyol in a molar ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:10.” (’497 patent, col 11, ll.
1-5 (Pl.’s Ex. 3).) Accordingly, we find that the language of the claims themselves is dispositive
of the meaning of “borate-polyol complex.” By implication, the term means, as Alcon suggests,
“a mixture of borate and polyol in aqueous solution.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he
specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it
defines terms by implication.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis
added).
Nothing in the descriptive portion of the specification alters this interpretation. In fact,
the written description echoes the claims on this issue. Referring to the “water-soluble boratepolyol complexes,” the patents state that “[i]n such compositions, the molar ratio or borate to
polyol is generally between about 1:01 to 1:10 . . . .” (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 20 (citing ’497 patent,
col 3, ll. 31-33).) The reasoning we set forth above with regard to this range being nonsensical
in light of the binding properties of the molecules applies with equal force here.
In arguing that the written description proves Alcon’s interpretation incorrect,
Defendants point to one of twelve examples provided in the patent. They argue that adopting
Alcon’s construction and calculating the weight percentage of borate-polyol complex listed in
Example 5 would mean that the weight percentage of the complex was higher than 6%—the
claim’s upward limit. Defendants rely on the Federal Circuit’s holding in Vitronics, which states
that a construction putting an embodiment out of the claim scope is usually incorrect. 90 F.3d at

14

1583. In Vitronics, the court held that if it were to define a claim in a particular way, “a
preferred (and indeed only) embodiment in the specification would not fall within the scope of
the patent claim. Such an interpretation is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly
persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.” Id. However, in the
present case, even if Alcon’s construction puts Example 5 out of the claim scope—and based on
the fact that the claim is a “comprising” claim, it is not clear that it does—such a finding does
not preclude construction of the term in the manner supported by the claims and the other
language of the description. Unlike in Vitronics, which featured a single embodiment, in the
present case there are eleven other examples, each of which is within range under Alcon’s
proposed definition. Furthermore, unlike in Vitronics, the present case features highly
persuasive evidentiary support for the construction that is potentially at odds with the
embodiment. The language of the claim 1 itself, and the fact that it would be rendered
nonsensical by any other construction, as discussed above, provides conclusive evidence that the
term “borate-polyol complex” refers to “a mixture of borate and polyol in aqueous solution.”
If anything, the examples in the patents affirmatively demonstrate Defendants’
interpretation to be incorrect. A review of the examples reveals nothing about borate and polyol
interacting, or the environmental conditions necessary to achieve such interaction. Indeed, not a
single one of the twelve examples offers any indication as to how much borate and polyol have
combined on a molecular level such that, if we were to adopt Defendants’ definition, we could
say with any certainty that the examples are within the 0.5 to 6 wt. % range. Under Defendants’
definition, a person seeking to practice this invention would likely have to run an experiment,
complete with NMR analysis, to determine whether the recited wt. % range is met. However, it

15

is a well-established validity requirement that the specification must “enable one of ordinary
skill in the art to practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” Nat’l Recovery
Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The
experimentation required to verify that the amount of borate and polyol compound is within the
recited weight percentage could conceivably run afoul of the enablement requirement here. In
claim construction, it is a “well-established rule . . . that claims should be interpreted, if possible,
so as to preserve their validity. Evans Medical Ltd. v. American Cyanamid Co., 11 F. Supp. 2d
338, 352 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citing Amhil Enters. Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1561 (Fed.
Cir. 1996)). Of course, claims should only be construed to preserve their validity “where the
proposed claim construction is practicable, is based on sound claim construction principles, and
does not revise or ignore the explicit language of the claims.” Generation II Orthotics Inc. v.
Medical Technology Inc., 263 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In the present case, unlike
Defendants’ construction, which leads to a cloudy enablement result, Alcon’s construction
ensures that no undue experimentation is required to practice the patent such that the claims are
adequately enabled, and the validity of the patent is preserved. This proposed claim construction
is certainly practicable, as the claims are logical when this meaning is adopted, it is based on
sound claim construction principles (in that it is born from the inherent meaning of the claims
themselves), and it in no way revises or ignores the explicit language of the claims.
Turning to the prosecution history, we find that the patents’ administrative records do not
affect the outcome of the analysis here. Indeed, the prosecution history is not needed when the
claims themselves and the descriptive part of the specification provide a clear definition. See
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“The best source for understanding a technical term is the

16

specification from which it arose, informed, as needed, by the prosecution history.”) (emphasis
added). Nothing in the prosecution history demonstrates that the inventor limited the invention
in the course of prosecution, or made the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be. Id. at
1315. Accordingly, we place little to no weight on the prosecution history of the patent in our
determination of the claim term’s meaning.
Finally, we end our discussion of this claim term by noting that adopting Defendants’
construction of the term would require that we utilize an “extrinsic evidence first” method—a
form of which was specifically rejected by the court in Phillips. See, 415 F.3d at 1318-20.
Citing their retained expert, Defendants in this case begin their claim construction analysis by
stating, generally and abstractly, that “[c]hemical complexes are understood by persons of
ordinary skill to be a molecular entity in which a central atom[] is bonded to two or more
moities, which may be ions, atoms, or molecules (also called ligands).” (Def.s’ Opening Br. at
14.) At the Markman hearing on this term, it was only after a long argument based on extrinsic
evidence that Defendants shifted their attention to intrinsic evidence. (See Markman Hr’g Tr. at
73:20-21 (Apr. 27, 2011).) It is clear that Defendants base their interpretation of the claim term
on an “extrinsic evidence first” model and request that we adopt their interpretation by doing the
same. Under Federal Circuit precedent, however, it would be improper for us to do so. Instead,
applying the appropriate weight to the types of evidence presented in this case, we find that, in
the context of this patent, “borate-polyol complex” has the meaning that Alcon suggests.
2.

“Ophthalmically Acceptable Antimicrobial Agent” / “Unpreserved”

The term “ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent” appears in claim 26 of the ’497
patent, and claims 5, 9, 14 and 18 of the ’253 patent. Alcon contends that the term means a

17

“conventional ophthalmic antimicrobial preservative,” and that the term “unpreserved,” as it
appears in claims 20, 21, 32, 43, and 45 of the ’497 patent, is the mirror image of
“ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent”—i.e., “unpreserved” means “lacking an
ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent.” (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 25.) Defendants construe
“ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent” to mean “an agent that is active against
microorganisms and that is toxicologically safe for use in the eye.” (Def.s’ Opening Br. at 21.)
They construe “unpreserved” to mean “allows the growth of microorganisms if they gain entry
into the formulation and does not include an ingredient specifically for the purpose of preserving
the formulation.” (Def.s’ Opening Br. at 22.) We find that the intrinsic evidence supports
Alcon’s proposed construction.
Defendants’ proposed construction of “ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent”
arises from their expert’s opinion as to the meaning of the term “ophthalmically acceptable” as it
is used in other patents filed by other inventors. (See Def.s’ Opening Br. at 21-22, citing Expert
Declaration of Michael J. Miller, PhD., Doc. No. 151 (“Miller Declaration”).) A review of the
Miller Declaration reveals a construction identical to Defendants’ proposed construction and an
assessment of the teachings of a number of other patents using the term “ophthalmically
acceptable” in various contexts. Defendants’ construction, however, ignores the intrinsic
evidence. That evidence plainly demonstrates that Defendants’ definition of the term is
incorrect.
The Chowhan patents’ specifications make clear that borate itself has inherent
antimicrobial activity and is toxicologically safe for use in the eye. The ’497 patent states that
“[b]orate is the buffer of choice for use in ophthalmic compositions, since it has some inherent

