Opinion ID: 772063
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Surface Active Material

Text: 21 Abbott argues that the court erred by construing the term surface active material as a pre-suspension powder because the claims are not limited to either solid or liquid form. Abbott asserts that the claims to pharmaceutical compositions depend from claim 1, so that claim 1 of each patent necessarily has a scope covering a pharmaceutical composition as well as the surface active material contained within it. Thus, Abbott argues that the court erred in concluding that the 'surface active material' is only a part or subset of the 'pharmaceutical composition.' Forest I at 18. 22 ONY responds that the independent claims to surface active material are limited to the dry state of the material before it is combined with saline to form a pharmaceutical composition, after which its properties are changed. ONY asserts that the court did not confuse independent and dependent claim concepts, but rather properly focused on the surface active material of claim 1 and found no infringement of that claim or of the dependent claims. 23 We conclude that the district court properly decided that the term surface active material means the material containing the prescribed materials in the prescribed percentages, when measured in the dry state, i.e., before being combined with the pharmaceutical carrier. Claim 1 contains the definition of the surface active material. It indicates the nature and percentage of its components, and that the measurements are made when the material is dried. However, the court erred in its further construction of the claim. When the surface active material is combined with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, it does not necessarily cease to be the claimed surface active material, as the district court erroneously found. See id. at 24 ([Once the surface active material is added to the physiological saline], the 'surface active material' described in Claim 1 of the patents in effect no longer exists.). The material as defined in claim 1 may still be present when a pharmaceutical carrier is added to it to make the compositions of claims 7 and 9. Claim 1 does not limit its scope to the material when in dried form. It simply indicates, for purposes of definition, the percentages of the components, as measured when in dried form. The claim can be infringed, even when the material is in the form of a liquid pharmaceutical composition, as long as the material has the components and percentages as recited in claim 1, when it is in dried form. That is a matter of proof, as we shall discuss infra. Stated another way, the measurement of water in dried form of surface active material is necessary to satisfy the definition of the claimed material even when the material is in the form of a pharmaceutical composition containing a greater percentage of water. We therefore conclude that claim 1 of each patent covers all surface active material that meets the claim limitations, regardless of its form as pre- or post-suspension material, and that claim 7 of the '301 patent and claim 9 of the '839 patent cover that material when combined with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. 3 24