Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 15000
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 22-311 (WCB)
`
`))))))))))
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC. and
`GINKGO BIOWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC.’S
`SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`Lucinda C. Cucuzzella (#3491)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Ryan Landes
`Sandra L. Haberny
`Sarah Cork
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street
`10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`
`Stephen Q. Wood
`Trevor J. Quist
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway
`Suite 430
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`(801) 515-7300
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Confidential Version Filed: July 14, 2023
`
`Public Version Filed: July 19, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 15001
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................................................1
`A.
`Animal Terms ..........................................................................................................1
`B.
`Heme-Protein Terms ................................................................................................2
`C.
`Replica Terms & Physical Organization of Meat Term ..........................................2
`D.
`“A Concentration of At Least 1.5 mM” ...................................................................3
`E.
`“Food Flavor Additive Composition” ......................................................................4
`F.
`“Compound” Terms .................................................................................................4
`G.
`Aroma Terms ...........................................................................................................6
`H.
`Mxr1 Terms .............................................................................................................7
`I.
`“Promoter Element” .................................................................................................8
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 15002
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`INVISTA N. Am. S.a.r.l. v. M & G USA Corp.,
`951 F.Supp.2d 604 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................4
`
`Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Polar Electro Oy,
`656 F. App’x 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................................8
`
`SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.,
`983 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................5
`
`35 U.S.C. §311(b) ............................................................................................................................9
`
`Statutes
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 15003
`
`Abbreviation
`Impossible
`Motif
`’096 patent
`’241 patent
`’761 patent
`’306 patent
`’250 patent
`’492 patent
`’656 patent
`Alper, ¶__
`
`Alper Reply, ¶__
`
`Batt, ¶__
`
`Batt Supp., ¶__
`
`Legako, ¶__
`
`Legako Supp., ¶__
`
`McGorrin, ¶__
`
`McGorrin Supp., ¶__
`
`Sarnoski, ¶__
`
`Ex.
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Phrase
`Impossible Foods Inc.
`Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,943,096
`U.S. Patent No. 11,224,241
`U.S. Patent No. 10,863,761
`U.S. Patent No. 10,039,306
`U.S. Patent No. 11,013,250
`U.S. Patent No. 10,273,492
`U.S. Patent No. 10,689,656
`Declaration of Dr. Hal Alper (D.I. 107) in support of Impossible’s
`Opening Brief
`Declaration of Dr. Hal Alper (D.I. 144) in support of Impossible’s
`Reply Brief
`Declaration of Dr. Carl Batt (D.I. 123) in support of Motif’s
`Answering Brief
`Declaration of Dr. Carl Batt in support of Motif’s Sur-Reply Brief,
`filed concurrently herewith
`Declaration of Dr. Jerrad Legako (D.I. 122) in support of Motif’s
`Answering Brief
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jerrad Legako in support of
`Motif’s Sur-Reply Brief, filed concurrently herewith
`Declaration of Dr. Robert McGorrin (D.I. 121) in support of Motif’s
`Answering Brief
`Declaration of Dr. Robert McGorrin iso Motif’s Sur-Reply Brief,
`filed concurrently herewith
`Declaration of Dr. Paul Sarnoski (D.I. 143) in support of
`Impossible’s Reply Brief
`Exhibits attached to Motif’s Answering Brief
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 15004
`
`Animal Terms
`
`Heme-Protein Terms
`
`Compound Terms
`
`Mxr1 Terms
`
`“a non-animal heme-containing protein” (’306, ’250 patents)/“free
