throbber
MAILED
`_JAN 3 1 1~95
`
`PAT.&T.M. OFFICE
`BOAilrJ OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERH!Ci::S
`
`Paper No. 119
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`SOMPONG WATTANASIN
`
`Junior Party, 1
`
`v.
`
`YOSHIHIRO FUJIKAWA, MIKIO SUZUKI, HIROSHI IWASAKI,
`MITSUAKI SAKASHITA and MASAKI KITAHARA
`
`Senior Party. 2
`
`Patent Interference No. 102,648
`
`Before CALVERT, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and
`SOFOCLEOUS and DOWNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SOFOCLEOUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL DECISION
`
`The subject matter of this interference relates to a
`
`method of inhibiting cholesterol biosynthesis using novel
`
`mevalonolactones. These compounds inhibit the enzyme, B-hydroxy-
`
`B-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase (HMG-CoA), which controls a key
`
`step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol, by catalyzing the
`
`conversion of the substrate HMG-CoA to mevalonate, an
`
`Application 07/498,301 filed March 23, 1990. Accorded the
`benefit of u.s. Application 07/318,773 filed March 3, 1989, now
`abandoned. Assignor to Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
`
`2 Application 07/233,752 filed August 19, 1988. Accorded the
`benefit of Japan Applications 207224 filed August 20, .1987,
`193606 filed August 3, 1988 and 15585 filed January 26, 1988.
`Assignors to Nissan Chemical Industries Ltd.
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 1 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`intermediate of cholesterol. The count of this interference is
`
`as follows:
`
`Count 3
`
`A method of inhibiting cholesterol biosynthesis in a
`patient in need of said treatment comprising administering a
`cholesterol synthesis inhibiting amount of a compound of the
`formula:
`
`wherein
`
`hydrogen,
`cl-6 alkyl,
`cl-6 cycloalkyl,
`ukoxy,
`c1
`_
`3
`n-butoxy,.
`i-butoxy,
`sec-butoxy,
`
`(wherein R7 and Ra
`hydrogen or c1_3 alkyl),
`
`are
`
`independently
`
`-2-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 2 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`. '
`
`trifluoromethyl,
`trifluoromethoxy,
`difluoromethoxy,
`fluoro,
`chloro,
`b.:olf.O,
`phenyl,
`phenoxy,
`benzyloxy,
`hydroxy,
`hydroxymethyl,
`-O(CH2 )aOR19 (wherein R19 is hydrogen or
`c1_3alkyl and a is 1, 2 or 3),
`or when
`located at
`the ortho
`R3 and
`·R4
`other,
`together
`-CH,.CH-CH=CH-;
`
`to each
`position
`optionally fo~
`
`hydrogen,
`c1_6 alkyl,
`c2_3 alkenyl,
`c3_6 cycloalkyl,
`phenyl substituted by R9 (wherein R9 is hydro-
`fluoro, chloro, bromo
`gen, cl-4alkyl, cl-3alkoxy,
`or trifluoromethyl),
`(wherein m
`phenyl-(CHzlm-
`-(CHz)nCH(CH3)-phenyl
`or
`(wherein n is 0, lor 2).
`
`2 or
`is 1,
`3),
`phenyl-(CHz)nCH(CH3 )-
`
`Y is
`
`-CH2 -,
`-CH2CH 2 -,
`-CH=CH-,
`-CH2-CH=CH-, or
`-CH,.CH-CH2-;
`
`-3-
`
`. ·.-· '' ~ .
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 3 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`z is
`
`Q is
`
`or
`
`-CH(OH)-.
`-C(O)-, or
`13
`.
`-C(OR
`)2-,
`
`is hydroc;sen or
`
`w is
`
`-C(Rll) (OH).;.
`
`(where Rll
`alkyl),
`
`is hydrogen
`
`or c1_3
`
`two Rll are independently primary or secondary c1_
`the
`6
`alkyl; or two R13 together form -(CH2 J2- or -(CH2 J3-;
`physiologically hydrolyzable alkyl or· M (wherein M
`is NH4, sodiWII, potassium, l/2 calcium o.r a hydrate
`of
`lower alkylamine,
`di-lower alkylamine
`or
`tri-lower alkylamine); and
`
`R17 and R18 are inde:pendently I:ydrogen or c1_3 alkyl;
`as defined in combination with pharmaceutically
`acceptable carrier.
