Court Opinion

ID: 9389059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 15:01:34.321425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.665985
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1603   Document: 49     Page: 1   Filed: 04/24/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

         CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION,
                Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

 GW PHARMA LIMITED, GW RESEARCH LIMITED,
             Defendants-Appellees
            ______________________

                       2022-1603
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-01180-ADA, Judge
 Alan D. Albright.
                   ______________________

                 Decided: April 24, 2023
                 ______________________

     DAVID G. WILLE, Baker Botts LLP, Dallas, TX, argued
 for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by MELISSA
 MUENKS, KURT M. PANKRATZ, CLARKE STAVINOHA;
 MICHAEL HAWES, Houston, TX.

     GERALD J. FLATTMANN, JR., Cahill Gordon & Reindel
 LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees. Also
 represented by JESSE SNYDER, AMY R. UPSHAW, King &
 Spalding LLP, Washington, DC.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49      Page: 2    Filed: 04/24/2023

 2        CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION      v. GW PHARMA LIMITED

     Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
      Canopy Growth Corp. sued GW Pharma Ltd. and GW
 Research Ltd. (collectively, GW) in the United States Dis-
 trict Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging in-
 fringement of at least claims 1–25 of its U.S. Patent No.
 10,870,632. The district court issued an order construing
 the sole disputed claim limitation: “CO2 in liquefied form
 under subcritical pressure and temperature conditions.”
 Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharmaceuticals PLC, No. 20-
 cv-01180, 2021 WL 8015834, at *4–15 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27,
 2021). Based on the district court’s construction, the par-
 ties stipulated to non-infringement, and the court then en-
 tered final judgment in favor of GW on infringement and
 dismissed GW’s remaining affirmative defenses and coun-
 terclaims without prejudice. Canopy appeals. Because the
 phrase “subcritical pressure and temperature conditions,”
 as used in the claims here, requires both pressure and tem-
 perature to be subcritical, we affirm.
                               I
     The ’632 patent describes and claims processes for pro-
 ducing an extract containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
 and/or cannabidiol (CBD) from cannabis using liquid car-
 bon dioxide (i.e., CO2). CO2 can exist in the solid, liquid,
 and gas phases. But when temperature and pressure are
 high enough, CO2 can transition from the liquid or gas
 phase into a supercritical fluid state. The lowest combina-
 tion of temperature and pressure at which this transition
 can occur is the critical point; only if both temperature and
 pressure are above the critical point will CO2 enter the su-
 percritical fluid state.
     CO2 can be described as subcritical when either its tem-
 perature or its pressure is below the critical point, and, put-
 ting aside its solid phase (which is not relevant here), CO2
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49     Page: 3    Filed: 04/24/2023

 CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION     v. GW PHARMA LIMITED          3

 can be in the subcritical state as either a liquid or a gas,
 depending on the specific temperature and pressure of the
 CO2. When its temperature is supercritical but its pres-
 sure is subcritical, CO2 will form a gas because the pres-
 sure is not sufficient to force the CO2—expanding due to
 the high temperature—to liquify. In contrast, when its
 temperature is subcritical but its pressure is supercritical,
 the CO2 will form a liquid. And when both temperature
 and pressure are subcritical, CO2 can form either a liquid
 or a gas, depending on the specific temperature and pres-
 sure. The critical-point temperature for CO2 is 31°C, and
 the critical-point pressure for CO2 is 73.8 bar (or 72.8 atm).
 The parties do not dispute any of those principles, which
 are depicted in the CO2 phase diagram below. 1

     1    Canopy contends in its reply brief that “[t]he pres-
 ence of impurities in the CO2 can result in liquefied CO2 at
 a temperature above what is generally understood as the
 critical temperature of CO2.” Reply Br. at 3 n.1 (citing J.A.
 1215). Neither the document Canopy cites nor the argu-
 ment Canopy makes appears in Canopy’s briefing before
Case: 22-1603       Document: 49    Page: 4   Filed: 04/24/2023

