THE MEDICINES COMPANY v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. et al
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM and ORDER re: disputed claim terms. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 1/2/2013. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THE MEDICINES COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.:
11-2456(PGS)(DEA)
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., DR.
REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC., and
GLAND PHARMA, INC.,
Defendants.
SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
In this patent infringement case, the parties dispute the construction of six claim terms. After
reviewing the parties’ respective submissions and conducting a Markman hearing on October 2,
2012, the Court construes the disputed claim terms as set forth in subsection III below. See
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d 517 U.S. 370
(1996).
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, The Medicines Company, has filed a patent suit against Defendants, Dr. Reddy’s
Laboratories Ltd., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Gland Pharma, Inc., for allegedly infringing
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 (the “‘727 Patent”) and 7,598,343 (the “‘343 Patent”) (collectively, the
“patents-in-suit”). The Medicines Company asserts that Defendants’ Abbreviated New Drug
Application (“ANDA”) No. 201577, seeking approval to engage in the commercial manufacture and
1
sale of its generic Angiomax product, infringes the ‘727 and ‘343 patents. The patents-in-suit pertain
to pharmaceutical formulations of bivalirudin and the processes of making bivalirudin. Bivalirudin
is the active ingredient in Angiomax, which is a product marketed by The Medicines Company that
is approved for use as an anticoagulant – a substance that prevents blood clotting – in patients
undergoing coronary angioplasty.
The bivalirudin is manufactured into a finished drug product through a process referred to
as “compounding.” The first step involves forming a solution used to dissolve the bivalirudin, which
is a powder (the “Part I solution”). The second step involves forming a solution of a base with a high
pH (the “Part II solution”). The third step involves dissolving the Part I solution (containing
bivalirudin), which has a low pH with the Part II solution to raise the pH, creating a “Part III
solution.” The resulting solution undergoes filtration before freeze drying to create a powder. Prior
to administration, the powder is reconstituted into a liquid so that it can be injected into a patient.
Original Angiomax was made using a different compounding process than the one claimed in the
patents-in-suit. The Original Process resulted in inconsistent levels of impurities with higher
incidences of the Asp9 impurity. The high levels of Asp9 impurity under the Original Process caused
unpredictable batch failures and rejections, resulting in significant lost sales for The Medicines
Company. The inventors of the patent-in-suit eventually developed a new compounding process.
The patents in suit are directed at consistently minimizing the levels of the Asp9 impurity generated
during the manufacture of the drug product.
The disputed claim terms are: (1) “pharmaceutical batches”; (2) “aqueous solution”; (3)
“maximum”; (4) “efficiently mixing”; (5) “wherein the batches have a pH adjusted by a base”; and
2
(6) “about”. All six terms appear in Claim 1 of the ‘343 patent, and all but “efficiently mixing”
appear in Claim 1 of the ‘727 patent. Claim 1 of the ‘727 patent, which is a composition claim,
reads:
1. Pharmaceutical batches of a drug product comprising bivalirudin
(SEQ ID NO: 1) and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier for use as
an anticoagulant in a subject in need thereof, wherein the batches
have a pH adjusted by a base, said pH is about 5-6 when reconstituted
in an aqueous solution for injection, and wherein the batches have a
maximum impurity level of Asp9-bivalirudin that does not exceed
about 0.6% as measured by HPLC.
(‘727 patent, col. 25, ll. 56-64). Claim 1 of the ‘343 patent, a product-by-process claim, reads:
1. Pharmaceutical batches of a drug product comprising bivalirudin
(SEQ ID NO: 1) and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, for use as
an anticoagulant in a subject in need thereof, said batches prepared by
a compounding process comprising:
(I) dissolving bivalirudin in a solvent to form a first solution;
(ii) efficiently mixing a pH-adjusting solution with the first solution
to form a second solution, wherein the pH-adjusting solution
comprises a pH-adjusting solution solvent; and
(iii) removing the solvent and pH-adjusting solution solvent from the
second solution; wherein the batches have a pH adjusted by a base,
said pH is about 5-6 when reconstituted in an aqueous solution for
injection, and wherein the batches have a maximum impurity level of
Asp9-bivalirudin that does not exceed about 0.6% as measured by
HPLC.
