`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NEPTUNE GENERICS, LLC,
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS,
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, and WOCKHARDT BIO AG
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ELI LILLY & COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-002401
`Patent No. 7,772,209
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2016-01191, IPR2016-01337, and IPR2016-01343 have been joined
`
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`2 Pursuant to the Board’s authorization (see Ex. 2131), a combined sur-reply,
`
`identical except for the caption, case number header, and certificate of service, is
`
`being filed in IPR2016-00237, IPR2016-00240, and IPR2016-00318.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`I.
`
`Petitioners’ New Biochemical Theories Arguing that Folate Is Not an
`
`“Antidote” Only Emphasize the Nonobviousness of the Invention ................ 1
`
`A.
`
`The Potency of Pemetrexed’s Enzyme Inhibition Would Not
`
`Have Addressed the POSA’s Efficacy Concerns .................................. 2
`
`B.
`
`The POSA Would Have Expected Any Beneficial Effect of
`
`Vitamin B12 To Be Accompanied by a Reduction in Efficacy ............. 6
`
`II.
`
`The FDA’s Reaction to Vitamin Supplementation Shows that the
`
`POSA Would Have Believed Vitamin Pretreatment Would Harm
`
`Efficacy ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`III. Lilly’s Post-Priority Date Statements Are Irrelevant .................................... 10
`
`IV. Petitioners Apply a New and Incorrect Standard for Evaluating
`
`Dosage Claims ............................................................................................... 13
`
`V.
`
`The Board Should Take Notice of the Federal Circuit’s Related
`
`Decision ......................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266 (C.C.P.A. 1962) ........................................................... 11
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................ 2, 13
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) ........................................... 10
`
`Osram Sylvania v. Am. Induction Techs., 701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 14
`
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc., 720 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir.
`1983) ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 801 .................................................................................. 12
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In its Patent Owner Responses, Lilly described how the person of ordinary
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`skill in the art (POSA) would have expected folic acid and vitamin B12
`
`pretreatment to reduce pemetrexed’s efficacy, and therefore would not have been
`
`led to the claimed invention. Tellingly, in their Replies, Petitioners do not contest
`
`that the POSA would have been concerned with pemetrexed’s efficacy in addition
`
`to its toxicity. Instead, they put forward a raft of new arguments about why the
`
`POSA allegedly would have expected the claimed regimen not to reduce efficacy.
`
`They also focus on how Lilly—after the priority date and with knowledge of the
`
`invention—advocated for its own invention in publications and to the FDA. For
`
`the reasons discussed below, Petitioners’ arguments are post hoc rationalizations
`
`for the invention that constitute improper hindsight reasoning, fail to rebut Lilly’s
`
`points, and cannot support Petitioners’ claims of obviousness.3
`
`I.
`
`Petitioners’ New Biochemical Theories Arguing that Folate Is Not an
`“Antidote” Only Emphasize the Nonobviousness of the Invention
`
`Having largely ignored in their Petitions the expected negative impact of the
`
`
`3 Consistent with the Board’s direction, this brief responds only to improper new
`
`Reply arguments. Petitioners also made arguments, such as attacks on the
`
`credibility of Lilly’s witnesses, that are meritless but do not fall within the Board’s
`
`direction. As necessary, Lilly will respond to such arguments at oral argument.
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`claimed vitamin pretreatments on pemetrexed’s efficacy, Petitioners now advance
`
`several theories to argue that folic acid and vitamin B12 do not act as antidotes to
`
`pemetrexed. Critically, the question is not whether, today, Petitioners’ experts can
`
`come up with a scientific hypothesis as to how folic acid and vitamin B12
`
`pretreatment might be able to reduce pemetrexed’s toxicity without harming
`
`efficacy. We know today that there must be some explanation, as we now know
`
`from experience that Dr. Niyikiza’s invention in fact works. But that is always
`
`true for successful inventions. The question for obviousness, however, is whether
`
`the prior art taught or suggested any such rationale which would make Dr.
