Fisch CC Brief RPRX

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

REPROS THERAPEUTICS INC., Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-02266 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

vs. HARRY FISCH,

Defendant.

HARRY FISCH,

Counterclaimant,

vs. JOSEPH S. PODOLSKI, RONALD WIEHLE, AND REPROS THERAPEUTICS INC., Counterclaim-Defendants.

DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANT HARRY FISCHS

OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case 4:13-cv-02266 Document 49 Filed in TXSD on 03/07/14 Page 1 of 22

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1

A. Nature And Stage Of The Proceedings ....................................................................1

B. Technology Background ..........................................................................................2

III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4

A. The Principles Of Claim Construction .....................................................................4

1. Claims Terms Are Given Their Ordinary And Customary Meaning As Understood By A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art At The Time Of The Invention. ...............................................................................5

2. Claims Must Be Construed In Light Of The Intrinsic Record .....................5

3. Extrinsic Evidence .......................................................................................6

4. Construing Claim Terms To Preserve Validity ...........................................7

B. The Proper Construction Of The Disputed Claim Elements ...................................7

1. A Human Male With Secondary Hypogonadism .....................................7

2. Treating Secondary Hypogonadism In A Human Male .........................13

3. Treating Wasting In A Hypogonadal Male ............................................15

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 17


ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................................10, 13

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), affd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .........................................................4

Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................6, 9, 13, 15

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342 (Fed.Cir.1999)....................................................................................................7

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................6

Federal Statutes

37 C.F.R. 1.71-1.74 .....................................................................................................................5

37 C.F.R. 1.114 ...........................................................................................................................11


1 NY 243577492v8

I. INTRODUCTION

Claim construction is a question of law for the Court and will assist in determining

inventorship of the patents at issue. Pursuant to the Courts Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt.

No. 30), Defendant and Counterclaimant Harry Fisch (Dr. Fisch) submits this opening brief in

support of his proposed constructions of the disputed claim elements of U.S. Patent

Nos. 7,759,360 (the 360 patent) and 7,737,185 (the 185 patent) (collectively, the Patents-

in-Suit), which have been assigned to Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Repros

Therapeutics, Inc. (Repros).

As shown below, Dr. Fischs proposed constructions are fully consistent with the plain

language of the claims, the patent documents, and the law of claim construction. Repros, on the

other hand, abandons the principles of claim construction and the plain language of the asserted

claims by defining terms within the disputed claim elements out of context. For these reasons,

and as fully discussed below, Dr. Fisch respectfully requests that the Court adopts his proposed

constructions of the disputed claim elements.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Nature And Stage Of The Proceedings

The parties seek a determination as to whether Dr. Fisch should be named as a joint

inventor of the Patents-in-Suit. (Dkt. No. 1 at 45-58; Dkt. No.37 at p. 26.). The parties have

been able to narrow the claim construction issues to three disputed elements appearing in

claims 1 and 7 of the 360 patent and claim 1 of the 185 patent. (Dkt. No. 41-1.) The claims at

issue are reproduced below with the disputed claim elements underscored for ease of reference

by the Court:

[Claim 1 of the 360 patent]. A method for increasing serum levels of testosterone in a human male with secondary hypogonadism, the method comprising administering to said male an effective amount of a composition consisting


2 NY 243577492v8

essentially of trans-clomiphene or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof and optionally one or more pharmaceutically acceptable diluents, adjuvants, carriers or excipients.

[Claim 7 of the 360 patent]. A method for treating secondary hypogonadism in a human male, the method comprising administering to a human male in need thereof, an effective amount of a composition consisting essentially of trans-clomiphene or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof and optionally one or more pharmaceutically acceptable diluents, adjuvants, carriers or excipients.

[Claim 1 of the 185 patent]. A method for treating wasting in a hypogonadal male, comprising administering to the male a composition consisting essentially of trans-clomiphene or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof and optionally one or more pharmaceutically acceptable diluents, adjuvants, carriers or excipients in an effective amount to treat said wasting in the hypogonadal male.

(Ex. 11,360 patent, claims 1 and 7; Ex. 2, 185 patent, claim 1.)

