Agoracom: Small Cap Investment - Mosaic ImmunoEngineering Inc. - Respondents Response to TPL Motion in Limine 1

Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.

Reply New Message

Back To Forum List View

l2007s

Rank: President [?]

Points: 18410 [?]

Votes: 123 Score: 3.5 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Respondents Response to TPL Motion in Limine 1

posted on May 23, 2013 01:31PM

Taken from that response

Contrary to TPL’s assertions, Dr. Friedman’s report has ample support for proposed

Combination Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10-13 and 17. Focusing solely on Dr. Friedman’s “summary chart” in

Exhibit C, TPL ignores the remainder of his report. The body of Dr. Friedman’s report and the

other claim chart exhibits contain detailed analysis supporting these combinations, as discussed

below. Accordingly, TPL’s MIL No. 1 should be denied as to these combinations.

In order to streamline the number of issues in this Investigation, Respondents will not

proceed with Combination Nos. 3-6, 8-9, and 14-16. TPL’s MIL No. 1 is therefore moot as to

these combinations.

Combination Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, and 17:

These combinations relating to the Ledzius reference and the “varying together” limitations

are fully disclosed in Dr. Friedman’s report. While TPL only cursorily discussed two of the

17 combinations it alleges were undisclosed, many of TPL’s complaints appear to be similar to

its discussion of the Mostek combination with Ledzius. (MIL No. 1 at 4-5.)

TPL argues that Exhibit C does not mention Ledzius under the Mostek column. (Id.) But

TPL ignores Section N of Dr. Friedman’s report entirely. The Ledzius combinations are all disclosed

in Dr. Friedman’s report in paragraphs 263-264 of Section N. (RX-0247 at ¶¶ 263-264.)

Dr. Friedman opines that because TPL alleges that any CPU and clock located entirely on the

same integrated circuit meets the “varying together” limitations for purposes of its infringement

case, all the prior art combinations would meet these limitations for the same reason. (Id. at ¶

263.) Dr. Friedman further opines that to the extent TPL retracts its contentions, one of skill in

the art would have been motivated to modify “the other prior art references discussed” (which

include all the prior art identified by TPL) based on the teachings of Ledzius to include a CPU

and clock on the same substrate made of the same process technology to meet the “varying together”

limitations. (Id. at ¶ 264.) Therefore, TPL’s allegations that the Ledzius combinations

are not disclosed in Dr. Friedman’s expert report are specious. The Ledzius combinations that

are fully disclosed from TPL’s list are Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, and 17. TPL’s MIL No. 1 should be

denied as to these combinations.

Combination Nos. 11-13:

These combinations also relate to the Hamilton reference and are also fully disclosed in

Dr. Friedman’s report. TPL’s assertion that “Hamilton was never disclosed as an anticipation

reference” or that “Respondents’ expert argued that Ledzius and Mostek were also required for

each claim” is misplaced. Respondents will not present Hamilton as an anticipation reference.

Respondents, however, plan to present Hamilton under a single reference obviousness theory, or,

optionally, in combination with either Ledzius or Mostek for claims 6, 10, 13, and 16.

TPL is simply wrong that Dr. Friedman did not disclose these theories in his expert report.

Section K.3 of Dr. Friedman’s report is titled “Hamilton Alone or In View of Ledzius or

Mostek Discloses the Limitations of Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13-16 under at least TPL’s Proposed

Constructions.” (Id. at Section K.3) In this section, Dr. Friedman opines that “Hamilton also

discloses most of the limitations under Respondents’ and Staff’s constructions” and cites to Exhibit

N of his report which contains a detailed claim chart with citations to Hamilton for each

claim limitation. (Id. at ¶¶ 222-227; see also id. at ¶¶ 145-150; 153-154.) Dr. Friedman’s report

then provides a detailed analysis of his opinion as to why Hamilton alone or in combination with

either Ledzius or Mostek renders claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13-16 obvious. (Id.) TPL’s MIL No. 1

should therefore be denied with respect to Combination Nos. 11-13.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Respondents respectfully request that the ALJ deny

TPL’s MIL No. 1 as to Combination Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10-13, and 17. To streamline the issues, Respondents