`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”
`
`“Y”
`
`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
`
`