IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-662-JFB-SRF
`
`))
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AGROFRESH INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`MIRTECH, INC., NAZIR MIR, ESSENTIV
`LLC, DECCO U.S. POST-HARVEST, INC.,
`CEREXAGRI, INC. d/b/a DECCO POST-
`HARVEST, and UPL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS DECCO U.S. POST-HARVEST, INC., CEREXAGRI, INC. D/B/A
`DECCO POST-HARVEST, AND UPL, LTD.’S INITIAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I. 122) and Paragraph 4(d) of the Court’s
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information
`
`(“Default Standard”), Defendants Decco U.S. Post-Harvest, Inc., Cerexagri, Inc. d/b/a Decco
`
`Post-Harvest, and UPL, Ltd. (collectively, “the Decco/UPL Defendants” or “the Defendants”)1
`
`through their undersigned counsel, provides the following Initial Invalidity Contentions to
`
`Plaintiff AgroFresh, Inc. The Decco/UPL Defendants contend that each of the claims asserted
`
`by AgroFresh is invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112. The Decco/UPL
`
`Defendants reserve the right to supplement these Initial Invalidity Contentions.
`
`I.
`
`GENERAL STATEMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`AgroFresh served the Decco/UPL Defendants with Infringement Contentions pursuant to
`
`Paragraph 4(c) of the Default Standard alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,017,849,
`
`1 Essentiv is a joint venture between MirTech, Inc. and Decco U.S. Post-Harvest, Inc. Due to the
`settlement and consent judgment by MirTech, these Initial Invalidity Contentions are also being
`served by Decco as a member of that joint venture.
`
`
`
`AgroFresh Inc. Exhibit 2048
`UPL Ltd. v. AgroFresh Inc.
`IPR2017-01919
`
`

`

`6,313,068, and 9,394,216 (collectively, “Asserted Patents”). Specifically, AgroFresh has alleged
`
`that the Decco/UPL Defendants infringes claims 1 and 10 of the ’849 Patent, claims 1 and 6 of
`
`the ’068 Patent, and claims 1, 6-8, and 13 of the ’216 Patent (collectively, “Asserted Claims”).
`
`Paragraph 4(d) of the Default Standard requires that a defendant accused of infringement
`
`provide initial invalidity contentions with regard to the claims asserted against it. The
`
`Decco/UPL Defendants therefore provide these contentions for each Asserted Claim. Pursuant
`
`to Paragraph 4(d), the Decco/UPL Defendants do not provide any contentions regarding any
`
`claim not asserted against them. To the extent that AgroFresh is permitted to assert additional
`
`claims against the Decco/UPL Defendants in the future, the Decco/UPL Defendants reserve all
`
`rights to disclose new or supplemental invalidity contentions regarding such claims.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The Court has not yet construed the Asserted Claims. The Decco/UPL Defendants’
`
`Initial Invalidity Contentions are based, at least in part, on its present understanding of the
`
`Asserted Claims and/or the claim constructions AgroFresh appears to be asserting––based on
`
`AgroFresh’s Infringement Contentions––whether or not the Decco/UPL Defendants agree with
`
`such claim constructions.
`
`The Decco/UPL Defendants take no position on any matter of claim construction in these
`
`Initial Invalidity Contentions. If they are consistent with or implicit in AgroFresh’s Infringement
`
`Contentions, no inference is intended or should be drawn that the Decco/UPL Defendants agree
`
`with such claim constructions. Any statement herein describing or tending to describe any claim
`
`element is provided solely for the purpose of responding to AgroFresh’s Infringement
`
`Contentions. Similarly, any statement herein describing or tending to describe any claim
`
`element’s relationship to the prior art is provided solely for the purpose of responding to
`
`AgroFresh’s Infringement Contentions. The Decco/UPL Defendants expressly reserve the right
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`to propose any claim construction they consider appropriate and/or to contest any claim
`
`construction they consider inappropriate.
