Rydex Technologies LLC v. Hospira Inc.

RESPONSE to 74 MOTION for Supplemental Markman Submissions

D. Del.February 13, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RYDEX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 13-664-RGA v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. RYDEX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 13-665-RGA v. CAREFUSION CORPORATION, Defendant. RYDEX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 13-667-RGA v. HAEMONETICS CORPORATION, Defendant. RYDEX TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 13-668-RGA v. HOSPIRA, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO RYDEX TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL MARKMAN SUBMISSIONS IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN TEVA V. SANDOZ Case 1:13-cv-00668-RGA Document 75 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3947 2 Rydex’s request for supplemental briefing based on Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854 (Jan. 20, 2015) should be denied. Teva does not impact the issues that are presently before this Court because it does not change the framework under which district courts construe patent claims. Instead, the Supreme Court held in Teva that a district court’s underlying factual determinations made in connection with claim construction should be reviewed under a “clear error” standard instead of a “de novo” standard. Id. at 1-2. Thus, further claim construction briefing in this case is not warranted. In its attempt to reopen the present record, Rydex suggests that Teva changed the law by requiring district courts to make subsidiary factual findings. D.I. 70 (C.A. No. 13-664) at 2. Rydex is incorrect. Teva simply acknowledges the basic principle that claim construction sometimes involves underlying factual determinations-the same principle the Supreme Court previously recognized eighteen years ago in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). See Teva, at 6 (“While we held in Markman that the ultimate issue of the proper construction of a claim should be treated as a question of law, we also recognized that in patent construction, subsidiary factfinding is sometimes necessary.”). Citing Markman, the Supreme Court further explained that claim construction is “a practice with ‘evidentiary underpinnings,’ a practice that ‘falls somewhere between a pristine legal standard and a simple historical fact.’ … [C]ourts may have to make ‘credibility judgments’ about witnesses.” Teva, at 7 (internal citations omitted). In sum, the Supreme Court in Markman already “recognized that courts may have to resolve subsidiary factual disputes.” Id. The Teva decision bears no impact on the type of evidence a district court should consider. Nor does it change the circumstances in which factual determinations must be made or elevate the importance of those factual findings for purposes of properly construing claims. See Case 1:13-cv-00668-RGA Document 75 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3948 3 id. at 10 (“as we said in Markman, subsidiary factfinding is unlikely to loom large in the universe of litigated claim construction.”) Rather, Teva only changed the level of deference on appeal when such subsidiary factual findings are made. Id. at 1-2. The Federal Circuit will continue to review the ultimate construction of a claim de novo (id. at 13) and claim construction at the district court level remains the same. Rydex’s erroneous interpretation of Teva would have far-reaching consequences on pending claim construction proceedings in district courts across the country-a result that is not warranted by the Teva decision nor intended by the Supreme Court. Here, the parties have filed four briefs addressing the claim construction issues raised in Defendants’ motion and argued their positions to the Court for more than two hours at the hearing. The record is complete. Additional briefing is unwarranted and would only subject the parties to unnecessary litigation costs and delay. Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Rydex’s motion for supplemental briefing and proceed with its consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Case 1:13-cv-00668-RGA Document 75 Filed 02/13/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3949 4 POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP By: /s/ Philip A. Rovner Philip A. Rovner (#3215) Jonathan A. Choa (#5319) Alan R. Silverstein (#5066) Hercules Plaza P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 984-6000 provner@potteranderson.com jchoa@potteranderson.com asilverstein@potteranderson.com Attorneys for Defendant Baxter International, Inc. Of Counsel: John Allcock Richard Mulloy Jesse Hindman Tiffany Miller DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 94201-4297 (619) 699-2700 DLA PIPER LLP (US) By: /s/ Denise S. Kraft Denise S. Kraft (#2778) Brian A. Biggs (#5591) 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 468-5700 denise.kraft@dlapiper.com brian.biggs@dlapiper.com Attorneys for Defendant CareFusion Corporation Case 1:13-cv-00668-RGA Document 75 Filed 02/13/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3950 5 Of Counsel: Deepro Mukerjee Christopher L. McArdle ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016-1387 (212) 210-9400 Kamran Jivani ALSTON & BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 881-7000 MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP By: /s/ Rodger D. Smith II Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 351-9200 rsmith@mnat.com Attorneys for Defendant Haemonetics Corporation Of Counsel: Bradford P. Lyerla Benjamin J. Bradford JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 222-9350 Dated: February 13, 2015 1181351 MORRIS JAMES LLP By: /s/ Mary B. Matterer Richard K. Herrmann (#405) Mary B. Matterer (#2696) 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 2306 Wilmington, DE 19899-2306 (302) 888-6800 mmatterer@morrisjames.com Attorneys for Defendant Hospira, Inc. Case 1:13-cv-00668-RGA Document 75 Filed 02/13/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3951