Opinion ID: 209671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claim Construction, Trial and Summary Judgment

Text: Claim 4 of the ′649 patent is representative of all of the asserted claims: A process of substantially preventing the formation of at least one nitrosamine in a harvested tobacco plant, the process comprising: drying at least a portion of the plant, while said portion is uncured, yellow, and in a state susceptible to having the formation of nitrosamines arrested, in a controlled environment and for a time sufficient to substantially prevent the formation of said at least one nitrosamine; wherein said controlled environment comprises air free of combustion exhaust gases and an airflow sufficient to substantially prevent an anaerobic condition around the vicinity of said plant portion; and wherein said controlled environment is provided by controlling at least one of humidity, temperature, and airflow. The district court construed three terms relevant to this appeal: substantially prevent the formation of at least one nitrosamine, controlled environment, and anaerobic condition. The court construed substantially prevent the formation of at least one nitrosamine to mean the level of at least one of the nitrosamines falls within the following ranges: less than about 0.05 μg/g for NNN, less than about 0.10 μg/g for NAT plus NAG, and less than about 0.05 μg/g for NNK. [3] Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 8:01-cv-1504, slip op. at 2 (D.Md. Mar. 31, 2004) ( Markman Order ). The court then construed controlled environment to mean controlling one or more of humidity, temperature and airflow in the curing barn, in a manner different from conventional curing, in order to substantially prevent the formation of TSNAs. Id. Finally, the court construed anaerobic condition to mean an oxygen deficient condition (such as is created by an atmosphere of combustion gases or from the release of carbon dioxide by the plant during cure) which promotes microbial nitrate reductase activity. [4] Id. at 1-2. These claim constructions are not disputed in this appeal. The district court held a bench trial on RJR's inequitable conduct defense in January and February of 2005. Star and RJR also filed cross motions for summary judgment on RJR's indefiniteness defense, and RJR filed another summary judgment motion on its anticipation and best mode defenses. On January 19, 2007, the district court issued its decisions on the parties' summary judgment motions. The court granted RJR's motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of both patents are invalid for indefiniteness, holding that the term anaerobic condition was indefinite. Indefiniteness Order, slip op. at 12-14. [5] The court also denied RJR's motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims are invalid due to anticipation and violations of the best mode requirement, holding that Star raised genuine issues of material fact as to those defenses. [6] Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 8:01-cv-1504, slip op. at 12-15 (D.Md. Jan. 19, 2007) ( Anticipation Order ). On June 26, 2007, the district court issued a decision on RJR's inequitable conduct defense. The court held both of Star's asserted patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and entered final judgment in favor of RJR. See Inequitable Conduct Order, slip op. at 46. Star timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).