B. Technology Background

Many men experience a gradual reduction in testosterone levels as they age. (See Ex. 1,

360 patent, col. 1, ll. 54 col. 2, ll. 1.) Adult males with low testosterone may experience a

variety of unwanted symptoms, including reduction of muscle mass, reduction of bone density,

loss of libido, erectile dysfunction, fatigue, and depression. (Id. at. col. 2, ll. 8-14.)

Conventionally, disorders related to testosterone deficiency had been treated by administering

testosterone, which has serious side effects. (See id. at col. 2, ll. 14-27.)

Dr. Fisch discovered another method for treating disorders related to testosterone

deficiency, namely, administering clomiphene or clomiphene citrate to men in need of such

treatment. (Ex. 3, Provisional Patent App. No. 60/207,496, May 26, 2000, at 4-5.) On May 26,

2000, Dr. Fisch filed Provisional Patent Application No. 60/207,496 covering his new treatment

method. Dr. Fischs provisional application teaches as one example that tablets containing a

mixture of 30-50% of cis-clomiphene citrate and 50-70-% of trans-clomiphene citrate could be

administered for treatment. (Id. at 6.) On May 21, 2002, The United States Patent and

1 The exhibits cited herein are attached hereto and listed in the attached Appendix.


3 NY 243577492v8

Trademark Office granted Dr. Fisch a patent covering his treatment method. (See Ex. 4, U.S.

Patent No. 6,391,920.)

The Patents-in-Suit also relate to methods for treating symptoms related to testosterone

deficiency in men. (See Ex. 1, 360 patent, col. 3, ll. 53-62; Ex. 2, 185 patent, claim 1 &

Abstract.) All of the methods disclosed in the Patents-in-Suit involve the administration of

clomiphene enriched for trans-clomiphene (i.e., compositions having active ingredients

comprising 0% to 29% weight/weight of cis-clomiphene and 100% to 71% [weight/weight]

trans-clomiphene) to men in need of such treatment. (Ex. 1, 360 patent, col. 2, ll. 53-62; Ex. 2,

185 patent, col. 3, ll. 66 col. 4, ll. 5.) This is the same chemical (clomiphene or clomiphene

citrate) exemplified in Dr. Fischs provisional patent application and subsequent patent, albeit

Repros has enriched the chemical in trans-isomer as compared to Dr. Fischs example.

The Patents-in-Suit do not claim the compound trans-clomiphene per se, but, rather, only

the use of that known compound in the treatment methods claimed. In fact, not only had

enriched trans-clomiphene been known for quite some time prior to the filings of the Patents-in-

Suit, but it had also been known that enriched trans-clomiphene could be used to increase

testosterone levels in men. (See, e.g., Ex. 5, European Patent App. Publication No. 0 430 388,

June 5, 1991, at p. 3, ll. 18-19 (hereinafter, the Baird Application) (describing the use of the

En isomer [i.e., trans-clomiphene] substantially free of the Zu isomer [i.e., cis-clomiphene] . . .

[for] treatment of female infertility); Ex. 6, Reyes, F.L., et al., Long-Term Therapy with Low-

dose Cisclomiphene2 in Male Infertility: Effects on Semen, Serum FSH, LH, Testosterone and

Estradiol, and Carbohydrate Tolerance, 19 Int. J. Fertil. 49, 50-52 (1974) (teaching

administration of enriched trans-clomiphene raises testosterone levels in men, including at least

2 Prior to 1976, what is presently referred to as trans-clomiphene or enclomiphene had been referred to as cis-clomiphene. See Ex. 5, Baird Application at p. 2 (Table 1).


4 NY 243577492v8

one man who had low testosterone levels prior to treatment); Ex. 7, Wieland, R.G., et al.,

Idiopathic Oligospermia: Control Observations And Response To Cisclomiphene3, Fertility

and Serility 23:7, July 1972, at 473-73 (teaching administration of enriched trans-clomiphene

raises testosterone levels in men).)