`
`The Decco/UPL Defendants reserve all rights to further supplement or modify the
`
`positions and information in these Invalidity Contentions, including without limitation, the prior
`
`art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein, after the Court has construed the Asserted Claims.
`
`C.
`
`Ongoing Discovery and Right to Supplement
`
`The Decco/UPL Defendants’ investigation, including its investigation of prior art and
`
`grounds for invalidity, is ongoing. Furthermore, the Decco/UPL Defendants’ invalidity positions
`
`will be the subject of expert testimony. The Decco/UPL Defendants reserve the right to
`
`supplement their Initial Invalidity Contentions including, without limitation, adding additional
`
`prior art and grounds of invalidity in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the Default
`
`Standard, or otherwise.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Identification and Citation
`
`The Decco/UPL Defendants identify specific portions of prior art references that disclose
`
`the elements of the Asserted Claims. The specific portions, however, are not exhaustive. They
`
`are simply exemplary as to the teachings of a particular prior art reference and how those
`
`teachings relate to the elements of the Asserted Claims. For example, while the Decco/UPL
`
`Defendants have identified at least one citation per claim element for each prior art reference,
`
`each and every disclosure of that same element in that prior art reference is not necessarily
`
`identified. In addition, where the Decco/UPL Defendants identify a particular figure in a prior
`
`art reference, the identification should be understood to encompass the caption and description of
`
`the figure as well as any text relating to the figure in the specification and prosecution history in
`
`addition to the figure itself. Similarly, where an identified portion of text refers to a figure or
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`other material, the identification should be understood to include the referenced figure or other
`
`material as well.
`
`It also should be recognized that a person of ordinary skill in the art would generally read
`
`a prior art reference as a whole and in the context of other publications, literature, and general
`
`knowledge in the field. To understand and interpret any specific statement or disclosure in a
`
`prior art reference, a person of ordinary skill in the art would rely upon other information
`
`including other publications and general scientific or engineering knowledge.
`
`The Decco/UPL Defendants therefore reserve the right to rely upon other unidentified
`
`portions of the prior art references and on other publications and expert testimony to provide
`
`context and to aid understanding and interpretation of the identified portions. The Decco/UPL
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to rely upon other portions of the prior art references, other
`
`publications, and the testimony of experts to establish that the alleged inventions would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, including on the basis of modifying or
`
`combining certain cited references. The Decco/UPL Defendants also reserve the right to rely
`
`upon any admissions relating to prior art in the Asserted Patent, its prosecution history, in this
`
`litigation, in any post-grant challenge at the Patent Office, or otherwise.
`
`II.
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4(D)
`
`A.
`
`Asserted Claims Invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
`
`1.
`
`The ’849 Patent
`
`Each of the Asserted Claims is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by prior art. Pursuant
`
`to Paragraph 4(d), the Decco/UPL Defendants identify the prior art that anticipates or renders an
`
`Asserted Claim obvious in Exhibits A1-A24. Exhibits A1-A24 include invalidity claim charts
`
`specifically identifying where each element of each Asserted Claim is found in the prior art.
`
`These charts, however, are merely examples. The claimed features are similarly described or
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`disclosed in other places (including in all of the documents cited during prosecution of each
`
`piece of prior art), and also were present when prior art systems practicing the described prior art
`
`were used before the applications that led to the Asserted Patents were filed. Thus, the
`
`Decco/UPL Defendants reserve the right to rely on other evidence of the prior art beyond merely
`
`the exemplary references cited in Exhibits A1-A24. For the references cited in Exhibits A1-A24,
`
`each listed document or item became prior art at least as early as the dates given.
