Narrow claims construction results in summary judgment of noninfringement
Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. v. Hercules Inc., et al., No. 04-293-KAJ, June 20, 2006.
Jordan, J. The court narrowly construes “cross-linking agent” and “microbead” based upon statements made during prosecution. Request for construction of other claims is denied without prejudice. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement due to the absence of a “cross-linking agent” and “microbead” in the accused product. is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is denied.
The patented technology relates to methods and compositions relating to polymeric microparticles, also called microbeads. Statement in the face of rejection that a particular reference did not disclose a “cross-linking agent” must be read as a disclaimer of claim scope. Description of invention requiring “microbead” to be “an integral unit which can be separated from any emulsifier present if made in emulsion form” unambiguously limits the claimed invention.
No genuine issues of fact remain under the court’s construction of “cross-linking agent.” Impurities do not qualify as cross-linking agents because they are also present in disclaimed surfactants. Patentee’s claim that the accused microbeads are covalently attached to an emulsifier is contrary to statements made during the prosecution.
Ciba is furthermore not entitled to show infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because its evidence relates only to literal infringement. The argument that there is “no doubt” that the evidence shows infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is insufficient to support a doctrine of equivalents claim.
