Introduction

The case of Schering Corporation and Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., decided on October 9, 1998, by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, represents a pivotal moment in patent law, particularly concerning the procedural boundaries of motions for reargument in the context of claim construction. Schering Corporation and Biogen, Inc., collectively referred to as "Schering," initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Amgen, Inc., alleging infringement of Biogen's U.S. Patent No. 4,530,901 ("'901 Patent"). The central issue revolved around the accurate interpretation of specific claim language within the patent, which was addressed through a Markman hearing, a judicial proceeding where the judge interprets patent claims to determine their scope.

Summary of the Judgment

In the Markman hearing held on June 23, 1998, Judge Murray M. Schwartz construed seven distinct aspects of the patent claims. Schering sought reargument on one specific aspect: the interpretation of the term "a polypeptide of the IFN- type" as used in several claims of the '901 Patent. The court evaluated Schering's motion against the governing principles outlined in Local Rule 7.1.5, which sets stringent limitations on motions for reargument. The court concluded that Schering failed to demonstrate that the initial ruling contained errors warranting reargument. Consequently, the motion for reargument was denied, effectively upholding the original claim constructions and setting a precedent for how similar motions would be treated in future patent litigation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment prominently cited several key precedents that shaped the court's decision:

• MARKMAN v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., 517 U.S. 370 (1996): This landmark Supreme Court case established that the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law to be decided by the court rather than a matter of fact for a jury. This principle was foundational in the application of the Markman hearing in the Schering case.
• StairMaster Sports/Medical Products v. Groupe Procycle, Inc., Civ. A. No. 97-396 MMS (D.Del. Sept. 3, 1998): This case was referenced to elucidate the standards under Local Rule 7.1.5, particularly regarding when reargument should be granted. It emphasized that reargument should only be permitted to correct clear errors.
• Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239 (D.Del. 1990): This precedent outlined the limited circumstances under which reargument could be considered, such as when the court has patently misunderstood a party or has made an error of apprehension.
• DIGITAL BIOMETRICS, INC. v. IDENTIX, INC., 149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Referenced in the context of claim construction, this case guided the court's approach to determining the appropriate scope of claim terms based on the specificity provided in the patent's specification.
• MULTIFORM DESICCANTS, INC. v. MEDZAM, LTD., 133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998): This case supported the notion that claim terms should not be broadened during prosecution to cover developments unknown at the filing date, aligning with Schering's argument on claim term definitions.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously applied the standards set forth in Local Rule 7.1.5 to assess the validity of Schering's motion for reargument. The primary considerations included:

• Clearness of Error: The court determined that Schering did not present evidence of a clear error in the initial claim construction that would warrant reargument.
• Purpose of Finality: Emphasizing the importance of finality in judicial decisions, the court highlighted that allowing reargument for mere disagreements would undermine the efficiency and authority of court rulings.
• Scope of Reargument: The court reiterated that reargument is intended to correct specific errors and not to serve as a platform for rehashing previous arguments or introducing entirely new issues.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: Schering's attempt to introduce new evidence regarding the DNA sequence of the 4c insert was scrutinized. The court concluded that this evidence was not truly new, as it could have been discovered with due diligence prior to the Markman hearing.

Ultimately, the court found that Schering's motion did not meet the stringent criteria for reargument, as it predominantly reflected a disagreement with the court's reasoning rather than presenting new factual or legal grounds.

Impact

The judgment in Schering Corp. v. Amgen Inc. has significant implications for future patent litigation, particularly in the realm of claim construction and procedural motions:

• Strengthening Finality: By denying the motion for reargument, the court reinforced the principle that claim constructions following a Markman hearing are largely final, promoting judicial efficiency and reducing prolonged litigation.
• Guidance on Reargument Standards: The detailed application of Local Rule 7.1.5 serves as a clear guideline for litigants on the limitations and requirements for seeking reargument, discouraging its use as a tactical tool for delaying proceedings.
• Emphasis on Due Diligence: The handling of newly discovered evidence underscores the necessity for parties to conduct thorough and timely investigations, as courts are unlikely to accommodate late-arriving evidence unless it meets stringent criteria.
• Influence on Claim Construction: The court's adherence to precedents like Digital Biometrics and Multiform Desiccants highlights the judiciary's commitment to a structured and principled approach to interpreting patent claims, ensuring consistency and predictability in patent law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Markman Hearing

A Markman hearing is a pretrial proceeding in patent cases where the judge examines the patent's claims to interpret their meaning and scope. This process is crucial as it determines the boundaries of the alleged infringement without involving a jury.

Local Rule 7.1.5

Local Rule 7.1.5 refers to specific procedural rules established by the District of Delaware that govern the submission and consideration of motions for reargument. These rules are designed to prevent repetitive and frivolous motions, ensuring that the court's time is used efficiently.

New Matter

In patent law, new matter refers to information or content that was not disclosed in the original patent application. Introducing new matter after filing is generally prohibited, as it can unfairly extend the patent's scope.

Claim Construction

Claim construction is the process by which a court determines the meaning and scope of the patent claims. Accurate construction is vital as it directly impacts the outcome of infringement and validity analyses.

Conclusion

The decision in Schering Corporation and Biogen, Inc. v. Amgen Inc. underscores the judiciary's firm stance on maintaining procedural integrity and finality in patent litigation. By denying the motion for reargument based on insufficient grounds and the introduction of non-new evidence, the court reinforced the importance of adhering to established procedural rules and the necessity for parties to engage in diligent evidence preparation. This judgment not only clarifies the limitations surrounding motions for reargument but also emphasizes a principled approach to claim construction, thereby providing valuable guidance for future cases in the ever-evolving landscape of patent law.