Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 11428
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-cv-105-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-cv-106-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-cv-274-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIFE TECHNOLOGIES
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS,
`INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al.,
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`BD Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 11429
`
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BECTON, DICKINSON AND
`COMPANY; et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AFFYMETRIX, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-cv-275-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-cv-433-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-cv-434-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-cv-435-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ILLUMINA, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 11430
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-cv-505-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`John M. Desmarais (admitted pro hac vice)
`Michael P. Stadnick (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jordan Malz (admitted pro hac vice)
`Justin P.D. Wilcox (admitted pro hac vice)
`Peter C. Magic (admitted pro hac vice)
`Joseph C. Akalski (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jessica A. Martinez (admitted pro hac vice)
`Danielle A. Shultz (admitted pro hac vice)
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`(212) 351-3400
`(212) 351-3401
`jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`jmalz@desmaraisllp.com
`jwilcox@desmaraisllp.com
`pmagic@desmaraisllp.com
`jakalski@desmaraisllp.com
`jmartinez@desmaraisllp.com
`dshultz@desmaraisllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`FOR THE ’197 PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`(302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS HEALTHCARE
`DIAGNOSTICS INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 11431
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2
`
`I. Technology of the ’197 Patent ............................................................................................. 2
`
`II. Agreed-Upon Claim Terms .................................................................................................. 3
`
`III. Disputed Claim Terms ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“non-porous” ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`“solid support” .............................................................................................................. 5
`
`“non-porous solid support” ........................................................................................... 7
`
`“array” .......................................................................................................................... 9
`
`“one or more amine(s), hydroxyl(s) or epoxide(s) thereon,” “via said one or more
`E.
`amine(s), hydroxyl(s) or epoxide(s)” .................................................................................... 11
`
`F.
`
`“double-stranded” ....................................................................................................... 12
`
`“double-stranded nucleic acid is fixed or immobilized,” “double-stranded nucleic
`G.
`acid fixed or immobilized,” “double-stranded nucleic acids fixed or immobilized” ............ 14
`
`“single-stranded nucleic acid is fixed or immobilized,” “single-stranded nucleic acids
`H.
`fixed or immobilized,” “single-stranded nucleic acids are fixed or immobilized” ............... 16
`
`“nucleic acid strand or sequence fixed or immobilized,” “nucleic acid is fixed or
`I.
`immobilized,” “DNA or RNA is fixed or immobilized” ...................................................... 18
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`“signaling moiety” ...................................................................................................... 19
`
`“wherein one nucleic acid strand of said at least one double-stranded nucleic acid” 20
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 11432
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 9
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................... 11
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 7
`Kara Techs. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................... 7, 18, 20
`Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................. 17
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003).......................................................................................... passim
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................. 4, 10
`Resonate Inc. v. Alteon Websystems, Inc.,
`338 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 16
`Sinorgchem Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................. 20
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................. 10
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`593 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................... 5
`Thorner v. Sony Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................. 9, 18
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................................. 9, 12
`Woodrow Woods & Marine Exhaust Sys., Inc. v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................. 8, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 11433
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`These patent infringement actions involve nucleic acid detection technology that can be
`
`used, among other things, to diagnose disease by detecting the presence or quantity of certain
`
`genetic material, such as nucleotide sequences or genes. Plaintiff Enzo Life Sciences, Inc.
`
`(“Enzo”) owns fundamental patents relating to nucleic acid detection technology, including U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,064,197 (“the ’197 patent”). Defendants Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Molecular
`
`Inc., Luminex Corp., Affymetrix, Inc., Agilent Technologies, Inc., Becton, Dickinson and
`
`Company, Becton Dickinson Diagnostics Inc., Geneohm Sciences, Inc., Illumina, Inc., Life
`
`Technologies Corp., Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Roche Diagnostics Corp., Roche
`
`Diagnostic Operations, Inc., Roche Nimblegen, Inc., and Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) sell nucleic acid detection products for analytical and diagnostic
`
`use. In 2012, Enzo brought suit against Defendants for infringement of one or more of three
`
`patents, including the ’197 patent.1 The Court coordinated the individual cases for the purposes
`
`of pre-trial proceedings, including claim construction. (D.I. 133.) Because different patents are
`
`asserted against different Defendants, the parties stipulated to separate claim construction
`
`briefing for each patent, which the Court approved. (D.I. 117). This brief addresses the claim
`
`construction disputes for the ’197 patent.
