The Trustees Of Columbia
`University In The City Of New
`York and Qiagen Sciences, LLC
`
`v.
`
`Illumina, Inc.
`
`Case No. 19-1681-CFC
`Illumina’s Claim Construction
`Hearing Presentation
`
`Illumina
`
`1
`
`Illumina Ex. 1163
`Illumina v. Columbia
`IPR2020-01177
`
`
`University In The City Of New
`York and Qiagen Sciences, LLC
`
`v.
`
`Illumina, Inc.
`
`Case No. 19-1681-CFC
`Illumina’s Claim Construction
`Hearing Presentation
`
`Illumina
`
`1
`
`Illumina Ex. 1163
`Illumina v. Columbia
`IPR2020-01177
`
`
`
`“Y”
`
`a
`
`Illumina 2
`
`
`
`Disputed Claim Term
`
`Claim Term
`
`Illumina’s Construction
`
`“A single linker that
`directly connects the
`base to the label”
`
`“Y”
`
`’458 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’459 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’742 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’984 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’380 Patent: Claims 1, 3
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Construction
`“Represents a part of
`the nucleotide
`analogue, attaching the
`base of the nucleotide
`analogue to a tag, as
`depicted in the
`illustration of the
`nucleotide analogue in
`the claim”
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 3
`
`
`
`Key Dispute
`
`• Whether “Y” is a single linker or multiple linkers?
`- Illumina’s position: single linker
`- Plaintiffs’ position: multiple linkers
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 4
`
`
`
`Claim Language: Only One Linker
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 5
`
`
`
`Claim Language: Only One Linker
`
`“A” or “an” is construed broadly when the open term “comprising” is present.
`Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 6
`
`
`
`Claim Language: Only One Linker
`
`• Columbia did not claim broadly using established conventions:
`
`“-Y-Y-”
`
`“-X-Y-”
`“–(Y)n– where n is 1 or greater”
`“–(X)m-(Y)n– where m and n are 1 or greater”
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 7
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position: Two Linkers Can Be Treated As One
`
`Plaintiffs’ Brief
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 8
`
`
`
`Law: Plaintiff Must Bear Cost Of Narrow Claiming
`
`“ [A]s between the patentee who had a clear opportunity to negotiate
`broader claims but did not do so, and the public at large, it is the
`patentee who must bear the cost of its failure to seek protection for
`this foreseeable alteration of its claimed structure.”
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Adv. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 9
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Dr. Ju Defined “Y”
`
`Indefiniteness Rejection:
`
`Narrowing Definition:
`
`Supp. Submission (JA0033); Ju Declaration (JA0065).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 10
`
`
`
`Law: IPR Is Part Of Prosecution History
`
`“Because an IPR proceeding involves reexamination of an earlier
`administrative grant of a patent, it follows that statements made by a
`patent owner during an IPR proceeding can be considered during
`claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution
`disclaimer.”
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 11
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: “Y” Is A Single Linker
`
`Columbia’s IPR Resp. (JA0054-0055)
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 12
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Double-Linker “Excluded”
`
`Columbia’s IPR Sur-Reply (JA0095)
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 13
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: “Additional Y” Excluded
`
`Columbia’s IPR Demonstrative (JA0133)
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 14
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Argument: PTAB Rejected Construction
`
`Plaintiffs’ Brief
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 15
`
`
`
`Law: Columbia Cannot Escape Admissions
`
`Patentee’s IPR statements are relevant to claim construction
`regardless of whether they are accepted–or even disputed by PTAB
`See Am. Piledriving, Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 16
`
`
`
`Law: Columbia Cannot Escape Admissions
`
`“We agree with the district court that arguments deliberately and
`repeatedly advanced by the patent applicant in regard to the scope of
`a claim term during prosecution may be used for purposes of claim
`construction even though the Patent Office rejected the arguments.”
`Lifestream Diagnostics, Inc. v. Polymer Tech. Inc., 109 F. App’x 411, 414-16 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 17
`
`
`
`Law: Columbia Cannot Escape Admissions
`
`“An applicant’s argument made during prosecution may lead to a
`disavowal of claim scope even if the Examiner did not rely on the
`argument.”
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 18
`
`
`
`Law: Columbia Cannot Escape Admissions
`
`“We have stated on numerous occasions that a patentee’s statements
`during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are
`relevant to claim interpretation.”
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 19
`
`
`
`Law: Columbia Cannot Escape Admissions
`
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 806 Fed. App’x 1007
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (non-precedential).
`
`- Pertains to doctrine of equivalents–not claim construction
`- A “prosecution history statement may inform the proper
`construction of a term without rising to the level of a clear and
`unmistakable disclaimer.”
`
`Id. at 1011.
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 20
`
`
`
`PTAB: Used Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`Broadest reasonable interpretation, so that “the patent examiner is
`able to ‘reduce the possibility that, after the patent is granted, the
`claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is
`justified.’”
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 734, 740 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 21
`
`
`
`Phillips Standard Is Different
`
`Under the Phillips standard, “district courts seek out the correct
`construction—the construction that most accurately delineates the
`scope of the claimed invention—under the framework laid out in”
`Phillips.
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 734, 740 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 22
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Argument: Illumina Excludes Embodiments
`
`Plaintiffs’ Brief
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 23
`
`
`
`Claim Language: “Chemically Cleavable” Linkers
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 24
`
`
`
`Specification: Figs. 8 & 16 Are Photocleavable Linkers
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 25
`
`
`
`PTAB Construction Leads To Multiple Cleavable Linkers
`
`PTAB Final Written Decision
`
`• Linkers should be chemically cleavable
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 26
`
`
`
`“Small”
`
`“Small”
`
`Illumina 27
`
`
`
`Disputed Claim Term
`
`Claim Term
`
`Illumina’s Construction
`
`“small”
`
`’458 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’459 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’742 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’984 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’380 Patent: Claims 1, 3
`
`“A chemical group that
`fits within the rat DNA
`polymerase active site
`shown in Fig. 1 of the
`patent, i.e. has a longest
`dimension less than
`3.7Å, including the 3′
`oxygen”
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Construction
`“A chemical group that
`has a diameter, i.e.,
`width, that is less than
`3.7Å”
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 28
`
`
`
`Key Disputes
`
`• Whether “small” should be defined in terms of rat
`polymerase?
`• Whether “diameter” should be replaced with “width”?
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 29
`
`
`
`Key Disputes
`
`• Whether “small” should be defined in terms of rat
`polymerase?
`• Whether “diameter” should be replaced with “width”?
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 30
`
`
`
`Claim Language: Does Not Clarify “Small”
`
`JA0020 at claim 1
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`31
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: No Ordinary Meaning For “Small”
`
`Columbia’s IPR Prelimary Response
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 32
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: “Small” Rejected as Indefinite
`
`JA0030
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`33
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Rat Polymerase Definition
`
`JA0031
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`34
`
`
`
`Specification: Fig. 1 Is Rat Polymerase
`
`JA0010–11 at 2:66–3:1
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`35
`
`
`
`Specification: Fig. 1 Is Rat Polymerase
`
`JA0003 at Fig 1, JA0012 at 5:52-53
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`36
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Rat Polymerase Definition
`
`JA0031
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`37
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Rat Polymerase Definition
`
`JA0082
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`38
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Rat Polymerase Definition
`
`JA0053
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`39
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position: Rat Polymerase Is “Benchmark”
`
`Plaintiffs’ Brief
`
`JA0010–11 at 2:66–3:1
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`40
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Rat Polymerase
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0375
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`41
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: 3 Feet Long Is “Small”
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`• 3 foot long molecule will not fit within rat polymerase
`
`JA0395
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`42
`
`
`
`Key Disputes
`
`• Whether “small” should be defined in terms of rat
`polymerase?
`• Whether “diameter” should be replaced with “width”?
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 43
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Construction Not Based In Specification
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0375
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`44
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Columbia Uses “Diameter”
`
`JA0031
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`45
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Dr. Ju Uses “Diameter”
`
`JA0082
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`46
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Columbia Uses “Diameter”
`
`JA0059
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`47
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: “Space Around” 3’ Carbon
`
`JA0082
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`48
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: 3 Feet Long Is “Small”
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`• 3 foot long molecule will not fit within rat polymerase
`
`JA0395
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`49
`
`
`
`Columbia’s IPR Expert: 3 Foot Long Not “Small”
`
`DR. GEORGE L. TRAINOR
`Columbia’s IPR Expert
`
`JA0289-90
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`50
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Undermines Unlimited Length
`
`•
`
`“Limited number” of “small” groups
`irreconcilable with unlimited length
`
`JA0066
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`51
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Tunnel Theory
`
`Plaintiffs’ Brief
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 52
`
`
`
`Dr. Romesberg: “Tunnel” Theory Is Wrong
`
`Floyd Romesberg, Ph.D.