`of animal heme-containing protein” (’241 patent)
`“no animal products” (’096, ’761 patents) / “free of animal
`products” (’241 patent)
`“wherein the heme-containing protein is selected from the group
`consisting of … a myoglobin …” (’096, ’241 patents) / “wherein the
`heme-containing protein comprises [an] amino acid sequence having
`at least 80% sequence identity to [SEQ ID:18]” (’241 patent)
`“at least one sugar compound” (’761 patent) / “a sugar selected
`from glucose, ribose, sucrose, fructose, xylose, maltodextrin, and
`combinations thereof” (’306, ’250 patents)/ “a compound selected
`from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-
`phosphate, maltose, and galactose, and mixtures of two or more
`thereof” (’096, ’241 patents)/ “one or more of glucose, ribose,
`fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, maltose,
`and galactose” (’241 patent)/ “at least one sulfur compound” (’761
`patent) / “at least one sulfur compound selected from methionine,
`cysteine and thiamine” (’306, ’250 patents) / “a compound selected
`from cysteine, cystine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or
`more thereof” (’096, ’241 patents)/ “one or more of cysteine,
`cystine, thiamine, and methionine” (’241 patent)
`
`“[A Nucleic Acid Encoding] A Mxr1 Transcriptional Activator
`Sequence from P. pastoris” / “A First Exogenous Nucleic acid
`Encoding A Methanol Expression Regulator 1 (Mxr1)
`Transcriptional Activator”
`
`Replica Terms
`Physical Organization
`of Meat Term
`
`Aroma Terms
`
`Term __
`
`“Muscle Replica” (’761 patent) / “Fat Tissue Replica” (’761 patent)
`“Wherein Said Muscle Replica and Fat Tissue Replica Are
`Assembled In A Manner That Approximates the Physical
`Organization of Meat” (’761 patent)
`“Meat-Associated Aroma” (’096, ’241 patents) / “Beef-Like Aroma”
`(’306, and ’250 patents)
`Numbered list of terms in Section II of the Joint Claim Construction
`Statement (D.I. 94-1).
`
`* All emphasis herein is added, and all internal citations and quotations are omitted unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 15005
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A.
`
`Animal Terms
`
`Impossible’s focus on “sources” again conflates what a protein is with where it is made.
`
`D.I. 142, 2-3. The claimed exclusion of “animal” proteins/products is directed to sequence origin
`
`(i.e., what the protein is), and while such proteins/products could be physically sourced from an
`
`animal, there is nothing in the claims or intrinsic record that limits the exclusionary term based on
`
`the source where the protein comes from (e.g., from an animal vs. an artificial source). D.I. 120,
`
`4-5.
`
`Impossible knows how to (but did not) include source-related language in the claims, D.I.
`
`120, 4 (identifying examples). Impossible ignores this glaring omission and instead relies on
`
`irrelevant post-priority date information. Batt Supp., ¶¶13-15, 20-21. For example, Impossible
`
`points to Motif’s 2021 GRAS notice, D.I. 142, 1-2, which is immaterial to how a POSITA would
`
`have understood the claims 10 years earlier. Impossible also is wrong about the GRAS notice’s
`
`significance. It reports potential myoglobin allergenicity in terms of the protein’s “amino acid
`
`sequence homology”, D.I. 142, Ex. 12 at IF_00008034, consistent with Motif’s argument that
`
`protein identity matters for safety. D.I. 120, 5. Even if lacking a carbohydrate modification, “[t]he
`
`myoglobin present in Motif FoodWorks’ Myoglobin Preparation is 100% identical to bovine
`
`myoglobin.” D.I. 142, Ex. 12 at 25; Batt Supp., ¶21.
`
`Impossible also mischaracterizes the significance of myoglobin and “myoglobin-like”
`
`proteins. Myoglobin is undisputedly a well-known animal protein, Batt Supp., ¶9; D.I. 142, 2
`
`(acknowledging myoglobin “found in abundance in…heart and skeletal muscle”), and the
`
`Examiner’s deletion of “myoglobin” from the scope of “non-animal” proteins is consistent with
`
`that fact. If the Examiner understood “non-animal” to mean “non-animal source” as Impossible
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 15006
`
`argues, there would be no reason to delete myoglobin. Instead, Impossible agreed with the
`
`Examiner. D.I. 120, 3.
`
`B.
`
`Heme-Protein Terms
`
`Impossible’s prosecution history arguments—including myoglobin’s significance,
`
`supra—support Motif. Impossible admits in discussing ’096 prosecution that “‘mammalian
`
`heme-containing protein’ can be a protein that is not ‘derived from animal tissue.’” D.I. 142, 4.