`
`Exhibits A1-A24 include charts directed to each of the following prior art references:
`
`(cid:129) R. Breslow et al., Very strong binding of appropriate substrates by cyclodextrin
`
`dimers, J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 111, pp. 8296-8297 (1989), DECCO-00074190
`
`- DECCO-00074191
`
`(cid:129) D. Duchene and D. Wouessidjewe, Industrial uses of cyclodextrins and their
`
`derivatives, J. Coord. Chem. 1992, Vol. 27, pp. 223-236 (1992), DECCO-
`
`00074202 - DECCO-00074215
`
`(cid:129) EthylBloc Product, DECCO-00074267; DECCO-00074416 - DECCO-00074429;
`
`DECCO-00074430
`
`- DECCO-00074440; DECCO-00074397
`
`- DECCO-
`
`00074403; DECCO-00074390 - DECCO-00074396
`
`(cid:129) U.S. patent No. 5,321,014 (“Janz”), DECCO-00073617 - DECCO-00073643
`
`(cid:129) JP Patent H4-41438 (“JP 438”), DECCO-00074155 - DECCO-00074164;
`
`DECCO-00074165 - DECCO-00074170
`
`(cid:129) European Patent No. EP 0572743 (“Mazomenos EP ’743”). DECCO-00074091 -
`
`DECCO-00074101
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`(cid:129) Fereidoon Shahidi and Xiao-Qing Han, Encapsulation of food ingredients,
`
`Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 33(6): 501-547 (1993), DECCO-
`
`00074216 - DECCO-00074262
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 4,380,626 (“Szejtli ’626”), DECCO-00074441 - DECCO-
`
`00074445
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent 4,923,853 (“Szejtli ’853”), DECCO-00074446 - DECCO-00074450
`
`(cid:129) M. Tétényi and J. Szejtli, Prolongation of ethylene effect by cyclodextrin
`
`complexation of 2-chloroethanephosphonic acid, Acta Agronomica Academiae
`
`Scientarium Hungaricae, Tomus 33 (3-4), pp. 345-348 (1984) (“Szejtli”),
`
`DECCO-00074186 - DECCO-00074189
`
`Additional prior art references which are relied upon, in the alternative, to show that the
`
`Asserted Claims are obvious in conjunction with those references in Exhibits A1-A24, are
`
`identified below:
`
`(cid:129) L. Szente et al., Formulation of Insect Controlling Agents with b-Cyclodextrin,
`
`Pestic. Sci. 28, pp. 7-16 (1990) (“Szente”), DECCO-00074192 - DECCO-
`
`00074201
`
`(cid:129) J.A. Heyes & J. W. Johnston, 1-methylcyclopropene extends Cymbidium orchid
`
`vaselife and prevents damaged pollinia from accelerating senescence, New
`
`Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, Vol. 26, pp. 319-324 (1998)
`
`(“Heyes 1998”), DECCO-00074390 - DECCO-00074396; DECCO-00074397 -
`
`DECCO-00074403
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`(cid:129) M. Serek et al., Novel Gaseous Ethylene Binding Inhibitor Prevents Ethylene
`
`Effects in Potted Flowering Plants, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 119(6), pp. 1230-1233
`
`(1994) (“Serek 1994”), DECCO-00074263 - DECCO-00074266
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 5,100,462 (“Sisler ’462”), DECCO-00074451 - DECCO-
`
`00074463
`
`(cid:129) Japanese Patent No. JPH08225404 (“Masahiko JP 404”), DECCO-00073644 -
`
`DECCO-00073657
`
`(cid:129) Japanese Patent No. JPS5936656 (“Yuuji JP 656”), DECCO-00073664 -
`
`DECCO-00073672
`
`(cid:129) Japanese Patent No. JPS5262803 (“Yoichi JP 803”), DECCO-00073734 -
`
`DECCO-00073737
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 5,324,616 (“Sacripante” ’616”), DECCO-00073757 - DECCO-
`
`00073767
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 7,345,008 (“Suzuki ’008”), DECCO-00074502 - DECCO-
`
`00074516
`
`(cid:129) PCT International Application Publication No. WO 96/13162 (“Baird WO 162”),
`
`DECCO-00074102 - DECCO-00074140
`
`(cid:129) Hungarian Patent No. HU176074 (“Szejtli HU176074”), DECCO-00073812 -
`
`DECCO-00073815
`
`(cid:129) Japanese Patent No. JPH054678 (“JPH054678”), DECCO-00073933 - DECCO-
`
`00073937; DECCO-00074178 - DECCO-00074182
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`(cid:129) M. D. Max et al, Methane Hydrate, A Special Clathrate: Its Attributes and
`
`Potential, Naval Research Lab, NRL/MR/6101-97-7926 (1997). (“Max et al.