18

antimicrobial activity . . . .” (’497 patent, col. 1, ll. 33-34 (Pl.’s Ex. 3).) The ’253 patent
contains the same language. (’253 patent, col. 1 ll. 36-37 (Pl.’s Ex. 4).) Borate, therefore,
meets Defendants’ definition of an “ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent”—it is active
against microorganisms and it is toxicologically safe for use in the eye. Several of the claims of
the Chowhan patents, however, specifically require borate while at the same time excluding an
“ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent.” (See, e.g., ’497 patent, claims 19, 28, 39 (Pl.’s
Ex. 3); ’253 patent, claims 5, 9, 14, 18 (Pl.’s Ex. 4).) Under Defendants’ construction, these
claims would be nonsensical—it would both require, and exclude, an ophthalmically acceptable
antimicrobial agent. As we explained with regard to “borate-polyol complex,” above, “[a] claim
construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical ‘cannot be correct.’” Becton,
Dickinson and Co., 616 F.3d at 1255. As was the case with the previously construed term,
Defendants’ reliance on extrinsic evidence and definitions of terms divorced from the context of
the patents at issue leads to irreconcilable problems with the scope and logic of the present
teachings.
By looking to the intrinsic evidence, we avoid the issues presented by Defendants’
abstract definitions. That evidence supports Alcon’s construction. Notably, in the Second
Preliminary Amendment, filed in April 2002, Alcon stated:
Claims 25-40 do not recite an ophthalmically acceptable microbial agent as a
component of the claimed compositions, but the claims are open to the inclusion
of such agents as conventional antimicrobial preservatives. The borate-polyol
complexes of the present invention enhance the antimicrobial activity of
ophthalmic compositions, independently of whether conventional antimicrobial
preservatives, such as those described in lines 9-17 on page 2 (e.g., benzalkonium
chloride, polyquaternium-1, etc.), are present. However, in come cases it may be
necessary to include a conventional antimicrobial preservative in order to achieve
a particular level of antimicrobial activity associated with regulatory requirements
for preservative efficacy, or other criteria.
19

Conversely, in some cases it is not necessary to include a conventional
antimicrobial preservative in order to satisfy regulatory requirements or other
criteria. Such embodiments of the invention are now expressly claimed in Claims
43, 44, 45, 52, 56, 63, 67 and 69. Support for these claims is provided by the
description of the invention appearing at lines 10-21 on page 4, and by the
description of “unpreserved” solutions presented in Example 11 on page 14.
(Second Preliminary Amendment, Pl.’s Ex. 12 at 8, 9.) Claim 43, as specified in this
Amendment, recites “[a]n aqueous ophthalmic composition . . . wherein the composition does
not contain an ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial agent. (Second Preliminary
Amendment, Pl.’s Ex. 12 at 4 (emphasis added).) Claim 45 recites “an aqueous, unpreserved
ophthalmic solution comprising an amount of a water soluble borate-polyol complex effective to
enhance the antimicrobial activity of the solution.” (Second Preliminary Amendment, Pl.’s Ex.
12 at 4 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, the claims as recited in the amendment that lack “a
conventional antimicrobial preservative” are those that “do[] not contain an ophthalmically
acceptable antimicrobial agent” or are “unpreserved.” Thus, this aspect of the intrinsic record
clearly demonstrates that the terms are analogues—an “ophthalmically acceptable antimicrobial
agent” is a “conventional antimicrobial preservative” (e.g., benzalkonium chloride,
polyquaternium-1), and a composition is “unpreserved” if it “lacks an ophthalmically acceptable
antimicrobial agent.”
3.

“Enhance the Antimicrobial Activity”

The term “to enhance the antimicrobial activity” is recited in claims 1, 21, 22, and 33 of
the ’497 patent and claims 1 and 10 of the ’253 patent. Alcon’s proposed definition is: “to
improve the results of preservative efficacy testing by improving the killing of one or more of
the microbes that are routinely used in such testing.” (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 27.) Defendants
define the terms as “to increase / increasing the antimicrobial effectiveness of a formulation
20

