By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, the Court issued its Markman opinion in Wyeth, LLC v. Intervet, Inc., d/b/a Intervet/Schering Plough Animal Health, Civil Action No. 09-161-LPS (D.Del., March 22, 2011) construing the three disputed terms of the patents-in-suit in the infringement action that plaintiff Wyeth, LLC (“Wyeth”) filed against defendant Intervet, Inc. (“Intervet”). In its complaint, Wyeth alleged that Intervet was infringing seven of its patents related to porcine circovirus vaccines: U.S. Patent No. 6,703,023 (the “’023 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,223,407 (the ‘”407 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,223,594 (the “’594 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,407,803 (the “’803 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,604,808 (the “’808 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,772,883 (the “’883 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,740,886 (the “’886 patent) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit are directed to vaccines, vaccine components, and recombinant DNA techniques for making vaccines that protect livestock pigs from a viral disease known as Piglet Wasting Disease (“PWD”), also known as Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (“PMWS”) and Fatal Piglet Wasting (“FPW”). Id. at 2. Intervet filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments that Intervet’s accused products do not infringe the asserted claims and that the asserted claims are invalid. Id. at 1.

Wyeth asserted ninety claims against Intervet from the patents-in-suit. Id. at 2. The parties presented three disputed terms to the Court for claim construction. Id. at 3. The three disputed terms were “PCVB,” “Claim 1 of the ‘023 Patent,” and “amplifying said nucleic acid.” Id. Briefing on claim construction was completed on October 29, 2010, and the Court held a Markman hearing on November 9, 2010. Id. at 1-2.

After considering and analyzing the parties’ proposed constructions of the disputed term “PCVB”, the Court agreed with Intervet and construed the term “PCVB” in the patents-in-suit to mean “a porcine circovirus having the genomic sequence of SEQ ID No. 15 or SEQ ID No. 19.” Id. at 12 and 18. The Court did not given any construction to “Claim 1 of the ‘023 Patent,” and “Amplifying said nucleic acid” was construed to mean “increasing the amount of said nucleic acid.” Id. at 24.

A complete copy of the Court’s Markman Opinion is attached.