Opinion ID: 1038335
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Three-Dimensional Framework

Text: SkinMedica’s first argument, that the patentees defined “three-dimensional framework” broadly enough to encompass the use of beads, is straightforward, but unhelpful. SkinMedica’s argument is simple: “The inventors knew that beads could be used in three-dimensional culturing. Their definition of a three-dimensional framework broadly encompassed ‘any material and/or shape.’ Beads are of any material or shape. Therefore, the inven32 SKINMEDICA INC v. HISTOGEN INC tors intended that beads could be used in three- dimensional culturing.” See Appellant’s Br. 25-26. SkinMedica’s theory misses the mark. It focuses on the three-dimensional framework being “any material and/or shape” and ignores that the inventors expressly restricted the definition of a “three-dimensional framework” to a “three-dimensional scaffold.” The written description defines three-dimensional framework as: [A] three-dimensional scaffold composed of any material and/or shape that (a) allows cells to at- tach to it (or can be modified to allow cells to at- tach to it); and (b) allows cells to grow in more than one layer. ’494 patent col. 6 ll. 43–47 (emphasis added). Beads obviously are “any material and/or shape,” but that does not mean that they are also a “three- dimensional scaffold.” Without explaining how beads are a “three-dimensional scaffold,” SkinMedica’s reliance on the definition of “three-dimensional framework” is incomplete. If we were to simply ignore the scaffold restriction, any structure of any material and/or shape that allows for cell attachment and for cell growth in more than one layer would be swept into the definition. That could not have been the inventors’ understanding. For example, the patentees discuss in the written description that some “monolayer cultures . . . could grow to more than ten cells deep.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 40–41. Without the scaffold restriction, the structure used to grow those types of monolayer cultures would meet the definition of a threedimensional framework (cells attach and grow in more than one layer). See id. at col. 2 ll. 37–42. According to SkinMedica’s theory, those cultures would therefore be three-dimensional. But no one contends that a monolayer culture should qualify as three-dimensional. SKINMEDICA INC v. HISTOGEN INC 33 Because it is unclear how beads could be a three- dimensional scaffold, we are unconvinced by SkinMedica’s argument that the inventors broadly defined “threedimensional framework” to indicate their intent to include culturing with beads as a three-dimensional culturing method.