Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 1893
`
`Jan M. Carroll (No. 4187-49)
`jan.carroll@btlaw.com
`BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
`11 South Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`Telephone: (317) 236-1313
`
`Paul H. Berghoff (pro hac vice)
`berghoff@mbhb.com
`Sean M. Sullivan (pro hac vice)
`sullivan@mbhb.com
`Paula S. Fritsch (pro hac vice)
`fritsch@mbhb.com
`J. Dan Smith (pro hac vice)
`smith@mbhb.com
`MCDONNELL BOEHNEN
`HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: (312) 913-0001
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Süd-Chemie AG, Süd-Chemie Inc.,
`and Airsec S.A.S.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`NEW ALBANY DIVISION
`
`
`CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SÜD-CHEMIE AG, SÜD-CHEMIE INC.,
`and AIRSEC S.A.S.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`Hon. Richard L. Young
`)
`Hon. William G. Hussmann, Jr.
`)
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NONINFRINGEMENT OR INVALIDITY OF THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`000001
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 1894
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Infringement ............................................................................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Invalidity ................................................................................................................. 4 
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCT ............................................................ 4 
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE ............................................ 7 
`UNDER SÜD-CHEMIE’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS, THE ACCUSED
`PRODUCT DOES NOT INFRINGE ANY ASSERTED CLAIM OF THE
`‘137 PATENT ..................................................................................................................... 9 
`It Is Undisputed that the Accused Product Does Not Infringe under
`A. 
`Süd-Chemie’s Proposed Constructions Because it Lacks an “Opening”
`that “Is Spaced Away from an Outer Surface of the Sidewall of
`the Container” ......................................................................................................... 9 
`It Is Undisputed that the Accused Product Does Not Infringe under
`Süd-Chemie’s Proposed Constructions Because it Lacks “a Closing
`Relationship” Between the Skirt of the Lid and the Lip of the Top
`of the Container..................................................................................................... 12 
`It Is Undisputed that the Accused Product Does Not Infringe under
`Either Side’s Proposed Constructions Because it Lacks “a Lip that
`Extends Upward from the Top of the Container” ................................................. 14 
`It Is Undisputed that the Accused Product Does Not Infringe under
`Süd-Chemie’s Proposed Constructions Because it Lacks “an Upper
`Housing Portion” .................................................................................................. 15 
`THE ‘137 PATENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PRIORITY DATE BEFORE
`JUNE 30, 2005 AND IS THUS INVALID BASED ON THE PUBLICATION
`OF ITS PARENT APPLICATIONS ................................................................................ 16 
`VII.  UNDER CSP’S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS, THE ASSERTED
`CLAIMS OF THE ‘137 PATENT ARE ANTICIPATED BY THE PRIOR ART
`AND THUS INVALID ..................................................................................................... 18 
`A. 
`The Prior Art Anticipates and Invalidates the Asserted Claims ........................... 18 
`Hekal WO 108 and Bucholtz WO 240 Anticipate and Invalidate
`1. 
`All the Asserted Claims ............................................................................ 19 
`Van Baarn 161 and Wheeler 475 Anticipate and Invalidate
`Asserted Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 .............................................................. 23 
`There Is No Genuine Dispute that the Prior Art Anticipates the
`Asserted Claims .................................................................................................... 26 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`000002
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 1895
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Van Baarn 161 and Wheeler 475 Disclose a Container and
`Lid Assembly Where “the Lid Is Attached by a Hinge to an
`Upper Housing Portion of the Container” ................................................ 27 
`All Four Prior Art References Disclose a “Lip Seal Member”
`that Is Both “Flexible” and “Deflective” .................................................. 28 
`The Asserted Claims Are Broad Enough to Cover Any
`a. 