`
`1997”), DECCO-00073842 - DECCO-00073918
`
`(cid:129) M. Vincenti, Host-Guest Chemistry in the Mass Spectrometer, Journal of Mass
`
`Spectrometry, Vol. 30, 925-939 (1995) (“Vincenti 1995”), DECCO-00073827 -
`
`DECCO-00073841
`
`(cid:129) B. Nageshwer Rao et. al, Modification of Photochemical Reactivity by
`
`Cyclodextrin Complexation: A Remarkable Effect on the Photobehavior of α-
`
`Alkyldibenzyl Ketones. J. Org. Chem., Vol. 52, pp. 5517-5521 (“Nageshwer 1987
`
`OR Rao 1987”), DECCO-00073822 - DECCO-00073826
`
`(cid:129) Reichenbach, W. A. & Min, D. B. Oxidative Stability and nuclear magnetic
`
`resonance analyses of linoleic acid encapsulated in cyclodextrins. J. Amer. Oil
`
`Chem. Soc.
`
`(1997)
`
`74:1329.
`
`https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-997-0065-5
`
`(“Reichenbach 1997”), DECCO-00075121 - DECCO-00075125
`
`(cid:129) German Patent No. DE 2422316 (“DE2422316 OR Sadaichi DE 316”)., DECCO-
`
`00073989 - DECCO-00074009
`
`(cid:129) E. C. Sisler et al, Comparison of cyclopropene, 1-methycyclopropene, and 3,3-
`
`dimethylcyclopropene as ethylene antagonists in plants. Plant Growth Reg. Vol
`
`18, pp. 169-174 (1996) (“Sisler 1996”), DECCO-00073658 - DECCO-00073663
`
`(cid:129) European Patent No. EP0514578 (“Hiroki EP 578”). DECCO-00074079 -
`
`DECCO-00074090
`
`(cid:129) European Patent No. EP0180468 (“Ryutaro EP 468”), DECCO-00074069 -
`
`DECCO-00074078
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`(cid:129) J. F. Brown, Inclusion Compounds, 1962 Scientific American, Inc. pp. 82-94
`
`(“Brown 1962”), DECCO-00073674 - DECCO-00073686
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 4,707,472 (“Inakagi ’472”), DECCO-00073717 - DECCO-
`
`00073733
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 6,048,736 (“Kosak ’736”), DECCO-00073738 - DECCO-
`
`00073756
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 3,426,011 (“Parmerter ’011”), DECCO-00073768 - DECCO-
`
`00073773
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 3,453,257 (“Parmerter ’257”), DECCO-00073804 - DECCO-
`
`00073811
`
`(cid:129) E. Albers & B. W. Muller, Complexation of Steroid Hormones with Cyclodextrin
`
`Derivatives: Substituent Effects of the Guest Molecule on Solubility and Stability
`
`in Aqueous Solution. J of Pharm Sci. Vol. 81, pp. 756-761 (1992) (“Albers
`
`1991”), DECCO-00073816 - DECCO-00073821
`
`(cid:129) Canadian Patent No. 2,140,170 (“Wadamori CA2140170A1”), DECCO-
`
`00073938 - DECCO-00073968
`
`(cid:129) Canadian Patent No. 2,193,716 (“Wilhelm CA2193716”), DECCO-00073774 -
`
`DECCO-00073803
`
`(cid:129) German Patent No. DE 3410319 (“Carney DE 319”) (English equivalent Carney
`
`GB2138293), DECCO-00074010 - DECCO-00074013; DECCO-00074014 -
`
`DECCO-00074023
`
`To the extent any limitation has a similar recitation or is construed to have a similar
`
`meaning, or to encompass similar feature(s) and/or function(s), with any other claim limitation,
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`and to the extent at least one claim chart in Exhibits A1-A24 or B1-B24 hereto identifies any
`
`prior art reference as disclosing or teaching such similarly construed claim limitation, such
`
`identified prior art reference and the Decco/UPL Defendants’ contentions with respect to same,
`
`are incorporated by reference.
`
`To the extent that they are prior art, the Decco/UPL Defendants reserve the right to rely
`
`upon (1) foreign counterparts of the U.S. Patents identified in the Decco/UPL Defendants’ Initial
`
`Invalidity Contentions, (2) U.S. counterparts of foreign patents and foreign patent applications
`
`identified in the Decco/UPL Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions, and (3) U.S. and foreign
`
`patents and patent applications corresponding to articles and publications identified in the
`
`Decco/UPL Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions.
`
`The claim charts of Exhibits A1-A24 provide exemplary citations within the prior art
`
`references that teach or suggest each and every element of the Asserted Claims. Each reference
`
`or combination of references suggested by each chart indicates whether the prior art renders the
`
`claim obvious or anticipated.
`
`The discussion of invalidity based on obviousness in these Invalidity Contentions and
`
`their associated claims charts follows well-established precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court
`
`decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007)
`
`(“KSR”) held that patents that are based on new combinations of elements or components
`
`already known in a technical field may be found to be obvious. Specifically, the Court in KSR
`
`rejected a rigid application of the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation [to combine]” test. Id. at
`
`1741. “In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the
`
`particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the
`
`objective reach of the claim.” Id. at 1741–42. “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742. In particular, the
`
`Supreme Court emphasized the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
`
`Id. at 1739. A key inquiry is whether the “improvement is more than the predictable use of prior
`
`art elements according to their established function.” Id. at 1740.
`
`The rationale to combine or modify prior art references is significantly stronger when the
`
`references seek to solve the same problem, come from the same field, and correspond well. In re
`
`Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (allowing two references to be combined
`
`as invalidating art under similar circumstances where the art “focus[ed] on the same problem . . .
`
`c[a]me from the same field of art [and] . . . the identified problem found in the two references
`
`correspond[ed] well”).
`
`In view of KSR, the PTO issued a set of new Examination Guidelines. See Examination
`
`Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court
`
`Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 72 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (Oct. 10, 2007). Those
`
`Guidelines identified various rationales for finding a claim obvious, including:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`results;
`
`
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
`
`(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the
`same way;
`
`
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`(E) “Obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the
`same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the
`variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`
`(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`Id. at 57,529.
`
`
`Multiple teachings, suggestions, motivations, and/or reasons to modify any of the
`
`references and/or to combine any two or more of the references in Exhibits A1-A24 come from
`
`many sources, including the prior art (specific and as a whole), common knowledge, common
`
`sense, predictability, expectations, industry trends, design incentives or need, market demand or
`
`pressure, market forces, obviousness to try, the nature of the problem faced, and/or knowledge
`
`possessed by a person of ordinary skill.
`
`2.
`
`The ’068 Patent
`
`Each of the Asserted Claims is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by prior art. Pursuant
`
`to Paragraph 4(d), the Decco/UPL Defendants identify the prior art that anticipates or renders an
`
`Asserted Claim obvious in Exhibits B1-B24. Exhibits B1-B24 include invalidity claim charts
`
`specifically identifying where each element of each Asserted Claim is found in the prior art.