`
`Niyikiza’s invention obvious to the POSA. E.g., Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith &
`
`Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`There are no such teachings, and, in any event, Petitioners’ new scientific
`
`arguments are unavailing.
`
`A. The Potency of Pemetrexed’s Enzyme Inhibition Would Not Have
`Addressed the POSA’s Efficacy Concerns
`
`Neptune argues that folic acid does not act as pemetrexed’s “antidote” by
`
`observing that pemetrexed is a potent inhibitor of DHFR, the enzyme responsible
`
`for converting folic acid to useful “reduced” forms. Neptune Reply 12-14;
`
`Neptune Ex. 1077 ¶¶ 19-23; Neptune Ex. 1078 ¶¶ 22-35, 40-46. Accordingly,
`
`Neptune argues that because pemetrexed would be expected to completely block
`
`DHFR, any folic acid administered in the presence of pemetrexed would never be
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`converted to a useful form and thus would not affect pemetrexed’s efficacy.
`
`Neptune Reply 13.
`
`Neptune’s new theory is fundamentally inconsistent with the prior art.
`
`Worzalla’s preclinical testing showed that folic acid administration led to a
`
`dramatic increase in the amount of pemetrexed needed for an antitumor response,
`
`see Worzalla (Neptune Ex. 1005, Sandoz Ex. 1013) at 3235-38; Neptune Ex. 1077
`
`¶ 21, and Hammond likewise observed a decrease in antitumor responses after folic
`
`acid pretreatment in humans, Ex. 2120 ¶ 96. These data clearly show a reduction
`
`in efficacy accompanied any reduction in toxicity.
`
`Neptune’s theory also conflicts with Petitioners’ previous arguments. The
`
`only way anyone has suggested that folic acid can reduce pemetrexed’s toxicity
`
`requires the action of “reduced folates”—the very forms of folate into which,
`
`according to Neptune, folic acid will not be converted if pemetrexed blocks DHFR.
`
`Healthy cells need reduced folates in order to make DNA and survive antifolate
`
`chemotherapy. Ex. 2120 ¶¶ 37, 45, 49. And even if (contrary to the evidence),
`
`homocysteine had a role in pemetrexed’s toxicity independent of its role as a
`
`biomarker for “functional folate status,” see Calvert I (Neptune Ex. 1014, Sandoz
`
`Ex. 1007) at 8; Zervos (Neptune Ex. 1016, Sandoz Ex. 2064), the form of folate
`
`that lowers homocysteine is also a reduced folate, 5-MTHF. Neptune Ex. 1077 ¶
`
`40(b); Neptune Ex. 1078 ¶ 32. If DHFR really were blocked and folic acid were
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`not converted to a reduced folate, folic acid administration would have no effect on
`
`homocysteine levels. If Neptune’s theory that pemetrexed “is not pemetrexed’s
`
`antidote” made it impossible for folic acid to reduce pemetrexed’s efficacy, the
`
`POSA therefore would understand it not to ameliorate pemetrexed’s toxicity, and
`
`Neptune’s proffered reason why the POSA would administer it would be absent.
`
`Moreover, as Neptune itself emphasizes, the claims require pretreatment
`
`with folic acid before pemetrexed is administered. Neptune Reply 14. Folic acid
`
`is converted by DHFR to reduced folates—which Neptune and its experts concede
`
`can reverse pemetrexed’s effects—before any pemetrexed is administered.
`
`Neptune Ex. 2135 at 212, 320-23, 342-44; Neptune Ex. 2134 at 49. Neptune
`
`argues that this somehow means folic acid would have a beneficial effect on
`
`toxicity, Neptune Reply at 14, but again, whatever protective effect the folic acid
`
`would have on healthy cells, the POSA would have expected the same effect on
`
`cancerous ones. Neptune’s new theory does nothing to refute that. In addition,
`
`there is no suggestion in the prior art that pretreatment alone with folic acid—
`
`without concurrent and post-treatment administration—would reduce pemetrexed’s
`
`toxicity. Hammond’s prior art folic acid regimen was not limited to pretreatment,
`
`and there is no evidence that pretreatment alone would have reduced toxicity.
`
`Finally, even if Neptune’s DHFR argument somehow undermined the
`
`POSA’s expectation that folic acid pretreatment would reduce efficacy, it does
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`nothing to ameliorate the POSA’s significant concerns with vitamin B12
`
`pretreatment. THF, the form of folate that vitamin B12 administration releases, is
`
`downstream of DHFR, so the release of THF is unaffected by DHFR inhibition.
`
`Neptune’s new arguments about DHFR thus do not provide any reason to believe
`
`that vitamin B12 pretreatment would not harm efficacy; to the contrary, if the POSA
`
`believed them, they would be a reason to administer folic acid without vitamin B12.
`
`For its part, Sandoz uses enzyme binding constants to make a different and
`
`inconsistent argument. One of its new experts, Dr. Stover, opined that the binding
`
`of folates to the enzyme TS—not DHFR—would have been expected to be
`
`blocked. Sandoz Ex. 2137 at 60. He thus hypothesized that what he called “off-
`
`target” toxicities caused by, for example, DHFR inhibition might be ameliorated by
`
`folic acid pretreatment, while pemetrexed’s efficacy against cancer cells, deriving
`
`from TS inhibition, would be unaffected. But Dr. Stover admitted that he had no
`
`idea what causes pemetrexed’s principal toxicities, id. at 15-16—and if they are
`
`caused by TS inhibition, even in substantial part, his entire unsupported musing
`
`falls completely apart. And his hypothesis about folate’s effects on pemetrexed
`
`efficacy is flatly contradicted by the balance of the evidence—the experimental
`
`results of Worzalla and Hammond, as well as the testimony of other experts that
`
`reduced folates would be expected to reduce pemetrexed’s activity against TS. See
`
`Neptune Ex. 2135 at 320-23; Neptune Ex. 2134 at 49; Ex. 2120 ¶¶ 62-65.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`The POSA Would Have Expected Any Beneficial Effect of
`Vitamin B12 To Be Accompanied by a Reduction in Efficacy
`
`B.
`
`As Lilly previously explained, and Petitioners do not dispute, the enzyme
`
`methionine synthase (MS) relies on vitamin B12 to function. -00237, Paper 33 at 7;
`
`-00240, Paper 32 at 7; -00318, Paper 36 at 6. In the presence of vitamin B12, MS
`
`converts a form of folate called 5-MTHF to another form called THF. THF is used
`
`by the folate enzymes that make DNA and RNA precursors required for cell
`
`division (in both healthy and cancerous cells). And when vitamin B12 pretreatment
`
`is administered, that can convert an unpredictable quantity of 5-MTHF into the
`
`more-useful THF, thereby providing more useful reduced folate that can reverse
`
`the effect of pemetrexed and promote tumor growth. Ex. 2120 ¶¶ 37-39, 85-87.
`
`The POSA would thus not have wanted to administer vitamin B12 prior to
`
`pemetrexed; it would have been expected to reverse pemetrexed’s effects to an
`
`unpredictable—and thus uncontrollable—degree.
`
`In their Replies, Petitioners attempt to deny this concern by arguing that
`
`appreciable amounts of folate can only be released if there is a “methyl trap”—i.e.,
`
`if folate is stuck in the form of 5-MTHF due to a vitamin B12 deficiency;
`
`Petitioners argue that this circumstance is rare. Neptune Reply at 27; Sandoz
`
`Reply at 19-20. Neptune even suggests that the POSA would have been motivated
`
`to administer vitamin B12 only in “non-B12-deficient patients,” Neptune Reply at
`
`27. These are startling positions, as these same Petitioners’ rationale for using
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`vitamin B12 pretreatment in the first place is that pemetrexed patients may have
`
`such a deficiency. E.g., Neptune Reply at 26. Missing the point that it is their
`
`burden to show an affirmative reason to use vitamin B12 pretreatment, Petitioners
`
`then suggest that the concern for trapped 5-MTHF would not have given the POSA
`
`reason to avoid administering vitamin B12 prior to pemetrexed chemotherapy.
