Opinion ID: 1038335
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Seldon

Text: SkinMedica argues that Seldon, an international patent application listed on the face of only the ’746 patent, “expressly acknowledges that three-dimensional culturing with beads provides the same inherent advantages—i.e., mimicking an in vivo environment—as other three- dimensional culturing.” Reply Br. 30. Specifically, SkinMedica asserts Seldon teaches that: Cells cultured in three dimensions using beads (i.e., cells that “formed attachments to both the bead surface and other cells” and “grew as bridges between . . . beads”)—as opposed to “cells attached as monolayers” on “the bead’s surface”—“were more reminiscent of that expected in vivo.” Reply Br. 30 (quoting Seldon). At oral argument though, Histogen contended that SkinMedica’s reliance on Seldon was improper because SkinMedica raised Seldon for the first time in its reply brief on appeal. Oral Argument available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argumentrecordings/2012-1560/all 26:36-50. We agree. Advanced Display Systems detailed particularity requirement may, however, be a helpful framework for determining whether a patentee has clearly intended to rely on a portion of an incorporated document to effect or avoid a disclaimer. Cf. Helmsderfer, 527 F.3d at 1381. (discussing how patentees must “clearly express an intent” to disclaim the ordinary meaning of the words they use in a claim). 38 SKINMEDICA INC v. HISTOGEN INC Clearly, Seldon is not part of the intrinsic record we consider for claim construction. It was listed on the face of the ’746 patent as a reference cited during prosecution. But Seldon is not in evidence. It is not in the record on appeal and played no part in the proceedings below. Indeed, when referring to Seldon in its reply brief, SkinMedica could only cite to a publically available copy of the reference, not the record. See Reply Br. 30. Thus, Seldon is, at best, extrinsic evidence belatedly cited by SkinMedica in its reply brief. Even as extrinsic evidence, though, we decline to consider Seldon. Seldon is a technically-dense patent application. It has a fifty-one page written description and twenty-four claims directed at “hepatocytes in three dimensional support systems.” Seldon at 1. SkinMedica crafts a nuanced theory about cell culturing with beads by simply quoting a few short disjointed phrases from the lengthy reference. Yet it has provided no context for those quotes or any reasoning for its conclusions past the quotes themselves. And because it waited until its reply brief on appeal to first mention Seldon, neither the district court nor Histogen have had an opportunity to fully discuss the importance of the disclosures in the reference. “[E]xtrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art” during claim construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d 1317. However, SkinMedica’s tardiness has so shaded what light Seldon may have shed on the relevant art here that we cannot fairly consider it. We simply cannot decipher the import of the reference without adequate context. SkinMedica has waived its ability to rely on the reference for claim construction purposes on appeal. See Conoco Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] party may not introduce new claim construction arguments on appeal or alter the scope of the claim construction positions it took below.”); Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“An SKINMEDICA INC v. HISTOGEN INC 39 appellate court retains case-by-case discretion over whether to apply waiver.”).