Arnold B. Calmann (ACalmann@saiber.com)
`Katherine Escanlar (KEscanlar@saiber.com)
`SAIBER LLC
`One Gateway Center, Suite 1000
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`Telephone: (973) 622-3333
`
`Douglas H. Carsten (dcarsten@wsgr.com)
`Elham Firouzi Steiner (esteiner@wsgr.com)
`Arthur P. Dykhuis (adykhuis@wsgr.com)
`Nathaniel R. Scharn (nscharn@wsgr.com)
`Alina L. Litoshyk (alitoshyk@wsgr.com)
`James P.H. Stephens (jstephens@wsgr.com)
`Michael Taylor Dimler (tdimler@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: (858) 350-2300
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Mylan GmbH, Biocon Ltd.,
`Biocon Research Ltd., Biocon Sdn. Bhd.,
`and Biocon S.A.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC,
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`and SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE,
`
`C.A. No. 17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`MYLAN GMBH, BIOCON LTD., BIOCON
`RESEARCH LTD., BIOCON SDN. BHD., and
`BIOCON S.A.
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2013.001
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`1 of the ’930 patent recites “at least one chemical entity chosen from esters and ethers of
`
`polyhydric alcohols.” Pursuant to Sanofi’s proposal, claim 1 would therefore read, “at least one
`
`[chemical compound] chosen from [chemical compounds in which one or more of the hydroxyl
`
`groups of a polyhydric alcohol instead of being a hydroxyl group is an ester (RCOO-X) or ether
`
`(RC-O-X) group].”17 See id. at 47, 56-57. Sanofi’s proposal injects the construction for
`
`“chemical entity” into this term, where “chemical entity” does not reappear, resulting in
`
`unnecessary repetition. No clarifying purpose is served by stating that an ester or ether of a
`
`polyhydric alcohol is a “chemical compound.” Defendants’ construction is clean,
`
`straightforward, and clarifies the meaning of the claim term without interjecting pointless
`
`repetition.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Adopt Defendants’ Constructions for the Disputed Terms
`of the Device Patents
`
`1.
`
`“piston rod”
`
`Each asserted independent claim of the Device Patents requires “a piston rod,” and the
`
`parties agree the same construction should apply for all five Device Patents. The parties dispute
`
`where the rod is located and how it relates to the piston.
`
`The Device Patents’ claims establish that the “piston rod” has a well-understood
`
`relationship to the “piston.” Ochoa, ¶ 43. The specifications confirm this relationship by
`
`disclosing one, and only one, type of piston rod: a rod that moves axially to advance the piston.
`
`Every embodiment in the Device Patents has a piston rod that pushes the piston through the
`
`cartridge. For example, in the primary embodiment, the Device Patents explain, “A pressure foot
`
`22 is located at the first end of the piston rod 20. The pressure foot 22 is disposed to abut a
`
`second end of the cartridge piston 10.” See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 3:57-61, Fig. 4; Ochoa, ¶¶ 36-37.
`
`
`17 Sanofi proposes that “chemical entity” be construed as “chemical compound.”
`
`14
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2013.002
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`

`

`Dated: October 12, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`SAIBER LLC
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Mylan GmbH
`
`
`_/s/ Arnold B. Calmann________________
`Arnold B. Calmann (ACalmann@saiber.com)
`Katherine Escanlar (KEscanlar@saiber.com)
`SAIBER LLC
`One Gateway Center, Suite 1000
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`Telephone: (973) 622-3333
`
`Douglas H. Carsten (dcarsten@wsgr.com)
`Elham Firouzi Steiner (esteiner@wsgr.com)
`Arthur P. Dykhuis (adykhuis@wsgr.com)
`Nathaniel R. Scharn (nscharn@wsgr.com)
`Alina L. Litoshyk (alitoshyk@wsgr.com)
`James P.H. Stephens (jstephens@wsgr.com)
`Michael Taylor Dimler (tdimler@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: (858) 350-2300
`
`35
`
`Sanofi Exhibit 2013.003
`Mylan v. Sanofi
`IPR2018-01676
`
`