 4          CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION    v. GW PHARMA LIMITED

 J.A. 90.
     Independent claim 1 of the ’632 patent recites
         1. A process for producing an extract contain-
     ing Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or canna-
     bidiol (CBD), and optionally the carboxylic acids
     thereof, from a cannabis plant material or a pri-
     mary extract thereof, said process comprising:
                (1) subjecting the cannabis plant material
            or primary extract thereof to CO2 in liquefied
            form under subcritical pressure and tem-
            perature conditions to extract cannabinoid
            components; and
                (2) reducing the pressure and/or tempera-
            ture to separate tetrahydrocannabinol and/or
            cannabidiol, and optionally the carboxylic ac-
            ids thereof, from the CO2.
 ’632 patent, col. 14, lines 30–41 (bolding added for empha-
 sis). The only other independent claim, claim 14, is rele-
 vantly similar, and all claims of the ’632 patent include the
 limitation at issue.
    The ’632 patent’s specification lists the phrase at issue
 among itemized temperature and pressure conditions for

 the district court, notwithstanding GW’s argument before
 the district court that CO2 is a gas under these conditions.
 Even if this court could take judicial notice of the document
 for its content, which has not been requested or justified,
 Canopy has doubly forfeited this argument. See In re
 Google Technology Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed.
 Cir. 2020) (arguments not presented to the reviewed tribu-
 nal are generally forfeited); Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hos-
 pira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
 (arguments not raised before us until reply briefing are for-
 feited).
Case: 22-1603       Document: 49     Page: 5     Filed: 04/24/2023

 CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION       v. GW PHARMA LIMITED           5

 CO2 that are “[i]n accordance with the invention.” Id., col.
 5, lines 6–20. Specifically, it provides that extraction can
 occur
       with the aid of CO2 under supercritical pressure
       and temperature conditions at a temperature in
       the range of approx[.] 31° C. to 80° C. and at a pres-
       sure in the range of approx. 75 bar to 500 bar, or in
       the subcri[t]i[c]al range at a temperature of ap-
       prox. 20° C. to 30° C. and a supercritical pressure
       of approx. 100 bar to 350 bar; or extracted under
       subcri[t]i[c]al pressure and temperature condi-
       tions; and the obtained primary extract is sepa-
       rated under subcri[t]i[c]al conditions, or under
       conditions that are subcri[t]i[c]al in terms of pres-
       sure and supercritical in terms of temperature.
 Id.
     The limitation at issue, with the other possible CO2
 conditions quoted above, also appears in the prosecution
 history. The ’632 patent issued from a continuation of Ap-
 plication No. 10/399,362. During prosecution of that appli-
 cation, the applicant sought claims to these conditions in a
 claimed process that it described as reciting three “alterna-
 tive steps,” J.A. 372 (emphasis omitted), depicted below:

 J.A. 366. As described by the applicant during prosecution,
 these alternative steps permitted extraction via CO2 under
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49      Page: 6    Filed: 04/24/2023

 6        CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION      v. GW PHARMA LIMITED

 “(a) supercritical pressure and temperature conditions; or
 (b) subcritical temperature range and a supercritical pres-
 sure; or (c) subcritical pressure and temperature condi-
 tions.” J.A. 372–73. The ’362 application issued with
 claims directed to these steps as U.S. Patent No. 8,895,078.
      For the application that gave rise to the ’632 patent,
 Application No. 14/276,165, the prosecution history starts
 off similarly, in that the applicant began by seeking claims
 directed to the same three alternative steps. J.A. 399. But
 in response to an examiner rejection of the claims over
 prior art that discloses the use of supercritical fluid CO2 for
 extraction, Webster (U.S. Patent No. 6,403,126), J.A. 404–
 05, the applicant amended the pending claims to remove
 the first of the alternative steps—“under supercritical pres-
 sure and temperature conditions at a temperature in a
 range of approx. 31°C to 80°C and at a pressure in a range
 of approx. 75 bar or 500 bar,” J.A. 420. Then, in response
 to the examiner’s continued rejection based on Webster’s
 disclosure of supercritical fluid CO2 and Webster’s state-
 ment that temperature and pressure can be adjusted, J.A.
 431–33; J.A.445–48, the applicant amended the claims to
 also remove the second alternative step—“in liquefied form
 in the subcritical range at a temperature of approx. 20°C
 to 30°C and a supercritical pressure of approx. 100 bar to
 350 bar,” J.A. 437. This amendment left the applicant with
 claims directed only to the third of the alternative steps—
 “in liquefied form under subcritical pressure and tempera-
 ture conditions,” though further limited through amend-
 ment to “a pressure of 70 bar or less and a temperature of
 approx. 20°C to 30°C.” Id. The applicant ultimately can-
 celed the claims, J.A. 152, but the issued claims now in dis-
 pute include this same phrase (without the numerical
 pressure and temperature limits).
     The district court concluded that the phrase, “CO2 in
 liquefied form under subcritical pressure and temperature
 conditions,” requires that both the pressure and tempera-
 ture be subcritical. Canopy, 2021 WL 8015834, at *15. The
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49      Page: 7   Filed: 04/24/2023

 CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION     v. GW PHARMA LIMITED          7

 court relied on the claim’s use of “and” instead of “or,”
 which it viewed as indicating that the claim required both
 pressure and temperature to be subcritical. Id. at *4. The
 court concluded that the use of “conditions” (a plural) does
 nothing to change this. Id. Looking next to the specifica-
 tion, the court viewed the above-quoted passage, in column
 5, as listing three alternative options, rejecting Canopy’s
 argument that the second, which includes subcritical tem-
 perature and supercritical pressure, is a subset of the third,
 which is defined by the “subcritical pressure and tempera-
 ture conditions” phrase at issue. Id. at *8–10. Finally, the
 court viewed the prosecution history as not “provid[ing]
 any additional insight . . . beyond the plain language of the
 claims and the specification.” Id. at *14. The prosecution
 history statements, the court determined, “mirror those in
 the specification, namely, that the claims in the parent pa-
 tent and the as-filed/amended claims in the asserted patent
 recite three pressure and temperature conditions.” Id. The
 court likewise deemed extrinsic evidence, involving the use
 of similar but notably different phrases, to be “not directly
 relevant” and not sufficient to “outweigh the intrinsic evi-
 dence.” Id. at *15.
     The district court entered final judgment, following the
 parties’ stipulation to non-infringement, on February 25,
 2022. Canopy timely appealed on March 24, 2022. See 28
 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). We have juris-
 diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                               II
     “[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conduct-
 ing claim construction.” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21
 F.4th 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (alteration in original)
 (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed.
 Cir. 2005) (en banc)). But
     [w]e generally give words of a claim their ordinary
     meaning in the context of the claim and the whole
     patent document; the specification particularly,
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49     Page: 8    Filed: 04/24/2023

 8        CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION     v. GW PHARMA LIMITED

     but also the prosecution history, informs the deter-
     mination of claim meaning in context, including by
     resolving ambiguities; and even if the meaning is
     plain on the face of the claim language, the pa-
     tentee can, by acting with sufficient clarity, dis-
     claim such a plain meaning or prescribe a special
     definition.
 SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network
 Technology Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (al-
 teration in original) (quoting World Class Technology Corp.
 v. Ormo Corp., 769 F.3d 1120, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). That
 undertaking is ultimately one of law, for us to make de
 novo. Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 808. But sometimes there
 are underlying determinations of fact, concerning usage or
 other matters extrinsic to the patent, and we review such
 determinations for clear error. Id.
       The ordinary meaning of “subcritical pressure and tem-
 perature conditions” favors the construction advanced by
 GW and accepted by the district court. In that phrase, with
 its use of “and,” the term “subcritical” operates most plainly
 as a prepositive modifier that modifies either both “pres-
 sure” and “temperature” or both “pressure conditions” and
 “temperature conditions.” We have held that the ordinary
 construction of language such as this reads the “prepositive
 . . . modifier [as] normally appl[ying] to the entire series.”
 SIMO Holdings, 983 F.3d at 1377 (quoting Antonin Scalia
 & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of
 Legal Texts § 19, at 147 (2012)). Thus, the ordinary mean-
 ing is that both pressure and temperature must be subcrit-
 ical for the limitation to be satisfied. See id.
     Canopy disagrees. It contends that the patent discloses
 two embodiments, one in which CO2 has both supercritical
 pressure and temperature, which it opted not to claim, and
 one in which either the temperature or pressure of CO2 (or
 both) are subcritical, part of which the district court ex-
 cluded without sufficient reason. It offers a construction
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49     Page: 9    Filed: 04/24/2023

 CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION     v. GW PHARMA LIMITED          9

 that it contends is “reasonabl[e]” and captures the full
 scope of this purported second embodiment—one in which
 the phrase “pressure and temperature” is read as a unit
 modifying “conditions” in such a way that it means a com-
 bination of “pressure and temperature conditions” that is
 subcritical. For support beyond the claim language, Can-
 opy argues that no evidence suggests that a person of ordi-
 nary skill in the art would have reason to distinguish
 between liquid CO2 with both subcritical pressure and tem-
 perature and liquid CO2 with subcritical temperature and
 supercritical pressure, as both are subcritical and function-
 ally indistinct.
     But we need not decide whether that substantive sci-
 entific context would be enough in another case to over-
 come the ordinary English-language meaning of
 “subcritical pressure and temperature conditions.” Nor
 need we decide whether one might consider Canopy’s read-
 ing of the claim “reasonable.” Here, the prosecution history
 forecloses Canopy’s construction and two-embodiment
 reading.
      During prosecution, Canopy clearly sought claims di-
 rected to three alternatives, not two: (1) supercritical fluid
 CO2, (2) CO2 with subcritical temperature and supercriti-
 cal pressure, and (3) CO2 with subcritical pressure and
 temperature conditions. J.A. 399; see also J.A. 366. Can-
 opy sequentially deleted the first and second sets of condi-
 tions from the initially sought claims, J.A. 420; J.A. 437,
 and ultimately claimed only the third set of conditions.
 And that third set of conditions must be limited to having
 both subcritical temperature and subcritical pressure be-
 cause, if the third set included CO2 with subcritical tem-
 perature and supercritical pressure, then it would entirely
 subsume the second initially claimed condition set, render-
 ing that set superfluous. See Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 810
 (“It is highly disfavored to construe terms in a way that
 renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous.” (quoting
 Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems,
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49      Page: 10    Filed: 04/24/2023

 10       CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION      v. GW PHARMA LIMITED

 Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also
 Scalia & Garner, Reading Law § 26, at 174 (“If possible,
 every word and every provision is to be given effect.”). Can-
 opy nevertheless contends that the initially claimed alter-
 natives were not mutually exclusive alternatives but were
 instead akin to a “Markush” group. But that characteriza-
 tion does not overcome the problem that the third set of
 conditions, understood as Canopy proposes, would sub-
 sume the second. Each member of a Markush group is cov-
 ered by the group, so there is no reason to include an
 alternative in a Markush group that falls entirely within
 another alternative. See Multilayer Stretch Cling Film
 Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1357
 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing Markush groups).
     This prosecution history clarifies the meaning of the
 claim language both directly and, by clarifying the specifi-
 cation’s disclosures, indirectly. The specification, like the
 claims sought earlier in prosecution, lists the three alter-
 native condition sets, but it does so with various transition
 phrases, commas, and semicolons that leave its proper
 parsing less than clear. See ’632 patent, col. 5, lines 6–20. 2

      2   As detailed above, the specification states that,
 “[i]n accordance with the invention,” extraction can occur
      with the aid of CO2 under supercritical pressure
      and temperature conditions at a temperature in
      the range of approx[.] 31° C. to 80° C. and at a pres-
      sure in the range of approx. 75 bar to 500 bar, or in
      the subcri[t]i[c]al range at a temperature of ap-
      prox. 20° C. to 30° C. and a supercritical pressure
      of approx. 100 bar to 350 bar; or extracted under
      subcri[t]i[c]al pressure and temperature condi-
      tions; and the obtained primary extract is sepa-
      rated under subcri[t]i[c]al conditions, or under
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49      Page: 11   Filed: 04/24/2023

 CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION      v. GW PHARMA LIMITED         11

 The prosecution history clarifies that, contrary to Canopy’s
 two-embodiment reading (in which the “subcritical [tem-
 perature] range . . . and supercritical pressure” is a subset
 of “subcritical pressure and temperature conditions,”
 Opening Br. at 10–11 (characterizing the former as an ex-
 ample of the latter)), this passage discloses three distinct
 embodiments, and the claims recite only one of them.
     Canopy argues that we should disregard this history
 because the relevant amendments were to claims that were
 ultimately cancelled and replaced. Reply Br. at 24 (citing
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceu-
 ticals, Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1120–22 (Fed. Cir. 2016), for the
 proposition that statements made relating to cancelled
 claims should be discounted). But the same phrase present
 in the now-cancelled claims is the now-at-issue phrase re-
 cited in the issued claims. In the prosecution history asso-
 ciated with the phrase, Canopy made clear that it
 encompasses only CO2 with both subcritical pressure and
 subcritical temperature, as explained above.
      Canopy also argues that the amendments do not
 amount to disclaimer or disavowal and therefore cannot
 justify a construction that excludes an embodiment. Can-
 opy notes that, before cancellation, the claims recited spe-
 cific numerical ranges of pressure and temperature, in
 addition to the phrase at issue, and that the issued inde-
 pendent claims omit the specific numerical ranges. But we
 need not decide whether the amendments here amount to
 disavowal or disclaimer because we need not find disa-
 vowal or disclaimer to conclude, based on a review of the
 prosecution history, that Canopy chose to claim only one of
 three options. See University of Massachusetts v. L’Oreal

     conditions that are subcri[t]i[c]al in terms of pres-
     sure and supercritical in terms of temperature.
 ’632 patent, col. 5, lines 6–20.
Case: 22-1603     Document: 49      Page: 12     Filed: 04/24/2023

 12       CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION       v. GW PHARMA LIMITED

 S.A., 36 F.4th 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The prosecution
 history, in particular, may be critical in interpreting dis-
 puted claim terms, and even where prosecution history
 statements do not rise to the level of unmistakable disa-
 vowal, they do inform the claim construction.” (internal
 quotation marks omitted) (quoting Personalized Media
 Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1345
 (Fed. Cir. 2020))). To be sure, constructions that read out
 embodiments are sometimes wrong. See Oatey Co. v. IPS
 Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We normally
 do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embod-
 iments disclosed in the specification.”); SIMO Holdings,
 983 F.3d at 1378–79 (explaining the limited reach of the
 language from Oatey, properly understood). Here, though,
 the plain language of the claims, along with the prosecu-
 tion history and the specification viewed in light of the
 prosecution history, make clear that the ’632 patent dis-
 closes three non-overlapping embodiments while claiming
 only one of them: the one in which pressure and tempera-
 ture both must be subcritical.
      Canopy’s other arguments are also unavailing. Canopy
 contends, for example, that the district court’s inclusion of
 “both” in its construction somehow rewrites the claim. But
 to achieve the object of definition or clarification, it is typi-
 cal in presenting a clarifying interpretation that one uses
 expressions absent from the interpreted language itself.
 Canopy also points to extrinsic evidence, citing references
 that use phrases that are somewhat similar to the phrase
 at issue here. Opening Br. at 37–38 (citing use of the
 phrases “subcritical conditions,” “subcritical and super-
 critical conditions,” and “a subcritical CO2 process” (quot-
 ing J.A. 161, J.A. 172–73, J.A. 177, and J.A. 192,
 respectively)). But these phrases all involve “subcritical”
 clearly modifying either “conditions” or “process,” whereas
 here, the very dispute turns on what “subcritical” modifies
 in the claim language, and the district court did not clearly
 err in deeming the evidence not directly relevant.
Case: 22-1603    Document: 49       Page: 13   Filed: 04/24/2023

 CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION     v. GW PHARMA LIMITED        13

                              III
     For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
 claim construction order and entry of final judgment of
 non-infringement in favor of GW.
                        AFFIRMED