Opinion ID: 2743726
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: metastasis to a second site

Text: The third element for which the district court held the Preliminary Infringement Contentions to be deficient is “metastasis to a second site” in the ’337 patent claims. The claims are directed to “a nude mouse model for progression of human neoplastic disease, the progression of said disease being characterized by growth of a primary tumor site and metastasis to secondary tumor sites, wherein said mouse has . . . sufficient immuno-deficiency to allow said transplanted neoplastic tissue to grow at said primary site and metastasizing to said secondary tumor sites.” ’337 patent col. 11 ll. 13-67. AntiCancer’s Contentions recited the following text from the defendants’ poster presentation as corresponding to this element: “Tumor fragments derived from patient tumor tis- sues were surgically implanted into the left lobe of nude mouse liver”; “Sutent treatment significantly inhibited orthotopic HCC tumor growth; Plasma samples were collected at different time points for alpha-feto-protein (AFP) measurement. At termination, tumors were excised from liver and their weights and sizes were recorded”; “In addition, histological analysis confirmed that orthotopically implanted primary human tumors maintained their histopathological characteristics.” Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions at 95-96, AntiCancer (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2012), ECF 38-4. The defendants argued that the passages quoted from their poster presentation were insufficient to establish a connection between this claim element and the defendants’ activities, because the poster does not specifically describe the implanted tumor as metastasizing to a second location. AntiCancer responded that the ’337 patent claims require sufficient mouse immuno-deficiency 26 ANTICANCER, INC. v. PFIZER, INC. to “allow said transplanted neoplastic tissue to grow at said primary site and metastasize to said secondary tumor sites,” and that the defendants’ publications showing growth of the tumor at the site of implantation “is direct evidence that the mice used were sufficiently immuno-deficient to allow for growth at the primary site and for metastasis at secondary sites.” AntiCancer Opp’n Mot. Summ. J. at 4-6. The district court stated: AntiCancer has left out the essential connection between the claim language and the allegedly in- fringing acts. How does the growth of the tumor at the primary site provide ‘direct evidence’ that the mice were sufficiently immuno-deficient to allow for metastasis to secondary sites? By skip- ping this essential connection, AntiCancer leaves Defendants—and the Court—guessing at how the patent was allegedly infringed, hindering Defendants’ ability to prepare an effective defense. Dist. Ct. Op. at 13. AntiCancer states that its Contentions were not deficient, and that the district court’s question of “how” tumor growth relates to immuno-deficiency transcends the requirement of Local Rule 3.1, to simply provide “a chart identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” AntiCancer also states that it identified the activities meeting the “metastasis to a second site” element, and that persons of skill in this science would readily understand that the tumor control described in the defendants’ publication also related to metastasis. In Network Caching, the Northern District court explained that the Preliminary Infringement Contentions “are not meant to provide a forum for litigation of the substantive issues; they are merely designed to streamline the discovery process.” 2003 WL 21699799, at . The Preliminary Infringement Contentions do not need to ANTICANCER, INC. v. PFIZER, INC. 27 include proof or direct evidence of infringement, as the various decisions on the Patent Local Rules have explained. We again conclude that the district court’s fee-shifting condition for supplementing the Contentions was unwarranted, applying the Ninth Circuit’s requirement of bad faith for imposition of sanctions as discussed, e.g., in Primus Automotive, 115 F.3d at 648.