REDACTED VERSION
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
§2£Eé¥I§¥:€"t" TIII5 BMNDYWINE BIIIIDIIIG °?°* “ OS
SHELDON SASDLER ROBERT S. BRADY 1000 WEST STREET 17TH FLOOR GREGORY J. BA.=IcOcI< ANDREW A. LUNDGREN
RICHARD A. LEVINE JOEL A. XVAITE ’ _ JOSEI»I~I M. BARRY N[·\TTHE\VB. LLRN
RIcI~LARn A. ZAI=I>A BRENT C. SILAEEER WILMINGTON, DELAWARE I 980 I SEAN M. BE.AcII JOSERR A. MALEITARO
FREDERICK W. IOEST DARIEL P. Joaxsox DONALD J. BOwM-xx, JR. .AI>RI.A B. MARTIRELLI
RICHARD H. MORSE CRAIG D. GREAR P.O. BOX 391 TIMOTHY P. CAIR? MIGILAEL W. McDERMOTT
D. I CMB E T. *1. IH *SE. I - - I ~ IL H . YE M. L.M.E .
JO;I€I¤1I~i§·i. SECIEIIOI I-$33321 Slat}; VI ‘L“‘“GT°*= DEM ARE I9899·0»9I IE.‘§2.$§‘i`§II-IKIEI E¤§°§iT‘IIOr%?II“`
CRAIG A. ILARSMTZ MARTI>: S. LESSRER (3 O-,) 5-] I _66OO MARY F. DUGAR D. Fox MLEITAMARAWALRER
BARRY M. \VILLOUG1·1BY P.ALLI>."E K. MORGAN _ " ERIR EDWARDS JENNIEER R. NOEL
Josr W. INGERSOLL C. BARR FLIRX (800) 2:3-2234 (DE ONLY) IQERTSETEI J. EROS JLLIE C. PASARO
ANTHOB-'Y G. FLYNTJ XATALIE WOLE T IAN S. FREDERICKS ADAM \V. POE:
JEROME K. GROSSMAS LISA B. GOODMAN JAMES J. G.ALL.AGI-ER Sam J. REIIJE:-EERG
EUGENE A. DIPRINZIO Joux W. SI-LAW SE.A:< T. GREECIIER MICIIELE SRERRWTA
ia§§§¥f?‘§‘L§iI§‘ ` i?,i§i‘}1 "`I HO WESI*’I*E_$RE¤ ?IK‘i€§¥§§Ti§I—E§*â€S†§§§%l2Z;€I§%¥§';¢im
WILLIAM D. JOII>:STO>: MICH.-\.EL R. NESTOR P~O» Box >94 RICILARD S. JLLIE CHAD S.C. STo»ER (SC ORLY)
TIMOTIY J. SNYDER MAITREER D. LLRE GEORGE-O\W_ DELAWIKE Iggy KAREN E. KELLER JOI-I>: E. TRACEY
BRUCE L. SILvERsTEIt< ROLIN P. BISSELL ., .,‘ . .,. JENNIERM. KJNKUS MARGARET B. Warn-;xI.A>;
W1LLl.·\.\i W. BOWSER SCOTT A HOLT (’O··) S’6'°’7I EI>wARI> J. KOSMOWSKI SI·rA.Rox M. ZIEG
LAR.R\‘I.TARAB1COS Ions T. D%vSE»· (800) 255-2234 (DE ONLY)
R1 . .A.I>L ,I. MI; - LEARY .. . - ..
K.SIiI.;IE.iEERTO R CHRZ1IS‘T.\I\A§~$ DOUGLAS WRIGIIT FM" (°O2)8°6`9°’S V SPECIAL COLESEL U _ SENIORCOLNSEL
$rtiii§§?fI‘$$?§I$†iiaR%?'siSéE§IO IIIWI‘<>I¤
'I`ERESA.·\.C`1·I':ZEl>{ NORMAR NI.PO\VEL1. ILAREx L. PASCALE _ N _ OFrCOLiNSEL
Omar DIAL; 302-571-6651 "·*m““ *‘“"D°†§§;§,;,,BBF§§§mv,,D
DIRECT FAR: 302-576-3319
[email protected]
FILED UNDER SEAL
February 23, 2006
BY HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. Dal
Dear Judge Sleet:
Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order of March 31, 2005, 1 write in further support of
plaintiff Ventana Medical Systems, lnc.’s request for permission to file a motion for partial
summary judgment regarding the subject matter of infringement. This reply letter brief responds
to three issues raised in defendant Dal
First, Dako stated that it is withdrawing its defense that the Artisan device lacks a nozzle.
See Dako 2/16/2006 Ltr. at 1. This statement, together with Dal
(c) and (d) of independent claims 1 and 45, as well as the additional elements of dependent
claims 2 and 3. Accordingly, at the very least, partial summary judgment of infringement with
respect to these claim elements is appropriate and should be entered.
DBOl:2002493.l 0616361003
Case 1:04-cv—O1522-G|\/IS Document 86 Filed O3/O3/2006 Page 2 of 3
Younc CoNAwAv STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
February 23, 2006
Page 2
Second, Dako asserts that Ventana is raising an untimely claim construction argument
regarding the phrase "plurality of reagent container supports." See Dako 2/16/2006 Ltr. at 1.
Ventana is doing nothing of the kind. No dispute exists regarding the proper construction of this
phrase. Both sides agree that "plurality†means "more than one," and "reagent container
support" means the structure that supports a reagent container.
Third, Dako argues that in the accused Artisan machine, a single ring platform ("the Ring
Platform") supports all 50 of the reagent containers, and therefore, the Artisan does not have a
"plurality of reagent container supports." Dako’s argument misses the mark. The claim element
at issue reads in its entirety as follows: "a reagent carousel having a plurality of reagent
container supports thereon.†The claims of the ‘90l patent clearly call for a single structure,
namely "a reagent carousel," which has or includes a plurality of structures "thereon" that
support the reagent containers, namely the "reagent container supports." The Artisan plainly
meets this requirement.
More specifically, in the Artisan, the Ring Platform is the claimed "reagent carousel."
The Ring Platform rotates to move the reagent containers to their required positions. However,
as Ventana will demonstrate if permitted to file its motion, the Ring Platform is not the structure
that corresponds to the claimed "supports." Rather, as explained in Ventana’s opening letter of
February 9, the "supports†in the Artisan which prevent each of the reagent containers from
falling off of the rotating Ring Platform are what Dako refers to in its February 16 letter as
[ci at 2
(emphasis added). These slots are highlighted by arrows in the second figure in Dako’s February
16 letter. See id lt is undisputed that this
"vertical cylindrical structure" containing the
50 slots——one for each reagent container-——1s a
separate structure that Dako attaches to the pggg g
Ring Platform by screws or rivets. When the
Artisan is used, a plastic protrusion on the rear
surface of each of the 50 reagent containers is ... ,.., tt.sii f segssgit
slid behind a separate one of each of the 50 J ..ii pf ppr’ .s/is. _
slots, thus preventing each container from ..i. liiiiiiii s
falling off of the Ring Platform. The plastic tiii Q ....—rr..—r. ...r.r A
protrusion is visible in this photograph of a
reagent container:
risr r. .
... .. ..... ,
DBOlZ2002¤·l93.l 0616361003
Case 1:04-cv-O1522—G|\/IS Document 86 Filed O3/O3/2006 Page 3 of 3
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
February 23, 2006
Page 3
Absent the 50 slots——or "supports"———each associated reagent container would fall off of the
rotating Ring Platform during operation.
Dako purports to dispute these simple facts by claiming that the slots merely
Id This is unsound. A simple
demonstration of the Artisan to the Court will plainly reveal that there is no dispute, much less a
genuine one, about the fact that absent the slot "supp0rts," the reagent containers will fall off of
the Artisan. Even taking the facts in the light most favorable to Dako, Ventana will be able to
show in its motion for partial summary judgment that no genuine issue of material fact exists and
that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, Ventana respectfully submits that the Court should grant its
request to file its motion for partial summary judgment.
Respectfully yours,
Richard H. Morse (No. 531)
RHM:mmeeh
cc: Clerk of the Court (By E-filing and Hand Delivery)
Timothy Devlin, Esquire (By E—filing and Hand Delivery)
Michael E. Zeli ger, Esquire (By E-mail and Federal Express)
REDACTED VERSION:
cc: Clerk of the Court (By E-filing)
James M. Lennon, Esquire (By E—filing)
Francis DiGiovanni, Esquire (By E—filing)
Michael E. Zeliger, Esquire (By E-mail)
DBOl:2002493.l 0616361003
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms