Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00100/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00100-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Depomed, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Ivax Corporation
Counter-claimant
Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

IVAX CORPORATION and

IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

Defendants. /

No. C 06-0100 CRB

ORDER

Oral argument on the claim construction hearing is scheduled for hearing at 2:00 p.m.

on November 16, 2006. Each side will be permitted thirty minutes for argument. At oral

argument, the parties should focus their discussion on the following questions:

1. The written descriptions disclose that “particles greater than the size of the pylorus are

retropelled and retained in the stomach,” ’475 patent at 11:65-67; ’280 patent at

11:66-12:1. In light of these disclosures, why should the two phrases (i) “a size large

enough to promote retention in the stomach during said fed mode,” ’475 patent at

claim 1, and (ii) “a size exceeding the pyloric diameter in the fed mode to promote

retention in the stomach during said fed mode,” ’280 patent at claim 1, be given

different constructions?

Case 3:06-cv-00100-CRB Document 74 Filed 11/14/06 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

G:\CRBALL\2006\0100\ORDERreMarkmanQs.wpd 2

a. How large must a dosage form be to promote retention in the stomach in the

fed state? Can an object be smaller than the pyloric diameter (in the fed state)

and still promote retention? What evidence in the record supports the assertion

that a dosage form of a particular size promotes retention?

b. At what time following immersion or ingestion is it critical that the drug form

achieve a size sufficient to promote retention?

2. The phrase “about 15:85 to about 80:20” of claim 1 is directed to the ratio between the

drug weight and the polymer weight, not solely to the polymer content. Given that the

term “about” modifies a ratio, and not the absolute weight of the polymer content, the

construction of that term should depend neither on a calculation solely factoring the

polymer content, nor on a regulation directed to the tolerance for the polymer content

in an approved product having a fixed, approved composition. How, then, would a

person skilled in the art of drug dosage formulations understand the ratio to be

modified by the term “about”?

3. Are artificial gastric fluids different from simulated gastric fluids? Describe the

difference, if any, in a manner that can support a claim construction.

4. Does Depomed restrict the meaning of gastric fluid in claim 1 to only artificial or

simulated gastric fluids and disclaim a meaning of fluid in the human stomach? And

does this restricted meaning apply to claim 1 of both patents? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00100-CRB Document 74 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2