IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, PFIZER INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v C.A. No. 09-307 (GMS) TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF 197,819 P. N After having considered the submissions of the parties on the matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, as used in the asserted claims of U.S, Patent No. 6,197,819: 1. The term “S-(+)-4-amino-3-@-methylpropyl) butanoic acid as a single optical isomer” as, used in claim 1 is construed to mean “4-amino-3-(2-methylpropyl) butanoic acid in the single S-(+) isomer form only, free of the R-(-) isomer form.” construed to 2, The term “4-amino-3-(2-methylpropyl) butanoic acid” as used in claim ‘mean “the chemical compound 4-amino-3-(2-ngsthylpropyl) butanoi Dated: October_[ 2, 2010 - UNITED STATES DI "The court rejects the plaintiffs" proposed construction, which both reads the word “single” out of the cltim and is at odds withthe prosecution history of this claim ? The court rejects the defendants” proposed construction. Unlike their construction of the other disputed claim term, the defendants’ proposed construction of this clam isnot based on the language of the claim itself ‘There is no basis inthe specification forthe defendants suggestion that the absence of an (R) or (S) prefix specifically signals the racemate, rather than the corapound without limitation as to stereochemical form. Indeed, shen the applicants identified the racemate inthe specification of the “819 Patent, they used a prefix (°R,S") that doesnot appear in the disputed claim. The court farther agrees withthe plaintiffs thatthe prosecution hstary behind this claim term doesnot evince a disclaimer of non-racemic forms of the compound.