The patent and PVP infringement lawsuit between Corteva and Inari has entered a critical phase known as “claim construction.” This is the part of the case where the court decides the meaning and scope of the patent’s “claims,” i.e., those numbered paragraphs at the very end of the patent. A patent’s numbered claims are the patentee’s description of the invention, which typically use terms of art and technical phrases that would be understood by someone knowledgeable in the field of the invention (i.e., skilled in the art). Because words and phrases may convey different meanings, parties in an infringement case submit proposed interpretations of the claims in briefs to the court. Once the claim briefs are submitted, the court typically holds an evidentiary hearing (called a Markman hearing) where the parties can present evidence to back up their preferred definitions, and the court makes a final decision on the meaning of the disputed terms. In essence, the court decides what “it” is that has been invented. After the court has construed (interpreted) the claims, its interpretation can be used by the jury to compare to an accused thing or device to determine if infringement has occurred. Thus, claim construction is an important step in patent infringement lawsuits.

As would be expected, Corteva and Inari disagree on the meaning of several words and phrases in the six patents that Corteva has asserted in the lawsuit. Four patents concern transgenic corn, and two patents concern transgenic soybeans. The list of disputed terms is contained in the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart. Some of the disputed terms and phrases are rather technical, such as this one from Claim 1 of Patent No. 8,283,522:

Corteva asserts this phrase should be given a “[p]lain and ordinary meaning. A polynucleotide is a polymeric molecule composed of multiple nucleotides. A protein having aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase activity is a protein with the ability to degrade or diminish the activity of an aryloxyalkanoate herbicide.” On the other hand, Inari believes the phrase refers to “[a]ctivity capable of degrading phenoxyacetate auxin and pyridyloxyacetate auxin herbicides to confer resistance to a plant to such herbicides.”

However, other disputed terms might appear ordinary, such as this one from Patent No. 8,575,434 (Claims 6, 8-9, 14-15) and Patent No. 8,680,363 (Claims 7-8):

While both Corteva and Inari assert that the word “seed” should be given its”[p]lain and ordinary meaning,” they arrive at different definitions. Corteva proposes that seed “is ripened ovule of a flowering plant that may develop into a new plant,” while Inari “is a seed coat, food store, and plant embryo.” Likewise, the parties propose different constructions for this word in Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘363 patent:

Corteva proposes that the word “plants” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, “which is organisms belonging to the kingdom Plantae.” Inari proposes that “plants” refers to “Event DAS81419 soybean plants.”

In the context of patents, the words and phrases used to describe the invention can (and often do) have particular meanings. Moreover, the construction of these words and phrases impacts the scope of the invention – broadly or narrowly. The broader the scope, the greater the subject matter is protected by the patent.

If you’re so inclined, you can read Corteva’s Claim Construction brief here, Inari’s Answering brief here, and Corteva’s Reply brief here.