8/9/2019 05-737

1/13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,P l a i n t i f f ,

v.NOVA CHEMICALS CORPORATION(CANADA), and NOVA CHEMICALSINC. (Delaware) ,

Defendants .

Civ i l Action No. 05-737-JJF

Harry J . Roper, Esqui re ; Aaron A. Barlow, Esqui re and Paul D.Margol is Esqui re o f JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Chicago, I l l i no i s .Raymond Nimrod, Esqui re and Gregory D. Bon i f i e l d , Esqui re o fJENNER & BLOCK LLP, New York, New York.Rodger D. Smith I I , Esqui re and Andrew C. Mayo, Esqui re o fMORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNEL LLP, Wilmington, DE.Attorneys fo r P l a i n t i f f The Dow Chemical Company.Ford F. Farabow, J r . , Esqui re ; Ronald A. Bleeker , Esqui re ; JoannM. Neth, Esqui re ; Mar t in I . Fuchs, Esqui re ; Mark J . Fe ld s t e i n ,Esquire ; J e f f r ey W. Abraham, Esqui re ; Troy A. Pe te r s en , Esqui reand Ken Motolen ich-Sa las , Esquire o f FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L .P . , Washington, D.C.H. Woodruff Turner , Esqui re ; Thomas A. Donovan, Esqui re ; Rober tD. Yeager, Esquire and Brian P. Anderson, Esqui re o f KIRKPATRICK& LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP, Pi t t sbu rgh , PA.Richard L. Horwi tz , Esqui re ; David E. Moore, Esqui re and D. FonMuttamara-Walker , Esquire o f POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,Wilmington, DE.Attorneys fo r Defendants NOVA Chemicals Corpora t ion (Canada) andNOVA Chemicals Inc . (Delaware) .

MEMORANDUM OPINION

May ~ 2010Wilm ingto n, Delawa re

8/9/2019 05-737

2/13

F a r n a n , ~ 8Pending before the Cour t is Defendants Nova Chemicals

Corporation (Canada) and Nova Chemical I nc . ' s (Delaware)( co l l ec t ive ly "Nova") Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non-Infr ingement And/Or Inva l id i ty Of The '023 Patent (0 .1 . 257) andNova's Motion To St r ike Dow's Untimely Expert Declara t ions .(0 .1 . 322.) P l a i n t i f f The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") opposesboth of these motions . (0 .1 . 287, 348.) Both pa r t i e s haves ub sequent ly ag re ed t ha t the por t ion of the Motion For SummaryJudgment r e l a t i ng to the inva l id i ty of the '023 pa ten t i s mootfollowing th e Cour t ' s claim cons t ruc t ion , thus it wi l l be deniedas moot.

I. BACKGROUND

Dow contends t ha t Nova in f r inged upon Dow's pa ten t s , UnitedSta tes Patent Nos. 5,847,053 (" the '053 patent" ) and 6,111,023(" the '023 pa t en t " ) . The pa t en t s - i n - su i t r e l a t e to polymerblends . Each of the asse r t ed cla ims r equ i res a polymer blendwith a Component A and a Component B. In the asse r t ed cla ims,Component A i s re qu ire d to have a slope of s t r a i n hardeningc o ef fic ie n t g re ate r than or equal to 1.3 or 1.5 . '053 Patent .Addi t ional ly , Component B cons i s t s of a t l e a s t oneheterogeneously branched l i nea r e thylene polymer. Id . The Courtconstrued the term "heterogeneously branched" to mean "a polymer

2

8/9/2019 05-737

3/13

having a d i s t r i bu t i on of branching d i f f e r e n t from and broaderthan th e homogeneously branched e t hy l ene / a -o l e f i n . " (0 .1 . 270,271. )

The i n s t an t Motion (0 .1 . 257) seeks summary judgment infavor of Defendant Nova on the grounds t ha t the re could not havebeen infr ingement because the accused Nova polymers do notconta in e i t h e r a Component A with a s lope of s t r a i n hardeningcoe f f i c i en t grea t e r than or equal to 1 .3 or 1 .5 nor a Component Bwith a t l e a s t one heterogeneously branched l i nea r e thylenepolymer. (0 .1 . 258. ) Dow responds t ha t qu es tio ns o f f a c t remainand thus th e motion should be denied. Most of the i n s t an tdispute between Dow and Nova der ives from the f a c t t ha t int e s t ing th e accused produc t , Dow c re ate d the product i t s e l f andthus , whether t h i s was a proper means to eva lua te the a lle ge dinfr ingement .

Af te r Dow f i l ed i t s Counters ta tement of Facts (0 .1 . 287) ,Nova f i l ed a se co nd motio n, i t s Motion To St r ike Dow's UntimelyExper t Declara t ions . (0 .1 . 322.) By t h i s motion Nova as s e r t st ha t the exper t s ta tements re l i ed upon in Dow's Counters ta tementwere improper and should be s t r i cken . Dow also opposes t h i smotion. ( 0 . 1 . 348.)

3

8/9/2019 05-737

4/13

II . MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT DECLARATIONS

A. Legal StandardIn pa ten t cases , discovery i s sues , such as th e e xc lu sio n of

evidence, a re e va lu ate d under Third Ci r cu i t preceden t .t h a t preceden t " [ t ]he e xclus io n o f c r i t i c a l evidence i s

Under

considered an extreme sanc t ion , not normally to be imposed absen ta showing of wi l l fu l d ec eptio n o r f l ag ran t di s rega rd of a cour to rder by th e proponent of the ev idence." Bridges tone Spor t s Co.Ltd. v. Acushnet Co., Civ. No. 05-132-JJF, 2007 U.S. Dis t LEXIS11370, *10 (D. Del. Feb. 15, 2007) (quoting In re Pao li R.R. YardPCB Li tg . , 35 F.3d 717, 749 (3d Cir . 1994)) .

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a) (2) a par ty i s requ i red toproduce an exper t r epor t fo r each e xp er t w itn es s.par t i e s must adhere to the following:

Spec i f i c a l l y ,

Federal Rule of Civ i l Procedure 26 (a ) (2) (B) requ i re s anexpe r t ' s repo r t to "contain a complete s ta tem ent of a l lopinions to be expressed and th e bas i s and reasons the re fo r ;[and] th e data or othe r information cons idered by the witnessin forming the opinions ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (2) (B). Indetermining whether an exper t ' s tes t imony has exceeded th escope of h is or her repor t , th e Cour t has no t requ i redverbatim consi s t ency with th e repor t , but has al lowedtes t imony which i s cons i s ten t with the r epor t and i s areasonable syn thes i s and/or e labora t ion of the opinionsconta ined in th e expe r t ' s repor t .

Power In teg ra t ions , Inc . v. Fai rch i ld Semiconductor I n t ' l , Inc . ,585 F. Supp. 2d 568, 581 (D. Del. 2008) .

B. Part ies ' Content ionsNova contends t h a t the t hr ee d e cl ar at io n s of th e Dow exper t s

4

8/9/2019 05-737

5/13

f i l ed with Dow's counte rs ta tement s o f f ac t to Nova's summaryjudgment motions (0 .1 . 290, 293, 294) should be s t ruck asuntimely. (0 .1 . 323. ) Nova argues t h a t these dec la ra t ionscons t i tu te add i t iona l exper t opinions t h a t should have been f i l edbefore the end of d iscovery . ( Id .) Nova a lso contends t h a t th edec la ra t ions were improper ly molded to meet Dow's l ega lchal lenges in responding to the summary judgment motions andt he re fo re Nova i s unduly pre jud iced . Thus, Nova reques ts theCourt not to use these dec la ra t ions .

Dow responded t h a t th e dec la ra t ions are proper e labora t ionsand responses to cr i t i c i sm Nova presen ted in i t s opening summaryjudgment br i e f s . (0 .1 . 348 a t 1 . ) Dow adds t h a t th e Motionshould be d en ie d b ec au se it f a i l s to i den t i fy any spec i f i cob je c tio n ab le c o nt en t in the dec la ra t ions . ( Id . ) Last ly , Dowargues t ha t even if a por t ion of the dec la ra t ions should bes t ruck , Nova offe rs no explanat ion as to why th e dec la ra t ionsshould be s tru ck in t h e i r en t i r e ty . (Id . a t 16.) Nova rep l i e st h a t th e dec la ra t ions are new opinions, not e labora t ions .363. )

C. DecisionThe Cour t concludes t h a t the subjec t dec la ra t ions only

e labora te and the re fo re , should not be excluded. The

(D . I .

dec la ra t ions are not newly conceived arguments . The sub jec tdec la ra t ions are more in l ine with the por t ion of the tes t imony

5

8/9/2019 05-737

6/13

t h a t was al lowed in Fores t Labs, Inc . v. Iv ex Ph arm s., I nc . , 237F.R.D. 106 (D. Del. 2006).

For example, in h is i n i t i a l exper t dec la ra t ion Dr. Soaresnoted t h a t he had reproduced the a l l eged ly in f r ing ing product ,the condi t ions he d id so in , and h is be l i e f t h a t the reproduct ionwas accu ra t e . (0 .1 . 290 Ex. A.) In h is dec la ra t ion a t i s sue ,Dr. Soares r e i t e r a t ed h is opinion and e labora ted on how hereached t h a t opinion by providing grea te r de t a i l on th e processeshe had mentioned. (0 .1 . 290.) The Court f inds such ane labora t ion on h is p r i o r de c la r at io n a pp rop r ia te .

Regarding Dr. Hsiao ' s dec la ra t ion (0 .1 . 294) , the Courtf inds t h a t it does not o f fe r an improper opinion o r ev idence .Nova contends t h a t Dr. Hsiao has changed h is opinion on themethod o f ca l cu l a t i ng s lope o f s t r a in hardening which hadpreviously been t h a t maximum s lope i s necessary . (0 .1 . 363 a t9.) However, in th e Cour t ' s view, Nova's con ten t ionmischarac te r i zes Dr. Hsiao ' s dec la ra t ion . Dr. Hsiao has beencons i s t en t in s t a t i ng t h a t a person o f ord inary s k i l l in th e a r twould know to use maximum slope. In h is con t e s t ed dec la ra t ion ,Dr. Hsaio s ta te s e ss en tia ll y the same thought , spec i f i c a l l y t h a t ," [ t ]he only way to measure the ac tua l s lope o f s t r a i n hardeningi s to use maximum s lope ." (0 .1 . 294 a t 8 .) He then e labora t e st h a t o the r methods can "provide in fo rmat ion r e l a t i ng to maximums lope . " (Id. )

6

8/9/2019 05-737

7/13

Lastly , the Cour t f inds t ha t Dr. Cr i s t ' s dec la ra t ion did notinclude any improper mater ia l . Although United Sta tes Patent No.6,506,866 (" the '866 paten t") was not discussed in Dr. Cr i s t ' si n i t i a l dec la ra t ion , it i s discussed in th e sub jec t dec la ra t ionwith good reason. Nova in t roduced the '866 pa ten t to th el i t ig a tio n a fte r exper t dec la ra t ions had been f i l ed . AlthoughNova argues t h a t it i s pre jud iced by Dr. Cr i s t ' s dec la ra t ion , theCourt f inds t h a t Nova i s not unduly pre judiced by a discuss ion ofa patent t h a t it in tro du ce d to the l i t i ga t ion a f t e r th e d ea dlin eto f i l e exper t dec la ra t ions . Nova c an no t c on te nd t h a t it wasunable to i nves t i ga t e a pa ten t t h a t it in t roduced . Fina l ly ,Nov a's a rg um en t t ha t Dr. Cr i s t provided incons i s ten t opin ionsappears to be i ncor rec t . Dr. Cr i s t provided s imi l a r tes t imonyregarding th e eva lua t ion of "maximum slope" across h isdec la ra t ions and simply made an appropr ia te e labora t ion in th esub jec t dec la ra t ion . (See 0 .1 . 293.)

In sum, th e Court wi l l not s t r i ke th e dec la ra t ions of Dow'sexperts because they cons i s t of cons i s ten t and appropr i a t ee labora t ions of p r i o r opinions and s ta tements .

I I I . MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTA. Legal StandardIn pe r t i nen t pa r t , Rule 56(c) of the Federa l Rules of Civ i l

Procedure prov ides t ha t a pa r ty i s en t i t l ed to summary judgment

7

8/9/2019 05-737

8/13

if a cour t determines from i t s examinat ion of " the pleadings ,depos i t ions , answers to i n t e r roga tor i e s , and admissions on f i l e ,together with the a f f i dav i t s , if any," t ha t the re are no genuinei s sues of mate r ia l fac t and t ha t the moving par ty i s en t i t l ed tojudgment as a mat ter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) . Indetermining whether the re is a t r i a b l e d i spu te of mate r ia l fac t ,a cour t must review a l l of the evidence and cons t rue a l lin fe rences in the l i gh t most favorable to the non-moving par ty .Valhal Corp. v. Sul l ivan Assocs . , Inc . , 44 F.3d 195, 200 (3d Cir .1995) . In evaluat ing summary judgment w ith in the context of anargument of non-infr ingement , an accused i n f r i nge r may "meet i t si n i t i a l r espons ib i l i ty e i t h e r by providing evidence t ha t wouldpreclude a f ind ing of inf r ingement , or by showing t ha t th eevidence on f i l e f a i l s to es t ab l i sh a ma te ria l iss ue of f ac tessen t i a l to the pa t en t e e ' s case . " Novar t is Corp. v. Ben VenueLabs. , Inc . , 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. Cir . 2001) .

To defea t a motion fo r summary judgment , the non-movingpar ty must "do more than simply show t ha t the re i s somemetaphysical doubt as to the mater i a l fac t s . In thelanguage of the Rule, the non-moving par ty must corne forward withs pe cif ic fa cts showing t ha t t he re is a genuine i s sue fo r t r i a l . "Matsushita E le c. Indus. Co., Ltd . v . Zeni th Radio Corp. , 475 U.S.574, 586-87 (1986) ( in t e rna l c i t a t i ons omi t ted) . However, themere exis tence of some evidence in support of the non-movant wi l l

8

8/9/2019 05-737

9/13

not be s u f f i c i e n t to suppor t a den ia l o f a motion fo r summaryjudgment ; t he re must be enough evidence to enab le a ju ry toreasonably f ind fo r th e non-movant on t h a t i s sue . Anderson v.Liber ty Lobby, Inc . , 477 u.s. 242, 249 (1986). Thus, if th eevidence i s "merely co lo rab l e , or i s not s i gn i f i c an t l yp roba t i ve , " summary judgment may be gran ted . Id .

B. Part ies ' Contentions

Nova argues t h a t it should be gran ted a summary judgmentbased on non- in f r ingement because Dow has not and cannotes t ab l i s h a l l of th e elements o f in fr in gemen t. (D.I . 258 a t 1 .)Nova contends t h a t Dow has been unable to show t h a t th e accusedpolymer con ta in s e i t he r a proper Component A or Component B.( Id . ) This argument i s based p r imar i l y on th e method by whichDow has t e s t ed th e accused produc t . Nova a sse rt s th at becauseDow ran t e s t s on a vers ion of th e accused produc t it c rea t ed anddid so under d i f f e ren t polymer iza t ion cond i t ions and with ad if fe re n t c o -c a ta ly st than Nova uses , t he re i s no va l id evidenceof in f r ingement . ( Id . a t 8-9 . ) Last ly , Nova contends t h a t t he rei s no evidence of a Component B in th e accused produc t becausethe accused produc t i s no t he te rogeneous ly branched.10. )

( Id . a t

Dow counters t h a t genuine i s sues of mate r i a l f a c t a rep resen t and unreso lved . (D. I . 287.) Dow argues t h a t t he re i scred ib le evidence e s t ab l i s h i ng in f ringem en t o f bo th Components A

9

8/9/2019 05-737

10/13

and B of the pa ten t s - in - su i t under th e Cour t ' s claimcons t ruc t ion . ( Id . ) Dow contends t h a t Nova has over s impl i f i edth e di f fe rences in how each pa r ty f ab r ica ted th e accused product ,arguing t ha t both embodiments were i d en t i c a l and t h a t thedi f fe rences in condi t ions were based on producing the sameproduct under d i f f e r en t circumstances with d i f f e ren t r eac to r s .( Id . ) Dow a lso emphasizes t h a t reproduct ions can be used toprove infr ingement . (Id . a t 20 ( c i t ing Liquid Dynamics Corp. v.Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1220-21 (Fed. Cir . 2006) . )

c. Decis ionThe Court concludes t ha t genuine i s sues of mater ia l fac t

remain as to whether th e accused products con ta in Components Aand B, and the re fo re , Nova's Motion For Summary Judgment must bedenied. Nova has not meet i t s burden of showing t h a t the re i sevidence t h a t would p rec lud e th e f in din g o f in fr in geme nt.Novar t i s , 271 F.3d a t 1046. Nova presen ted two main arguments insupport of summary judgment and both present i s sues of d ispu tedf ac t s .

The f i r s t argument presented by Nova was t h a t the accusedproduct has not been shown to have a qual i fy ing Component Abecause Dow t e s t ed on f ab r ica t ions of the accused product it madeand not on th e ac tua l product . When viewed in th e l i gh t mostfavorable to Dow, th e Court f inds t ha t i s sues of f ac t remain. InNovart is , th e Federa l Circu i t looked a t th e Third Ci r cu i t

10

8/9/2019 05-737

11/13

s tandard fo r expe r t opinions in th e con tex t o f summary judgment:In th e c on te xt o f summary judgment motions , th e Third Ci r cu i thas demanded t h a t the f ac tu a l p r ed ic at e o f an expe r t ' s opinionmust f ind some support in the record , and has emphasized t h a tmere " t heo re t i c a l specu la t ions" l ack ing a ba s is in th e recordwi l l not crea te a genuine i s sue o f f ac t . Penn. Denta l Ass 'n .v. Med. Servo Ass ' n . , 745 F.2d 248, 262 (3d Ci r . 1984) .Moreover, where an exper t ' s opinion i s pred ica t ed on fac tua lassumpt ions , those assumptions must a lso f ind some support inthe record . Shaw v. Strackhouse , 920 F.2d 1135, 1142 (3d Cir .1990) .

Novar t i s , 271 F.3d a t 1051. Dow has met t h i s s tandard by th et e s t ing done in t h i s case . Dow has produced su f f i c i en t evidencet h a t th e t e s t i ng procedures it car r ied out were s c i en t i f i c a l l yaccep tab le and based on th e accused product . There was t e s t i ngby a qua l i f i ed exper t in an appropr ia te se t t i ng and th e exper ta l so of fe red subs t an t i a l e xp la na tio ns f or h is ac t ions .

Nova's second grounds fo r summary judgment o f non-infr ingement i s based on the argument t h a t th e accused productdoes not contain a proper Component B based on th e e va lu atio n o fheterogeneously branched. Nova contends t h a t the component o fthe accused polymer t h a t Dow cons iders a Component B i s no theterogeneously branched based on a measurement system known asCDBI. (0 .1 . 258.) However, the Cour t ' s supplementary cla imconst ruc t ion adopted Dow's view on the use of CDBI and found t h a tth e claims o f th e pa t en t s - i n - su i t should no t be l imi t ed topa r t i cu l a r CDBI ranges . (0 .1 . 394 a t 3-4. ) Thus, th e pa r t i e shave a genuine fac tua l dispu te t h a t must be reso lved .

In sum, the Cou rt c on clu de s t h a t the re a re genuine i s sues o f11

8/9/2019 05-737

12/13

mate r i a l fac t and Nova's Motion fo r Summary Jud gm en t m ust bedenied.

IV. CONCLUSION

For th e reasons discussed , th e Court wi l l deny both Nova'sMotion For Summary Judgment Of Non-Inf r ingement And/Or I nva l i d i t yOf The '023 P aten t (0 .1 . 257) and Nova's Motion To St r ike Dow'sUntimely Exper t Declara t ions . (0 .1 . 322.)

An a p pr op ria te o rd er wi l l be en tered .

12

8/9/2019 05-737

13/13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,P l a i n t i f f ,

v.NOVA CHEMICALS CORPORATION(CANADA), and NOVA CHEMICALSINC. (Delaware) ,

Defendants.

Civ i l Action No. 05-737-JJF

ORDER

At Wilmington, t h i s o f May 2010, fo r th e reasons s e tfor th in the Memorandum Opinion i ssued t h i s da t e ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED t ha t :1. Defendants ' Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non-

Infr ingement And/Or Inva l id i ty Of The '023 Paten t (0 .1 . 257) i sDENIED.

2. Defendants ' Motion To St r ike Dow's Untimely Exper tDeclara t ions (0 .1 . 322) i s DENIED.

GE