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 4 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`Wattanasin's claims 8 and 9 and Fujikawa et al.'s
`
`(Fujikawa's) claims 35, 37 and 38 correspond to the count. No
`
`question of interference-in-fact or separate patentability of
`
`claims under 37 CFR 1.633(b) and (c)(4) has been raised.
`
`This interference was initially declared with three
`
`parties on two counts. Count 1 was directed to compounds per se;
`
`count 2, to a method of administering the compounds to inhibit
`
`cholesterol biosynthesis. The intermediate party, Picard et al.,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,761,419, filed a request for adverse judgment
`
`and judgment was entered against it. During the motion period,
`
`Fujikawa filed, inter alia, a preliminary motion (Paper No. 15)
`
`to add two proposed counts to this interference, which motion was
`
`denied by the administrative patent judge (APJ). As a result of
`
`the APJ's Decision on Preliminary Motions, method count 3 was
`
`substituted for count 2 and Interference No. 102,975 was declared
`
`on a count directed to compounds per se. Times for taking
`
`testimony were set. Wattanasin presented testimony in order to
`
`establish priority of invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(g). Fujikawa took cross-examination and presented rebuttal
`
`testimony. Both parties filed briefs and appeared, through
`
`counsel, at final hearing.
`
`The briefs raise the following issues:
`
`-5-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 5 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`. '
`
`1. Whether the Fujikawa preliminary motion {Paper No. 15) to add
`
`two proposed counts to this interference should have been
`
`granted?
`
`2. Whether Wattanasin has established priority of invention
`
`prior to August 20, 1987, Fujikawa's effective filing date?
`
`FUJIKAWA'S PRELIMINARY MOTION TO ADD COUNTS
`
`After having reviewed the arguments of the parties, we
`
`hold that the party Fujikawa has not sustained its burden to show
`
`that the interfering subject matter should have been redefined by
`
`adding two proposed counts to this proceeding.
`
`As the moving party, Fujikawa has the burden of proof
`
`on the motion. Kubota v. Shibuya, 999 F.2d 517, 27 USPQ2d 1418
`
`(Fed.Cir. 1993). The motion proposed that two counts be added to
`
`this interference and that Wattanasin present claims 11 and 12 in
`
`his application to correspond to the proposed counts. As the
`
`moving party, Fujikawa had the burden to •..
`
`show the patentability of any proposed claims to the
`opponent and apply the terms of the claims to the
`disclosure of the opponent's application.
`§ 1.637(c)(1)(iii).
`
`The APJ denied the motion on the ground the Wattanasin application
`does not contain a written description with the meaning of 35 u.s.c.
`
`112, first paragraph, for proposed claims 11 and 12.
`
`In qccordance
`
`with 37 CFR 1.655(a), the APJ's decision on a preliminary motion
`
`constitutes an interlocutory order which is presumed to have been
`
`-6-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 6 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`correct and the burden of showing error or abuse of discretion is
`
`upon the party attacking the order. Gustavsson v. Valenti, 25 USPQ2d
`
`1401 (BPAI 1991) and Suh v. Hoefle, 23 USPQ2d 1321 (BPAI 1991).
`
`Having reviewed the Wattanasin disclosure, we agree with
`
`the APJ that the disclosure does not contain a written description
`
`for proposed claims 11 and 12.
`
`·proposed claims 11 and 12 are as follows:
`
`11. The compound of claim 1, wherein R1 and R2 are
`
`hydrogen, R. is
`
`X is -CH=CH-, R is
`
`cyclopropyl, Q is
`
`-ca(cid:173)
`l
`oa
`
`~ is H, R8 is an alkyl of
`
`1-3 carbon atoms and M is sodium.