`
`Thus, a protein can be, but need not be, synthesized in animal tissue—and the protein nonetheless
`
`retains its mammalian (animal) identity.
`
`Impossible amended the ’096 patent parent’s claims to recite a protein based on genetic
`
`identity—Glycine max (soybean)—because the Examiner required Impossible to establish “an
`
`unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product” “compris[ing] …
`
`myoglobin.” Ex. 24; D.I. 120, 7. Impossible did not claim producing (animal) protein—
`
`myoglobin—in a non-animal source as a “nonobvious difference.” Id. Instead, it limited its claims
`
`to plant protein.
`
`C.
`
`Replica Terms & Physical Organization of Meat Term
`
`Impossible persists that a “replica” composition cannot include even a small portion of the
`
`actual material being replicated (D.I. 106, 7; D.I. 142, 5), but this interpretation is unsupported.
`
`Legako Supp., ¶¶7-16. The specification makes clear that these animal tissue replicas may contain
`
`actual animal tissue, and places no limitation on the type they can contain. ’761 patent, 22:63-23:8.
`
`Impossible’s attempt to discredit Motif’s “replica” argument based on Motif’s use of the
`
`word “substitutes” instead of “replicas” draws a distinction without a difference. The ’761 patent
`
`consistently characterizes “replicas” as “substitutes.” See ’761 patent, 1:64-2:5, 2:22-23, 2:26-29,
`
`3:5-7, 3:55-56, 5:1-25, 11:59-67, 12:1-10. Moreover, Impossible uses the term “substitutes” in
`
`the same way, all with reference to the claimed “replicas.” See e.g., D.I. 106 at 1, 9; Sarnoski, ¶94.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 15007
`
`Impossible’s argument that the ’306 patent (a family member of the ’761 patent) should be ignored
`
`when interpreting the ’761 patent fails as a matter of law. See D.I. 120 at 1 (citing cases).
`
`Finally, Impossible clearly and unambiguously stated—during the IPR to overcome
`
`institution—that the prior art did not teach the claimed invention because (i) McMindes’s mixture
`
`was “homogenous” (which Impossible argued would not approximate meat as claimed), and
`
`because (ii) its disclosed replicas were not “separate” (which Impossible insisted was required by
`
`the claims). See D.I. 120, Ex. 12 at 32-34. There is no daylight between Impossible’s argument
`
`here and its prior statements, nor would a POSITA understand the terms as Impossible suggests in
`
`view of the intrinsic record. See Legako Supp., ¶¶17-20.
`
`D.
`
`“A Concentration of At Least 1.5 mM”
`
`Impossible has made no attempt to explain how its construction is consistent with the
`
`claim’s plain language. Claim 1 recites a multi-step process, and this element recites the molarity
`
`of an ingredient—sulfur compounds—added during one step of the claimed process, not the final
`
`product. McGorrin, ¶83; McGorrin Supp. ¶48.
`
`Impossible’s specification examples do not show otherwise. Most describe tests of isolated
`
`sulfur compounds within liquid solutions, not solid food products, so the basis for using molarity
`
`was clear. McGorrin Supp., ¶49. Further, Example 1’s use of percentage weight-by-weight of the
`
`final product (w/w) for some ingredients, but molarity units for sulfur compounds, evinces a
`
`distinction between these ingredients. Id., ¶50. Impossible could have given w/w for sulfur
`
`compounds but instead used only molarity. Id. And although molarity can be converted to w/w,
`
`the specification and claims lack data needed for that conversion. Id. ¶¶51-52. A product-by-
`
`process claim should not require a POSITA to work backward from the finished product to know
`
`how to carry out the claimed process. Id. The Davis declaration likewise provides no
`
`support. Impossible does not dispute that the Examiner only considered whether the claimed
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 15008
`
`compounds were present in prior art products when determining patentability. See D.I. 120, Ex.
`
`16 at 3-4, Ex. 17 at 2.
`
`E.
`
`“Food Flavor Additive Composition”
`
`Motif’s FFAC construction—“a composition that modulates a food product’s flavor and/or
`
`aroma when added to the food product”—does not import an “adding” step. D.I. 142, 6-7. The
`
`qualifier “when added” correctly tracks the claim language and specification, both of which make
`
`clear that the FFAC is an “additive.” ’096 patent, 3:32-35.
