-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
1/40
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
2/40
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
3/40
i nf r i ngement pr oceedi ng i s di r ect ed t oward ( 1) compounds t hat
ser ve as cat al yst s i n ol ef i n met hat hesi s as wel l as ( 2) t he
r eacti on pr ocess t o pr epar e ol ef i ns i t sel f . Ol ef i ns ar e
chemi cal compounds cont ai ni ng at l east one doubl e bond
connect i ng carbon atoms. Met athesi s react i ons, al so known as
doubl e depl acement r eact i ons, occur wher e t wo chemi cal compounds
r eact r esul t i ng i n an exchange of bondi ng par t ner s. Thus,
[ o] l ef i n met at hesi s i nvol ves t he f or mal exchange of t he car bene
( di val ent car bon, or R2C) gr oups bet ween t wo ol ef i ns. Ol ef i ns
ar e used i n many ar eas of chemi st r y, r angi ng f r om pol ymer i zat i on
r eact i ons t o nat ur al pr oduct synt hesi s.
C. Procedural History
Evoni k br ought an act i on agai nst Mater i a on August 26,
2009, al l egi ng that Mat er i a i nf r i nged upon t he 528 Pat ent
assi gned t o Evoni k. Subsequent l y, on March 11, 2010, Evoni k
br ought anot her pat ent i nf r i ngement sui t agai nst El evance
Renewabl e Sci ences, I nc. ( ERS) , whi ch i ncl uded al l egat i ons
t hat ERS and Mater i a both i nf r i nged upon t he 528 Patent and
145 Pat ent . 2 Fol l owi ng t he consol i dat i on, and i n r esponse t o
Evoni k s second compl ai nt , Mat er i a j oi ned UNOF as a t hi r d- par t y,
2 ERS subsequent l y set t l ed i t s di sput e wi t h Evoni k andi s no l onger a par t y to t he pr esent l awsui t .
3
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
4/40
and t he t wo f i l ed a count er cl ai m agai nst Evoni k al l egi ng ( 1)
i nval i di t y and unenf or ceabi l i t y of Evoni k s 145 Pat ent ; ( 2)
unenf or ceabi l i t y of Evoni k s 528 Pat ent ; ( 3) and i nf r i ngement
and wi l l f ul i nf r i ngement of t he 590 Pat ent t hat had been
assi gned t o t he Uni ver si t y of New Or l eans Foundat i on and
l i censed t o Mat er i a. I n r espondi ng t o Mat er i a s count er cl ai m,
Evoni k al l eged i nval i di t y and unenf or ceabi l i t y of Mat er i a s 590
Pat ent .
Subsequent l y, t he Cour t hear d argument on t he i ssue of
cl ai m const r uct i on i n a Mar kman hear i ng hel d on J ul y 20, 2011.
Based on t he hear i ng and ext ensi ve br i ef s f i l ed on t he i ssue,
t he Cour t i ssued i t s Mar kman Opi ni on, i n whi ch i t r esol ved t he
meani ng of sever al di sput ed t er ms i n t he pat ent cl ai ms at i ssue. 3
3 Speci f i cal l y, i n t he Mar kman Opi ni on, t he Cour tconst r ued: ( 1) t he ter m N- het er ocycl i c car bene or NHC i n t he 528 Pat ent and 145 Pat ent as: a carbene havi ng a mol ecul arst r uct ur e t hat compr i ses at l east one r i ng cont ai ni ng at l eastone ni t r ogen at om i n t he r i ng; ( 2) t he t er m and i n t he 528Pat ent and 145 Pat ent as R1, R2, R3, and R4 i n t he Formul aeI I , I I I , I V and V may be i dent i cal or di f f er ent t o one anot her ,and may each be a hydr ogen or a hydr ocar bon. Addi t i onal l y, R3and R4 may al so be hal ogen, ni t r o, ni t r oso, al koxy, ar yl oxy,ami do, car boxyl , car bonyl , t hi o or sul f onyl . R3 and R4 maynot , however , be bot h a hydr ogen or hydr ocar bon and al so a
hal ogen, ni t r o, ni t r oso, al koxy, ar yl oxy, ami do, car boxyl ,car bonyl , t hi o or sul f onyl ; ( 3) t he t er m neut r al el ectr ondonor i n the 145 as: an uncharged mol ecul ar gr oups t hat t endst o t r ansf er el ect r on densi t y f r om a l one el ect r on pai r t oanot her separ at e at om or mol ecul ar gr oup; and ( 4) t he t er maryl i n t he 590 Pat ent as: an ar omat i c hydr ocar bon i n whi ch
4
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
5/40
Fol l owi ng the i ssuance of t he Mar kman Opi ni on, t hi r d- par t i es
Uni ver si t y of New Or l eans Foundat i on and t he Uni ver si t y of New
Or l eans Research and Technol ogy Foundat i on f i l ed a mot i on
pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 21, t o be dr opped as
par t i es f r om t hi s l i t i gat i on. The Cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on i n
an Or der dat ed Sept ember 30, 2013.
Evoni k t hen f i l ed t he i nst ant mot i on f or par t i al summar y
j udgment agai nst Mat er i a based on i ssue pr ecl usi on and cl ai m
pr ecl usi on concer ni ng t he 145 and 528 Patent s.
III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary j udgment i s appr opr i at e wher e t he Cour t i s
sat i sf i ed t hat t he pl eadi ngs, deposi t i ons, answer s t o
i nt er r ogat or i es, and admi ssi ons on f i l e, t oget her wi t h t he
af f i davi t s, i f any, show t hat t her e i s no genui ne i ssue as t o
any mat er i al f act and t hat t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o a
j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t , 477
U. S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct . 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 ( 1986) ( ci t i ng
Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56) . An i ssue i s genui ne i f i t i s suppor t ed by
evi dence such t hat a reasonabl e j ur y coul d ret ur n a ver di ct i n
t he nonmovi ng par t y' s f avor . Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. ,
at l east one hydr ogen has been r emoved.
5
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
6/40
477 U. S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct . 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 ( 1986) . A
f act i s mat er i al i f , under t he gover ni ng subst ant i ve l aw, a
di sput e about t he f act mi ght af f ect t he out come of t he sui t .
I d. I n consi der i ng a mot i on f or summar y j udgment , a di st r i ct
cour t may not make cr edi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons or engage i n any
wei ghi ng of t he evi dence; i nst ead, t he nonmovi ng par t y' s
evi dence i s t o be bel i eved and al l j ust i f i abl e i nf er ences ar e
t o be dr awn i n hi s f avor . Mar i no v. I ndus. Cr at i ng Co. , 358
F. 3d 241, 247 ( 3d Ci r . 2004) ( ci t i ng Ander son, 477 U. S. at
255) .
I ni t i al l y, t he movi ng par t y bear s t he bur den of
demonst r at i ng t he absence of a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act .
Cel ot ex, 477 U. S. at 323 ( [ A] par t y seeki ng summary j udgment
al ways bear s t he i ni t i al r esponsi bi l i t y of i nf or mi ng t he
di st r i ct cour t of t he basi s f or i t s mot i on, and i dent i f yi ng
t hose por t i ons of t he pl eadi ngs, deposi t i ons, answer s t o
i nt er r ogat or i es, and admi ssi ons on f i l e, t oget her wi t h t he
af f i davi t s, i f any, whi ch i t bel i eves demonst r at e t he absence
of a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; see
al so Si ngl et ar y v. Pa. Dept . of Cor r . , 266 F. 3d 186, 192 n. 2 ( 3d
Ci r . 2001) ( Al t hough t he i ni t i al bur den i s on t he summar y
j udgment movant t o show t he absence of a genui ne i ssue of
6
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
7/40
mater i al f act , t he bur den on t he movi ng part y may be di schar ged
by showi ngt hat i s, poi nt i ng out t o t he di st r i ct cour t t hat
t her e i s an absence of evi dence to support t he nonmovi ng par t y' s
case when t he nonmovi ng par t y bear s t he ul t i mat e bur den of
pr oof . ) ( ci t i ng Cel ot ex, 477 U. S. at 325) .
