Opinion ID: 2760666
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Patents-in-Suit

Text: This case involves five patents that relate to multiplex amplification of STR loci. Promega owns the four Promega patents outright and is the exclusive licensee of the Tautz patent. The Promega patents claim methods or kits for simultaneously determining the alleles present in a set of STR loci from DNA samples, comprising: (a) obtaining a DNA sample; (b) selecting a set of loci of the DNA sample to amplify, including at least the specific loci recited in the claim; (c) co-amplifying the selected loci in a multiplex amplification reaction; and (d) evaluating the amplified alleles to determine the number of STR that are present at each loci. See, e.g., ’660 patent, claim 5; ’235 patent, claim 1; ’598 patent, claim 23; ’771 patent, claim 5. Each of the asserted claims1 in the Promega patents includes a limitation that recites the phrase “a set of . . . 1 Promega asserted infringement of claims 25, 27– 31 of the ’660 patent, claims 18–19 and 21–23 of the ’235 patent, 10, 23–24, 27, and claim 33 of the ’598 patent, claim 5 of the ’771 patent, and claim 42 of the Tautz 6 PROMEGA CORP v. LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. loci” followed by a list of particular STR loci multiplexes of varying complexity, ranging from a 3-plex to a 14-plex. During claim construction, the district court construed the asserted claims with the transitional phrase “a set of . . . loci . . . consisting of” in the relevant limitation as “limited to products that use no loci other than those listed in the claims” (i.e., “closed loci set” claims), 2 and patent. Promega Corp. v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften E.V., No. 10-cv-0281-bbc, ECF No. 345, slip op. at 32 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2011) (hereinafter, Promega I). 2 The district court granted LifeTech’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the “closed loci set” claims (claims 25 and 27–31 of the ’660 patent), a decision that Promega did not appeal. Promega I, slip op. at 22. Representative claim 25 of the ’660 patent recites: 25. A kit for simultaneously analyzing short tan- dem repeat sequences in at least three loci, com- prising a container which has oligonucleotide primers for co-amplifying a set of at least three short tandem repeat loci, wherein the set of loci are selected from the sets of loci consisting of: D3S1539, D19S253, D13S317; D10S1239, D9S930, D20S481; ... D16S539, D7S820, D13S317, D5S818, HUMCSF1PO, HUMTPOX, HUMTH01, HUMvWFA31; and D16S539, D7S820, D13S317, D5S818, HUMF13A01, HUMFESFPS, HUMBFXIII, HUMLIPOL. PROMEGA CORP v. LIFE TECH 7 other claims with the transitional phrase “a set of . . . loci . . . comprising” in the relevant limitation as not so limited (i.e., “open loci set” claims). Promega I, slip op. at 2– 3. Claim 23 of the ’598 patent is one such claim with an “open loci set” limitation: 23. A kit for simultaneously analyzing short tan- dem repeat sequences in a set of short tandem re- peat loci from one or more DNA samples, comprising: A single container containing oligonucleotide primers for each locus in a set of short tandem repeat loci which can be co-amplified, comprising HUMCSF1PO, HUMTPOX, and HUMTH01. ’598 patent, 40:22–28 (emphasis added). This claim recites an STR profiling kit with primers that can successfully co-amplify a set of three specific STR loci. Both parties agree that the claim requires successful co-amplification of every locus in the claimed “a set of . . . loci.” Because Promega used the word “comprising” in the “a set of . . . loci” limitation, the district court concluded that claim 23 covers not only the three loci recited in the claim, but also any other loci combination containing those three recited loci—whether that combination includes 13, 1,300 or 13,000 STR loci. Promega I, slip op. at 27. The district court’s construction of the “a set of . . . loci” limitation in claim 23 and the other asserted claims is not disputed on appeal. The Tautz patent is likewise directed to a process for examining polymorphism in DNA samples. For example, the Tautz patent claims a kit for testing at least one STR locus that contains: (1) a mixture of primers; (2) a poly- ’660 patent, 67:35–68:13 (emphasis added). 8 PROMEGA CORP v. LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. merizing enzyme such as Taq polymerase; (3) nucleotides for forming replicated strands of DNA; (4) a buffer solution for the amplification; and (5) control DNA. Claim 42 of the Tautz patent recites: 42. A kit for analyzing polymorphism in at least one locus in a DNA sample, comprising: a) at least one vessel containing a mixture of pri- mers constituting between 1 and 50 of said primer pairs; b) a vessel containing a polymerizing enzyme suitable for performing a primer-directed poly- merase chain reaction; c) a vessel containing the deoxynucleotide tri- phosphates adenosine, guanine, cytosine and thymidine; d) a vessel containing a buffer solution for per- forming a polymerase chain reaction; e) a vessel containing a template DNA comprising i) a simple or cryptically simple nucleotide se- quence having a repeat motif length of 3 to 10 nu- cleotides and ii) nucleotide sequences flanking said simple or cryptically simple nucleotide se- quence that are effective for annealing at least one pair of said primers, for assaying positive performance of the method. Tautz patent, 16:43–61.