Court Opinion

ID: 9498784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:27:56.041607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:03.926230
License: Public Domain

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree that the district court correctly held the patent to be valid, and that there was not inequitable conduct in obtaining the patent. However, the panel majority has misunderstood the chemistry, in holding that neutralization of 14.5% of the ma-leic acid groups means that the totality is a salt and not an acid. This flawed science led to an incorrect conclusion of law.
The claimed maleic acid copolymer has acid groups dangling from the polymer backbone, as illustrated in the district court’s opinion:
[[Image here]]
334 F.Supp.2d at 542 (words “Acid” added).
The accused copolymer is identical, but, with the addition of a small amount of base (AMP, amino methyl propanol), 14.5% of the acid groups are neutralized to form a salt. It is simply incorrect to state that the accused copolymer is the salt, for 85.5% of the acid is unchanged, remaining as the acid. This is not disputed. The district court and my colleagues have been led into scientific error by “expert” indirection, for when 85.5% of the acid remains, the product has not been converted into the salt, for 85.5% is the original claimed copolymer:
Claim 1 ... ii) ... wherein said copo-lymer is a poly(alkyl vinyl ether/maleic acid) copolymer or a poly(alkyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride) copolymer.
The copolymer is the same, whether or not 14.5% of the acid groups are neutralized. Indeed, Unilever testified that the purpose of the AMP was to act as a plasticizer to make the product less brittle. As shown in the district court’s opinion, the accused copolymer has the following structure.
*976[[Image here]]
Id. (words “Acid” and “Salt” added.)
The panel majority states that it is “unsupported by any reference to the record or any other authority — that the resulting compound is only ‘a slightly neutralized acid and not a salt.’ ” Maj. op. at 973. That is inaccurate. The record includes the following testimony of Professor William J. Brittain, a chemist and expert witness:
Q: Were you able to make any conclusion about the amount of the acid groups which are neutralized by the AMP?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: And what was your conclusion?
A: My conclusion that approximately 15 percent of the acid groups were neutralized.
Q: What happens to the remaining 85 percent of the groups in the PVM/MA acid groups?
A: They remain unchanged.
In addition, the Unilever witness, Phillip Miner, testified that the pH before addition of the AMP was 2.0, and after addition of the AMP was 3.5. These are acidic pH values,1 reflecting that only 14.5% of the acid groups have been neutralized.
My colleagues appear to have been taken in by the carefully phrased Unilever statement that “ ‘[a]ll of the experts agree that a chemical reaction between PVM/MA and AMP results in the formation of a salt.’ ” Maj. op. at 972. Of course a reaction between an acid and a base produces a salt. But a reaction between 14.5% of the acid and matching amount of base produces 14.5% salt, leaving 85.5% unreacted acid. From my colleagues’ inaccurate science, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, I must, respectfully, dissent.

. The pH at neutrality is 7.0.