against challenged microorganisms being evaluated in a standardized testing procedure when
compared with a baseline or comparable formulation.” (Def.s’ Opening Br. at 24; Def.s’
Rebuttal Br. at 14.) The only point of contention between the parties on this term is whether it
allows for worsening with respect to any of the challenged microbes.
Common sense application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood
words tells us that Alcon’s definition is undoubtedly incorrect. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“In
some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art
may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little
more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”)
Under Alcon’s definition, a solution could enhance the antimicrobial activity of a formulation if,
for example, it killed one strain of challenged microorganism, but caused the condition of all
other microbes, including the most clinically dangerous ones, to worsen significantly. Such a
result plainly does not represent “enhanced antimicrobial activity.” Common sense also tells us,
however, that the antimicrobial activity of a solution may be “enhanced” if it shows clinically
meaningful improvement on several challenged microbes, but slight worsening on one microbe
to a point where the risk posed is not such that it would fail FDA regulatory standards. To this
Court, the question of whether a composition has “enhanced the antimicrobial activity” involves
a utilitarian calculus that considers the probability and magnitude of the clinical harm posed by
each type of microorganism. However, the patent, and the parties in their briefs, do not specify
how we should consider such risk. Accordingly, we find that a general definition such as that
provided by Defendants—but without the “all” limitation— is appropriate. “To enhance the
antimicrobial activity of the composition,” therefore, means “to increase / increasing the

21

antimicrobial effectiveness of a formulation against challenged microorganisms being evaluated
in a standardized testing procedure when compared with a baseline or comparable formulation.”
4.

“Aqueous Ophthalmic Composition”

The parties disagree as to the meaning of the term “aqueous ophthalmic composition” as
it appears in claims 1-20 of the ’497 patent and claim 17 of the ’253 patent. Alcon contends that
the term refers to a “composition in which the water-soluble borate-polyol complex is present in
the aqueous phase.” (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 29.) Defendants contend that the term refers to a
composition in which “all of the components collectively are in an aqueous formulation.”
(Def.s’ Rebuttal Br. at 16.) We find that the intrinsic evidence supports the term “aqueous
ophthalmic composition” to mean “a composition in which the water-soluble borate-polyol
complex is present in the aqueous phase.”
Our lay sensibilities tell us that, in general, an “aqueous ophthalmic composition”
encompasses a water-based formulation containing components directed toward use in the eye.
In the context of the Chowhan patents, however, the term is narrower. Claim 1 of the ’497
patent recites:
An aqueous ophthalmic composition comprising 0.5 to 6.0 wt. % of a watersoluble borate-polyol complex to enhance the antimicrobial activity of the
composition, and water, said complex containing borate and polyol in a molar
ratio of 1:0.1 to 1:10.
(’497 patent, col 11, ll. 1-5 (Pl.’s Ex. 3)). Clearly, as used in this claim, an “aqueous ophthalmic
composition” must contain “water-soluble borate-polyol complex.” The descriptive portion of
the patent specification further directs that “the water-soluble borate-polyol complexes of the
present invention may be formed by mixing borate with the polyol(s) of choice in an aqueous
solution . . . .” (’497 patent, col 3, ll. 8-32 (Pl.’s Ex. 3) (emphasis added).) Therefore, the
22

aqueous ophthalmic compositions of this patent require that the water-soluble borate-polyol
complexes are dissolved in an aqueous solution. The specification also makes clear, however,
that the broader “compositions” of the present invention are not limited to solutions. Defendants
themselves champion this point. (See Def.s’ Opening Br. at 26 (“The ‘composition’ may be in
the form of a solution, suspension, gel, cream, powder, solid, or aerosol.”); Def.s’ Rebuttal Br. at
16 (“The Chowhan Patents themselves teach that preferred ‘compositions’ of the claimed
invention may be in various forms, ‘such as eye drops, gels, or ocular inserts.” (citing ‘497
patent. Col. 3, ll, 52-56)).) The ’253 patent contains the same language. (’253 patent, col. 3, ll.
52-53 (Pl.’s Ex. 4).) Therefore, the specification of the Chowhan Patents requires that the
“aqueous ophthalmic compositions” of the present invention are either entirely water-based
solutions, or other water-based compositions, e.g., emulsions, in which the borate and polyol are
dissolved in the aqueous phase. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he claims themselves
provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.); see also, id. at 1321
(“[T]he specification acts as a dictionary when it . . . defines terms by implication.”)
B.

