EXHIBIT 1012:
`
`LIFESCAN’S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF (DOC. 240), LIFESCAN, INC. V.
`
`SHASTA TECHS., LLC, 5:11-CV-04494-EJD (N.D.CAL).
`
`
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc.: EXHIBIT 1012
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page1 of 29
`
`Gregory L. Diskant (admitted pro hac vice)
`Eugene M. Gelernter (admitted pro hac vice)
`Charles Hoffmann (admitted pro hac vice)
`Sean Marshall (admitted pro hac vice)
`PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
`1133 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 336-2000
`Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
`E-mail: gldiskant@pbwt.com
`emgelernter@pbwt.com
`choffmann@pbwt.com
`smarshall@pbwt.com
`
`Richard Goetz (S.B. #115666)
`O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`E-Mail: rgoetz@omm.com
`
`Susan Roeder (S.B. #160897)
`O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`2765 Sand Hill Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 473-2600
`Facsimile: (650) 473-2601
`E-Mail: sroeder@omm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs LIFESCAN, INC.
`and LIFESCAN SCOTLAND, LTD.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE
`
`LIFESCAN, INC. and
`LIFESCAN SCOTLAND, LTD.,
`
`Case No. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`v.
`
`SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DECISION
`DIAGNOSTICS CORP., PHARMATECH
`SOLUTIONS, INC., and CONDUCTIVE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Place:
`Judge:
`
`April 16, 2013
`2:00 p.m.
`5th Floor, Courtroom 4
`Hon. Edward J. Davila
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-1
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page2 of 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................................ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`THE PATENTS AT ISSUE ...........................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The '105 Patent ...................................................................................................................2
`
`The '247 Patent ...................................................................................................................3
`
`The '862 Patent ...................................................................................................................4
`
`III.
`
`THE LAW ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................5
`
`IV.
`
`THE DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES..............................................................7
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction for the '105 Patent .............................................................................8
`
`1.
`
`"proportion" and "proportional"............................................................................8
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction for the '247 Patent ...........................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`"a filler having both hydrophobic and
`hydrophilic surface regions" ...............................................................................12
`
`"network"..............................................................................................................15
`
`"working coating" ................................................................................................16
`
`"working layer" ....................................................................................................17
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction for the '862 Patent ...........................................................................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`"integrated reagent/blood separation layer" .......................................................19
`
`"matrix" ................................................................................................................21
`
`"effective to exclude blood cells from" ..............................................................22
`
`"the first conductive species" ..............................................................................22
`
`"the reagent layer"................................................................................................23
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................24
`
`27
`
`28
`
`i
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-2
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page3 of 29
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,
`616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................... 10
`
`AIA Eng'g Ltd. V. Magotteaux Int'l S/A,
`657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 12
`
`Arcelor Mittel France v. AK Steel Co.,
`700 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Bancorp Serv., LLC v. Hartford Line Ins. Co.,
`359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004).................................................................................17, 18, 19, 23
`
`Baran v. Medical Device Techs., Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2010).................................................................................16, 17, 18, 19
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................... 7, 12
`
`Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc.,
`274 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................. 18, 19
`
`CAE Screenplates v. Heinrich Fiedler Gmbh & Co. Kg,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................... 21
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................... 14
`
`Energizer Holdings v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006).................................................................................18, 19, 23, 24
`
`Epistar Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States,
`265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................. 18, 19
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation,
`483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................... 15
`
`Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
`532 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 11
`
`ii
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-3
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page4 of 29
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................... 12
`
`Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Mgt., LLC,
`445 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................... 11
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 6, 14
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996)....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) ........................................................................................ 6
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...........................................................................passim
`
`Powell v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Reflex Packaging Inc. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., No. 5:10-CV-01002-EJD,
`2012 U.S. District LEXIS 64594 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2012) .............................................. 5, 6, 14
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societá,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................... 5
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`695 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 5, 15
`
`SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................... 6
`
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................... 5, 22
`
`Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp.,
`336 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 15
`
`Tate Access Floors v. Maxcess Techs.,
`222 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .........................................................................................17, 18, 19
`
`Tehrani v. Hamilton Med., Inc.,
`331 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 17
`
`iii
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-4
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page5 of 29
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`The Medicines Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., No. 11-2456 (PGS),
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 536 (D. N.J. Jan. 2, 2013) .................................................................... 15
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................. 6, 7, 10
`
`Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 14
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................17, 18, 22, 23
`
`iv
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-5
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page6 of 29
`
`Plaintiffs LifeScan, Inc. and LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. (collectively "LifeScan") submit
`
`this opening brief on the construction of terms in LifeScan's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,250,105 (the "'105
`
`patent"), 5,708,247 (the "'247 patent"), and 6,241,862 (the "'862 patent"). Copies of these patents
`
`are attached as exhibits to the First Amended Complaint (D.E. 170).1 Relevant portions of the
`
`patents' prosecution histories are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Sean Marshall.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This patent infringement case involves disposable test strips that are used by persons
`
`with diabetes to monitor their blood glucose levels. This monitoring assists in detecting
`
`hypoglycemia (low blood glucose) or hyperglycemia (high blood glucose), which can lead to life-
`
`threatening complications if left untreated. Blood glucose testing typically is done by the individual,
`
`at home, several times each day. It is one of the most important things that diabetics can do to
`
`ensure their health and to prevent long-term complications.
`
`LifeScan is the leader in the worldwide market for glucose monitoring systems.
`
`LifeScan distributes OneTouch® Ultra® glucose monitoring systems. To use the OneTouch system,
`
`a user places a disposable test strip in the OneTouch meter, uses a lancet to draw a small drop of
`
`blood and places that drop on the test strip. The meter determines the blood glucose level in the
`
`blood sample by measuring the flow of electrical current. Using the OneTouch system, the person
`
`may determine if his or her blood glucose level is within a satisfactory range or if some treatment is
`
`required to increase or decrease the blood glucose level.
`
`Defendants make, sell and offer to sell a glucose test strip called the GenStrip for use
`
`with LifeScan's OneTouch Ultra meters as a substitute for LifeScan's OneTouch Ultra test strips.
`
`LifeScan asserts that Defendants infringe claims of the '247 and '862 patents by making and selling
`
`the GenStrip and offering it for sale, and that they are inducing and contributing to the infringement
`
`of the '105 patent.
`
`1 The '247 patent is Exhibit A to the first Amended Complaint; the '862 patent is Exhibit B and the
`'105 patent is Exhibit C.
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-6
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page7 of 29
`
`II.
`
`THE PATENTS AT ISSUE
`
`The '105, '247 and '862 patents disclose and claim features and methods directed at
`
`enhancing the accuracy and reliability of glucose measurements using disposable test strips.
`
`A.
`
`The '105 Patent
`
`In the February 21, 2013 hearing on LifeScan's motion for a preliminary injunction,
`
`Defendants vacillated between denying and admitting that the GenStrip copies the claimed test strip
`
`design of the '105 patent.
`
`The '105 patent is entitled "Measurement of Substances in Liquids." The '105 patent
`
`relates to a method to improve the reliability and accuracy of glucose measurements. Prior art
`
`measuring glucose measuring devices operated under the general principle that an electric current
`
`that is proportional to the concentration of glucose in the test sample is measured between a working
`
`and reference sensor part. Col. 1:25-37. However, if the working sensor is not fully covered by
`
`blood, the device may yield inaccurate results. Col. 1:39-41. Earlier methods of dealing with this
`
`problem did not ensure that the sensors were completely covered by the blood sample, resulting in
`
`variable and inaccurate results. Col. 1:41-54.
`
`The '105 patent addresses these problems through an innovative test strip design. The
`
`test strip has two working sensors that each generates electrical charge carriers proportional to the
`
`amount of glucose in the blood. Col. 2:64-67. One sensor is downstream of the other with respect to
`
`blood flow. This allows the current measured at each sensor in response to the application of blood
`
`to be compared. Col. 2:10-27.
`
`If the currents measured at each sensor are within a pre-determined range of each
`
`other, the sensors are operating properly and both sensors are covered by blood to the same degree.
`
`Col. 2:28-39. Because blood flow is restricted so that it must entirely cover the first sensor before
`
`covering the second sensor, this ensures that each electrode has been covered completely. Col. 3:43-
`
`55. If the difference between the current measured at each sensor is greater than the pre-determined
`
`range, the test results will be unreliable (e.g., because of insufficient blood, user error, manufacturing
`
`2
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-7
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page8 of 29
`
`defect, or some other error) and the test done with that strip should be discarded. Col. 2:28-39. Test
`
`strips using the design depicted in the '105 patent thus are self-testing for reliability. Col. 3:3-6.
`
`B.
`
`The '247 Patent
`
`The '247 patent is entitled "Disposable Glucose Test Strips, and Methods and
`
`Compositions for Making Same." It is directed towards "an improved disposable glucose test strip
`
`for use in a test meter of the type which receives a disposable test strip and a sample of blood from a
`
`patient and performs an electrochemical analysis of the amount of glucose in the sample." Col.
`
`2:39-44.
`
`In general, glucose test strips are made by applying various layers to a substrate,
`
`including what is known as a "working electrode." Col. 1:25-28. In the case of disposable glucose
`
`test strips, this is done by screen printing. Col. 1:42-45. One problem with screen printed glucose
`
`strips in the prior art was that the layers were prone to break when brought into contact with blood
`
`samples. Col. 1:47-50. This resulted in two problems. First, as the components of the electrode ink
`
`were released into solution, they would no longer contribute to the measurements, diminishing the
`
`response to the sample. Col. 1:51-56. Second, the breakup meant that the effective electrode area
`
`would diminish over time. Col. 1:56-58. These two effects could result in current transients that
`
`decrease rapidly over the period of the measurement. Col. 1:59-61. In addition, these effects could
`
`result in a high sensitivity to oxygen, which will compete with the mediator for the enzyme. Col.
`
`1:61-63. This can result in erroneous readings or rejected strips. Col. 1:63-2:2. Another problem
`
`associated with prior art test strips related to the measurement of the glucose. Prior art electrodes
`
`were kinetically controlled and highly dependent on the temperature, resulting in substantial
`
`variations in the measurement of glucose in the sample. Col. 2:3-15.
`
`The '247 patent addresses these problems. The working electrode is coated with a
`
`layer that includes not only an enzyme, a conductor, and a mediator, but also a filler with
`
`hydrophobic and hydrophobic surface regions that forms a two-dimensional network. Col. 2:50-60.
`
`This structure has several advantages. For example, the test strip will be dependent on the rate of
`
`3
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-8
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page9 of 29
`
`glucose diffusion and not the rate at which the enzyme can oxidize glucose. Col. 2:62-66. As a
`
`result, the test strip will be relatively insensitive to differences in temperature over relevant
`
`temperature ranges. Id. Further, the network is effective to exclude oxygen-carrying red blood cells,
`
`which can interfere with glucose measurements. Col. 2:66-3:3.
`
`C.
`
`The '862 Patent
`
`The '862 patent is entitled "Disposable Glucose Test Strips with Integrated
`
`Reagent/Blood Separation Layer." Like the '247 patent, the '862 patent is directed towards "an
`
`improved disposable glucose test strip for use in a test meter of the type which receives a disposable
`
`test strip and a sample of blood from a patient and performs an electrochemical analysis of the
`
`amount of glucose in the sample." Col. 2:58-62. It is a continuation-in-part of the application that
`
`led to the '247 patent.
`
`The '862 patent describes improvements in test strip technology, in particular with
`
`regard to preventing red blood cells from contacting the conductive electrode elements. Prior art test
`
`strips often yielded readings that were higher than the true blood glucose level when high hematocrit
`
`levels were present, and conversely yielded readings that were lower than the true value when low
`
`hematocrit levels were present. Col. 2:23-33. Although there were some prior art solutions to this
`
`problem, they generally necessitated higher manufacturing costs, because of the addition of a
`
`manufacturing step involving a separately deposited membrane layer over the reagent-containing
`
`layer, and they often degraded performance in other areas, such as precision. Col. 2:33-42.
`
`Rather than having separate barrier and reagent containing layers, the '862 patent
`
`describes, an "integrated reagent/blood separation layer [that] comprises reagents for the
`
`electrochemical detection of the analyte dispersed in a non-conductive matrix effective to exclude
`
`blood cells from the surface" of the conductive surfaces of the electrode. Col. 3:8-13. In the
`
`integrated layer, "reactants such as enzyme, mediator, and glucose move freely … but interfering
`
`species such as red blood cells containing oxygenated hemoglobin are excluded." Col. 7:6-9.
`
`4
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-9
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page10 of 29
`
`III.
`
`THE LAW ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`"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'." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim construction is a question of law for the Court.
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388-90 (1996).
`
`The en banc decision in Phillips provides the controlling framework for claim
`
`construction. As Phillips explains, patent claims are construed in the manner that "'most naturally
`
`aligns with the patent's description of the invention.'" 415 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v.
`
`Marposs Societá per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). "[T]he focus in claim
`
`construction is on 'the meaning of claim terms within the patent,' and not on the abstract meaning of
`
`words." Reflex Packaging Inc. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., No. 5:10-CV-01002-EJD, 2012 U.S.
`
`District LEXIS 64594, at *20 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2012) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321).
`
`In construing claim terms, court should rely mainly on the intrinsic evidence – the
`
`claims themselves, the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`The starting point of claim construction is the words of the claim. Courts generally
`
`give terms their "ordinary and customary" meaning," Epistar Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 566
`
`F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), which is "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, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`A term's usage in the claim may provide insight into its meaning. "The context in
`
`which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive," and "[often] provides a firm
`
`basis for construing the term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Other claims may also provide guidance.
`
`Id. Courts should avoid a construction that would render other claim language superfluous. Stumbo
`
`v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For example, under the doctrine
`
`of claim differentiation, a construction that renders a dependent claim superfluous is presumptively
`
`incorrect. SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., 695 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`5
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-10
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page11 of 29
`
`The specification is very important. "[C]laims 'must be read in view of the
`
`specification, of which they are a part.'" Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). "[T]he specification 'is always
`
`highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best
`
`guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`
`F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`Although claims must be read in view of the specification, it is a "cardinal sin" to
`
`read limitations from the specification into the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319-20 (citing SciMed
`
`Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). A court may
`
`not "confin[e] the claims to those embodiments" found in the patent. Id. at 1323. As a general rule,
`
`"it is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification – even
`
`if it is the only embodiment – into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
`
`patentee intended the claims to be so limited." Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
`
`913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "A construction that imposes limitations not found in the claims is erroneous
`
`unless it is supported by an unambiguous restriction elsewhere in the intrinsic record." Reflex
`
`Packaging, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64594, at *4.
`
`In addition, courts may consider the prosecution history, which is the record of
`
`proceedings before the PTO. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. The prosecution history may "provide[ ]
`
`evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`Evidence beyond the patent and its prosecution history, such as dictionary definitions,
`
`technical treatises or expert testimony, is referred to as extrinsic evidence. By its very nature,
`
`extrinsic evidence provides less insight into what terms mean in the context of the patent. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1317-18. Dictionaries and technical treatises are useful "so long as the dictionary
`
`definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent
`
`documents." Id. at 1322-23 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n.6).
`
`6
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-11
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page12 of 29
`
`Expert testimony is suspect. "[O]pinion testimony on claim construction should be
`
`treated with the utmost caution ...." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585. Expert testimony on the meaning of
`
`a claim term "is generated at the time of and for the purpose of litigation and thus can suffer from
`
`bias that is not present in intrinsic evidence." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. As a result, expert
`
`testimony "may only be relied upon if the patent documents, taken as a whole, are insufficient to
`
`enable the court to construe disputed claim terms. Such instances will rarely, if ever, occur."
