Paper No. __
`Filed: November 26, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC. and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case CBM2014-00175
`Patent 7,765,107
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 323 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.207
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`The Challenge of Restricting Access to a Dangerous But
`Efficacious Drug .................................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`The ’107 Patent ..................................................................................... 7
`
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`The ’107 Patent Does Not Claim A Method or Corresponding
`Apparatus for Performing Data Processing or Other Operations
`Used in the Practice, Administration, or Management of a
`Financial Product or Service ................................................................. 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Covered Business Method Review Eligibility ............................ 9
`
`The Statute Precludes Expansion of CBM Review to
`Encompass All Methods “Used In Commerce” ....................... 10
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Legislative History Does Not Support
`Petitioners’ Statutory Construction ...................... 12
`
`Petitioners’ “Used in Commerce” Argument
`Improperly Expands the Scope of CBM
`Review To Cover Virtually All Method
`Patent Claims ........................................................ 16
`
`Petitioners’ Argument Improperly Expands
`the Scope of CBM Review to Capture the
`Type of Invention Congress Expressly
`Stated Would Not Be CBM-Review Eligible ...... 18
`
`3.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show that the Claims of the ’107
`Patent Cover a Financial Product or Service ............................ 19
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`The Claims of the ’107 Patent Do Not Cover
`Activities Directly or Incidentally Related
`to a Financial Product or Service ......................... 19
`
`Petitioners Fundamentally Mischaracterize
`the Claims and Improperly Read In
`Limitations That Are Not Encompassed by
`the Claims ............................................................. 21
`
`4.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show that Disclosures in the ’107
`Patent’s Specification Relate to The CBM-Eligibility of
`the Claims ................................................................................. 28
`
`5. Mere Classification Within Class 705 Does Not Make a
`Patent Eligible for CBM Review .............................................. 31
`
`6.
`
`Prior Art Asserted Against the ’107 Patent, with no
`Relation of the Portions of the Prior Art Cited to the
`Claims of the ’107 Patent, Does Not Make the ’107
`Patent Eligible for CBM Review .............................................. 34
`
`B.
`
`The Claims of the ’107 Patent Are Directed To A
`Technological Invention ...................................................................... 36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’107 Patent Recites a Technological Feature that is
`Novel and Unobvious Over the Prior Art ................................. 36
`
`The ’107 Patent’s Claims Solve a Technical Problem
`Using a Technical Solution ....................................................... 42
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Prove that the ACA is Prior Art ............................. 45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners’ Wayback Machine Evidence Does Not
`Establish A Publication Date Prior to the ’107 Patent’s
`Priority Date .............................................................................. 47
`
`Petitioners’ Other Materials Do Not Establish Public
`Accessibility .............................................................................. 53
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 56
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 323 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a), Patent Owner Jazz
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Jazz”) submits this Preliminary Response to Roxane
`
`Laboratories, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s (“Petitioners”) Petition for
`
`Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review (the “Petition”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,765,107 (the “’107 patent”). For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioners fail
`
`to meet the threshold requirement to show that the ’107 patent is a covered
`
`business method patent under the statute and subject to CBM review. The Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”), therefore, should not institute review of the
`
`’107 patent. Petitioners also fail to show that the Advisory Committee Art
`
`(“ACA”) materials constitute prior art to the ’107 patent. Accordingly, even if the
`
`Board does not deny the Petition in its entirety, it should not institute Petitioners’
`
`second (§ 102(b)) and third (§ 103(a)) grounds for unpatentability.
`
`The claims of the ’107 patent cover methods of controlling the abuse, misuse
`
`and diversion of a prescription drug, particularly a drug containing GHB—a
`
`substance notorious for its illicit use in drug-facilitated sexual assaults. The claims
`
`specifically cover the methods ultimately approved by FDA to ensure the safe
`
`administration of Jazz’s FDA-approved form of sodium GHB—Xyrem®—to treat
`
`patients while preventing the abuse, misuse, and diversion known to have occurred
`
`with illicit forms of this drug. Xyrem is the only approved treatment for cataplexy,
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`a debilitating symptom of narcolepsy, and excessive daytime sleepiness in patients
`
`with narcolepsy. The technological solution to the problem of how to get Xyrem
`
`to patients who need it, while mitigating the risk of abuse, misuse or diversion of
`
`this drug, was critical to Xyrem’s approval by the FDA. The solution resulted in
`
`the claimed methods which utilize a computer processor/central database
`
`controlled only by an exclusive entity, which have numerous safety checks and/or
`
`controls, including restriction of availability, extensive determination of patient
`
`and physician identity, and identification of behavioral patterns that suggest illicit
`
`drug use.