`
`These charts, however, are merely examples. The claimed features are similarly described or
`
`disclosed in other places (including in all of the documents cited during prosecution of each
`
`piece of prior art), and also were present when prior art systems practicing the described prior art
`
`were used before the applications that led to the Asserted Patents were filed. Thus, the
`
`Decco/UPL Defendants reserve the right to rely on other evidence of the prior art beyond merely
`
`the exemplary references cited in Exhibits B1-B24. For the references cited in Exhibits B1-B24,
`
`each listed document or item became prior art at least as early as the dates given.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Exhibits A1-A24 include charts directed to each of the following prior art references:
`
`(cid:129) R. Breslow et al., Very strong binding of appropriate substrates by cyclodextrin
`
`dimers, J. Am. Chem. Soc., Vol. 111, pp. 8296-8297 (1989), DECCO-00074190
`
`- DECCO-00074191
`
`(cid:129) D. Duchene and D. Wouessidjewe, Industrial uses of cyclodextrins and their
`
`derivatives, J. Coord. Chem. 1992, Vol. 27, pp. 223-236 (1992), DECCO-
`
`00074202 - DECCO-00074215
`
`(cid:129) EthylBloc Product, DECCO-00074267; DECCO-00074416 - DECCO-00074429;
`
`DECCO-00074430
`
`- DECCO-00074440; DECCO-00074397
`
`- DECCO-
`
`00074403; DECCO-00074390 - DECCO-00074396
`
`(cid:129) U.S. patent No. 5,321,014 (“Janz”), DECCO-00073617 - DECCO-00073643
`
`(cid:129) JP Patent H4-41438 (“JP 438”), DECCO-00074155 - DECCO-00074164;
`
`DECCO-00074165 - DECCO-00074170
`
`(cid:129) European Patent No. EP 0572743 (“Mazomenos EP ’743”). DECCO-00074091 -
`
`DECCO-00074101
`
`(cid:129) Fereidoon Shahidi and Xiao-Qing Han, Encapsulation of food ingredients,
`
`Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 33(6): 501-547 (1993), DECCO-
`
`00074216 - DECCO-00074262
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 4,380,626 (“Szejtli ’626”), DECCO-00074441 - DECCO-
`
`00074445
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent 4,923,853 (“Szejtli ’853”), DECCO-00074446 - DECCO-00074450
`
`(cid:129) M. Tétényi and J. Szejtli, Prolongation of ethylene effect by cyclodextrin
`
`complexation of 2-chloroethanephosphonic acid, Acta Agronomica Academiae
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Scientarium Hungaricae, Tomus 33 (3-4), pp. 345-348 (1984) (“Szejtli”),
`
`DECCO-00074186 - DECCO-00074189
`
`Additional prior art references which are relied upon, in the alternative, to show that the
`
`Asserted Claims are obvious in conjunction with those references in Exhibits A1-A24, are
`
`identified below:
`
`(cid:129) L. Szente et al., Formulation of Insect Controlling Agents with b-Cyclodextrin,
`
`Pestic. Sci. 28, pp. 7-16 (1990) (“Szente”), DECCO-00074192 - DECCO-
`
`00074201
`
`(cid:129) J.A. Heyes & J. W. Johnston, 1-methylcyclopropene extends Cymbidium orchid
`
`vaselife and prevents damaged pollinia from accelerating senescence, New
`
`Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, Vol. 26, pp. 319-324 (1998)
`
`(“Heyes 1998”), DECCO-00074390 - DECCO-00074396; DECCO-00074397 -
`
`DECCO-00074403
`
`(cid:129) M. Serek et al., Novel Gaseous Ethylene Binding Inhibitor Prevents Ethylene
`
`Effects in Potted Flowering Plants, J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 119(6), pp. 1230-1233
`
`(1994) (“Serek 1994”), DECCO-00074263 - DECCO-00074266
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 5,100,462 (“Sisler ’462”), DECCO-00074451 - DECCO-
`
`00074463
`
`(cid:129) Japanese Patent No. JPH08225404 (“Masahiko JP 404”), DECCO-00073644 -
`
`DECCO-00073657
`
`(cid:129) Japanese Patent No. JPS5936656 (“Yuuji JP 656”), DECCO-00073664 -
`
`DECCO-00073672
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`(cid:129) Japanese Patent No. JPS5262803 (“Yoichi JP 803”), DECCO-00073734 -
`
`DECCO-00073737
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 5,324,616 (“Sacripante” ’616”), DECCO-00073757 - DECCO-
`
`00073767
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 7,345,008 (“Suzuki ’008”), DECCO-00074502 - DECCO-
`
`00074516
`
`(cid:129) PCT International Application Publication No. WO 96/13162 (“Baird WO 162”),
`
`DECCO-00074102 - DECCO-00074140
`
`(cid:129) Hungarian Patent No. HU176074 (“Szejtli HU176074”), DECCO-00073812 -
`
`DECCO-00073815
`
`(cid:129) Japanese Patent No. JPH054678 (“JPH054678”), DECCO-00073933 - DECCO-
`
`00073937; DECCO-00074178 - DECCO-00074182
`
`(cid:129) M. D. Max et al, Methane Hydrate, A Special Clathrate: Its Attributes and
`
`Potential, Naval Research Lab, NRL/MR/6101-97-7926 (1997). (“Max et al.
