Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 6274
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`HOLOGIC, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
`CYTYC SURGICAL PRODUCTS, LLC, a
`Massachusetts limited liability company,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`MINERVA SURGICAL, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 20-925-JFB-SRF
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT TUCKER
`
`Of Counsel:
`Matthew M. Wolf
`Marc A. Cohn
`Jennifer A. Sklenar*
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`matthew.wolf@arnoldporter.com
`marc.cohn@arnoldporter.com
`
`* Admitted in NY and CA only; practice
`limited to matters before federal courts and
`federal agencies.
`
`Ryan J. Casamiquela
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3 Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
`Telephone: (415) 471-3100
`ryan.casamiquela@arnoldporter.com
`
`Assad Rajani
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: (650) 319-4500
`assad.rajani@arnoldporter.com
`
`Karen L. Pascale (#2903)
`Pilar G. Kraman (#5199)
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 571-6600
`kpascale@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hologic, Inc.
` and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC
`
`March 22, 2021
`Redacted version: March 29, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 6275
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................ 1 
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................................................... 2 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2 
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Dr. Tucker Does Not Apply The Court’s Construction .......................................... 4 
`
`Dr. Tucker’s Infringement Analysis Is Contrary To Patent Law ............................ 8 
`
`Dr. Tucker Opines That Prosecution History Estoppel Applies Even
`Though The Court Already Found Otherwise ...................................................... 10 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 11 
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 6276
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Elcock v. Kmart Corp.,
`233 F.3d 734 (3d Cir. 2000).......................................................................................................3
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.,
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................9
`
`Hebert v. Lisle Corp.,
`99 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................9
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-1031-JFB-SRF.......................................................................................................1
`
`In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.,
`35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994).........................................................................................................3
`
`Integra Lifscis. Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.,
`No. 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 1785033 (D. Del. Apr. 4, 2018) ............................................4
`
`Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Alcon Labs. Inc.,
`No. CV 15-525, 2018 WL 4178159 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2018) .................................................11
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc.,
`449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................1, 4, 7
`
`Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc.,
`No. 17-14-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 8014103 (D. Del. June 25, 2019) ....................................1, 4, 7
`
`Personalized User Model, L.L.P. v. Google Inc.,
`No. 09-525-LPS, 2014 WL 807736 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2014) ....................................................9
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Cox Commc’ns Inc.,
`302 F. Supp. 3d 597 (D. Del. 2017) ...............................................................................1, 4, 7, 9
`
`SunTiger, Inc. v. Sci. Research Funding Grp.,
`189 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................9
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................1, 9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 6277
`
`
`
`Yazujian v. PetSmart,
`729 F. App’x 213 (3d Cir. 2018) ...............................................................................................3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ..........................................................................................................3
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 6278
`
`Plaintiffs Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC (collectively, “Hologic”)
`
`respectfully move this Court to exclude portions of the opinions provided by Defendant Minerva
`
`Surgical, Inc.’s (“Minerva”) expert, Dr. Robert Tucker.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`Minerva’s expert, Dr. Tucker, does not apply the Court’s claim construction in his
`
`non-infringement analysis. His interpretation is necessarily improper because it excludes two
`
`devices that have already been found to embody the claims: (i) Hologic’s NovaSure and (ii) the
`
`original Minerva device that was found to infringe in Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`
`C.A. No. 15-1031-JFB-SRF (“First Action” or “F.A.”). Specifically, he interprets the Court’s
`
`construction of “pivot point” to require the pivot point be separate from the handle’s two grips—
`
`but, the pivot point in the NovaSure and in the
`
` are formed
`
`integrally with the grips. His construction, therefore, is wrong. When an expert does not apply
`
`the Court’s construction, his opinions must be stricken. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan
`
`Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 1209, 1224 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Cox Commc’ns
`
`Inc., 302 F. Supp. 3d 597, 619–20 (D. Del. 2017); Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., No. 17-14-
`
`JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 8014103, at *3 (D. Del. June 25, 2019).