`“Lip Seal Member” that “Deflects” in the Sealed Position,
`Regardless of the Extent of “Deflection” ...................................... 28 
`Dr. Osswald’s Reliance on Abrams 056 Supports the Fact
`that the Prior Art Discloses a “Lip Seal Member” that Is
`Both “Flexible” and “Deflective” ................................................. 30 
`The USPTO Already Rejected CSP’s Argument that
`Prior Art Like Abrams 056 Fails to Disclose a “Lip Seal
`Member” that Is Both “Flexible” and “Deflective” ...................... 34 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 35 
`
`
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`000003
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 1896
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Display Sys. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................. 30
`
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc.,
`73 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc.,
`181 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................. 17
`
`
`Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd.,
`731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984)..................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`Brown v. 3M,
`265 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................................................ 2, 4
`
`
`Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.,
`339 U.S. 605 (1950) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group,
`479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................... 11, 14
`
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.,
`939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`877 F. Supp. 500 (S.D. Cal. 1994),
`aff’d, 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir.1995)................................................................................................... 3, 29
`
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`000004
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 1897
`
`Peters v. Active Mfg. Co.,
`129 U.S. 530 (1889) .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`
`Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L.,
`412 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Senmed, Inc. v. Richard-Allan Med. Indus., Inc.,
`888 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed.Cir.1985)..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.,
`38 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................................................... 4, 8, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ........................................................................................................................ 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ........................................................................................................................ 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 ................................................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ............................................................................................................................. 17
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`iv
`
`000005
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 1898
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Under the proper claim constructions, Süd-Chemie’s accused product does not infringe
`
`any asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,137 (“the ‘137 Patent,” attached as Ex. 1).
`
`Specifically, the accused product lacks:
`
` An “opening” that is “spaced away from an outer surface of the sidewall of the
`container”;
`
` A “closing relationship” between the skirt of the lid and the lip of the top of the
`container;
`
` 
`
` “A lip that extends upward from the top of the container”; and
`
`
`
`
`
` “An upper housing portion of the container.”
`
`Each of these missing claim limitations provides a separate and independent reason why the
`
`accused product does not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘137 Patent.
`
`In order to avoid this clear lack of infringement, CSP has proposed claim constructions
`
`that improperly ignore both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. See Süd-Chemie’s Opening
`
`Claim Construction Brief, filed concurrently herewith. For example, CSP ignores the express
`
`definition of “moisture-tight” in the ‘137 Patent specification to avoid the invalidating impact of
`
`the prior publication of the ‘137 Patent’s parent applications (i.e., Provisional Application No.
`
`60/417,533 (attached as Ex. 2) and Application No. 10/683,311 (now U.S. Patent No. 7,213,720,
`
`attached as Ex. 3)).
`
`Moreover, CSP’s proposed claim constructions are so broad that they render the asserted
`
`claims invalid as anticipated by numerous other prior art references, including International
`
`Publication Nos. WO 96/33108 and WO 01/94240, and U.S. Patent Nos. 3,441,161 and
`
`4,043,475. As explained below, CSP’s primary argument against invalidity by these references
`
`(i) completely ignores the teachings of the prior art, (ii) directly contradicts statements made by
`
`
`
`1
`
`000006
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 1899
`
`CSP to the European Patent Office (“EPO”), and (iii) was already rejected twice by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
`
`
`
`For at least these reasons, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the accused
`
`product does not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘137 Patent. Alternatively, CSP’s overly
`
`broad claim constructions render the asserted claims invalid. In either case, this Court should
`
`grant summary judgment in favor of Süd-Chemie and dismiss CSP’s patent infringement claims.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“Summary judgment is as appropriate in a patent case as in any other.” Barmag Barmer
`
`Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 835 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Summary
`
`judgment is designed to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims. Celotex Corp. v.
`
`Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-34 (1986). Summary judgment shall be granted “if the pleadings, the
`
`discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue
`
`as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material
`
`fact exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.10 (1986).
`
`Once this burden is satisfied, the “opposing party may not rely merely upon allegations or
`
`denials in its own pleading,” but “must—by affidavits or as otherwise provided by this rule—set
`
`out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The evidence relied
`
`upon to create an issue of material fact must be evidence upon which a reasonable jury could
`
`find in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). If
`
`it is not, summary judgment must be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
`
`A.
