© 2015 schiff hardin llp. all rights reserved. teva v. sandoz april 2015
TRANSCRIPT
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Patent Enforcement
Teva v. SandozApril 2015
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.2
Markman (SCT 1996)
What a claim means: “is a question of law, to be determined by the court”
Whether an accused product infringes: “is a question of fact, to be submitted to a jury”
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.3
Why Question of Law?
“Patent construction in particular is a special occupation, requiring, like all others, special training and practice. The judge, from his training and discipline, is more likely to give a proper interpretation to such instruments than a jury; and he is, therefore, more likely to be right, in performing such a duty, than a jury can be expected to be.”
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.4
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
• Question of law
• Judge gets to decide
• Intrinsic evidence compelling
• Expert evidence possible, but rare
• De Novo Review
5
Clear Rules of the Road
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.6
Teva’s Copaxone
Teva as patent owner
$4 billion blockbuster
Teva willing to go the distance, challenging 20 years of precedent that Markman established
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.7
Disputed Term
“a molecular weight of 5 to 9 kilodaltons”
Question: how does one determine molecular weight?
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.8
Ways of Calculating
• Number Average molecular weight
• Peak Average molecular weight
• Weight Average molecular weight
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.9
Teva Says Peak Average, But…
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.10
Battle of the Experts
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.11
Teva: District Court decision
Judge heard expert testimony from both parties
Judge believed Teva’s expert was more credible on the “shift theory”
So term is definite: molecular weight measures “the weight of the most prevalent molecule” (peak)
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.12
Federal Circuit decision
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.13
Teva: Federal Circuit decision
Panel reviewed the decision de novo
Found no reason to prefer one expert’s proposal over the other as a matter of law
Concluded claim was invalid as indefinite without any sound definition for “molecular weight”
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.14
Teva: Supreme Court Ruling
Takeaway: the “shift theory” was a question of fact!
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.15
Teva: Supreme Court basis
Rule 52(a)(6) does not allow for de novo review for fact questions; the standard must be “clear error”
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.16
Did this change Markman?
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.17
Supreme Court DISSENT (Justices Thomas and Alito)
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.18
Initial Reaction? Uncertainty.
Some said little will change:
• Difference only when real fact issue like credibility (Dissent footnote 1)
• Difference only for indefiniteness case, and should be limited as such
• Only when expert testimony presented
• Supreme Court didn’t change intrinsic/extrinsic distinction
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.19
Initial Reaction? Uncertainty.
Some said everything will change:
• A party will prefer factual support
• A court might seek protection in factual findings
• Expert testimony is now invited
• The “T” word: Mini Trials
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.20
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
What has actually happened?
Federal Circuit Phillips decision back in the limelight:
Intrinsic >> Extrinsic
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
21
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Federal Circuit: Status Quo
Enzo Biochem, 780 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
• District Court = relied on extrinsic for its claim construction
• Federal Circuit = extrinsic cannot contradict clear intrinsic
• Federal Circuit still reversed as a matter of law, because even if fact-finding not erroneous, still “did not override our analysis”
22
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Federal Circuit: Status Quo
Lexington Luminance LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2014-1384, 2015 WL 524270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2015):
“the district court erred by adopting a construction based on general-purpose dictionaries that is inconsistent with the intrinsic record”
(so de novo still proper)
23
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Fed. Cir. has reversed 5/13
Affirmed Reversed
Pacing Techs., 778 F.3d 1021 MobileMedia, 780 F.3d 1159
Southco, 2015 WL 1609846 Lexington 2015 WL 524270
TMI Products, 2015 WL 1515271 FenF, 2015 WL 480392
Cadence Pharm., 2015 WL 1284235
In re Papst, 778 F.3d 1255
Fenner Investments, 778 F.3d 1320
Enzo Biochem, 780 F.3d 1149
In re Cuozzo, 778 F.3d 1271
Vasudevan, 2015 WL 1501565
Flexiteek, 2015 WL 1244475
24
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Federal Circuit: Teva For Experts Only
25
“In this case, we review the district court's claim constructions de novo, because the intrinsic record fully determines the proper constructions and the district court's constructions were not based on expert testimony.” -Lexington Luminance LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2014-1384, 2015 WL 524270 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2015)
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Federal Circuit: Teva For Experts Only
*FenF, 2015 WL 480392 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2015)
*In re Papst, 778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
*Vasudevan, 2015 WL 1501565 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2015)
26
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
District courts also using Phillips…
Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., No. 13-723-LPS, 2015 WL 1383656 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2015):
“Where the intrinsic record unambiguously describes the scope of the claimed invention, reliance on extrinsic evidence is improper.”
27
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Sticking to Intrinsic
*InterDigital, 2015 WL 1006386 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2015)*Intellectual Ventures, 2015 WL 1393386 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2015)*Knapp Logistics, 2015 WL 1518004 (D. Colo. Mar. 16, 2015)*iLife, 2015 WL 868103 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2015)
28
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Carefully Using Extrinsic
*dunnhumby, 2015 WL 1542365 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2015)*Eisai, 2015 WL 1228958 (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2015)*Unimed, 2015 WL 1094601 (D. Del. Mar. 11, 2015)*Guitar Apprentice, 2015 WL 1567838 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 26, 2015)
29
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Relying predominantly on extrinsic
30
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Other Issues
What else is going on?
31
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Relevance of extrinsic evidence
Vasudevan, No. 2014-1094, 2015 WL 1501565, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2015)
Fed. Cir. held that it was entitled to review the relevance of extrinsic evidence—there a factual stipulation from another case involving a different defendant—de novo.
32
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Prior DCT Constructions
33
Because subsidiary factual findings based on extrinsic evidence are questions of fact, court definitely not bound by another court’s interpretation of a particular term, which it based on a dictionary definition. See id. at *20.
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Dictionaries
Used under heading “Intrinsic Evidence,” but apparently only to show consistent with intrinsic evidence. dunnhumby, 2015 WL 1542365, at *11-12 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2015).
34
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
So far, so good…
In sum, since Teva’s publication in January 2015, district courts have relied predominantly (and decidedly) on intrinsic evidence. And the Federal Circuit has predominantly continued to review claim construction de novo. So, for better or for worse, not much has changed.
35
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.36
What’s ahead?
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Teva: What If?
37
• Clear definition in patent
• No definition
• Figure without numbers
• Claim term self-defining
• Nautilus applied (POSA vs Law)
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Prognostications
38
• More will seek expert testimony
• More indefiniteness arguments
• More express definitions in patents
• More definitions in prosecution
• More district court fact-finding
© 2015 Schiff Hardin LLP. All rights reserved.
Thank You