Once t he movi ng par t y has met t hi s bur den, t he nonmovi ng
par t y must i dent i f y, by af f i davi t s or ot her wi se, speci f i c f acts
showi ng t hat t her e i s a genui ne i ssue f or t r i al . Cel ot ex, 477
U. S. at 324. A par t y opposi ng summary j udgment may not r est
upon t he mer e al l egat i ons or deni al s of t he . . . pl eadi ng [ s. ]
Sal dana v. Kmart Corp. , 260 F. 3d 228, 232 ( 3d Ci r . 2001)
( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . For t he non- movi ng par t y[ ] t o
pr evai l , [ t hat par t y] must make a showi ng suf f i ci ent t o
est abl i sh t he exi st ence of [ ever y] el ement essent i al t o that
par t y' s case, and on whi ch t hat par t y wi l l bear t he bur den of
pr oof at t r i al . Cooper v. Sni ezek, 418 F. App' x 56, 58 ( 3d
Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Cel ot ex, 477 U. S. at 322) . Thus, t o
wi t hst and a pr oper l y suppor t ed mot i on f or summary j udgment , t he
nonmovi ng par t y must i dent i f y speci f i c f act s and af f i r mat i ve
evi dence t hat cont r adi ct t hose of f er ed by t he movi ng par t y.
Anderson, 477 U. S. at 25657.
IV. ANALYSIS
7
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
8/40
I n i t s mot i on f or part i al summar y j udgment , Evoni k ar gues
t hat Mater i a shoul d be pr ecl uded under t heor i es of i ssue
pr ecl usi on and cl ai m pr ecl usi on f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng i ssues and
asser t i ng cl ai ms t hat wer e pr evi ousl y l i t i gat ed bef or e t he
Uni t ed St at es Pat ent and Trademark Of f i ce ( USPTO) Boar d of
Pat ent Appeal s and I nt er f er ences ( her ei naf t er col l ect i vel y
r ef er r ed t o as t he Boar d) . 4 Speci f i cal l y, Evoni k cont ends t hat
Mat er i a i s bar r ed f r om r easser t i ng t hat Evoni k s pat ent s ar e not
ent i t l ed t o t he benef i t of t he f i l i ng dat e of i t s Ger man
Appl i cat i on dat e f or pr i or i t y pur poses. 5 Evoni k addi t i onal l y
4 Under t he Leahy- Smi t h Amer i ca I nvent s Act ( AI A) ,ef f ect i ve Sept ember 16, 2012, t he st atut e i s amended such t hatt he Board of Pat ent Appeal s and I nt er f er ences i s now r ef er r ed t oas t he Pat ent Tr i al and Appeal Boar d. 35 U. S. C. 6 ( 2011) .Because t he i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng occur r ed pr i or t o theef f ect i ve dat e of t he amendment , t he Cour t r ef er s t o t he
admi ni st r at i ve body as t he Boar d of Pat ent Appeal s andI nt er f er ences.
5 Under U. S. pat ent l aw, t he pr i or i t y dat e i s a cruci alel ement i n det er mi ni ng pat ent val i di t y because i t del i neat es t hecut of f f or pr i or ar t . See St ar Sci ent i f i c, I nc. v. R. J .Reynol ds Tobacco Co. , 655 F. 3d 1364, 1372 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) .Ref er ences pr ecedi ng t he pr i or i t y dat e ar e consi der ed pr i or ar tand may be used t o chal l enge a pat ent on var i ous gr oundsi ncl udi ng novel t y, enabl ement , and obvi ousness. Gener al l y, apat ent appl i cat i on s pr i or i t y dat e i s t he dat e on whi ch t he
appl i cat i on was f i l ed wi t h t he USPTO. Under some ci r cumst ances,however , a pat ent appl i cat i on may cl ai m a pr i or i t y dat e t hatpr ecedes i t s own f i l i ng dat e. For exampl e, wi t h cer t ai nl i mi t at i ons, cont i nuat i on, di vi si onal , and cont i nuat i on- i n- par tappl i cat i ons may cl ai m pr i or i t y t o t he f i l i ng dat e of t hei rr espect i ve par ent appl i cat i ons. See Tr ansco Pr oduct s I nc. v.
8
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
9/40
seeks t o pr ecl ude Mat er i a f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng i t s chal l enge t o
t he pat ent abi l i t y of Evoni k s cl ai ms based on 35 U. S. C. 112
( enabl ement and wr i t t en descr i pt i on) . Fi nal l y, Evoni k ar gues
t hat Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng new i nval i di t y cl ai ms
pur suant t o 35 U. S. C. 102 and 103 si nce i t chose not t o rai se
t hese argument s i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng out of sel f -
i nt er est . The Cour t wi l l consi der t he nat ur e of t he
I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs, appl i cabi l i t y of i ssue and cl ai m
pr ecl usi on, and t hen addr ess whet her i ssue pr ecl usi on or cl ai m
pr ecl usi on bar s Mat er i a s cl ai ms concer ni ng ei t her pr i or i t y or
val i di t y.
A. Interference Proceeding1.Generally
I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs occur i n si t uat i ons wher e t he
gr ant of a pat ent f or a pat ent appl i cat i on under exami nat i on by
t he USPTO woul d i nt er f er e wi t h any pendi ng appl i cat i on, or wi t h
any unexpi r ed pat ent because t he cl ai ms ar e f or t he same or
Per f or mance Cont r act i ng, I nc. , 38 F. 3d 551, 557 ( Fed. Ci r .1994) . Speci f i cal l y, a pat ent appl i cat i on i s ent i t l ed t o t he
benef i t of t he f i l i ng dat e of an ear l i er f i l ed appl i cat i on onl yi f t he di scl osur e of t he ear l i er appl i cat i on pr ovi des suppor tf or t he cl ai ms of t he l at er appl i cat i on. Power Oasi s, I nc. v.T- Mobi l e USA, I nc. , 522 F. 3d 1299, 1306 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008)( quot i ng I n r e Chu, 66 F. 3d 292, 297 ( Fed. Ci r . 1995) ) .
9
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
10/40
subst ant i al l y t he same subj ect mat t er . 6 35 U. S. C. 135 ( 2006) ;
see Human Genome Sci ences, I nc. v. Amgen, I nc. , 553 F. Supp. 2d
353, 355 ( D. Del . 2008) af f ' d, No. 07- 526SLR- MPT, 2008 WL
5245979 ( D. Del . Dec. 16, 2008) ( An i nt er f er ence i s an i nt er
par t es admi ni st r at i ve pr oceedi ng t o det er mi ne whi ch par t y f i r st
i nvent ed t he subj ect mat t er of t he i nt er f er ence as def i ned by
t he i nt er f er ence count . ) . I n an i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng, t he
Boar d cr eat es one or mor e count s t o i dent i f y subj ect mat t er t hat
i s common t o bot h t he pendi ng pat ent appl i cat i on and t he i ssued
pat ent or pat ent appl i cat i on wi t h whi ch i t i s cl ai med t o
i nt er f ere. See Cr eat i ve Compounds, LLC v. St armark Labs. , 651
F. 3d 1303, 1310 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) . The Boar d shal l det er mi ne
quest i ons of pr i or i t y of t he i nvent i ons and may det er mi ne
quest i ons of pat ent abi l i t y. 35 U. S. C. 135 ( 2006) ; see Gen.
I nst r ument Cor p. , I nc. v. Sci ent i f i c- At l ant a, I nc. , 995 F. 2d
209, 210 ( Fed. Ci r . 1993) ( di scussi ng Boar d deci si ons i n
i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs i n t he cont ext of bot h pr i or i t y of
6 Under t he AI A, i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs wi l l event ual l ybe phased out and r epl aced by f i r st t o f i l e or der i vat i on
pr oceedi ngs. Because t he der i vat i on pr ovi si on appl i es onl y t opat ent appl i cat i ons f i l ed af t er Mar ch 16, 2013, and because thepat ent appl i cat i ons at i ssue wer e al l f i l ed bef or e t hat dat e,t he Cour t r evi ews t he Boar d s r ul i ng i n accor dance wi t h st at ut esand pr ocedur es i n ef f ect at t he t i me of l i t i gat i on.
10
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
11/40
i nvent i on and pat ent abi l i t y) .
At t he t i me t he par t i es engaged i n t he I nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ng, pat ent i nt er f erence pr ocedur es were governed by 37
C. F. R. 41. 100- 41. 208 ( 2006) . The Feder al Rul es of Evi dence
gener al l y appl y t o i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ngs. 37 C. F. R. 41. 152
( 2006) . Fur t her mor e, t her e i s oppor t uni t y f or l i mi t ed
di scover y. 37 C. F. R. 41. 150 ( 2006) . Exhi bi t s, i ncl udi ng
af f i davi t s, deposi t i on t r anscr i pt s, document s, and obj ect s may
be submi t t ed i nt o evi dence. 37 C. F. R. 41. 154 ( 2006) .
Mor eover , t est i mony i ncl udi ng di r ect and cr oss- exami nat i on of
wi t nesses may be conduct ed. 37 C. F. R. 41. 157 ( 2006) .
2.364/365 Interference ProceedingBet ween Sept ember 2005 and September 2006, Evoni k and
Mat er i a wer e par t i es t o an I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng bef or e t he
USPTO whi ch consol i dat ed Pat ent I nt er f erence Nos. 105, 364 and
105, 365 ( t he I nt er f er ence or t he 364/ 365 I nt er f er ence) .
To deter mi ne t he pr i or i t y of i nvent i on, t he Boar d cr eat es a
count . The count of an i nt er f er ence i s mer el y t he vehi cl e
f or cont est i ng t he pr i or i t y of i nvent i on and det er mi ni ng what
evi dence i s rel evant t o t he i ssue of pr i or i t y. I n r e Van
Geuns, 988 F. 2d 1181, 1184 ( Fed. Ci r . 1993) ( ci t i ng Squi r es v.
Cor bet t , 560 F. 2d 424, 433, 194 USPQ 513, 519 ( CCPA 1977) ; Case
11
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
12/40
v. CPC I nt ' l , I nc. , 730 F. 2d 745, 749, 221 USPQ 196, 200
( Fed. Ci r . 1984) ) . Al t hough cl ai ms of one or mor e of t he
par t i es may be i dent i cal t o t he count of an i nt er f er ence, t he
count i s not a cl ai m t o an i nvent i on. I d. ( ci t i ng Case, 730
F. 2d at 749, 221 USPQ at 200) .
The t wo Count s pert i nent t o t hi s l i t i gat i on deci ded by t he
Boar d wer e: ( 1) t hat Evoni k ( Her r mann) was ent i t l ed t o t he
benef i t of Her r mann s Ger man pr i or i t y dat e; and ( 2) t hat
Evoni k s cl ai ms wer e patent abl e under 35 U. S. C. 112. Mat er i a
di d not appeal t he Boar d s deci si on.
3. Preclusive Effect of USPTO ProceedingsGener al l y, cour t s have r ecogni zed t he pr ecl usi ve ef f ect of
admi ni st r at i ve agenci es when t he agency i s act i ng i n a j udi ci al
capaci t y. Uni t ed St at es v. Ut ah Const r . & Mi ni ng Co. , 384 U. S.
394, 422 ( 1966) ( f i ndi ng t hat [ w] hen an admi ni st r at i ve agency
i s act i ng i n a j udi ci al capaci t y and r esol ved di sput ed i ssues of
f act pr oper l y bef or e i t whi ch t he par t i es have had an adequat e
oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e, t he cour t s have not hesi t at ed t o appl y
r es j udi cat a t o enf or ce r epose. ) . The Boar d of Pat ent Appeal s
and I nt er f er ences i s an admi ni st r at i ve l aw br anch of t he USPTO.
See Kappos v. Hyat t , 132 S. Ct . 1690, 1692 ( 2012) ( di scussi ng
t he pr ocess of admi ni st r at i ve appeal wi t h t he PTO s Boar d of
12
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
13/40
Pat ent Appeal s and I nt er f er ences) ; I n r e Sul l i van, 362 F. 3d
1324, 1326 ( Fed. Ci r . 2004) ( di scussi ng t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he
Admi ni st r at i ve Pr ocedur e Act t o Boar d deci si ons) .
The Uni t ed St at es Cour t of Cl ai ms st at ed t hat r ul i ngs by
t he Boar d that were not appeal ed t o f ederal cour t are deemed
f i nal and t hus have pot ent i al pr ecl usi ve ef f ect . 7 Coakwel l v.
U. S. , 292 F. 2d 918, 920 ( Ct . Cl . 1961) ( concl udi ng t hat [ w] her e
t he l osi ng par t y f ai l s t o ef f ect i vel y r evi ew t he Pat ent Of f i ce
act i on i n one of t he cour t s and i t becomes f i nal , i t i s equal l y
bi ndi ng on t he par t i es . . . [ and] has t he same f i nal i t y as t he
j udgment of ei t her of t he cour t s woul d have had i f one of t hem
had r evi ewed i t . ) . Speci f i cal l y, t he Coakwel l Cour t hel d t hat
a r ul i ng by the Boar d, i n an i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng, r egar di ng
pr i or i t y of i nvent i on shoul d be gi ven pr ecl usi ve ef f ect and t he
def endant shoul d be bar r ed f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng an i ssue al r eady
l i t i gat ed and f i nal l y deci ded. I d. at 921; see Abbot t GMBH &
Co. , KG v. Cent ocor Or t ho Bi ot ech, I nc. , 870 F. Supp. 2d 206, 222-
23 ( D. Mass. 2012) ( f i ndi ng t hat BPAI or USPTO deci si ons have
7
Al l hol di ngs of t he Cour t of Cl ai ms announced bef or e t hecl ose of busi ness on Sept ember 30, 1982 were adopted aspr ecedent by t he Uni t ed St at es Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Feder alCi r cui t . S. Cor p. v. Uni t ed St at es, 690 F. 2d 1368, 1370 ( Fed.Ci r . 1982) .
13
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
14/40
pr ecl usi ve ef f ect ) . Thus, as a t hr eshol d mat t er , t he Cour t
concl udes t hat deci si ons by t he Boar d i n an i nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ng can be subj ect t o pr ecl usi on. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t
now l ooks t o whet her i ssue pr ecl usi on and cl ai m pr ecl usi on appl y
i n t hi s mat t er .
B. Issue Preclusion
1. Generally
I ssue pr ecl usi on, al so known as col l at er al est oppel , bar s
t he r e- l i t i gat i on of an i ssue of f act or l aw t hat was pr evi ousl y
l i t i gat ed and deci ded. See Bur l i ngt on N. R. R. v. Hyundai Mer ch.
Mar i ne Co. , 63 F. 3d 1227, 1232 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) . The Cour t of
Appeal s f or t he Thi r d Ci r cui t and t he Cour t of Appeal s f or t he
Feder al Ci r cui t bot h i mpose f our r equi r ement s: 8 ( 1) t he i ssue
must be i dent i cal t o an i ssue pr evi ousl y adj udi cat ed; ( 2) t he
i ssue must have been act ual l y l i t i gat ed; ( 3) t he det er mi nat i on
8 Al t hough pat ent i nf r i ngement sui t s br ought i n f eder aldi st r i ct cour t pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1338 have a r i ght ofappeal t o t he Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Feder al Ci r cui t , f orr ul es of l aw t hat do not have speci al appl i cat i on t o pat entcases, t he Feder al Ci r cui t appl i es t he l aw of t he r egi onalci r cui t i n whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t si t s. Medi a Techs.
Li censi ng, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co. , 334 F. 3d 1366, 1369 ( Fed.Ci r . 2003) ( ci t i ng Har t l ey v. Ment or Cor p. , 869 F. 2d 1469, 1471n. 1 ( Fed. Ci r . 1989) f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he appl i cat i onof pr i nci pl es of r es j udi cat a i s not a mat t er commi t t ed t o t heexcl usi ve j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s cour t [ t he Feder al Ci r cui t ] . ) .
14
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
15/40
of t he i ssue must have been necessary t o t he pr i or j udgment ; and
( 4) t he part y agai nst whom pr ecl usi on i s now assert ed must have
had a f ul l and f ai r oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e t he i ssue. Hengl ei n
v. Col t I ndus. , 260 F. 3d 201, 209 ( 3d Ci r . 2001) ; I n r e Freeman,
30 F. 3d 1459, 1465 ( Fed. Ci r . 1994) . Addi t i onal l y, t he Supr eme
Cour t has conf i r med t he appl i cabi l i t y of i ssue pr ecl usi on t o
pat ent i nf r i ngement cases. See Bl onder - Tongue Labor at or i es,
I nc. v. Uni ver si t y of I l l i noi s Foundat i on, 402 U. S. 313 ( 1971) .
Moreover , i ssue precl usi on may be non- mutual and t hus may be
used by a part y who was not a part y to or i n pr i vi t y wi t h a
par t y t o t he pr evi ous act i on. See i d. at 323- 25; see al so
Har t l ey v. Ment or Cor p. , 869 F. 2d 1469, 1470- 71 ( Fed. Ci r . 1989)
( st at i ng t hat mut ual i t y of est oppel or pr i vi t y i s not r equi r ed
f or a t hi r d par t y t o i nvoke col l at er al est oppel ) .
Evoni k cont ends t hat i ssue pr ecl usi on appl i es t o t wo
i ssues: pr i or i t y and val i di t y.
2. Issue Preclusion of Priority
Evoni k ar gues t hat Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng
Evoni k s ent i t l ement t o i t s Ger man pr i or i t y dat e as awar ded
dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. Mat er i a ar gues t hat t he
st andard by whi ch the Boar d gr ant ed t he German pr i or i t y dat e as
t o t he count di f f er s subst ant i al l y f r om t he st andar d bef or e t hi s
Cour t f or det er mi ni ng whether t he claims of t he 145 and 528
15
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
16/40
Pat ent s shoul d be accor ded benef i t under 35 U. S. C. 119.
Mat er i a al so ar gues t hat t he cl ai ms asser t ed by Evoni k i n t hi s
l i t i gat i on cover a br oader scope ( f ul l scope of t he cl ai ms) t han
t he subj ect mat t er i n t he I nt er f er ence ( one embodi ment of t he
count ) . Evoni k r epl i es t hat pr i or i t y was al r eady l i t i gat ed
dur i ng t he Markman hear i ng and that t he Cour t f ound that
Evoni k s Ger man appl i cat i on suppor t s t he f ul l scope of NHCs ( N-
het er ocycl i c car benes) cover ed by the 528 pat ent cl ai ms.
Pr i or i t y of an i nvent i on i s a quest i on of l aw t o be
det er mi ned based upon under l yi ng f actual det er mi nat i ons.
I nnovat i ve Scuba Concept s, I nc. v. Feder I ndus. , I nc. , 26 F. 3d
1112, 1115 ( Fed. Ci r . 1994) ( ci t i ng Pr i ce v. Symsek, 988 F. 2d
1187, 1190 ( Fed. Ci r . 1993) ) . To det er mi ne whet her Mater i a i s
bar r ed f r om l i t i gat i ng t he pr i or i t y of i nvent i on i ssue, t he
Cour t appl i es t he f our el ement s of i ssue pr ecl usi on.
Fi r st , t he Cour t consi der s whet her t he i ssue of pr i or i t y
r ai sed i n t he cur r ent pr oceedi ng i s i dent i cal t o t he i ssue of
pr i or i t y bef or e t he Boar d. I n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng, t he
16
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
17/40
Board awar ded Evoni k9 pr i or i t y of i nvent i on over Gr ubbs10 and
accor ded Evoni k s 10/ 630, 552 and 11/ 021, 967 appl i cat i ons ( t he
552 and 967 Appl i cat i ons) t he benef i t of t he Apr i l 6, 1998
f i l i ng date of t he DE 198 15 275 appl i cat i on ( Ger man
Appl i cat i on) . The 967 Appl i cat i on i ssued as t he 145 Pat ent ,
at i ssue i n t hi s case. 11 The ot her pat ent at i ssue, t he 528
Pat ent , was i ssued af t er t he concl usi on of t he I nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ng. Mat er i a ar gues t hat Evoni k s 145 and 528 pat ent s
ar e i nval i d because, i nt er al i a, t hey shoul d not be ent i t l ed t o
9 Al t hough t he named part i es t o t he I nt er f er ence wer eRober t H. Gr ubbs and Wol f gang Ant on Her r mann, t he Boarddet er mi ned t hat t he r eal par t i es i n i nt er est wer e t he Cal i f or ni aI nst i t ut e of Technol ogy and Degussa, AG, r espect i vel y. As not edby Evoni k i n i t s br i ef and admi t t ed by Mat er i a i n i t s i ni t i alcr oss mot i on, Her r mann assi gned hi s i nt er est [ i n t he pendi ngpat ent appl i cat i ons] t o Degussa AG, whi ch became Evoni k DegussaGmbH, or Evoni k. Ther ef or e, t he Cour t subst i t ut es al l
subsequent r ef erences t o Herr mann wi t h Evoni k when r ef erenci ngt he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng.
10 Because mut ual i t y of par t i es i s not r equi r ed f or i ssuepr ecl usi on t o appl y, t he Cour t does not consi der t he quest i on ofwhet her Mat er i a was i n pr i vi t y wi t h Gr ubbs i n t he pr i ori nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng at t hi s st age of t he anal ysi s. Bl onder -Tongue Labs. , I nc. v. Uni v. of I l l i noi s Found. , 402 U. S. 313,350 ( 1971) . However , as di scussed i n t he sect i on on cl ai mpr ecl usi on i nf r a, t he Cour t f i nds Mat er i a was i n pr i vi t y wi t hGr ubbs.
11 552 Appl i cat i on i ssued as U. S. Pat ent No. 7, 294, 717( t he 717 Pat ent ) . The 717 Pat ent i s not di r ect l y at i ssue i nt hi s case. Rat her , i t shar es t he same par ent appl i cat i on as t het wo pat ent s at i ssue i n t hi s case.
17
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
18/40
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
19/40
det er mi ni ng pr i or i t y of i nvent i on f or i nt er f er ence pur poses and
assi gni ng benef i t t o a f or ei gn f i l i ng f or pur poses of ant edat i ng
pr i or ar t r ef er ences i n a pat ent i nf r i ngement case. To
est abl i sh const r uct i ve r educt i on t o pr act i ce i n an i nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ng, at l east one embodi ment wi t hi n t he i nt er f er ence
count must be pr esent and adequatel y descr i bed i n t he ear l i er
pat ent appl i cat i on t hat i s rel i ed upon. See Fal ko- Gunt er
Fal kner v. I ngl i s, 448 F. 3d 1357, 1362 ( Fed. Ci r . 2006) ( ci t i ng
Hunt v. Treppschuh, 523 F. 2d 1386, 1389 ( C. C. P. A. 1975) ) .
I n a pat ent i nf r i ngement case, when a par t y seeks t o rel y
on i t s f or ei gn f i l i ng dat e f or pur pose of pr i or i t y t o ant edat e
pot ent i al pat ent - i nval i dat i ng pr i or ar t , t hat par t y must pr ove
t hat t he asser t ed cl ai ms ar e ent i t l ed t o t he benef i t of t he
f or ei gn f i l i ng dat es. Pur due Phar ma Pr oduct s L. P. v. Par
Phar m. , I nc. , 642 F. Supp. 2d 329, 369 ( D. Del . 2009) di smi ssed,
370 F. App' x 80 ( Fed. Ci r . 2009) and af f ' d, 377 F. App' x 978
( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng Tech. Li censi ng Cor p. v. Vi deot ek,
I nc. , 545 F. 3d 1316, 1327, 1329 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008) ) .
Thus, i n cont r ast t o an i nt er f er ence proceedi ng, where
benef i t i s gr ant ed wi t h r espect t o one or mor e count s, her e,
Evoni k seeks benef i t wi t h r espect t o i t s pat ent cl ai ms. I n
or der t o f ul f i l l i t s bur den f or r ecei vi ng t he benef i t of i t s
pat ent cl ai ms i n a pr i or appl i cat i on, Evoni k must show not onl y
19
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
20/40
t he exi st ence of t he ear l i er appl i cat i on, but why t he wr i t t en
descri pt i on i n t he ear l i er appl i cat i on suppor t s t he cl ai m.
Tech. Li censi ng Cor p. , 545 F. 3d at 1327.
Theref or e, t he st andar d appl i ed i n t hi s l i t i gat i on i s
di f f er ent f r om t hat appl i ed i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. See
I n r e OxyCont i n Ant i t r ust Li t i gat i on, - - - F. Supp. 2d - - - - , 2014
WL 128013, at *38 ( S. D. N. Y. J an. 14, 2014) ( i ssues are not
i dent i cal when t he l egal st andar ds gover ni ng t hei r r esol ut i on
ar e si gni f i cant l y di f f er ent . ) ( ci t i ng Comput er Assocs. I nt ' l ,
I nc. v. Al t ai , I nc. , 126 F. 3d 365, 371 ( 2d Ci r . 1997) ;
Rest atement ( Second) of J udgment s 28( 4) ) .
Despi t e t he di f f er ence i n t he appl i cabl e st andar d, Evoni k
ar gues t hat t he same i ssue t hat i t i s ent i t l ed t o i t s Ger man
pr i or i t y dat e was act ual l y l i t i gat ed i n t he I nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ngs. Mat er i a ar gues t hat t he i ssue i s not i dent i cal and
t hat t he scope i s br oader i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. Speci f i cal l y,
t hat Evoni k s cl ai ms f or t he 145 and 528 pat ent s i n t hi s
l i t i gat i on r eci t e br oader subj ect mat t er t han count s i n t he
I nt er f er ence.
The broader scope of t he 145 and 528 pat ents cr eat es
si gni f i cant di f f er ences. Her r mann/ Evoni k par t i ci pat ed i n t he
364/ 365 I nt er f er ence concer ni ng NHC wi t h a doubl e bond, but
di d not par t i ci pat e i n t he i nt er f er ence concer ni ng NHC wi t hout a
20
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
21/40
doubl e bond. The 145 and 528 Pat ent s i n t hi s l i t i gat i on
concer n NHC wi t h and wi t hout a doubl e bond. The 145 and 528
pat ent s i ncl ude subst i t ut ed hydr ocar bon gr oup whi ch i s broader
t han t he hydr ocar bon gr oup i n t he I nt er f er ence. For t he 145
and 528 Pat ent s, t he hydr ocar bon gr oup, as wel l as t he addi t i on
of si l yl r adi cal s, i n R1 and R2 may be subst i t ut ed by var i ous
chemi cal gr oups. 14 Fur t her , Evoni k amended hi s patent
appl i cat i on af t er t he Boar d s deci si on so t hat t he cl ai ms of t he
145 Pat ent are di f f er ent t han t hose i n t he I nt er f er ence. The
528 Patent was f i l ed t en mont hs af t er t he Boar d deci si on, and
st at ed t hat t he appl i cant cl ai ms a br oad genus. Ther ef or e,
Mat er i a di d not have an oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e r egar di ng t he
br oader def i ni t i on and appl i cabi l i t y of NHC t o cer t ai n f or mul as
( I I - I V) . See MSM I nvest ment s Co. v. Car ol wood Cor p. , 70
F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1051 (N. D. Cal . 1999) ( Fi ndi ng pat ent cl ai ms
br oader i n scope and t hat pl ai nt i f f had no oppor t uni t y t o
l i t i gat e det er mi nat i ve i ssue so t hat col l at er al est oppel di d not
appl y) .
14 Mat er i a al so ar gues t hat Evoni k s cl ai ms pendi ng dur i ngt he I nt er f er ence st at e t hat R1 and R2 cont ai n a r i ng whi l e i t s
pat ent cl ai ms i n t he i ssued pat ent s st at e t hat R1
and R2
formar i ng. R1 and R2 r epr esent chemi cal subst i t uent s on t he gener alchemi cal compound. Speci f i cal l y, t hey r epr esent ei t her hydr ogenor a hydr ocar bon gr oup. The Cour t agr ees wi t h Evoni k t hat t ot he ext ent t hat t hi s i s new cl ai m const r ucti on chal l enge, i t i sunt i mel y and t he Cour t wi l l not consi der i t .
21
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
22/40
Evoni k st at es t hat i t s speci f i cat i on i n t he I nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ng i s t he same as t he 528 pat ent speci f i cat i on and i s a
t r ansl at i on of Evoni k s Ger man appl i cat i on. Al t hough 528 may
be a di vi si onal pat ent , i t i s br oader i n scope t han t he pat ent s
bef ore t he Boar d. Even t hough Evoni k argues t hat pat ent
appl i cat i ons i nvol ved i n t he I nt er f er ence wer e t he par ent and
gr andpar ent of t he 528 Pat ent , t her eby oper at i ng as di vi si onal
appl i cat i ons havi ng t he same speci f i cat i ons, Evoni k expanded t he
scope of t he Pat ent s.
Evoni k f ur t her ar gues t hat Mat er i a l ost i t s 112 chal l enge
at t he I nt er f er ence and t hat t he Boar d f ound t hat Evoni k s
speci f i cat i on f ul l y enabl ed t he f ul l scope of t he cl ai ms t hat
Mat er i a chal l enged. Evoni k al so ar gues t hi s Cour t f ound i n i t s
Mar kman Opi ni on an i nt er pr et at i on of Evoni k s appl i cat i on t hat
NHC i s br oader t han j ust f or mul as I I - I V.
I n i t s Markman Opi ni on, t he Cour t consi dered document s
submi t t ed i n suppor t of Evoni k s or i gi nal appl i cat i on and
consi dered by t he Boar d dur i ng t he I nt er f erence and det er mi ned
t hat t her e was no i nt ent i on t o l i mi t t he scope of NHC.
Speci f i cal l y, t he Cour t det er mi ned t hat t he evi dence f ound i n
t he pr osecut i on hi st ory showed t hat NHC was not l i mi t ed t o
For mul ae I I - V, but was br oader i n scope.
Nonet hel ess, even gi ven the Cour t s broader i nt er pr et at i on
22
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
23/40
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
24/40
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
25/40
. . . [ such] as t o enabl e any per son ski l l ed i n t he ar t t o whi ch
i t per t ai ns, . . . t o make and use t he same. . . . 35 U. S. C. 112,
1 ( 2006) . Accordi ngl y, t wo separate and i ndependent
r equi r ement s must be sat i sf i ed: an appl i cant must bot h descr i be
t he cl ai med i nvent i on adequatel y and enabl e i t s pr oduct i on and
use. Al con Resear ch Lt d. v. Bar r Labor at or i es, I nc. , 745 F. 3d
1180, 1188 ( Fed. Ci r . 2014) ( ci t i ng Ar i ad Phar m. , I nc. v. El i
Li l l y & Co. , 598 F. 3d 1336, 1344 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ( en banc) ; Vas
Cat h I nc. v. Mahur kar , 935 F. 2d 1555, 156263 ( Fed. Ci r . 1991) ) .
[ P]atent s ar e pr esumed t o be val i d and over comi ng t hi s
pr esumpt i on r equi r es cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence. I d.
( ci t i ng 35 U. S. C. 282; Mi crosof t Cor p. v. i 4i Ltd. , U. S.
, 131 S. Ct . 2238, 2242, 180 L. Ed. 2d 131 ( 2011) ; Ar i ad, 598
F. 3d at 1354) . 16
The same f our el ement s of i ssue precl usi on appl i ed t o
pr i or i t y, ar e appl i ed t o det er mi ne i f Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om
16 I n an i nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng bef or e t he Boar d, t hepr eponder ance of evi dence st andard governs quest i ons ofpat ent abi l i t y, wher eas i n an i nf r i ngement case, cl ear andconvi nci ng evi dence i s necessary t o pr ove pat ent i nval i di t y.See Vel ander v. Garner , 348 F. 3d 1359, 1369- 70 ( Fed. Ci r . 2003) ;
see al so Radi o Cor p. of Am. v. Radi o Eng' g Labs. , 293 U. S. 1, 2( 1934) ( concl udi ng t hat t he pr esumpt i on [ of pat ent val i di t yshoul d] not t o be overt hr own except by cl ear and cogentevi dence. ) .
25
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
26/40
asser t i ng a val i di t y chal l enge. Fi r st , t he Cour t consi der s
whet her t her e i s i dent i t y of i ssue. I n t he I nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ng, t he Boar d r ej ect ed Gr ubbs pat ent abi l i t y ar gument s
r egar di ng Evoni k s pendi ng pat ent appl i cat i ons. Speci f i cal l y,
Gr ubbs ar gued t hat sever al cl ai ms of Evoni k s 552 and 967
Appl i cat i ons wer e unpat ent abl e f or l ack of an adequat e wr i t t en
descr i pt i on and f or l ack of an enabl i ng di scl osur e i n t he
cor r espondi ng speci f i cat i ons. I n t he pr esent case, Mat er i a
asser t s, as an af f i r mat i ve def ense and count er cl ai m, t hat
Evoni k s 528 Pat ent i s i nval i d f or f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he
r equi r ement s f or pat ent abi l i t y as set f or t h i n 35 U. S. C. 112.
I n i t s opposi t i on br i ef , Mat er i a ar gues t hat [ t ] hough val i di t y
was r ai sed i n t he i nt er f er ences, i t was r ai sed wi t h r espect t o
di f f er ent pat ent cl ai ms . . . t han t hose Evoni k now asser t s. The
mer e f act t hat t he pat ent cl ai ms di f f er , however , i s not
di sposi t i ve i n det er mi ni ng whet her i dent i t y of i ssue exi st s f or
i ssue pr ecl usi on pur poses. Whet her patent cl ai ms ar e t he same
or di st i nct has par t i cul ar appl i cabi l i t y t o pat ent l aw and
t her ef or e Feder al Ci r cui t l aw appl i es. See Aspex Eyewear , I nc.
v. Mar chon Eyewear , I nc. , 672 F. 3d 1335, 1341 n. 1 ( Fed. Ci r .
