Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH et al v. Warner Chilcott Company LLC et al

Filing 139

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 4/21/2015. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)

BA YER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH
and BA YER PHARMA AG,

)
)
)

Plaintiffs,

)
)

V.

)

Civil Action No. 12-1032-GMS

)

WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC,
WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC, and
WARNER CHILCOTT PLC,

)
)
)
)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM
I.

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH and Bayer Pharma AG (collectively,
"Bayer") filed this patent infringement lawsuit against defendants Warner Chilcott Company,
LLC, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, and Warner Chilcott plc (collectively, "Warner Chilcott") on
August 13, 2012. (D.I. 1.) Bayer alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,980,940 ("the '940
Patent"). 1 Presently before the court is Warner Chilcott's motion for summary judgment on the
grounds that the '940 Patent is indefinite and therefore invalid. (D.I. 131.) For the reasons that
follow, the court will grant Warner Chilcott's motion for summary judgment.
II.

BACKGROUND

The '940 Patent claims an oral contraception regimen in which two hormones are taken at
set time points throughout the dosing schedule. See, e.g., '940 Patent, claim 1. Bayer alleges that
Warner Chilcott's product Lo Loestrin infringes the '940 Patent's claims.
1
Bayer also alleges that Warner Chilcott's patent-U.S. Patent No. 7,704,984 ("the '984 Patent"}-interferes
with the '940 Patent by claiming the same subject matter. (D.I. 5.)

The parties sought construction of the claim term: "high contraceptive reliability, low
incidence of follicular development, and satisfactory cycle control, with reliable avoidance of
intracyclic menstrual bleeding and undesirable side-effects" (the "disputed term"). '940 Patent,
claims 1, 8 & 10. In its October 9, 2014, Claim Construction Order, the court found that it was
''unable to construe the disputed phrase." (D.I. 120 at 3.) In particular, the court found that the
words of degree-i.e., "high," "low," "satisfactory," and "reliable"-had no standards against
which to draw comparisons, and the patent offered no suggestions for how to measure these
criteria. (Id. at 7-8.) "The court is left at an impasse and is unable to discern the meets and bounds
of the asserted claims." (Id. at 8.) As a result, the court indicated that summary judgment would
be the proper avenue to address an indefiniteness challenge. (Id.)

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate "if the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material
fact exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 n.10 (1986).
A fact is material if it "could affect the outcome" of the proceeding. Lamont v. New Jersey, 637
F .3d 177, 181 (3d Cir. 2011 ). There is a genuine issue "if the evidence is sufficient to permit a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party." Id. When determining whether a
genuine issue of material fact exists, the district court must view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party and draw inferences in that party's favor. Wishkin v. Potter, 476
F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). If the moving party is able to demonstrate an absence of disputed

2

material facts, the nonmoving party must then "come forward with 'specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial."' Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
Patent invalidity on indefiniteness grounds requires proof by clear and convincing
evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 282 ("A patent shall be presumed valid."); Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.

P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) ("We consider whether§ 282 requires an invalidity defense to be
proved by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that it does.").

IV.

DISCUSSION
The law of patent definiteness has its roots in 35 U.S.C. § 112: "The specification shall

conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention." § 112 (emphasis added).
In light of this statutory mandate, "a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light
of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with

reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See Nautilus, Inc.
v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014) (emphasis added). Claims may be found
invalid as indefinite when they fail to specify clear, definite boundaries or standards. See Interval

Licensing LLCv. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("The claims, when read in light
of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of
skill in the art.").
The court has already explained in its Claim Construction Order that the intrinsic record
fails to assign meaning to the words of degree in the disputed term. (D.I. 120 at 3-8.) Bayer did
not seek reconsideration of this ruling, and the court need not revisit its reasoning. Nonetheless,
Bayer contends that the disputed term is not indefinite because one skilled in the art would
understand-with reasonable certainty-its meaning, as demonstrated by extrinsic evidence.

3

Bayer provides dozens of pieces of extrinsic evidence, as well as a supplemental declaration from
Dr. Lee Shulman, in support of a new argument that the disputed term and the words of degree
simply indicate that the claimed invention performs comparably to other oral contraceptives on
the market. 2 (See, e.g., D.I. 135.)
As an initial matter, the court takes issue with Bayer's procedure in making its arguments.
As even Bayer highlights in its brief, the court gave counsel an opportunity during the Markman
hearing to explain why extrinsic evidence was necessary to construe the terms-Bayer conceded
that the evidence was merely for "context." (D.I. 134 at 3; D.I. 84 at 17 ("Our position is the
meaning is clear from the text of the claim itself, and that it will be understood by a person of skill
in the art.... It [extrinsic evidence] is simply meant to provide the context .... ").) At this stage,
however, Bayer contends that extrinsic evidence and expert testimony is indeed· required to
understand the disputed term for the purposes of an indefiniteness inquiry. Notwithstanding the
fact that Bayer knew about Warner Chilcott's indefiniteness defense at the time of the Markman
hearing, the court fails to understand Bayer's argument that different analyses apply; depending
on whether the court is construing terms versus assessing definiteness-they are two sides of the
same coin. See Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Whether a
claim complies with the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112

if 2 is a matter of claim

.
construct10n . . . .") .