`
`The parties dispute the proper constructions of 18 terms and phrases in the claims of the
`
`’197 patent. As discussed below, Enzo’s proposed constructions of the disputed claim terms are
`
`based upon the intrinsic record of the ’197 patent and the ordinary meaning of the terms to
`
`persons skilled in the art. By contrast, Defendants repeatedly seek to depart from the intrinsic
`
`record and the ordinary and customary meaning of the disputed claim language by asking the
`
`
`1 Luminex intervened as a defendant in the Abbott litigation in November 2012. (D.I. 33.)
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 11434
`
`Court to rewrite the claims to add extraneous limitations. Because Defendants’ proposed
`
`constructions violate fundamental principles of claim construction, they should be rejected.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Technology of the ’197 Patent2
`
`The ’197 patent, entitled “System, Array and Non-porous Solid Support Comprising
`
`Fixed or Immobilized Nucleic Acids,” issued on June 20, 2006. The ’197 patent relates to
`
`nucleic acid detection technology that can be used, among other things, to diagnose disease by
`
`detecting the presence or quantity of certain genetic material, such as nucleotide sequences or
`
`genes. This technology relies upon the ability of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) strands to
`
`hybridize—or bind together—under certain conditions based upon the structure of the nucleic
`
`acids. DNA and RNA are comprised of building blocks called nucleotides; a combination of
`
`nucleotides is generally referred to as a nucleotide sequence. Scientists can, for example, detect
`
`the presence of a certain gene or virus associated with a disease using a nucleotide sequence
`
`known to correspond to, and therefore bind with, the DNA sequence of the disease gene or
`
`virus. A patient’s sample can be tested by observing whether it hybridizes with another sequence
`
`known to correspond to the DNA or RNA sequence of the disease gene or virus.
`
`One method of detection involves attachment of such nucleotide sequences to solid
`
`supports. Traditionally, these solid support hybridization tests were composed of porous
`
`materials, such as filters and membranes. But porous solid supports presented several problems,
`
`including the need for labor-intensive and time-consuming laboratory procedures.
`
`The inventors of the ’197 patent developed technology that facilitates the use of non-
`
`porous supports in hybridization detection tests. At the time, it was commonly believed that
`
`
`2 Enzo provides additional technical background relevant to the ’197 patent in Enzo’s
`Technology Tutorial, which has been submitted to the Court under separate cover.
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 11435
`
`
`
`nucleotidde sequencess would not aattach to nonn-porous sollid supports eeffectively,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and particul
`
`arly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not in a fform that woould be capabble of hybriddizing to a mmatching nuccleotide sequuence. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inventionns of the ’197 patent conncern non-poorous solid suupports usedd as hybridizzation suppoorts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tion of gene
`for detec
`
`
`tic material.
`
`
`
`AAgreed-Uponn Claim Terrms
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`TThe parties aggree on propposed construuctions for thhe followingg claim lang
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`uage:
`
`
`
`Agreedd-Upon Connstruction
`
`
`
`Capablle of bindingg through WWatson-Crick
`
`pairingg
`
`
`
`Havingg different nunucleotide se
`
`quences
`
`base
`
`
`
`Defenddants’ Propposal
`
`
`
`
`cranniees
`
`Havingg no pores, ee.g., having nno nooks or
`
`Claim Term/Phrasee
`
`
`
`
`hybridizaable form
`
`various
`
`
`
`
`
`III. DDisputed Claaim Terms
`
`A. “non-porrous”
`
` A
`
`
`
`
`Enzo’s PProposal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`through wwhich fluid mmay pass
`
`No consttruction neceessary.
`
`
`
`s minute holesOr in the alternative: not full of m
`
` T
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The asserted independentt claims of thhe ’197 patennt recite a “nnon-porous”” solid suppoort.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exemplaary claim 1 (wwith the dispputed claim tterm highligghted) reads::
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. B-1,,3 col. 13:63-67.) “Non--porous” is aa commonly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`understood
`
`
`
`given term that haas not been g
`
`
`
`
`
`a special definition bby the inventtors. (See, e..g., Ex. B-100 at ENZO-00020012 (Exxaminer notinng
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Referennces to exhibbits beginninng with the leetter “B” aree to exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Coonstruction CChart. Referrences to nummerical exhiibits are to eexhibits filedd with
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaratiion of Danieelle A. Shultzz In Supportt Of Plaintifff’s Opening
`
`
`
`
`For The ’197 Patent.
`
`filed with thhe parties’ Jooint
`
`Claim Consstruction Brieef
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 11436
`
`that glass slides are “reasonably interpreted as the commonly utilized non-porous microscope
`
`type slides which are well known in the art”).) Thus, Enzo respectfully submits that construction
`
`of this claim term is unnecessary. See Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“We indulge a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their full ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`If the Court determines that “non-porous” requires construction, it should be construed as
`
`“not full of minute holes through which fluid may pass,” consistent with its ordinary meaning
`
`and the intrinsic record. The specification discloses that “non-porous” materials include, for
`
`example, glass, plastic, and polystyrene, which do not permit the passage of fluid. (Ex. B-1, col.
`
`6:2-9.) By contrast, the very next sentence in the specification discloses a “filter”4—which
`
`permits the passage of fluid—as an exemplary “porous material[].” (Id.) The specification’s
`
`distinction between non-porous and porous materials supports the ordinary meaning of “non-
`
`porous” reflected in Enzo’s proposed construction. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning
`
`that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill … in question at the time of invention.”).
`
`(See also Ex. 1, 10 THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (VOL. X) 476 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2d ed.
`
`1989) (defining “non-” as a prefix “used to express negation”); Ex. 2, 12 THE OXFORD ENGLISH
`
`DICTIONARY (VOL. XII) 132, 137 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2d ed. 1989) (defining “porous” as “full
`
`of or abounding in pores” and “pore” as “a minute . . . hole (usually, one imperceptible to the
`
`unaided eye), in a surface through which fluids (rarely solid bodies) may pass”).)
`
`Although Defendants contend that “non-porous” requires construction, their proposed
`
`construction fails to clarify what the term means. Rather than explain what the term means in the
`
`
`4 Emphasis has been added unless otherwise noted.
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 11437
`
`context of the asserted claims and specification, Defendants’ proposed construction simply
`
`substitutes the phrase “no pores” and offers an example of “no nooks or crannies.” That
`
`construction adds superfluous, non-technical words—“nooks or crannies”—that create ambiguity
`
`and potential jury confusion. Moreover, Defendants’ proposed incorporation of that language
`
`finds no support in the claim language or the specification.5 In addition, Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction improperly recasts “non-porous” in absolute terms—“no pores”—contrary to the
`
`plain meaning of the term. (See Ex. 2, 12 THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (VOL. XII) 137
`
`(Oxford Univ. Press, 2d ed. 1989) (defining “porous” as “full of or abounding in pores”).) See
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1289, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding
`
`court erred in construing “non-flowing” to mean that absolutely no movement could occur).
`
`B. “solid support”
`
`Enzo’s Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`
`Or in the alternative: solid structure
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`A solid structure for containing fluid
`
`The asserted independent claims of the ’197 patent recite a non-porous “solid support.”
`
`Exemplary claim 1 (with the disputed claim term highlighted) is illustrative:
`
`
`5 It appears that the example in Defendants’ proposed construction relies on a single statement
`made by Enzo during the prosecution of the ’197 patent. In discussing the novelty of the ’197
`patent, Enzo stated that “[t]he uniformity of these non-porous solid supports, which stands in
`contrast to the nooks and crannies of porous supports in the prior art, allows for hybridization
`and detection of different nucleic acids under the same or similar hybridization and detection
`conditions.” (Ex. B-8 at ENZO-0019427.) However, Defendants improperly rely on this
`statement as support for their proposed definition of non-porous, despite the fact that Enzo used
`this colloquial language to comment on certain features of porous materials not necessarily
`related to their porosity. The mere fact that some porous supports may have “nooks and
`crannies” does not compel the conclusion that all porous supports must have nooks and crannies.
`Nor does it compel the conclusion that non-porous supports may never have nooks and crannies.
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 11438
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. B-1,, col. 13:63-67.) Becausse “solid suppport” consissts of ordinarary words thaat are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`understanndable to a jury, Enzo reespectfully suubmits that cconstructionn of this claimm term is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unnecesssary. See Ommega Eng’g, 334 F.3d att 1323.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inn the alternattive, if the CCourt determmines that “soolid support”” requires coonstruction, iit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`should bee construed aas “solid struucture.” Thee claims reququire and the
`
`
`
`
`
`specificatioon describes
`
`solid
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`supports made of difffferent materrials—e.g., gglass, plastic,
`
`
`
`
`pes—ifferent shap, polystyrenee—and in di
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e.g., platees, wells, tubbes, cuvettess:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ecific o claim a spes intended to2.) Where tthe patentees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. B-1,, col. 6:2-9; see also id. ccol. 12:39-4
`
`
`
`
`type of or shape for aa “solid suppport,” they exxplicitly didd so. (See, e.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g., id. col. 1
`
`
`
`7:8-12 (“nonn-
`
`
`porous soolid support
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises aa plate or plaates, a well oor wells, a mmicrotiter weell or microtiiter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wells, a ddepression oor depressionns, a tube orr tubes, or a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cuvette or cuuvettes”), 177:31-33 (“noon-
`
`
`
`porous soolid support comprises aa plate or plaates”).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAlthough Deffendants agrree that “soliid support” mmeans “solidd structure,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`constructtion seeks too include the extraneous limitation “ffor containinng fluid.” B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`their propossed
`
`
`
`ut the assertted
`
`
`
`claims doo not requiree that the “soolid support”” contain fluiid. Furthermmore, far froom providingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 11439
`
`clarity, the phrase “for containing fluid” creates unnecessary ambiguity regarding what kind of
`
`structure would provide sufficient containment. Indeed, to the extent “containing fluid” requires
`
`a “tube” to the exclusion of other solid support embodiments, such as “plates,” Defendants’
`
`proposed construction violates fundamental claim construction principles. See Kara Techs. Inc.
`
`v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The patentee is entitled to the full
`
`scope of his claims, and we will not limit him to his preferred embodiment or import a limitation
`
`from the specification into the claims.”). Because certain dependent claims specifically recite
`
`“said non-porous solid support comprises a plate or plates,” the term “solid support” must
`
`encompass a “plate or plates.” (See, e.g., Ex. B-1, col. 21:4-5 (dependent claim covering a “plate
`
`or plates”); Ex. B-8 at ENZO-0019438, ENZO-0019440 (amendment stating that plates are flat
`
`or substantially flat).) See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d
`
`1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is a strong presumption against a claim construction that
`
`excludes a disclosed embodiment.” (citations omitted)). Therefore, Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction should be rejected.
`
`C. “non-porous solid support”
`
`Enzo’s Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`
`Or in the alternative, Enzo contends that this
`claim language should be grouped and
`construed as set forth above: solid structure not
`full of minute holes through which fluid may
`pass
`
`Life’s Proposal
`A solid support having an impermeable surface
`without pores, e.g., without nooks or crannies
`
`
`As discussed above, “non-porous” and “solid support” do not require construction
`
`individually, and consequently, neither does the combination of the two terms as “non-porous
`
`solid support.” In the alternative, if the Court determines that “non-porous solid support”
`
`requires separate construction, it should adopt the following construction, which is a combination
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 11440
`
`of Enzo’s proposed constructions for those terms discussed above: “solid structure not full of
`
`minute holes through which fluid may pass.”6
`
`Defendant Life Technologies Corp. (“Life”) is the sole Defendant that contends that the
`
`phrase “non-porous solid support” requires construction as a unit, rather than as its component
`
`parts “non-porous” and “solid support.” But Life’s proposed construction simply repeats the
`
`words “solid support”7 and then modifies the remaining Defendants’ proposed construction for
`
`“non-porous” to include the extraneous limitation “impermeable surface.” That proposed
`
`construction should be rejected because it fails to provide clarity, and instead injects unnecessary
`
`limitations and ambiguity into the otherwise plain claim language.
