vonik degussa gmbh v. materia inc., c.a. no. 09-636-nlh/js (d. del. june 30, 2014)

8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)

1/40


2/40


3/40

i nf r i ngement pr oceedi ng i s di r ect ed t oward ( 1) compounds t hat

ser ve as cat al yst s i n ol ef i n met hat hesi s as wel l as ( 2) t he

r eacti on pr ocess t o pr epar e ol ef i ns i t sel f . Ol ef i ns ar e

chemi cal compounds cont ai ni ng at l east one doubl e bond

connect i ng carbon atoms. Met athesi s react i ons, al so known as

doubl e depl acement r eact i ons, occur wher e t wo chemi cal compounds

r eact r esul t i ng i n an exchange of bondi ng par t ner s. Thus,

[ o] l ef i n met at hesi s i nvol ves t he f or mal exchange of t he car bene

( di val ent car bon, or R2C) gr oups bet ween t wo ol ef i ns. Ol ef i ns

ar e used i n many ar eas of chemi st r y, r angi ng f r om pol ymer i zat i on

r eact i ons t o nat ur al pr oduct synt hesi s.

C. Procedural History

Evoni k br ought an act i on agai nst Mater i a on August 26,

2009, al l egi ng that Mat er i a i nf r i nged upon t he 528 Pat ent

assi gned t o Evoni k. Subsequent l y, on March 11, 2010, Evoni k

br ought anot her pat ent i nf r i ngement sui t agai nst El evance

Renewabl e Sci ences, I nc. ( ERS) , whi ch i ncl uded al l egat i ons

t hat ERS and Mater i a both i nf r i nged upon t he 528 Patent and

145 Pat ent . 2 Fol l owi ng t he consol i dat i on, and i n r esponse t o

Evoni k s second compl ai nt , Mat er i a j oi ned UNOF as a t hi r d- par t y,

2 ERS subsequent l y set t l ed i t s di sput e wi t h Evoni k andi s no l onger a par t y to t he pr esent l awsui t .

3


4/40

and t he t wo f i l ed a count er cl ai m agai nst Evoni k al l egi ng ( 1)

i nval i di t y and unenf or ceabi l i t y of Evoni k s 145 Pat ent ; ( 2)

unenf or ceabi l i t y of Evoni k s 528 Pat ent ; ( 3) and i nf r i ngement

and wi l l f ul i nf r i ngement of t he 590 Pat ent t hat had been

assi gned t o t he Uni ver si t y of New Or l eans Foundat i on and

l i censed t o Mat er i a. I n r espondi ng t o Mat er i a s count er cl ai m,

Evoni k al l eged i nval i di t y and unenf or ceabi l i t y of Mat er i a s 590

Pat ent .

Subsequent l y, t he Cour t hear d argument on t he i ssue of

cl ai m const r uct i on i n a Mar kman hear i ng hel d on J ul y 20, 2011.

Based on t he hear i ng and ext ensi ve br i ef s f i l ed on t he i ssue,

t he Cour t i ssued i t s Mar kman Opi ni on, i n whi ch i t r esol ved t he

meani ng of sever al di sput ed t er ms i n t he pat ent cl ai ms at i ssue. 3

3 Speci f i cal l y, i n t he Mar kman Opi ni on, t he Cour tconst r ued: ( 1) t he ter m N- het er ocycl i c car bene or NHC i n t he 528 Pat ent and 145 Pat ent as: a carbene havi ng a mol ecul arst r uct ur e t hat compr i ses at l east one r i ng cont ai ni ng at l eastone ni t r ogen at om i n t he r i ng; ( 2) t he t er m and i n t he 528Pat ent and 145 Pat ent as R1, R2, R3, and R4 i n t he Formul aeI I , I I I , I V and V may be i dent i cal or di f f er ent t o one anot her ,and may each be a hydr ogen or a hydr ocar bon. Addi t i onal l y, R3and R4 may al so be hal ogen, ni t r o, ni t r oso, al koxy, ar yl oxy,ami do, car boxyl , car bonyl , t hi o or sul f onyl . R3 and R4 maynot , however , be bot h a hydr ogen or hydr ocar bon and al so a

hal ogen, ni t r o, ni t r oso, al koxy, ar yl oxy, ami do, car boxyl ,car bonyl , t hi o or sul f onyl ; ( 3) t he t er m neut r al el ectr ondonor i n the 145 as: an uncharged mol ecul ar gr oups t hat t endst o t r ansf er el ect r on densi t y f r om a l one el ect r on pai r t oanot her separ at e at om or mol ecul ar gr oup; and ( 4) t he t er maryl i n t he 590 Pat ent as: an ar omat i c hydr ocar bon i n whi ch

4


5/40

Fol l owi ng the i ssuance of t he Mar kman Opi ni on, t hi r d- par t i es

Uni ver si t y of New Or l eans Foundat i on and t he Uni ver si t y of New

Or l eans Research and Technol ogy Foundat i on f i l ed a mot i on

pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 21, t o be dr opped as

par t i es f r om t hi s l i t i gat i on. The Cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on i n

an Or der dat ed Sept ember 30, 2013.

Evoni k t hen f i l ed t he i nst ant mot i on f or par t i al summar y

j udgment agai nst Mat er i a based on i ssue pr ecl usi on and cl ai m

pr ecl usi on concer ni ng t he 145 and 528 Patent s.

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary j udgment i s appr opr i at e wher e t he Cour t i s

sat i sf i ed t hat t he pl eadi ngs, deposi t i ons, answer s t o

i nt er r ogat or i es, and admi ssi ons on f i l e, t oget her wi t h t he

af f i davi t s, i f any, show t hat t her e i s no genui ne i ssue as t o

any mat er i al f act and t hat t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o a

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t , 477

U. S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct . 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 ( 1986) ( ci t i ng

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56) . An i ssue i s genui ne i f i t i s suppor t ed by

evi dence such t hat a reasonabl e j ur y coul d ret ur n a ver di ct i n

t he nonmovi ng par t y' s f avor . Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. ,

at l east one hydr ogen has been r emoved.

5


6/40

477 U. S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct . 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 ( 1986) . A

f act i s mat er i al i f , under t he gover ni ng subst ant i ve l aw, a

di sput e about t he f act mi ght af f ect t he out come of t he sui t .

I d. I n consi der i ng a mot i on f or summar y j udgment , a di st r i ct

cour t may not make cr edi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons or engage i n any

wei ghi ng of t he evi dence; i nst ead, t he nonmovi ng par t y' s

evi dence i s t o be bel i eved and al l j ust i f i abl e i nf er ences ar e

t o be dr awn i n hi s f avor . Mar i no v. I ndus. Cr at i ng Co. , 358

F. 3d 241, 247 ( 3d Ci r . 2004) ( ci t i ng Ander son, 477 U. S. at

255) .

I ni t i al l y, t he movi ng par t y bear s t he bur den of

demonst r at i ng t he absence of a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act .

Cel ot ex, 477 U. S. at 323 ( [ A] par t y seeki ng summary j udgment

al ways bear s t he i ni t i al r esponsi bi l i t y of i nf or mi ng t he

di st r i ct cour t of t he basi s f or i t s mot i on, and i dent i f yi ng

t hose por t i ons of t he pl eadi ngs, deposi t i ons, answer s t o

i nt er r ogat or i es, and admi ssi ons on f i l e, t oget her wi t h t he

af f i davi t s, i f any, whi ch i t bel i eves demonst r at e t he absence

of a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; see

al so Si ngl et ar y v. Pa. Dept . of Cor r . , 266 F. 3d 186, 192 n. 2 ( 3d

Ci r . 2001) ( Al t hough t he i ni t i al bur den i s on t he summar y

j udgment movant t o show t he absence of a genui ne i ssue of

6


7/40

mater i al f act , t he bur den on t he movi ng part y may be di schar ged

by showi ngt hat i s, poi nt i ng out t o t he di st r i ct cour t t hat

t her e i s an absence of evi dence to support t he nonmovi ng par t y' s

case when t he nonmovi ng par t y bear s t he ul t i mat e bur den of

pr oof . ) ( ci t i ng Cel ot ex, 477 U. S. at 325) .

Once t he movi ng par t y has met t hi s bur den, t he nonmovi ng

par t y must i dent i f y, by af f i davi t s or ot her wi se, speci f i c f acts

showi ng t hat t her e i s a genui ne i ssue f or t r i al . Cel ot ex, 477

U. S. at 324. A par t y opposi ng summary j udgment may not r est

upon t he mer e al l egat i ons or deni al s of t he . . . pl eadi ng [ s. ]

Sal dana v. Kmart Corp. , 260 F. 3d 228, 232 ( 3d Ci r . 2001)

( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . For t he nonmovi ng par t y[ ] t o

pr evai l , [ t hat par t y] must make a showi ng suf f i ci ent t o

est abl i sh t he exi st ence of [ ever y] el ement essent i al t o that

par t y' s case, and on whi ch t hat par t y wi l l bear t he bur den of

pr oof at t r i al . Cooper v. Sni ezek, 418 F. App' x 56, 58 ( 3d

Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Cel ot ex, 477 U. S. at 322) . Thus, t o

wi t hst and a pr oper l y suppor t ed mot i on f or summary j udgment , t he

nonmovi ng par t y must i dent i f y speci f i c f act s and af f i r mat i ve

evi dence t hat cont r adi ct t hose of f er ed by t he movi ng par t y.

Anderson, 477 U. S. at 25657.

IV. ANALYSIS

7


8/40

I n i t s mot i on f or part i al summar y j udgment , Evoni k ar gues

t hat Mater i a shoul d be pr ecl uded under t heor i es of i ssue

pr ecl usi on and cl ai m pr ecl usi on f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng i ssues and

asser t i ng cl ai ms t hat wer e pr evi ousl y l i t i gat ed bef or e t he

Uni t ed St at es Pat ent and Trademark Of f i ce ( USPTO) Boar d of

Pat ent Appeal s and I nt er f er ences ( her ei naf t er col l ect i vel y

r ef er r ed t o as t he Boar d) . 4 Speci f i cal l y, Evoni k cont ends t hat

Mat er i a i s bar r ed f r om r easser t i ng t hat Evoni k s pat ent s ar e not

ent i t l ed t o t he benef i t of t he f i l i ng dat e of i t s Ger man

Appl i cat i on dat e f or pr i or i t y pur poses. 5 Evoni k addi t i onal l y

4 Under t he Leahy- Smi t h Amer i ca I nvent s Act ( AI A) ,ef f ect i ve Sept ember 16, 2012, t he st atut e i s amended such t hatt he Board of Pat ent Appeal s and I nt er f er ences i s now r ef er r ed t oas t he Pat ent Tr i al and Appeal Boar d. 35 U. S. C. 6 ( 2011) .Because t he i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng occur r ed pr i or t o theef f ect i ve dat e of t he amendment , t he Cour t r ef er s t o t he

admi ni st r at i ve body as t he Boar d of Pat ent Appeal s andI nt er f er ences.

5 Under U. S. pat ent l aw, t he pr i or i t y dat e i s a cruci alel ement i n det er mi ni ng pat ent val i di t y because i t del i neat es t hecut of f f or pr i or ar t . See St ar Sci ent i f i c, I nc. v. R. J .Reynol ds Tobacco Co. , 655 F. 3d 1364, 1372 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) .Ref er ences pr ecedi ng t he pr i or i t y dat e ar e consi der ed pr i or ar tand may be used t o chal l enge a pat ent on var i ous gr oundsi ncl udi ng novel t y, enabl ement , and obvi ousness. Gener al l y, apat ent appl i cat i on s pr i or i t y dat e i s t he dat e on whi ch t he

appl i cat i on was f i l ed wi t h t he USPTO. Under some ci r cumst ances,however , a pat ent appl i cat i on may cl ai m a pr i or i t y dat e t hatpr ecedes i t s own f i l i ng dat e. For exampl e, wi t h cer t ai nl i mi t at i ons, cont i nuat i on, di vi si onal , and cont i nuat i on- i n- par tappl i cat i ons may cl ai m pr i or i t y t o t he f i l i ng dat e of t hei rr espect i ve par ent appl i cat i ons. See Tr ansco Pr oduct s I nc. v.

8


9/40

seeks t o pr ecl ude Mat er i a f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng i t s chal l enge t o

t he pat ent abi l i t y of Evoni k s cl ai ms based on 35 U. S. C. 112

( enabl ement and wr i t t en descr i pt i on) . Fi nal l y, Evoni k ar gues

t hat Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng new i nval i di t y cl ai ms

pur suant t o 35 U. S. C. 102 and 103 si nce i t chose not t o rai se

t hese argument s i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng out of sel f -

i nt er est . The Cour t wi l l consi der t he nat ur e of t he

I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs, appl i cabi l i t y of i ssue and cl ai m

pr ecl usi on, and t hen addr ess whet her i ssue pr ecl usi on or cl ai m

pr ecl usi on bar s Mat er i a s cl ai ms concer ni ng ei t her pr i or i t y or

val i di t y.

A. Interference Proceeding1.Generally

I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs occur i n si t uat i ons wher e t he

gr ant of a pat ent f or a pat ent appl i cat i on under exami nat i on by

t he USPTO woul d i nt er f er e wi t h any pendi ng appl i cat i on, or wi t h

any unexpi r ed pat ent because t he cl ai ms ar e f or t he same or

Per f or mance Cont r act i ng, I nc. , 38 F. 3d 551, 557 ( Fed. Ci r .1994) . Speci f i cal l y, a pat ent appl i cat i on i s ent i t l ed t o t he

benef i t of t he f i l i ng dat e of an ear l i er f i l ed appl i cat i on onl yi f t he di scl osur e of t he ear l i er appl i cat i on pr ovi des suppor tf or t he cl ai ms of t he l at er appl i cat i on. Power Oasi s, I nc. v.T- Mobi l e USA, I nc. , 522 F. 3d 1299, 1306 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008)( quot i ng I n r e Chu, 66 F. 3d 292, 297 ( Fed. Ci r . 1995) ) .

9


10/40

subst ant i al l y t he same subj ect mat t er . 6 35 U. S. C. 135 ( 2006) ;

see Human Genome Sci ences, I nc. v. Amgen, I nc. , 553 F. Supp. 2d

353, 355 ( D. Del . 2008) af f ' d, No. 07- 526SLR- MPT, 2008 WL

5245979 ( D. Del . Dec. 16, 2008) ( An i nt er f er ence i s an i nt er

par t es admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ng t o det er mi ne whi ch par t y f i r st

i nvent ed t he subj ect mat t er of t he i nt er f er ence as def i ned by

t he i nt er f er ence count . ) . I n an i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng, t he

Boar d cr eat es one or mor e count s t o i dent i f y subj ect mat t er t hat

i s common t o bot h t he pendi ng pat ent appl i cat i on and t he i ssued

pat ent or pat ent appl i cat i on wi t h whi ch i t i s cl ai med t o

i nt er f ere. See Cr eat i ve Compounds, LLC v. St armark Labs. , 651

F. 3d 1303, 1310 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) . The Boar d shal l det er mi ne

quest i ons of pr i or i t y of t he i nvent i ons and may det er mi ne

quest i ons of pat ent abi l i t y. 35 U. S. C. 135 ( 2006) ; see Gen.

I nst r ument Cor p. , I nc. v. Sci ent i f i c- At l ant a, I nc. , 995 F. 2d

209, 210 ( Fed. Ci r . 1993) ( di scussi ng Boar d deci si ons i n

i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs i n t he cont ext of bot h pr i or i t y of

6 Under t he AI A, i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs wi l l event ual l ybe phased out and r epl aced by f i r st t o f i l e or der i vat i on

pr oceedi ngs. Because t he der i vat i on pr ovi si on appl i es onl y t opat ent appl i cat i ons f i l ed af t er Mar ch 16, 2013, and because thepat ent appl i cat i ons at i ssue wer e al l f i l ed bef or e t hat dat e,t he Cour t r evi ews t he Boar d s r ul i ng i n accor dance wi t h st at ut esand pr ocedur es i n ef f ect at t he t i me of l i t i gat i on.

10


11/40

i nvent i on and pat ent abi l i t y) .

At t he t i me t he par t i es engaged i n t he I nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ng, pat ent i nt er f erence pr ocedur es were governed by 37

C. F. R. 41. 100- 41. 208 ( 2006) . The Feder al Rul es of Evi dence

gener al l y appl y t o i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs. 37 C. F. R. 41. 152

( 2006) . Fur t her mor e, t her e i s oppor t uni t y f or l i mi t ed

di scover y. 37 C. F. R. 41. 150 ( 2006) . Exhi bi t s, i ncl udi ng

af f i davi t s, deposi t i on t r anscr i pt s, document s, and obj ect s may

be submi t t ed i nt o evi dence. 37 C. F. R. 41. 154 ( 2006) .

Mor eover , t est i mony i ncl udi ng di r ect and cr oss- exami nat i on of

wi t nesses may be conduct ed. 37 C. F. R. 41. 157 ( 2006) .

2.364/365 Interference ProceedingBet ween Sept ember 2005 and September 2006, Evoni k and

Mat er i a wer e par t i es t o an I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng bef or e t he

USPTO whi ch consol i dat ed Pat ent I nt er f erence Nos. 105, 364 and

105, 365 ( t he I nt er f er ence or t he 364/ 365 I nt er f er ence) .

To deter mi ne t he pr i or i t y of i nvent i on, t he Boar d cr eat es a

count . The count of an i nt er f er ence i s mer el y t he vehi cl e

f or cont est i ng t he pr i or i t y of i nvent i on and det er mi ni ng what

evi dence i s rel evant t o t he i ssue of pr i or i t y. I n r e Van

Geuns, 988 F. 2d 1181, 1184 ( Fed. Ci r . 1993) ( ci t i ng Squi r es v.

Cor bet t , 560 F. 2d 424, 433, 194 USPQ 513, 519 ( CCPA 1977) ; Case

11


12/40

v. CPC I nt ' l , I nc. , 730 F. 2d 745, 749, 221 USPQ 196, 200

( Fed. Ci r . 1984) ) . Al t hough cl ai ms of one or mor e of t he

par t i es may be i dent i cal t o t he count of an i nt er f er ence, t he

count i s not a cl ai m t o an i nvent i on. I d. ( ci t i ng Case, 730

F. 2d at 749, 221 USPQ at 200) .

The t wo Count s pert i nent t o t hi s l i t i gat i on deci ded by t he

Boar d wer e: ( 1) t hat Evoni k ( Her r mann) was ent i t l ed t o t he

benef i t of Her r mann s Ger man pr i or i t y dat e; and ( 2) t hat

Evoni k s cl ai ms wer e patent abl e under 35 U. S. C. 112. Mat er i a

di d not appeal t he Boar d s deci si on.

3. Preclusive Effect of USPTO ProceedingsGener al l y, cour t s have r ecogni zed t he pr ecl usi ve ef f ect of

admi ni st r at i ve agenci es when t he agency i s act i ng i n a j udi ci al

capaci t y. Uni t ed St at es v. Ut ah Const r . & Mi ni ng Co. , 384 U. S.

394, 422 ( 1966) ( f i ndi ng t hat [ w] hen an admi ni st r at i ve agency

i s act i ng i n a j udi ci al capaci t y and r esol ved di sput ed i ssues of

f act pr oper l y bef or e i t whi ch t he par t i es have had an adequat e

oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e, t he cour t s have not hesi t at ed t o appl y

r es j udi cat a t o enf or ce r epose. ) . The Boar d of Pat ent Appeal s

and I nt er f er ences i s an admi ni st r at i ve l aw br anch of t he USPTO.

See Kappos v. Hyat t , 132 S. Ct . 1690, 1692 ( 2012) ( di scussi ng

t he pr ocess of admi ni st r at i ve appeal wi t h t he PTO s Boar d of

12


13/40

Pat ent Appeal s and I nt er f er ences) ; I n r e Sul l i van, 362 F. 3d

1324, 1326 ( Fed. Ci r . 2004) ( di scussi ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he

Admi ni st r at i ve Pr ocedur e Act t o Boar d deci si ons) .

The Uni t ed St at es Cour t of Cl ai ms st at ed t hat r ul i ngs by

t he Boar d that were not appeal ed t o f ederal cour t are deemed

f i nal and t hus have pot ent i al pr ecl usi ve ef f ect . 7 Coakwel l v.

U. S. , 292 F. 2d 918, 920 ( Ct . Cl . 1961) ( concl udi ng t hat [ w] her e

t he l osi ng par t y f ai l s t o ef f ect i vel y r evi ew t he Pat ent Of f i ce

act i on i n one of t he cour t s and i t becomes f i nal , i t i s equal l y

bi ndi ng on t he par t i es . . . [ and] has t he same f i nal i t y as t he

j udgment of ei t her of t he cour t s woul d have had i f one of t hem

had r evi ewed i t . ) . Speci f i cal l y, t he Coakwel l Cour t hel d t hat

a r ul i ng by the Boar d, i n an i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng, r egar di ng

pr i or i t y of i nvent i on shoul d be gi ven pr ecl usi ve ef f ect and t he

def endant shoul d be bar r ed f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng an i ssue al r eady

l i t i gat ed and f i nal l y deci ded. I d. at 921; see Abbot t GMBH &

Co. , KG v. Cent ocor Or t ho Bi ot ech, I nc. , 870 F. Supp. 2d 206, 222-

23 ( D. Mass. 2012) ( f i ndi ng t hat BPAI or USPTO deci si ons have

7

Al l hol di ngs of t he Cour t of Cl ai ms announced bef or e t hecl ose of busi ness on Sept ember 30, 1982 were adopted aspr ecedent by t he Uni t ed St at es Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Feder alCi r cui t . S. Cor p. v. Uni t ed St at es, 690 F. 2d 1368, 1370 ( Fed.Ci r . 1982) .

13


14/40

pr ecl usi ve ef f ect ) . Thus, as a t hr eshol d mat t er , t he Cour t

concl udes t hat deci si ons by t he Boar d i n an i nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ng can be subj ect t o pr ecl usi on. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t

now l ooks t o whet her i ssue pr ecl usi on and cl ai m pr ecl usi on appl y

i n t hi s mat t er .

B. Issue Preclusion

1. Generally

I ssue pr ecl usi on, al so known as col l at er al est oppel , bar s

t he r e- l i t i gat i on of an i ssue of f act or l aw t hat was pr evi ousl y

l i t i gat ed and deci ded. See Bur l i ngt on N. R. R. v. Hyundai Mer ch.

Mar i ne Co. , 63 F. 3d 1227, 1232 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) . The Cour t of

Appeal s f or t he Thi r d Ci r cui t and t he Cour t of Appeal s f or t he

Feder al Ci r cui t bot h i mpose f our r equi r ement s: 8 ( 1) t he i ssue

must be i dent i cal t o an i ssue pr evi ousl y adj udi cat ed; ( 2) t he

i ssue must have been act ual l y l i t i gat ed; ( 3) t he det er mi nat i on

8 Al t hough pat ent i nf r i ngement sui t s br ought i n f eder aldi st r i ct cour t pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1338 have a r i ght ofappeal t o t he Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Feder al Ci r cui t , f orr ul es of l aw t hat do not have speci al appl i cat i on t o pat entcases, t he Feder al Ci r cui t appl i es t he l aw of t he r egi onalci r cui t i n whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t si t s. Medi a Techs.

Li censi ng, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co. , 334 F. 3d 1366, 1369 ( Fed.Ci r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Har t l ey v. Ment or Cor p. , 869 F. 2d 1469, 1471n. 1 ( Fed. Ci r . 1989) f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he appl i cat i onof pr i nci pl es of r es j udi cat a i s not a mat t er commi t t ed t o t heexcl usi ve j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s cour t [ t he Feder al Ci r cui t ] . ) .

14


15/40

of t he i ssue must have been necessary t o t he pr i or j udgment ; and

( 4) t he part y agai nst whom pr ecl usi on i s now assert ed must have

had a f ul l and f ai r oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e t he i ssue. Hengl ei n

v. Col t I ndus. , 260 F. 3d 201, 209 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) ; I n r e Freeman,

30 F. 3d 1459, 1465 ( Fed. Ci r . 1994) . Addi t i onal l y, t he Supr eme

Cour t has conf i r med t he appl i cabi l i t y of i ssue pr ecl usi on t o

pat ent i nf r i ngement cases. See Bl onder - Tongue Labor at or i es,

I nc. v. Uni ver si t y of I l l i noi s Foundat i on, 402 U. S. 313 ( 1971) .

Moreover , i ssue precl usi on may be non- mutual and t hus may be

used by a part y who was not a part y to or i n pr i vi t y wi t h a

par t y t o t he pr evi ous act i on. See i d. at 323- 25; see al so

Har t l ey v. Ment or Cor p. , 869 F. 2d 1469, 1470- 71 ( Fed. Ci r . 1989)

( st at i ng t hat mut ual i t y of est oppel or pr i vi t y i s not r equi r ed

f or a t hi r d par t y t o i nvoke col l at er al est oppel ) .

Evoni k cont ends t hat i ssue pr ecl usi on appl i es t o t wo

i ssues: pr i or i t y and val i di t y.

2. Issue Preclusion of Priority

Evoni k ar gues t hat Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng

Evoni k s ent i t l ement t o i t s Ger man pr i or i t y dat e as awar ded

dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. Mat er i a ar gues t hat t he

st andard by whi ch the Boar d gr ant ed t he German pr i or i t y dat e as

t o t he count di f f er s subst ant i al l y f r om t he st andar d bef or e t hi s

Cour t f or det er mi ni ng whether t he claims of t he 145 and 528

15


16/40

Pat ent s shoul d be accor ded benef i t under 35 U. S. C. 119.

Mat er i a al so ar gues t hat t he cl ai ms asser t ed by Evoni k i n t hi s

l i t i gat i on cover a br oader scope ( f ul l scope of t he cl ai ms) t han

t he subj ect mat t er i n t he I nt er f er ence ( one embodi ment of t he

count ) . Evoni k r epl i es t hat pr i or i t y was al r eady l i t i gat ed

dur i ng t he Markman hear i ng and that t he Cour t f ound that

Evoni k s Ger man appl i cat i on suppor t s t he f ul l scope of NHCs ( N-

het er ocycl i c car benes) cover ed by the 528 pat ent cl ai ms.

Pr i or i t y of an i nvent i on i s a quest i on of l aw t o be

det er mi ned based upon under l yi ng f actual det er mi nat i ons.

I nnovat i ve Scuba Concept s, I nc. v. Feder I ndus. , I nc. , 26 F. 3d

1112, 1115 ( Fed. Ci r . 1994) ( ci t i ng Pr i ce v. Symsek, 988 F. 2d

1187, 1190 ( Fed. Ci r . 1993) ) . To det er mi ne whet her Mater i a i s

bar r ed f r om l i t i gat i ng t he pr i or i t y of i nvent i on i ssue, t he

Cour t appl i es t he f our el ement s of i ssue pr ecl usi on.

Fi r st , t he Cour t consi der s whet her t he i ssue of pr i or i t y

r ai sed i n t he cur r ent pr oceedi ng i s i dent i cal t o t he i ssue of

pr i or i t y bef or e t he Boar d. I n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng, t he

16


17/40

Board awar ded Evoni k9 pr i or i t y of i nvent i on over Gr ubbs10 and

accor ded Evoni k s 10/ 630, 552 and 11/ 021, 967 appl i cat i ons ( t he

552 and 967 Appl i cat i ons) t he benef i t of t he Apr i l 6, 1998

f i l i ng date of t he DE 198 15 275 appl i cat i on ( Ger man

Appl i cat i on) . The 967 Appl i cat i on i ssued as t he 145 Pat ent ,

at i ssue i n t hi s case. 11 The ot her pat ent at i ssue, t he 528

Pat ent , was i ssued af t er t he concl usi on of t he I nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ng. Mat er i a ar gues t hat Evoni k s 145 and 528 pat ent s

ar e i nval i d because, i nt er al i a, t hey shoul d not be ent i t l ed t o

9 Al t hough t he named part i es t o t he I nt er f er ence wer eRober t H. Gr ubbs and Wol f gang Ant on Her r mann, t he Boarddet er mi ned t hat t he r eal par t i es i n i nt er est wer e t he Cal i f or ni aI nst i t ut e of Technol ogy and Degussa, AG, r espect i vel y. As not edby Evoni k i n i t s br i ef and admi t t ed by Mat er i a i n i t s i ni t i alcr oss mot i on, Her r mann assi gned hi s i nt er est [ i n t he pendi ngpat ent appl i cat i ons] t o Degussa AG, whi ch became Evoni k DegussaGmbH, or Evoni k. Ther ef or e, t he Cour t subst i t ut es al l

subsequent r ef erences t o Herr mann wi t h Evoni k when r ef erenci ngt he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng.

10 Because mut ual i t y of par t i es i s not r equi r ed f or i ssuepr ecl usi on t o appl y, t he Cour t does not consi der t he quest i on ofwhet her Mat er i a was i n pr i vi t y wi t h Gr ubbs i n t he pr i ori nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng at t hi s st age of t he anal ysi s. Bl onder -Tongue Labs. , I nc. v. Uni v. of I l l i noi s Found. , 402 U. S. 313,350 ( 1971) . However , as di scussed i n t he sect i on on cl ai mpr ecl usi on i nf r a, t he Cour t f i nds Mat er i a was i n pr i vi t y wi t hGr ubbs.

11 552 Appl i cat i on i ssued as U. S. Pat ent No. 7, 294, 717( t he 717 Pat ent ) . The 717 Pat ent i s not di r ect l y at i ssue i nt hi s case. Rat her , i t shar es t he same par ent appl i cat i on as t het wo pat ent s at i ssue i n t hi s case.

17


18/40


19/40

det er mi ni ng pr i or i t y of i nvent i on f or i nt er f er ence pur poses and

assi gni ng benef i t t o a f or ei gn f i l i ng f or pur poses of ant edat i ng

pr i or ar t r ef er ences i n a pat ent i nf r i ngement case. To

est abl i sh const r uct i ve r educt i on t o pr act i ce i n an i nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ng, at l east one embodi ment wi t hi n t he i nt er f er ence

count must be pr esent and adequatel y descr i bed i n t he ear l i er

pat ent appl i cat i on t hat i s rel i ed upon. See Fal ko- Gunt er

Fal kner v. I ngl i s, 448 F. 3d 1357, 1362 ( Fed. Ci r . 2006) ( ci t i ng

Hunt v. Treppschuh, 523 F. 2d 1386, 1389 ( C. C. P. A. 1975) ) .

I n a pat ent i nf r i ngement case, when a par t y seeks t o rel y

on i t s f or ei gn f i l i ng dat e f or pur pose of pr i or i t y t o ant edat e

pot ent i al pat ent - i nval i dat i ng pr i or ar t , t hat par t y must pr ove

t hat t he asser t ed cl ai ms ar e ent i t l ed t o t he benef i t of t he

f or ei gn f i l i ng dat es. Pur due Phar ma Pr oduct s L. P. v. Par

Phar m. , I nc. , 642 F. Supp. 2d 329, 369 ( D. Del . 2009) di smi ssed,

370 F. App' x 80 ( Fed. Ci r . 2009) and af f ' d, 377 F. App' x 978

( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng Tech. Li censi ng Cor p. v. Vi deot ek,

I nc. , 545 F. 3d 1316, 1327, 1329 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008) ) .

Thus, i n cont r ast t o an i nt er f er ence proceedi ng, where

benef i t i s gr ant ed wi t h r espect t o one or mor e count s, her e,

Evoni k seeks benef i t wi t h r espect t o i t s pat ent cl ai ms. I n

or der t o f ul f i l l i t s bur den f or r ecei vi ng t he benef i t of i t s

pat ent cl ai ms i n a pr i or appl i cat i on, Evoni k must show not onl y

19


20/40

t he exi st ence of t he ear l i er appl i cat i on, but why t he wr i t t en

descri pt i on i n t he ear l i er appl i cat i on suppor t s t he cl ai m.

Tech. Li censi ng Cor p. , 545 F. 3d at 1327.

Theref or e, t he st andar d appl i ed i n t hi s l i t i gat i on i s

di f f er ent f r om t hat appl i ed i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. See

I n r e OxyCont i n Ant i t r ust Li t i gat i on, - - - F. Supp. 2d - - - - , 2014

WL 128013, at *38 ( S. D. N. Y. J an. 14, 2014) ( i ssues are not

i dent i cal when t he l egal st andar ds gover ni ng t hei r r esol ut i on

ar e si gni f i cant l y di f f er ent . ) ( ci t i ng Comput er Assocs. I nt ' l ,

I nc. v. Al t ai , I nc. , 126 F. 3d 365, 371 ( 2d Ci r . 1997) ;

Rest atement ( Second) of J udgment s 28( 4) ) .

Despi t e t he di f f er ence i n t he appl i cabl e st andar d, Evoni k

ar gues t hat t he same i ssue t hat i t i s ent i t l ed t o i t s Ger man

pr i or i t y dat e was act ual l y l i t i gat ed i n t he I nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ngs. Mat er i a ar gues t hat t he i ssue i s not i dent i cal and

t hat t he scope i s br oader i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. Speci f i cal l y,

t hat Evoni k s cl ai ms f or t he 145 and 528 pat ent s i n t hi s

l i t i gat i on r eci t e br oader subj ect mat t er t han count s i n t he

I nt er f er ence.

The broader scope of t he 145 and 528 pat ents cr eat es

si gni f i cant di f f er ences. Her r mann/ Evoni k par t i ci pat ed i n t he

364/ 365 I nt er f er ence concer ni ng NHC wi t h a doubl e bond, but

di d not par t i ci pat e i n t he i nt er f er ence concer ni ng NHC wi t hout a

20


21/40

doubl e bond. The 145 and 528 Pat ent s i n t hi s l i t i gat i on

concer n NHC wi t h and wi t hout a doubl e bond. The 145 and 528

pat ent s i ncl ude subst i t ut ed hydr ocar bon gr oup whi ch i s broader

t han t he hydr ocar bon gr oup i n t he I nt er f er ence. For t he 145

and 528 Pat ent s, t he hydr ocar bon gr oup, as wel l as t he addi t i on

of si l yl r adi cal s, i n R1 and R2 may be subst i t ut ed by var i ous

chemi cal gr oups. 14 Fur t her , Evoni k amended hi s patent

appl i cat i on af t er t he Boar d s deci si on so t hat t he cl ai ms of t he

145 Pat ent are di f f er ent t han t hose i n t he I nt er f er ence. The

528 Patent was f i l ed t en mont hs af t er t he Boar d deci si on, and

st at ed t hat t he appl i cant cl ai ms a br oad genus. Ther ef or e,

Mat er i a di d not have an oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e r egar di ng t he

br oader def i ni t i on and appl i cabi l i t y of NHC t o cer t ai n f or mul as

( I I - I V) . See MSM I nvest ment s Co. v. Car ol wood Cor p. , 70

F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1051 (N. D. Cal . 1999) ( Fi ndi ng pat ent cl ai ms

br oader i n scope and t hat pl ai nt i f f had no oppor t uni t y t o

l i t i gat e det er mi nat i ve i ssue so t hat col l at er al est oppel di d not

appl y) .

14 Mat er i a al so ar gues t hat Evoni k s cl ai ms pendi ng dur i ngt he I nt er f er ence st at e t hat R1 and R2 cont ai n a r i ng whi l e i t s

pat ent cl ai ms i n t he i ssued pat ent s st at e t hat R1

and R2

formar i ng. R1 and R2 r epr esent chemi cal subst i t uent s on t he gener alchemi cal compound. Speci f i cal l y, t hey r epr esent ei t her hydr ogenor a hydr ocar bon gr oup. The Cour t agr ees wi t h Evoni k t hat t ot he ext ent t hat t hi s i s new cl ai m const r ucti on chal l enge, i t i sunt i mel y and t he Cour t wi l l not consi der i t .

21


22/40

Evoni k st at es t hat i t s speci f i cat i on i n t he I nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ng i s t he same as t he 528 pat ent speci f i cat i on and i s a

t r ansl at i on of Evoni k s Ger man appl i cat i on. Al t hough 528 may

be a di vi si onal pat ent , i t i s br oader i n scope t han t he pat ent s

bef ore t he Boar d. Even t hough Evoni k argues t hat pat ent

appl i cat i ons i nvol ved i n t he I nt er f er ence wer e t he par ent and

gr andpar ent of t he 528 Pat ent , t her eby oper at i ng as di vi si onal

appl i cat i ons havi ng t he same speci f i cat i ons, Evoni k expanded t he

scope of t he Pat ent s.

Evoni k f ur t her ar gues t hat Mat er i a l ost i t s 112 chal l enge

at t he I nt er f er ence and t hat t he Boar d f ound t hat Evoni k s

speci f i cat i on f ul l y enabl ed t he f ul l scope of t he cl ai ms t hat

Mat er i a chal l enged. Evoni k al so ar gues t hi s Cour t f ound i n i t s

Mar kman Opi ni on an i nt er pr et at i on of Evoni k s appl i cat i on t hat

NHC i s br oader t han j ust f or mul as I I - I V.

I n i t s Markman Opi ni on, t he Cour t consi dered document s

submi t t ed i n suppor t of Evoni k s or i gi nal appl i cat i on and

consi dered by t he Boar d dur i ng t he I nt er f erence and det er mi ned

t hat t her e was no i nt ent i on t o l i mi t t he scope of NHC.

Speci f i cal l y, t he Cour t det er mi ned t hat t he evi dence f ound i n

t he pr osecut i on hi st ory showed t hat NHC was not l i mi t ed t o

For mul ae I I - V, but was br oader i n scope.

Nonet hel ess, even gi ven the Cour t s broader i nt er pr et at i on

22


23/40


24/40


25/40

. . . [ such] as t o enabl e any per son ski l l ed i n t he ar t t o whi ch

i t per t ai ns, . . . t o make and use t he same. . . . 35 U. S. C. 112,

1 ( 2006) . Accordi ngl y, t wo separate and i ndependent

r equi r ement s must be sat i sf i ed: an appl i cant must bot h descr i be

t he cl ai med i nvent i on adequatel y and enabl e i t s pr oduct i on and

use. Al con Resear ch Lt d. v. Bar r Labor at or i es, I nc. , 745 F. 3d

1180, 1188 ( Fed. Ci r . 2014) ( ci t i ng Ar i ad Phar m. , I nc. v. El i

Li l l y & Co. , 598 F. 3d 1336, 1344 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ( en banc) ; Vas

Cat h I nc. v. Mahur kar , 935 F. 2d 1555, 156263 ( Fed. Ci r . 1991) ) .

[ P]atent s ar e pr esumed t o be val i d and over comi ng t hi s

pr esumpt i on r equi r es cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence. I d.

( ci t i ng 35 U. S. C. 282; Mi crosof t Cor p. v. i 4i Ltd. , U. S.

, 131 S. Ct . 2238, 2242, 180 L. Ed. 2d 131 ( 2011) ; Ar i ad, 598

F. 3d at 1354) . 16

The same f our el ement s of i ssue precl usi on appl i ed t o

pr i or i t y, ar e appl i ed t o det er mi ne i f Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om

16 I n an i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng bef or e t he Boar d, t hepr eponder ance of evi dence st andard governs quest i ons ofpat ent abi l i t y, wher eas i n an i nf r i ngement case, cl ear andconvi nci ng evi dence i s necessary t o pr ove pat ent i nval i di t y.See Vel ander v. Garner , 348 F. 3d 1359, 1369- 70 ( Fed. Ci r . 2003) ;

see al so Radi o Cor p. of Am. v. Radi o Eng' g Labs. , 293 U. S. 1, 2( 1934) ( concl udi ng t hat t he pr esumpt i on [ of pat ent val i di t yshoul d] not t o be overt hr own except by cl ear and cogentevi dence. ) .

25


26/40

asser t i ng a val i di t y chal l enge. Fi r st , t he Cour t consi der s

whet her t her e i s i dent i t y of i ssue. I n t he I nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ng, t he Boar d r ej ect ed Gr ubbs pat ent abi l i t y ar gument s

r egar di ng Evoni k s pendi ng pat ent appl i cat i ons. Speci f i cal l y,

Gr ubbs ar gued t hat sever al cl ai ms of Evoni k s 552 and 967

Appl i cat i ons wer e unpat ent abl e f or l ack of an adequat e wr i t t en

descr i pt i on and f or l ack of an enabl i ng di scl osur e i n t he

cor r espondi ng speci f i cat i ons. I n t he pr esent case, Mat er i a

asser t s, as an af f i r mat i ve def ense and count er cl ai m, t hat

Evoni k s 528 Pat ent i s i nval i d f or f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he

r equi r ement s f or pat ent abi l i t y as set f or t h i n 35 U. S. C. 112.

I n i t s opposi t i on br i ef , Mat er i a ar gues t hat [ t ] hough val i di t y

was r ai sed i n t he i nt er f er ences, i t was r ai sed wi t h r espect t o

di f f er ent pat ent cl ai ms . . . t han t hose Evoni k now asser t s. The

mer e f act t hat t he pat ent cl ai ms di f f er , however , i s not

di sposi t i ve i n det er mi ni ng whet her i dent i t y of i ssue exi st s f or

i ssue pr ecl usi on pur poses. Whet her patent cl ai ms ar e t he same

or di st i nct has par t i cul ar appl i cabi l i t y t o pat ent l aw and

t her ef or e Feder al Ci r cui t l aw appl i es. See Aspex Eyewear , I nc.

v. Mar chon Eyewear , I nc. , 672 F. 3d 1335, 1341 n. 1 ( Fed. Ci r .

2012) ; Ohi o Wi l l ow Wood Co. , 2013 WL 6037196, at *5 ( ci t i ng

Bour ns, 537 F. 2d at 493) ( I f t he di f f er ences bet ween t he

unadj udi cated patent cl ai ms and adj udi cated patent cl ai ms do not

26


27/40

mat er i al l y al t er t he quest i on of i nval i di t y, col l at er al est oppel

appl i es. ) . To det er mi ne whet her t he change i n pat ent cl ai ms

cr eat es a new i ssue of pat ent val i di t y wi t h r espect t o 112,

t he scope of t he cl ai ms must be anal yzed. I f t he scope of a

subsequent pat ent cl ai m di f f er s f r om t hat of a pr i or pat ent

cl ai m, a new i ssue of pat ent val i di t y exi st s wi t h r espect t o

whet her t he subsequent pat ent cl ai m i s pr oper l y enabl ed under 35

U. S. C. 112.

As expl ai ned i n t he Cour t s di scussi on on pr i or i t y, t he

scope of t he pat ent cl ai ms asser t ed i n t hi s l i t i gat i on ar e

br oader t han t hose asser t ed i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. As

not ed by Evoni k, t he concept of pr i or i t y and 112 ar e cl osel y

r el at ed: Sect i on 112 asks whet her t he speci f i cat i on pr ovi des

adequat e wr i t t en descr i pt i on and whet her i t enabl es t he scope of

t he pat ent cl ai m, and pr i or i t y asks when was t hi s suppor t f i r st

pr ovi ded. 17

For t he same r easons t he Cour t expl ai ned i n i t s di scussi on

on pr i or i t y, Evoni k has not est abl i shed t hat t he i ssue of pat ent

val i di t y wi t h r espect t o 112 i s i dent i cal t o t he i ssue

pr evi ousl y adj udi cat ed. Ther ef or e, t he f i r st el ement of i ssue

17 Sect i on 119( a) pr ovi des t hat an appl i cat i on i s ent i t l edt o t he benef i t of t he f i l i ng dat e of an ear l i er f or ei gnappl i cat i on, subj ect t o cer t ai n l i mi t at i ons and condi t i onsi ncl udi ng suf f i ci ency of di scl osur e under 35 U. S. C. 112.

27


28/40


29/40

Mat er i a had a f ul l and f ai r oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e, 19 t he scope

of t he 528 Pat ent i n t hi s l i t i gat i on i s br oader t han t he count s

consi der ed by t he Boar d dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng.

4.Validity as Single IssueEvoni k al so seeks t o pr ecl ude Mat er i a f r om asser t i ng

val i di t y based on 35 U. S. C. 102 ( ant i ci pat i on) and 35 U. S. C.

103 ( obvi ousness) . These t heor i es of i nval i di t y wer e not

asser t ed by Mat er i a dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence.

A pat ent i s i nval i d f or ant i ci pat i on under 35 U. S. C. 102

i f a si ngl e pr i or ar t r ef er ence di scl oses each and ever y

l i mi t at i on of t he cl ai med i nvent i on. Al l er gan, I nc. v. Apot ex

I nc. , - - - F. 3d - - - - , 2014 WL 2579287, at *3 ( Fed. Ci r . J une 10,

2014) ( ci t i ng Scher i ng Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. , 339 F. 3d 1373,

1377 ( Fed. Ci r . 2003) ) . A pat ent i s i nval i d f or obvi ousness i f

t he di f f er ences bet ween t he subj ect mat t er sought t o be pat ent ed

and t he pr i or ar t ar e such t hat t he subj ect mat t er as a whol e

woul d have been obvi ous at t he t i me t he i nvent i on was made t o a

per son havi ng or di nar y ski l l i n t he ar t t o whi ch sai d subj ect

mat t er per t ai ns. I d. at *6 ( ci t i ng 35 U. S. C. 103( a) ) . The

19 Mat er i a ar gues t hat i t di d not have a f ul l and f ai roppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e because di scover y i s l i mi t ed i n anI nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. However , Gr ubbs/ Mat er i a el ect ed not t oappeal t he Boar d s deci si on t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t whi ch woul dhave al l owed f or mor e ext ensi ve di scover y. Ther ef or e, t hef our t h el ement of i ssue pr ecl usi on i s sat i sf i ed.

29


30/40

pr esumpt i on of a pat ent ' s val i di t y under 35 U. S. C. 282 can be

r ebut t ed by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence. I d. at *3 ( ci t i ng

Mi crosof t Cor p. v. i 4i Ltd. P' shi p, U. S. , 131 S. Ct .

2238, 224546, 180 L. Ed. 2d 131 ( 2011) ) .

Evoni k ar gues t hat Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng 102

and 103 ar gument s i n t hi s l i t i gat i on because i t chose not t o

asser t such cl ai ms ear l i er out of sel f - i nt er est . Evoni k ar gues

t hat Mat er i a, havi ng obt ai ned t wo patent s on t he same subj ect

mat t er ( vi a Gr ubbs) , di d not ar gue dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence t hat

t he pat ent s wer e i nval i d because i t woul d have meant t aki ng

i nconsi st ent posi t i ons; ar gui ng t hat t he subj ect mat t er was

pat ent abl e t o Mat er i a but not t o Evoni k. Havi ng l ost t he t wo

pat ent s as a r esul t of t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng, Mat er i a i n

t hi s l i t i gat i on ci t es 25 separ at e r ef er ences t o suggest t hat

Evoni k s pat ent cl ai ms are i nval i d under 35 U. S. C. 102 and

103. Evoni k argues t hat Mater i a shoul d not be per mi t t ed t o use

sel f - i nt er est as an excuse, and shoul d be pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng

t hese cl ai ms.

Mat er i a does not di sput e t hat i t chose not t o rai se 102

and 103 chal l enges dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence. Mat er i a st at es

t hat : [ A] par t y t o an i nt er f er ence wi l l have no i ncent i ve t o

chal l enge t he ot her par t y s i nvol ved cl ai ms as i nval i d i n vi ew

of pr i or ar t , as such chal l enges coul d vi t i at e t he ver y r i ght s

30


31/40

bei ng f ought over . Rat her , Mat er i a ar gues t hat si nce i t never

r ai sed 102 and 103 chal l enges, t hat i t never act ual l y

l i t i gat ed t he i ssue and, t her ef or e, i ssue pr ecl usi on cannot

appl y.

I ssue pr ecl usi on pr ohi bi t s successi ve l i t i gat i on of an

i ssue of f act or l aw act ual l y l i t i gat ed and r esol ved i n a val i d

cour t det er mi nat i on essent i al t o t he pr i or j udgment whet her or

not t he i ssue ar i ses on t he same or a di f f er ent cl ai m. New

Hampshi r e v. Mai ne, 532 U. S. 742, 74849, 121 S. Ct . 1808, 149

L. Ed. 2d 968 ( 2001) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I t al so pr ohi bi t s

successi ve or al t er nat i ve t heor i es of l i abi l i t y. Mat er i a s

102 and 103 cl ai ms are al t er nat i ve t heor i es on t he i ssue of

val i di t y. Such al t er nat i ve t heor i es rai sed af t er t he i ssue of

val i di t y had been pr evi ousl y rai sed wer e f ound t o be pr ecl uded

i n Ast r azeneca UK Lt d. v. Wat son Labs. , I nc. ( NV) , 905 F. Supp.

2d 596 ( D. Del . 2012) .

Whet her pat ent val i di t y i s a si ngl e i ssue f or pr ecl usi on

pur poses i s an i ssue par t i cul ar t o pat ent l aw, and t hus t he

Feder al Ci r cui t s pr ecedence i s bi ndi ng. See Hal l co Mf g. Co. ,

I nc. v. Fost er , 256 F. 3d 1290, 1294 ( Fed. Ci r . 2001) . Al t hough

t he Feder al Ci r cui t has yet t o r ul e concl usi vel y on t hi s mat t er ,

a cour t i n t hi s Di st r i ct has r ecent l y consi der ed t he mat t er and

concl uded t hat t he i ssue t o be gi ven pr ecl usi ve ef f ect i s pat ent

31


32/40

val i di t y i n gener al . Ast r azeneca, 905 F. Supp. 2d at 602- 03

( f i ndi ng t hat because def endant sought t o i nval i dat e the pat ent

under t heor i es of obvi ousness and i mpr oper r ei ssue i n pr evi ous

l i t i gat i on, i t i s pr ecl uded f r om seeki ng t o i nval i dat e t he

pat ent on ot her t heor i es of i nval i di t y) .

Si mi l ar l y, ot her di st r i ct cour t s have hel d t hat pat ent

val i di t y const i t ut es a si ngl e i ssue f or i ssue pr ecl usi on

pur poses. See Roche Pal o Al t o LLC v. Apot ex, I nc. , 526 F. Supp.

2d 985, 994- 95 ( N. D. Cal . 2007) af f ' d, 531 F. 3d 1372 ( Fed. Ci r .

2008) ( concl udi ng t hat t he r el evant i ssue whi ch [ d] ef endant s

ar e pr ecl uded f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng i s t he ul t i mat e det er mi nat i on

on pat ent val i di t y i t sel f . ) ; Appl i ed Medi cal Resour ces Cor p. v.

U. S. Sur gi cal Cor p. , 352 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1124- 26 ( C. D. Cal .

2005) ( appl yi ng t he f actors set out by the Rest atement ( Second)

of J udgment s i n det er mi ni ng t hat t he val i di t y of a pat ent cl ai m

i s a si ngl e i ssue f or pr ecl usi on pur poses) ; Mer i t or Tr ansmi ssi on

Corp. v. Eat on Corp. , No. 1: 04CV178, 2006 WL 3951711 ( W. D. N. C.

Sept . 26, 2006) af f ' d, 258 F. App' x 320 ( Fed. Ci r . 2007) ( not i ng

t he Feder al Ci r cui t s r el i ance on t he Rest at ement ( Second) of

J udgment s i n concl udi ng t hat val i di t y i s a sol e i ssue t o be

pr ecl uded) ; Zi p Dee, I nc. v. Domet i c Cor p. , 905 F. Supp. 535,

537 ( N. D. I l l . 1995) ( di st i ngui shi ng bet ween pat ent val i di t y,

whi ch i s a si ngl e i ssue and t heor i es of pat ent val i di t y, whi ch

32


33/40


34/40

D. Application of Claim Preclusion

1. Claim Preclusion Generally

Cl ai m pr ecl usi on, al so known as r es j udi cat a, bar s t he r e-

l i t i gat i on of cl ai ms t hat wer e or coul d have been br ought i n a

pr i or act i on. See I n r e Mul l ar key, 536 F. 3d 215, 225 ( 3d Ci r .

2008) ( ci t i ng Post v. Har t f or d I ns. Co. , 501 F. 3d 154, 169 ( 3d

Ci r . 2007) ) ; Davi s v. U. S. St eel Suppl y, Di v. of U. S. St eel

Cor p. , 688 F. 2d 166, 174 ( 3d Ci r . 1982) ( The doct r i ne of r es

j udi cat a ser ves t o r el i eve par t i es of t he cost and vexat i on of

mul t i pl e l awsui t s, conser ve j udi ci al r esour ces, and, by

pr event i ng i nconsi st ent deci si ons, encour age r el i ance on

adj udi cat i on. ) ( quot i ng Al l en v. McCur r y, 449 U. S. 90, 94

( 1980) ) .

The Thi r d Ci r cui t i mposes t hree r equi r ements f or cl ai m

pr ecl usi on:21

( 1) t here must have been a f i nal j udgment on t he

l i t i gat i on, i t does not get t o al so r ai se new t heor i es ofval i di t y t hat i t f ai l ed t o r ai se i n t he I nt er f er ence. Theappl i cat i on of val i di t y as a si ngl e i ssue i s t o pr event a l osi ngpar t y f r om mount i ng successi ve chal l enges. Mat er i a has notshown how t he br oadeni ng of t he cl ai m suppor t s a di f f er entt heor y of i nval i di t y. Rat her , Mat er i a i s br i ngi ng 102 and103 cl ai ms now because i t no l onger hol ds t he patent s.

21

As st at ed pr evi ousl y by t he Cour t , f or r ul es of l aw t hatdo not have speci al appl i cabi l i t y to pat ent cases, t he Feder alCi r cui t appl i es t he l aw of t he r egi onal ci r cui t i n whi ch t hedi st r i ct cour t si t s. See Medi a Techs. Li censi ng, LLC. , 334 F. 3dat 1369.

34


35/40

mer i t s i n a pr i or pr oceedi ng; ( 2) t he cur r ent sui t must i nvol ve

t he same par t i es or t hose i n pr i vi t y wi t h t he par t i es t o t he

pr i or pr oceedi ng; and (3) t he subsequent sui t must be based on

t he same cause of act i on as t he pr i or pr oceedi ng. See

Cor eSt ates Bank, N. A. v. Hul s Am. , I nc. , 176 F. 3d 187, 194 ( 3d

Ci r . 1999) ( quot i ng Bd. of Tr ust ees of Tr ucki ng Empl oyees of N.

J er sey Wel f ar e Fund, I nc. - Pensi on Fund v. Cent r a, 983 F. 2d

495, 504 ( 3d Ci r . 1992) ) . Addi t i onal l y, t he Supr eme Cour t has

conf i r med t he appl i cabi l i t y of cl ai m pr ecl usi on t o pat ent

i nf r i ngement cases. See Har t St eel Co. v. R. R. Suppl y Co. , 244

U. S. 294, 297- 98 (1917) .

As wi t h i ssue pr ecl usi on, t he i ssue of t he br oader scope of

t he cl ai ms i n t hi s l i t i gat i on as compar ed t o t he I nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ng def eat s appl i cat i on of cl ai m pr ecl usi on as t o

pr i or i t y and val i di t y ( 112 enabl ement and wr i t t en

descr i pt i on) .

2. Priority

Evoni k ar gues t hat cl ai m pr ecl usi on bar s Mat er i a f r om r e-

l i t i gat i ng t he i ssue of pri or i t y. Evoni k has pr esent ed

suf f i ci ent f act s t o show t hat t he I nt er f er ence was a f i nal

j udgment on t he mer i t s. Mat er i a chose not t o appeal t he

deci si on t hus maki ng i t f i nal .

Evoni k has al so pr esent ed suf f i ci ent f act s t o show t hat

35


36/40

Mat er i a was i n pr i vi t y wi t h Gr ubbs/ Cal t ech. I n t he

I nt er f er ence, al t hough Cal t ech was i dent i f i ed as t he r eal par t y

i n i nt er est f or t he Gr ubbs pat ent s, Cal t ech had excl usi vel y

l i censed i t s r i ght s i n t hese pat ent s t o Mat er i a. Under t hat

Li cense Agr eement , Mater i a was responsi bl e f or t he pr osecut i on

and mai nt enance of t he Gr ubbs pat ent s i n t he USPTO. Mat er i a

al so had t he r i ght t o el ect t o have sol e cont r ol over t he

def ense of a val i di t y chal l enge to t he Gr ubbs pat ent s as wel l as

t he f i r st r i ght t o sue f or i nf r i ngement .

I n addi t i on to t he Li cense Agr eement , Mat er i a and Cal t ech

execut ed a J oi nt Def ense Agr eement ( J DA) speci f i cal l y t o cover

t he I nt er f er ence. The J DA pr ovi ded t hat : ( 1) Mat er i a and

Cal t ech shar e j oi nt i nt er est s i n pr evai l i ng i n t he

I nt er f er ence; ( 2) Mat er i a had t he r i ght t o appr ove of any

set t l ement of t he I nt er f er ence; and, ( 3) Mat er i a was obl i gat ed

t o pay t he f ees and expenses, whi ch i t di d pay. Mater i a was

i nvol ved i n t he I nt er f er ence t hr ough i t s 30( b) ( 6) desi gnee, and

Mat er i a s counsel and one of i t s sci ent i st s at t ended t he

I nt er f er ence deposi t i on of Evoni k s exper t . Taken i n

combi nat i on, al l of t hese f act s suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat Mat er i a

was i n pr i vi t y wi t h Gr ubb/ Cal t ech. 22

22 Mat er i a ar gues t hat cont r ol of t he l i t i gat i on i s notenough t o creat e pr i vi t y. See Gi l l i g v. Ni ke, I nc. , 602 F. 3d

36


37/40

Evoni k has not , however , pr oven t hat t hi s l i t i gat i on i s

based on t he same cause of act i on as t he I nt er f erence. Because

t hi s i s an i nqui r y i nvol vi ng det er mi nat i ons i nvol vi ng

subst ant i ve i ssues of pat ent l aw, Feder al Ci r cui t case l aw i s

appl i cabl e. See Hal l co Mf g. Co. , 256 F. 3d at 1294; see al so

Acumed LLC v. St r yker Corp. , 525 F. 3d 1319, 1323 ( Fed. Ci r .

2008) ( st at i ng t hat [ w] het her t wo cl ai ms f or pat ent

i nf r i ngement ar e i dent i cal i s a cl ai m pr ecl usi on i ssue t hat i s

par t i cul ar t o pat ent l aw) . I n det er mi ni ng whet her t her e i s an

i dent i cal cause of act i on, t he Feder al Ci r cui t has adopt ed t he

t r ansact i onal t est . See Fost er v. Hal l co Mf g. , 947 F. 2d 469,

478- 79 ( Fed. Ci r . 1991) .

Under a t r ansact i onal anal ysi s, cour t s t ur n t o whet her t he

t wo cl ai ms ar e based on t he same, or near l y t he same, f act ual

al l egat i ons. J et , I nc. v. Sewage Aer at i on Sys. , 223 F. 3d 1360,

1354, 1362 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ( cont r ol of a par t y to t hel i t i gat i on t hr ough st ock owner shi p or cor por at e of f i cer shi p i snot enough t o cr eat e pr i vi t y, absent a showi ng t hat t hecor por at e f or m has been i gnor ed. ) . Thi s i s a di f f er entsi t uat i on t han t hat i n Gi l l i g. I n Gi l l i g, t he l ower cour t f oundpr i vi t y because Gi l l i g was an of f i cer and t he pr i nci pal owner oft he f i r st company. The Feder al Ci r cui t f ound t hat was notenough and f or t he cont r ol of l i t i gat i on except i on t o appl y,

i t i s necessar y to est abl i sh t hat t he st ockhol der / of f i cercont r ol l ed t he l i t i gat i on and t hat hi s i nt er est s wer er epr esent ed by t he par t y i n t he sui t . Her e, Evoni k haspr esent ed f act s and document s t hat show t hat Mater i a cont r ol l edt he l i t i gat i on and t hei r i nt er est s wer e f ul l y r epr esent ed dur i ngt he I nt er f er ence.

37


38/40

1363 ( Fed. Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Her r mann v. Cencom Cabl e Assoc. ,

I nc. , 999 F. 2d 223, 226 ( 7t h Ci r . 1993) ) ( ci t i ng Par sons St eel ,

I nc. v. Fi r st Al abama Bank, 474 U. S. 518, 521 ( 1986) ) . Thus,

t he quest i on her e i s whet her t he cl ai m of i nf r i ngement bef or e

t hi s Cour t ar i ses out of t he same set of t r ansact i onal f act s as

t he det er mi nat i on of pr i or i t y of i nvent i on i n t he i nt er f er ence

pr oceedi ng.

Evoni k pr ovi des l i t t l e t o no f acts i n suppor t of i t s cl ai m

pr ecl usi on ar gument s. I n i t s br i ef , i t si mpl y makes t he

concl usory st at ement t hat [ t ] her e can be no l egi t i mat e di sput e

t hat t he act s, t he r el i ef sought and t he mat er i al f act s ar e al l

i dent i cal whet her Evoni k s ent i t l ement t o t he Ger man pr i or i t y

dat e i s l i t i gat ed bef or e t he Boar d or bef or e t hi s Cour t .

Evoni k di d not pr ovi de any f ur t her br i ef i ng af t er t hi s st at ement

asi de f r om a ci t at i on t o a case whi ch hel d t hat cl ai m pr ecl usi on

appl i ed t o bar a pr i soner s l awsui t . See Byr d v. Ci t y of

Phi l adel phi a, 245 Fed. Appx. 208 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) ( pl ai nt i f f

al l eged cl ai ms of f al se ar r est and i mpr i sonment , i nvol unt ar y

ser vi t ude, f r aud, deni al of due pr ocess, deni al of equal

pr ot ect i on, and cr uel and unusual puni shment , al l st emmi ng f r om

hi s ar r est , pr osecut i on, and conf i nement as a resul t of hi s

convi ct i ons).

Evoni k concl usor y st at ement s ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh

38


39/40

t hat Mat er i a s cl ai ms are pr ecl uded under a t heor y of cl ai m

pr ecl usi on. Under t he t r ansact i onal t est , t he Cour t f i nds t hat

Evoni k has not shown t hat t he f act s i n t hi s l i t i gat i on ar i se out

of t he same set of t r ansact i onal f act s as t he det er mi nat i on of

pr i or i t y of i nvent i on i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. I n f act,

Evoni k has not under t aken t he anal ysi s. As such, Evoni k has not

pr esent ed f act s t hat show t hat Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng

a pr i or i t y chal l enge based on t he t heor y of cl ai m pr ecl usi on. 23

3.Validity 35 U.S.C. 112For t he same reasons expl ai ned i n the Cour t s di scussi on on

pr i or i t y, Evoni k has not shown t hat t hi s l i t i gat i on i s based on

t he same set of f act s as t he I nt er f er ence. I n i t s br i ef ,

Mat er i a poi nt s out t hat Evoni k ci t es no case i n whi ch a f eder al

cour t appl i ed cl ai m pr ecl usi on t o hol d t hat an i nt er f er ence

j udgment bars a def endant i n a pat ent i nf r i ngement act i on f r om

asser t i ng i nval i di t y def enses. Evoni k r esponds t hat Mat er i a s

subsequent val i di t y chal l enges ar e bar r ed under i ssue pr ecl usi on

and t hat t her e i s no need t o r each cl ai m pr ecl usi on. As such,

Evoni k has not pr esent ed f act s t hat show t hat Mat er i a i s

pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng a val i di t y chal l enge based on t he t heor y

23 Gi ven t he br oader scope of t he cl ai ms, i t i s doubt f ult hat Evoni k woul d be abl e t o pr ove t hat t hi s l i t i gat i on i s basedon t he same set of f act s as i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng.

39


40/40

of cl ai m pr ecl usi on. 24

V. CONCLUSION

For al l t he f or egoi ng r easons, Evoni k s mot i on f or par t i al

summary j udgment wi l l be gr ant ed i n part and deni ed i n part .

I t s mot i on wi t h r egar d t o pr ecl udi ng Mat er i a s pr i or i t y cl ai ms

pur suant t o ei t her i ssue pr ecl usi on or cl ai m pr ecl usi on wi l l be

deni ed. I t s mot i on wi t h r egar d t o pr ecl udi ng Mat er i a s val i di t y

cl ai ms based on 35 U. S. C. 112 pur suant t o ei t her i ssue

pr ecl usi on or cl ai m pr ecl usi on wi l l be deni ed. I t s mot i on wi t h

r egar d t o pr ecl udi ng Mat er i a s val i di t y cl ai ms based on 35

U. S. C. 102 and 103 based on i ssue pr ecl usi on wi l l be

gr ant ed. 25

An appr opr i at e Or der f ol l ows.

s/ Noel L. Hi l l manAt Camden, New J ersey NOEL L. HI LLMAN, U. S. D. J .

Dat ed: J une 30, 2014

24 However , Mater i a s 102 and 103 ant i ci pat i on andobvi ousness cl ai ms ar e pr ecl uded under t he val i di t y as a si ngl ei ssue r ul e.

25 Evoni k al so ar gues t hat because Mat er i a f ai l ed t o f i l e ar esponse t o i t s st at ement of mat er i al f act s, t hat t he f act s i nEvoni k s st atement shoul d be deemed admi t t ed. Ther e i s no l ocalr ul e i n t he Di st r i ct of Del awar e r equi r i ng a par t y t o f i l e a

st at ement of mat er i al f act s, or r equi r i ng t he opposi ng par t y t oanswer such st at ement s. But cf . Local Rul e 56. 1( a) f or t heDi st r i ct of New J er sey ( r equi r i ng t he f i l i ng of a st at ement ofmat er i al f act s al ong wi t h a summary j udgment mot i on) . The Cour tf i nds t hat Mat er i a has compl i ed wi t h i t s obl i gat i on under Fed.R. Ci v. P. 56 t o di sput e f act s advanced by Evoni k.

40

vonik degussa gmbh v. materia inc., c.a. no. 09-636-nlh/js (d. del. june 30, 2014)

Documents