Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01278-KAJ Document 302 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
YOUNG CoNAwAv STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
E§§%?é§S€;?‘”" i§;t‘2‘ER§¥%;“" THE BMNDYWJNE BUILDING t;§T§?i13?.$rtiEL*“°" ““L° S t?t§%;$.§t?ttta....
SHELDox SASDLER ROBERTS. BRADY ]()O() WEST STREET 17TH FLOOR GREGoRYJ. BABCOCK ANDREW A. Li;: RICHARD A. LEY1: Rica.-xRD A. ZAPRA BRENT C. SELAEEER WILNIINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 SEAS M. BEACH JOSEPH A NIALFITANO
FREDERICK W. iossr DANIEL P. JOHNSON DONALD J. BOWMAN. JR. ADRIA B. Y\’1ARTIXELLl
RTCRARD 1-1 MoRSE CRATG D. GREAR P.O. Box 391 TIMOTHY P. CAIR}? IQIICHAEL WL BGZDERXIOTT
. ·1.-R . , , ~ li · .¤A ...- .
R.;;L‘i.€Y`t$E;§§tiO. "étiéililk 11’¤L~¤~¤T¤~~ PE1-WARE 19899-<>»91 .r;%?.§*;$%`t*i`r1B&L‘§. E..t;¥t¥\m%;i“`
CRATG A. JC-xmxirz MART1r< S. LESSNER (307) 5716600 MARY F. DEGAN D. Eox MUTFANIAFLA-\\'.»\LKER
BARRY M. YVILLOUGHBY PALLTRE K. MORGAN — ERIN EDWARDS JENNIFER R. NOEL
Josv W. INGERSDLL C. BARR FLINN (SOO) 253-2234 (DE ONLY) KERNETH J. ENOS J1JL1E C. PA:~;ARo
.·\NTHON‘z' G. FLYRN NArALiE WOLF Frm; (302) 5yT_T253 1AN S. FREDERTCRS ADAM W. POFF
JEROME K. GRosSMA:~: LISA B. GooDMA:< .l:\.\lES J. GALLAGHER SETH J. REIDENBERG
EUGENE A. DIPRINZIO Jorrw W. Sl-l.-\\\’ ——-— SEAR T. GREEcHER MICHELE SHERELETYA
JAMES L. PA·rro>:. JR. JAMES P. HUGHES. JR. STEPFL-XNIE L. HANSEN MONTE T. SQUIRE
ROBERT L. THOMAS EDWIN J. HARRON DAxvx M. JDNES MTCELAEL P. STAFFORD
WTLLTAM D Jox-rxsrox M1cELAE1. R. NESTOR DIRECT DIAL: (302) 571-6689 RICHARD S. Juris CHAD S.C. STO\'ER(SC ONLY)
T.- A Mn .*D.L*‘ R. · , JC J .°E.T» ‘
B§i%2"£ Qfiééitits RQ§§?BE..t€E DMT FM- <302> ¤76·333—‘ Eiiimm. ttiia £¥.§‘§m.‘%`§E&—rm..
\\`l1,Ll;\N1 W BowsER SCOTTA. HOLT _I$h9~W@YC$[·C0m EDWARD J. KOSMOWSKI SHARON M. ZTEG
LARRYJ T:\H.~\BlC`OS JDHN T. DORSEY
R1cr—1ARD A DiL1sERro. JR. M.BLAKE CLEARY
MELAM1; K SHARP CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS \VRIGHT SPECIAL COUNSEL SE:<10R COUNSEL
CASSASDRA F ROBERTS DANIELLE Grass JoH>: D. MCLAJJGHLTN. JR. CURTIS J. CROWTHER
RTCHARD J A. FOPPER JOH:~: J. PASCHETTO ELENA C. NoRMAx
TERESA A. CHEEK XoRMA>2 M. PowEL1. KAREN L. PASCALE OF CouxSEL
PATRICIA A. WIDDOSS STUART B Youxc
EDWARD B. X1AX\\'ELL.2ND
February 28, 2006
BY CM/ECF
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Cryovac. Inc. v. Pechiney Plastic Packaging. Inc.. C.A. No. 04-1278-KA]
Dear Judge Jordan:
S/72UlZ/CII/ZE Beec/mm v. Apotar Corp., No. 04-1522 (Fed. Cir. February 24, 2006),
forwarded to you with Mr. Powers’ letter of February 27, 2006, is indeed the case that Mr.
Farabow, counsel for Cryovac, referred to at the oral argument in this case on December 16,
2005. Unfortunately, the Smit/zkliize v. Apotex case did not decide the Scripps/At/arztic
T /zernzop/czstics conflict raised at that hearing. Nor does it Support Pechiney’s position on claim
construction in this case.
In the slip opinion, the panel majority specifically states with regard to that conflict that
"we need not address this controversy here." Smit/zk/izze Beec/mm v. Apotex Corp., No. 04-1522,
slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. February 24, 2006). Further, in the serrterrce immediately following that
quoted at page 2 of Mr. Powers’ letter, the panel majority stated that " we take no position on
whether a product·by-process claim is construed with reference to the process steps." Id. at 12,
n. 7. The majority opinion did, however, state that "if those product-by—pr0cess claims produced
a different product than that disclosed by the ‘723 patent, there would be an argument that the
‘723 patent disclosure did not anticipate. In re Luck, 476 F. 2d 650, 653 (CCPA 1973)." In the
present case, the Slralr patent teaches that "orientation," as defined in the patent, is necessary to
produce the properties desired in the final product. In fact Pechiney’s own expert, Dr. Mount,
has conceded that the properties of the final product change depending on how the orientation is
accomplished. See D.I. 254, Ex. 221 at 57:20-59:6.
DB0l:20072l4.l 0635271001

Case 1:04-cv—01278-KAJ Document 302 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 2 of 2
YoUNo CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
February 28, 2006
Page 2
Judge Newman’s dissent does rationalize Scripps and Atlantic T lzermoplczstics and makes
it clear that all claim limitations must be given effect.
We believe that Smit/zklizze Beec/mm will be seeking en banc review of this decision, as
the panel majority reached the decision of anticipation without first construing the claims at issue
as Federal Circuit precedent requires. Anomalously, the panel maj ority’s decision would allow a
specific product to invalidate the patent claims, although the same product would not infringe the
claims. In the past, the Federal Circuit has required that claims be interpreted the same for
validity and infringement and has uniformly held that "that which infringes, if later, would
anticipate, if earlier." See Judge Newman’s dissent, at p. 2.
Thus, contrary to Mr. Farabow’s hope as stated at the December hearing, the Federal
Circuit did not resolve the Scripps/Atla1ztic T lzermoplczstics conflict, and we believe that Mr.
Powers’ letter incorrectly constmes the applicability of the Smit/zklizze v. Apotex case to the
present one.
Respecthilly s
ct)
J W. Shaw
J WS:prt
cc: Clerk of the Court (by hand delivery)
N. Richard Powers, Esquire (by hand delivery)
Steven R. Trybus, Esquire (by e—mail)
Ford F. Farabow, Esquire (by e—mail)
DB0l:20072l4.l gggjgyjggj