The 360 patent is titled Methods And Materials For The Treatment Of Testosterone

Deficiency In Men. The 360 patent teaches that clomiphene enriched for trans-clomiphene

can be administered to men to increase testosterone levels and ameliorates symptoms associated

with low testosterone levels. (Ex. 1, 360 patent, col. 1, ll. 10-17; id. at col. 2, ll. 53-63.) Joseph

Podolski is the sole named inventor of the 360 patent.

The 185 patent, titled Methods And Compositions With Trans-Clomiphene, issued

from the same family of patent applications that also yielded the 360 patent. The 185 patent

teaches that clomiphene enriched for trans-clomiphene can be administered to treat men

experiencing wasting (i.e., loss of muscle mass) resulting from low testosterone levels. (Ex. 2,

185 patent, claim 1.) Mr. Podolski and Ronald Wiehle are the only named inventors of the 185

patent.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The Principles Of Claim Construction

Patent claim construction is a question of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), affd, 517 U.S. 370, 391 (1996).

Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a

full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the

claim. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal

3 See note 1, supra.


5 NY 243577492v8

quotation marks omitted). Thus, claim terms should be construed in a manner that stays true to

the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patents description of the invention. Id.

1. Claims Terms Are Given Their Ordinary And Customary Meaning As Understood By A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art At The Time Of The Invention.

In construing disputed claim terms, courts look first to the claims themselves, as [i]t is a

bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the

patentee is entitled the right to exclude. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. The words of a claim are

generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that the term[s]

would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Id. at

1312-13. In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of

skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases

involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly

understood words. Id. at 1314. In many cases, however, the meaning of a term to a person

skilled in the art will not be readily apparent, and courts must look to other sources to determine

the terms meaning. Id.

2. Claims Must Be Construed In Light Of The Intrinsic Record

Patent claims should not be construed in a vacuum. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.

Instead, claim terms must be construed in view of the intrinsic evidence: the claims, the

specification, and the prosecution history of the patent. Id.

The patent specification includes the: (1) Abstract of the invention; (2) Background of

the Invention; (3) Summary of the Invention; (4) patent drawings, if any; and (5) Detailed

Description of the Preferred Embodiments. 37 C.F.R. 1.71-1.74. The specification is the

primary basis for construing the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal citation omitted).

The claims must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a


6 NY 243577492v8

part. Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). If the

specification of a patent expressly defines a claim term, then the inventors lexicography

governs. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.

The prosecution history of a patent consists of the complete record of the proceedings

before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent. Phillips,

415 F.3d at 1317. Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the

PTO and the inventor understood the patent. Id.

3. Extrinsic Evidence

The term extrinsic evidence refers to that evidence which is external to the patent and

file history, such as expert testimony, inventor testimony, dictionaries, and technical treatises and

articles. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Extrinsic

evidence can assist the court in determining the meaning of particular terminology to those of

skill in the art of the invention, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323, and has the value of being an

unbiased source accessible to the public in advance of litigation. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585.

That said, extrinsic evidence is entitled to less weight than intrinsic evidence, and therefore may

not be used to vary or contradict the claim language or be used to contradict the import of

other parts of the specification. Id. at 1584.

The Federal Circuit has also cautioned that while extrinsic evidence in the form of expert

testimony can be useful to a court for a variety of purposes, conclusory, unsupported assertions

by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court. Similarly, a court should

discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by

the claims themselves, the written description, and the prosecution history, in other words, with

the written record of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (citations omitted).


7 NY 243577492v8

4. Construing Claim Terms To Preserve Validity

[C]laims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity. Phillips, 415

F.3d at 1327 (quoting Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed.Cir.1999)). This maxim

applies in situations in which one plausible construction would render a claim invalid but another

plausible construction would preserve the claims validity. In such circumstances, if after

applying all the available tools of claim construction, [a court concludes] that the claim is still

ambiguous, then the construction that preserves validity should be adopted. Phillips, 415 F.3d

at 1327.

B. The Proper Construction Of The Disputed Claim Elements

1. A Human Male With Secondary Hypogonadism

Repross Proposed Construction Defendant-counterclaimant Dr. Harry Fischs Proposed Construction

A human male with low testosterone levels due to inadequate secretion of pituitary gonadotropins and corresponding low or low normal LH and FSH levels.

