Spine v. BIEDERMANN MOTECH GMBH

• Decision Date: 16 February 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 08-1827 (CKK).
• Citation: 684 F. Supp.2d 68
• Parties: Stryker SPINE, Plaintiff, v. BIEDERMANN MOTECH GMBH, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

684 F.Supp.2d 68

Stryker SPINE, Plaintiff, v. BIEDERMANN MOTECH GMBH, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 08-1827 (CKK).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

February 16, 2010.

Steven John Routh, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Washington, DC, Arnold H. Krumholz, Keith E. Gilman, Kevin M. Kocun, Natalie S. Morelli, Roy H. Wepner, William L. Mentlik, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, Westfield, NJ, Timothy Vann Pearce, Jr., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

Barry Eastburn Bretschneider, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, McLean, VA, Erin C. Kolter, Luke L. Dauchot, Kirkland & Ellis, Los Angeles, CA, Gregory F. Corbett, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Mark E. Ungerman, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.

This case involves a dispute between Plaintiff Stryker Spine ("Stryker"), a French corporation, and Defendants Biedermann Motech GmbH ("Biedermann") and DePuy Spine, Inc. ("DePuy"), over a patent interference proceeding at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). Stryker seeks judicial review of decisions made by the PTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences pursuant to 35 U.S.C. ? 146. Pending before the Court are a series of dispositive motions. Stryker has filed a31 Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the PTO's refusal to redefine the interference count ("Redefinition Motion"); a32 Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Defendants' failure to adequately support their patent claims under 35 U.S.C. ? 112 ("? 112 Motion"); a33 Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the unpatentability of Defendants' claims over prior art ("Unpatentability Motion"); and a35 Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the unconstitutionality of the appointment of an Administrative Patent Judge ("Unconstitutionality Motion"). Defendants oppose these motions and have separately filed a single 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. The United States has also intervened and filed an opposition to Stryker's Unconstitutionality Motion. Briefing on these motions is now complete.

For the reasons explained below, the Court shall DENY each of Stryker's motions for summary judgment and GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment. With respect to Stryker's Unconstitutionality Motion, the Court finds that any constitutional defect in the administrative patent judge's appointment was cured by his reappointment prior to the PTO's issuance of a final decision on rehearing. Therefore, the Court shall award judgment to Defendants on this claim. With respect to Stryker's Redefinition Motion, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude the award of summary judgment to either party. Because the issues raised in the ? 112 Motion and Unpatentability Motion are both contingent on Stryker's success on the Redefinition Motion, the Court shall also deny the parties' motions with respect to these issues.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Patent Process and Interference Proceedings Generally

1. Patent Prosecution

The process of obtaining a patent is known as "prosecution" and begins with the filing of an application with the PTO. See Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 643 F.Supp.2d 97, 99 (D.D.C.2009); see generally 37 C.F.R. ? 1.51. A patent application consists of a specification of the proposed patent as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. ? 112, including a claim or claims, an oath or declaration, drawings as may be necessary, and the appropriate filing fee. 37 C.F.R. ? 1.51(b). The specification required by 35 U.S.C. ? 112 includes both a "written description of the invention" (description) and a written explanation of "the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use" it (enablement). 35 U.S.C. ? 112, para. 1. As Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., aptly explained in a recent decision,

At the end of the written description and enablement, a proper specification should conclude with a list of "claims," which identify the specific innovations, components or subparts of the invention, the applicant regards as hers. 35 U.S.C. ? 112, para. 2. A claim is a single sentence description of what the applicant believes to be her invention, setting the boundaries of the invention the applicant wishes the PTO to examine. A single claim can be composed of multiple elements and/or limitations.¹ Elements are the previously known physical components that make up the claimed invention. Limitations, on the other hand, usually describe the claim's restrictions. An application may contain several claims, and each claim usually contains several restrictions. It is these claims that define the scope of patent protection.

Intervet, 643 F.Supp.2d at 99.

A patent examiner then reviews the application to determine whether a patent should issue. "On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention." 37 C.F.R. ? 1.104(a)(1). If the patent examiner determines that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the law, a "Notice of Allowance" is issued. Id. ? 1.311(a). If, however, the patent examiner determines that there are deficiencies or problems with the application, the examiner will issue an "Office Action" advising the applicant as to the "reasons for any adverse action or any objection or requirement." Id. ? 1.104(a)(2). Upon receipt of an Office Action, an applicant may amend the claims, argue as to the merits of the examiner's findings, or both. See id. ? 1.111. This back and forth between the applicant and the patent examiner continues until a patent is issued or a final rejection occurs.

2. Patent Interference Practice

United States patent law, unlike much of the rest of the world, is premised on the principle that the first to invent?€” rather than the first to file a patent application?€”is granted the patent right. ROBERT L. HARMON, PATENTS AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 1151 (2009). As a consequence of this rule, there must be a mechanism for determining who among multiple patent applicants, or, as in this case, among an applicant and a patentee, was the first to invent the claimed subject matter. That mechanism is known as an interference, which is a "proceeding principally declared to permit a determination of priority." Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Norton Co., 929 F.2d 670, 674 (Fed.Cir. 1991). As is oft-repeated, "interference practice is highly arcane and specialized," Conservolite, Inc. v. Widmayer, 21 F.3d 1098, 1100 (Fed.Cir.1994), and can be "virtually incomprehensible to the uninitiated," PATENTS AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, supra, at 1152.

"An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa." 37 C.F.R. ? 41.203. Either the patent applicant or the patent examiner may suggest an interference. See id. ? 41.202. If the Director of the PTO agrees that an interference is warranted?€”i.e., that "an application is made for a patent which would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent"?€”he may declare an interference and provide notice of such declaration to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be. 35 U.S.C. ? 135(a); see also 37 C.F.R. ? 41.203.² The notice declaring an interference identifies the interfering subject matter; the involved applications, patents, and claims; the accorded benefit for each count; and the claims corresponding to each count. 37 C.F.R. ? 41.203(b). An administrative patent judge (APJ) may change the declaration of interference, and a party may suggest an additional interference. Id. ? 41.203(c)-(d). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the "Board") determines questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability as well. 35 U.S.C. ? 135(a).³

Interference proceedings are governed by the PTO's regulations for contested cases. See 37 C.F.R. ? 41.200(a). An interference proceeding may involve one or more counts; a count is the Board's description of the interfering subject matter that sets the scope of admissible proofs on priority. Id. ? 41.201. Each count must describe a patentably distinct invention. Id. Parties are presumed to have invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each count. Id. ? 207(a)(1). The "accorded benefit" is the Board's recognition that a patent application provides a proper written description and enablement. Id. ? 41.201. The party with the earlier accorded benefit is deemed the senior party, while the other party is the junior party. Id. Priority may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. ? 41.207(a)(2). The parties may file substantive and responsive motions. Substantive motions must (1) raise a threshold issue (i.e., an issue that, if resolved in favor of the movant, would deprive the opponent of standing in the interference); (2) seek to change the scope of the definition of the interfering subject matter or the correspondence of claims to the count; (3) seek to change the benefit accorded for the count; or (4) seek judgment on derivation or on priority. See 37 C.F.R. ?? 41.208, 41.200. "To be sufficient, a motion must provide a showing, supported with appropriate evidence, such that, if unrebutted, it would justify the relief sought." 37 C.F.R. ? 41.208(b).

B. Stryker Spine's Patent

Stryker Spine is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,974,460 ("the '460 Patent"), which is titled "Biased Angulation Bone Fixation Assembly." See Admin. Record ("AR")⁴ 4; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J.,...