(‘343 patent, Col. 27, ll. 13-31).
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
There is a two-step analysis for determining patent infringement: “first, the court determines
the meaning of the disputed claim terms, then the accused device is compared to the claims as
3
construed to determine infringement.” Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 804 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citation omitted). When the court engages in claim construction to determine the meaning
of disputed claim terms, it is decided as a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517
U.S. 370, 372 (1996). It is well established that “[T]he construction of a patent, including terms of
art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court.” Id.
When construing claims, the court must focus on the claim language. As explained by the
Federal Circuit:
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. Attending this principle, a claim construction analysis must
begin and remain centered on the claim language itself, for that is the
language the patentee has chosen to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his
invention.
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). When looking at the words of a claim, the words “are generally given their
ordinary and customary meaning,” which has been defined as “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.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
The Federal Circuit has counseled:
It is the person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention through
whose eyes the claims are construed. Such person is deemed to read
the words used in the patent documents with an understanding of their
meaning in the field, and to have knowledge of any special meaning
usage in the field. The inventor’s words that are used to describe the
invention – the inventor’s lexicography – must be understood and
4
interpreted by the court as they would be understood and interpreted
by a person in that field of technology. Thus the court starts the
decision making process by reviewing the same resources as would
that person, viz., the patent specification and prosecution history.
Id. at 1313 (quoting Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
1998)). Those resources, called intrinsic evidence, include the claim language, the specification, and
the prosecution history. See id. at 1314.
However, when intrinsic evidence alone does not resolve the ambiguities in a disputed claim
term, extrinsic evidence – evidence that is outside the patent and prosecution history – may also be
used to construe a claim. See id. at 1317; Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 158283 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “[E]xtrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of
technical terms, and the state of the art” may be consulted; for example, expert testimony,
dictionaries, and treatises. Id. at 1314. However, when a court relies on extrinsic evidence to
construe a claim, the court should be guided by the principle that extrinsic evidence may never
conflict with intrinsic evidence, because courts “have viewed extrinsic evidence in general as less
reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. at
1319. Thus, a court should take care to “attach the appropriate weight to be assigned to those
sources.” Id. at 1322-24.
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Term 1 – “pharmaceutical batches”
For this term, Plaintiff proposed two definitions, referred to below as the Initial Proposal and
the Alternative Proposal. Plaintiff’s Initial Proposal was:
5
A single batch, wherein the single batch is representative of all
commercial batches, and wherein the levels of, for example, impurities represent levels for all potential batches made by said process, or
all batches prepared by a same compounding process.
Plaintiff’s Alternative Proposal was:
“Batches” or “pharmaceutical batches” as defined herein may include
a single batch, wherein the single batch is representative of all
commercial batches (see generally, 3Manual of Policies and procedures, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, MAPP 5225.1,
Guidance on the Packaging of Test Batches at 1), and wherein the
levels of, for example, Asp9-bivalirudin, total impurities, and largest
unknown impurity, and the reconstitution time represent levels for all
potential batches made by said process. “Batches” may also include
all batches prepared by a same compounding process.
According to Plaintiff, the Initial Proposal was meant to be a summary of the definition of
the disputed term as set forth in the patents’ specifications; the Alternative Proposal is the entire
definition that appears in the specifications. See ‘727 patent, col. 5, ll. 27-36; ‘343 patent, col. 5 ll.
27-36.
Although the Defendants indicated in correspondence to Plaintiffs that they would not object
to the Alternative Proposal, Defendants nevertheless retrenched on their concession and indicated
that an introductory sentence, which appears in the patent specifications, was required. That
introductory sentence reads, “As used here, ‘batch’ or ‘pharmaceutical batch’ refers to material
produced by a single execution of a compounding process of various emobodiments of the present
invention.” According to Defendants, this introductory sentence is necessary to provide context for
the Alternative Proposal.