`
`Nor does Motif’s construction include unsupported temporal requirements or preclude
`
`additional ingredients. D.I. 142, 6-7. That the FFAC must exist before it is present in a final food
`
`product is what makes it an “additive.” ’096 patent, 3:32-35, (“flavor additive compositions, e.g.,
`
`for addition to another consumable food product before, during, or after its cooking process”),
`
`3:51-56, 17:28-44 (FFAC examples that are added to foods). Impossible’s unsupported
`
`construction that a FFAC can include a combination of unrelated ingredients present only in the
`
`final food product reads “additive” out of FFAC. Baldwin Graphic is also inapposite because
`
`Motif’s construction does not limit any ordering of claim steps.
`
`Moreover, INVISTA’s holding that “composition” means “mixture” is not limited to patents
`
`that discuss “blends,” as Impossible alleges. 951 F.Supp.2d 604, 611-14 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also
`
`PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chemical Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1243-45 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“composition”
`
`refers to “mixture of substances”).
`
`F.
`
`“Compound” Terms
`
`Impossible accuses Motif of importing limitations into the “compound” terms, but Motif’s
`
`construction simply clarifies how a POSITA would understand the well-known claimed
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 15009
`
`sugar/sulfur compounds given the intrinsic record and extensive experience in the art.1 D.I. 120,
`
`17-19; McGorrin §V.A-B, VIII.. Phillips’s “line between construing terms and importing
`
`limitations” can therefore “be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability” here, 415
`
`F.3d at 1323, and Motif’s construction reflects the former.
`
`Impossible does not dispute that the patents teach sugar/sulfur “compounds” added as
`
`flavor precursors to replicas, and its attempts to avoid the unambiguous intrinsic record fall flat.
`
`Impossible ignores Example 33’s purpose—“Generation of Beef Flavor in Replica
`
`Burgers by the Addition of…Flavor Precursors”—and its finding that “addition of precursors
`
`increased the beefy flavor…in the replica.” ’306 patent, 84:18-20. Its argument that not all
`
`Examples teach added sugar/sulfur “compounds” misses the mark because claims are not required
`
`to cover every embodiment. SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.,
`
`983 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021); McGorrin Supp., ¶46.
`
`Contrary to Impossible’s insinuation, the patents do not teach or suggest that plant
`
`proteins, a separately-claimed ingredient, can be the claimed “compounds.” McGorrin Supp.,
`
`§II.A.(d). Impossible’s citation to a vague sentence that flavor precursors “can be derived” from
`
`other ingredients does not refer to plant proteins. Id. ¶¶26-32. It is also inconsistent with claims
`
`which require “compounds” be present before cooking. Id. ¶25.
`
`Impossible’s prosecution analysis ignores the Examiner’s recognition that Maillard
`
`“precursors”—the claimed “compounds”—“are important for meat aroma” and “employed in the
`
`product[ion] of meat flavors.” McGorrin, ¶76; Ex. M18, 6. In prosecution, Impossible
`
`distinguished these “compounds” from trace sugars/sulfurs in plant material. McGorrin Supp.,
`
`1 Impossible’s attempt to distinguish the ’761 patent fails because each “compound”
`term “should be interpreted similarly across the patents.” Sarnoski, ¶120.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 15010
`
`§II.A.(c). E.g., the Davis declaration shows that prior art corn flour contains “at best” low levels
`
`of free sulfur compounds—an amount “less than…required by the claims.” D.I. 142, 8; see also
`
`Ex. 22 at 18. Thus, plant materials and any trace free sugars/sulfurs are not what Impossible
`
`claimed as “compounds.” McGorrin Supp., §II.A.(c). Impossible’s citation to “compounds” in
`
`beef (D.I. 142, 8) aligns with Motif’s argument that “compounds” are added to replicas to mimic
`
`meat. Id. ¶¶38-40; D.I. 120, 19-20.
`
`G.
`
`Aroma Terms
`
`Impossible’s focus on “meaty” or “beefy” terms for aroma misses the point. D.I. 142, 9.
`
`The claim language is “meat-associated” and “beef-like,” and a POSITA would not be able to
`
`discern what is sufficiently “associated” with meat or “like” beef without objective guidelines
`
`which the patents lack. D.I. 120, 21, 22; Legako ¶¶125-136; Legako Supp. ¶¶21-30. Impossible’s
`
`sole argument is that the descriptors “-associated” and “-like” “convey that the product is not
`
`animal-based.” D.I. 142, 9. But the terms modify aromas, not the food product. 096 patent, cl. 1;
`
`’241 patent, cl. 1, 22; ’306 patent, cl. 14, 27; ’250 patent, cl. 1, 13. None of Impossible’s citations
`
`address what it means to be “meat-associated” or “beef-like.” See D.I. 142, 9 (citing Sarnoski,
`
`¶¶139-144); Legako Supp. ¶¶21-30.2 Impossible also makes no attempt to distinguish Motif’s
`
`cases, unpersuasively claiming that the case law “is inapposite given these facts.” D.I. 142, 9 n.3.
`
`Finally, Impossible’s counter-citation to a portion of an EU Opposition decision is not
`
`relevant. D.I. 142, 9. There the EU opposition opponent argued specifically that “beefy” or
`
`2 There is also reasonable disagreement as to whether certain animal flesh (e.g., fish) even
`qualifies as meat. See, e.g., D.I. 142, Ex. 22 at IF_0014086-87 (explaining that the same sulfur-
`containing compounds are responsible for the aroma in meat, beef, and seafood). A term that may
`have a different meaning depending on the particular religion of the POSITA (e.g., whether or not
`they consider fish to be meat) is indefinite.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 15011
`
`“meaty” smells are “subjective perceptions only.” D.I. 142, 9-10. Those are different terms
`
`(lacking the “like” and “associated” modifiers) than those at issue here.
`
`H.
`
`Mxr1 Terms
`
`“Mxr1” in the claimed context means a transcriptional activator actually found in—native
`
`to—a Pichia species. D.I. 120, 23-24; Batt Supp., §II.B. While Impossible asserts, at 11-12, that
`
`the specification discloses genetically engineering variations that change native Mxr1 to something
`
`different, Impossible does not dispute that the specification uniformly calls such molecules
`
`“variants” and “mutations.” See D.I. 142, 11-12; Batt, ¶70.
`
`The parties also agree that the sequence coding Mxr1 can be the same as the sequence
`
`native to P. pastoris and heterologously expressed in a host of a different Pichia species. D.I. 120,
`
`23-24; D.I. 142, 11-12. Whether the expressed Mxr1 is the same as native P. pastoris Mxr1 does
`
`not depend on the genus and species of the host cell in which it is expressed. Batt, ¶¶124-126.
`
`Additionally, in the context of ’492 claim 1, “Mxr1 transcriptional activator sequence”
`
`refers to a nucleic acid sequence that encodes Mxr1. The patent uniformly refers to the sequence
`
`that codes for Mxr1, not a location to which it binds. E.g., ’492 patent, 1:63-66; 4:26-27; 4:38-43;
`
`Batt ¶130. By contrast, when discussing binding, the patent refers to binding. ’492 patent, 5:18-
`
`24; Batt ¶130-31. In fact, it refers to a “AOX1 promoter,” not a “sequence,” as the location to
`
`which Mxr1 binds. E.g., ’492 patent. Moreover, the only example in the patent that describes claim
`
`1 explains that “Mxr1 is [] expressed from the AOX1 promoter” —not that Mxr1 binds to a
`
`particular sequence in the construct. ’492 patent, 39:23-31; Batt, ¶133. Impossible also incorrectly
`
`asserts, at 10-11, that there is no support for reading claim 14 as reciting two different Mxr1-
`
`encoding sequences. The patent, in fact, describes such an embodiment. ’492 patent, 4:18-22.