`
`Infringement
`
`In a patent infringement analysis, the court first determines the meaning and scope of the
`
`asserted claims, and second, compares the properly construed claims to the allegedly infringing
`
`
`
`2
`
`000007
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 1900
`
`product. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc).
`
`The patentee, in this case CSP, bears the burden of proving infringement. SRI Int’l v.
`
`Matsushita, 775 F.2d 1107, 1123 (Fed.Cir.1985). Here, the parties are concurrently providing
`
`the Court with arguments and evidence supporting their proposed claim constructions. Once the
`
`Court construes the claims, all that will remain is to compare the construed claims with the
`
`accused product, the structure of which is undisputed. Thus, summary judgment is appropriate
`
`should the Court adopt any of Süd-Chemie’s proposed constructions. See Athletic Alternatives,
`
`Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Where, as here, the parties do not
`
`dispute any relevant facts regarding the accused products but disagree over which of two
`
`possible meanings of Claim 1 is the proper one, the question of literal infringement collapses to
`
`one of claim construction and is thus amenable to summary judgment.”).
`
`“To establish infringement, every limitation set forth in a patent claim must be found in
`
`an accused product or process exactly or by a substantial equivalent.” Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord,
`
`Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If a single claim element is absent from the accused
`
`product, there can be no literal infringement as a matter of law. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v.
`
`Nike, Inc., 38 F.3d 1192, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Moreover, if the accused product does not
`
`infringe an independent claim, it cannot infringe its dependent claim. Id.
`
`Infringement may be found under the doctrine of equivalents even when the accused
`
`device does not literally infringe each element of a patent claim. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v.
`
`Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 607-08 (1950). Here, however, CSP has offered no
`
`theory of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. See Statement of Material Facts Not in
`
`Dispute (“Undisputed Facts”) at ¶4. CSP’s complete failure of proof concerning the doctrine of
`
`equivalents entitles Süd-Chemie to summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of
`
`
`
`3
`
`000008
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 1901
`
`equivalents. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (“The moving party is ‘entitled to a judgment as a matter
`
`of law’ because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential
`
`element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.”). Accordingly, the
`
`doctrine of equivalents will not be specifically addressed herein.
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity
`
`The claims must be construed and applied consistently for determining both validity and
`
`infringement. Senmed, Inc. v. Richard-Allan Med. Indus., Inc., 888 F.2d 815, 818 n.7 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). A patent claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element
`
`of the claim is found in a single prior art reference. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001). The precise words of the claim do not need to be used in the prior art reference, as long
`
`as the reference conceptually discloses each claim element. See Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap,
`
`S.A.R.L., 412 F.3d 1284, 1289-90 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reversing finding of no anticipation because
`
`despite precise words missing from the prior art, the undisputed evidence established that the
`
`prior art inherently disclosed a claimed feature). Moreover, anticipation exists even where
`
`certain claimed elements are not specifically disclosed in the reference, if one skilled in the art
`
`would recognize that the “missing” elements had to be included in the reference’s teaching.
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781-782 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Although anticipation is a question of fact, the Federal Circuit has instructed that “it still
`
`may be decided on summary judgment if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact.”
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming
`
`summary judgment finding claims invalid as anticipated).
`
`III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCT
`
`The following figure illustrates the primary features of the accused product:
`
`
`
`4
`
`000009
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 1902
`
`lid
`
`container
`
`projection
`
`thumb tab
`
`•
`
`cylindrical inner wall
`
`cylindrical outer wall
`
`hinge
`
`openinq
`
`sidewall
`
`protrusion
`
`
`
`See Mr. Sheehan’s Rebuttal Expert Report and Declaration, a nonconfidential version of which is
`
`attached as Ex. 6, ¶72 (the confidential aspects of Mr. Sheehan’s Rebuttal Expert Report and
`
`Declaration have no bearing on the issues in the present motion). As shown in the figure above,
`
`the accused product includes a one-piece container and a lid attached to the container by a hinge.
