IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PHARMACIA & UPJOHN COMPANY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 04-833 (KAJ) ) ) ) ) v. ) ) -FRED-UNDER SEAL SICOR INC. AND SICOR ) PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ) UNSEALED #25 [oe ) Defendants. —) MEMORANDUM OPINION Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq., Maryellen Noreika, Esq., Julia Heaney, Esq., Mortis, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, 1201 N. Market Street, P.O. Box 1347, Wilmington, Delaware, 19899; Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Counsel: Daniel A. Boehnen, Esq., Joshua R. Rich, Esq., McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, 300 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Steven J. Balick, Esq., John G. Day, Esq., Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq., Ashby & Geddes, 222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor, P.O. Box 1150, Wilmington, Delaware 19899; Counsel for Defendants. Of Counsel: Reid L. Ashinoff, Esq., Michael S. Gugig, Esq., David R. Baum, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020. Jordan A. Sigale, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, 7800 Sears Tower, Chicago, Illinois 60606 August 17, 2006 Wilmington, DelawareLofDan, DistyG~udge 1. INTRODUCTION ‘This is a patent infringement case. Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, LLC (‘Pharmacia’) has sued Sicor Inc. and Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Sicor”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,107,285 (issued Aug. 22, 2000) (the "285 patent’). Before me are the parties’ requests for construction of the disputed claim language in the patent, as well as four summary judgment motions. Sicor has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Non-Infringement, or in the Alternative, Invalidity for Lack of Written Description (Docket Item [*D.|."] 246), and a Motion for Summary Judgment on Anticipation (0.1. 254). Pharmacia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Sicor’s Unclean Hands Affirmative Defense (D.1. 248) and a Motion for ‘Summary Judgment on Sicor’s Anticipation Affirmative Defense (D.1. 252). Jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. For the reasons that follow, including my decision on claim construction, | will deny Sicor’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, and deny its alternative Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Lack of Written Description. Additionally, | will grant Pharmacia's Motion for Summary Judgment on Sicor's Anticipation Defense, and deny Sicor’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Anticipation. Finally, | will deny Pharmacia’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Sicor's Unclean Hands Affirmative Defense.I, BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background Pharmacia filed its First Amended Complaint against Sicor on November 9, 2004, alleging that Sicor is willfully infringing the ‘285 patent. (D.1. 27.) More specifically, Pharmacia asserts that Sicor is infringing claims 9 and 13 of the patent." {D.1. 232 at 1.) Inits Second Amended Answer, Sicor denied willfully infringing the patent and asserted counterclaims that the ‘285 patent is invalid and that it is unenforceable because of Pharmacia's inequitable conduct. (D.l. 219 at 4-19.) Sicor also asserted the affirmative defenses of unclean hands, equitable estoppel, and laches. (D.|. 219 at 3-4.) The parties are scheduled to try this case to a jury beginning on November 20, 2006. The 285 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 07/827,742 (the “742 application’), which was a divisional application of U.S. Patent Application No. 07/503,856 (the “856 application’). Both of these applications, as well as other related U.S. Patent Applications, claimed priority from U.K. Patent Application 8519482 (filed Aug. 2, 1985), B. The Disclosed Technology The ‘285 patent discloses a “sterile, pyrogen-free, ready-to-use solution of an anthracycline glycoside ... [which] is particularly advantageous for the administration by injection of the anthracycline glycoside drugs ... in the treatment of both human and * Claim 9 depends from independent claim 1, and claim 13 depends from claim 42, which depends from claim 11, which depends from independent claim 1 2