`
`1997”), DECCO-00073842 - DECCO-00073918
`
`(cid:129) M. Vincenti, Host-Guest Chemistry in the Mass Spectrometer, Journal of Mass
`
`Spectrometry, Vol. 30, 925-939 (1995) (“Vincenti 1995”), DECCO-00073827 -
`
`DECCO-00073841
`
`(cid:129) B. Nageshwer Rao et. al, Modification of Photochemical Reactivity by
`
`Cyclodextrin Complexation: A Remarkable Effect on the Photobehavior of α-
`
`Alkyldibenzyl Ketones. J. Org. Chem., Vol. 52, pp. 5517-5521 (“Nageshwer 1987
`
`OR Rao 1987”), DECCO-00073822 - DECCO-00073826
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`(cid:129) Reichenbach, W. A. & Min, D. B. Oxidative Stability and nuclear magnetic
`
`resonance analyses of linoleic acid encapsulated in cyclodextrins. J. Amer. Oil
`
`Chem. Soc.
`
`(1997)
`
`74:1329.
`
`https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-997-0065-5
`
`(“Reichenbach 1997”), DECCO-00075121 - DECCO-00075125
`
`(cid:129) German Patent No. DE 2422316 (“DE2422316 OR Sadaichi DE 316”)., DECCO-
`
`00073989 - DECCO-00074009
`
`(cid:129) E. C. Sisler et al, Comparison of cyclopropene, 1-methycyclopropene, and 3,3-
`
`dimethylcyclopropene as ethylene antagonists in plants. Plant Growth Reg. Vol
`
`18, pp. 169-174 (1996) (“Sisler 1996”), DECCO-00073658 - DECCO-00073663
`
`(cid:129) European Patent No. EP0514578 (“Hiroki EP 578”). DECCO-00074079 -
`
`DECCO-00074090
`
`(cid:129) European Patent No. EP0180468 (“Ryutaro EP 468”), DECCO-00074069 -
`
`DECCO-00074078
`
`(cid:129) J. F. Brown, Inclusion Compounds, 1962 Scientific American, Inc. pp. 82-94
`
`(“Brown 1962”), DECCO-00073674 - DECCO-00073686
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 4,707,472 (“Inakagi ’472”), DECCO-00073717 - DECCO-
`
`00073733
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 6,048,736 (“Kosak ’736”), DECCO-00073738 - DECCO-
`
`00073756
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 3,426,011 (“Parmerter ’011”), DECCO-00073768 - DECCO-
`
`00073773
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 3,453,257 (“Parmerter ’257”), DECCO-00073804 - DECCO-
`
`00073811
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`(cid:129) E. Albers & B. W. Muller, Complexation of Steroid Hormones with Cyclodextrin
`
`Derivatives: Substituent Effects of the Guest Molecule on Solubility and Stability
`
`in Aqueous Solution. J of Pharm Sci. Vol. 81, pp. 756-761 (1992) (“Albers
`
`1991”), DECCO-00073816 - DECCO-00073821
`
`(cid:129) Canadian Patent No. 2,140,170 (“Wadamori CA2140170A1”), DECCO-
`
`00073938 - DECCO-00073968
`
`(cid:129) Canadian Patent No. 2,193,716 (“Wilhelm CA2193716”), DECCO-00073774 -
`
`DECCO-00073803
`
`(cid:129) German Patent No. DE 3410319 (“Carney DE 319”) (English equivalent Carney
`
`GB2138293), DECCO-00074010 - DECCO-00074013; DECCO-00074014 -
`
`DECCO-00074023
`
`To the extent any limitation has a similar recitation or is construed to have a similar
`
`meaning, or to encompass similar feature(s) and/or function(s), with any other claim limitation,
`
`and to the extent at least one claim chart in Exhibits A1-A24 or B1-B24 hereto identifies any
`
`prior art reference as disclosing or teaching such similarly construed claim limitation, such
`
`identified prior art reference and the Decco/UPL Defendants’ contentions with respect to same,
`
`are incorporated by reference.