`
`Neptune Reply at 27; Sandoz Reply at 19.
`
`Petitioners’ newly-minted arguments suffer from another fatal flaw. If
`
`Petitioners were right that vitamin B12 pretreatment would not release folate from
`
`the “methyl trap,” it follows that it also would have no benefit on toxicity. The
`
`only way that vitamin B12 would have been thought to have any potential effect on
`
`pemetrexed toxicity is through the action of MS and its role in the folate pathway.
`
`If vitamin B12 does anything, the POSA would understand that it is through the
`
`methionine synthase reaction that converts 5-MTHF to THF. Neptune Ex. 1078
`
`¶¶ 27; Neptune Ex. 2134 at 11-14; Neptune Ex. 1077 ¶ 47; Sandoz Ex. 2136 at
`
`375-76, 379; Sandoz Ex. 2137 at 91-92, 110-13. Thus, to the extent vitamin B12
`
`counteracts pemetrexed’s toxicities to healthy cells, it is by releasing folate into the
`
`useful form, THF. Ex. 2120 ¶¶ 37-39, 85-87; Ex. 2118 ¶¶ 31-34, 52-56.
`
`Petitioners cannot (and do not) argue that vitamin B12 pretreatment would be
`
`expected to serve any useful purpose without creating THF and thus making more
`
`folate available to cancer cells as well as healthy ones. Accordingly, if Petitioners
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`were correct that providing vitamin B12 would not be understood to release more
`
`reduced folate, it would not be expected to ameliorate pemetrexed toxicity.
`
`II. The FDA’s Reaction to Vitamin Supplementation Shows that the POSA
`Would Have Believed Vitamin Pretreatment Would Harm Efficacy
`
`As Lilly explained in its POR, the FDA expressed skepticism about the use
`
`of vitamin pretreatment with pemetrexed, for example requesting Lilly’s “basis for
`
`[its] determination that the addition of vitamins will not affect efficacy.” Ex. 2100
`
`at ELAP00008719. Apparently worried about what Lilly’s dialogue with the FDA
`
`shows, Petitioners each commissioned a new expert witness (Dr. Ross and Dr.
`
`Feigal) to opine that FDA was not skeptical of the claimed folic acid and vitamin
`
`B12 pretreatment regimen. Neptune Ex. 1080; Sandoz Ex. 1093. Petitioners’
`
`attempts to dismiss the evidence of skepticism do not bear scrutiny.
`
`Petitioners’ experts focus on the potential problems with altering a clinical
`
`trial that has already begun. But that concern only affects, at most, the
`
`communications between Lilly and the FDA after the priority date, during the
`
`Phase III trial of pemetrexed in mesothelioma. Neither Dr. Ross nor Dr. Feigal
`
`disputes—or even substantively discusses—that in 1998, before the trial started,
`
`the FDA expressed concern that “providing vitamins[] might reduce the efficacy of
`
`pemetrexed.” Sandoz Ex. 2132 at 112-13; see Neptune Ex. 1080 ¶ 35 (citing Ex.
`
`2100 and noting that in 1998, “FDA noted the risk of decreasing pemetrexed’s
`
`efficacy but left the decision to Lilly whether to incorporate folate supplementation
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`into the protocol”). That is contemporaneous, objective evidence supporting the
`
`testimony of Lilly’s experts that the POSA would have expected vitamin
`
`pretreatment to reduce pemetrexed’s efficacy, and refuting Petitioners’ contrary
`
`testimony.
`
`Petitioners have no answer to this point, so they focus instead on the Lilly-
`
`FDA communications after the Phase III trial began in 1999. But even then, the
`
`evidence demonstrates that the FDA was still concerned about efficacy.
`
`Petitioners make much of how Lilly characterized the prior art; for example, they
`
`highlight Lilly’s citation of the Worzalla and Hammond references in an attempt to
`
`persuade the FDA that it might be “possible to decrease toxicity to healthy tissue
`
`while maintaining antitumor effect,” e.g., Sandoz Reply at 9 (quoting Ex. 1084 at
`
`ELAP0013767); see also Neptune Reply at 8-9. As will be discussed below,
`
`whether Lilly found prior art support for its invention after the invention was made
`
`is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that the FDA still needed persuading.
`
`The FDA clearly believed that folic acid and vitamin B12 had the potential to
`
`reduce pemetrexed’s efficacy. If it were so obvious that Lilly’s invention would
`
`not decrease pemetrexed’s efficacy, there would have been no need to persuade the
`
`FDA of that fact. Instead, as Petitioners themselves highlight, Lilly was forced to
`
`argue in document after document in the face of FDA skepticism that it believed its
`
`invention would work. Sandoz Exs. 1077, 1084; Ex. 2103, 2107. The FDA
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence supports Lilly, not Petitioners.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`III. Lilly’s Post-Priority Date Statements Are Irrelevant
`Petitioners raise several new arguments in reply about how Lilly
`
`contemporaneously characterized the conclusions of the prior art references at
`
`issue in this case; Petitioners argue that these characterizations should be believed
`
`over the expert testimony about how the POSA would have understood those
`
`references. Neptune Reply at 6-11; Sandoz Reply at 2-9. Indeed, Petitioners go so
`
`far as to suggest that Lilly is somehow barred from contesting Petitioners’
`
`interpretation of the references based on its characterizations of the art after the
`
`priority date and with knowledge of the invention. E.g., Sandoz Reply at 2-3.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments are without merit.
`
`A. As a threshold matter, the Board should reject as a matter of law
`
`Petitioners’ attempts to use post-priority date evidence to establish obviousness.
`
`Neptune cites to scattered cases discussing rare circumstances in which evidence
`
`from after a patent’s priority date can be treated as probative of what would have
`
`been known to the POSA. Neptune Reply at 6. But the unusual fact patterns of
`
`those cases are exceptions that prove the rule; it is a hornbook principle of
`
`obviousness that it is “based on a review of the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). Neptune’s cases are not to the
`
`contrary. In Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc., for example, the court—
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`considering the doctrine of equivalents rather than an obviousness defense—ruled
`
`that non-prior-art internal documents could provide evidence that certain
`
`information was known before the priority date. 720 F.2d 1572, 1580-81 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983). And in In re Wilson, the court approved the use of a non-prior-art
`
`publication to establish a scientific fact about the properties of certain prior-art
`
`foams; the date of the publication did not matter, because the scientific fact was not
`
`one that changed with time. 311 F.2d 266, 268-269 (C.C.P.A. 1962).
`
`These cases do nothing to support Neptune’s flagrant attempt to use post-
`
`priority date documents—written by the patentee, no less—to suggest that the
`
`invention would have been obvious. Neptune Reply at 6-11. Neptune, for
`
`example, cites an article published in 2001 and co-authored by the inventor, Dr.
`
`Niyikiza, which discusses some of the prior art at issue in this IPR and states that it
`
`“supported” the idea of vitamin supplementation. Neptune Ex. 1047 at 371. But
`
`whether Dr. Niyikiza—after having conceived of the invention—saw the prior art
`
`as supportive is entirely irrelevant to whether the POSA would have done so. By
`
`definition, inventors glean insights from the prior art that the POSA would not. It
`
`is no answer to how the POSA would have understood the art to say that the
`
`inventor himself drew particular insights from that art.
`
`B.
`
`Sandoz also contends that Lilly is not allowed to “rewrite Lilly’s own
`
`prior art,” and suggest that Lilly is somehow bound to the conclusions of articles
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`published by its employees (which do not support Petitioners in any event). E.g.,
`
`Sandoz Reply at 2-3.4 Putting aside that Lilly is not “rewriting” anything, this
`
`contention, however, rests on a gross misreading of a single Federal Circuit case,
`
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1361-63 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). PharmaStem involved a patentee who sought to adduce expert testimony
`
`that directly contradicted a characterization of prior art in the specification of the
`
`patent itself. Id. There is no such issue here. Rather, Lilly’s experts have opined
`
`about what the prior art references, taken as a whole, teach. Even Sandoz’s own
`
`expert, Dr. Schiff, agreed that the “approach that the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would take when reviewing the literature and references in this case,” is to
`
`“review the entirety” of the reference and “come to a conclusion about what it
`
`teaches as a whole.” Sandoz Ex. 2136 at 8-9. And there also is absolutely no basis
`
`(and Petitioners cite no authority) for the proposition that prior art that was
`
`published by someone affiliated with the assignee of a patent should be treated
`
`differently from any other prior art in conducting the obviousness analysis.
`
`C.
`
`Finally, Petitioners attempt to argue that Lilly’s characterizations of
`
`
`4 Neptune invokes Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (Neptune Reply at 7), but at most
`
`this establishes that certain statements made by or on behalf of Lilly are
`
`admissible, not that their authorship is relevant to the obviousness analysis.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`the prior art, including Hammond and Worzalla, to the FDA should be treated as
`
`probative of how the POSA would understand those reference because they are
`
`“near contemporaneous” with the priority date. Sandoz Reply at 8-9; see Neptune
`
`Reply at 8-9. Petitioners miss the point entirely. The characterizations to which
`
`they point occurred after Lilly had come up with the invention, and after severe
`
`toxicities had arisen in clinical trials that meant that continuing to administer
`
`pemetrexed without vitamin supplementation was no longer a realistic or ethical
`
`option. Exs. 2103, 2107, 2116 at 795-98; Sandoz Ex. 1085. In other words,
`
`having conceived of the invention, Lilly was advocating it to a skeptical FDA. Its
`
`efforts to justify the invention it had already made have no bearing whatsoever on
`
`how the POSA, without hindsight knowledge of the invention, would have
`
`interpreted those references. Kinetic Concepts, 688 F.3d at 1369. They certainly
`
`do not suggest that the POSA would have identified the same statements and drawn
`
`the same conclusions.
`
`IV. Petitioners Apply a New and Incorrect Standard for Evaluating Dosage
`Claims
`
`For the first time in Reply, Petitioners argue that the doses of folic acid and
`
`vitamin B12 recited in many of the challenged claims are not “critical” and thus
`
`cannot confer patentability. Sandoz Reply at 23; Neptune Reply at 31. Petitioners
`
`err in their interpretation and application of the criticality doctrine.
`
`The question of whether a claim limitation is “critical” arises when the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`difference between a claim and the prior art is that the claim is limited to a
`
`particular value or sub-range within a prior art range. Osram Sylvania v. Am.
`
`Induction Techs., 701 F.3d 698, 705-06 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It has no application here
`
`because folic acid dosages of 1000 µg or less—as recited in claims 9, 10, and 12-
`
`22—are found nowhere in the art in combination with pemetrexed or vitamin B12.
`
`There was only one example of folic acid pretreatment with pemetrexed in
`
`the literature: the Hammond study (reported in Hammond I, Neptune Ex. 1022,
`
`Sandoz Ex. 1015, and Hammond II, Neptune Ex. 2035, Sandoz Ex. 1014).
`
`Hammond used a folic acid dose of 5 mg and no vitamin B12. There were no
`
`examples of vitamin B12 pretreatment with pemetrexed, or indeed with any other
`
`folate analogue antifolate, in the prior art. These facts do not fit the criticality
`
`cases; Lilly is claiming a new combination, not a subrange of an existing range.
`
`On these facts, therefore, the question is therefore not whether the claimed dosages
`
`of folic acid are “critical,” but whether the claimed combination would have been
`
`obvious. The onus, moreover, is on Petitioners to show that the POSA would have
`
`put together all of the elements of the claims in the recited way. True, there were
`
`(non-cancer related) precedents for 1000 µg doses of vitamin B12, and the ’974
`
`patent encompasses doses of folic acid lower than Hammond’s. But the fact that
`
`Petitioners can cherry-pick dosage values from scattered prior art references does
`
`nothing to help Petitioners unless they can show that the POSA would have
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`
`
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`combined the doses in the recited way, i.e., selected a dose of folic acid much
`
`lower than those in Hammond (under 1 mg versus 5 mg), and combined it doses of
`
`vitamin B12 that are larger than those favored by the very reference, EP 005, that
`
`Petitioners chose to make the centerpiece of their case as to vitamin B12.
`
`Petitioners cannot do this. The only conceivable reason to lower the folic
`
`acid dose would be a concern for efficacy. Sandoz’s conclusory statement that
`
`Hammond used more pemetrexed than the claims (implicitly) contemplate is no
`
`answer; there is no reason why lower doses of folic acid would be “appropriate
`
`with correspondingly lower doses of pemetrexed” other than a concern that using
`
`too much folic acid would be deleterious. Sandoz Reply at 24. But a reason to
`
`minimize the dose of folic acid is equally a reason to avoid adding vitamin B12,
`
`which can have the effect of releasing more folate. Moreover, there is no evidence
`
`from which to conclude that a low (<1 mg) folic acid dose would even be effective
`
`at lowering pemetrexed toxicity. In short, the POSA would not have reason to
`
`combine the particular doses in the recited way.
`
`V. The Board Should Take Notice of the Federal Circuit’s Related Decision
`In its POR, Lilly cited a district court decision rejecting obviousness
`
`challenges to claims 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 of the ’209 patent. On
`
`January 12, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. See Eli Lilly &
`
`Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`Patent 7,772,209
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/David M. Krinsky/
`David M. Krinsky
`Reg. No. 72,339
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`725 12th St., NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202-434-5338
`Facsimile: 202-434-5029
`Email: dkrinsky@wc.com
`
`Back-up Counsel for
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`(37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the document above was served on
`
`
`
`this 14th day of February, 2017, on the Petitioners by delivering a copy via
`
`electronic mail to the following individuals at the email addresses below:
`
`Dr. Parvathi Kota
`Reg. No. 65,122
`240Neptune@skiermontderby.com
`
`
`
`
`Deanne M. Mazzochi
`Reg. No. 50,158
`dmazzochi@rmmslegal.com
`
`Patrick C. Kilgore
`Reg. No. 69,131
`pkilgore@rmmslegal.com
`
`
`
`Mark D. Schuman
`Reg. No. 31,197
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`Sarah E. Spires
`Reg. No. 61,501
`240Neptune@skiermontderby.com
`
`Skiermont Derby LLP
`2200 Ross Ave., Ste. 4800W
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`
`Attorneys for Neptune Generics, LLC
`
`John D. Polivick
`Reg. No. 57,926
`jpolivick@rmmslegal.com
`
`William A. Rakoczy
`Pro hac vice to be filed
`wrakoczy@rmmslegal.com
`
`Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`Chicago, IL
`P: 312-527-2157/F: 312-527-4205
`
`Attorneys for Apotex Inc. and Apotex
`Corp.
`
`Gary J. Speier
`Reg. No. 45,458
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00240
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bryan P. Collins
`Reg. No. 43,560
`bryan.collins@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh,
`Lindquist & Schuman
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`P: 612-436-9600
`F: 612-436-9605
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`Reg. No. 53,179
`chardman@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`P: 212-813-8800
`F: 212-355-3333
`
`Attorneys for Teva Pharmaceuticals
`USA, Inc. and Kabi Fresenius USA,
`LLC
`
`Patrick A. Doody
`Reg. No. 35,022
`patrick.doody@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`P: 703-770-7755/F: 703-770-7901
`
`Counsel for Wockhardt Bio AG
`
`/David M. Krinsky/
`David M. Krinsky
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 72,339
`Back-up Counsel for
`Patent Owner
`
`Date: February 14, 2017
`
`
`
`2
`
`