A human male with low testosterone levels due to inadequate secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, and at least one related symptom.

The term a human male with secondary hypogonadism appears in claim 1 of the

360 patent. The parties dispute turns on whether the terms human male and secondary

hypogonadism may be construed individually, as Repros contends, or whether human male

with secondary hypogonadism must be construed as a single phrase, as Dr. Fisch contends.

Per the Federal Circuit in Phillips, the analysis begins with an assessment of the ordinary

and customary meaning of the disputed element. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. When

persons of ordinary skill in the art use the term secondary hypogonadism coupled with human

male or menfor example, a human male with secondary hypogonadism or variants

thereof such as secondary hypogonadism in a human male, hypogonadism in men, or male


8 NY 243577492v8

hypogonadismthey are referring to a clinical syndrome (i.e., a group of symptoms or features

that characterize a disease):

Definition of hypogonadism. Hypogonadism in men is a clinical syndrome that

results from failure of the testis to produce physiological levels of testosterone

(androgen deficiency) and the normal number of spermatozoa die to disruption of one

or more levels of the hypothalamis-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis. (Ex. 8, Bhasin, S.,

et al., Testosterone Therapy in Adult Men with Androgen Deficiency Syndromes:

An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline, The Journal of Clinical

Endocrinology & Metabolism 91(6):1995 (2006) (hereinafter, 2006 Clinical Practice

Guideline) (emphasis added);4

Male hypogonadism, or testosterone deficiency syndrome (TDS), results from a

failure of the testes to produce adequate androgen. Patients have low circulating

testosterone in combinations with clinical symptoms such as fatigue, erectile

dysfunction, and body composition changes. (Ex. 10, Pinsky, M. R.,

Hypogonadism, ADAM, and hormone replacement, Ther. Adv. Urol. (2010) 2(3)

99 (hereinafter, Pinsky Article).)

The clinical syndrome of male hypogonadism, as demonstrated by the extrinsic

evidence below, requires both low testosterone levels due to inadequate secretion of pituitary

gonadotropins, and, as Dr. Fischs proposed claim construction requires, at least one related

symptom:

4 The Endocrine Societys updated clinical practice guidelines, published in 2010, set forth the same definition. (Ex. 9, Bhasin, S., Testosterone Therapy in Men with Androgen Deficiency Syndromes: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline, J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 2010, 95(6):2536, at 2539 (hereinafter, 2010 Clinical Practice Guideline).)


9 NY 243577492v8

The diagnosis of hypogonadism relies on the combination of laboratory

measurements of serum testosterone and clinical signs and symptoms of androgen

deficiency. (Ex. 10, Pinsky Article, at 99 (emphasis added));

We recommend making a diagnosis of androgen deficiency only in men with

consistent symptoms and signs of unequivocally low serum testosterone levels.

(Ex. 8, 2006 Clinical Practice Guidelines, at 1995 (emphasis added))5;

Clinical hypogonadism is defined as symptoms + low testosterone (

10 NY 243577492v8

Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, the specification of the 360 patent

demonstrates that the term a human male with secondary hypogonadism was being used

consistent with its ordinary meaning to persons of skill in the arti.e., to refer to a human male

with low testosterone levels due to inadequate secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, and at least

one related symptom. Toward that end, the Background of the Invention section of the

360 patent states:

Some of the sequelae of adult testosterone deficiency include a wide variety of symptoms including: loss of libido, erectile dysfunction, oligospermia or azoospermia, absence or regression of secondary sexual characteristics, progressive decrease in muscle mass, fatigue, depressed mood and increased risk of osteoporosis.

(Ex 1, 360 patent, col. 2, ll. 8-14 (emphasis added).) The 360 patent repeatedly describes

present invention as being directed to methods for increasing serum testosterone levels

and for ameliorating or preventing the sequelae of low testosterone levels (Ex. 1, 360, col. 3,

ll. 13-16 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 2, ll. 52-56). Such statements describing the entire

invention are given significant weight during claim construction. See C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at

864 (Statements that describe the invention as a whole . . . are more likely to support a limiting

definition of a claim term.). In view of the above statements from the 360 patent, a person of

ordinary skill in the art would understand sequelae of low testosterone to refer to a wide

variety of symptoms including those listed above. Because the goal of the invention disclosed

in the 360 patents is to ameliorate or prevent a wide variety of symptoms of low testosterone, a

person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term human male with secondary

hypogonadism to refer to a human male with low testosterone levels due to inadequate

secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, and at least one related symptom.