`
`By statute, a patent is subject to CBM review only if the patent “claims a
`
`method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
`
`operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
`
`product or service. . . . ” AIA § 18(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. 42.301(a) (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioners cannot meet their burden to establish that the ’107 patent covers “data
`
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial product or service” because the ’107 patent has nothing to do with a
`
`financial product or service. Here, the ’107 patent’s claims do not cover a
`
`financial product or service, or any activities incidental to a financial product or
`
`service. As a result of Petitioners’ improper attempt to expand the scope of CBM
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`review to include the ’107 patent, virtually all method claims would be
`
`encompassed by the statute.
`
`By statute, patents for technological inventions are also exempt from CBM
`
`review. Id. Petitioners likewise cannot meet their burden of showing that the
`
`claims of the ’107 patent are not directed to technological inventions. The ’107
`
`patent claims a novel and nonobvious technological feature, that is a technical
`
`solution to a technical problem. The ’107 patent is not eligible for CBM review,
`
`and the Petition must be denied.1
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioners are each defendants in Hatch-Waxman lawsuits involving the
`
`’107 patent; each is seeking approval of an Abbreviated New Drug Application
`
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s decision to challenge the Petition solely on the grounds set forth
`
`in this Preliminary Response should not be construed in any way to be a waiver of
`
`its rights to address other issues such as claim construction or patentability. Here,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board need not reach such questions in
`
`order to dispose of the present Petition for lack of CBM standing. If, however, the
`
`Board does institute CBM review of the ’107 patent, Patent Owner reserves the
`
`right to address, and will address, all remaining issues in its Patent Owner
`
`Response.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00175
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“ANDA”) to make a generic version of Xyrem®. Xyrem is a unique drug product.
`
`It is the only FDA-approved treatment for cataplexy, a debilitating symptom of
`
`narcolepsy, but its active ingredient is a sodium salt of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid
`
`(“GHB”), a substance which has been legislatively defined as a “date rape” drug.
`
`As a result of Xyrem’s combination of benefits and risks, it is one of the only
`
`prescription drugs to be subject to a bifurcated schedule by Congress—in its
`
`approved form, Xyrem is a Schedule III drug, but all other forms of GHB are
`
`placed on Schedule I (the category for drugs like heroin).
`
`Xyrem would never have been approved, however, without an adequate
`
`method of restricting access to the drug that the FDA considered capable of
`
`ensuring that the benefit of Xyrem would outweigh the risks to patients and third
`
`parties. The ’107 patent represents the inventors’ solution to this challenge. Had
`
`Jazz’s predecessor Orphan (hereafter “Jazz”) not developed methods for
`
`preventing the abuse, misuse and diversion of GHB, Xyrem would not be available
`
`to narcolepsy patients today.
`
`A. The Challenge of Restricting Access
`to a Dangerous But Efficacious Drug
`
`The FDA first recognized the dangers of GHB in the early 1990s when it
`
`banned all domestic sales and importation of GHB. (See Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002.)
`
`Despite this ban, throughout the following years, the Drug Enforcement
`
`Administration, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute on Drug Abuse,
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
`
`Services Administration, and the National Drug Intelligence Center reported
`
`increasing problems with GHB, specifically noting its use in committing drug-
`
`facilitated sexual assault. (See Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004 at 1-3; Ex. 2005; Ex. 2006 at 1-
`
`5, 8-9; Ex. 2007; Ex. 2008 at 1-5.)
`
`At the same time that concern about GHB’s illicit use was mounting,
`
`however, there was a recognition that GHB had promise as a potential treatment
`
`for narcolepsy, an orphan condition—in other words, a debilitating but rare
`
`disease. At the FDA’s request, Jazz began developing GHB as a treatment for
`
`narcolepsy in the mid-1990s. When the DEA urged Congress to categorize GHB
`
`as a Schedule I-controlled substance, meaning that it would not have any FDA-
`
`recognized legitimate medical use, advocacy groups for patients with sleep
`
`disorders and the FDA itself opposed this plan. (See Ex. 2009 at 67-71; Ex. 2010
`
`at 97-103.)
