Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01505-GMS Document 85 Filed O3/31/2006 Page 1 of 2
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
§‘;:%?2T.§§;t‘“A" ?L5&;%‘2‘3RE¥Ei:“" T11EBRAN¤YW1NEBU11¤119G t\§§?*.i£i‘.‘it.-§§i2‘r*"°"°“‘°S %ii:?;.‘iA
SHELDON N. SANDLER ROBERT S. BRADY 1000 WEST STREET 17TH FLOgR GREGORY J. BAECOCK AN¤REw A. LLNDOREN
RICHARD A. LEYTNE JOEL A. \VAlTE ’ JOSEPH M. BARRY MAT1'HE\\' B. LLNN
RTCHARD A. ZAERA BRENT C. SHAEEER WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 SEAN M. BEACH JosERHA.MALE1TANo
FREDERICK W. Iossr DANIEL P. JOHNSON DONALD J. BOWMAN, JR. ADRTA B. MARTINELLI
RICHARD H. MORSE CR-uc D. P.O. BOX 391 £TMOTll;I[Y P. CATR.? MICHAEL W. McDERs1oTr
.· A T. ·. r ' . L. * M. LMI .
$2.2;;%,. L$E§é§iit,t r£;it’§§‘S.t2.S3;i*“ W11M1~¤T<1~· 1>191»~WM<19 19899-9991 M;;’&;..»is%;2`§;B&2i E;$:i.iF{€*M0.%;i“*
CRA1o A. KARsNxTz P.·\Ul.1NE K MORGAN (302) 5716600 MARY F. DUGAN D. PON MLrrrAMARA»\vALRER
BARRY M. \V1LLOUGl·1E‘x’ C. BARR FLTNN _ ERIN EDWARDS JENNIFER R. NOEL
JOSY W. INGERSOLL NATALIE WOLF (SOO) 233-2234 (DE ONLY) KENNETH J. ENos JULIE C. PANARO
ANTHONY G. FLYNN LISA B. GOODMAN FAX; (302) 5714253 IAN S. FREDER1cRs ADAM W. POFE
JEROME K. GRossMAN JOHN W. SHAw JAMES J. GALLAGHER SETH J. KETDENEERG
f“°“i‘?.‘¥§fl" é?§§€i’}‘E‘iE.§”§i¢’“ _"_ 2$§2&éi‘§E$l§1A l§L°§$é$S§§&"*
R“OiilEi1T`L.THoN1.As MICPL-\.E1.l{. NESTOR HO WEST P[NE_STp`EET DAWN M. JONES A Mics-LAEL P. STAFFORD
\v1LL1AM D. JOHNSTON MAUREEN D. LUKE P·O· BOX 394 R1crLARD S. Jour; CHAD S.C. STOVER (SC ONLY)
TTMOTHY J. SNYDER ROLIN P. BISSELL GEORGE]-OWN_ DEEMVAEE [994-; KAREN E. KELLER JOHN E. TRAcEY
BRUCE L STLYERETETN Scorr A. HOLT , _ JENNIFER M. Kmcus MARGARET B. WHrTEMAN
\V1LLxA·»1\1.’ BowsER JOHN T. DORSEY (302) 8’6'3’-il EDWARD J. KOSMOWSKJ SHARON M. ZIEG
LARRY J. TARABICOS M. BLAKE CLEARY (800) 255-2234 (DE, ONLY) JOHN C. KUFFEL
Sttixit EF1.‘iiit§é?§£;§L“ ‘““‘“”’ M <1¤2>95¤-9939 C C
. .—* . ’ .P S . T J 1.‘
§§§?pE?§?£’p%$E§§l$ %€§§;3..Ei`$f§‘§l$E‘ir WW~v·Y¤¤R¤¤¤~»~~vAY-¤¤~1 JOHN D. s§5fL%GHi‘£%? m.§¥£§t-FEET
TERESA Ai CHEEK OF CODNSEL
DIRECT DW-: ($90571-6672 r>ArRicrA A. wrbooss sruARr E. YOUNC
DIRECT FAX: (302) 576-3301 EDWARD B. MAXWELL, 2ND
[email protected]
March 31, 2006
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court
District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Lockbox 19
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Thermo Finnegan LLC v. Applera Corp.,
Civil Action No. 04-1505-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
Pursuant to District of Delaware Local Rule 7.1.2(c), Applera respectfully calls
the COurt’s attention to the Federal Circuit’s decision, issued today, in On Demand Machine
Corp. v. Ingram Industries, Inc., C.A. Nos. 05-1074, -1075, -1100 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2006) (slip
opinion attached as Exhibit A), which is pertinent to all of the claim construction issues before
the Court. In On Demand, the Federal Circuit held that the district cou1t’s construction ofthe
term "customer" based on a standard dictionary definition was error, and held that in the context
of the patent in suit the term was limited to a retail customer. Slip op. at 12. The Federal Circuit
rejected the patentee’s argument that it did not disavow the standard dictionary meaning of
"customer," stating that "when the scope ofthe invention is clearly stated in the specification,
and is described as the advantage and distinction ofthe invention, it is not necessary to disavow
explicitly a different claim scope." Id. The Federal Circuit went on to confirm the primary role
ofthe specification in claim construction:
ln Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321, the en banc court explained that the role ofthe
specification is to describe and enable the invention. In turn, the claims cannot be
of broader scope than the invention that is set forth in the specryication.
DB01:2060076.1 0635331002

Case 1:04-cv-O1505—G|\/IS Document 85 Filed O3/31/2006 Page 2 of 2
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
March 31, 2006
Page 2
Id. at 13 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit cautioned that construction of individual claim
terms, divorced from the context provided by the specification’s description ofthe invention,
could lead to an improper construction that "departs significantly Hom the patented invention."
Id. at 19.
We are available at the Court’s convenience should the Court have any questions on this
case or any other aspect of the claim construction issues before the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Josy W. Ingersoll (No. 1088)
JWI/cg
cc: Clerk, U.S. District Court (by e—filing and hand delivery)
Frederick L. Cottrell, IH, Esquire (by e—filing and e~mail) [Cottrell@rlfcom]
Wayne L. Stoner, Esquire (by e-mail) [[email protected]]
Richard Goldenberg, Esquire (by e-mail) [richard. [email protected]]
Stephen M. Muller, Esquire (by e-mail) [[email protected]]
Walter E. Hanley, J r., Esquire (by e-mail) [[email protected]]
DB0l:2060076.l 063533.100;