Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
34 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1885, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9250, 787 F.3d 1359 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In patent law, claim terms are construed according to their ordinary meaning in light of intrinsic evidence, and terms describing separate components with mutually exclusive properties, such as 'inner lipophilic' and 'outer hydrophilic' matrices, require the components to be structurally separate.
Facts:
- Shire owns U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720, which claims a controlled-release oral pharmaceutical composition for treating inflammatory bowel diseases.
- The patented composition uses an active ingredient called mesalamine.
- The patent describes a specific structure with an 'inner lipophilic matrix' and an 'outer hydrophilic matrix' to control the release of the active ingredient.
- The patent teaches a manufacturing process where lipophilic granules are formed first and then mixed with hydrophilic excipients before being compressed into a tablet.
- Shire markets a drug based on this patent technology under the brand name LIALDA®.
- Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA, seeking approval to market and sell a generic, bioequivalent version of LIALDA®.
Procedural Posture:
- Shire sued Watson for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- The district court construed the disputed claim terms, adopting a broad interpretation for 'inner lipophilic matrix' and 'outer hydrophilic matrix'.
- After a bench trial, the district court found that Watson's proposed generic product infringed Shire's patent.
- Watson, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- The Federal Circuit initially reversed the district court's claim construction and finding of infringement.
- The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its intervening decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the claim language 'inner lipophilic matrix' and 'outer hydrophilic matrix' in U.S. Patent No. 6,773,720 require two structurally separate matrices, or can the claim be satisfied by a single, mixed matrix that contains both lipophilic and hydrophilic components?
Opinions:
Majority - Hughes, Circuit Judge
Yes, the claim language requires two structurally separate matrices. The district court's construction, which only required the presence of at least one lipophilic excipient in an inner volume and one hydrophilic excipient in an outer volume, was impermissibly broad. The court reasoned that the plain language of the claims, where 'lipophilic' modifies 'matrix,' requires the entire matrix structure, not just a single component within it, to exhibit lipophilic properties. Furthermore, the claims recite the 'inner' and 'outer' matrices as separate elements, and their defining characteristics (inner/outer, lipophilic/hydrophilic) are mutually exclusive, logically compelling a conclusion that they are separate structures. The court also found this interpretation consistent with the patent's specification, which describes a process of creating discrete lipophilic granules, and the prosecution history, where the applicants distinguished their invention from prior art that used a single, mixed matrix.
Analysis:
This case serves as an important application of the Supreme Court's standard in Teva v. Sandoz, clarifying that when claim construction relies solely on intrinsic evidence (the patent document and its prosecution history), appellate review remains de novo without deference to the district court. The decision reinforces that claim language implying distinct spatial and compositional characteristics must be given its full structural weight. By rejecting a construction that would allow a single, mixed matrix to satisfy claims for separate inner and outer matrices, the court provided clearer guidance on how structural limitations in pharmaceutical and other patents should be interpreted, preventing infringers from avoiding liability by creating blended compositions that technically contain all the claimed ingredients but lack the claimed structure.