`
`Id. at ¶73. The container has a cylindrical sidewall with an opening at its top end that is in line
`
`with and defined by the sidewall. Id. Although not shown in the figure above, the accused
`
`product may also have a separate desiccant liner inserted into the interior of the container. Id.
`
`The lid of the accused product has cylindrical inner and outer walls. Id. at ¶74. As
`
`shown and described below, when the lid is closed onto the container (i.e., the lid is in the closed
`
`position), a sealing portion (or sealing bead) of the inner wall of the lid seals against the inside of
`
`
`
`5
`
`000010
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 1903
`
`the sidewall of the container, while a projection on the outer wall of the lid engages a protrusion
`
`on the outside of the sidewall to hold the lid in the closed position:
`
`The sealing portion of the inner wall
`cooperates with the inner side
`of the sidewall in order to form a
`seal between the lid and the
`container.
`
`groove
`
`lid
`
`The inner wall is provided with a
`sealing portion at an outer edge
`of the inner wall.
`
`protrusion
`
`The outer wall is provided with a projection that
`engages a corresponding protrusion to help hold
`the lid in place in the closed position.
`
`projection
`
`A bead acts as a
`stop for the lid in
`the closed
`position.
`
`A hinge is placed
`between the container
`and the lid.
`
`
`
`The projection does not go all the way around the inside periphery of the outer wall of the
`
`lid, and the protrusion does not go all the way around the outside periphery of the sidewall of the
`
`container. Id. at ¶¶75, 88. In fact, the projection extends around only about a half of the inside
`
`periphery of the outer wall of the lid, while the protrusion extends around less than a quarter of
`
`the outside periphery of the sidewall. Id. at ¶89. Thus, when the lid is in the closed position,
`
`there is no seal between the projection of the lid and the protrusion of the container. Id. at ¶¶75,
`
`
`
`6
`
`000011
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 1904
`
`87-90. In fact, there is no seal whatsoever between the outer wall of the lid and the sidewall of
`
`the container. Id. at ¶¶75, 91-94. Such a seal would require, at a minimum, a continuous line of
`
`contact between the outer wall of the lid and the sidewall of the container that goes all the way
`
`around the outer wall of the lid and the sidewall of the container, and no such continuous line of
`
`contact exists in the accused product. Id. at ¶¶75, 91. In fact, as illustrated below in isometric
`
`representations of the accused product, when the lid is in the closed position, there is actually a
`
`gap (shown in yellow) between the outer wall of the lid and the sidewall of the container instead
`
`of an outer seal between those components:
`
`Inner Wall
`
`Sidewall
`
`Sealing Portion
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶¶75, 93. Thus, the accused product has only a single seal—the seal between the sealing
`
`portion of the inner wall of the lid and the inside of the sidewall of the container. Id. at ¶78.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
`
`The following facts are not in dispute:
`
`1. The above description of the accused product is not in dispute. See Dr. Osswald’s
`Opening Expert Report, CSP’s Response to Süd-Chemie’s Interrogatory Nos. 1-2,
`and CSP’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, attached as Exs. 4, 5, and 9,
`respectively; see also Ex. 6. In particular, there is no dispute that the accused product
`does not have: (i) an “opening” that is spaced away from (not in line with) the
`sidewall of the container; (ii) a seal between the “skirt of the lid” and the “lip of the
`top of the container”; (iii) a “lip” that extends upward from the “top of the container”;
`and/or (iv) a two-piece container with an “upper housing portion” that is separate and
`distinct from a “container base.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`000012
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 1905
`
`2. There is no dispute that CSP has not offered any expert testimony or other evidence
`that the accused product infringes any of the asserted claims of the ‘137 Patent under
`Süd-Chemie’s proposed claim constructions. See Exs. 4, 5, and 9.
`
`3. There is no dispute that CSP has not offered any expert testimony or other evidence
`that the accused product infringes any of the asserted claims of the ‘137 Patent under
`the doctrine of equivalents, regardless of which parties’ claim constructions are
`adopted. Id.
`
`4. There is no dispute that International Publication No. WO 2004/033339 (attached as
`Ex. 8) constitutes prior art to the ‘137 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the ‘137
`Patent is not entitled to an effective filing date prior to June 30, 2005. See Dr.
`Osswald’s Responsive Expert Report, a nonconfidential version of which is attached
`as Ex. 15 (the confidential aspects of Dr. Osswald’s Responsive Expert Report have
`no bearing on the issues in the present motion); Mr. Sheehan’s Opening Expert
`Report and Declaration, a nonconfidential version of which is attached as Ex. 7 (the
`confidential aspects of Mr. Sheehan’s Opening Expert Report and Declaration have
`no bearing on the issues in the present motion).
`
`5. There is no dispute that, under CSP’s proposed claim constructions, WO
`2004/033339 discloses all the limitations of the asserted claims of the ‘137 Patent. Id.
`
`6. There is no dispute that CSP does not have an invention date earlier than the filing of
`its Provisional Application No. 60/417,533 on October 10, 2002. See Ex. 5,
`Response to Interrogatory No. 6.
`
`7. There is no dispute that the following references constitute prior art to the ‘137 Patent
`under one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 102: International Publication No. WO
`96/33108, International Publication No. WO 01/94240, U.S. Patent No. 3,441,161,
`and U.S. Patent No. 4,043,475. See Exs. 7 and 15.
`
`8. There is no dispute that the only claim limitations that CSP contends are missing from
`WO 96/33108 and WO 01/94240 are “the lid further includes a flexible lip seal
`member that extends downwardly therefrom” and “the flexible lip seal member is
`designed to be sufficiently deflective so as to provide a sealing position.” See Ex. 15.
`
`9. With respect to asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, there is no dispute that the only claim
`limitations that CSP contends are missing from U.S. Patent Nos. 3,441,161 and
`4,043,475 are “the lid is attached by a hinge to an upper housing portion of the
`container,” “the lid further includes a flexible lip seal member that extends
`downwardly therefrom,” and “the flexible lip seal member is designed to be
`sufficiently deflective so as to provide a sealing position.” Id.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`000013
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 1906
`
`V.
`
`UNDER SÜD-CHEMIE’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS, THE ACCUSED
`PRODUCT DOES NOT INFRINGE ANY ASSERTED CLAIM OF THE ‘137
`PATENT
`
`Under the proper claim constructions, the limitations below, which are present in all the
`
`asserted claims, are missing from Süd-Chemie’s accused product. Each of these missing
`
`limitations provides a separate and independent reason why the accused product does not
`
`infringe the asserted claims of the ‘137 Patent. Moreover, CSP has offered no expert testimony
`
`of infringement of the asserted claims under Süd-Chemie’s proposed claim constructions. See
`
`Undisputed Facts at ¶2. To the contrary, CSP has only offered an expert report based on the
`
`assumption that the Court would adopt CSP’s proposed claim constructions. See Ex. 4. Thus,
`
`there can be no disputed issues of material fact regarding noninfringement if the Court adopts
`
`Süd-Chemie’s proposed claim construction for any one of the limitations below.
`
`A.
`
`It Is Undisputed that the Accused Product Does Not Infringe under Süd-
`Chemie’s Proposed Constructions Because it Lacks an “Opening” that “Is
`Spaced Away from an Outer Surface of the Sidewall of the Container”
`
`Each of the asserted claims requires an “opening” that is “spaced away from an outer
`
`surface of the sidewall of the container,” which is properly interpreted as “an opening that is
`
`spaced away from the sidewall of the container.”1 See Süd-Chemie’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief, filed concurrently herewith. Such an opening is illustrated below in an
`
`annotated version of Figure 1 of the ‘137 Patent:
`
`
`1 Alternatively, “an opening that is spaced away from the sidewall of the container” may be
`stated as “an opening that is spaced away from the outer surface of the sidewall of the container
`by more than the thickness of the sidewall”—these two constructions are identical in meaning.
