DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Sols.
Decision Date | 29 November 2022 |
Docket Number | 3:21-CV-00516-RSH-DDL |
Parties | DNA GENOTEK INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff, v. SPECTRUM SOLUTIONS L.L.C., a Utah Limited Liability Company, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER: (1) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER; AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS [ECF No 101.]
In this case, Plaintiff DNA Genotek (“DNA Genotek”) alleges that Spectrum Solutions L.L.C. (“Spectrum”) infringes U.S. Patent Nos 10,619,187 (“the '187 Patent”) and 11,002,646 (“the '646 Patent”) (collectively “the patents-in-suit”). On January 7, 2022, the Parties filed their Joint Claim Construction Hearing Statement Chart, and Worksheet in accordance with Patent Local Rule 4.2. ECF No. 74. On February 18, 2022, the Parties filed their Opening Claim Construction Briefs. ECF Nos. 134, 147.[1] On March 4, 2022, the Parties filed their Responsive Claim Construction Briefs. ECF Nos. 88, 89. On November 9, 2022, the Court emailed counsel of record a tentative claim construction order.
The Court held a claim construction hearing on Thursday, November 10, 2022. ECF No. 176. After considering the parties' briefing and the arguments presented at the hearing, the Court issues the following claim construction order.
DNA Genotek is the owner by assignment of the '187 Patent and the '646 Patent. See U.S. Patent No. 10,619,187, at [73] (issued Apr. 14, 2020); U.S. Patent No. 11,002,646, at [73] (issued May 11, 2021). In the present action, DNA Genotek alleges that Spectrum infringes the patents-in-suit, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing saliva DNA collection devices, including Spectrum's SDNA-1000 and SDNA-2000 products. See SAC (Aug. 4, 2021), ECF No. 20 ¶¶ 3, 18, 22-27, 35-45, 55-65.
The patents-in-suit both generally relate to devices for biological sample collection. The '187 Patent was issued on April 14, 2020 and is entitled "Compositions and Methods for Obtaining Nucleic Acids from Sputum." '187 Patent at [54], [45]. The invention disclosed in the '187 Patent "relates to compositions and methods for preserving nucleic acids at room temperature for extended periods of time and for simplifying the isolation of nucleic acids." Id. col. 1 ll. 23-26. Specifically, the invention "features a composition for preserving nucleic acids that includes a chelating agent, and a denaturing agent, where the pH of the composition is greater than 5.0." Id. col. 3 ll. 61-64.
Independent claim 1 of the '187 Patent, the only independent claim in the '187 Patent, claims:
'187 Patent col. 19 ll. 34-59.
The '646 Patent was issued on May 11, 2021 and is entitled "Devices, Solutions and Methods for Sample Collection." '646 Patent at [54], [45]. The invention disclosed in the '646 Patent generally relates to devices, solutions, and methods for collecting samples of bodily fluids containing cells. Id. at [57], col. 1 ll. 21-24. The '646 Patent also generally relates to the isolation and preservation of cells from such bodily fluids for cellular analysis. Id. at [57], col. 1 ll. 24-29.
Independent claim 1 of the '646 Patent, the only independent claim in the '646 Patent, claims:
'646 Patent col. 22 ll. 16-47.
On March 24, 2021, DNA Genotek filed a complaint for patent infringement against Spectrum, alleging infringement of the '187 Patent. See Compl. (Mar. 24, 2021), ECF No. 1. On June 8, 2021, DNA Genotek filed its Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC," the operative complaint) against Spectrum, adding a claim for infringement of the '646 Patent. See SAC (Aug. 4, 2021), ECF No. 20. On August 18, 2021, Spectrum filed an answer to the SAC along with counterclaims against DNA Genotek for: (1) declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the patents-in-suit; (2) declaratory judgment of invalidity of the patents-in-suit; (3) declaratory judgment of unenforceability of the '187 Patent due to inequitable conduct; (4) monopolization in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; and (5) attempted monopolization in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. See Answer &Counterclaims (Aug. 18, 2021), ECF No. 27.
On September 2, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order for the action. ECF No. 29. On April 1, 2022, the Court denied DNA Genotek's motion to dismiss Spectrum's counterclaims for inequitable conduct, monopolization, and attempted monopolization, and the Court denied DNA Genotek's motion to strike Spectrum's affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct, patent misuse, and unclean hands. ECF No. 111. On May 25, 2022, the Court issued an amended scheduling order. ECF No. 130. By the present claim construction charts, worksheets, and briefs, the Parties agree upon the proper construction for two claim terms, and the Parties request that the Court construe eleven disputed claim terms from the patents-in-suit. ECF Nos. 74-1, 74-2, 88, 89, 134, 147.
As an initial matter, the Court addresses DNA Genotek's motion for leave to file a response to Defendant's Evidentiary Objections. Along with its responsive claim construction brief, Spectrum filed a document entitled "Defendant's Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Dr. Michael L. Metzker Filed in Support of DNA Genotek's Opening Claim Construction Brief." ECF No. 88-1. In the filing, Spectrum objects to portions of Dr. Metzker's declaration for failure to comply with the Court's Patent Local Rules, specifically Patent Local Rules 4.1(b), 4.1(d), and 4.2(d)(2).[2] Id. at 13.
On March 21, 2022, DNA Genotek filed a motion for leave to file a response to Spectrum's evidentiary objections. ECF No. 101. In the motion, DNA Genotek argues that Spectrum's filing is improper and unauthorized because the filing of separate "evidentiary objections" is a state procedural device that is not envisioned by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Court's Patent Local Rules. Id. at 1.
The Court declines to address Spectrum's evidentiary objections. In the filing, Spectrum objects to certain portions of Dr. Metzker's declaration, specifically certain statements in paragraphs 18, 25, 34, 60, 63, and 67 of the declaration. See ECF No. 88-1 at 3-6. Although the Court is skeptical that these portions of Dr. Metzker's declaration complied with Patent Local Rule 4.2(d)(2), the Court does not rely on or reference any of the statements at issue in reaching the claim constructions set forth below. Thus, because the statements at issue from Dr. Metzker's declaration are not material to the Court's claim construction rulings, the Court need not rule on Spectrum's evidentiary objections. See Elena v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 21-CV-00390-GPC, 2022 WL 1174107, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2022) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial