`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`CASE IPR2013-00368
`Patent 8,206,740
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER'S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`SUPERNUS HAS NOT REBUTTED AMNEAL'S SHOWING OF
`
`Galderma — A Real Party In Interest — Adopted Petitioner's
`
`A Skilled Artisan Would Have Combined the Teachings of the
`
`OBVIOUSNESS ............................................................................................. 1
`A. Ashley '932 Teaches IR/DR Formulations of Doxycycline .................. 1
`B.
`View of the Disclosure of the Ashley '854 Application ....................... 2
`C.
`Prior Art at Issue .................................................................................... 3
`The Art as a Whole Does Not "Teach Away" ....................................... 6
`D.
`E.
`The Claimed IR/DR Ratio Is Not Critical ............................................. 8
`Objective Indicia Do Not Support Patentability ................................... 8
`F.
`FAIL ..............................................................................................................12
`A. Ashley '932 Properly Incorporated the '854 Application ....................12
`B.
`Supernus Fails to Antedate the Ashley References ............................13
`C.
`Supernus' Attempt to Invoke the CREATE Act Must Also Fail ........15
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................15
`
`SUPERNUS' ATTEMPTS TO SIDESTEP THE PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC ("Amneal") submits this Reply to
`
`Patent Owner Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s ("Supernus") Response to the
`
`Petition filed by Amneal concerning claims 1, 2, 5-15 and 19-22 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,206,740 ("the '740 patent"). As set forth in detail below, Supernus has failed
`
`to rebut Amneal's showing that the foregoing claims of the '740 patent would have
`
`been obvious in view of (1) International Publication No. WO 02/080932 ("Ashley
`
`'932")[ Ex. 1002] (incorporating by reference U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`No. 60/281,854 ("Ashley '854") [Ex. 1003]) combined with (2) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,348,748 ("Sheth") [Ex. 1005].
`
`I.
`
`
`
`SUPERNUS HAS NOT REBUTTED AMNEAL'S SHOWING OF
`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`A. Ashley '932 Teaches IR/DR Formulations of Doxycycline
`
` The Petition demonstrated that Ashley '932 teaches an IR/DR formulation.
`
`Paper 2 at 8-13. Ashley '932, by its incorporation of the Ashley '854, teaches
`
`formulations comprising "a controlled release agent selected from the group
`
`consisting of an instantaneous release agent, a sustained-release agent, a delayed-
`
`release agent, and combinations thereof." Ex. 1003 at 5:24-26. The Board cited this
`
`language in holding that Ashley '854 discloses an IR/DR-only formulation (among
`
`others). Paper 8 at 8.
`
`Supernus and its expert, Dr. Edward Rudnic, insist that Ashley '854 requires
`
`a sustained-release agent in all embodiments. Paper 39 at 11-12. During his
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`deposition, Dr. Rudnic criticized the Board's "very narrow interpretation" of the
`
`Ashley '854 reference based on its recitation of an IR/DR only formulation as one
`
`of seven possible combinations; but then Dr. Rudnic inexplicably insisted that the
`
`Ashley reference does not disclose an IR/DR combination. Ex. 1052 at 102:10-22;
`
`97:23-99:3. When pressed to explain his rationale, Dr. Rudnic repeatedly asserted
`
`that the "central theme" or "central focus" is a substantially constant rate of release.
`
`Id. at 79:7-81:15.
`
`But that is not the law. It is well settled that "[a] reference may be read for
`
`all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose" and not just its
`
`"central focus" or "central theme" as Supernus and Dr. Rudnic insist. In re Mouttet,
`
`686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As the Board previously noted, "[t]hat
`
`Ashley '854 devotes more attention to formulations including sustained-release
`
`agents than to others is irrelevant." Paper 8 at 12. Dr. Rudnic also emphasizes the
`
`absence of working examples of formulations in Ashley '854. See, e.g., Ex. 2016 at
`
`¶ 126. But the law does not require working examples; prior art "is relevant for all
`
`it contains." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`B. Galderma — A Real Party In Interest — Adopted Petitioner's
`View of the Disclosure of the Ashley '854 Application
`
`Supernus' insistence that Ashley '854 must always include an SR component
`
`
`
`is directly refuted by statements made by Galderma—a real party in interest in this
`
`proceeding—during prosecution of U.S. Application No. 10/474,240 (which
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`claims priority to Ashley '854 and has a nearly identical specification). During the
`
`'240 application's prosecution, Galderma argued that the very language cited by the
`
`Petitioner and Board, i.e. "a controlled release agent… consisting of an
`
`instantaneous release agent, sustained-release agent, a delayed-release agent and
`
`combinations thereof" supported a claim for an IR/DR only dosage form. Ex. 1020
`
`at 3-4, citing Ex. 1092 at 9-10. Indeed, it insisted that the Ashley invention
`
`"cannot include a prolonged release agent." Id. at 4 (emphasis in original).
`
`As a real party in interest, Galderma's representations concerning Ashley
`
`'854's disclosure are relevant evidence of the prior art and a POSA's understanding
`
`thereof. See Abbott Labs. v Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331,1341 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006). Dr. Rudnic testified that he did not consider this Galderma admission in
`
`forming his opinions. Ex. 1052 at 77:12-15. Supernus now argues to the Board that
`
`Ashley '854 must include a sustained release agent in any combination; but the real
`
`party in interest, Galderma, argued the exact opposite to the Patent Office.
`
`C. A Skilled Artisan Would Have Combined the Teachings of the
`Prior Art at Issue
`
`As the Board correctly noted, "Amneal relies on Sheth merely for its
`
`
`
`disclosure concerning the ratio of immediate release pellets to delayed release
`
`pellets." Paper 8 at 12. As an initial matter, Supernus has not rebutted—and cannot
`
`rebut—the disclosure in Sheth that includes the claimed ratio of 30 mg IR to 10 mg
`
`DR. Dr. Rudnic criticizes the combination of Ashley '932 and Sheth on the basis
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`that such a combination would not "necessarily be successful." Ex. 2016, ¶¶ 56, 58.
`
`But obviousness requires only a reasonable expectation of success, not certainty or
`
`necessary success. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Dr. Rudnic admitted that he did not know if the "necessarily successful"
`
`standard he relied on in his declaration was the correct standard for obviousness.
`
`Ex. 2016, ¶56, 58; Ex. 1052, 47:12-16.
`
`Supernus argues that a POSA would not combine Ashley and Sheth because
`
`Ashley teaches low plasma levels of doxycycline and Sheth teaches antimicrobial
`
`levels of minocycline. Paper 39 at 25-26. As set forth in the Petition (at 23-27),
`
`however, a POSA would have looked to a reference such as Sheth if a POSA
`
`needed further guidance regarding IR/DR ratios to develop a formulation achieving
`
`the plasma concentrations taught by Ashley '932. In its Decision (at 12), the Board
`
`accepted Petitioner's argument, "that the otherwise close relatedness of these two
`
`drugs [i.e. doxycycline and minocycline] in structure and function makes
`
`information about formulation of one relevant to formulation of the other."
`
`Doxycycline and minocycline are closely-related in terms of chemical
`
`structure, pharmacokinetics, and therapeutic properties as Dr. Glenn Van Buskirk,
`
`Amneal's pharmaceutical formulation expert, explains in his declaration. Ex. 1022,
`
`¶185. While some differences exist, they are not so great that a POSA would
`
`ignore minocycline art as guidance on doxycycline. Ex. 1066, ¶¶ 56-62.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`In fact, Ashley '932 itself expressly states that doxycycline and minocycline
`
`are useful for treating rosacea, providing another reason for a POSA to combine
`
`Ashley with Sheth. Ex. 1002 at 7:24-25. And Sheth is concerned with achieving a
`
`once-daily administration of minocycline, a further reason to combine Sheth with
`
`Ashley. Moreover, Dr. Rudnic's own patent, which published as US 2002/0136766
`
`A1 prior to the '740 patent filing date, teaches tetracycline IR/DR formulations that
`
`would be suitable for both doxycycline and minocycline. Accordingly, the Board
`
`should give little weight to his testimony that minocycline formulations are
`
`irrelevant. Compare Ex. 2016, ¶ 137-41 with Ex. 1089, Ex. 1032, claims 1 & 2,
`
`and Ex. 1052 at 143:21-25.
`
`Armed with what was known about the absorption properties of
`
`doxycycline, a POSA would have at least a reasonable expectation of success that
`
`an IR/DR formulation would be a successful strategy to achieve once-daily dosing
`
`of doxycycline. See Ex. 1066, ¶68; Ex. 2016, ¶50. This expectation is supported by
`
`the teachings of Sheth, which showed that an IR/DR combination is useful for
`
`once-daily dosing of minocycline which, like doxycycline, was known to be
`
`absorbed in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Ex. 1066, ¶¶51, 68. And it is further
`
`supported by the knowledge in the art that both IR and DR doxycycline products
`
`were in use. Id., ¶75; Ex. 1068, 95:2. Whether a POSA would be aware that
`
`doxycycline may have lower absorption below the duodenum is of no moment
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`because a POSA would know that doxycycline is absorbed in the duodenum, and
`
`could therefore reasonably expect to formulate successful IR/DR dosages. Ex.
`
`1066, ¶¶ 51, 66-71. Supernus suggests that it would require too much trial and
`
`error for a POSA to achieve a successful doxycycline formulation based on Ashley
`
`'932 and Sheth. Paper 39 at 38-40. But preparing prototype formulations and
`
`conducting routine testing to evaluate those formulations would be well within the
`
`skill and ability of a POSA. Ex. 1022, ¶¶ 177, 184; Ex. 1066 at Table 3 at 14.
`
`
`
`D. The Art as a Whole Does Not "Teach Away"
`
`Supernus argues that Ashley '932 and Sheth "teach away" from the IR/DR
`
`formulations claimed by the '740 patent. Paper 39 at 21-23. For art to "teach
`
`away," it must "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed."
`
`In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). But there are no teachings in
`
`any of the art of record that remotely criticize, discredit, or discourage IR/DR
`
`formulations. The mere fact that Ashley '932 identifies another embodiment as
`
`preferred is not a "clear discouragement." Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694
`
`F.3d 1344, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, Dr. Rudnic offered no evidence that
`
`the art as a whole teaches away; indeed his own prior art patent application recited
`
`the use of IR/DR formulations to deliver doxycycline. Ex. 1089. Dr. Rudnic's
`
`"teaching away" allegations are, ironically, contradicted by his own prior art.
`
`As set forth in the Petition (at 25), Sheth discloses a formulation with two
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`pulses: an IR pulse provided by an initial loading portion and a DR pulse provided
`
`by a secondary loading portion. Sheth teaches that the "second pulse provides a
`
`delayed release and a controlled release of [drug], preferably in the duodenum."
`
`Ex. 1005, 7:34-36 (emphasis added); Ex. 1066, ¶51. The second pulse has a "rapid
`
`and substantially complete release" in a buffer "having a pH of from about 4.5 to
`
`6.5" Id., 8:40-47.
`
`Dr. Rudnic conceded that there would be a "lag" associated with the initial
`
`release of drug from the Sheth secondary loading component. Ex. 1052 at 247:20-
`
`248:5. But he disputes that this is delayed release because it releases "a small
`
`amount of drug in the stomach" before a complete release "in the human upper
`
`intestinal tract and particularly in the duodenum." Ex. 1005, 7:14-21. This attempt
`
`to mischaracterize Sheth's express language reciting a delayed release portion as a
`
`"modified release or a short sustained release" system also fails. Ex. 2016, ¶180.
`
`Nowhere do the Sheth inventors describe their embodiments using this
`
`terminology. Ex. 1066, ¶¶39-40; 52-55.
`
`Even if Supernus' unduly narrow construction of delayed release is credited,
`
`the combination of Ashley '932 and Sheth still teaches a delayed release portion.
`
`Indeed, Supernus admits that "delayed-release agents" are disclosed by Ashley
`
`'854. See Paper 39 at 13. Consequently, there is no dispute that the art of record
`
`discloses DR dosage forms. Ex. 1022, ¶227.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`The Claimed IR/DR Ratio Is Not Critical
`
`Supernus argues that its claimed ratio of 30 mg IR to 10 mg DR is critical.
`
`Paper 39 at 43. Here again, Supernus misapplies the law. "Only if the results of
`
`optimizing a variable are unexpectedly good can a patent be obtained for the
`
`claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Supernus has not shown that its alleged "critical" ratio yields unexpectedly good
`
`results. Supernus merely alleges that the claimed ratio "best stays within the steady
`
`state blood levels . . . for as many patients as possible. . . ." Paper 39 at 43.
`
`Supernus has made no showing that there is anything critical about the 30:10
`
`IR/DR ratio; nor can it, because claim 3 of the '740 patent recites a much broader
`
`ratio of IR to DR "from 99:1 to 70:30" to achieve the same steady-state levels
`
`between 0.1 μg/ml and 1.0 μg/ml. Ex. 1001, claim 3. And the '740 patent also
`
`states these blood levels "can be accomplished with a single daily dose of an
`
`immediate release formulation." Id., col. 3:62-65; Ex. 1066, ¶¶72-76.
`
`F. Objective Indicia Do Not Support Patentability
`
`
`
`Supernus' objective indicia arguments lack merit and fail to support a
`
`conclusion of nonobviousness. Ex. 1066, Section X; Ex. 1056; Ex. 1071.
`
`There was no long-felt need. A showing of a long felt need requires that the
`
`need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by a POSA. In re
`
`Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967). Supernus argues that a long-felt need
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`existed for a once-daily oral formulation of doxycycline to treat rosacea, without
`
`the undesired antibiotic side effects. Paper 39 at 45. But absent from the record is
`
`evidence "of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that
`
`problem." Texas Instr. Inc. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). There is also no evidence of a persistent need
`
`recognized by a POSA. Gershon, 372 F.2d at 539.
`
`Supernus offers only the unsupported testimony of a dermatologist, Dr. Guy
`
`Webster, who admitted that he knew of no literature discussing a long-felt need for
`
`the claimed invention. Ex. 1054 at 113:2-11. An expert's bare assertion is not
`
`probative of a long-felt need. Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d
`
`1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Dr. Webster alleged a "need" for a once-daily version
`
`of Periostat®, due to alleged patient compliance problems with twice-daily dosing.
`
`Ex. 2018, ¶26. But the record contains no documented evidence of such alleged
`
`problems or even a reliable head-to-head comparison of compliance rates. Ex.
`
`1054, 84:25-85:17.
`
`Dr. Elaine Gilmore, a practicing dermatologist who filed a declaration in
`
`support of Amneal's reply, explains that from a clinical perspective there is no
`
`evidence of a long-felt need for a once-daily oral rosacea treatment that avoided
`
`side effects associated with higher antibiotic doses. Ex. 1056, ¶¶25-30. Dr.
`
`Gilmore further explains that, contrary to Dr. Webster's assertions, there is no
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`reliable evidence that the claimed invention's side-effect profile is an improvement
`
`over 50 mg or 100 mg of doxycycline administered once-daily. Id., ¶¶ 27-29. She
`
`also explains that there is no evidence that twice-daily dosing created compliance
`
`concerns with patients, or that once-daily dosing achieves a better therapeutic
`
`outcome in rosacea patients. Id., ¶¶ 44-51. Dr. Webster further admitted that his
`
`opinions are unsupported by any controlled studies. Ex. 1054, 55:17-23, 76:11-21.
`
`There is no evidence of "failure of others." Supernus argues that a single
`
`biostudy of the "Faulding formulations" demonstrates a "failure of others." But that
`
`study showed at least one formulation could achieve steady-state blood levels
`
`within the range claimed by the '740 patent using once-daily dosing. Ex. 1066,
`
`¶78-80. And Supernus' arguments regarding Faulding's bioavailability levels are
`
`irrelevant because the '740 patent claims do not require any particular level of
`
`bioavailability. Ex. 1001, claims; Ex. 1066, ¶80. Moreover, the fact that
`
`Galderma/CollaGenex apparently elected not to pursue the Faulding formulation is
`
`of little probative value where there is no direct evidence of why
`
`Galderma/CollaGenex made that decision. See DyStar v. C.H. Patrick Co.,464
`
`F.3d 1356, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`There is no commercial success. Supernus and its declarant, Dr.
`
`Grabowski, have shown only that a commercial embodiment of the claimed
`
`invention might enjoy healthy sales. But Supernus has not shown a nexus between
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`the allegedly novel elements of the challenged claims and any marketplace
`
`performance. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006). Instead, the record confirms that Oracea® sales are driven by commercial
`
`factors as explained by Mr. Philip Green, an expert on economic issues involving
`
`intellectual property. Ex. 1071, ¶¶ 54-75.
`
`Mr. Green explains that the only arguably distinguishing features of
`
`Oracea®, the commercial embodiment of the claimed invention, that are
`
`potentially probative of commercial success are its once-daily dosing regimen and
`
`its 30:10 (IR/DR ) ratio. Id., ¶¶ 28-31, 36-40. But there is no evidence that these
`
`claimed features drive sales. Id., ¶41-49. In fact, Dr. Grabowski repeatedly insisted
`
`that all of Oracea®'s features drive sales. Ex. 1055 at 86:8-14, 87:10-88:2, 93:8-18,
`
`93:19-94:8. And Dr. Grabowski repeatedly emphasized Oracea®'s status as the
`
`only FDA-approved oral treatment for rosacea. Ex. 1071, ¶¶ 50-53. But any
`
`success due to such an "unclaimed feature" is irrelevant. Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at
`
`1312. Moreover, it is well-settled that "if the feature that creates the commercial
`
`success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent." Id.; see also Tokai
`
`Corp v. Easton Enter., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Dr.
`
`Grabowski did not consider the prior art. Ex. 1071, ¶¶ 32, 39-40, 47. As Dr.
`
`Grabowski did not properly analyze commercial success in this case, his opinions
`
`should be disregarded.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Supernus fails to establish copying. Supernus asserts that copying supports
`
`the nonobviousness of the '740 patent claims (see Paper 39 at 49), but "copying
`
`requires evidence of efforts to replicate a specific product." Wyers, 616 F.3d at
`
`1246. Supernus only relies on Dr. Rudnic's observation that various generic
`
`companies filed ANDAs seeking to market bioequivalent versions of Oracea. Upon
`
`cross-examination, Dr. Rudnic admitted that he relied only an excerpt from one
`
`page of the Amneal Paragraph IV Notice Letter (Ex. 2053) to speculate that
`
`Amneal's product meets all the limitations of all the '740 patent claims. Apart from
`
`Amneal's recitation of the word "bioequivalent," Dr. Rudnic could point to no
`
`other evidence of alleged "copying." Ex. 1052 at 326:11-14. Thus, there is no
`
`factual evidence of copying. Moreover, as the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held,
`
`"evidence of copying in the ANDA context is not probative of nonobviousness
`
`because a showing of bioequivalence is required for FDA approval." Bayer
`
`Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 713 F.3d 1369, 1377.
`
`II.
`
`SUPERNUS' ATTEMPTS TO SIDESTEP THE PRIOR ART FAIL
`
`A. Ashley '932 Properly Incorporated the '854 Application
`
`Ashley '932 identifies the '854 application with sufficient particularity, as
`
`viewed from the vantage point of a POSA, to incorporate it by reference in its
`
`entirety. Ex. 1002, 15:26-30; Ex. 1049, ¶¶22, 28-31; Ex. 1066, ¶¶13,107-08.
`
`Supernus' contrary arguments must fail, as Supernus' declarant Stephen Kunin
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`admittedly cannot offer the views of a POSA or speak to this question of law. Ex.
`
`1051 at 31:12-32:3; Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012); See
`
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F. 3d 1272, 1283 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2000) (holding that "[w]hether and to what extent material has been incorporated
`
`by reference into a host document is a question of law" to be determined using "the
`
`standard of one reasonably skilled in the art.") And a simple keyword search using
`
`the application's title unambiguously leads to a single application having the
`
`referenced April 5, 2001 filing date, as explained by Amneal's declarant Mr. John
`
`Doll. Ex. 1049, ¶¶29-40; Ex. 1066, ¶¶107-108. Thus, Ashley '854 is deemed as
`
`matter of law part of the Ashley '932 disclosure published on October 17, 2002. Id.
`
`Supernus attempts to distract from this straightforward legal question by
`
`offering irrelevant speculation as to how quickly a member of the public could
`
`have actually obtained a copy of Ashley '854. Paper 39 at 55-56. But the prior art
`
`date of a reference cannot turn on the speed at which the PTO's administrative
`
`machinery might move. Ex. 1049, ¶¶42-48. And, in any event, an interested POSA
`
`could have actually obtained a copy of the '854 application long before the April 7,
`
`2003 asserted priority date of the '740 patent. Id., ¶¶ 49-57.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Supernus Fails to Antedate the Ashley References
`
`Even if the Board accepted all of Supernus' statements in its attempt to
`
`antedate Ashley '932, their argument still fails. First, Supernus does not assert that
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`the inventors made an embodiment of the claimed invention and demonstrated that
`
`it works for its intended purpose, as required for an actual reduction to practice.
`
`Instead, Supernus argues that "the inventors of the Chang '740 patent expressly
`
`contemplated conducting 'in silico modeling . . . .'" Paper 39 at 58. But
`
`contemplating in silico modeling is not an ARTP of the claimed invention. Ex.
`
`1066, ¶102. Second, Supernus failed to offer any inventor testimony or explain
`
`why such evidence is not provided. Borror v. Herz, 666 F.2d 569, 573 (CCPA
`
`1981). Third, the sole proffered witness on this issue, Dr. Jones Bryan, is a non-
`
`inventor who lacks personal knowledge of an ARTP and relies on hearsay in
`
`documents he did not prepare. Ex. 1053 at 62:9-25. Fourth, Dr. Bryan admitted
`
`that the in vivo study he relied on did not use an IR/DR formulation nor disclose
`
`steady-state blood level values for any formulation. Id. at 124:19-24; 126:1-7. So,
`
`Supernus cannot show that it had an ARTP of the claimed invention, and it cannot
`
`even show that it invented as much as Ashley '932 teaches, as Ashley '932 teaches
`
`steady state blood levels and IR/DR formulations. Ex. 1002, 11:1-3; Ex. 1003 at
`
`5:24-26.
`
`Moreover, Supernus offers no credible evidence of conception and diligence,
`
`as Dr. Bryan had no personal knowledge of the facts and events. And he did not
`
`explain the many substantial gaps in activity during the critical period. Ex. 1053 at
`
`62:9-64:20 & 72:24-73:5; see e.g. Ex. 2147 at 2, ll. 70-71 (more than a month of
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`inactivity); see Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
`
`McIntosh, 230 F.2d 615, 619 (CCPA 1956). Supernus has not met its burden of
`
`persuasion that the Ashley references are antedated.
`
`C.
`
`Supernus' Attempt to Invoke the CREATE Act Must Also Fail
`
` Even if Supernus properly substantiated its CREATE Act claim, Supernus'
`
`attempt to invoke the CREATE Act here should be rejected. Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§255, Supernus' Certificate of Correction cannot be used to amend the
`
`specification, because such an amendment would raise issues that necessitate
`
`further re-examination. For example, if the CREATE Act is used to disqualify
`
`subject matter as prior art, the '740 patent should be assessed for obviousness-type
`
`double patenting over patents arising from Ashley '932, e.g., USPNs 7,211,267;
`
`7,232,572; and 8,603,506. Supernus' CREATE Act claim must fail.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`Nothing Supernus argued should alter the Board's initial views regarding
`
`unpatentability. Amneal has demonstrated by at least a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 19-22 would have been obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 23, 2014
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
` /Eldora L. Ellison /
` Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D.
` Attorney for Petitioner
` Registration No. 39,967
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e))
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing "Petitioner's
`Reply to Patent Owner's Response to Petition" was served in its entirety on
`May 23, 2014, via email upon the following counsel of record for the Patent
`Owner:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`smaebius@foley.com
`Stephen B. Maebius
`stalapatra@foley.com
`Sunit Talapatra
`
`abaluch@foley.com
`Andrew S. Baluch
`Gerald J Flattmann, Jr. geraldflattmann@paulhastings.com
`Gregory Morris
`
`gregorymorris@paulhastings.com
`Evan Diamond
`
`evandiamond@paulhastings.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
` /Eldora L. Ellison/
` Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D.
`Date: May 23, 2014
` Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Registration No. 39,967
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