`
`In 2000, Congress resolved the matter in favor of the FDA’s
`
`recommendation, declaring GHB to be “an imminent hazard to public safety,” but
`
`recognizing its potential as a treatment for narcolepsy and cataplexy. (See
`
`generally Ex. 2011.) Of note, this legislative compromise, designed to
`
`accommodate the concerns of advocates for development of GHB as a treatment
`
`for narcolepsy on the one hand, and the concern over misuse of GHB on the other,
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`was premised on assuring that GHB-containing therapeutic products could not be
`
`diverted from legitimate channels. As the legislative history makes clear, Congress
`
`intended that the availability of GHB would “be strictly controlled to ensure that
`
`only patients in need of [the] drug would have access.” (See Ex. 2012 at 4.)
`
`Jazz developed the methods claimed in the ’107 patent (described below) to
`
`further Congress’s initiative and to protect the public from abuse, misuse and
`
`diversion of a drug containing GHB, that would otherwise be banned. When the
`
`FDA approved Xyrem for treatment of cataplexy in July 2002, the approval letter
`
`reminded the sponsor that Xyrem was being approved under a special regulation,
`
`21 CFR 314.520 (“Subpart H”), which allowed the FDA to approve drugs that
`
`were shown to be effective but that could only be used safely under restricted
`
`conditions. (Ex. 2013 at 1.) Specifically, the approval letter stated that Xyrem was
`
`being approved for use under the Risk Management Program developed by Jazz.
`
`(Id.) When Xyrem was approved for treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in
`
`narcolepsy in 2005, the FDA again maintained essentially the same restrictions on
`
`access to the drug. These core requirements, reflected in the Xyrem label and the
`
`’107 patent’s claims, include various safety checks and controls that are applied to
`
`ensure that there is no abuse, misuse or diversion and that only patients to whom
`
`the drug is prescribed have access to the drug. (See generally ROX1001; Ex.
`
`2014.)
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ’107 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`The ’107 patent describes and claims methods of preventing the abuse,
`
`misuse and diversion of a potentially dangerous prescription drug (particularly a
`
`drug containing sodium GHB). The claims all require various controls that restrict
`
`access to the drug in order to ensure safe methods of treatment. (See ROX1001 at
`
`8:35-10:62; see also id. at Abstract, 1:44-58.) More specifically, the independent
`
`claims of the ’107 patent claim methods of controlling abuse of a prescription drug
`
`comprising:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`(i) controlling the prescription drug with a computer processor/central
`
`database that tracks and processes all prescriptions of the prescription
`
`drug, and analyzes for potential abuse situations;
`
`(ii) determining with the computer processor current and anticipated
`
`patterns of potential prescription abuse of the prescription drug from
`
`periodic reports generated by the central database based on
`
`information identifying the patient, prescriber and the prescription
`
`drug; and
`
`(iii) selecting with the computer processor multiple controls, from a
`
`list of greater than 20 controls, for preventing abuse of the
`
`prescription drug.
`
`(See id. at Claims 1 and 4.)
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`The dependent claims further limit the multiple controls to prevent abuse,
`
`misuse and diversion. (See id. at Claims 2, 3, 5 and 6.)
`
`No element of either the independent or dependent claims requires or covers
`
`any element of a financial product or a financial service, or any activities incidental
`
`to a financial product or service. The claims do not cover the sale of the
`
`prescription drugs or the processing of any health care benefits or insurance claims.
`
`Nor do they concern the transfer or accounting of funds. Instead, the claims are
`
`concerned with preventing the abuse, misuse and diversion of GHB, and other
`
`potentially dangerous prescription drugs, through use of extensive controls on
`
`access to the drug.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The ’107 Patent Does Not Claim A Method or
`Corresponding Apparatus for Performing Data Processing or
`Other Operations Used in the Practice, Administration, or
`Management of a Financial Product or Service
`
`Petitioners propose five disparate arguments for why a patent on a method of
`
`controlling the potential abuse, misuse and diversion of a dangerous prescription
`
`drug can be said to cover a financial product or service, including: (1) the claimed
`
`system “is used in commerce;” (2) the claims cover “incidental activities related to
`
`a financial product or service—contacting the patient’s insurance company and
`
`checking for cash payments;” (3) the ’107 patent’s specification contains
`
`information that is “incidental to financial activities;” (4) the PTO classified the
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`’107 patent within Class 705; and (5) certain prior art references cited against the
`
`’107 patent would allegedly qualify it for CBM review. (Paper 1 at 12-16.) All of
`
`these arguments lack merit, on the facts and the law. Taken to their conclusion,
`
`each of these arguments would eviscerate the limitation that Congress placed on
`
`the CBM review process, turning essentially any method patent into a “covered”
`
`business method patent. The Board should reject Petitioners’ arguments and deny
`
`the Petition for review.
`
`1.
`
`Covered Business Method Review Eligibility
`
`The burden is on Petitioners to establish that the ’107 patent is eligible for
`
`CBM review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (“The petitioner must demonstrate that
`
`the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent . . . .”);
`
`see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (same).
`
`The AIA defines “a covered business method patent” as:
`
`A patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for
`
`performing data processing or other operations used in the practice
`
`administration, or management of a
`
`financial product or
`
`service . . . .
`
`AIA, § 18(d)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the Board has consistently stated that
`
`CBM eligibility turns on what the patent claims. See, e.g., Monster Worldwide
`
`Inc. et al. v. Career Destination Dev., CBM2014-00077, Paper 9 at 7 (Aug. 20,
`
`2014) (“The determination of whether a patent is eligible for [CBM] patent review
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`is based on what the patent claims.”); Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC v. Chicago Bd.
`
`Options Exch., CBM2013-00050, Paper 16 at 9 (Mar. 4, 2014) (“For purposes of
`
`determining whether a patent is eligible for [CBM] review, the focus is on the
`
`claims.”). Here, the ’107 patent’s claims do not claim or cover a financial product
`
`or service, or any activities incidental to a financial product or service. Petitioners’
`
`efforts to avoid this fatal flaw have no merit.
`
`2.
`
`The Statute Precludes Expansion of CBM Review
`to Encompass All Methods “Used In Commerce”
`
`Petitioners argue that the ’107 patent is eligible for CBM review because the
`
`claimed inventions are “used in commerce,” and describe “core activities to
`
`running a . . . pharmacy business.” (Paper 1 at 12-13; see also id. at 15.) Both of
`
`these assertions are unsupported and incorrect. In spite of the conclusory statement
`
`that the “claimed system is used in commerce,” Petitioners and their expert do not
`
`identify a single element in the claims that is used in commerce. Nor do they
`
`explain what system they are referring to, much less how it could be used in
`
`commerce. For this reason alone, Petitioners’ argument fails. Moreover, if
`
`Congress had intended all patents that claim methods used in business to be
`
`“covered” by CBM review it would have said so. It did not. The unambiguous
`
`language of the statute establishes that the claimed subject matter of the ’107
`
`patent is outside the scope of CBM review.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`Statutory construction begins with the language of the statute. See Duncan
`
`v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172 (2001); Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158
`
`(1990). If the meaning of the statute is plain and clear from its language, then the
`
`question of interpretation and legislative intent is never raised. See Conn. Nat’l
`
`Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 (1992) (“[I]n interpreting a statute a court
`
`should always turn first to one, cardinal canon before all others . . . courts must
`
`presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute
`
`what it says there . . . When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first
`
`canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’”).
`
`The plain language of Section 18 of the AIA expressly includes the phrase
`
`“financial product or service” within its definition of a CBM patent. See AIA, §
`
`18(d)(1). Under the controlling law of statutory construction, this phrase cannot
`
`simply be read out of the statute to make any patent that claims methods “used in
`
`commerce” or “core to running a business” eligible for CBM review. In fact, the
`
`statute does not include any reference to commercial use because virtually all
`
`patented subject matter is intended to be used commercially in some sense. As the
`
`Supreme Court has stated, “[a] statute should be construed so that effect is given to
`
`all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or
`
`insignificant.” Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009). The plain
`
`language of the statute limiting CBM review to a patent that claim methods for
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`performing data processing or other operations “used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial product or service” is conclusive.