`
`Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585. When the meaning of a term is clear from the intrinsic evidence, "expert
`
`testimony regarding the meaning of a claim is entitled to no weight." Id. at 1584. "[A] court should
`
`discount any expert testimony 'that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the
`
`claims themselves, the written description, and the prosecution history, in other words, with the
`
`written record of the patent.'" Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (citation omitted); see also Vitronics, 90
`
`F.3d at 1583 (warning that the extrinsic evidence cannot be used undermine the public's right to rely
`
`on the written record of the patent, i.e., the claims, specification, and prosecution history, to
`
`understand the scope of the claimed invention).
`
`While a validity analysis is not a regular component of claim construction, where
`
`claim language is ambiguous, that ambiguity generally should be resolved in a manner that would
`
`preserve the patent's validity. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. "[C]laims are generally construed so as
`
`to sustain their validity, if possible." Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Corp., 616 F.3d
`
`1249, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
`
`IV.
`
`THE DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
`
`The constructions LifeScan proposes are consistent with the intrinsic evidence. In
`
`contrast, Defendants' constructions violate basic canons of claim construction. Defendants try to
`
`read features of a preferred embodiment into broad claim language, which is a "cardinal sin" of
`
`claim construction. Philips, 415 F. 3d at 1319-20.
`
`The disputed claim construction issues are discussed below.
`
`7
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-12
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page13 of 29
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction for the '105 Patent
`
`1.
`
`"proportion" and "proportional"
`
`Claim term
`
`Plaintiffs' construction
`
`Defendants' construction
`
`proportion and
`proportional
`
`correlated or correlated to
`
`in a fixed ratio
`
`The '105 patent presents only one disputed claim construction issue – the meaning of
`
`"proportion" and "proportional" in claims 1 and 3 of the '105 patent. The claims use those terms to
`
`describe a relationship that was known in the prior art between: (1) "the concentration of [a]
`
`substance [e.g., glucose] in the sample liquid" and the number of "charge carriers generated at [a]
`
`working sensor," col. 6:55-61, 8:11-12, and (2) "the concentration of said substance [glucose] in the
`
`sample liquid" and the "current measured at each working sensor part," col. 7:13-15. In the context
`
`of the claims, "proportion" and "proportional" mean that the number of charge carriers generated is
`
`correlated to the concentration of the substance being measured in the sample, i.e., that the electric
`
`current at each working sensor part is correlated to the concentration of the substance being
`
`measured in the sample. See Marshall Decl., Ex. A (American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`
`Language Fourth Edition) at 1406 (defining "proportion" to mean "a relationship between quantities
`
`such that if one varies then another varies in a manner dependent on the first" and "proportional" to
`
`mean "Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.").
`
`As the '105 specification makes clear, the patent uses the terms "proportion" and
`
`"proportional" to describe a feature of existing glucose measuring systems that was known in the art.
`
`The first column of the specification provides background information on the state of the art in the
`
`field of glucose measurement (at col. 1:9-54). It states that "known glucose measuring devices now
`
`favour an electrochemical measurement." Col. 1:25-27. In these known systems, "[t]he general
`
`principle is that an electric current is measured between two sensor parts called the working sensor
`
`and reference sensor respectively." Col. 1:27-29. The specification further explains (col. 1:29-33):
`
`The working sensor part comprises a layer of enzyme reagent, the
`current being generated by the transfer of electrons from the enzyme
`
`8
`
`LIFESCAN'S OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. CV11-04494-EJD (PSG)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Pharmatech Solutions, Inc: 1012-13
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 7,250,105
`
`

`
`Case5:11-cv-04494-EJD Document240 Filed03/07/13 Page14 of 29
`
`substrate, via the enzyme and an electron mediator compoun