April 20, 2023
Authored and Edited by Jameson K. Gardner, Ph.D.; Umber Aggarwal; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Solutions, LLC,[1] DNA Genotek asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,619,187 (“the ’187 patent”) against Spectrum Solutions (“Spectrum”). The patent is directed to compositions and methods for “preserving nucleic acids at room temperatures for extended periods of time.”[2] The parties disputed the proper claim construction for the “preserving/preserve” and “reagent compartment” limitations from claim 1 of the ’187 patent.
In construing the two limitations, the District Court for the Southern District of California cited arguments and statements from previous IPR proceedings involving the two parties that challenged patents unrelated to the ’187 patent. The Court did so to rebut Spectrum’s arguments for the first term and DNA Genotek’s arguments for the second term.
For the “preserving/preserve” terms, Spectrum alleged that the terms were indefinite for failing to specify (i) a time period or temperature for the claimed preserving and (ii) how to determine if the nucleic acid has been preserved.[3] The Court rejected Spectrum’s arguments, relying in part on Spectrum’s own evidence presented during an IPR challenging an unrelated patent. In that proceeding, Spectrum asserted as prior art a PCT publication from the same family as the ’187 patent, which included a similar “preserving/preserve” limitation. It also submitted an expert declaration that “app[lied]” this limitation from the PCT publication to show that the unrelated patent was invalid. Based on this, the Court concluded that a POSA would have understood the “preserving/preserve” term with reasonable certainty, undermining Spectrum’s indefiniteness position.[4]
The parties also “disputed whether the claimed ‘reagent compartment’ … must specifically be [located at] the containment vessel.”[5] DNA Genotek argued for the plain and ordinary meaning alleging that the claims did not restrict the reagent compartment to a specific location. Spectrum asserted otherwise, arguing the reagent compartment must be in the containment vessel given DNA Genotek’s “express[] disavow[al] [of] claim scope” during prosecution.[6] The Court sided with Spectrum.[7] In doing so, the Court relied on Spectrum’s “highly persuasive extrinsic evidence” pointing to IPR proceedings challenging another DNA Genotek patent, which was unrelated to the ’187 patent. This IPR proceeding also involved prior art grounds relying on the PCT publication from the ’187 patent family.[8] During the IPR proceeding, DNA Genotek asserted validity arguments describing two “very different” prior art devices: one of which was disclosed in the related PCT publication and had a reagent compartment located in the containment vessel; and the other of which was disclosed in another prior art reference and included a reagent at a location outside the containment vessel. The Court found that DNA Genotek’s statements described the scope of the invention disclosed in the PCT publication, which was the same as the ’187 patent invention and, thus, relevant to claim construction.[9]
This case shows the importance of considering whether previous statements or arguments made in IPRs challenging related or unrelated patents may impact or undermine arguments made in district court litigation.
[1] DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Solutions LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00516-RSH-DDL, 2022 WL 17331255 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022).
[2] Id. at 2-3.
[3] Id. at 13-18.
[4] Id. at 18-19.
[5] Id., at 31.
[6] Id., at 32.
[7] Id., at 33-40.
[8] Id., at 40-41.
[9] Id.¸ at 41-44.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.