Opinion ID: 2806769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “Oxidizing” Step

Text: The district court construed “oxidizing” in claims 1 and 22 to mean “actively converting all or substantially all of the reduced coenzyme Q10 obtained from the disruption step to oxidized coenzyme Q10 in a step before beginning the extraction step,” while “oxidizing” in claims 11 and 33 was construed to mean “actively converting all or 10 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY substantially all of the extracted reduced coenzyme Q10 obtained from the disruption step to oxidized coenzyme Q10 in a separate step after the extraction step has been performed.” J.A. 3585–86. The district court concluded that this construction has four limitations. First, oxidation “must be an active, not a passive, process.” J.A. 14059. Second, “all or substantially all” of the reduced coenzyme Q10 must be converted during the oxidation step. Id. Third, oxidation must occur either before the extraction step in claim 22 or after the extraction step in claim 33. Id. Fourth, oxidation must occur separately from the culturing, disruption, and extraction steps. Id. Kaneka argues that the district erred for two reasons. First, the claims do not require active conversion of reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized coenzyme Q10. Second, the claims do not require that “all or substantially all” of the reduced coenzyme Q10 be oxidized in a single step. Defendants counter that the claim language requires that the recited steps be performed in order. Defendants contend that the order necessarily requires that “all or substantially all” of the coenzyme Q10 be oxidized during the oxidation step, and that no oxidation can occur during other steps. We agree that oxidation requires an active step. A process is defined as “an act, or a series of acts.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A] pro- cess . . . consists of a series of acts or steps . . . . It consists of doing something, and therefore has to be carried out or performed.”). Here, because the claims affirmatively recite the step of “oxidizing,” “oxidizing” cannot be interpreted as doing nothing, or to simply allow oxidation to occur on its own. Nor can the other recited claim steps, such as culturing or disrupting, suffice as the active step resulting in oxidation. If those other steps qualify as the KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY 11 oxidation step, the patentee’s inclusion of a separate oxidation step would have no significance. The oxidation step requires action, but it does not require the use of an oxidizing agent. Though the preferred embodiment uses an oxidizing agent, see, e.g., ’340 Patent col. 17 l. 13., we must be cautious not to import preferred limitations into the claims. See Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 865 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Dependent claims 25, 26, 37, and 38 also recite an oxidizing agent, ’340 Patent col. 25 ll. 61–64; col. 26 ll. 44–47, but it would be improper to import a claim limitation from a dependent claim into an independent claim, see InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 690 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The doctrine of claim differentiation is at its strongest . . . ‘where the limitation that is sought to be ‘read into’ an independent claim already appears in a dependent claim.’”)). Thus, an oxidizing agent is not required to carry out the “oxidizing” step. We also agree that some oxidation must occur before the extraction step in claim 22 or after the extraction step in claim 33. Where the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, we ordinarily construe the claim to require order. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A method claim can also be construed to require that steps be performed in order where the claim implicitly requires order, for example, if the language of a claimed step refers to the completed results of the prior step. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 473 F.3d 1213, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We hold that the oxidation step in claims 22 and 33 refers to the product of the previous step, and, therefore, at least some action resulting in oxidation must be applied to the product of the disruption step in claim 22, and the product of the extraction step in claim 33. 12 KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY We disagree that the claimed order excludes passive oxidation during other process steps. See, e.g., ’340 Patent col. 16 ll. 16–34 (discussing passive oxidation). The claims’ preamble term “comprises” indicates that additional oxidation steps or results are not excluded. See, e.g., Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. ScheringPlough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Requiring active oxidation during the oxidation step preserves the claimed order, but does not exclude passive oxidation during other steps. We also disagree with the district court’s conclusion and Defendants’ arguments on appeal suggesting that the claimed order requires that each step occur independently or separately. In claim 22, some action resulting in oxidization must be applied to the product of the disruption step. See ’340 Patent col. 25 ll. 32–54 (“disrupting . . . to obtain reduced coenzyme Q10; and oxidizing thus-obtained reduced coenzyme Q10 to oxidized coenzyme Q10 . . . .”) (emphasis added). This does not necessarily mean that the disruption step has to be complete before the oxidation step begins. The claims do not exclude a continuous process, in which later steps are initiated as soon as at least some product from the previous step forms, while previous steps are still ongoing. The written description contemplates continuous process steps. See, e.g., ’340 Patent col. 8 l. 50 (continuous nutrient feed); col. 16 ll. 7–8 (continuous extraction). 1 The claims do not 1 Kaneka admitted at oral argument that the ex- traction step recited in claim 22 occurs after the disrupting and oxidation steps. Oral argument at 11:55–12:07 (available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argumentrecordings/all/kaneka.html) (“I think it’s pretty clear that when you use the term ‘and then’ the patent holder was saying that extraction here in claim 22 is coming after disruption and oxidizing.”). Kaneka’s admission implies KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY 13 exclude a process in which every claim step is occurring simultaneously. By the same logic, the extraction step recited in claim 33 does not have to be complete before the oxidation step begins as long as the oxidation step is applied to at least some extracted product. In other words, the claims require order but do not require discrete steps. The district court concluded that “all or substantially all” of the reduced coenzyme Q10 must be oxidized during the oxidation step. We disagree. There is no mention in the specification of a yield requirement. Nor is yield relevant to the order of the claimed steps. To summarize, the oxidation step requires some action that results in oxidation but does not require oxidation of “all or substantially all” of the coenzyme Q10. Because the oxidation step indicates that oxidation is carried out on the product from the previous disruption step in claim 22, some action resulting in oxidation must occur after some product from the disruption step forms and before the extraction step in claim 22 begins. Similarly, some action resulting in oxidation must occur after at least some reduced coenzyme Q10 has been extracted in claim 33. Because the claims read on a continuous process, a process step does not need to be complete before another step begins. Thus, it is not required that any one step be carried out separately or independently of any other step.