`
`First, because Life’s inclusion of the words “without pores, e.g., without nooks or
`
`crannies” to define “non-porous” is virtually identical to the other Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction of “no pores, e.g., no nooks and crannies” for the same words, it should be rejected
`
`for the same reasons set forth above. Second, Life’s proposed construction impermissibly seeks
`
`to add the extraneous limitation “impermeable surface.” But neither the claims nor the
`
`specification require or disclose an “impermeable surface,” a fact that alone warrants rejection of
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction. See Woodrow Woods & Marine Exhaust Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (rejecting constructions
`
`that “adopt limitations not defined in, or required by, the specification”). As discussed above, in
`
`the context of the claims and specification, “non-porous” means that a solid support as a whole is
`
`not full of minute holes through which fluid may pass, and makes no mention of the properties or
`
`
`6 Enzo incorporates by reference its discussion above of “non-porous” and “solid support.”
`7 Life’s repetition of the phrase “solid support” in its construction of “non-porous solid support”
`confirms that Life is really just offering a construction of “non-porous” that conflicts with the
`remaining Defendants’ construction of that term.
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 11441
`
`
`
`quality of the surfacee of those suppports.8 Furrthermore, LLife’s propossed constructtion is also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ambiguouus because iit is unclear eexactly whatt “surface” hhas to be imppermeable.9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThird, the facct that Life’s proposed coonstruction ssimply repeaats “solid suppport” withoout
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`explaininng its meaninng shows thaat term requiires no consttruction. Inddeed, claim cconstructionn “is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not an obbligatory exeercise in reduundancy.” UU.S. Surgica
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`l Corp. v. Etthicon, Inc.,
`
`
`
`103 F.3d 15554,
`
`
`
`1568 (Feed. Cir. 19977). Life’s blaatant attemptt to rewrite tthe claim lannguage shouuld be rejecteed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Enzo’s coonstruction oof “non-poroous solid suppport” shoulld be adoptedd because it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gives full efffect
`
`
`
`to the plaain meaning of the phrasse and is connsistent with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the intrinsicc record.
`
`
`
`DD. “array”
`
`No consttruction neceessary.
`
`
`
`Or in the alternative: an orderly ggrouping or
`
`
`
`Defenddants’ Propposal
`
`One orr more solid
`
`
`
`
`
`orderedd arrangemeent of separaate fluid-
`
`containning areas
`
`supports havving a defineed,
`
`
`
`Enzo’s PProposal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangemment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` S
`
`
`
`everal assertted independdent claims ddisclose an ““array” compprising “fixeed or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`he m 17 (with thxample, claimort.” For exs solid suppo“non-porousc acids on a immobiliized” nucleic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disputed claim term hhighlighted) reads:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 The worrd surface apppears in varrious contexxts in the speecification (ssee, e.g., Ex.
`
` B-1, Abstraact,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 8:43-60, 9:34-355, 10:30-39, 11:25-39), ddemonstratinng that the innventors kne
`
`w how to usse the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`it. See Avenntis Pharma SS.A. v. Hosppira, Inc., 6775 F.3d 13244,
`s do not use iterm. Buut the claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 20012) (“Had tthe patentee similarly inntended to re
`
`
`quire [this liimitation], itt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`could havve included such a limitaation in the cclaim but nootably did noot . . . [a]lthoough the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cir. 20122) (“We do nnot read limiitations fromm the specificcation into c
`laims.”).
`rface,” cons
`
`
`
`
`9 As just one examplee of the ambbiguity causeed by Life’s
`
`addition of tthe term “su
`ider,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for exammple, indepenndent claims 25 and 26, wwhich speciffically recitee “a non-por
`
`ous solid suppport
`
`
`
`
`having wwells or depreessions.” (EEx. B-1, col. 16:21-22, 1
`
`
`6:24-25.) TThis claim lannguage
`
`
`
`demonstrrates that thee claimed noon-porous so
`
`
`
`lid supports
`
`
`liquid cann flow, contrrary to Life’s constructioon.
`
`
`
`specificaation does reffer to [it].”); Thorner v. Sony Entm’tt Am. LLC, 6669 F.3d 13662, 1366 (Feed.
