`Filed: November 25, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CELGENE CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`PTAB OVERLOOKED AND/OR MISAPPREHENDED EVIDENCE AND
`ARGUMENT SHOWING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO CARRY ITS
`BURDEN ON CLAIM 10 ................................................................................................... 2
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent Owner Request for Rehearing
` Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Patent Owner Celgene Corporation
`
`(“Celgene”) submits this Request for Rehearing in response to the Final Written
`
`Decision entered October 26, 2016 (Paper 75) (“Final Decision”) by the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720 (“the ’720
`
`patent”).
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested
`
`In the Final Decision, the PTAB held that the claims of the ’720 patent are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Powell (Ex. 1006) and Dishman (Ex. 1007), in view
`
`of Cunningham (Ex. 1008), and in further view of Mundt (Ex. 1017), Mann
`
`(Ex. 1018), Vanchieri (Ex. 1019), Shinn (Ex. 1020), Linnarsson (Ex. 1021),
`
`Gronroos (Ex. 1022), Soyka (Ex. 1023), Hamera (Ex. 1024), Kosten (Ex. 1025),
`
`and Menill (Ex. 1026). Final Decision at 37.
`
`In doing so, the PTAB overlooked and/or misapprehended Celgene’s
`
`evidence and argument showing that claim 10 of the ’720 patent would not have
`
`been obvious. Accordingly, Celgene respectfully requests that the PTAB vacate its
`
`decision with respect to claim 10, and confirm the patentability of that claim.
`
`II. Legal Standard
`
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing”
`
`that “specifically identif[ies] all matters the party believes the Board
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01102
`Patent Owner Request for Rehearing
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously
`
`
`
`addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`III. PTAB Overlooked and/or Misapprehended Evidence and Argument
`Showing that Petitioner Failed to Carry its Burden on Claim 10
`
`Celgene respectfully submits that the PTAB overlooked and/or
`
`misapprehended Celgene’s evidence and argument showing that Petitioner failed to
`
`carry its burden of proving claim 10 of the ’720 patent obvious. As explained in
`
`the Patent Owner Response (Paper 41, “Response”), claim 10 requires obtaining
`
`the results of genetic testing from patients. See Response at 47-48.
`
`The PTAB held that this claim would have been obvious allegedly because
`
`“genetic testing was a known diagnostic procedure as of the effective filing date,”
`
`and because a geneticist spoke at an FDA Meeting where thalidomide was
`
`discussed. See Final Decision at 29-30.
`
`While the PTAB noted Celgene’s argument that the “references of record do
`
`not disclose or suggest genetic testing” (id. at 30), the PTAB did not address, and
`
`therefore overlooked, Celgene’s evidence and argument in the Response
`
`demonstrating that the references of record did “disclos[e] various other types of
`
`tests,”—but not genetic testing—which “undermines Dr. Fudin’s opinion that
`
`[genetic] testing was ‘common.’” See Response at 47-48; see also Ex. 1006 at
`
`901-02; Ex. 1007 at 900-01; Ex. 2059 ¶110-112; Ex. 2060 ¶110-111 (cited in
`
`Response at 47). The PTAB also did not address, and therefore overlooked, the
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01102
`Patent Owner Request for Rehearing
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`controlling case law in Celgene’s Response, which holds that Dr. Fudin’s
`
`
`
`unsupported opinion that genetic testing was common, is entitled to little weight, if
`
`any. See Response at 47.
`
`Instead, the PTAB improperly placed the burden on Celgene, finding that
`
`Celgene allegedly “did not dispute that genetic testing was known in the art for
`
`obtaining diagnostic information.” Final Decision at 30. In doing so, Celgene
`
`respectfully submits that the PTAB misapprehended Celgene’s argument and
`
`misapplied the relevant law. First, Celgene did, in fact, dispute that genetic testing
`
`was either known in the art or “common.” See Response at 47-48. Second, the
`
`burden was on Petitioner to prove that genetic testing was known, not on Celgene
`
`to prove that genetic testing was not known. As explained in the Response,
`
`Petitioner did not provide any evidence showing that genetic testing would be
`
`used, let alone that it would have been common. See id.
`
`Further, the PTAB misapprehended Petitioner’s evidence regarding the
`
`geneticist’s statement at the FDA meeting. See Final Decision at 30 (citing
`
`Ex. 1012 at 137). Petitioner relied solely on a single passage of that statement (see
`
`Paper 54 at 23) that focuses on the geneticist acting as a clinical teratologist that
`
`might counsel patients on the risks of exposure. See Ex. 1012 at 137. Notably, the
`
`cited passage says nothing about genetic testing, nor does it suggest such testing.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01102
`Patent Owner Request for Rehearing
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`See id. Thus, Petitioner’s evidence does not support its argument that claim 10
`
`
`
`would have been obvious.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons described above, Celgene respectfully requests that the
`
`PTAB vacate its Final Decision with respect to claim 10 of the ’720 patent, and
`
`confirm the patentability of that claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Patent Owner Request for Rehearing
`
`
`Date: November 25, 2016
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
` F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
` Eric C. Stops (Reg. No. 51,163)
` Andrew S. Chalson (pro hac vice)
` Frank C. Calvosa (Reg. No. 69,064)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`General Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
`andrewchalson@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`J. Patrick Elsevier (Reg. No. 44,668)
`JONES DAY
`12265 El Camino Real
`Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`General Tel: (858) 314-1200
`Fax: (858) 314-1150
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`jpelsevier@jonesday.com
`
`Gasper J. LaRosa
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281
`General Tel: (212) 326-3939
`Fax: (212) 755-7306
`gjlarosa@jonesday.com
`
`Attorneys for Celgene Corporation
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CELGENE CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that
`
`PATENT OWNER REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(d) was served on November 25, 2016 by filing this document through the
`
`Patent Review Processing System, as well as e-mailing a copy to
`
`sarah.spires@skiermontderby.com, parvathi.kota@skiermontderby.com, and
`
`paul.skiermont@skiermontderby.com.
`
`Date: November 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
` F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`General Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Celgene Corporation