Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 59 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`INTERNATIONAL GMBH and
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`USA, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`1:18-cv-12029-ADB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO L.R. 16.6(E)(1)(D)
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 16.6(e)(1)(D) and the Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I. 47), Plaintiffs
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals International GMBH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Teva”) and Defendant Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) hereby provide the following joint
`
`statement regarding claim construction. The parties seek the Court’s assistance in resolving
`
`disputes regarding the construction of six claim terms, which are set forth in the attached joint
`
`claim construction chart (Exhibit A) in the order the parties suggest they be construed. Also
`
`provided in the joint claim construction chart are the parties’ respective positions on each term.
`
`The parties have also provided agreed constructions for two terms.
`
`Lilly contends that terms 1-3 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and
`
`proposes constructions of these terms only in the alternative. Lilly further contends that it is
`
`appropriate for the Court to address the indefiniteness of certain terms during claim construction.
`
`See e.g., Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Paychex, Inc., No. 19-11272, Dkt # 22 (D. Mass. Jan. 13, 2020).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 59 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`(“The court is no stranger to considering indefinite arguments as a part of the claim construction
`
`process . . . . The parties may include indefiniteness arguments in their claim construction briefing,
`
`and may seek leave for, if justified, expanded page limits.”); Typemock, Ltd. v. Telerik, Inc., 2018
`
`WL 4189692 (D. Mass. Aug. 31 2018) (consideration of indefiniteness as part of Markman claim
`
`construction). Contrary to Teva’s position below, Lilly contends that there is no “general practice”
`
`to defer consideration of indefiniteness until after the claim construction stage. The cases upon
`
`which Teva relies merely state that there may be reasons to defer consideration of indefiniteness,
`
`such as when an extensive factual inquiry is required, which is not the case here. See, e.g., Amax,
`
`Inc. v. ACCO Brands Corp., 282 F. Supp. 3d 432, 442 (D. Mass. 2017) (citing Koninklijke Philips
`
`Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp., 914 F. Supp. 2d 89, 100 (D. Mass. 2012) and 3-D Matrix, Inc. v.
`
`Menicon Co., Civil Action No. 14-cv-10205-IT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3096, at *41 (D. Mass.
`
`Jan. 11, 2016) (“there are reasons” to defer ruling on indefiniteness, e.g., if the inquiry is largely
`
`factual)). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has affirmed findings of indefiniteness that were made at
`
`the claim construction stage. See, e.g., Noah Sys. Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). Lilly reserves the right to raise indefiniteness of other claim terms as disclosed to Teva
`
`under Local Rule 16.6(d)(4) in accordance with the case schedule.
`
`Teva disagrees that terms 1-3 are indefinite and objects to Lilly raising this dispositive
`
`issue as to some terms, but not others, during claim construction. Teva also contends that
`
`addressing indefiniteness at this stage would be contrary to the general practice to defer
`
`consideration of indefiniteness and other issues of validity until after fact and expert discovery
`
`have been completed. See, e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, No. CV 16-12556-
`
`LTS, 2018 WL 3104078, at *7 (D. Mass. June 21, 2018) (“Given the burden on Ethicon to establish
`
`indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence, as well as the potentially dispositive and patent-
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 59 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`invalidating effect of an indefiniteness finding, it is appropriate to defer resolution of this question
`
`until the close of all discovery, when a fuller record is available.”); Amax, Inc. v. ACCO Brands
`
`Corp., 282 F. Supp. 3d 432, 442 (D. Mass. 2017) (“Because the determination is likely to be
`
`determinative, many courts have declined to address indefiniteness arguments at the claim
`
`construction stage.”); Sunrise Techs., Inc. v. Cimcon Lighting, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 3d 238, 247 (D.
`
`Mass. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the Court notes that indefiniteness should be resolved at the
`
`summary judgment stage rather than upon claim construction.”). Moreover, Teva disagrees that
`
`Lilly’s indefiniteness defenses do not raise substantial questions of disputed facts, and contends
`
`that adjudication of these dispositive defenses before discovery is complete would be
`
`inappropriate. Teva does not believe construction of terms 1-3 is necessary in view of their express
`
`definitions in the specification but, in the event the terms require construction, Teva proposes a
`
`construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 59 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 14, 2020
`
`
`/s/ Elaine Herrmann Blais
`Douglas J. Kline (BBO# 556680)
`Elaine Herrmann Blais (BBO# 656142)
`Robert Frederickson III (BBO# 670111)
`Joshua S. Weinger (BBO# 690814)
`Alexandra Lu (BBO# 691114)
`Eric Romeo (BBO# 691591)
`Martin C. Topol (BBO# 696020)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel.: (617) 570-1000
`Fax: (617) 523-1231
`dkline@goodwinlaw.com
`eblais@goodwinlaw.com
`rfrederickson@goodwinlaw.com
`jweinger@goodwinlaw.com
`alu@goodwinlaw.com
`eromeo@goodwinlaw.com
`mtopol@goodwinlaw.com
`
`I. Neel Chatterjee (pro hac vice)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`601 Marshall St.
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Tel.: (650) 752-3100
`Fax: (650) 853-1038
`nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Natasha Daughtrey (pro hac vice)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`601 S. Figueroa St.
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Tel.: (213) 426-2500
`Fax: (213) 623-1673
`ndaughtrey@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Emily R. Gabranski (with permission)
`Andrea L. Martin (BBO 666117)
`BURNS & LEVINSON LLP
`125 High Street
`Boston, MA 02110-1624
`(617) 345-3000
`amartin@burnslev.com
`
`Charles E. Lipsey
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Square
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Charles.Lipsey@finnegan.com
`
`William B. Raich
`Danielle A. Duszczyszyn
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`William.Raich@finnegan.com
`Danielle.Duszczyszyn@finnegan.com
`
`Emily R. Gabranski (BBO 694417)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`2 Seaport Lane
`Boston, MA 02210-2001
`Emily.Gabranski@finnegan.com
`
`Mark J. Stewart
`Sanjay M. Jivraj
`Eli Lilly and Company
`Lilly Corporate Center Patent Dept.
`Indianapolis, IN 46285
`stewart_mark@lilly.com
`jivraj_sanjay@lilly.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 59 Filed 08/14/20 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Elaine Herrmann Blais, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document, filed
`
`through the CM/ECF system, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified
`
`on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies shall be served by first class mail
`
`postage prepaid on all counsel of record who are not served through the CM/ECF system on August
`
`14, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Elaine Herrmann Blais
`
`5
`
`