2012) ; Ohi o Wi l l ow Wood Co. , 2013 WL 6037196, at *5 ( ci t i ng
Bour ns, 537 F. 2d at 493) ( I f t he di f f er ences bet ween t he
unadj udi cated patent cl ai ms and adj udi cated patent cl ai ms do not
26
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
27/40
mat er i al l y al t er t he quest i on of i nval i di t y, col l at er al est oppel
appl i es. ) . To det er mi ne whet her t he change i n pat ent cl ai ms
cr eat es a new i ssue of pat ent val i di t y wi t h r espect t o 112,
t he scope of t he cl ai ms must be anal yzed. I f t he scope of a
subsequent pat ent cl ai m di f f er s f r om t hat of a pr i or pat ent
cl ai m, a new i ssue of pat ent val i di t y exi st s wi t h r espect t o
whet her t he subsequent pat ent cl ai m i s pr oper l y enabl ed under 35
U. S. C. 112.
As expl ai ned i n t he Cour t s di scussi on on pr i or i t y, t he
scope of t he pat ent cl ai ms asser t ed i n t hi s l i t i gat i on ar e
br oader t han t hose asser t ed i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. As
not ed by Evoni k, t he concept of pr i or i t y and 112 ar e cl osel y
r el at ed: Sect i on 112 asks whet her t he speci f i cat i on pr ovi des
adequat e wr i t t en descr i pt i on and whet her i t enabl es t he scope of
t he pat ent cl ai m, and pr i or i t y asks when was t hi s suppor t f i r st
pr ovi ded. 17
For t he same r easons t he Cour t expl ai ned i n i t s di scussi on
on pr i or i t y, Evoni k has not est abl i shed t hat t he i ssue of pat ent
val i di t y wi t h r espect t o 112 i s i dent i cal t o t he i ssue
pr evi ousl y adj udi cat ed. Ther ef or e, t he f i r st el ement of i ssue
17 Sect i on 119( a) pr ovi des t hat an appl i cat i on i s ent i t l edt o t he benef i t of t he f i l i ng dat e of an ear l i er f or ei gnappl i cat i on, subj ect t o cer t ai n l i mi t at i ons and condi t i onsi ncl udi ng suf f i ci ency of di scl osur e under 35 U. S. C. 112.
27
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
28/40
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
29/40
Mat er i a had a f ul l and f ai r oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e, 19 t he scope
of t he 528 Pat ent i n t hi s l i t i gat i on i s br oader t han t he count s
consi der ed by t he Boar d dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng.
4.Validity as Single IssueEvoni k al so seeks t o pr ecl ude Mat er i a f r om asser t i ng
val i di t y based on 35 U. S. C. 102 ( ant i ci pat i on) and 35 U. S. C.
103 ( obvi ousness) . These t heor i es of i nval i di t y wer e not
asser t ed by Mat er i a dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence.
A pat ent i s i nval i d f or ant i ci pat i on under 35 U. S. C. 102
i f a si ngl e pr i or ar t r ef er ence di scl oses each and ever y
l i mi t at i on of t he cl ai med i nvent i on. Al l er gan, I nc. v. Apot ex
I nc. , - - - F. 3d - - - - , 2014 WL 2579287, at *3 ( Fed. Ci r . J une 10,
2014) ( ci t i ng Scher i ng Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. , 339 F. 3d 1373,
1377 ( Fed. Ci r . 2003) ) . A pat ent i s i nval i d f or obvi ousness i f
t he di f f er ences bet ween t he subj ect mat t er sought t o be pat ent ed
and t he pr i or ar t ar e such t hat t he subj ect mat t er as a whol e
woul d have been obvi ous at t he t i me t he i nvent i on was made t o a
per son havi ng or di nar y ski l l i n t he ar t t o whi ch sai d subj ect
mat t er per t ai ns. I d. at *6 ( ci t i ng 35 U. S. C. 103( a) ) . The
19 Mat er i a ar gues t hat i t di d not have a f ul l and f ai roppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e because di scover y i s l i mi t ed i n anI nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. However , Gr ubbs/ Mat er i a el ect ed not t oappeal t he Boar d s deci si on t o t he Di st r i ct Cour t whi ch woul dhave al l owed f or mor e ext ensi ve di scover y. Ther ef or e, t hef our t h el ement of i ssue pr ecl usi on i s sat i sf i ed.
29
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
30/40
pr esumpt i on of a pat ent ' s val i di t y under 35 U. S. C. 282 can be
r ebut t ed by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence. I d. at *3 ( ci t i ng
Mi crosof t Cor p. v. i 4i Ltd. P' shi p, U. S. , 131 S. Ct .
2238, 224546, 180 L. Ed. 2d 131 ( 2011) ) .
Evoni k ar gues t hat Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng 102
and 103 ar gument s i n t hi s l i t i gat i on because i t chose not t o
asser t such cl ai ms ear l i er out of sel f - i nt er est . Evoni k ar gues
t hat Mat er i a, havi ng obt ai ned t wo patent s on t he same subj ect
mat t er ( vi a Gr ubbs) , di d not ar gue dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence t hat
t he pat ent s wer e i nval i d because i t woul d have meant t aki ng
i nconsi st ent posi t i ons; ar gui ng t hat t he subj ect mat t er was
pat ent abl e t o Mat er i a but not t o Evoni k. Havi ng l ost t he t wo
pat ent s as a r esul t of t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng, Mat er i a i n
t hi s l i t i gat i on ci t es 25 separ at e r ef er ences t o suggest t hat
Evoni k s pat ent cl ai ms are i nval i d under 35 U. S. C. 102 and
103. Evoni k argues t hat Mater i a shoul d not be per mi t t ed t o use
sel f - i nt er est as an excuse, and shoul d be pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng
t hese cl ai ms.
Mat er i a does not di sput e t hat i t chose not t o rai se 102
and 103 chal l enges dur i ng t he I nt er f er ence. Mat er i a st at es
t hat : [ A] par t y t o an i nt er f er ence wi l l have no i ncent i ve t o
chal l enge t he ot her par t y s i nvol ved cl ai ms as i nval i d i n vi ew
of pr i or ar t , as such chal l enges coul d vi t i at e t he ver y r i ght s
30
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
31/40
bei ng f ought over . Rat her , Mat er i a ar gues t hat si nce i t never
r ai sed 102 and 103 chal l enges, t hat i t never act ual l y
l i t i gat ed t he i ssue and, t her ef or e, i ssue pr ecl usi on cannot
appl y.
I ssue pr ecl usi on pr ohi bi t s successi ve l i t i gat i on of an
i ssue of f act or l aw act ual l y l i t i gat ed and r esol ved i n a val i d
cour t det er mi nat i on essent i al t o t he pr i or j udgment whet her or
not t he i ssue ar i ses on t he same or a di f f er ent cl ai m. New
Hampshi r e v. Mai ne, 532 U. S. 742, 74849, 121 S. Ct . 1808, 149
L. Ed. 2d 968 ( 2001) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I t al so pr ohi bi t s
successi ve or al t er nat i ve t heor i es of l i abi l i t y. Mat er i a s
102 and 103 cl ai ms are al t er nat i ve t heor i es on t he i ssue of
val i di t y. Such al t er nat i ve t heor i es rai sed af t er t he i ssue of
val i di t y had been pr evi ousl y rai sed wer e f ound t o be pr ecl uded
i n Ast r azeneca UK Lt d. v. Wat son Labs. , I nc. ( NV) , 905 F. Supp.
2d 596 ( D. Del . 2012) .
Whet her pat ent val i di t y i s a si ngl e i ssue f or pr ecl usi on
pur poses i s an i ssue par t i cul ar t o pat ent l aw, and t hus t he
Feder al Ci r cui t s pr ecedence i s bi ndi ng. See Hal l co Mf g. Co. ,
I nc. v. Fost er , 256 F. 3d 1290, 1294 ( Fed. Ci r . 2001) . Al t hough
t he Feder al Ci r cui t has yet t o r ul e concl usi vel y on t hi s mat t er ,
a cour t i n t hi s Di st r i ct has r ecent l y consi der ed t he mat t er and
concl uded t hat t he i ssue t o be gi ven pr ecl usi ve ef f ect i s pat ent
31
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
32/40
val i di t y i n gener al . Ast r azeneca, 905 F. Supp. 2d at 602- 03
( f i ndi ng t hat because def endant sought t o i nval i dat e the pat ent
under t heor i es of obvi ousness and i mpr oper r ei ssue i n pr evi ous
l i t i gat i on, i t i s pr ecl uded f r om seeki ng t o i nval i dat e t he
pat ent on ot her t heor i es of i nval i di t y) .