`
`Petitioners attempt to turn to the legislative history because the plain
`
`language of the statute does not support their attempt to broaden the scope of CBM
`
`review. (See Paper 1 at 12.) But, if a statute’s plain meaning is clear, then the
`
`question of interpretation and legislative intent should never be raised. See Conn.
`
`Nat’l, 503 U.S. at 253-54. There is, accordingly, no reason to look to the
`
`legislative history to see whether a patent that claims a method for controlling
`
`abuse of a dangerous drug should be subject to CBM review. While Petitioners
`
`never state which words of the statute are allegedly ambiguous, a review of the
`
`legislative history nevertheless reveals that when Congress limited CBM review to
`
`patents that claim methods used in the practice, management or administration of a
`
`financial product or service, it did so deliberately, and did not intend to include all
`
`patents that are “used in commerce.”
`
`(a) Legislative History Does Not Support
`Petitioners’ Statutory Construction
`
`While an examination of legislative intent is not appropriate here due to the
`
`plain statutory language, Petitioners recite only a sliver of that history in support of
`
`their contention that the phrase “financial product or service” should be interpreted
`
`broadly. (See Paper 1 at 12.) When an adjudicator turns to legislative intent,
`
`however, the Supreme Court has cautioned that the adjudicator must consider the
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`legislative intent as a whole—not just “isolated fragments” of congressional
`
`comments. See New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331, 342
`
`(1982) (“Reliance on such isolated fragments of legislative history in divining the
`
`intent of Congress is an exercise fraught with hazards . . . .”); see also Offshore
`
`Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 220-21 (1986) (statements in the
`
`legislative history must be read in light of the statutory language and legislative
`
`history as a whole).
`
`The legislative history of Section 18 of the AIA does not support the broad
`
`application of the phrase “financial product or service” to a method of controlling
`
`abuse of a potentially dangerous prescription drug, by restricting access to the
`
`sensitive pharmaceutical. Petitioners invoke Senator Schumer’s statements that
`
`CBM-eligibility is conferred if a patent’s claims are “broad enough to cover a
`
`financial product or service” and that the “practice, administration, or
`
`management” language of the CBM definition is “intended to cover any ancillary
`
`activities related to a financial product or service.” (See Paper 1 at 12.) Even these
`
`select statements do not permit construing claims to a method of controlling abuse
`
`of a potentially dangerous prescription drug, by restricting access to that
`
`prescription drug, as falling within the CBM statutory definition. The legislative
`
`history “as a whole” makes Petitioner’s arguments even less tenable. See New
`
`England Power, 455 U.S. at 342 (“Reliance on such isolated fragments of
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`legislative history in divining the intent of Congress is an exercise fraught with
`
`hazards . . . .”).
`
`In fact, Petitioners’ selected statements were made by Senator Schumer to
`
`question Representative Shuster’s “understanding that the definition of a ‘covered
`
`business method patent’ . . . is intended to be narrowly construed to target only
`
`those business method patents that are unique to the financial services industry.”
`
`157 Cong. Rec. H4497-98 (daily ed. June 23, 2011). A few months after Senator
`
`Schumer’s and Representative Shuster’s exchange, on September 8, 2011, just
`
`days before the AIA was signed into law and immediately before the Senate agreed
`
`to the House amendment on the CBM provision of the AIA, Senator Leahy—the
`
`co-sponsor of the AIA—clarified that the phrase “financial product or service” is
`
`specifically intended to limit the scope of CBM review to the financial services
`
`sector:
`
`There has been some question about the scope of patents that may be
`
`subject to the transitional program for covered business method
`
`patents, which is section 18 of the Leahy-Smith American Invents
`
`Act. This provision is intended to cover only those business method
`
`patents intended to be used in the practice, administration, or
`
`management of financial services or products, and not
`
`to
`
`technologies common in business environments across sectors and
`
`that have no particular relation to the financial services sector . . . A
`
`financial product or service is not, however, intended to be limited
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`solely to the operation of banks. Rather it is intended to have a
`
`broader industry definition that includes insurance, brokerages,
`
`mutual funds, annuities, and an array of financial companies outside
`
`of traditional banking.
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5441 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (emphasis added).
`
`Senator Kyl—Senator Schumer’s co-sponsor for Section 18 of the AIA,
`
`further clarified that the definition of a CBM patent “is limited to data processing
`
`relating to just a financial product or service (rather than also to an enterprise).”
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1367 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (emphasis added). As defined by
`
`the USPTO, an enterprise is a “conventional business organization . . . .” See
`
`Manual of Classification, United States Patent & Trademark Office (hereinafter,
`
`the “USPTO Manual”) at Class 705. Consistent with Senator Leahy’s comments,
`
`Section 18 does not apply to “technologies common in business environments
`
`[enterprises] across sectors and that have no particular relation to the financial
`
`services sector.” See 157 Cong. Rec. S5441 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011).
`
`Based on these unambiguous statements by Senators Leahy and Kyl, it is
`
`clear that Congress intended to limit CBM review to patents with claims that have
`
`a “particular relation to the financial services sector” and not patents that cover
`
`technologies common in business operations. This legislative history does not, and
`
`cannot, support Petitioners’ attempt to broaden the CBM review to patents “used in
`
`commerce.”
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`Congressional intent to limit CBM review is further confirmed in light of
`
`attempts to broaden the scope of the CBM review after the AIA’s enactment. In
`
`2013, multiple members of Congress, including Senator Schumer, proposed
`
`amendments striking the “a financial product or” language from Section 18 of the
`
`AIA and replacing it with: “an enterprise, product or.” (See Ex. 2015, Patent
`
`Quality Improvement Act of 2013, S. 866, 113th Cong. §2(2) (2013) (introduced
`
`by Sen. Schumer); Ex. 2016, Stopping the Offensive Use of Patents Act, H.R.
`
`2766, 113th Cong. § 2(a)(2) (2013) (introduced by Rep. Issa and Rep. Chu).)
`
`Congress members proposed the amendments because the definition of a CBM
`
`patent does not extend beyond the financial services sector. Congress did not
`
`adopt, and has never adopted, the more expansive language set forth in the
`
`proposed bills.
`
`(b) Petitioners’ “Used in Commerce” Argument
`Improperly Expands the Scope of CBM Review To
`Cover Virtually All Method Patent Claims
`
`By arguing that the ’107 patent is subject to CBM-review, Petitioners
`
`consequentially ask the Board to find that every claimed method or apparatus that
`
`could potentially be used in commerce constitutes a CBM patent. This is an
`
`interpretation that has never been the basis for a CBM review. Petitioners’ novel
`
`interpretation of the statute is particularly disturbing since arguably every patented
`
`method is intended to be used in commerce. For pharmaceutical products alone,
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00175
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`virtually every patented method for administration or treatment with a prescription
`
`drug is used in commerce and would be subject to CBM review under Petitioners’
`
`interpretation. This absurd result is clearly not the intended result of the statute
`
`and is directly contrary to the Constitutional purpose of the patent system: “To . . .
`
`promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
`
`. . . Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective . . . Discoveries . . . .” Art. I,
`
`Sec. 8, Cl. 8. Congress provided the critical “exclusive Right” in the form of a
`
`right to exclude others from using one’s invention. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle
`
`mbH v. N. Petrochemical Co., 784 F.2d 351, 357 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`The U.S. patent system itself is fundamentally about commerce.2 Congress
`
`recognized this and that is precisely why, while the scope of CBM review is not
`
`narrow, it is also not unlimited. And it certainly cannot be extended to reach any
`
`patent that claims methods “used in commerce.” Accordingly, the mere fact that a
`
`claimed invention may be used at some point in commerce does not mean that
`
`every patent contains the “financial product or service” requirement necessary for
`
`CBM eligibility.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Notably, the U.S. Patent Office is within the Department of Commerce.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00175
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
` Patent 7,765,107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) Petitioners’ Argument Improperly Expands
`the Scope of CBM Review to Capture the Type
`of Invention Congress Expressly Stated
`Would Not Be CBM-Review Eligible
`
`Petitioners’ position is also problematic because the unlimited review of
`
`method patents would include the very patents that claim inventions Congress
`
`expressly stated would not be CBM-review eligible. The ’107 patent—invented
`
`by Jazz to c