`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`IN RE: OZEMPIC (SEMAGLUTIDE)) MDL NO. 22-MD-3038 (CFC)
`PATENT LITIGATION ) ANDA CASE
`
`NOVO NORDISK INC. and NOVO
`NORDISK A/S,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`RIO BIOPHARMACEUTICALS
`INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`NOVO NORDISK INC. and NOVO
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`)
`)
` )
`)
` ) C.A. No. 22-294 (CFC)
` )
` )
`)
`)
` )
`)
` )
`)
`)
` )
`)
` ) C.A. No. 22-1040 (CFC)
` )
` )
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., )
` )
`)
`
` Defendant.
`
`Thursday, July 13, 2023
`9:00 a.m.
`Markman Hearing
`
`844 King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`BEFORE: THE HONORABLE COLM F. CONNOLLY
`United States District Court Judge
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 1
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 1 of 134
`
`
`
` 2
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
` MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL
` BY: BRIAN P. EGAN, ESQ.
`
` .
`
` -and-
`
`
` FENWICK & WEST LLP
` BY: JEFFREY J. OELKE, ESQ.
` BY: ROBERT E. COUNIHAN, ESQ
` BY: LAURA T. MORAN, ESQ.
` BY: RYAN JOHNSON, ESQ.
` BY: ERICA SUTTER, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for the Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
` MORRIS JAMES
` BY: CORTLAN S. HITCH, ESQ.
`
`
`-and-
`
`
` TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
` BY: PHILIP KOUYOUMDJIAN, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for the Defendants
`Rio Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and EMS S/A
`
`
`
`
`
` STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
` BY: STAMATIOS STAMOULIS, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 2
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 2 of 134
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` 3
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
` BY: EMILY J. GREB, ESQ.
` BY: BRANDON M. WHITE, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for the Defendants
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
` SHAW KELLER
` BY: KAREN E. KELLER, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
` AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
` BY: AZIZ BURGY, ESQ.
` Counsel for the Defendant
`Alvogen, Inc.
`
` YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR
` BY: ALEXIS STOMBAUG, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for the Defendants
`Zydus Worldwide DMCC, Zydus Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`and Zydus Lifesciences Limited
`
` HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL
` BY: DOMINICK GATTUSO, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 3
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 3 of 134
`
`
`
` 4
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
` WINSTON & STRAWN
` BY: JOVIAL WONG, ESQ.
` BY: ASHLEY GRAHAM, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for the Defendants
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s
`Laboratories, Inc.
`
` RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER
` BY: KELLY E. FARNAN, ESQ.
` BY: SARA METZLER, ESQ.
`
`-and-
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`BY: BRIAN SODIKOFF, ESQ.
`BY: CHRISTOPHER W. WEST, ESQ.
`
` Counsel for Defendants
`Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun
`Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 4
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 4 of 134
`
`
`
` 5
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(Proceedings commenced in the courtroom beginning at
`
`9:00 a.m.)
`
`THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.
`
`All right. Let's start. We've got a lot of
`
`folks here. I guess I'll just do it in the order I have
`
`with Mr. Hitch. Oh, Mr. Egan, you're on that side. Go
`
`ahead and start.
`
`MR. EGAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Brian
`
`Egan from Morris Nichols on behalf of plaintiff Novo
`
`Nordisk. Joining me today from the Fenwick law firm are
`
`Jeff Oelke, Robert Counihan.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Morning, Your Honor.
`
`MR. EGAN: Ryan Johnson, Erica Sutter, and
`
`Laura Moran.
`
`We also have a number of client representatives
`
`here today, Your Honor, from Novo Nordisk: Kathryn Jones,
`
`Chloe Jiang, Wesley Nicolas, and Lori Klewin. And just in
`
`terms of order of presentation today, Your Honor, the
`
`parties have agreed to argue in the order in which they
`
`were briefed.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. HITCH: Good morning, Your Honor. On
`
`behalf of Rio Pharmaceuticals, it's Cortlan Hitch from
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 5
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 5 of 134
`
`
`
` 6
`
`Morris James. And joining me today is Phil Kouyoumdjian
`
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister.