`
`can have suurface regionns into whichh
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 11442
`
`
`(Ex. B-1, col. 15:51-53.) Enzo contends that construction of this term is unnecessary because
`
`“array” is a straightforward term that carries its ordinary meaning in the context of the asserted
`
`claims. See Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1323. If the Court determines that “array” requires
`
`construction, it should be construed as “an orderly grouping or arrangement,” consistent with its
`
`ordinary meaning and the intrinsic record. (See Ex. 3, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 76
`
`(Prentice Hall, 3d College Ed. 1994) (defining “array” as “an orderly grouping or
`
`arrangement”).) The claims, as shown above in exemplary claim 17, use “array” in the context
`
`of describing “single-” and “double-stranded nucleic acids fixed . . . to a non-porous solid
`
`support.” The specification also uses the word “array” in the context of “an array of depressions
`
`or wells” (among other types of solid supports), or in other words, an orderly grouping or
`
`arrangement of depressions or wells. (See Ex. B-1, col. 8:66-67; Ex. B-7 at ENZO-0019366-369
`
`(disclosing flat or planar solid supports as well as those with wells or depressions).)
`
`By contrast, Defendants’ construction departs from the ordinary meaning, impermissibly
`
`seeking to add extraneous limitations. First, Defendants’ proposed construction would limit
`
`“array” to only arrangements of solid supports. But this limitation is inconsistent with the
`
`ordinary meaning of array and not supported by the intrinsic record. Indeed, the independent
`
`claims explicitly recite an “array comprising . . . nucleic acids”—not solid supports. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. B-1, col. 15:51-16:14 (claims 17-22).) See Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`
`247 F.3d 1316, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[A] construction that flies in the face of the express
`
`language of the claim is not preferred.”). Moreover, although one embodiment in the
`
`specification does disclose an array of wells or depressions, the term “array” should not be
`
`limited to a single embodiment. (See Ex. B-1, col. 8:66-67.) See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 11443
`
`Second, no basis likewise exists for limiting the term “array” to an “arrangement of fluid-
`
`containing areas,” a limitation that appears nowhere in the claims. As explained in the section
`
`above regarding “solid support,” the patent covers a wide range of solid supports, including flat
`
`plates, and the words “fluid-containing areas” inject ambiguity as to what structures would
`
`satisfy that proposed limitation. (See, e.g., Ex. B-1, col. 21:4-5 (dependent claim covering a
`
`“plate or plates”); Ex. B-8 at ENZO-0019438, ENZO-0019440 (amendment stating that plates
`
`are flat or substantially flat).)
`
`Third, Defendants’ construction also imposes the additional limitation that the array be a
`
`“defined” arrangement. That word does not appear in the claims or specification, and it is
`
`unclear what “defined” means in that context. Finally, adopting Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction would render other claim language—namely, the phrase “a non-porous solid
`
`support”—superfluous due to the incorporation of “solid supports” into the term “array.” See,
`
`e.g., Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[C]laims are interpreted
`
`with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.”). Therefore, Defendants’ proposed
`
`construction should be rejected. If the Court determines “array” requires construction, Enzo’s
`
`construction should be adopted because it comports with the plain meaning and intrinsic record.
`
`E. “one or more amine(s), hydroxyl(s) or epoxide(s) thereon”
`
`Enzo’s Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`
`Or in the alternative: one or more amine(s),
`hydroxyl(s) or epoxide(s) on the solid support
`
`
`“via said one or more amine(s), hydroxyl(s) or epoxide(s)”
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`One or more amine(s), hydroxyl(s) or
`epoxide(s) present on the solid support
`
`Enzo’s Proposal
`No construction necessary.
`
`Or in the alternative: through said one or more
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`By said one or more amine(s), hydroxyl(s) or
`epoxide(s) present on the solid support
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00105-LPS Document 98 Filed 06/24/14 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 11444
`
`
`
`amine(s), hydroxyl(s) or epoxidee(s) on the
`
`
`
`
`solid suppport
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EExemplary cllaim 1 (with disputed lannguage highllighted) readds:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. B-1,, col. 13:63-67.) The dissputed phrasses d