The Schneider Patents
1.

“Prostaglandin”

The term “prostaglandin” is recited in each asserted claim of the Schneider patents. For
example, claim 1 of the ’287 patent recites:
A method of enhancing the chemical stability of an aqueous composition
comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a prostaglandin, wherein the
method comprises adding a chemically-stabilizing amount of a polyethoxylated
castor oil to the composition.
(’287 patent, col. 8, ll. 57-61 (Pl.’s Ex. 1) (emphasis added).)

23

The ’287 patent expressly defines the term.3 It begins its definition by stating that “[t]he
terms ‘prostaglandin’ and ‘PG’ are generally used to describe a class of compounds which are
analogues and derivatives of prostanoic acid.” (’287 patent, col. 2, ll. 23-25(Pl.’s Ex. 1)
(emphasis added).) The specification continues by outlining the molecular structures of these
general prostaglandins, before stating:
The prostaglandins which may be utilized in the present invention include all
pharmaceutically acceptable prostaglandins, their derivatives and analogues, and
their pharmaceutically acceptable esters and salts. Such prostaglandins include the
natural compounds: PGE1, PGE2, PGE3, PGF1á, PGF2á, PGF3á. PGD2, and PGI2
(prostacyclin), as well as analogues and derivatives of these compounds which
have similar biological activities of either greater or lesser potencies. Analogues of
the natural prostaglandins include but are not limited to: alkyl substitutions . . .,
which confer enhanced or sustained potency by reducing biological metabolism or
alter selectivity of action . . .
(’287 patent, col. 3, ll. 46-58 (Pl.’s Ex. 1) (emphasis added).)
The parties’ disagreement centers on whether certain language in this definition is
lexicographic, as Alcon contends, or merely exemplary, as Defendants argue. Alcon urges us to
adopt this definition:
The natural compounds PGE1, PGE2, PGE3, PGF1á, PGF2á, PGF3á. PGD2, and PGI2
(prostacylcin), as well as analogues and derivatives of such natural compounds
(including the pharmaceutically acceptable esters and salts of such natural
compounds and their analogues and derivatives), which have similar biological
activities of either greater of lesser potencies.
(Pl.’s Opening Br. at 14.) Defendants argue for a broad definition based on their position that
the language “such prostaglandins include . . .” is merely exemplary—it does not limit the
definition of “prostaglandin” as generally set out in the earlier sentence. Accordingly,

3

The ’287 and ’062 patents contain identical language with respect to the definition of
“prostaglandin.”
24

Defendants insert the “e.g.” qualifier into their definition:
Any analogue or derivative of prostanoic acid, including any pharmaceutically
acceptable ester thereof, natural prostaglandins (e.g., PGE1, PGE2, PGE3, PGF1á,
PGF2á, PGF3á. PGD2, and PGI2) and analogues and derivative of those
compounds.
(Def.s’ Opening Br. at 6.)
We find, however, that the language at issue is not merely exemplary, but that it is
intended to be lexicographic and expressly constrains the definition of the term prostaglandin
within the context of these patents. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he specification acts as a
dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims. . . . .”); E-Pass Technologies, Inc.
v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[I]n determining whether a statement by
a patentee was intended to be lexicographic, it is important to determine whether the statement
was designed to define the claim term or to describe a preferred embodiment.”) Four aspects of
the patents lead us to this conclusion. First, in specifying the prostaglandins that may be used in
the present invention as “the natural compounds . . . and analogues and derivatives of these
compounds which have similar biological activities,” the patents use the term “include” without
the modifier “but are not limited to.” (’287 patent, col. 3, ll. 50 (Pl.’s Ex. 1) (emphasis added).)
In the very next sentence of the definition, when discussing the acceptable analogues, the ’287
patent uses the language “including but not limited to.” (’287 patent, col. 3, ll. 55 (Pl.’s Ex. 1)
(emphasis added).) The fact that the patent drafter in one sentence used the language
“including,” and the very next sentence “including but not limited to,” suggests to us that the
former sentence sets forth an express closed-ended definition, and not merely potential
embodiments or examples. Second, a review of the patents reveals that where they intend to
indicate exemplary language, they do so clearly. For example, the patents provide “examples of
25

prostaglandins which are useful in the present invention,” (’287 patent, col. 4, ll. 11-12 (Pl.’s Ex.
1) (emphasis added), “examples of suitable agents which may be utilized to adjust the tonicity or
osmolality of the formulations,” (’287 patent, col. 6, ll. 54-56 (Pl.’s Ex. 1) (emphasis added), and
“examples of table buffering agents,” (’287 patent, col. 6, ll. 54-56 (Pl.’s Ex. 1) (emphasis
added). They do not label the “natural compounds . . . and analogues and derivatives of these
compounds which have similar biological activities” as “examples” of the prostaglandins that
could be used in the present invention, as they do elsewhere. Third, the nature of the language
itself suggests to us that it is not merely exemplary. The language in question contains an “as
well as” conjunction. The phrasing “A, B, and C, as well as D”suggests to us a complete, as
opposed to an open-ended or exemplary, set. Finally, Defendants have not convinced us that any
of the embodiments of the invention are put outside the scope of the claims if we adopt Alcon’s
construction. Although Defendants “don’t believe that Compounds 2 and 3 are compounds of
the D Series,” (Markman Hr’g Tr. at 154:5-6 (Apr. 27, 2011), they have not provided any
evidence to convince us that the compounds are not acceptable analogues with similar biological
activities such that they meet Alcon’s definition. Accordingly, we find that the expressly
narrowed definition of “prostaglandin” for the purposes of the Schneider Patents is:
The natural compounds PGE1, PGE2, PGE3, PGF1á, PGF2á, PGF3á. PGD2, and PGI2
(prostacylcin), as well as analogues and derivatives of such natural compounds
(including the pharmaceutically acceptable esters and salts of such natural
compounds and their analogues and derivatives), which have similar biological
activities of either greater of lesser potencies.
2.

“Enhancing the Chemical Stability”

The term “enhance / enhancing the chemical stability” is recited in claim 1 of both
Schneider Patents. Alcon construes the term to mean, “to add sufficient polyethoxylated castor

26

oil to an aqueous composition, and thus improve the chemical stability of a prostaglandin
therein, so that the composition is commercially viably storage stable.” (Alcon Markman Hr’g
Presentation at Slide 65 (Apr. 27, 2011).) Defendants define the term to mean, “to increase or
increasing the ability of the prostaglandin to resist chemical change (as distinguished from
merely increasing the physical stability of the prostaglandin or composition.)” (Def.s’ Opening
Br. at 8.)
Defendants definition of the term is in line with what our educated lay sensibilities tell us
the term means. Indeed, it is simply another way of saying the same thing. “To enhance” means
the same thing to us as “to increase ability.” “Stability” is the opposite of “change,”and “resist”
connotes “opposition.” Therefore, “enhancing stability” is the same thing as “increasing ability
to resist change.”
Defendants, however, expand on this common language definition and incorporate a
parenthetical aspect to ensure that the term is limited to “chemical” rather than “physical”
stability. Alcon does not dispute that the term implicates only “chemical” stability, therefore we
deem it appropriate to limit the term’s meaning within the construction, as Defendants propose.
(See Alcon Rebuttal Br. at 8 (“About that, there is no disagreement; that is what the claim terms
says.”); see also Markman Hr’g Tr. (“[W]e’ve been accused of attempting to import physical
stability limitations by the use of this chemically viable term. That is not our intent and we’re
not advocating that.”).)
Alcon argues that the purpose of its construction is “to make clear how stable [the
composition] has become.” (Markman Hr’g Tr. at 161: 17-18 (Apr. 27, 2011). In doing so,
Alcon looks to the Background section of the patents which describes the general problem to be