11 NY 243577492v8

The prosecution history of the 360 patent provides additional corroborative evidence

regarding how the [named] inventor understood the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.

Specifically, during examination of the 360 patent, the named inventor argued that claim 1 was

patentable because contrary to the Examiners assertion, [the Young prior art patent] does not

disclose administration of clomiphene or any other antiestrogen for treatment of male

menopausal symptoms. (Ex. 13, Patent App. No. 10/483,458, Response to Office Action Dated

Nov. 19, 2008, Jan. 13, 2009, at 5-6 (hereinafter, Jan. 13, 2009 Response) (emphasis added).)

In a later filing with the Patent Office, the named inventor argued that the pending claims . . .

require that the composition be administered to men who have a recognized diagnosis of

secondary hypogonadism. (Ex. 14, Patent App. No. 10/483,458, Submission Accompanying

Request For Continued Examination (RCE) Under 37 C.F.R. 1.114, May 19, 2009, at 6)

(hereinafter, May 19, 2009 Submission) (emphasis added).) These statements demonstrate that

the claim 1 is directed to treating a human male with low testosterone levels due to inadequate

secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, and at least one related symptom.

By excluding the phrase at least one related symptom, Repross proposed construction,

if adopted, would render claim 1 of the 360 patent invalid. As discussed in Section II.B., supra,

it had been known before the filing of the 360 patent that trans-clomiphene could be used to

increase testosterone levels in men, including in men with low testosterone levels prior to

treatment. Adopting Repross proposed construction, which does not require the presence of at

least one symptom related to low testosterone, would result in a claim covering a use of trans-

clomiphene for the same purpose that had been known in the prior art, thereby rendering the

claim invalid. Accordingly, even if the Court finds Repross proposed construction to be

plausible, a conclusion that Dr. Fisch disagrees with for the reasons discussed above, the


12 NY 243577492v8

construction still must be rejected because it would render claim 1 invalid. See Phillips, 415

F.3d at 1327 ([C]laims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity.).

In sum, Repros improperly defines the terms human male and secondary

hypogonadism out of the context of claim 1 of the 360 patent. According to Repros,

secondary hypogonadism means low testosterone levels due to inadequate secretion of

pituitary gonadotropins and corresponding low or low normal LH and FSH levels. But claim

terms must be construed in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term

appears. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading

secondary hypogonadism in context of the broader phrase a human male with secondary

hypogonadism would understand it to refer to a particular syndrome suffered by men

characterized by low testosterone levels due to inadequate secretion of pituitary gonadotropins,

and at least one related symptom.

Thus, the Court should reject Repross litigation-driven construction and adopt

Dr. Fischs proposed construction, which is consistent with the claim elements plain and

customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the

invention, and is fully supported by the intrinsic record.


13 NY 243577492v8

2. Treating Secondary Hypogonadism In A Human Male


Therapeutic and prophylactic management of a human male with low testosterone levels and low to low normal FSH and LH levels due to inadequate secretion of pituitary gonadotropins.

Raising testosterone levels and at least ameliorating at least one symptom related to low testosterone levels in a human male wherein the low testosterone levels are caused by inadequate secretions of pituitary gonadotropins.

As with the previous disputed claim element, the parties dispute whether secondary

hypogonadism and human male may be construed individually, as Repros contends, or

whether secondary hypogonadism in a human male must be construed as a single phrase that

refers to a clinical syndrome, as Dr. Fisch contends. For the reasons discussed in

Section III.B.1., supra, secondary hypogonadism in a human male refers to a human male

with low testosterone levels due to inadequate secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, and at least

one related symptom.

The remaining dispute with respect to the term treating secondary hypogonadism in a

human male, which appears in claim 7 of the 360 patent, turns on how the parties have defined

treating.