6
Claim Construction
The Alternative Proposal is consistent with the specifications. See ‘727 patent, col. 5, ll. 2736; ‘343 patent, col. 5 ll. 27-36. The Court adopts same, with minor changes, because the
specification “acts as a dictionary” when it defines terms used in the claim. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at
1582. The Alternative Proposal references the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s Manual
of Policies and Procedures 5225.1–Guidance on the Packaging of Test Batches. The Court has
reviewed the publication and determined that the reference is unnecessary in this context, as it
merely provides support for a sentence in the Alternative Proposal that is clear on its face, and the
reference may confuse the trier of fact.
A remaining issue is whether the introductory sentence from the patent specifications should
be added to the construction. Defendants failed to set forth adequate support for their position that
the preceding sentence is necessary. To the extent that the phrase “made by a compounding
process,” which appears in the introductory sentence, adds meaning to the term “made by said
process,” which appears in the Alternative Proposal, the added meaning does not clarify the
construction. When viewed in the context of the specification, it is apparent that the phrase “made
by said process” refers to the compounding processes described in the patents. An express
antecedent basis for the term “said process” is not required here because the claim has a reasonably
ascertainable meaning.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the following construction of the disputed term:
“Batches” or “pharmaceutical batches” as defined herein may include
a single batch, wherein the single batch is representative of all
commercial batches, and wherein the levels of, for example, Asp9bivalirudin, total impurities, and largest unknown impurity, and the
7
reconstitution time represent levels for all potential batches made by
said process. “Batches” may also include all batches prepared by a
same compounding process.
B.
Term 2 – “aqueous solution”
Plaintiff argues that the term “aqueous solution” should be accorded its plain and ordinary
meaning because it needs no construction, or in the alternative that it should be construed to mean
“[a] liquid made by, with, or from water, including water.” Defendants argue that the term should
be construed to mean “[a] solution that includes water and at least one dissolved substance.”
Defendants argue that their proposed construction more accurately reflects the meaning of the term
to persons of skill in the art because it takes into account that a solution is a solvent – in this case
water – and a solute – “a substance that is intimately dispersed or dissolved within the solvent.” Def.
Markman Br. at 8. Plaintiff argues that its construction is supported by evidence in the intrinsic
record that the liquid used for reconstitution includes water and can be water. The specification
provides
The injectable dosage form is prepared by reconstituting the pharmaceutical formulation in a pharmaceutically acceptable vehicle.
Methods of reconstituting the pharmaceutical formulation are well
known in the art. Pharmaceutically acceptable vehicles are also well
known in the art and can include, but are not limited to, water and
saline for injection. As an example, the injectable dosage form may
be prepared by adding water to the pharmaceutical formulation and
dissolving the pharmaceutical formulation. This solution can then be
further diluted in 5% dextrose in water or 0.9% sodium chloride for
injection.
‘727 patent, col. 15, ll. 29-39; ‘343 patent, col. 15, ll. 31-41.
8
Claim Construction
Defendants’ proposed construction does not allow for the possibility that the “aqueous
solution” is comprised of water alone. This construction clearly conflicts with Phillips as it
improperly excludes an embodiment – water alone – that is expressly described in the specification.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315-16; ‘727 patent, col. 15, ll. 29-39; ‘343 patent, col. 15, ll. 31-41.
Plaintiff’s proposed construction is supported by the evidence in the intrinsic record as it reflects the
fact that the liquid used for reconstitution is water. However, Plaintiff’s proposed construction
includes the phrase “including water”, which is redundant. Therefore, the Court construes the term
“aqueous” to mean “a liquid made by, with, or from water.”
C.
Term 3 – “maximum"
Plaintiff argues that no construction is necessary, or that in the alternative the term should
be construed as “upper limit.” Defendants' proposed construction is “the highest level that can or
will be produced.” Defendants base their construction, in part, on a dictionary definition of the term
defining “maximum” as an adjective – the way it is used in the claims – as “[h]aving or being the
greatest quantity or the highest degree that has been or can be attained..” American Heritage
Dictionary 1083 (4th ed. 2006). Defendants argue that their construction aligns
naturally with
the claim language and specification as they both use the term to refer to “the highest level of a
specified characteristic.” Def. Markman Br. at 9-10. Defendants also argue that the prosecution
history supports their proposed construction because the patentees used the term “maximum” to
distinguish the prior art.
9
Plaintiff argues that the term “maximum” does not require construction because it is not a
technical term of art, its ordinary and customary meaning is readily apparent, the claim terms,
specification and file history do not provide any alternative meanings, and there is no indication in
the patent specification that the patent applicants chose to depart from the plain and ordinary
meaning of this term. In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue that the term should be construed as “upper
limit,” which the Plaintiff derives from a dictionary definition which reads: “an upper limit allowed
(as by a legal authority) or allowable (as by circumstances of a particular case).” Meriam Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary (Frederick C. Mish et al. eds. 11th ed. 2004). Plaintiff argues that its proposed
construction simplifies this dictionary definition without narrowing it. Plaintiff further argues that
Defendants’ proposed construction improperly limits the term, in that the proposed construction
ignores the first portion of the dictionary definition that Defendants rely on; the dictionary definition
Defendants rely on reads “having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that has been
or can be attained”, but the proposed construction ignores the first part of the definition – “having
or being the greatest quantity” – and limits itself to the second part.
Claim Construction
The Court finds that this term does not require construction, and should be interpreted
according to its plain and ordinary meaning. “Maximum” is not a technical term and its ordinary and
customary meaning is readily apparent. There is no indication in the specification or file history that
the patent applicants departed from the plain and ordinary meaning. Here, construction “involves
little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
10
D.
Term 4 – “efficiently mixing”
Plaintiff’s proposed construction is “[m]ixing that is characterized by minimizing levels of
Asp9-bivalirudin in the compounding solution.” Defendants’ proposed construction is “[m]ixing in
a controlled manner under high shear mixing conditions.” The term is found only in the ‘343 Patent,
which is a product-by-process patent. A product-by-process claim defines the product “at least in
part in terms of the method or process by which it is made.” 3-8 Chisum on Patents § 8.05; see also
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc). “‘[P]rocess terms in
product-by-process claims serve as limitations in determining infringement.’” Abbott, 566 F.3d at
1293 (quoting Atl. Thermoplastics, Inc. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834, 846-47 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
“In determining infringement of a product-by-process claim, . . . the focus is on the process of
making the product as much as it is on the product itself.” Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche,
Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Abbott, 566 F.3d at 1293). “As a result, a productby-process claim is not infringed by a product made by a process other than the one recited in the
claim.” Id. (citing Abbott, 566 F.3d at 1293).
Plaintiff's proposed construction is a functional definition of the term “efficiently mixing”
– i.e. one that is focused on the outcome of the mixing process; Plaintiff wants the Court to define
the term as mixing that produces a specific result. Defendants propose a process-based construction
– i.e. one that specifies how to perform the process step; Defendants want the court to define the
term as mixing that is performed in a particular way.
Plaintiff supports its construction with evidence from the intrinsic record. The specification
of the patents-in-suit says, “Efficient mixing is characterized by minimizing levels of Asp9-
11
bivalirudin in the compounding solution.” Plaintiff argues that the specification “acts as a
dictionary” when it defines terms used in the claims. Pl. Markman Br. at 19 (citing Vitronics, 90
F.3d at 1582). Plaintiff further argues that claim terms may be functionally construed where the
specification provides a functional definition and the claims and specifications do not recite a
specific structural or process requirement. Id. (citing cases).
Defendants argue that the specification does not expressly define “efficient mixing,” because
the “characterized by” language is not meant to be definitional as can be seen by the fact that the
definition portions of the specification explicitly define other terms using the phrase “refers to”. See
e.g., Ex. 2, '343 patent, col. 5, ll. 37-55 (“The term 'drug product herein refers to . . .”; “The term
'formulation' or 'pharmaceutical formulation' refers to . . .”; “The term 'carrier' refers to . . .”).