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Tucker also relies on a faulty construction and the legally erroneous principle
`
`that the addition of a feature to an otherwise infringing device means it does not infringe. In
`
`particular, Dr. Tucker opines that the “pivot point” element excludes any movement other than
`
`rotation and then concludes that Minerva’s New Pivot Device lacks the claimed “pivot point”
`
`because its grips slide as well as pivot. It is well-settled, however, that adding a feature (here, a
`
`sliding motion) to an infringing design (one with grips that include, but are not limited to, a
`
`pivoting motion) does not negate infringement. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc.,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6279
`
`200 F.3d 795, 811 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]nfringement is not avoided by the presence of elements
`
`or steps in addition to those specifically recited in the claim.”).
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Tucker also ignores the Court’s prior rulings in the First Action regarding the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. There, the Court found that prosecution history estoppel does not apply.
`
`Dr. Tucker admits he did not even consider the Court’s prior ruling in rendering his opinions.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`The nature and stage of these proceedings is set forth in Section II of Hologic’s Opening
`
`Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement, filed
`
`contemporaneously herewith.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A detailed statement of facts is set forth in Hologic’s Opening Brief in Support of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement, filed concurrently herewith. The
`
`’348 Patent is directed to a sophisticated device for the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding.
`
`(Ex. 1 at 19:9-42.)1 The device applies energy to a woman’s uterus to ablate, or burn, the inner
`
`lining of her uterus in a carefully controlled manner. (Id. at 1:25-31.) In 2015, Hologic filed the
`
`First Action accusing Minerva’s original Endometrial Ablation System (“EAS”) of infringing at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’348 Patent. In a June 28, 2018 summary judgment ruling, this Court found
`
`that the original device infringed, and that Minerva’s invalidity defenses of no enablement and
`
`no written description were meritless. (F.A., D.I. 407.) A trial was held in July 2018 during
`
`which a jury awarded damages on sales of the original device.
`
`In 2016, Minerva began development of a purported re-design. (D.I. 10, ¶ 36.) The only
`
`difference between Minerva’s original device and the re-design was how the grips of the handle
`
`
`1 The Exhibits cited herein are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Marc A. Cohn.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 6280
`
`were attached to each other. Specifically, ’348 Patent claim 1 recites a handle with two grips
`
`that are “pivotally attached to one another at a pivot point,” such that when the grips are
`
`squeezed together, the applicator head is deployed. (Ex. 1 at 19:22-29.) In the re-design,
`
`Minerva changed how the grips were attached
`
`
`
`.
`
`Minerva’s own opinion counsel dubbed this device the “New Pivot” device. (Ex. 5, ¶ 45; Ex. 6
`
`at 218:20–219:1.)
`
`In this case, Dr. Tucker opines that the New Pivot Device does not infringe. Portions of
`
`Dr. Tucker’s analysis should be stricken because (i) he adds limitations to the claim construction,
`
`(ii) he applies an erroneous legal standard of infringement, and (iii) he did not consider that the
`
`Court already ruled that prosecution history estoppel does not apply.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 creates “a gatekeeping role for the [trial] judge” to
`
`“ensur[e] that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task
`
`at hand.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993); see also Yazujian v.
`
`PetSmart, 729 F. App’x 213, 215 (3d Cir. 2018) (“To be admissible, expert testimony must be
`
`connected to the inquiry at hand.”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`There are three distinct requirements for admissible expert testimony: (1) the expert must
`
`be qualified; (2) the opinion must be reliable; and (3) the expert’s opinion must relate to the
`
`facts. See generally Elcock v. Kmart Corp., 233 F.3d 734, 741–46 (3d Cir. 2000). Importantly,
`
`“the expert’s opinion must be based on the ‘methods and procedures of science’ rather than on
`
`‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’” In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717,
`
`742 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 6281
`
`In a patent case, an expert opining on infringement must apply the Court’s construction.
`
`See Integra Lifscis. Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc., No. 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL
`
`1785033, at *4 (D. Del. Apr. 4, 2018). Expert opinions that are based on an interpretation of the
`
`patent that is inconsistent with the Court’s construction must be excluded. See Liquid Dynamics,
`
`449 F.3d at 1224 n.2; Sprint Commc’ns, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 619–20; see also Liqwd, 2019 WL
`
`8014103, at *3.
