Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Watson Laboratories Inc. et al
Filing
296
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding a supplemental claim construction of a single term of U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832 (see Opinion for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/26/2015. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
RECKITT BENCKISER
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RB
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and
MONOSOL RX, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 13-1674-RGA
V.
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendant.
I
RECKITT BENCKISER
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., RB
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, and
MONOSOL RX, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 14-0422-RGA
V.
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
INTELGENX TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dana Severance, Esq., Wilmington, DE, Womble Carlyle Sandridge Rice; Dan Ladow,
Esq. (argued), New York, NY, Troutman Sanders LLP; Magnus Essunger, Esq., New York, NY,
Troutman Sanders LLP; Andrew Regan, Esq., New York, NY, Troutman Sanders LLP; Cassandra
Adams, Esq., New York, NY, Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kate Lester, Esq., Wilmington, DE, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA; Daniel Brown, Esq.
(argued), New York, NY, Latham & Watkins LLP; Michelle Ma, Esq., Menlo Park, Latham &
Watkins LLP; Jack Phillips, Esq., Wilmington, DE, Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A.;
Attorneys for Defendants
June 26._, 2015
Before this Court is a supplemental claim construction of a single term of U.S. Patent No.
8,475,832 ("the '832 Patent"). The Court previously construed other disputed terms submitted
by the parties. (D.I. 156). In the present matter, the Court has considered the parties' claim
construction briefing (D.I. 237, 239, 243, 253) and held a Markman hearing. (D.I. 294).
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
"It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to
which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (internal quotation marks omitted). "' [T]here is no magic formula or
catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate
weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law."'
Soft View LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at* 1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1324). When construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the
claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), afj"d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these
sources, "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." Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1315 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
"[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning ....
[Which is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."
Id. at 1312-13 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "[T]he ordinary meaning of a
claim term is its meaning to [an] ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Id. at 1321
2
i
I
(internal quotation marks omitted). "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." Id at 1314 (internal citations omitted).
When a court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent claims, the
specification, and the prosecution history-the court's construction is a determination oflaw.
See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The court may also
make factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all
evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony,
dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-19 (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying
technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works. Id
Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable and less useful in claim construction than the patent
and its prosecution history. Id.
"A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it
defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa 'per
Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would
exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GmbH v. Int 'l Trade
Comm 'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
3
II.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERM
A.
The '832 Patent
Claim 1 of the '832 patent reads:
A film dosage composition comprising:
a. A polymeric carrier matrix;
b. A therapeutically effective amount ofbuprenorphine or a pharmaceutically
acceptable salt thereof;
c. A therapeutically effective amount of naloxone or a pharmaceutically
acceptable salt thereof; and
d. A buffer in an amount to provide a local pH for said composition of a value
sufficient to optimize absorption of said buprenorphine, wherein said local pH is
from about 3 to about 3.5 in the presence of saliva.
('832 Patent, Claim 1) (relevant term italicized).
1.
"buffer"
a.
Plaintiffs' proposed construction: "Buffer" as used in the claims has its
plain and ordinary meaning as used in the pharmaceutical sciences: "buffer" means one or more
components that function to help resist changes to pH when small amount of an acidic or basic
agent are added.
b.
Defendants' proposed construction: A combination of a weak acid and its
conjugate base present in the composition, the base being provided by one of its soluble salts, in
a sufficient amount to [provide a local pH for the composition sufficient to optimize absorption
ofsaid buprenorphine wherein said local pH is about 3 to about 3. 5 in the presence ofsaliva in
the mouth, where local pH refers to the pH of the region of the carrier matrix immediately
surrounding the active agent as the matrix hydrates and/or dissolves, for example, in the mouth
of the user]
c.
Court's construction: a buffer is a component in the composition that
functions to resist changes to pH when an acid or base is added to the composition.
4
The crux of this dispute is whether a buffer must include both a weak acid and a
conjugate base, or whether a buffer need only include one of a weak acid or a conjugate base. In
other words, whether a buffer must be a combination, or whether one or more components will
suffice.
Plaintiffs provide useful definitions from specialized dictionaries but appear to recite
from them selectively. Merriam-Webster's Medical Desk Dictionary, cited by Plaintiffs,
describes a buffer as "a substance or mixture of substances (as bicarbonates and some proteins in
biological fluids) that in solution tends to stabilize the hydrogen-ion concentration by
neutralizing within limits both acids and bases." (D.I. 239 at p. 2; D.I. 239-1 at 3). 1 Similarly,
Plaintiffs quote from the Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: "any
substance or mixture of substances that, when dissolved (usually in water), will maintain its
solution at approximately constant pH despite small additions of acid or base." (D.I. 239 at p. 2;
D.I. 239-2 at 5). The very next sentence of that definition, however, reads, "The commonest
examples are moderately strong solutions containing both a weak acid and its conjugate base (or
a weak base and its conjugate acid)." (D.I. 239-2 at 5). Defendants question the use of these
definitions as not coming from pharmaceutical references. (D.I. 243 at p. 3). Instead,
Defendants point to Remington's as an authority on pharmaceutical science. Remington's states:
"Buffers are used to maintain the pH of a medicinal at an optimal value. A buffer is a solution of
a weak acid and its conjugate base, the base being provided by one of its soluble salts." (D.I.