Defendants also argue that “[c]onstruing 'efficiently mixing' as [Plaintiff proposes] means any
mixing that works and effectively reads 'efficiently mixing' out of the claims . . . [and] renders the
'efficiently mixing' claim term meaningless and superfluous,” which would violate basic principles
of claim construction. Def. Markman Br. at 15.
Defendants' proposed construction stems from their argument that the specification
establishes that the two critical characteristics for efficiently mixing are: (1) how the pH-adjusting
solution is physically added to the bivalirudin solution and (2) how the two are mixed together.
Regarding the method of adding the pH-adjusting solution, Defendants argue that it must be
done at a controlled rate. Defendants say that Examples 3 and 5 in the specifications are the only
two examples that the specification indicates have yielded the desired result of low levels of Asp9bivalirudin following the compounding process, and both examples state that the pH-adjusting
12
solution was added to the bivalirudin at a “controlled” rate. '343 patent, col. 21, ll. 3-5, col. 23, ll.
21-23. The specification provides a direct comparison of Example 5 to Example 4, where the
process was said to have used “inefficient mixing”, showing that the batches produced in Example
5 displayed significantly lower levels of Asp9-bivalirudin. The Defendants also argue that the
prosecution history suggests that uncontrolled addition of the pH-adjusting solution was outside the
scope of the claims, because the patent applicants submitted materials explaining that their invention
was, at least in part, a process improvement consisting of a “less subjective and more consistent
process,” and “wherein the base was added in a controlled . . . manner.” Updated Accelerated
Examination Support Document submitted on Nov. 26, 2008 in the '343 prosecution, at 3; April 6,
2009 Response to Rejection in '343 prosecution, par. 13.
Regarding the method of mixing the pH-adjusting solution with the bivalirudin, Defendants
argue that it should be done under “high shear mixing conditions.” This too, Defendant argues, is
specified in the patent examples. According to Defendants, Examples 3 and 5 use fast, high shear
mixing conditions and yield lower Asp-9 bivalirudin levels than do Examples 2 and 4. Defendants
argue that Example 5, which uses high shear mixing, is the only example that is specifically
identified as utilizing “efficient mixing” conditions.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants' proposed construction is inconsistent with the alleged
“definition” in the specification and improperly attempts to impose limitations inconsistent with the
intrinsic record. First, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' proposed construction fails to address the
relationship between efficient mixing and the minimization of Asp9-bivalirudin as stated in the
specification. Second, Plaintiff argues that the proposed construction imports the limitations
13
“controlled manner” and “under high shear mixing conditions” from the specifications, which is
improper because preferred embodiments and examples should not be used to limit claim scope as
a matter of law. See Innova, 381 F.3d at 1117; Transmatic, 53 F.3d at 1277-78.
Claim Construction
The term “efficiently mixing” in the ‘343 Patent was recently construed in a separate
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. See Meds. Co. v. Mylan Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
109749 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2012) (hereinafter “Mylan”). The first point addressed in Mylan was the
Plaintiff’s contention that its proposed construction was set forth as a definition in the specification.
For the reasons set forth in the Mylan opinion, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109749, at *24-27, the Court
finds that the patentees did not intend to expressly define the term “efficiently mixing” in the
specification. If the patent applicants intended to expressly define “efficiently mixing” they could
have put the term in quotation marks and inserted the words “refers to” or “as defined herein” after
the term to clearly express their intent to define the term, as they did with other terms. See Merck
& Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, just because
Plaintiffs’ proposed construction is not set forth as a definition in the patent specification does not
mean that the construction is without merit.
The Court agrees with Mylan that the term “efficiently mixing” must be construed as part of
a process step – i.e., as a term describing how to mix. See Mylan, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109749,
at *27-34. As Mylan points out, when read in context, the term “efficiently mixing” is part of the
second step of a three-step process for producing the claimed pharmaceutical batches and must be
construed accordingly. The first step in that process is “dissolving bivalirudin in a solvent to form
14
a first solution,” the second step is “efficiently mixing a pH-adjusting solution with the first solution
to form a second solution,” and the third step is “removing’ the solvent and the pH-adjusting solution
solvent from the second solution.” '343 Patent, Claim 1. As it is used in Claim 1 of the ‘343 Patent,
the word “efficiently” modifies the “mixing” process step.