27

addressed by the inventions. The patents both state: “[w]hat is needed is a commercially viable,
storage-stable prostaglandin composition.” (’287 patent, col. 1, ll. 40-41 (Pl.’s Ex. 1); ’062
patent, col. 1, ll. 48-49 (Pl.’s Ex. 2).) Accordingly, Alcon argues, the level of chemical stability
contemplated by claim 1 of the patents is the level at which the composition is commercially
viably and storage-stable.
Although we recognize that Phillips directs that the claims of a patent “must be read in
view of the specification, of which they are part,” 415 F.3d at 1315, and that the general object
of the claim in this case is undoubtedly in line with the stated object of the patent, we decline to
import the general “commercial” purpose of the invention as a specific limitation for the claims.
See Yoon Ja Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The mere fact
that one object of the invention is to produce a slow acting antioxidant which is functional
throughout the entire manufacturing process does not mean that this particular feature was
adopted as a limitation in each claim of the patent.”); see also, E-Pass, 343 F.3d at 1370 (“The
court’s task is not to limit claim language to exclude particular devices because they do not serve
a perceived ‘purpose’ of the invention.”) In the present case, importing the “commercially
viably storage stable” limitation into the claim would ground the meaning of the term as much in
the fickle whims of the market as in the language of the patent itself.
Accordingly, we find that nothing in the intrinsic evidence suggests that the patentee,
either by express lexicography or by implication, intended to take the term out of the plain
meaning. The proper construction of the term, therefore, is: “to increase or increasing the ability
of the prostaglandin to resist chemical change (as distinguished from merely increasing the
physical stability of the prostaglandin or composition.)”

28

3.

“Therapeutically Effective Amount of Prostaglandin”

The term “therapeutically-effective amount of prostaglandin” is recited in independent
claim 1 of the ’287 patent and claim 12 of the ’062 patent. Defendants contend that the term is
indefinite. Alcon argues that the term has a plain and ordinary meaning, which we should adopt,
and that we should defer any consideration of Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments for a later
date. Defendants do not oppose deferring the indefiniteness issue until the time of trial.
(Markman Hr’g Tr. at 173: 13-15 (Apr. 27, 2011).)
We find that the indefiniteness issue is best decided at trial and defer consideration on it
until that time. See CSB-System Intern. Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 10–2156, 2011 WL
3240838, at n.16 (E.D.Pa. Jul. 28, 2011) (“[T]he weight of the jurisprudence disfavors
indefiniteness determinations at the Markman stage of patent litigation) (citing Waddington N.
Am., Inc. v. Sabert Corp., No. CIV.A.09–4883, 2010 WL 4363137, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2010);
Intergraph Hardware Techs. Co. v. Toshiba Corp., 508 F.Supp.2d 752, 773 n. 3 (N.D. Cal.2007)
(“[The] indefiniteness argument is inappropriate at the claim construction stage.”); Pharmastem
Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell Inc., No. CIV.A.02–148, 2003 WL 124149, at *1 n. 1 (D. Del. Jan.
13, 2003) (“[T]he court will not address the defendants’ indefiniteness argument at [the
Markman stage].... At present, the Court is merely holding that the claim is sufficiently definite
to survive claim construction.”). We recognize, however, as our sister court of this district
recently did in CSB-System International, that “this scenario creates somewhat of a quandary
since the terms are clearly disputed and require a construction upon which the parties may
proceed throughout the remainder of this litigation.” 2011 WL 3240838 at *18. Accordingly,
we shall set forth a brief discussion of the term so as to guide the litigation, without prejudice to

29

Defendants’ raising an indefiniteness defense at the appropriate time.
Alcon proposes discordant constructions for the term. In its opening brief, Alcon states
that “[t]he term ‘a therapeutically-effective amount’ of a . . . prostaglandin . . . means what it
says: an amount of prostaglandin effective to promote a desired therapeutic effect.” (Pl.’s
Opening Br. at 13.) However, the rebuttal brief states that, “‘a therapeutically effective amount
of prostaglandin’ is an amount of a prostaglandin sufficient to promote a therapeutic effect.”
(Pl.’s Rebuttal Br. at 10.) The definition Alcon provided at Markman hearing mirrors this latter
version. (Markman Hr’g Tr. at 171:8-11.) The subtle differences between the constructions
Alcon provides are important. Notably, the word “effective” as used in the opening brief, and the
term “effect,” as used in the rebuttal brief and at the Markman hearing, have different
connotations such that Alcon’s definition of “an amount sufficient to confer a therapeutic effect”
is not simply a plain-language restatement of “a therapeutically-effective amount.” The widely
and commonly accepted meaning of “effective amount” implies an amount necessary to achieve
an intended, expected or desired result. Alcon clearly recognized this when, in their opening
brief, they included the word “desired” in their definition. Id. at 1278. On the other hand, and
“amount that has a therapeutic effect” implies simply any therapeutic result or consequence.
Clearly, the two definitions are not the same—an amount can produce a therapeutic effect
without being therapeutically effective.
The claim in the present case uses the term “therapeutically effective amount.” We find
that this term is in line with the construction Alcon provides in its opening brief. The definition
Alcon provides in its rebuttal brief and at the Markman hearing, however, is incongruous with
the commonly understood meaning of the terms used in the claims, as explained above. Though

30

we take occasion to outline these thoughts so that we may narrow the issues for the benefit of the
parties prior to trial, we decline to adopt a construction other than that which stated in the
patents, and we defer further consideration of the term until the appropriate time at trial.
4.

“Aqueous Composition”

The term “aqueous composition” is recited in claim 1 of the ’287 patent and claims 1 and
12 of the ’062 patent. Alcon argues that the term should be construed as “a composition in
which the prostaglandin is in the aqueous phase.” (Alcon Markman Presentation at slide 73
(Apr. 27, 2011).) Defendants construe the term as “all of the components collectively in a
formulation containing a quantifiable amount of water in one or more liquid phases.” (Def.s’
Rebuttal Br. at 27.) We find that Defendants’ construction matches the ordinary meaning of the
term that has not been altered by the patent either expressly or by implication.
The parties disputed a similar term— “aqueous ophthalmic composition”—with respect
to the Chowhan Patents as discussed above. We began our discussion of that term by noting
that, as laymen considering the common meaning of the terms, we understood that “aqueous
ophthalmic composition” encompassed a water-based formulation containing components
directed toward use in the eye. However, in that case, there were specific and express teachings
in the patent that the borate-polyol complex had to be in a solution, thereby altering the abstract
meaning of the term as we understood it. (See supra at 21.)
Unlike the Chowhan Patents, the Schneider Patents lack any specific teachings that
require the prostaglandin to be in solution in water Alcon contends. There is no language in the
Schneider Patents that certain components must exist in specific phases within the composition.
Instead, Alcon points to the “essence” of the invention—which, it argues, was finding a way to

31

dissolve prostaglandins in water without compromising the storage stability of the drug—to
support its contention that the specification requires a specific meaning for “aqueous
composition” in this case. (Pl.’s Opening Br. at 17.) As we explained with regard to
“enhancing the chemical stability,” above, the ultimate object of the invention is not
automatically imported as a limitation into each of the claims. (See supra at 28.) Similarly, we
find that it would be inappropriate to import the invention’s “essence” as implying specific
lexicography for a claim term. Accordingly, we find that Alcon’s construction is improper.
Defendant’s construction, on the other hand, comports with what our educated lay
sensibilities suggest “aqueous composition” means. Defendants’ expert confirms that the
construction “all of the components collectively in a formulation containing a quantifiable
amount of water in one or more liquid phases” is consistent with how a person of ordinary skill
in pharmacy, analytical chemistry, organic chemistry, or chemical engineering, would
understand the term “aqueous composition” as used in the Schneider Patents means. (Decl. of
Paul Greico, Ex. to Def.s’ Rebuttal Br., Doc. No. 163 at ¶ ¶ 23-24.) We therefore adopt this
definition.

IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this memorandum for the disputed terms

of the ’287, ’062, ’497 and ’253. An appropriate order follows.

32

33