`
`A.
`
`Dr. Tucker Does Not Apply The Court’s Construction
`
`The only claim element Dr. Tucker contends is missing in the New Pivot Device is the
`
`two grips being “pivotally attached to one another at a pivot point”—he concedes all other
`
`elements are present in the New Pivot Device. The Court adopted the parties’ agreed
`
`construction of “pivot point” as “a point of attachment between two members about which the
`
`members hinge or rotate.” (D.I. 20, ¶ 9; F.A., D.I. 155 at 3.) Dr. Tucker, however, adds the
`
`requirement that the “pivot point” cannot be attached to either of the two grips, but must itself be
`
`a third, separate piece:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`. . .
`
`Q.
`
`So it’s your opinion that you need to have the three separate pieces
`to meet the court’s construction, the proximal grip, the distal grip
`and the pivot point all need to be separate; is that right?
`
`The pivot pin, yes. . . . That’s the way I read -- that’s the way I read
`the court’s construction.
`
`So the pivot point structure in Claim 1 cannot be fixed to either grip
`. . . , right?
`
`[A.]
`
`I think that’s -- that’s the court’s construction . . . .
`
`(Ex. 7 at 80:17-81:17, 83:23-84:3 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 25, ¶¶ 208, 213, 215; Ex. 57,
`
`¶¶ 19, 29; Ex. 7 at 64:24-65:20, 65:25-66:9, 66:18-23, 75:3-15, 83:12-21, 96:9-14, 97:7-98:3,
`
`107:18-108:4, 111:17-115:14.) This is nowhere recited in claim 1 or in the Court’s construction.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 6282
`
`Dr. Tucker’s interpretation—which was never advanced in the First Action—is
`
`inherently wrong, because it would exclude
`
` as well as Hologic’s
`
`own NovaSure that embodies claim 1. (E.g., Ex. 25, ¶ 118-20; Ex. 7 at 104:9-16, 126:5-21.)
`
`The pivot point of the NovaSure is molded integrally with one of the grips—it thus does not
`
`meet Dr. Tucker’s definition of being a separate piece. (Ex. 72 at -75099–103; Ex. 73 at -
`
`75155–59.) Dr. Tucker did not consider these facts:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`. . .
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Do you know how the proximal grip and the distal grip of the
`NovaSure are pivotally attached to each other at a pivot point?
`
`I have not taken one apart, no.
`
`Did you evaluate that in the course of rendering your opinions in
`this case?
`
`No.
`
`You don’t recall doing that at all?
`
`I did not do that at all.
`
`Do you have any recollection of how the two grips in the NovaSure
`are pivotally attached to the pivot point?
`
`No. No. I can see the -- the pivot pin, but I don’t know -- I don’t
`know dimensions, how it’s -- if it’s press fit in or just how it’s made.
`
`Do you know whether the pin was a part of either of the two grips
`in the NovaSure?
`
`Mr. Cohn, I never took one apart. I have no -- no information on
`that. I don’t recall seeing drawings on it. I may have, but I sure
`don’t remember them.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 6283
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 6283
`
`(Ex. 7 at lO4:l7—105:6, 106: 12-17.) Both parties concede that the NovaSure embodies the pivot
`
`point of ’348 Patent claim 1.2 Because Dr. Tucker’s mlsupported claim constluction excludes
`
`the NovaSure, it cannot be consistent with the Comt’s adopted construction.
`
`Dr. Tucker faces the same problem with the original, infringing Minerva device. The
`
`pivot point of that device consists of— (E.g., EX. 25, 111] 155—
`
`58: Ex. 7 at 93: 15-18.) But it is lmdisputed that—
`
`-. (Ex. 25,111] 155-58; Ex. 7 at 4625-473, 5025; Ex. 13 at —214; Exs. 74-78) Again,
`
`Dr. Tucker did not consider these facts:
`
`. .”), 227 (“I
`.