The Court, however does not think that adopting Plaintiff’s proposed construction would read
the “efficiently mixing” process step out of the claimed process. Plaintiff’s proposed construction
does not construe the claims of the ‘343 patent to capture pharmaceutical batches made by any
processes; rather, Plaintiffs’ construction defines one aspect of the claim’s mixing step in a
functional manner by saying that the resulting batches have minimized levels of Asp9-bivalirudin.
The proposed construction does not render that process step “meaningless.” Contra Abbott Labs v.
Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that product-by-process claim
containing the phrase “obtainable by” could not be read to capture products obtainable by processes
other than those explicitly recited in the claim because otherwise the process limitations chosen by
the patent applicant to define its invention would be meaningless).
The Court agrees with Mylan, however, that in light of the ‘343 Patent specification and
prosecution history the term “efficiently mixing” does not encompass the mixing process described
in Example 4 in the specification. As the Mylan court describes in detail, the specification
demonstrates that Example 4 did not achieve the goal of the invention – i.e., the process used in
Example 4 did not compound bivalirudin while consistently minimizing impurities. Id. at *35-42.
Accordingly, any construction of the term “efficiently mixing” that encompasses the mixing process
described in Example 4 is incorrect, because “[w]here the specification makes clear that the
15
invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the
claims of the patent.” Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Having assessed Plaintiff’s proposed construction, and having determined that the term must
not encompass inefficient mixing conditions described in Example 4, the Court must now determine
whether the additional limitations proposed by Defendant should be adopted. As stated above,
Defendants argue that the specification establishes that the two critical characteristics of “efficient
mixing” are: (1) how the pH-adjusting solution is physically added to the bivalirudin solution and
(2) how the two are mixed together; Defendant further argues that the specification establishes that
the pH-adjusting solution must be added at a controlled rate and the solutions should be mixed using
high shear mixing. However, by importing the “constant rate” and “high shear mixing” limitations
from the specification into the claims, Defendants commit a “cardinal sin” of patent law. See
Phillips, 415 F.2d at 1319-20. The limitations are taken from Examples 3 and 5 of the patents, and
the Federal Circuit has made clear that examples in the specification should not be used to limit
claim scope. Transmatic, 53 F.3d at 1277-78. The specification clearly states that “efficient mixing”
can be achieved by a variety of methods, including through the use of different mixing devices, by
mixing at different speeds and temperatures, and by adding the two solutions together rapidly all at
once, or in portions, or at a constant rate. See, e.g., ‘343 Patent, col. 2, ll. 50-58; col. 8, l. 24-col. 11,
l. 24. It is true that only the mixing methods in Examples 3 and 5, which were explicitly referred to
as “efficient” mixing methods, achieved the desired result of minimizing levels of Asp9-bivalirudin
in the compounding solution. However, the specification lists many other methods of efficient
16
mixing besides those exhibited in Examples 3 and 5, and the Examples are preceded by the caveat:
“the following non-limiting examples . . . are not intended, nor should they be interpreted to, limit
the scope of the invention.”
Under these circumstances, the Court does not agree with Defendant that the limitations
found in Examples 3 and 5 should be imported into the claims by defining “efficiently mixing” as
requiring the pH-adjusting solution be added at a constant rate under high shear mixing conditions.
The Court holds that the term “efficiently mixing” should be construed as “Mixing that is
characterized by minimizing levels of Asp9-bivalirudin in the compounding solution and that does
not use mixing conditions described in Example 4.” Negative limitations, which are generally not
favored, are permissible when they are justified by clear disavowal or disclaimer. Id. (citing Omega
Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (declining to add negative
limitation where district court and accused infringer did not identify “any express disclaimer or
independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding [the] negative
limitation”)); 3-8 Chisum on Patents § 8.06[3] (“[I]t is clear today that negative limitations are not
impermissible per se . . . .”). Here, where the claim specification clearly disavowed the inefficient
mixing processes used in Example 4, a negative limitation is proper.
E.