Si mi l ar l y, ot her di st r i ct cour t s have hel d t hat pat ent
val i di t y const i t ut es a si ngl e i ssue f or i ssue pr ecl usi on
pur poses. See Roche Pal o Al t o LLC v. Apot ex, I nc. , 526 F. Supp.
2d 985, 994- 95 ( N. D. Cal . 2007) af f ' d, 531 F. 3d 1372 ( Fed. Ci r .
2008) ( concl udi ng t hat t he r el evant i ssue whi ch [ d] ef endant s
ar e pr ecl uded f r om r e- l i t i gat i ng i s t he ul t i mat e det er mi nat i on
on pat ent val i di t y i t sel f . ) ; Appl i ed Medi cal Resour ces Cor p. v.
U. S. Sur gi cal Cor p. , 352 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1124- 26 ( C. D. Cal .
2005) ( appl yi ng t he f actors set out by the Rest atement ( Second)
of J udgment s i n det er mi ni ng t hat t he val i di t y of a pat ent cl ai m
i s a si ngl e i ssue f or pr ecl usi on pur poses) ; Mer i t or Tr ansmi ssi on
Corp. v. Eat on Corp. , No. 1: 04CV178, 2006 WL 3951711 ( W. D. N. C.
Sept . 26, 2006) af f ' d, 258 F. App' x 320 ( Fed. Ci r . 2007) ( not i ng
t he Feder al Ci r cui t s r el i ance on t he Rest at ement ( Second) of
J udgment s i n concl udi ng t hat val i di t y i s a sol e i ssue t o be
pr ecl uded) ; Zi p Dee, I nc. v. Domet i c Cor p. , 905 F. Supp. 535,
537 ( N. D. I l l . 1995) ( di st i ngui shi ng bet ween pat ent val i di t y,
whi ch i s a si ngl e i ssue and t heor i es of pat ent val i di t y, whi ch
32
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
33/40
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
34/40
D. Application of Claim Preclusion
1. Claim Preclusion Generally
Cl ai m pr ecl usi on, al so known as r es j udi cat a, bar s t he r e-
l i t i gat i on of cl ai ms t hat wer e or coul d have been br ought i n a
pr i or act i on. See I n r e Mul l ar key, 536 F. 3d 215, 225 ( 3d Ci r .
2008) ( ci t i ng Post v. Har t f or d I ns. Co. , 501 F. 3d 154, 169 ( 3d
Ci r . 2007) ) ; Davi s v. U. S. St eel Suppl y, Di v. of U. S. St eel
Cor p. , 688 F. 2d 166, 174 ( 3d Ci r . 1982) ( The doct r i ne of r es
j udi cat a ser ves t o r el i eve par t i es of t he cost and vexat i on of
mul t i pl e l awsui t s, conser ve j udi ci al r esour ces, and, by
pr event i ng i nconsi st ent deci si ons, encour age r el i ance on
adj udi cat i on. ) ( quot i ng Al l en v. McCur r y, 449 U. S. 90, 94
( 1980) ) .
The Thi r d Ci r cui t i mposes t hree r equi r ements f or cl ai m
pr ecl usi on:21
( 1) t here must have been a f i nal j udgment on t he
l i t i gat i on, i t does not get t o al so r ai se new t heor i es ofval i di t y t hat i t f ai l ed t o r ai se i n t he I nt er f er ence. Theappl i cat i on of val i di t y as a si ngl e i ssue i s t o pr event a l osi ngpar t y f r om mount i ng successi ve chal l enges. Mat er i a has notshown how t he br oadeni ng of t he cl ai m suppor t s a di f f er entt heor y of i nval i di t y. Rat her , Mat er i a i s br i ngi ng 102 and103 cl ai ms now because i t no l onger hol ds t he patent s.
21
As st at ed pr evi ousl y by t he Cour t , f or r ul es of l aw t hatdo not have speci al appl i cabi l i t y to pat ent cases, t he Feder alCi r cui t appl i es t he l aw of t he r egi onal ci r cui t i n whi ch t hedi st r i ct cour t si t s. See Medi a Techs. Li censi ng, LLC. , 334 F. 3dat 1369.
34
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
35/40
mer i t s i n a pr i or pr oceedi ng; ( 2) t he cur r ent sui t must i nvol ve
t he same par t i es or t hose i n pr i vi t y wi t h t he par t i es t o t he
pr i or pr oceedi ng; and (3) t he subsequent sui t must be based on
t he same cause of act i on as t he pr i or pr oceedi ng. See
Cor eSt ates Bank, N. A. v. Hul s Am. , I nc. , 176 F. 3d 187, 194 ( 3d
Ci r . 1999) ( quot i ng Bd. of Tr ust ees of Tr ucki ng Empl oyees of N.
J er sey Wel f ar e Fund, I nc. - Pensi on Fund v. Cent r a, 983 F. 2d
495, 504 ( 3d Ci r . 1992) ) . Addi t i onal l y, t he Supr eme Cour t has
conf i r med t he appl i cabi l i t y of cl ai m pr ecl usi on t o pat ent
i nf r i ngement cases. See Har t St eel Co. v. R. R. Suppl y Co. , 244
U. S. 294, 297- 98 (1917) .
As wi t h i ssue pr ecl usi on, t he i ssue of t he br oader scope of
t he cl ai ms i n t hi s l i t i gat i on as compar ed t o t he I nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ng def eat s appl i cat i on of cl ai m pr ecl usi on as t o
pr i or i t y and val i di t y ( 112 enabl ement and wr i t t en
descr i pt i on) .
2. Priority
Evoni k ar gues t hat cl ai m pr ecl usi on bar s Mat er i a f r om r e-
l i t i gat i ng t he i ssue of pri or i t y. Evoni k has pr esent ed
suf f i ci ent f act s t o show t hat t he I nt er f er ence was a f i nal
j udgment on t he mer i t s. Mat er i a chose not t o appeal t he
deci si on t hus maki ng i t f i nal .
Evoni k has al so pr esent ed suf f i ci ent f act s t o show t hat
35
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
36/40
Mat er i a was i n pr i vi t y wi t h Gr ubbs/ Cal t ech. I n t he
I nt er f er ence, al t hough Cal t ech was i dent i f i ed as t he r eal par t y
i n i nt er est f or t he Gr ubbs pat ent s, Cal t ech had excl usi vel y
l i censed i t s r i ght s i n t hese pat ent s t o Mat er i a. Under t hat
Li cense Agr eement , Mater i a was responsi bl e f or t he pr osecut i on
and mai nt enance of t he Gr ubbs pat ent s i n t he USPTO. Mat er i a
al so had t he r i ght t o el ect t o have sol e cont r ol over t he
def ense of a val i di t y chal l enge to t he Gr ubbs pat ent s as wel l as
t he f i r st r i ght t o sue f or i nf r i ngement .
I n addi t i on to t he Li cense Agr eement , Mat er i a and Cal t ech
execut ed a J oi nt Def ense Agr eement ( J DA) speci f i cal l y t o cover
t he I nt er f er ence. The J DA pr ovi ded t hat : ( 1) Mat er i a and
Cal t ech shar e j oi nt i nt er est s i n pr evai l i ng i n t he
I nt er f er ence; ( 2) Mat er i a had t he r i ght t o appr ove of any
set t l ement of t he I nt er f er ence; and, ( 3) Mat er i a was obl i gat ed
t o pay t he f ees and expenses, whi ch i t di d pay. Mater i a was
i nvol ved i n t he I nt er f er ence t hr ough i t s 30( b) ( 6) desi gnee, and
Mat er i a s counsel and one of i t s sci ent i st s at t ended t he
I nt er f er ence deposi t i on of Evoni k s exper t . Taken i n
combi nat i on, al l of t hese f act s suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat Mat er i a
was i n pr i vi t y wi t h Gr ubb/ Cal t ech. 22
22 Mat er i a ar gues t hat cont r ol of t he l i t i gat i on i s notenough t o creat e pr i vi t y. See Gi l l i g v. Ni ke, I nc. , 602 F. 3d
36
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
37/40
Evoni k has not , however , pr oven t hat t hi s l i t i gat i on i s
based on t he same cause of act i on as t he I nt er f erence. Because
t hi s i s an i nqui r y i nvol vi ng det er mi nat i ons i nvol vi ng
subst ant i ve i ssues of pat ent l aw, Feder al Ci r cui t case l aw i s
appl i cabl e. See Hal l co Mf g. Co. , 256 F. 3d at 1294; see al so
Acumed LLC v. St r yker Corp. , 525 F. 3d 1319, 1323 ( Fed. Ci r .
2008) ( st at i ng t hat [ w] het her t wo cl ai ms f or pat ent
i nf r i ngement ar e i dent i cal i s a cl ai m pr ecl usi on i ssue t hat i s
par t i cul ar t o pat ent l aw) . I n det er mi ni ng whet her t her e i s an
i dent i cal cause of act i on, t he Feder al Ci r cui t has adopt ed t he
t r ansact i onal t est . See Fost er v. Hal l co Mf g. , 947 F. 2d 469,
478- 79 ( Fed. Ci r . 1991) .
Under a t r ansact i onal anal ysi s, cour t s t ur n t o whet her t he
t wo cl ai ms ar e based on t he same, or near l y t he same, f act ual
al l egat i ons. J et , I nc. v. Sewage Aer at i on Sys. , 223 F. 3d 1360,
1354, 1362 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ( cont r ol of a par t y to t hel i t i gat i on t hr ough st ock owner shi p or cor por at e of f i cer shi p i snot enough t o cr eat e pr i vi t y, absent a showi ng t hat t hecor por at e f or m has been i gnor ed. ) . Thi s i s a di f f er entsi t uat i on t han t hat i n Gi l l i g. I n Gi l l i g, t he l ower cour t f oundpr i vi t y because Gi l l i g was an of f i cer and t he pr i nci pal owner oft he f i r st company. The Feder al Ci r cui t f ound t hat was notenough and f or t he cont r ol of l i t i gat i on except i on t o appl y,
i t i s necessar y to est abl i sh t hat t he st ockhol der / of f i cercont r ol l ed t he l i t i gat i on and t hat hi s i nt er est s wer er epr esent ed by t he par t y i n t he sui t . Her e, Evoni k haspr esent ed f act s and document s t hat show t hat Mater i a cont r ol l edt he l i t i gat i on and t hei r i nt er est s wer e f ul l y r epr esent ed dur i ngt he I nt er f er ence.
37
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
38/40
1363 ( Fed. Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Her r mann v. Cencom Cabl e Assoc. ,
I nc. , 999 F. 2d 223, 226 ( 7t h Ci r . 1993) ) ( ci t i ng Par sons St eel ,
I nc. v. Fi r st Al abama Bank, 474 U. S. 518, 521 ( 1986) ) . Thus,
t he quest i on her e i s whet her t he cl ai m of i nf r i ngement bef or e
t hi s Cour t ar i ses out of t he same set of t r ansact i onal f act s as
t he det er mi nat i on of pr i or i t y of i nvent i on i n t he i nt er f er ence
pr oceedi ng.
Evoni k pr ovi des l i t t l e t o no f acts i n suppor t of i t s cl ai m
pr ecl usi on ar gument s. I n i t s br i ef , i t si mpl y makes t he
concl usory st at ement t hat [ t ] her e can be no l egi t i mat e di sput e
t hat t he act s, t he r el i ef sought and t he mat er i al f act s ar e al l
i dent i cal whet her Evoni k s ent i t l ement t o t he Ger man pr i or i t y
dat e i s l i t i gat ed bef or e t he Boar d or bef or e t hi s Cour t .
Evoni k di d not pr ovi de any f ur t her br i ef i ng af t er t hi s st at ement
asi de f r om a ci t at i on t o a case whi ch hel d t hat cl ai m pr ecl usi on
appl i ed t o bar a pr i soner s l awsui t . See Byr d v. Ci t y of
Phi l adel phi a, 245 Fed. Appx. 208 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) ( pl ai nt i f f
al l eged cl ai ms of f al se ar r est and i mpr i sonment , i nvol unt ar y
ser vi t ude, f r aud, deni al of due pr ocess, deni al of equal
pr ot ect i on, and cr uel and unusual puni shment , al l st emmi ng f r om
hi s ar r est , pr osecut i on, and conf i nement as a resul t of hi s
convi ct i ons).
Evoni k concl usor y st at ement s ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh
38
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
39/40
t hat Mat er i a s cl ai ms are pr ecl uded under a t heor y of cl ai m
pr ecl usi on. Under t he t r ansact i onal t est , t he Cour t f i nds t hat
Evoni k has not shown t hat t he f act s i n t hi s l i t i gat i on ar i se out
of t he same set of t r ansact i onal f act s as t he det er mi nat i on of
pr i or i t y of i nvent i on i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng. I n f act,
Evoni k has not under t aken t he anal ysi s. As such, Evoni k has not
pr esent ed f act s t hat show t hat Mat er i a i s pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng
a pr i or i t y chal l enge based on t he t heor y of cl ai m pr ecl usi on. 23
3.Validity 35 U.S.C. 112For t he same reasons expl ai ned i n the Cour t s di scussi on on
pr i or i t y, Evoni k has not shown t hat t hi s l i t i gat i on i s based on
t he same set of f act s as t he I nt er f er ence. I n i t s br i ef ,
Mat er i a poi nt s out t hat Evoni k ci t es no case i n whi ch a f eder al
cour t appl i ed cl ai m pr ecl usi on t o hol d t hat an i nt er f er ence
j udgment bars a def endant i n a pat ent i nf r i ngement act i on f r om
asser t i ng i nval i di t y def enses. Evoni k r esponds t hat Mat er i a s
subsequent val i di t y chal l enges ar e bar r ed under i ssue pr ecl usi on
and t hat t her e i s no need t o r each cl ai m pr ecl usi on. As such,
Evoni k has not pr esent ed f act s t hat show t hat Mat er i a i s
pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng a val i di t y chal l enge based on t he t heor y
23 Gi ven t he br oader scope of t he cl ai ms, i t i s doubt f ult hat Evoni k woul d be abl e t o pr ove t hat t hi s l i t i gat i on i s basedon t he same set of f act s as i n t he I nt er f er ence pr oceedi ng.
39
-
8/12/2019 vonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NLH/JS (D. Del. June 30, 2014)
40/40
of cl ai m pr ecl usi on. 24
V. CONCLUSION
For al l t he f or egoi ng r easons, Evoni k s mot i on f or par t i al
summary j udgment wi l l be gr ant ed i n part and deni ed i n part .
I t s mot i on wi t h r egar d t o pr ecl udi ng Mat er i a s pr i or i t y cl ai ms
pur suant t o ei t her i ssue pr ecl usi on or cl ai m pr ecl usi on wi l l be
deni ed. I t s mot i on wi t h r egar d t o pr ecl udi ng Mat er i a s val i di t y
cl ai ms based on 35 U. S. C. 112 pur suant t o ei t her i ssue
pr ecl usi on or cl ai m pr ecl usi on wi l l be deni ed. I t s mot i on wi t h
r egar d t o pr ecl udi ng Mat er i a s val i di t y cl ai ms based on 35
U. S. C. 102 and 103 based on i ssue pr ecl usi on wi l l be
gr ant ed. 25
An appr opr i at e Or der f ol l ows.
s/ Noel L. Hi l l manAt Camden, New J ersey NOEL L. HI LLMAN, U. S. D. J .
Dat ed: J une 30, 2014
24 However , Mater i a s 102 and 103 ant i ci pat i on andobvi ousness cl ai ms ar e pr ecl uded under t he val i di t y as a si ngl ei ssue r ul e.
25 Evoni k al so ar gues t hat because Mat er i a f ai l ed t o f i l e ar esponse t o i t s st at ement of mat er i al f act s, t hat t he f act s i nEvoni k s st atement shoul d be deemed admi t t ed. Ther e i s no l ocalr ul e i n t he Di st r i ct of Del awar e r equi r i ng a par t y t o f i l e a
st at ement of mat er i al f act s, or r equi r i ng t he opposi ng par t y t oanswer such st at ement s. But cf . Local Rul e 56. 1( a) f or t heDi st r i ct of New J er sey ( r equi r i ng t he f i l i ng of a st at ement ofmat er i al f act s al ong wi t h a summary j udgment mot i on) . The Cour tf i nds t hat Mat er i a has compl i ed wi t h i t s obl i gat i on under Fed.R. Ci v. P. 56 t o di sput e f act s advanced by Evoni k.
40