1
Notably, part of the definition for "buffer solution," the next entry in the same dictionary,
appears to comport with Defendants' definition of"buffer": "a solution that usu[ ally] contains ...
a weak acid (as carbonic acid) together with one of the salts of this acid . . . and that by its
resistance to changes in hydrogen-ion concentration on the addition of acid or base is useful in
many ... processes." (D.I. 239-1 at 3).
5
245-1 at 12). Defendants argue that there is no compelling reason to deviate from what it
believes is the ordinary meaning of buffer. (D.I. 243 at p. 4).
Even though the definitions strongly suggest that a buffer often--or in its "commonest
example"-contains both a weak acid and a conjugate base, that does not appear to always be the
case. Instead, the fundamental characteristic of a buffer is that it buffers, or resists changes to,
pH. The definitions offered by the parties suggest that more often than not this is done with both
an acid and a base. But even so, the combination is not required. The Court's construction,
unlike Plaintiffs' proposal, makes clear that the buffer must function to resist changes to pHnot merely "help" resist changes. Similarly, Plaintiffs' inclusion of "small amounts" of an acid
or base does not add meaning to buffer.
The claims, as Plaintiffs argue, by themselves demonstrate buffer may refer to a single
component or combination. (D.I. 239 at p. 3). For example, claim 7 of the patent reads, "The
film dosage composition of claim 1, wherein said buffer comprises sodium citrate, citric acid,
and combinations thereof." ('832 Patent, Claim 7). The fact that the claim explicitly
contemplated "combinations" of sodium citrate and citric acid suggests that, by themselves,
sodium citrate and citric acid could act as the said buffer. If sodium citrate or citric acid could be
buffers by themselves, it would not be correct that a combination of components, as Defendants
assert, is required.
The specification also demonstrates that a buffer is not limited to a combination of an
acid and base. Plaintiffs argue that the specification states in several places that "any buffer"
may be used. (D.1. 239 at p. 4). Defendants argue that the examples in the patent that the buffer
"may include" or "comprise" sodium citrate, citric acid, or combinations do not demonstrate that
the buffer is citric acid or is sodium citrate. (D.1. 243 at p. 8; see, e.g, '832 Patent at 13:7-10
6
("Any buffer system may be used as desired. In some embodiments, the buffer may include
sodium citrate, citric acid, and combinations thereof.")). Defendants overstate their claim. This
"include" or "comprise" language does not by itself demonstrate that a buffer is only citric acid
or sodium citrate. But the language does suggests that an expansive view of a buffer system was
contemplated to cover "any" buffer system. Similarly, as with the claim language, the fact that
the buffer could also include "combinations" of sodium citrate and citric acid suggests that it
could also include the components by themselves--else there would be no need to call out
combinations explicitly.
Defendants do point to persuasive examples in the specification, but it would be improper
to limit the claim language to these examples. Defendants argue that the specification
demonstrates that the invention functions by requiring both a weak acid and conjugate base.
(D.I. 243 at p.5; see '832 Patent, Table 5). For example, in describing three test film
formulations, the specification says that the "first film did not include any buffer," and in the
corresponding column of Table 5, that test film contains neither citric acid nor sodium nitrate.
('832 Patent at 18:37-38). In contrast, the two other test formulations are described as
"buffered" and contain a mix of citric acid and sodium citrate. (' 832 Patent at 18:38-40). More
specifically, Defendants point out that the claim specifies that the buffer provides a local pH
from about 3 to 3.5 in the presence of saliva and that the second test formulation of Table 5,
which has a "pH= 3-3.5," contains 2.96 mg of citric acid and 2.34 mg of sodium citrate. (D.I.
243 at p. 5; '832 Patent, Table 5). Defendants argue that this is consistent with the construction
of a buffer as a conjugate base and weak acid. (D.I. 243 at p. 6). Defendants are correct that this
is consistent with a construction of buffer that contains both a conjugate base and weak acid, but
I
7
f
i
I
it does not prove anything. A combination of acid and base counts as a buffer, but that does not
foreclose an individual component, such as citric acid or sodium citrate, also being a buffer.
Both parties cite to the prosecution history and prior art cited in the patent to illuminate
the meaning of buffer, but the Court does not find this evidence particularly persuasive either
way. Plaintiffs have cited cases of other courts construing "buffering agent," but it is
challenging to draw much from constructions of this term within the context of entirely different
patents and intrinsic records. (D.I. 239 at p. 7).
For the above reasons, a buffer is a component in the composition that functions to resist
changes to pH when an acid or base is added to the composition.
8
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?