`
`Impossible’s only support for calling the “sequence” a binding site is its expert’s
`
`background explanation of what Mxr1 is, and his attempt to explain away description of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 15012
`
`“sequence” as nucleic acid coding regions. D.I. 142, 10 (citing Alper ¶¶29, 56, Alper Reply ¶¶6-
`
`10). Impossible has not identified any disclosure in which “Mxr1 transcriptional activator
`
`sequence” was used to describe a binding site.
`
`I.
`
`“Promoter Element”
`
`Impossible again fails to identify the metes and bounds of a “promoter element.” Because
`
`Impossible’s “promoter element” definition is built on disclosures of other terms (e.g., “operably
`
`linked”), Impossible conflates their function with the function supposedly defining “promoter
`
`element. Batt Supp., §II.C(b). Its flawed interpretation fails to provide reasonable certainty of
`
`“promoter element’s” scope. Id.
`
`The patents do not disclose any structural features of a “promoter element” that would
`
`permit a POSITA to identify it in isolation. D.I. 142, 14-16; Batt Supp., ¶35 (reviewing Batt).
`
`Impossible’s and Dr. Alper’s binding site discussion is inapt as “promoter elements” need not
`
`contain binding sites. Batt, §XI.A.6. E.g., the ’492 claims’ “promoter element” does not require
`
`a Mxr1 binding site. Batt, ¶¶150-55. In fact, both parties’ experts agree that a “promoter element”
`
`has no uniform meaning in the art. Batt, ¶150; §XI.A; Alper Supp., ¶24.
`
`Impossible mischaracterizes Motif’s argument as requiring an ex ante definiteness
`
`analysis—rather, Motif argued “promoter element” outside the promoter context is indefinite.
`
`Batt Supp., ¶35. Such “relative terms” that “only have meaning in a given context with a defined
`
`reference”—here, within a known promoter—are indefinite. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Polar
`
`Electro Oy, 656 F. App’x 1008, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Teva further supports indefiniteness
`
`because the intrinsic record does not clarify how “promoter element” should be understood—e.g.,
`
`structure, function, or just generically as a “portion” of a promoter. Batt, §XI.A.10, ¶139; ’656
`
`patent 4:56-60.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 15013
`
`Impossible’s attempts to manufacture confusion by mischaracterizing Motif’s positions in
`
`IPRs of the ’492/’656 patents fall flat. Motif relied on prior art teachings of known gene promoters
`
`containing elements defined subjectively and in reference to promoters. D.I. 142, 14 (AOX1,
`
`PEX8); Batt Supp., §II.C.(e). Motif did not propose any construction for “promoter element,”
`
`D.I. 142, Ex. 23, ¶103, and Motif was unable to challenge “promoter element’s” definiteness in
`
`that proceeding. 35 U.S.C. §311(b) (limited IPR bases).
`
`“Promoter element” is indefinite, but if it found to constitute an amorphous driver of gene
`
`expression with no definite structure, it should at minimum be deemed means-plus-function.
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`Lucinda C. Cucuzzella (#3491)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Ryan Landes
`Sandra L. Haberny
`Sarah Cork
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street
`10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`
`Stephen Q. Wood
`Trevor J. Quist
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway
`Suite 430
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`(801) 515-7300
`
`July 14, 2023
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15014
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I certify that this document complies with Paragraph 13 of Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I.
`
`37) because it contains 2470 words as determined by the word count feature of Microsoft Word
`
`(excluding the caption, tables, and signature blocks).
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 15015
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 14, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with
`
`the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all registered
`
`participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`July 14, 2023, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Ian R. Liston, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Matthew R. Reed, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Wendy L. Devine, Esquire
`Susannah M. L. Gagnon, Esquire
`Kristina Hanson, Esquire
`Jessica Ramsey, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`Lorelei P. Westin, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 153 Filed 07/19/23 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 15016
`
`Daniel M. Silver, Esquire
`Alexandra M. Joyce, Esquire
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Renaissance Centre
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Daralyn J. Durie, Esquire
`Adam R. Brausa, Esquire
`Vera Ranieri, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Aaron D. Bray, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`Caleb D. Woods, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2100 L Street, NW
`Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20037
`Attorneys for Defendant Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc.
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`2
`
`