Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Company LLC et al

Filing 138

ORDER - As used in the asserted claims of the '581 patent, "physiologically required amount" is construed to mean "the amounts of the progestogenic compound and the estrogenic compound required by the body to achieve the full therapeutic effect.". Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 2/25/2016. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MERCK SHARP & DOHME B.V.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARNER CHILCOTT COMP ANY, LLC and
WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-2088-GMS

·ORDER
WHEREAS, on December 24, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Complaint (D.I. 1) alleging that
the defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,989,581 ("the '581 patent");
WHEREAS, the court held a four-day bench trial from January 19 to January 22, 2016;
WHEREAS, over the course of the trial it became apparent that the parties had a dispute
regarding the meaning of the term "physiologically required amounts" which the court needed to ·
resolve· 1

'

WHERAS, the parties filed opening briefs regarding the proper construction of
"physiologically required amounts" onFebruary2, 2016 (D.I. 131; D.I. 132), and answering briefs

1

On February 24, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing on the construction of other
disputed terms of the '581 patent. (D.I. 92). The court accordingly cancelled the scheduled Markman
hearing (D.I. 93). The plaintiff argues that the defendants raised their claim construction theory for
"physiologically required amounts" for the first time at trial. The court has not asked the parties to brief
the issue of waiver, but the issue was briefly discussed during trial (see D.I. 137 at Ex. 10) and in the
parties' briefs (D.I. 132 at 11-13; D.I. 134 at 17-20). The court does not find clear waiver on the part of
the defendants and does not fully address the issue because this ruling renders the issue moot.

on February 9, 2016 (D.I. 134; D.I. 134);
WHEREAS, having considered the parties' positions as set forth during trial, the parties'
submissions, and the applicable law;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, as used in the asserted
claims of the '581 patent, "physiologically required amount" is construed to mean "the amounts
of the progestogenic compounq and the estrogenic compound required by the body to achieve the
full therapeutic effect."2

2

Claim 1 of the '581 patent is for a drug delivery system comprising "at least one compartment"
that releases "physiologically required amounts" of the progestogenic compound and estrogenic
compounds. Both the plaintiff and the defendants propose reasonable interpretations of the claim
language. Ultimately, the court is convinced that the intrinsic record better supports the plaintiffs
proposed construction.
The defendants argue that the claim's recitation of"at least one compartment',. changes the
meaning of "physiologically required amounts." Based on their reading, the system could comprise more
than one compartment releasing progestogenic and estrogenic compounds. They contend that
physiologically required amounts are "sufficient amounts of each of the drugs to be released into the
body, in combination with any other compartments, to cause the desired therapeutic effect." The
defendants point to dictionary definitions to support their assertion that "physiologically required
amounts" is not a synonym for "desired therapeutic effect." (D.1135 at 5-7.) They also-note that the
patentee did not distinguish this invention from by prior art by focusing on the term "physiologically
required amounts." (Id. at 12-13.) The defendants point to a disclosed, but not preferred, embodiment that
includes a second compartment loaded with progestogenic and estrogenic compounds. 581 patent at 3:4955. They argue that the plain reading of claim 1 reads on this embodiment. Further, the defendants
contend that the single compartment ring is not the focus of the invention, but rather, that as the patentee
argued during prosecution, "the present invention is based on the surprising finding that a steroid can be
retained in a supersaturated state during prolonged storage." (D.I. 137, Ex. 2 at JTX-2.60.)
The plaintiff disagrees, arguing that the crux of the invention is a single compartment ring. The
plaintiff points to the specification's emphasis of a one-compartment device: "Surprisingly, applicant has
found that a reliable release ratio over a prolonged period of time can be achieved using a onecompartment, preferably ring shaped, drug delivery system for at least two steroidal compounds." 581
patent at 2:28-31. Further, the patentee distinguished the invention over prior art by noting that the
"Groenewegen device discloses a multiple compartment device with different hormones and/or
combinations of hormones in each compartment." (D.I. 137, Ex. 2 at JTX-2.59.) The plaintiff contends
that the not-preferred embodiment described by the defendants falls outside of claim 1, because
"physiologically required amounts" means that the total amount ofprogestogenic and estrogenic
compounds must be found in one compartment. According to the plaintiff, the recitation "at least one
compartment" has no effect on the plain meaning of "physiologically required amounts." Rather, the
claim contemplates additional compartments may be added which hold a placebo or other drugs, but not
estrogenic or progestogenic compounds.
The court finds that although a plain reading of the claim supports the defendants' contentions,
the rest of the intrinsic record and the trial testimony aligns with the plaintiffs interpretation of the

2

Dated: February

l.5 , 2016

invention. Claims must be read in light of the specification and prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The court agrees that the statements in the specification
and prosecution history of the '5 81 patent indicate the one-compartment structure is central to the
invention. Additionally, the court has heard credible extrinsic evidence regarding the purpose and
development of the invention. Understanding that the court is not required to confine its inquiry to the
intrinsic record, this evidence would not have been normally been heard during one of this court's typical
Markman hearings. Candidly, it is somewhat difficult for the court to proceed without being influenced
by the trial testimony, which con-oborates the plaintiffs representations.
Nevertheless, the court believes it has succeeded in walking the rather fine line in this case
between the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence before it, and finds that "physiologically required amounts"
has a plain meaning, and that meaning is all of the drug required to have the desired therapeutic effect-in
this case, contraception. In this case, the phrase "physiologically required amounts" informs and limits the
meaning of "at least one compartment," rather than the other way around. Accordingly, the court adopts
the plaintiff's construction.

3