`See Süd-Chemie’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`9
`
`000014
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 1907
`
`13
`
`27
`
`24
`
`12
`
`25
`
`~10
`
`14
`
`"",,__ 17
`
`..1----......._11-" Sidewall
`
`t\I\-;--I-__ 20
`~ 22
`
`Opening
`
`17
`
`FIG. 1
`
`
`
`While the container of the accused product has an opening and a sidewall, it is undisputed
`
`that the opening is not spaced away from the sidewall. See Undisputed Facts at ¶1. To the
`
`contrary, as shown in the figure below, the opening of the accused product is in line with and
`
`defined by the sidewall of the accused product:
`
`
`
`10
`
`000015
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 1908
`
`Opening
`
`Sidewall
`
`
`
`See Ex. 6, ¶¶82-83. Accordingly, the accused product does not infringe the asserted claims
`
`because the accused product does not have an “opening” that is spaced away from the sidewall of
`
`the container, as required by the properly construed asserted claims. Id. at ¶84. Indeed, as
`
`explained in Süd-Chemie’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, CSP was required to add this
`
`limitation to all the claims in order to distinguish the claimed invention from prior art containers
`
`having an opening in line with (not spaced away from) the container sidewall, and it was this
`
`“opening” limitation that rendered the claims of the ‘137 Patent allowable. In other words, CSP
`
`unmistakably disclaimed and surrendered any claim scope for this “opening” limitation that does
`
`not require the opening to be spaced away from the container sidewall. CSP cannot recapture
`
`that disclaimed claim scope for purposes of infringement in this litigation. See Hakim v. Cannon
`
`Avent Group, 479 F.3d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“an applicant cannot recapture claim scope
`
`that was surrendered or disclaimed”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`000016
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 17 of 41 PageID #: 1909
`
`B.
`
`It Is Undisputed that the Accused Product Does Not Infringe under Süd-
`Chemie’s Proposed Constructions Because it Lacks “a Closing Relationship”
`Between the Skirt of the Lid and the Lip of the Top of the Container
`
`Each of the asserted claims requires “a closing relationship” between the skirt of the lid
`
`and the lip of the top of the container. As explained in Süd-Chemie’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief, the proper interpretation of “a closing relationship” requires “a seal between
`
`the skirt and the lip when the lid is in the closed position.” This “closing relationship” is shown
`
`below in the annotated version of Figure 3 of the ‘137 Patent:
`
`Skirt of the Lid
`
`30
`Seal (No Gap) -4----~:c..~r7~~~-=: Lip of the Top of the Container
`
`22
`
`FIG.3
`
`
`
`It cannot be disputed that there is no seal between the outer wall of the lid (the alleged
`
`“skirt”) and the sidewall of the container (which includes the alleged “lip”) in the accused
`
`product. See Undisputed Facts at ¶1; see also Ex. 6, ¶91. In order to form a seal between the
`
`outer wall of the lid and the sidewall of the container, at least a continuous line of contact would
`
`have to be present between the two that goes all the way around the inside periphery of the outer
`
`wall of the lid and the outside periphery of the sidewall of the container. See Ex. 6, ¶¶89, 91.
`
`No such continuous line of contact exists, however, in the accused product. Id. This is
`
`easily verified by a visual inspection of an accused product in which half of the lid has been
`
`removed. Id. at ¶92. As shown below in an annotated photograph of the accused vial with a lid
`
`
`
`12
`
`000017
`
`CSP Ex. 2003
`
`

`

`Case 4:11-cv-00029-RLY-WGH Document 108 Filed 11/12/12 Page 18 of 41 PageID #: 1910
`
`cut in such manner, there is no continuous contact—and in fact there is a gap—between the outer
`
`wall of the lid and the sidewal