`Illumina’s Expert
`
`JA0247-48
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`53
`
`
`
`Dr. Romesberg: “Tunnel” Theory Is Wrong
`
`Floyd Romesberg, Ph.D.
`Illumina’s Expert
`
`JA0336
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`54
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Romesberg
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0377
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`55
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Romesberg
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0371
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`56
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Romesberg
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0375
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`57
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Romesberg
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0369-70
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`58
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position: “Width” Matches Dr. Ju
`
`Plaintiffs’ Brief
`
`JA0056, JA0060
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`59
`
`
`
`Prosecution History: Dr. Ju’s “Diameters”
`
`• Dr. Ju never referred to “width”
`• Dr. Ju does not show how he calculated “diameters”
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 60
`
`
`
`Dr. Romesberg: No Explanation For Dr. Ju’s Results
`
`Floyd Romesberg, Ph.D.
`Illumina’s Expert
`
`JA0318
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`61
`
`
`
`“Small” Definition Here is Unique to the Patents
`
`JA0059
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`62
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: No Opinion On “Diameter”
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0386
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`63
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Know How 3.7 Å Determined
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0383-84
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`64
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Know How 3.7 Å Determined
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0380
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`65
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Know How 3.7 Å Determined
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0380-81
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`66
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan’s Judge By Eye Approach
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 67
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan’s Method: Imprecise and Indefinite
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0389
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`68
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan’s Method: Imprecise and Indefinite
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0389
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`69
`
`
`
`Law: Claims Must Inform with “Reasonably Certainty”
`
`“We hold that claim 1 is invalid for indefiniteness by clear and
`convincing evidence because read in light of the specification and the
`prosecution history, the patentee has failed to inform with reasonable
`certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(emphasis in original)
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 70
`
`
`
`Finding Distances That Match Dr. Ju Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 71
`
`
`
`Finding Distances That Match Dr. Ju Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 72
`
`
`
`Finding Distances That Match Dr. Ju Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 73
`
`
`
`Finding Distances That Match Dr. Ju Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 74
`
`
`
`Finding Distances That Match Dr. Ju Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 75
`
`
`
`Finding Distances That Match Dr. Ju Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 76
`
`
`
`Finding Distances That Match Dr. Ju Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 77
`
`
`
`Finding Distances That Match Dr. Ju Is Irrelevant
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 78
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position: Illumina Excludes Embodiments
`
`Plaintiffs’ Brief
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 79
`
`
`
`Specification: Only Two Embodiments
`
`JA0010–11 at 2:66–3:1
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`80
`
`
`
`Dr. Romesberg: MOM And Allyl Fit, Azido Does Not
`
`Floyd Romesberg, Ph.D.
`Illumina’s Expert
`
`JA0247-48
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`81
`
`
`
`Dr. Romesberg: Azidomethyl Not “Small”
`
`Floyd Romesberg, Ph.D.
`Illumina’s Expert
`
`JA0318
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`82
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Romesberg
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0377
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`83
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Romesberg
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0371
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`84
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Romesberg
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0375
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`85
`
`
`
`Dr. Kuriyan: Does Not Rebut Romesberg
`
`John Kuriyan, Ph.D.
`Plaintiffs’ Expert
`
`JA0369-70
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`86
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Construction: Layers Of Spin
`
`Response:
`rat DNA
`polymerase
`
`Prosecution
`
`• “small” is
`indefinite
`
`Plaintiffs’
`“width”
`Construction
`
`Dr.
`Kuriyan’s
`Method
`• Devises scheme
`to “match” Dr. Ju’s
`“diameters”
`
`Dr. Ju’s
`declaration
`
`• Space inside rat
`polymerase is 3.7
`Å “diameter”
`• Does not provide
`calculations
`• Does not refer to
`“width”
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 87
`
`
`
`Law: Prosecution History Cannot Enlarge Claims
`
`“Multiform’s dictionary definitions added during patent prosecution,
`although stating a broad definition of ‘degradable,’ could not serve to
`enlarge the scope of the claims in order to cover the Medzam device.”
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`“The district court did not accept Multiform's position that the dictionary
`definitions provided during the prosecution simply clarified the
`inventor's original usage of ‘degradable.’”