`2 Ex. 25, 1111 120 (“I agree that the NovaSure embodies the ‘pivot point’ limitation .
`agree with Mr. Leinsing that the NovaSure product does use the claimed handle design including
`an embodiment of the ‘pivot point’ limitation”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 6284
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 6284
`
`(Ex. 7 at 93:15—94:8, 95:6-14.) Dr. Tucker’s unsupported claim construction—
`
`— because he now requires the pivot point to be separate from the grips. Dr.
`
`Tucker’s interpretation is inconsistent with the Court’s adopted construction.
`
`Courts routinely exclude expert opinions that do not apply the Court’s construction as
`
`irrelevant, unreliable, and not helpful to the fact-finder. See, e.g. , Liquid Dynamics, 449 F.3d at
`
`1224 n.2 (“The district court excluded the expert opinion evidence as irrelevant because it was
`
`based on an impermissible claim construction .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. Furthermore, the court found that the
`
`evidence could prejudice and confuse the jury. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`[VV]e conclude that the district court did not
`
`abuse its discretion in excluding the expert’s testimony .
`
`.
`
`. .”); Sprint Commc ’MS, 302 F. Supp.
`
`3d at 619—20 (“Moreover, [the expert] read in other limitations contrary to the court’s
`
`construction, each time acknowledging the court’s construction and then expressing an opinion
`
`contrary to that construction based upon some limitation related to ATM and connection-oriented
`
`networking. .
`
`.
`
`. [The expert] expressed opinions .
`
`.
`
`. that are contrary to the court’s claim
`
`construction. This is unhelpful to the corut, and it is likely to confuse the jury”); see also Liqwd,
`
`2019 WL 8014103, at *3 (“Expert testimony based on an impemrissible claim construction is
`
`properly excluded as irrelevant and on the basis that the evidence could confuse the jury”).
`
`For this reason alone, Dr. Tucker’s opinions on infringement should be stricken.3 Dr.
`
`Tucker’s analysis is also prejudicial. These opinions go to the heart of the case, i. e., whether
`
`3 Specifically, Hologic moves to exclude the opinions in Paragraphs 53-54, 61—62, 155-168, 195-
`239, 242, 248, 250-255, 259-260, 263, 268, 270, 273, 275—276, 278, 280, 283, 285-286, 289,
`
`291, 294, 296, 299, 301, 303, 310-312, and 3 14—3 18 of his rebuttal report (Ex. 25); Paragraphs
`11—42, 47-48, 50, and 52 of his sur-reply expert report (Ex. 57); and any testimony based
`thereon.
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 6285
`
`Minerva’s New Pivot Device infringes, whether the prior art is ensnared by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, and how the jury might apportion damages. If these legally erroneous opinions were
`
`admitted, they would confuse the jury about the proper scope of the claims.
`
`B.
`
`Dr. Tucker’s Infringement Analysis Is Contrary To Patent Law
`
`Dr. Tucker also opines that the “pivot point” element requires “just rotation” and cannot
`
`permit any other movement, e.g., sliding, relative to each other:
`
`So are you -- are you saying that when we use a slot in piece 5, is
`this or is this not pivotally attached at a pivot point?
`
`It does pivot when you get to the end of the compound motion after
`you’ve slid all the way, you’ve got to a -- a pivot point to where it
`does --
`
`It’s attached, it’s attached, right?
`
`I said that, Marc. Once you’ve slid it in the compound motion of
`sliding, you get to the end and it then pivots about the rod.
`
`And so does that mean this falls within the pivot -- pivotally attached
`around a pivot point as construed by the court?
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`. . .
`
`[A.] Well, I don’t think so. I think -- sorry . . . You know, I think it’s a
`compound motion at that point, and it is different than a -- a pivot
`point and -- and just rotation. You’ve now created something
`that’s not just rotation, but it’s also slidable. . . .