`
`12. A method of inhibiting cholesterol biosynthesis in
`a patient in need of said treatment comprising
`administering a cholesterol biosynthesis inhibiting amount
`of the compound of Claim 11 in combination with a
`pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
`
`The compounds embraced by proposed claims 11 and 12 are as follows:
`z
`
`wherein R0 is 4-flurophenyl, and
`R is cyclopropyl
`
`-7-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 7 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`The Wattanasin application has the following pertinent
`
`disclosure:
`
`This invention relates to compounds of the formula
`
`(A)
`
`wherein each of R and R0 is, independently C1_6alkyl
`(primary, secondary or tertiary) , C3_7cycloalkyl or ring A
`
`each of R11 ~' R3 , ~ and R5 is, independently hydrogen,
`C14alkyl, C14alkoxy, trifluoromethyl, fl uoro, chloro,
`phenoxy, benzyloxy or hydroxy; with the provisos that not
`more than one of R1 and ~ is trifluoromethyl, not more than
`one of R1 and ~ is phenoxy, not more than one of R1 and R2
`is benzyloxy, not more than one of R1 and R2 is hydroxy, not
`more than one of R3-R5 is the trifluoromethyl, not more than
`one of R3-R5 is phenoxy, not more than one of R3-R5 is
`benzyloxy and not more than one of R3-R5 is hydroxy; [page
`1, lines 1 to 14]
`
`* * * *
`Preferred compounds of this invention are the
`following.
`
`R1 and R2 are preferably hydrogen;
`one of R and Ra is preferably C- 1_6alkyl, more preferably
`isopropyl or methyl, and ~he other is preferably Ring A,
`more preferably phenyl, 4-fluorophenyl or 3,5-
`
`-8-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 8 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`dimethylphenyl; more preferably R is the alkyl group and R0
`is Ring A; [page 4, lines 26 to 34]
`
`It is clear from the foregoing that the application does
`
`not describe in ipsis verbis the compounds of proposed claims 11 and
`
`12 where R is cyclopropyl. This, however, is not necessary in order
`
`to comply with the description requirement of 35 USC 112, first
`
`paragraph, In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 796 {CCPA 1971); all
`
`that is required is that the application reasonably convey to persons
`
`skilled in the art that, as of the filing date thereof, the inventor
`
`had possession of the subject matter later claimed by him.
`
`In re
`
`Edwards, 558 F.2d 1349, 196 USPQ 465 (CCPA 1978) and In re Driscoll,
`
`562 F.2d 1245, 195 USPQ 434 (CCPA 1977). The question of whether an
`
`application contains a sufficient written description within the
`meaning of 35 u.s.c. 112, first paragraph, for a compound which is
`
`not specifically disclosed but which is among those suggested by
`
`general language in the application must be decided on its own facts.
`
`In re Driscoll, supra and Prutton v. Fuller, 230 F.2d 459, 109 USPQ
`
`59 {CCPA 1956).
`
`In our view, the Wattanasin application would not
`
`reasonably lead one of ordinary skill to the compounds of claims 11
`
`and 12 where R is cyclopropyl, i.e., the application does. not
`
`reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that ~attanasin
`
`invented the compounds. Cf. Flynn v. Eardley, 479 F.2d 1393, 178
`
`USPQ 288 {CCPA 1973) i Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 170 USPQ 276
`
`-9-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 9 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`(CCPA 1971);
`
`Irikura v. Petersen, 18 USPQ2d 1362 (BPAI 1991); and
`
`Heymes v. Takaya, 6 USPQ2d 1448 at 1452 (BPAI 1988).
`
`The Wattanasin application does not disclose any compound
`
`where R is C3_7 cycloalkyl, much less cyclopropyl. Rather,
`
`cyclopropyl is merely one moiety embraced by C3_7 cycloalkyl which is
`
`among a myriad of possibilities for either R or R0 disclosed in the
`
`application on page 1, lines 1 to 5. Further, the application at
`
`page 4, lines 26 to 34, lists its preferred compounds. None of the
`
`listed preferred compounds includes cyclopropyl or even C3_7
`
`cycloalkyl in the R position. Nor does the application have any
`
`examples directed to cycloalkyl compounds. Nor are there either any
`
`blazemarks or any motivation to guide one skilled in the art to
`
`select the cyclopropyl compounds of proposed claims 11 and 12 from
`
`Wattanasin's broad generic disclosure. Admittedly, one skilled in
`
`the art might fortuitously select a cyclopropyl compound within the
`
`scope of claims 11 and 12 out of the myriad of possibilities. This,
`
`however, is not sufficient to provide a written description of the
`
`small subgenus of claims 11 and 12. The selection of all the
`
`substituents of the genus must necessarily happen. Flynn v. Eardley,
`
`supra; In re Rushig, 379 F.2d 990, 154 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1967); and
`
`staehelin v. Secher, 24 USPQ2d 1513 (BPAI 1992). As noted by the
`
`Court in Rushig, 154 USPQ 122,
`
`Specific claims to single compounds require
`reasonably specific supporting disclosure and while
`
`-10-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 10 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`we agree with the appellants, as the board did, that
`naming is not essential, something more than the
`disclosure of a class of 1000, or 100, or even 48,
`compounds is required. Surely, given time, a chemist
`could name (especially with the aid of a computer)
`all of the half million compounds within the scope of
`the broadest claim, which claim is supported by the
`broad disclosure. This does not constitute support
`for each compound individually when separately
`claimed.
`
`We consider the Court's statement concerning claims to specific
`
`compounds is equally applicable to the situation here where proposed
`
`claims 11 and 12 are directed to a small subgenus of cyclopropyl
`
`compounds within the scope of Wattanasin's broad generic disclosure.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the party Fujikawa
`
`has not sustained its burden to show that the interfering subject
`
`matter should have redefined by adding the two proposed counts to
`
`this proceeding.
`
`WATTANASIN'S CASE FOR PRIORITY
`
`Fujikawa is the senior party, having been accorded under
`the provisions of 35 u.s.c. 119 the benefit of its earliest filed
`
`Japan application Serial No. 207224, filed August 20, 1987. For its
`
`case for priority of invention, the junior party Wattanasin relies
`
`upon actual reduction to practice prior to Fujikawa's effective
`
`filing date or upon prior conception coupled with diligence starting
`
`just prior ~o Fujikawa's effective filing date up to actual reduction
`
`to practice.
`
`-11-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 11 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`Burden of Proof
`
`Wattanasin, as the junior party, whose application is
`
`copending with the senior party's application, has the burden of
`
`proving priority of invention by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Holmwood v. Sugavanam, 948 F.2d 1236, 20 USPQ2d 1712 (Fed.Cir. 1991)
`
`and Morgan v. Hirsch, 728 F.2d 1449, 221 USPQ 193 (Fed.Cir. 1984).
`
`Fujikawa's argument that the party Wattanasin must prove
`
`its case for priority by clear and convincing evidence is not well
`
`taken. This argument is based on the fact that this interference was
`
`initially declared with the party Picard, whose patent issued prior
`
`to the filing date of Wattanasin's involved application.
`
`If the
`
`party Picard were involved in this interference, we would have agreed
`
`with Fujikawa that Wattanasin, whose application was filed after the
`
`issuance of Picard's patent, would have had the burden of proof by
`
`clear and convincing evidence with respect to Picard. See Price v.
`
`Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 26 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed.Cir. 1993). Since Picard
`
`is no longer involved in this proceeding, having filed, through
`
`counsel, a request for adverse judgment, the burden of proof upon
`
`Wattanasin vis-a-vis Fujikawa is the preponderance of the evidence,
`
`inasmuch as both Wattanasin's and Fujikawa's applications are
`
`copending.
`
`Count Interpretation
`
`The count is directed to a "method of inhibiting
`
`cholesterol biosynthesis in a patient in need of said treatment." on
`
`-12-
`
`:·_,_
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 12 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`page 54 of its main brief, the party Fujikawa urges that we should
`
`construe the count as being directed to a method for "treating human
`
`patients," because there is
`
`no known value in reducing cholesterol, or
`controlling blood cholesterol levels, in animals
`other than humans. Main brief at page 32.
`
`In support of its position, the party Fujikawa points to page 35 of
`
`the Wattanasin application which specifically identifies humans as
`
`the target patients and gives dosage values only for humans.
`
`We note that the term "patient" in the count is neither
`
`present in the parties' claims corresponding to the count nor defined
`
`in the parties' applications. The count of this interference is a
`
`"phantom" count which is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 112, first
`
`paragraph, to either party. A count of an interference is merely the
`
`vehicle for determining priority of invention. It is settled
`
`interference practice that a count must be given its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation possible, DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d
`
`1318, 226 USPQ 758 (Fed.Cir. 1985), and it is an established
`
`principle of interference practice that the count must be
`
`sufficiently broad as to encompass the broadest corresponding
`
`patentable claim of each party. Manual of Patent Examining
`
`Procedure, § 2309.02 (Fifth Edition).
`
`Based on our review of the parties' claims corresponding to
`
`the count in light of their application disclosures, we necessarily
`
`-13-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 13 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`conclude that the term "patient" as used in the context of the count
`
`includes the testing of mammals.
`
`Wattanasin's claim 8 is directed to a method of inhibiting
`
`cholesterol biosynthesis comprising administering a compound to a
`
`mammal in need of such treatment. The Wattanasin application, page
`
`35, lines 1 to 19, teaches that the compounds of his invention are
`
`useful for lowering blood cholesterol level in "animals, g_,_g_._,
`
`mammals, especially larger primates," with humans being listed as an
`
`example of larger primates. Further the application at page 34
`
`contains examples directed to the in vivo testing of male Wistar
`
`Royal Hart rats.
`
`Fujikawa's claims 35, 37 and 38 are directed to a method
`
`for treating hyperlipidemia, hyperlipoproteinemia, or atherosclerosis
`
`which comprises administering an effective amount of the compound.
`
`The claims are open-ended in that they do not limit the
`
`administration of compound to any particular group; rather, the
`
`compound may be administered to either a human, mammal or other
`
`animal. The Fujikawa application at page 26, lines 5 to 13, teaches:
`
`The compounds of the present invention exhibit
`high inhibitory activities against the choleste~ol
`biosynthesis wherein HMG-CoA reductase acts as a rate
`limiting enzyme, as shown by the test results given
`hereinafter, and thus are capable of suppressing or
`reducing the amount of cholesterol in blood as
`lipoprotein.
`
`The Fujikawa application contains examples directed to the in vivo
`
`testing of male Sprague-Dawley rats.
`
`-14-
`
`:,..:.,
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 14 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`Since the claims of Wattanasin are directed to the
`
`treatment of mammals and the claims of Fujikawa embrace the treatment
`
`of any animal, including humans and mammals, and since both
`
`applications contain examples directed to the in vivo testing of
`
`rats, we necessarily conclude that in the context of this
`
`interference, the term "patient" as used in the count embraces the
`
`treatment of mammals, and, in particular, rats, the species
`
`exemplified by both parties' applications.
`
`The Wattanasin Record
`
`Wattanasin presented a record consisting of the testimony
`
`of 16 witnesses together with 51 associated exhibits. The testimony
`
`will be referred to by WR followed by its page number; each exhibit,
`
`by WX followed by its identifier. The record shows that Sandoz
`
`Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the assignee of the involved Wattanasin
`
`application, has been involved since 1979 in a research program to
`
`discover compounds having HMG-CoA reductase inhibiting activity.
`
`In
`
`1979, Dr. Kathawala, a Ph.D., was the section head of a research team
`
`responsible for the research. This team was expanded over time to
`
`five laboratory units, each headed by a Ph.D.
`
`In 1982, Dr.
`
`Wattanasin, the named inventor, joined the project, worked under Dr.
`
`Kathawala and was later appointed as head of one of the five
`
`laboratory units. WR 136.
`
`-15-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 15 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`The First Phase Activity
`
`I
`
`The record shows that during the period from May 31, 1984
`
`to May 17, 1985, Dr. Wattanasin synthesized three compounds (63-366,
`
`63-548 and 63-549) falling within the scope of the count. Employees
`
`reporting to Dr. Barcza, a Ph.D chemist and director of the Sandoz
`
`Department of Physical Organic Chemistry, performed the spectra,
`
`microanalyses and thin layer chromatography (TLC) on the various
`
`intermediates and the final compounds. Samples of the final
`
`compounds were sent to the Drug Room of Sandoz and their receipt was
`
`recorded in the computer database. Dr. Damon, a Ph.D. chemist, who
`
`was in charge of the Drug Room, had samples of the compounds
`
`forwarded to Dr. Scallen for testing. WR 22 to 24, 27 to 44, 48 to
`
`54, 172 to 185 and 196; WX A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, C-1 to 3, D-1, D-2, G-
`
`1, G-2, H-1 and I-1.
`
`Dr. Scallen, a professor of biochemistry and medical doctor
`
`at the School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, received the
`
`compounds and had them tested in an established protocol using rat
`
`liver microsomes to determine whether they were competitive
`
`inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase, the rate limiting enzyme in
`
`cholesterol biosynthesis. On or before December 13, 1984, Dr.
`
`scallen had an in vitro biological assay of compound 63-366 performed
`
`in his laboratory under his supervision. The results indicated HMG(cid:173)
`
`CoA reductase activity and Dr. Scallen reported the results to Dr.
`
`-16-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 16 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`Damon of Sandoz. Likewise, on or before June 13, 1985, Dr. Scallen
`
`had in vitro biological assays of compounds, 63-548 and 63-549,
`
`performed in his laboratory under his supervision. The results
`
`indicated HMG-CoA reductase activity and were reported to Dr. Damon
`
`of Sandoz. WR 187 to 191; WX E-1 and E-2.
`
`Upon receiving the results, Dr. Damon calculated the IC50
`
`for each compound. The IC50 value is the concentration of the test
`
`substance in the assay system to produce a 50% inhibition of HMG-CoA
`
`reductase. The smaller the IC50 value, the more active the compound
`
`was in the assay. Dr. Damon would send Dr. Wattanasin within three
`
`or four days of receiving the test results a report with the assay
`
`data (including the IC50 ) and the structure of the compound. The
`
`report (WX E-5), stamp-dated December 20, 1984, indicated that
`
`compound 63-366 had an IC50 of 1.58 }.Lmoles
`
`(J.LM); the reports {WX E-5),
`
`stamp-dated June 28, 1985, indicated that compounds 63-548 and 63-549
`
`each had, respectively, an IC50 of 3. 775 J.LM and 7. 3100 J.LM. He
`
`compared these values to the IC50 value of compactin, a known HMG-CoA
`
`inhibitor for administration to patients to·inhibit cholesterol
`
`biosynthesis. Compactin has an IC50 value of 1.011 J.LM. WR 196 to 201
`
`and 483; WX E-1 and E-5.
`
`Concerning these test results, Dr. Damon testified that
`
`based on his knowledge and experience,
`
`it was my judgment on or prior to December 31, 1984,
`that there was a high probability that Wattanasin
`
`.-17-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 17 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`compound 63-366 would be active when administered in
`vivo to a patient to inhibit cholesterol
`biosynthesis, i.e. for the treatment of
`hypercholesteremia or atherosclerosis. WR 201.
`
`He testified that he had the same opinion for the other tested
`
`compounds.
`
`Dr. Wattanasin testified that no other experimental work
`
`was done on his invention after May 17, 1985, because of a manpower
`
`shortage in his lab. WR 106 to 110. Ms. Patel was hired in January
`
`1987.
`
`In March of 1987, Dr. Wattanasin submitted an Invention
`
`Disclosure (A-3), dated March 16, 1987, to the Sandoz Patent and
`
`Trademark Department. WR 24 and 25; WX A-3.
`
`II
`
`We hold that during the first phase of activity the
`
`Wattanasin record does not establish actual reduction to practice.
`
`It is well settled that a reduction to practice must
`
`include every limitation of the count. NewKirk v. Lulejian, 825 F.2d
`
`1581, 3 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed.Cir. 1987); Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92, 144
`
`USPQ 661 (CCPA 1965) and Schoenwald v. Waltersdorf, 226 USPQ 446
`
`(Bd.Pat.Int. 1984).
`
`The compounds, 63-366, 63-548 and 63-549, which were made
`
`and tested during the first phase, were not administered to a mammal,
`
`a necessary step in the performance of the method of the count.
`
`Consequently, Wattanasin did not reduce to practice the invention of
`
`count 1 during the first phase activity. At best, this work would
`
`-18-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 18 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`establish conception of the invention of the count by at least June
`
`13, 1985.
`
`The Second Phase Activity
`
`I
`
`Pages 31 to 44 of the Wattanasin main brief with references
`
`to the testimony and exhibits set forth a detailed explanation of
`
`Wattanasin's renewed activity.
`
`Essentially from early March 1987 into September 1987, Ms.
`
`Patel synthesized four compounds, 64-933, 64-934/NA, 64-935 and 64-
`
`936/NA, within the scope of the count and forwarded the compounds to
`
`the Sandoz Drug Room. By July 28, 1987, she synthesized compound 64-
`
`933; by July 29, 1987, compound 64-934/NA; by August 20, 1987,
`
`compound 64-935; and by August 25, 1987, compound 64-936/NA. During
`
`the synthesis, purification and characterization of the compounds,
`
`Dr. Wattanasin went to a meeting in New Orleans for over a week and
`
`when he returned, he found out that the next scheduled shipment out
`
`of the Sandoz drug room to Dr. Scallen would be on October 2, 1987,
`
`even though the compounds were made before October 2. He wanted all
`
`the compounds shipped together for testing so that he could get a
`
`better comparison of their potency in the same study. The compounds
`
`were shipped on October 2, 1987 overnight to Dr. Scallen. Dr.
`
`Scallen received the compounds, tested them in an established
`
`protocol using rat liver microsomes to their biological activity in
`
`-19-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 19 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`vitro and reported the raw results to Dr. Damon on or before October
`
`20, 1987.
`
`Dr. Damon calculated the IC50 for each compound and compared
`
`each value with compactin which has an IC50 of 1. 011 MM. Compound 64-
`
`933 had an IC50 of 2.3700 MMi compound 64-934/NA, an IC50 of 2.6100 MM;
`
`compound 64-935, an IC50 of 0.4130 MMi and compound 64-936/NA, an IC50
`
`of 0.5300 MM. WR 183 to 195; WX E-1 to E-5, H-1 and I-1.
`
`Dr. Engstrom of the Sandoz Lipid Metabolism Department
`
`commenced the in vivo testing of compound 64-936 on or before October
`
`22, 1987 and the testing of compounds 64-933 and 64-935 on October
`
`29, 1987. The testing was completed on or prior to December 9, 1987.
`
`The compounds were administered to male Wistar Royal Hart rats in
`
`accordance with the protocol described at WR 204. Mr. Slaughter, Dr.
`
`Engstrom's lab assistant, entered the raw data into a computer
`
`program which converted the data to nano Curies (nCi) of sterol per
`
`100 ml. of serum at 4 hours after injection of 14C-acetate.
`
`Thereafter Dr. Engstrom entered this data into a computer program
`
`which calculated the ED50 values for the compounds. The ED50 value3
`for compound 64-,933 is >1; for compound 64-935, o. 49; and for
`
`compound 64-936, >1. Dr. Wattanasin testified that the data on WX K-
`
`1 indicates that the compounds would have activity as a HMG-CoA
`
`3 The ED50 values for compounds 64-933 and 64-935 were.
`inadvertently switched as explained in Dr. Engstrom's
`supplemental declaration at WR 207 and 208.
`
`-20-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 20 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`reductase inhibitor when administered to a patient. Compactin has an
`
`ED50 of 3.5. WR 56, 203 to 212 and 485; WX K-1 and Q.
`
`Contemporaneous with these second phase activities, the
`
`Sandoz Patent committee met on April 29, 1987 and considered the
`
`wattanasin invention disclosure (A-3). According to the testimony of
`
`Linda Rothwell and Joanne M. Giesser, the committee deferred a
`
`decision for three months on whether to file an application because
`
`of the ongoing work. Again at its meeting on July 29, 1987, the
`
`committee deferred its decision for another three months. As a
`
`result of the october 28, 1987 and November 25, 1987 meetings, the
`
`committee's decision was deferred to January, there being no
`
`committee meeting during the month of December. At the January 27,
`
`1988 meeting, the committee decided that an application should be
`
`filed on the Wattanasin disclosure. The disclosure, which had been
`
`assigned to Mr. Weinfeldt, was reassigned to Ms. Giesser, a junior
`
`patent attorney in the Sandoz Patent Department. The application was
`
`filed on March 3, 1989. WR 213 to 215 and 319 to 323; WX M-1 to M-5
`
`and P-1 to 3.
`
`II
`
`We hold that the wattanasin record establishes prior
`
`conception coupled with due diligence from just prior to August 20,
`
`1987, Fujikawa's effective filing date, up to December 9, 1987, the
`
`date of the in vivo testing of compound 64-935.
`
`-21-
`
`:· . ..:..
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 21 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`Prior conception is established by June 13, 1985, when the
`
`work performed during the first phase of the interference was
`
`completed. Thus the Wattanasin record establishes prior conception.
`
`With respect to diligence, Wattanasin has the burden to
`
`establish diligence just prior to August 20, 1987, up to the date of
`
`in vivo testing on December 9, 1987. As noted by Wattanasin in his
`
`reply brief at page 24, "it does not appear that Fujikawa contest
`
`diligence as to this period." We agree. Nowhere in its brief has
`
`the party Fujikawa shown where Wattanasin was not reasonably diligent
`
`during this period. Accordingly, we hold that the Wattanasin record
`
`establishes reasonable diligence during the critical period in
`
`question.
`
`III
`
`We hold that the Wattanasin record establishes actual
`
`reduction to practice by December 9, 1987, the date compound 64-935
`
`was successfully tested in vivo in rats and found to have an ED50
`
`value of 0.49 ~M.
`
`Before we discuss the Wattanasin record, we must consider
`
`Fujikawa's motion (Paper No. 109) to suppress, which was filed at the
`
`same time as Fujikawa's brief.
`
`In the motion, Fujikawa requests that
`
`we not consider Dr. Engstrom's testimony at WR 204 to 208 because the
`
`testimony relies upon a computer-generated summary to obtain the ED50
`values. We agree with Wattanasin's opposition (Paper No. 113) that
`
`-22-
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 22 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`the ED50 value for compound 64-935 should not be invalidated because
`of a purported lack of foundation for the underlying computer
`
`programs used to calculate the value from the raw data. As pointed
`
`out by Wattanasin, Dr. Holmlund, Fujikawa's rebuttal witness, had "no
`
`quarrel with the techniques for determining statistical activity."
`
`Likewise, we do not consider that Wattanasin had to have placed in
`
`evidence the computer programs used to calculate the value from the
`
`experimental data. It is enough to have placed into evidence the
`
`experimental data, which showed that the compound had significant
`
`activity. Accordingly, the motion to suppress is denied.
`
`As we noted above, a reduction to practice must include
`
`every limitation of the count. Newkirk v. Luleiian, suprai Land v.
`
`Regan, suprai and Schoenwald v. Waltersdorf, supra. The Wattanasin
`
`record shows that by December 9, 1987 compound 64-935 was
`
`administered to a rat. The compound exhibited significant activity
`
`at levels of 1 and 0.1 milligrams per kilogram and its ED50 value was
`
`calculated to be 0.49 MM, an activity greater than compactin. Dr.
`
`Wattanasin testified that this activity showed that the compound
`
`would be active as a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor when administered to
`
`a patient. Further Dr. Holmlund, Fujikawa's rebuttal witness
`
`acknowledged that the compound did in fact exhibit significant
`
`activity at those levels.
`
`See the Fujikawa record at pages 207 to
`
`209 and 243 (FR 207 to 209 and 243).
`
`-23-
`
`...... _
`
`NCI Exhibit 2020
`Page 23 of 27
`
`

`
`Interference No. 102,648
`
`We do not agree with Fujikawa's position on page 32 of his
`
`main brief that the proofs of Wattanasin fail because a human patient
`
`was not tested. As we noted above, the count embraces the treatment
`
`of mammals. Thus the experiment performed on behalf of Dr.
`
`Wattanasin meets the terms of the count.
`
`It is also Fujikawa's position that the testing of compound
`
`64-935 does not demonstrate a practical utility. This position is
`
`not well taken. The Fujikawa rebuttal evidence is mainly directed to
`
`whether a correlation exists between in vitro activity and in vivo
`
`activity, a matter which is not in issue in this interference. To
`
`the extent that the evidence is relied upon to show that the
`
`Wattanasin record does not demonstrate that the testing establishes a
`
`practical utility for compound 64-935, we are not persuaded thereby.
`
`Fujikawa relies on Dr. Holmlund's testimony at FR 209 that since the
`
`compound was not significantly active at 0.3 milligrams and. that
`
`since he (Dr. Holmlund) could not have obtained the ED50 value on the
`
`basis of WX K-1 in the absence of any reaso.nable dose response curve,·
`
`he could not make any final conclusion on the compound's activity.
`
`In effect, Dr. Holmlund would wan

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket