Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00100/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00100-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEPOMED, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IVAX CORPORATION, a Florida

corporation, and IVAX

PHARMACEUITICALS., INC., a Florida

corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-0100 CRB

ORDER RE: QUESTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The summary judgment hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on November 20, 2007. At

oral argument, the parties should address the following questions:

1. To Ivax: Ivax contends that the element “dissolution and diffusion” in claim 1

should be construed under the plain language of the term to mean “dissolution

of the drug in the matrix by the gastric fluid and diffusion of the drug out of the

matrix.” Since all means of drug release from the matrix inherently include

dissolution and diffusion, Ivax’s construction includes dissolution-controlled,

diffusion-controlled, and swelling-controlled release mechanisms. However,

the specification states that the drug is released “primarily by diffusion” and

that “[t]he rate-limiting factor in the release . . . is controlled diffusion.” 

Case 3:06-cv-00100-CRB Document 359 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Furthermore, dissolution-controlled release could not accomplish the

controlled release of a highly soluble drug, as recited in the other elements of

claim 1. Is it not therefore implicit or inherent within both the claim and the

specification that drug release must be diffusion-controlled? Please explain. 

2. To Depomed: Depomed contends that the “dissolution and diffusion” element

is limited to only diffusion-controlled mechanisms. However, the plain

language of the claim does not distinguish between release mechanisms. In

this specific case, what authority compels or requires the Court to look past the

plain language when construing the claim. Please explain. 

3. Ivax admits that it infringes under Ivax’s broad construction of “dissolution and

diffusion” but claims that Depomed did not present proof that Ivax infringes

under Depomed’s narrower construction of diffusion-controlled release. 

However, Depomed presented experimental evidence and expert testimony that

Ivax’s product exhibits diffusion-controlled release. What evidence in the

record does Ivax claim rebuts Depomed’s evidence? 

4. The '837 patent teaches drug forms that swell and remain substantially intact. 

But the Dow reference teaches drug forms that erode. What evidence in the

record suggests that one of skill in the art would combine the references with a

reasonable expectation of success of producing a drug form that swells and

remains substantially intact for about 8 h until substantially all of the drug is

released? 

Each side will be permitted no more than 30 minutes for argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00100-CRB Document 359 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2