`
`(Ex. 7 at 123:2-25 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 25, ¶¶ 210-11, 214, 216-17, 221-26; Ex. 57,
`
`¶¶ 21, 27-28, 35-37.) Based on his unsupported construction, Dr. Tucker opines that Minerva’s
`
`New Pivot Device does not infringe because
`
`
`
` (See, e.g., Ex. 7 at 40:21-41:4; Ex. 57, ¶ 39.)
`
`Claim 1, however, simply requires the presence of a “pivot point”—it does not prohibit
`
`the addition of other motions. The Court’s construction of “pivot point”—“a point of attachment
`
`between two members about which the members hinge or rotate”—does not preclude the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 6286
`
`addition of a “sliding” motion. (F.A., D.I. 155 at 3; see also D.I. 20, ¶ 9.). Indeed, it is well
`
`settled that “infringement [of an open claim] is not avoided by the presence of elements or steps
`
`in addition to those specifically recited in the claim.” Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 811; see also
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Basic
`
`patent law holds that a party may not avoid infringement of a patent claim using an open
`
`transitional phrase, such as comprising, by adding additional elements.”); SunTiger, Inc. v. Sci.
`
`Research Funding Grp., 189 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“It is fundamental that one
`
`cannot avoid infringement merely by adding elements if each element recited in the claims is
`
`found in the accused device” (citation omitted)).
`
`These opinions here are highly prejudicial because they go directly to the infringement
`
`inquiry and would confuse the jury about the scope of the claim. Further, when a patent expert
`
`opines that the addition of a claim element precludes infringement, that testimony has been
`
`stricken. See Personalized User Model, L.L.P. v. Google Inc., No. 09-525-LPS, 2014 WL
`
`807736, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2014) (“The Court has already held that ‘user-specific’ did not
`
`mean exclusive to a particular user. In various other parts of his report, Dr. Fox opines that
`
`‘specific’ must be ‘exclusive’ to a user. As expert testimony inconsistent with the Court’s claim
`
`construction is unreliable and unhelpful to the finder of fact, all of these portions of Dr. Fox’s
`
`non-infringement report are stricken.”); see also Hebert v. Lisle Corp., 99 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996) (“Incorrect statements of law are no more admissible through ‘experts’ than are
`
`falsifiable scientific theories.”); Sprint Commc’ns, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 619–20, 624 (excluding
`
`opinions that “read in other limitations contrary to the court’s construction” and that “improperly
`
`applies legal principles”); (Ex. 25, ¶ 25 (“In performing this analysis, the Court’s claim
`
`construction must be applied . . . .”); F.A., D.I. 407 at 32 (“The court finds that Minerva’s non-
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 6287
`
`infringement arguments were essentially mooted when the court rejected Minerva’s erroneous
`
`claim constructions. . . . Minerva’s non-infringement arguments go to differences in or additions
`
`to its device that are not claimed in the patents . . . .”).)
`
`Accordingly, Dr. Tucker’s infringement analysis should be excluded because he applies
`
`an incorrect legal standard for infringement and does not follow the Court’s claim construction.4
`
`C.
`
`Dr. Tucker Opines That Prosecution History Estoppel Applies Even
`Though The Court Already Found Otherwise
`
`Dr. Tucker also opines that prosecution history estoppel precludes infringement under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. (Ex. 25, ¶¶ 55, 225, 229, 240–253, 260; Ex. 57, ¶¶ 29, 41; Ex. 7 at
`
`154:18–155:2.) The Court already rejected this argument in the First Action. (F.A., D.I. 407 at
`
`26–29.) There, Minerva moved for summary judgment that prosecution history estoppel barred
`
`Hologic from arguing that the New Pivot Device infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Minerva relied on the fact that Hologic had added the “pivot point” language to ’348 Patent
`
`claim 1 during prosecution. (F.A., D.I. 278 at 44–47; see also D.I. 10, ¶ 43.) The Court denied
`
`Minerva’s motion, however, finding “no clear and unmistakable surrender of all equivalents” and
`
`that it was “not convinced that the added detail is more than tangential to patentability.” (F.A.,
`
`D.I. 407 at 29.)
`
`In direct conflict with the Court’s Order, which Dr. Tucker did not consider, Dr. Tucker
`
`again opines that prosecution history estoppel applies:
`
`
`4 Specifically, Hologic moves to exclude the opinions in Paragraphs 53–54, 155, 157, 160, 162,
`166, 206-226, 229–235, 237–239, 242, 253, 259-260, 273, 276, 286, 289, 291, 294, 296, 299,
`301, and 303 of his rebuttal report (Ex. 25); Paragraphs 11-12, 19-42, 50, and 52 of his sur-reply
`expert report (Ex. 57); and any testimony based thereon.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 6288
`
`Dr. Tucker
`The prosecution history reflects Hologic’s intent
`to surrender all territory between the original
`claim and the amended claim with the “pivot
`point” limitation.
`
`(Ex. 57, ¶ 250.)
`“Hologic’s amendment bore more than a
`tangential relationship to Minerva’s Redesign.”
`
`
`(Ex. 57, ¶ 251.)
`
`The Court’s June 28, 2018 Order
`“The court finds no clear and unmistakable
`surrender of all equivalents to the pivot
`point limitation”
`
`
`(F.A., D.I. 407 at 29.)
`“[T]he court is not convinced that the
`added detail is more than tangential to
`patentability”
`
`(F.A., D.I. 407 at 29.)
`
`
`
`Dr. Tucker’s opinion cannot be reconciled with the Court’s decision in the First Action
`
`based on the same portion of the file history. (F.A, D.I. 407 at 29.) Accordingly, Dr. Tucker’s
`
`opinions regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is not only subject to
`
`preclusion, they are also unreliable, irrelevant, and unhelpful and they should be excluded.5 See
`
`Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Alcon Labs. Inc., No. CV 15-525, 2018 WL 4178159, at *13 (D. Del.
`
`Aug. 30, 2018) (“[I]t suffices to say that any testimony that would contradict Judge Fallon’s
`
`[summary judgment] ruling on direct infringement would clearly be improper.”).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Hologic respectfully requests that the Court grant Hologic’s
`
`Motion and exclude Dr. Tucker’s opinions regarding:
`
`-
`
`infringement in Paragraphs 53-54, 61–62, 155-168, 195-239, 242, 248, 250-255, 259-
`
`260, 263, 268, 270, 273, 275-276, 278, 280, 283, 285-286, 289, 291, 294, 296, 299,
`
`301, 303, 310-312, and 314–318 of his rebuttal report (Ex. 25) and Paragraphs 11-42,
`
`47-48, 50, and 52 of his sur-reply expert report (Ex. 57); and
`
`
`5 Specifically, Hologic moves to exclude the opinions in Paragraphs 55, 78-102, 225, 229, 240–
`253, 260 of his rebuttal report (Ex. 25); Paragraphs 15-18, 29 and 41 of his sur-reply expert
`report (Ex. 57); and any testimony based thereon.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 6289
`
`- prosecution history estoppel in Paragraphs 55, 78-102, 225, 229, 240–253, and 260 of
`
`his rebuttal report (Ex. 25) and Paragraphs 15-18, 29, and 41 of his sur-reply expert
`
`report (Ex. 57).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00925-JFB-SRF Document 111 Filed 03/29/21 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 6290
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP
`
`/s/ Karen L. Pascale
`Karen L. Pascale (#2903)
`Pilar G. Kraman (#5199)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 571-6600
`kpascale@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hologic, Inc.
` and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC
`
`Dated: March 22, 2021
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Matthew M. Wolf
`Marc A. Cohn
`Jennifer A. Sklenar*
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`matthew.wolf@arnoldporter.com
`marc.cohn@arnoldporter.com
`Jennifer.sklenar@arnoldporter.com
`
` *
`
` Admitted in NY and CA only; practice limited
`to matters before federal courts and federal
`agencies.
`
`Ryan Casamiquela
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3 Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
`Telephone: (415) 471-3100
`ryan.casamiquela@arnoldporter.com
`
`Assad Rajani
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: (650) 319-4500
`assad.rajani@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`