`
`GALDERMA LABORATORIES INC.;
`GALDERMA LABORATORIES, L.P.; and
`SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 11-1106 (LPS)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC. and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS CO. (I)
`PVT. LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Scheduling Order (D.I. 29), Plaintiffs Galderma
`
`Laboratories,
`
`Inc.; Galderma Laboratories, L.P.; and Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co.
`
`(I) PVT. LTD. (“Defendants”) (collectively, “the parties”) hereby submit this Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 7,749,532 (“the ‘532 Patent”) and 8,206,740 (“the
`
`‘740 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`UNDISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`The parties do not dispute the constructions of the claim terms included in the following
`
`chart, which terms were construed for the ‘532 Patent by the Court in Mylan Pharms. Inc. v.
`
`Galderma Labs., Inc., No. 10-892-LPS, 2011 WL 1113383 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2011).
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-01106-LPS Document 114 Filed 10/02/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1244
`
`Term in Issue and Asserted Claim(s) in
`Which Term Appears
`
`steady state blood levels of doxycycline of a
`minimum of 0.1 µg/ml and a maximum of 1.0
`µg/ml
`
`‘532 Patent: 1, 15, 20
`
`‘740 Patent: 1, 19, 22
`
`steady state blood levels of the doxycycline of
`between 0.3 µg/ml to 0.8 µg/ml
`
`‘532 Patent: 4, 18
`
`‘740 Patent: 2, 21
`
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`steady state plasma concentrations of
`doxycycline of a minimum of 0.1 µg/ml and a
`maximum of 1.0 µg/ml
`
`steady state plasma concentrations of the
`doxycycline of between 0.3 µg/ml and 0.8
`µg/ml
`
`II.
`
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`The following chart identifies the disputed terms of the claims in issue and each side’s
`
`proposed construction of the disputed claim language. A chart including Plaintiffs’ citations to
`
`the intrinsic evidence in support of its respective proposed constructions is attached hereto as
`
`Appendix A. A chart including Defendants’ citations to the intrinsic evidence in support of their
`
`respective proposed constructions is attached hereto as Appendix B. Pursuant to Paragraph 10 of
`
`the Scheduling Order, the parties have also provided the Court with a Joint Appendix (Appendix
`
`C) containing the following exhibits: (1) a copy of the ‘532 Patent; (2) a copy of the ‘740 Patent;
`
`(3) a copy of the prosecution history for U.S. Patent Application No. 10/819,620 (issued as the
`
`‘532 Patent); and (4) a copy of the prosecution history for U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/155,676 (issued as the ‘740 Patent). Plaintiffs note that inclusion of these exhibits in the Joint
`
`Appendix does not constitute an admission that any such exhibit, or any part thereof, bears on the
`
`proper construction of any of the disputed claim terms. Amneal believes that the exhibits
`
`constitute the intrinsic evidence – that is, the patents-in-suit and their respective prosecution file
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-01106-LPS Document 114 Filed 10/02/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1245
`
`histories – and is, therefore, relevant to the construction of each of the disputed claim terms.
`
`Accordingly, Amneal disagrees with Plaintiffs’ preceding statement.
`
`
`
`Patent Term in Issue and
`Asserted Claim(s) in
`Which Term Appears
`
`pellets
`
`‘532 Patent: 1-3, 15, 17, 20
`
`‘740 Patent: 7, 10
`
`pellet
`
`‘740 Patent: 6
`
`
`coated with at least one
`enteric polymer
`
`‘532 patent: 1, 15, 20
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`one or more of a small solid
`dosage form of reasonable size
`and robustness suitable for
`incorporation into, e.g., a
`capsule or tablet
`
`one or more of a small solid
`dosage form of reasonable size
`and robustness suitable for
`incorporation into, e.g., a
`capsule or tablet
`
`coated with at least one enteric
`polymer
`
`a plurality of beads or beadlets,
`but excluding granules, a tablet,
`a powder, a sachet, a capsule, a
`gel, a dispersion or a suspension
`
`bead or beadlet, but excluding a
`granule, tablet, powder, sachet,
`capsule, gel, dispersion or
`suspension
`
`each having an enteric polymer
`coating applied to its surface
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Maryellen Noreika
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (# 1014)
`Maryellen Noreika (# 3208)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`mnoreika@mnat.com
`
`
`
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`
`/s/ Mary B. Matterer
`
`
`Kenneth L. Dorsney (# 3726)
`Mary B. Matterer (# 2696)
`Richard K. Herrmann (# 405)
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801-1494
`(302) 888-6960
`kdorsney@morrisjames.com
`mmatterer@morrisjames.com
`rherrmann@morrisjames.com
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-01106-LPS Document 114 Filed 10/02/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1246
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr.
`Christine Willgoos
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`75 E. 55th Street
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 318-6000
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`H. Keeto Sabharwal
`Paul A. Ainsworth
`Dennies Varughese
`Jonathan Tuminaro
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, PLLC
`1100 New York Avenue
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 772-8511
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`