`
`To the extent that they are prior art, the Decco/UPL Defendants reserve the right to rely
`
`upon (1) foreign counterparts of the U.S. Patents identified in the Decco/UPL Defendants’ Initial
`
`Invalidity Contentions, (2) U.S. counterparts of foreign patents and foreign patent applications
`
`identified in the Decco/UPL Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions, and (3) U.S. and foreign
`
`patents and patent applications corresponding to articles and publications identified in the
`
`Decco/UPL Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions.
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`The claim charts of Exhibits B1-B24 provide exemplary citations within the prior art
`
`references that teach or suggest each and every element of the Asserted Claims. Each reference
`
`or combination of references suggested by each chart indicates whether the prior art renders the
`
`claim obvious or anticipated.
`
`The discussion of invalidity based on obviousness in these Invalidity Contentions and
`
`their associated claims charts follows well-established precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court
`
`decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007)
`
`(“KSR”) held that patents that are based on new combinations of elements or components
`
`already known in a technical field may be found to be obvious. Specifically, the Court in KSR
`
`rejected a rigid application of the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation [to combine]” test. Id. at
`
`1741. “In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the
`
`particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the
`
`objective reach of the claim.” Id. at 1741–42. “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem
`
`known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742. In particular, the
`
`Supreme Court emphasized the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according
`
`to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
`
`Id. at 1739. A key inquiry is whether the “improvement is more than the predictable use of prior
`
`art elements according to their established function.” Id. at 1740.
`
`The rationale to combine or modify prior art references is significantly stronger when the
`
`references seek to solve the same problem, come from the same field, and correspond well. In re
`
`Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (allowing two references to be combined
`
`as invalidating art under similar circumstances where the art “focus[ed] on the same problem . . .
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`c[a]me from the same field of art [and] . . . the identified problem found in the two references
`
`correspond[ed] well”).
`
`In view of KSR, the PTO issued a set of new Examination Guidelines. See Examination
`
`Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court
`
`Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 72 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (Oct. 10, 2007). Those
`
`Guidelines identified various rationales for finding a claim obvious, including:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`results;
`
`
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
`
`(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the
`same way;
`
`
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`(E) “Obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`
`(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the
`same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the
`variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`
`(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`Id. at 57,529.
`
`
`Multiple teachings, suggestions, motivations, and/or reasons to modify any of the
`
`references and/or to combine any two or more of the references in Exhibits B1-B24 come from
`
`many sources, including the prior art (specific and as a whole), common knowledge, common
`
`sense, predictability, expectations, industry trends, design incentives or need, market demand or
`
`pressure, market forces, obviousness to try, the nature of the problem faced, and/or knowledge
`
`possessed by a person of ordinary skill.
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`3.
`
`The ’216 Patent
`
`Each of the Asserted Claims is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by prior art. As a
`
`preliminary matter, none of the Asserted Claims of the ’216 Patent