The opinion of the court was delivered by: Linares, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court by way of an application for claims construction by Plaintiff Lonza, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Lonza") and Defendant Nalco Co. ("Defendant" or "Nalco") (Docket Entry Nos. 36, 42, 43, 44, 47, and 48.) United States Patent No. RE39,021 (the ""‟021 Patent") is directed to an invention increasing biological control in papermaking pulp slurries by adding a certain combination of chemicals to the slurry. The parties seek the Court‟s interpretation of certain language contained in the Claim 14 of the "021 Patent, namely: (1) "process for making paper"; (2) "sizing"; and (3) "a mixture consisting essentially of the slimicide and N-hydrogen compound."
The Court held a Markman hearing on April 21, 2011, and has considered the parties‟ written and oral arguments. The Court sets forth herein its construction of the disputed claim terms.
The sole claim at issue is Claim 14 of the "021 Patent which is set forth below with the disputed terms identified in bold italics:
In a process for making paper from pulp fiber wherein from 0.2 to 3 weight percent of organic matter comprising from 95 to 99 weight percent pulp fiber is maintained in a circulating water slurry in the presence of sizing, the improvement of performing said process in the presence of a slimicidally effective amount of an N-hydrogen compound and a slimicide in a molar ratio of from 0.1:1 to 10:1 in said circulating water slurry; wherein said N-hydrogen compound is p-toluenesulfonamide, dimethylhydantoin, methylethylhydantoin, cyanuric acid, succinimide, urea, 4,4-dimethyl-2-oxazolidinone, or glycouril and said slimicide is chlorine gas, bromine, bromine chloride, an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal hypohalite, a halogenated hydantoin, a halogenated cyanurate, or halogenated cyanuric acid and the amount of the N-hydrogen compound present in said circulating water slurry is sufficient to enhance the biocidal efficacy of the slimicide and reduce absorbable organic halogen (AOX) by-product formation, wherein the N-hydrogen compound is directly added to the slurry before or after the addition of the slimicide or with the slimicide in a mixture consisting essentially of the slimicide and the N-hydrogen compound.
The "021 Patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,565,109 ("109 Patent"). A reexamination request was filed for the "109 Patent on July 22, 1997 and a certificate issued November 23, 1999. The claim at issue -- claim 14 of the "021 Patent (see above) -- was added during the "109 Reexamination and amended during the prosecution of the "021 Patent.
A court‟s analysis of a patent infringement claim is two-fold. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court must first define the meaning and scope of the patent claims as a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 978 (Fed. Cir.1995) (en banc), aff=d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The court then engages in a comparison of the claims as construed to the alleged infringing product (or method). Tate, 279 F.3d at 1365. At this stage, the Court must only engage in the first step.
Claim construction is a matter of law to be determined solely by the court. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 (2006). "It 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." Id. at 1312 (quotations omitted). In construing the terms of a patent, a court should look first to the language of the claim itself. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The terms in the claim "are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning."*fn1 Id. at 1582. "[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. A court "must look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history." Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The court should turn to "those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean." Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
To this end, the court should first examine the intrinsic record -- the patent itself, including the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). The specification "acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication." Id. Indeed, the Federal Circuit explains that the specification is "‟usually . . . dispositive . . . [and] the single best guide the meaning of a disputed term.‟" Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). It is "entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims." Id. at 1317. The specification is also an important guide in claims construction as it may contain "an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor." Id. at 1316.
Additionally, the court should consult the patent‟s prosecution history as it "provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent." Id. The prosecution history is the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited by the patentee during examination of the patent. Id. at 1317. Moreover, the prosecution history "can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be." Id. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the need to consult the prosecution history to "exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution." Chimi v. PPG Indus., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
A district court may also examine extrinsic evidence -- "all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history." Markman, 52 F.3d at 980; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-18 (stating that the Federal Circuit "ha[s] authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence"). Such evidence consists of testimony by the inventor or by experts, dictionaries, and treatises. Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. In particular, a court may find reference to technical dictionaries useful "in determining the meaning of particular terminology." SeePhillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. However, extrinsic evidence is generally thought less reliable than the patent and prosecution history, id. at 1318-19; in essence, it is "less significant than ...