`
`MR. STAMOULIS: Hi, Your Honor. Good morning.
`
`Stam Stamoulis here on behalf of Mylan. With me here at
`
`counsel table is Emily Greb and Brandon White from the
`
`Perkins Coie firm and Matt Greiner is in-house counsel for
`
`Mylan. He's here today. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`MS. KELLER: Good morning, Your Honor, Karen
`
`Keller from Shaw Keller on behalf of Alvogen. And with me
`
`today is Aziz Burgy from Axinn, Veltrop.
`
`MS. STOMBAUGH: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`Alexis Stombaugh from Young Conaway, on behalf of
`
`defendant Zydus. Thank you.
`
`MR. GATTUSO: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`Dominick Gattuso from Heyman Eneria Gattuso & Hirzel on
`
`behalf of DRL. I also have with me Jovial Wong.
`
`MR. WONG: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`MR. GATTUSO: And Ashley Graham, from Winston &
`
`Strawn.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`MR. GATTUSO: Thank you.
`
`MS. METZLER: Good morning, Your Honor. Sara
`
`Metzler from Richards Layton & Finger, on behalf of
`
`defendant Sun. With me today are Kelly Farnan from my
`
`office and Brian Sodikoff and Christopher West, from
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 6
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 6 of 134
`
`
`
` 7
`
`Katten Muchin.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`Okay. So we'll start with the first term is
`
`"piston rod rotates," right?
`
`MR. OELKE: Your Honor, it's the '462 patent,
`
`method of treatment. We're doing it in the order of the
`
`briefing.
`
`THE COURT: Which is different than the order
`
`of the amended claim construction chart, right?
`
`MR. OELKE: That's right, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Let's do in the order of that.
`
`Since that's the last thing you presented to me, that's
`
`the thing I went by. Let's start with piston rod rotates.
`
`MR. OELKE: Mr. Counihan will be handling the
`
`device terms.
`
`THE COURT: Why did you do it in a different
`
`order?
`
`I mean, I have to say that threw me for a loop.
`
`It made it much more difficult to prepare.
`
`You know, you have a joint brief. You've got
`
`all your table of contents. You've got your terms.
`
`That's what I look at, and then I get an amended joint
`
`claim construction chart, which has a completely different
`
`order, and I've got to go match it up to Claim A to
`
`Page 89 to 91.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 7
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 7 of 134
`
`
`
` 8
`
`I'm just curious what the thinking is when you
`
`put something together like that.
`
`MR. OELKE: Your Honor, I think we should have
`
`redone the claim chart. The briefing was done in order of
`
`the '462 patent first and then the device terms. That's
`
`how we did the briefing. We should have just re- -- we
`
`should have amended the claim chart to have it in that
`
`order as you said.
`
`THE COURT: Why? I'm just curious. Seriously,
`
`I just want to understand. Because you're advocates.
`
`You're presenting things to the Court. You want me to
`
`engage.
`
`I'm just kind of curious, so how did you come
`
`up with this?
`
`You have spent all this time briefing it. You
`
`have a table of contents. You've got the order of the
`
`terms. You give that to me. Then you have this meet and
`
`confer. Not the longest meet and confer by the way, but,
`
`you know, and you come up with an amended thing, you file
`
`it.
`
`I'm not even being critical. I'm just trying
`
`to understand, since you're trying to persuade me and
`
`engage me, how did you come up with let's have a
`
`completely different order that we're going to submit this
`
`to the Court. Just curious. What was it?
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 8
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 8 of 134
`
`
`
` 9
`
`MR. OELKE: The chart, I think, was in the
`
`order in which the defendants presented the terms, and
`
`then when we briefed it, we did it with the '462 patent
`
`first. That's all, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, anyway, let's
`
`start with the piston rod rotates.
`
`MR. OELKE: We're happy to start with the
`
`device terms, Your Honor.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Your Honor, may I approach?
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Is two copies good for Your
`
`Honor or would you like more?
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, that would be great. Thank
`
`you. Unless you've got more.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: I have more.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: So, Your Honor I apologize in
`
`advance. Our slides are in the order of the briefing, so
`
`I will -- what I'm going to do is start at the very
`
`beginning and then I'm going to jump to where the piston
`
`rod rotates slides are.
`
`So I'd like to start at the tab that says
`
`device patents, Mr. Watkins, and I'm going to just give a
`
`two-, three-minute overview of the issues and then jump
`
`into the disputed term, if that works.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 9
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 9 of 134
`
`
`
` 10
`
`THE COURT: That's great.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Okay. Great.
`
`So, Your Honor, Robert Counihan, Fenwick &
`
`West, on behalf of the plaintiffs. So the invention of
`
`the device patents -- okay. So the invention of the
`
`device patents relates to limiters for injection pens. So
`
`dose limiters are important in injection pens because they
`
`allow users or patients to be confident that the amount of
`
`dose that they want to give themselves is, in fact,
`
`available in the pen.
`
`So if you've ever had a small child and given
`
`them medicine from a syringe that you get at the pharmacy,
`
`you can visibly see if you happen to pull up some air and
`
`there's less than what you intend to give to your child,
`
`but the injection pens, you often cannot actually see the
`
`amount of dose available. And that's because the pen is
`
`designed to be efficient, compact, easy to use, and so
`
`what the user requires is some piece of mind that they are
`
`actually giving themselves the right dose.
`
`So as the patent acknowledges, the general
`
`concept of dose limiters was known in the art at the time.
`
`But those mechanisms were cumbersome. They were -- if
`
`they were internal to the device, they were positioned
`
`outside of the driver, a common component found in
`
`injection pens, which made the pen unnecessarily large and
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 10
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 10 of 134
`
`
`
` 11
`
`unwieldy, or it involved exterior mechanisms that would
`
`require user to flip a switch or do something else that
`
`could be complicated and add additional issues to the
`
`device.
`
`What the inventors came up with is a design
`
`where they took the limiter and they moved it inside of
`
`the driver. So this is one of the figures from the
`
`patent. The driver is in green. The piston rod is in
`
`blue. Those are two common components in injection pens.
`
`The limiter in is in orange.
`
`What they did is they took advantage of the
`
`inner space within the driver walls. And they increased
`
`the space a little bit and they created a limiter that
`
`could move within it.
`
`This might look like a relatively simple design
`
`there's only four or five components, but what needs to be
`
`appreciated is that these components are moving with
`
`respect to each other. So there's a number of forces
`
`going on; there's a number of different aspects of what's
`
`happening.
`
`And what the inventors created was a
`
`streamlined, slimmed-down profile design. Something that
`
`was critically robust, that was accurate, that was
`
`reliable. And they described their design through three
`
`different embodiments. On the screen here are figures 1,
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 11
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 11 of 134
`
`
`
` 12
`
`5, and 8, which reference at three embodiments. They
`
`describe different arrangements of limiting mechanisms. I
`
`don't think today we need to go into the different types
`
`of limiting mechanisms described, but we can if Your Honor
`
`is interested. But what they say is that each of these
`
`limiting mechanisms has three critical components: The
`
`piston rod, the limiter, and the driver.
`
`THE COURT: What's a limiting mechanism?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: A limiting mechanism, Your
`
`Honor? Well, the claim term is a limiter, but to answer
`
`your question of what a limiting mechanism is, if they had
`
`used that term, that, to me, would have sounded like the
`
`means-plus-function issue that's at dispute. Because,
`
`then, they would have used a nonce term like "mechanism"
`
`and a functional word like "limiting."
`
`They used the word "limiter." Limiter has
`
`structural understanding in this field. It's a Component
`
`that is used to limit, in this situation, the amount of
`
`dose that can be set.
`
`And the claim --
`
`THE COURT: You say it's in the field. Do I
`
`need to go to extrinsic evidence to know that? Because
`
`I'm not a -- what's the field?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: The field here is injection
`
`pens.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 12
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 12 of 134
`
`
`
` 13
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So I'm not an injection
`
`medicine guy, so how do I know that "limiter" is a defined
`
`term in the field?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Well, because in the patent when
`
`they talk about limiters, they talk about limiters in a
`
`structural sense. They don't use "limiters" as a
`
`placeholder for the function of limiting that then has a
`
`broad scope. They're talking specifically about different
`
`types of limiters, limiters with different designs. All
`
`of the limiters have engaging surfaces. Engaging surfaces
`
`that engage with the piston rod and the -- let me go back
`
`one slide.
`
`THE COURT: But how do I know that that's in
`
`the field that has that definition as opposed to in the
`
`specific patents it has that definition? Don't I have to
`
`resort to extrinsic evidence to know that?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Your Honor, I don't think you
`
`need to, but here you can. Because Dr. Cameron did put in
`
`a declaration on behalf of the plaintiffs explaining how
`
`the term limiter is used in different situations in the
`
`field of mechanical engineering and injection pens.
`
`THE COURT: Right. And they have a different
`
`definition from their expert, right, a different
`
`understanding?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Their expert does not actually
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 13
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 13 of 134
`
`
`
` 14
`
`opine on whether the term is means-plus-function or not.
`
`He offers an opinion about the proper construction if it's
`
`not means-plus-function, but I don't --
`
`THE COURT: Right. But, I mean, doesn't he
`
`have opinions about what's understood in the field by that
`
`term.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: He does, but he does not
`
`actually take the next step and say that means in this
`
`situation, limiter, the claim term, does not have a
`
`structural meaning. What he is saying, as I understand
`
`it, is limiters in general have these various uses and
`
`different applications and -- and then, yeah.
`
`It deserves this very unique, very specific
`
`construction that is, in essence, taking
`
`means-plus-function concepts and injecting it into a
`
`nonmeans-plus-function construction.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: So when the patents use --
`
`discuss these embodiments, the patents refer to them as
`
`general embodiments. They explain even within these
`
`embodiments that there are alternative designs, there are
`
`options within them, and then they use the figures to
`
`illustrate the embodiments.
`
`In the present disputes -- I'm not going to go
`
`through all of these -- what consistently comes up, Your
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 14
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 14 of 134
`
`
`
` 15
`
`Honor, is that the defendants are trying to inject
`
`specific concepts into the claim terms. You will not,
`
`Your Honor, hear today about definitions in the spec.
`
`They don't make any of those types of arguments. They
`
`make one argument about a prosecution disclaimer, which
`
`we'll address.
`
`But otherwise, what they are consistently doing
`
`is trying to take the embodiments, and specifically the
`
`figures, interpret them and say, the figures say you have
`
`to have this, therefore, we should inject it into the
`
`claims.
`
`THE COURT: Let's get to piston rod.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Okay. So I'm going to start
`
`with piston rod rotates relative.
`
`So, Mr. Watkins, if you could turn to slide 71,
`
`please. There you go.
`
`So, Your Honor, as I'm sure you -- over the
`
`course of the briefing, the parties continued to negotiate
`
`their constructions. So as I'm sure you saw in the
`
`briefing, some of the issues briefed at the outset no
`
`longer apply at this point. So what we have consistently
`
`in our slides is what the final positions are from the
`
`parties, and I believe that's reflected in the chart that
`
`you received with the exception of one term that the
`
`defendants clarified they're arguing from the brief.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 15
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 15 of 134
`
`
`
` 16
`
`I believe it's this term, right?
`
`MS. GREB: Right.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Sorry. So, anyway, on this
`
`term, as we understand it, the only dispute at this point
`
`is what the piston rod must rotate relative to. We say
`
`it's to another component; they say it's relative to the
`
`housing. Now, of course, the term --
`
`THE COURT: Can you tell me, just so I
`
`understand, what component other than the housing would it
`
`rotate relative to?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Well, in Claim 1, of the '383,
`
`which is where this -- this phrase, that's where this
`
`dispute comes up.
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Here we go. Here's the Claim 1
`
`one language. It doesn't require it to rotate with
`
`respect to the housing in particular. It just must rotate
`
`with respect to another component.
`
`THE COURT: Right. I get that. So but what --
`
`I'm trying to figure out the nature -- well, I kind of
`
`want to know. So other than the housing, what else would
`
`it rotate relative to?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: So if we look at the figures,
`
`Your Honor, it rotates relative to other components such
`
`as the limiter and the driver in this embodiment. And
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 16
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 16 of 134
`
`
`
` 17
`
`that's all that's required. It's requiring rotation. It
`
`cannot be static in terms of rotational movement. And so
`
`the -- well, you know, a critical point in terms of their
`
`construction is that they're trying to say most rotate
`
`relative to the housing. The concept of a housing is not
`
`presented in Claim 1. The concept of housing comes in, in
`
`Claim 2 of this -- of the '383 patent.
`
`And so they are trying to read in a limitation
`
`about -- that is found explicitly in the dependent claim,
`
`and under the law, the Trustees of Columbia University
`
`case, that is not allowed. Because the independent claim
`
`was drafted without reference to the housing at all.
`
`And their central point about why it's
`
`appropriate to focus on the housing or to read the housing
`
`in, is what they call a "prosecution disclaimer". And
`
`that's with respect to this reference called Burroughs.
`
`And this is the language that they side from the
`
`prosecution history, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Actually, don't go there yet.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: I'm trying to figure out,
`
`essentially, what's really at issue. I mean, the -- and
`
`why we even need to construe this because -- and the
`
`difference, right, is, they want, or rather you want this
`
`to rotate relative to another component undefined.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 17
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 17 of 134
`
`
`
` 18
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Correct.
`
`THE COURT: Right?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: They want it to rotate relative to
`
`the housing.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Correct.
`
`THE COURT: Do you dispute that -- actually, in
`
`all pens, is this going to rotate relative to the housing?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: So one issue with their -- I
`
`will come back to your question in a moment. One issue
`
`with their construction is that the meaning of "housing"
`
`is also disputed. So there's a world where --
`
`THE COURT: I'm aware, yeah.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: There's a world where the
`
`housing construction actually informs whether there might
`
`be agreement on this term. But to come back to your
`
`question, which I understand to be: Is there a world
`
`where an infringing pen, if you will, rotates -- the
`
`piston rod rotates with respect to anything other than --
`
`I assume you're referring to the exterior shell, the
`
`outermost housing, Your Honor, when you say, "housing" in
`
`that question?
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Yeah, here's where the issues
`
`start compiling on top of each other. So --
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 18
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 18 of 134
`
`
`
` 19
`
`THE COURT: I mean, should we construe
`
`"housing" first? Would that take care of it?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Yes. Your Honor, yes, I think
`
`that would help. So we could go there first. It also
`
`might help to construe "piston rod" first, because it's
`
`the piston rod that's rotating. So the answer to that
`
`question might also inform some of these issues too. So
`
`whatever Your Honor would prefer. Here's -- yeah.
`
`THE COURT: So if you were trying to be
`
`efficient about this, sounds like what you would say is go
`
`with "piston rod" first then "housing" and then this first
`
`term?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Yes, Your Honor, because I think
`
`we can kind of compartmentalize some of these issues.
`
`Like kind of bucket those three, and then the limiter and
`
`driver, bucket those together, and then the other two
`
`device terms, and then the '462.
`
`THE COURT: What do you think?
`
`MS. GREB: Your Honor, this is Emily Greb on
`
`behalf of defendants.
`
`I think it would be fine if we bucketed them as
`
`suggested and started with piston rod and housing and then
`
`did this last, or if we wanted to start with limiter and
`
`driver. But I do agree that it would be more efficient to
`
`talk about piston rod and housing before we do that.
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 19
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 19 of 134
`
`
`
` 20
`
`THE COURT: All right. Let's do that. Let's
`
`do "piston rod" first, then.
`
`MS. GREB: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`Mr. Watkins, you are ahead of me.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Okay. So, Your Honor, with
`
`respect to the piston rod, in general, the parties are
`
`pretty close on piston rod. Our view is that it's plain
`
`and ordinary meaning, and then we tried to capture what
`
`that is. We believe a piston rod is a readily understood
`
`term of art in the field and in general parlance.
`
`The defendants largely track that -- they
`
`obviously use different words, but conceptually it's
`
`fairly similar. But they also add in this language that
`
`the shaft, that is the rod of the -- the piston rod --
`
`must extend into the syringe barrel itself. So the
`
`dispute is whether that requirement is required or not.
`
`THE COURT: Well, let me start -- let's go back
`
`to your construction first.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Sure.
`
`THE COURT: Because, you know, when I read,
`
`this strikes me, this is plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Yes, we agree.
`
`THE COURT: It's a shaft that causes a piston
`
`to be moved. What I don't understand about your
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 20
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 20 of 134
`
`
`
` 21
`
`construction is the quote "such that the medicament is
`
`expelled," unquote. It doesn't make sense to me
`
`grammatically that you would have that clause because
`
`isn't that covered by a limitation in the claim?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: So it's redundant. It's like
`
`saying I need a piston shaft such that the medicament is
`
`expelled and then later on I have to have a medicament
`
`that's expelled. So I don't understand why you repeat it.
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Agree. And the reason why we
`
`repeat it is during the course of negotiations over the
`
`constructions, one of the concerns that was raised by
`
`defendants is that our construction of piston rod is
`
`untethered to what the piston is dealing with. And so we
`
`propose that language as a compromise.
`
`We would be happy to have that removed and just
`
`stop at "to be moved." Sorry. The constructions are at
`
`the top. So we would be more than comfortable with "a
`
`shaft that causes the piston to be moved."
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from them. I
`
`mean, because plain and ordinary meaning, the burden is on
`
`them to come up and say why it should be different, right?
`
`MR. COUNIHAN: Yes, agreed.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Let's hear from them.
`
`MS. GREB: Good morning, Your Honor. Emily
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 21
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 21 of 134
`
`
`
` 22
`
`Greb on behalf of defendants. I'm happy to address piston
`
`rod. If you don't mind indulging me with a few comments
`
`on what -- what was said about the device patents in
`
`general before I get started on piston rod.
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`MS. GREB: So as was mentioned, you know, these
`
`patents have sort of been described as the end-of-content
`
`patents. And I'd just like to make it clear that these
`
`patents disclose a very --
`
`THE COURT: I have no idea, what is
`
`end-of-content patent?
`
`MS. GREB: We don't have to call it that. It's
`
`really just directed towards this dose setting where a
`
`user dials in a dose, and you can't --
`
`THE COURT: Oh, at the end of content.
`
`MS. GREB: Yep. At the end of content, you
`
`can't dial something that's not there.
`
`THE COURT: Yep.
`
`MS. GREB: And the point of these patents is
`
`that they describe and claim this really specific
`
`mechanism. These patents don't claim an injection device,
`
`and they don't even claim all mechanisms that prevent this
`
`sort of over-dialing of doses. They claim a very specific
`
`mechanical design. And to that end, the bulk of the
`
`specification is directed toward two embodiments. Now,
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 22
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 22 of 134
`
`
`
` 23
`
`you heard counsel say, I think, three embodiments, but the
`
`specification pretty clearly only talks about two.
`
`Figure 8 that he talked about is the third
`
`embodiment. The specification ties in Column 5 actually
`
`to the second embodiment. So the specification has two
`
`embodiments and a number of figures that provide details
`
`about those. So I just want to make that clear.
`
`So with respect to the piston rod in
`
`particular, as was mentioned, so defendants' proposed
`
`construction is a shaft extending into the syringe barrel
`
`such that the end of the device shaft drives the plunger
`
`in the distal direction to expel medicament from the
`
`device.
`
`And so I heard your question about expelling
`
`medicament from the device, so I'll start there since I
`
`know you are thinking about that. The part that's
`
`important there and the reason that it's included is
`
`because we wanted to make it clear that what the piston
`
`rod or shaft is doing is driving this plunger down. And
`
`it's true that every single figure and every single
`
`embodiment, the way that this worked is the piston rod
`
`rotates relative to the housing. And it moves down.
`
`There's threading between those two components that causes
`
`downward motion and expels the medicament from the device
`
`in the distal direction. There's not some sort of other
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 23
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 23 of 134
`
`
`
` 24
`
`movement in the piston rod where it could move, you know,
`
`upwards. And so it was providing clarity about the --
`
`THE COURT: When you say "clarity," I mean, the
`
`claim says it. The claim says "a piston rod having a
`
`threaded outer surface wherein piston rod rotates and
`
`translates axially forward during expelling of
`
`medication."
`
`MS. GREB: Yeah.
`
`THE COURT: So it would be during that, right?
`
`MS. GREB: Yeah. And your Honor is right with
`
`respect to the '383. This terms is also in the '953
`
`patent, and I think the claims of the '953 are a little
`
`less clear because that rotation term that's in the '383
`
`patent is not in the '953 patent in the same way.
`
`THE COURT: Hold up. Show me. Where are you
`
`now? You're on --
`
`MS. GREB: Yes. So this would be the '953
`
`patent, Claim 1, and it starts with in Column 9 and then
`
`goes to Column 10.
`
`THE COURT: Hold on. Can you go back and let
`
`me just look at both the competing --
`
`MS. GREB: This is Slide 27.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So putting all your
`
`disagreements aside, so then what you would say is
`
`because -- if you agreed with them, if I could get you to
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 24
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 24 of 134
`
`
`
` 25
`
`agree with them, you'd say: Well, include the "such that
`
`the medicament is expelled because it would bring clarity
`
`for the '953 patent claims," because you admit it's
`
`totally redundant for the first patent.
`
`MS. GREB: I would agree with Your Honor that
`
`it would be -- if we're just talking about the back end of
`
`the construction. I certainly have a number of
`
`disagreements on the front end of the construction.
`
`THE COURT: We will get to those, right.
`
`MS. GREB: But, yeah, on the back end of the
`
`construction, I agree that in the '383 patent, there is
`
`the portion that expels medicament, but the '953 does not
`
`have that same term. And I think, frankly, too, the other
`
`part that sort of is important --
`
`THE COURT: Hold on one second.
`
`MS. GREB: Sure. Of course.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, the more I think
`
`about it, though, I mean, this patent, the '953, you know,
`
`we're talking a mechanism for an injection device.
`
`I mean, what else does an injection device do
`
`except it expels medicament, right? All right. So maybe
`
`then we have to include that. I don't really get it. But
`
`all right. It certainly would be redundant and confusing
`
`for the first patent if we were to construe it that way to
`
`a jury, I think. But let's deal with then, go back to
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MPI EXHIBIT 1088 PAGE 25
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`IPR2024-00009
`Ex. 1088, p. 25 of 134
`
`
`
` 26
`
`your main arguments then. Go ahead.
`
`MS. GREB: Sure. The other components of the
`
`construction the defendants have put forward talk about a
`
`shaft extending in a syringe barrel. So location of the
`
`shaft where the piston rod is. And it talks about driving
`
`the plunger, which we