Moreover, during the October 31, 2014, teleconference, the court explained that additional
extrinsic evidence would not be considered at this stage:
I am certainly not going to prevent or prohibit Bayer from making
an argument regarding indefiniteness that they didn't get a chance
2
This construction based on "comparable" performance differs from that asserted during the original claim
construction arguments. Indeed, Dr. Shulman-Bayer's expert-previously provided a declaration supporting
Bayer's claim construction proposal. (D.1. 68.) There was no mention of comparing the claimed invention with
existing oral contraceptives in that declaration.

4

to make at the Markman proceeding. But I don't see the need for any
further testimony or discovery of an opinion type in this case.
I think I have made it pretty clear in my order that in spite of
having the benefit of the thoughts of those of skill that I have been
unable to construe certain of the terms in the patent.
(D.I. 126 at 3.) Nonetheless, Bayer has flooded the court with never-before-seen evidence and
expert testimony, supporting a new, "clearly established" meaning of the disputed term. Bayer's
efforts to reargue claim construction with entirely new evidence at this time is improper.
As the court stated in its Claim Construction Order, "[t]he difficulty the court has
encountered in construing the terms may unavoidably present an indefinite[ness] issue that will
need to be addressed at summary judgment." (D.I. 120 at 8.) Being unable to construe the disputed
term, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the '940 Patent does not "inform those
skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty"; the '940 Patent is
therefore indefinite and invalid under§ 112.
Indeed, the court would reach the same result, even if it were to accept the additional
extrinsic evidence and allow Bayer to assert a new

const~ction.

First, the proposed construction

(and the underlying extrinsic evidence) conflicts with the intrinsic record of the '940 Patent,
violating a basic tenet of claim construction. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[A] court should discount any [extrinsic evidence] 'that is clearly at odds with
the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves, the written description, and the
prosecution history .... '"(quoting Key Pharms. v. Hereon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed.
Cir. 1998))). Whereas Bayer pushes for a construction that essentially replaces all of the words of
degree in the disputed term with "comparable," the specification and prosecution history state
repeatedly that the patented invention performed superior to prior art products on the market.

5

In addition, the conflicting interpretations of the disputed term offered by Dr. Shulman in
his two declarations underscore the fact that the patent "fails to inform, with reasonable certainty,
those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 136970 (quoting Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2124). Bayer contends that Dr. Shulman's supplemental
declaration and the extrinsic evidence demonstrate a "known industry standard" or an "established
meaning in the art." (D.I. 134 at 8-9.) But Bayer's change of course shows this argument to be
specious. As Warner Chilcott states, if there were actually an "established meaning in the art,"
Dr. Shulman would have identified it in his original declaration. (D.I 138 at 7-8.)
Finally, even if it were to accept Bayer's new construction-"comparable to other
marketed oral contraceptives"-the court still would find the '940 Patent to be indefinite. "The
claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective
boundaries for those of skill in the art." See Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371 (emphasis added).
Bayer's proposed construction cannot stand by itself. By definition, "comparable" requires a
frame of reference, e.g., data ·from other marketed products. The intrinsic record fails to provide
this requisite information. Moreover, the word "comparable" is itself subjective, without defined
boundaries.

Bayer gives no indication of how comparable the performance of the claimed

invention versus the analogous products should be. "[A] patent must be precise enough to afford
clear notice of what is claimed, thereby apprising the public of what is still open to them. Otherwise
there would be a zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the
risk of infringement claims." Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129 (internal citations, footnote, and
quotation marks omitted). Thus, even Bayer's new proposal, "on its face, provides little guidance
to one of skill in the art." See Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371.

6

For these reasons, the court finds that the '940 Patent is indefinite. The court will grant
Warner Chilcott's motion for summary judgment. 3

V.

CONCLUSION
The court grant's Warner Chilcott's motion for summary judgment. (D.I. 131.) The '940

Patent is invalid as indefinite, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112.

Dated: April 2:1_, 2015

3

Warner Chilcott notes that a finding of indefiniteness necessarily eliminates Bayer's interference allegations.
(D.I. 132 at 14-16.) Bayer did not respond to this portion of Warner Chilcott's motion. The court agrees that, having
found the '940 Patent to be indefinite, there would be no way of effectively comparing it with the '984 Patent, for the
purposes of conducting an interference analysis. See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) ("Without a discemable claim construction, an anticipation analysis cannot be performed.").

7