Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals et al

Filing 186

ORDER Construing the Terms of U.S. Patent No. 9,375,405. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/19/2017. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

AMGEN INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. and
AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-853-GMS
CONSOLIDATED

ORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,375,405
After having considered the submissions of the parties and hearing oral argument on the
matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, as used in the asserted
claims ofU.S. Patent No. 9,375,405 (the "'405 Patent"):
1. The term ·"relative to the total weight of the composition:" is construed in accordance
with its plain and ordinary meaning. 1
·
1

Plaintiff Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") argues that claim construction is necessary because a person of
skill in the art would understand the term to have at least the following meanings: (1) compared to the total
weight of core/uncoated composition or (2) compared to the total weight of a coated composition. (D.I.
59 at 3.) Thus, Amgen proposes construing the term as "compared to the total weight of the core/uncoated
composition." In support of this construction, Amgen principally relies on the non-limiting exemplary
embodiment in the specification to support its proposed construction. '405 patent, col. 1111. 10-45. During
Markman, Amgen emphasized that "total weight of the composition ... is calculated only one time, and it
is calculated in a way to elegantly cover whether you have a coated substance or an uncoated substance."
Markman Hr'g Tr. 37:11-15.
·
Although it is undisputed that the calculations within the non-limiting exemplary embodiment
support Amgen' s position, the court rejects Amgen' s proposed construction. The court finds, as defendants
Aurobindo Pharma LTD., et al. ("Aurobindo"), point out that Amgen seeks to improperly narrow the scope
of the claim. (D.I. 60 at 5-9.) The crux of the issue is that Amgen seeks to limit the Claimed term to a
single example in the specification. The Federal Circuit, however, teaches against constructions that seek
to limit an invention to a single example in the specification. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1325 ("[A]lthough
· the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned
against confining the claims to those embodiments."); Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela Pharma Scis. LLC,
780 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[E]ven if all of the embodiments discussed in the patent included a
specific limitation, it would not be proper to import from a patent's written description limitations that are

Dated: Juiy

Jj_, 2017

not found in the claims themselves."). Because the court finds no clear intention to limit the claim scope
in the intrinsic record, the court construes the term "relative to the total weight of the composition" in
accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning.
2