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 88
`
`
`
`Law: Prosecution History Cannot Enlarge Claims
`
`“When the specification explains and defines a term used in the
`claims, without ambiguity or incompleteness, there is no need to
`search further for the meaning of the term.
`We conclude that the meaning of "degradable" in claims 1 and 6 (and
`the claims dependent thereon) is limited to the dissolution/degradation
`of the envelope as described in the specification.”
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 89
`
`
`
`“R...is stable during a DNA polymerase
`reaction”
`
`Illumina 90
`
`
`
`Disputed Claim Term
`
`Claim Term
`
`Illumina’s Construction
`
`“R . . . is stable during
`a DNA polymerase
`reaction”
`
`“R has at least the
`stability of a MOM ether
`(‐CH2OCH3) or allyl
`(‐CH2CH=CH2) group”
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Construction
`“R remains bonded to
`3´ oxygen during a DNA
`polymerase reaction”
`
`’458 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’459 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’742 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’984 Patent: Claims 1, 2
`’380 Patent: Claims 1, 3
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 91
`
`
`
`Key Dispute
`
`• Can two separate limitations be redundant?
`- Illumina’s position: No
`- Plaintiffs’ position: Yes
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 92
`
`
`
`Claim Language: Requires Two Forms Of Stability
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 93
`
`
`
`Claim Language: Requires Two Forms Of Stability
`
`Term to be Construed
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Construction
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 94
`
`
`
`Law: All Claims Terms Must Be Given Effect
`
`“Claims must be interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all
`terms in the claim.”
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`
`616 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 95
`
`
`
`Specification: Provides Stability Standard
`
`JA0014.
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina
`
`96
`
`
`
`“A method for sequencing a nucleic acid”
`
`Illumina 97
`
`
`
`Disputed Claim Term
`
`Claim Term
`
`Illumina’s Construction
`
`Preamble is not limiting
`
`“A method for
`sequencing a nucleic
`acid”
`
`’380 Patent: Claims 1, 3
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Construction
`“A method for detecting
`the identity and
`sequence of a strand of
`nucleotides”
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 98
`
`
`
`Key Dispute
`
`• Whether preamble is limiting?
`- Illumina’s position: Non-limiting
`- Plaintiffs’ position: Limiting.
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 99
`
`
`
`’380 Patent: Preamble
`
`’380 Patent, cl. 1
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 100
`
`
`
`Law: Preamble Is Not Limiting By Default
`
`• The default rule is that preamble language is not limiting.
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 101
`
`
`
`Law: Merely Stating Purpose Does Not Limit Claims
`
`• Where “a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the
`claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or
`intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim
`limitation.”
`
`See Rowe v. Dror, 112 F. 3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 102
`
`
`
`Preamble Merely States Purpose Or Intended Use
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 103
`
`
`
`Claim Discloses Structurally Complete Invention
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 104
`
`
`
`Conditions For A Limiting Preamble Not Present
`
`• A preamble is only limiting “if it recites essential structure or steps,
`or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.”
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`• The preamble may also be limiting to the extent it is “necessary to
`provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim.”
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 105
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proffered Construction Is Duplicative
`
`• “A method for detecting the identity and sequence of a strand of
`nucleotides which comprises detecting the identity of a nucleotide
`analogue incorporated into the end of a growing strand of DNA in a
`polymerase reaction....”
`
`• “If the preamble ‘is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be
`merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and
`was not clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection), we do not
`construe it to be a separate limitation.’”
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 106
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Law Is Inapposite
`
`“‘Growing’ and ‘isolating’ are not merely circumstances in which the method may be useful, but
`instead are the raison d'être of the claimed method itself. Divorced from the process of growing
`and isolating virus, the claimed method reduces to nothing more than a process for producing
`cytopathic effects in sheets of cultured MA-104 cells-a process whose absence of fathomable
`utility rather suggests the academic exercise. Gauging the effect of preamble language based
`on the claim as a whole…it becomes apparent that claim 2 is in fact directed to a process for
`growing or isolating viruses.”
`
`Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
`320 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 107
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Case Law Examples Are Inapposite
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 108
`
`
`
`End
`
`End
`
`Illumina
`
`
`
`TMSI Destroys DNA
`
`Romesberg IPR Decl. (JA0137-0138)
`
`
`
`IlluminaIllumina 110
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