As detailed below, the specification of the 360 patent shows that treating as used in

claim 7 means raising testosterone levels and at least ameliorating at least one symptom related

to low testosterone levels. See Merck, 347 F.3d at 1371 (requiring claims to be construed so as

to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a part). For example, the Summary of

the Invention section of the 360 patent describes present invention as directed to methods

for increasing serum testosterone levels and for ameliorating or preventing the sequelae of

low testosterone levels (Ex. 1, 360, col. 3, ll. 13-16 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 2, ll.


14 NY 243577492v8

52-56). Such statements describing the entire invention are given significant weight during

claim construction. See C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 864 (Statements that describe the invention as a

whole . . . are more likely to support a limiting definition of a claim term.). Further, the

360 patent is titled Methods And Materials For The Treatment Of Testosterone Deficiency In

Men. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand treatment to mean

raising testosterone levels and at least ameliorating at least one symptom related to low

testosterone levels.

Repros construes treating to mean therapeutic and prophylactic management. This

construction improperly defines treating in a vacuum, rather than in view of the intrinsic

evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.

Repross interpretation of treating is wrong for at least three reasons. First, the

definition is too broad given that the 360 patent specifically described the goals of treatment as

increasing testosterone and ameliorating or preventing symptoms of low testosterone. (Ex. 1,

360 patent, col. 2, ll. 52-56; see also id. at col. 3, ll. 13-16.) Second, because the claims are

directed to treating the clinical syndrome of secondary hypogonadism, the diagnosis of which

necessarily requires at least one symptom related to low testosterone, the context of the claim

suggests that treating is not directed to prophylactic management of a condition as Repros

argues.

Finally, Repross interpretation of treating makes no sense when, as required, the

disputed claim element is read in context of entire claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 ([T]he

person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term . . . in the context of the

particular claim in which the disputed term appears). Claim 7 of the 360 patent requires

administering to a human male in need [of treatment], an effective amount of a


15 NY 243577492v8

composition . . . . (emphasis added.) If, as Repros contends, the purpose of treatment is

therapeutic and prophylactic management in the abstract, then it is impossible to determine an

effective amount of the composition to administer to a human male with secondary

hypogonadism for that purpose. Dr. Fischs proposed construction, which associates treating

with raising testosterone levels and at least ameliorating at least one symptom related to low

testosterone levels, does not suffer from this problem as one can monitor whether an effective

amount of the claimed composition has been administered for this purpose.

Accordingly, the Court should adopt Dr. Fischs construction of this disputed claim

element.

3. Treating Wasting In A Hypogonadal Male


Therapeutic and prophylactic or preventative measures to prevent or slow progressive loss of weight or muscle mass or progressive degeneration and weakening of muscle in a male with inadequate gonadal function.

Therapeutic treatment and prophylactic or preventative measures, wherein the object is to prevent or slow down (lessen) progressive loss of weight or loss of muscle mass and/or progressive weakening and degeneration in a male having low testosterone levels.

The term treating wasting in a hypogonadal male appears in claim 1 of the 185 patent.

Dr. Fischs proposed construction of this disputed claim element should be adopted because it is

consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the ordinary meaning of the claim language as would

be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.

Patent claim terms must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of

which they are a part. Merck, 347 F.3d at 1371. Here, the specification of the 185 patent

expressly defines the terms treating and wasting:

The terms treat or treatment . . . refer to both therapeutic treatment and prophylactic or preventative measures, wherein the object is to prevent or slow


16 NY 243577492v8

down (lessen) an undesired physiological or psychological change or disorder, such as symptoms associated with COPD or the treatment thereof. (Ex. 2, 185 patent, col. 7, ll. 41-46 (emphasis added).)

Wasting refers to catabolism and/or progressive loss of weight in a subject, or to loss of muscle mass and/or its progressive weakening and degeneration. (Id. at col. 6, ll. 50-52 (emphasis added).)

It is well-settled tenet of claim construction law that when an inventor defines a claim term in the

specification of the patent at issue, the inventors lexicography governs. Phillips, 415 F.3d at

1316. Dr. Fischs proposed construction utilizes the 185 patents definition of treating but

replaces an undesired physiological or psychological change or disorder with the 185 patents

definition of wasting (i.e., the particular undesired physiological disorder the claim seeks to

treat).

