Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180130_0000048.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:23:17+00:00

Document:
Colm F. Connolly, David W. Marston Jr., Jody C. Barillare, John V. Goodman, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas B. Kenworthy (argued), Julie S. Goldemberg, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Raymond R. Moser, Jr., MOSER TABOADA, Shrewsbury, NJ. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Adam W. Poff, Pilar G. Kraman, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas J. Nash (argued), John D. Cook (argued), Kathryn D. Cornish, BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, Syracuse, NY. Attorneys for Defendant.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Ansell Healthcare Products LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. Sections 102 and 103 (D.I. 189) and related briefing (D.I. 190, 206, 218); Ansell's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9, 074, 027 (D.I. 192) and related briefing (D.I. 193, 208, 220); Defendant Reckitt Benckiser's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity (D.I. 201) and related briefing (D.I. 202, 223, 234); RB's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (D.I. 203) and related briefing (D.I. 204, 224, 231); and RB's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement and No Enhanced Damages (D.I. 198) and related briefing (D.I. 199, 222, 233). I held oral argument on January 22, 2018. (D.I. 262 ("Tr.")).
As stated at oral argument, the Court will DENY the parties' summary judgment motions related to infringement and validity (D.I. 189, 192, 201, 203), insofar as they relate to non-claim construction issues. (Tr. at 106:19-108:20). For the reasons that follow, the Court will also DENY the remainder of the parties' summary judgment motions related to infringement and validity (D.I. 189, 192, 201, 203), and will GRANT RB's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement and No Enhanced Damages (D.I. 198).
Ansell brought this patent infringement suit against RB on October 13, 2015, alleging that RB infringes United States Patent Nos. 8, 087, 412 ("the '412 patent"), 8, 464, 719 ("the '719 patent"), 9, 074, 027 ("the '027 patent), and 9, 074, 029 ("the '029 patent") by importing, selling, or offering for sale the accused Durex RealFeel® condoms. (D.I. 1). Ansell has asserted claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the '412 patent; claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17 of the '719 patent; claims 1 and 5 of the '027 patent; and claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 17 of the '029 patent. (D.I. 202 at 1).
synthetic polyisoprene particles, said synthetic polyisoprene particles bonded to each other through intra-polyisoprene particle crosslinks and inter-polyisoprene particle crosslinks; wherein the intra-polyisoprene particle crosslinks and the inter-polyisoprene particle crosslinks are such that the molecular weight is less than about 8000 g/mol between the crosslinks.
(D.I. 1-3 ("the '027 patent"), claim 1).
"It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). '"[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.'" SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in original). When construing patent claims, a court considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks omitted).
"A claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It follows that "a claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation." Osram GMBH v. Int'l Trade Comm '/i, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
a. "synthetic polyisoprene particles, said synthetic polyisoprene particles bonded to each other through intra-polyisoprene particle crosslinks and inter-polyisoprene particle crosslinks"

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.