Term 5 – “wherein the batches have a pH adjusted by a base”
Plaintiff argues that this term does not require construction by the Court and should be
interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning, or in the alternative should be construed as
“during compounding, the pH of the batches is adjusted using a base.” Defendants argue that the
term should be construed to mean: “Wherein during compounding of the batches a pH-adjusting
17
solution containing a base is added to a bivalirudin solution in a controlled manner under high shear
mixing.” The parties agree that the term “wherein the batches have a pH adjusted by a base” is used
in the claims to describe the pH adjustment of the bivalirudin drug product during the compounding
process. The specification of the patents-in-suit indicates that pH adjustment occurs during the
compounding process:
[O]nce the compounding solution is formed, the PH or the final
volume of the compounding solution may be adjusted to a specified
level . . . The pH or volume can be adjusted using methods known in
the art, for instance, the addition of a pH-adjusting solution as
described above.
(‘727 patent, col. 11, ll. 25-30; ‘343 patent, col. 11, ll. 25-30). The file history further
confirms that the patent applicants made clear that the context for the pH-adjustment is the
compounding step, as they stated that the “compounding process for bivalirudin drug product is
generally performed by adjusting the pH of a bivalirudin solution from an initial acidic pH . . . to a
desired pH range . . . .” ‘727 patent file history, at MEDDRL0001636-45 at 1640-41; ‘343 patent
file history, at MEDDRL00000523-31 at 526.
However, Defendants’ propose to add to the construction the limitation “in a controlled
manner under high shear mixing.” Defendants’ position stems from their argument that the “alleged
invention depends entirely on the process by which the pH-adjusting solution is added/mixed with
the bivalirudin solution.” Def. Markman Br. at 17 (emphasis added). In a rehash of their “efficiently
mixing” arguments, the Defendants argue that the intrinsic evidence establishes that the pH
adjustment must be done in a specific way – in a controlled manner under high shear mixing
conditions – in order to produce pharmaceutical batches of bivalirudin with low impurities. The
18
Defendants argue that the specification and prosecution history show that (1) the production of Asp9bivalirudin during the compounding process was the problem that the inventors sought to solve, and
(2) that efficient mixing – mixing at a controlled rate under high shear mixing conditions – was the
only solution to this problem. Defendants argue that it was only after the patent applicants added
the “wherein the batches have a pH adjusted by a base” limitation that the Patent Office lifted its
anticipation rejection. Therefore, Defendants’ argue that their proposed construction does not import
limitations into the claims because their construction merely reflects what a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand the claim term to mean in light of the intrinsic evidence.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposed construction imports limitations from the
specification, in a rehash of their “efficiently mixing” arguments, but also that the construction blurs
the distinction between the composition claims of the ‘727 patent and the product-by-process claims
of the ‘343 patent. Plaintiff points out that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
recognized the distinction between the ‘727 patent’s composition claims and the ‘343 patent productby-process claims during prosecution of these patents. Plaintiff argues that importing process steps
into this term and turning the claims of the ‘727 patent into product-by-process claims would
improperly require the ‘727 patent into product-by-process claims. See K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In response, Defendants argue that the definition of
“pharmaceutical batches” that applies to both patents refers to the process by which the claimed
“pharmaceutical batches” are made (“produced by a single execution of a compounding process”).
Therefore, Defendants argue, the claims of the ‘727 patent already include what amount to a process
limitation, and as a result, a construction of the disputed term that includes the conditions of
19
“efficient mixing” does not add process limitations to the claims of the ‘727 patent, but merely gives
meaning to the process that is already an integral part of the claimed “pharmaceutical batches.”
Claim Construction
The Court construes the term to mean “during compounding, the pH of the batches is
adjusted using a base.” The intrinsic record supports this construction, and the parties agree on the
fact that the pH adjustment referred to in the term occurs during the compounding process.
Defendants’ proposed construction would improperly rewrite the composition claims of the ‘727
patent as product-by-process claims, and would add process limitations to those claims.
F.
Term 6 – “about”
Plaintiff asserts that this term requires no construction, and that it should be construed
according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Defendant argues that it should be construed to mean
“[a]pproximately with no more than a ± 0.1% deviation from the stated value.” The term about
appears in asserted claims 1-3 and 7 of each of the patents-in-suit.
Defendants’ construction, which uses the dictionary definition “approximately” but which
would allow a swing of nor more than plus or minus 0.1% in value, flows from the doctrine of claim
differentiation. “Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, dependent claims are presumed to be
of narrower scope than the independent claims from which they depend.” AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac,
344 F.3d 1234, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Defendant argues that “if the ‘about 0.3%’ recited in claim
3 of the ‘727 and ‘343 patents were permitted to exceed 0.4% then claim 3 would subsume claim
2 from which it depends and which allows for maximum Asp9-bivalirudin levels that do not exceed
‘about 0.4%.’” Defendants’ further argue that identical terms in separate claims should be afforded
20
the same construction, see Southwall Techs., Inc. V. Cardinal IF Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
1995), and thus the term “about” should be construed according to Defendants’ proposal in each
claim in which it appears.
Rather, Plaintiff argues that the term “about” needs no construction because it is not a
technical term of art, its customary meaning is readily apparent, it is a commonly used patent claim
term, and the specification and file history do not provide any alternative meanings aside from the
ordinary and customary one, nor do they provide any indication that the patent applicants chose to
depart from the ordinary meaning of this term. In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that should the
Court decide that the term needs construction, Defendants’ proposed construction is improper
because “the use of the word ‘about,’ avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter,”
and should be construed as “approximately.” See Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d
1351, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Indeed, the District of New Jersey has consistently construed “about”
to mean “approximately.” See e.g., AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v. Handa Pharms., LLC, C.A. No. 083773, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126078, at *12-15 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2010); Teva Pharm. Indus. v. Dr.
Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., C.A. No. 07-2894, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48039, at *22-23 (D.N.J. June 23,
2008). Plaintiff also argues that introduction of the limitation “with no more than a ± 0.1% deviation
from the stated value” into the claim term is improper. Plaintiff argues that the proposed limitation
is not in, nor is it suggested in, the specification or anywhere in the intrinsic record.
Claim Construction
The Court construes the term “about” to mean “approximately.” There is no indication in
the intrinsic record that a strict numerical range of ± 0.1% applies to this term. The claims of the
21
patents-in-suit demonstrate that the patent applicants deliberately intended to avoid a strict numerical
boundary as they used the term “about” with respect to the maximum values of impurities. Had the
patent applicants intended to include an exact numerical boundary, they would have done so.
Defendants’ reliance on claim differentiation is in error. Claim differentiation is generally employed
to avoid rendering claims superfluous. However the claims in the patents-in-suit, claims 2 and 3 for
example, would not be rendered superfluous merely as a result of overlapping scope. See Anderson
Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1370. Therefore Defendants’ attempted reliance
on claim differentiation is rejected.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions and has held oral argument on the disputed
terms; and
IT IS on this 2nd day of January 2013 ORDERED that the following disputed terms shall
be constructed as follows:
1.
Term 1 – “pharmaceutical batches” – is construed as:
“Batches” or “pharmaceutical batches” as defined herein may include a single
batch, wherein the single batch is representative of all commercial batches,
and wherein the levels of, for example, Asp9-bivalirudin, total impurities, and
largest unknown impurity, and the reconstitution time represent levels for all
potential batches made by said process. “Batches” may also include all
batches prepared by a same compounding process.
2.
Term 2 – “aqueous solution” – is construed as “a liquid made by, with, or
3.
Term 3 – “maximum” – requires no construction.
from water.”
22
4.
Term 4 – “efficiently mixing” – is construed as “Mixing that is characterized
by minimizing levels of Asp9-bivalirudin in the compounding solution and that does not use mixing
conditions described in Example 4.”
5.
Term 5 – “wherein the batches have a pH adjusted by a base” – is construed
as “during compounding, the pH of the batches is adjusted using a base.”
6.
Term 6 – “about” – is construed as “approximately.”
s/Peter G. Sheridan
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
January 2, 2013
23
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?