Dr. Fischs proposed construction is also consistent with the plain and customary

meaning of hypogonadal male. As discussed above in Section III.B.1., hypogonadal male

refers to a human male with low testosterone levels due to inadequate secretion of pituitary

gonadotropins, and at least one related symptom. In the case of the 185 patent, the at least one

symptom being treated is wasting (i.e., the loss of muscle mass). (See Section II.B., supra.) As

such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term treating wasting in a

hypogonadal male to refer to treating a male suffering from the clinical syndrome of

hypogonadism, wherein the male has low testosterone levels and the related symptom of

wasting.

As with the previous two disputed claim elements, Repross proposed construction

improperly defines hypogonadal out of the context of claim 1 of the 185 patent. While

hypogonadisma condition not specific to men or humansrefers to poor gonadal function,

claim terms must be construed in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term

appears. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Here, hypogonadal appears as part of the broader phrase


17 NY 243577492v8

hypogonadal male. For the reasons discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would

understand the phrase hypogonadal male to a human male with low testosterone levels due to

inadequate secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, and at least one related symptom (in this case,

wasting).

Accordingly, the Court should therefore reject Repross construction of treating wasting

in a hypogonadal male and adopt Dr. Fischs construction of this disputed claim element, which

is consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the terms ordinary and customary meaning to a

person of ordinary skill in the art.

IV. CONCLUSION

Repross proposed claim constructions define claim terms out of context in order to

advance Repross litigation positions. Dr. Fischs proposed constructions, on the other hand, are

consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the disputed claim elements ordinary meaning as

understood by persons of ordinary skill at the art. Accordingly, the Court should adopt

Dr. Fischs proposed construction in their entirety.


18 NY 243577492v8

Date: March 7, 2014

Respectfully submitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: ___/s/ Julie P. Bookbinder__________ Ira R. Hatton State Bar No.: 24054282 Fed. Bar No.: 898995 E-Mail: [email protected] Mary-Olga Lovett State Bar No.: 00789289 Fed. Bar No.: 17743 E-Mail: [email protected] Dwayne L. Mason State Bar No.: 00787977 Fed. Bar No.: 18697 E-Mail: [email protected] 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1800 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: 713.374.3500 Facsimile: 713.374.3505 Of counsel: Barry J. Schindler (pro hac vice) E-Mail: [email protected] Greenberg Traurig, LLP 200 Park Avenue P.O. Box 677 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677 Telephone: 973.360.7900 Facsimile: 973.301.8410 Julie P. Bookbinder (pro hac vice) E-Mail: [email protected] Greenberg Traurig, LLP MetLife Building 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Telephone: 212.801.9200 Facsimile: 212.801.6400 ATTORNEYS FOR HARRY FISCH


19 NY 243577492v8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this day served the foregoing Defendant-Counterclaimant

Harry Fischs Opening Claim Construction Brief upon all counsel of record by the Courts

CM/ECF system.

This 7th day of March, 2014.

/s/ Julie P. Bookbinder Julie Bookbinder


I. INTRODUCTION 1II. BACKGROUND 1A. Nature And Stage Of The Proceedings 1B. Technology Background 2

III. ARGUMENT 4A. The Principles Of Claim Construction 4B. The Proper Construction Of The Disputed Claim Elements 7

IV. CONCLUSION 17I. INTRODUCTIONII. BACKGROUNDA. Nature And Stage Of The ProceedingsB. Technology Background

III. ARGUMENTA. The Principles Of Claim Construction1. Claims Terms Are Given Their Ordinary And Customary Meaning As Understood By A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art At The Time Of The Invention.2. Claims Must Be Construed In Light Of The Intrinsic Record3. Extrinsic Evidence

B. The Proper Construction Of The Disputed Claim Elements1. A Human Male With Secondary Hypogonadism2. Treating Secondary Hypogonadism In A Human Male3. Treating Wasting In A Hypogonadal Male

IV. CONCLUSION

Documents

Fisch CC Brief RPRX