`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC. AND NOxBOX LIMITED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MALLINCKRODT HOSPITAL PRODUCTS IP LTD., AND INO
`THERAPEUTICS, INC. d/b/a IKARIA, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ‘966 Patent .................................................................. 1
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘966 Patent ...................... 6
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................. 9
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................................... 9
`
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real-Parties-in-Interest ........................................................................ 10
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 10
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .................................................. 12
`
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE IPR UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .... 13
`
`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 21
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ..................................... 21
`
`IX. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE
`REASONS THEREFORE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a) and 42.104(b)) .............. 22
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13-17, 20, 22-25, and 28 are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Obvious Over
`Greenough and Jaypee ........................................................................ 25
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Prior Art Applied in Ground 1 ............................. 26
`
`2. Motivation to Combine Art Applied in Ground 1 .................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 6 ...................................................... 32
`
`(a)
`
`Part (a) of Independent Claims 1 and 6 .......................... 32
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`Part (a) of Independent Claim 1 ........................... 32
`
`Part (a) of Independent Claim 6 ........................... 34
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Part (b) of Independent Claims 1 and 6 .......................... 35
`
`Part (c) of Independent Claims 1 and 6 .......................... 38
`
`4.
`
`Independent Claims 13 and 22 .................................................. 40
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`Part (a) of Independent Claims 13 and 22 ...................... 40
`
`Part (b) of Independent Claims 13 and 22 ...................... 41
`
`Part (c) of Independent Claims 13 and 22 ...................... 42
`
`Part (d) of Independent Claims 13 and 22 ...................... 42
`
`Part (e) of Independent Claims 13 and 22 ...................... 43
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-21, and 23-29 ........................ 43
`
`(a) Dependent Claims 2 and 8 .............................................. 44
`
`(b) Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 16 ....................................... 44
`
`(c) Dependent Claims 5, 11, 20, and 28 ............................... 45
`
`(d) Dependent Claims 14 and 24 .......................................... 46
`
`(e) Dependent Claims 15 and 25 .......................................... 47
`
`(f) Dependent Claims 7, 17, and 23 ..................................... 47
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 4, 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 29 are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Obvious Over
`Greenough, Jaypee, and Widlitz .......................................................... 48
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 51
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Ex. 1001: U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966 to Baldassarre et al. (“‘966 Patent”), filed
`
`June 22, 2010, issued October 9, 2012.
`
`Ex. 1002: Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson.
`
`Ex. 1003: Curriculum vitae of Dr. Edward Lawson.
`
`Ex. 1004: Waivers of Service of Summons in Case No. 2015-cv-00170.
`
`Ex. 1005: Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966.
`
`Ex. 1006: A. Greenough & A. D. Miller, Neonatal Respiratory Disorders 149,
`
`183–87, 392 (2nd ed. 2003) (“Greenough”).
`
`Ex. 1007:
`
`Jaypee, Pediatric & Neonatal Mechanical Ventilation 148–58
`
`(Praveen Khilnani ed., 1st ed. 2006) (“Jaypee”).
`
`Ex. 1008: A. Widlitz et al, Pulmonary arterial hypertension in children,
`
`European Respiratory Journal, (January 2003) (“Widlitz”).
`
`Ex. 1009: Prior Art Search Results from Cardinal Intellectual Property, Inc.
`
`Ex. 1010: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Application Number:
`
`NDA20845,
`
`INOmax, Final Printed Labeling, available at
`
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/20845_inoma
`
`x_prntlbl.pdf (August 9, 2000) (“INOmax label”).
`
`Ex. 1011: Pilbeam, Mechanical Ventilation, Special Techniques in Mechanical
`
`Ventilation, § 4: Nitric Oxide, (4th ed. 2006) (“Pilbeam”).
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`Ex. 1012: M. Hoeper, et al., Definitions and Diagnosis of Pulmonary
`
`Hypertension 62:25 J. of the American College of Cardiology D44
`
`(2013) (“Hoeper”).
`
`Ex. 1013: Royster, et al., Differences in Pulmonary Artery Wedge Pressures
`
`Obtained by Balloon Inflation Versus Impaction Techniques, 61
`
`Anesthesiology, 339 – 341 (1984) (“Royster”).
`
`Ex. 1014: Goyal et al., Efficacy of nitroglycerin inhalation in reducing
`
`pulmonary arterial hypertension in children with congenital heart
`
`disease, British Journal of Anaesthesia, 97(2): 208-14 (2006)
`
`(“Goyal”).
`
`Ex. 1015: Pozzoli, et al., Non-Invasive Estimation of Left Ventricular Filling
`
`Pressures by Doppler Echocardiography, 3 Eur J Echocardiogr.,
`
`3:75-79 (2002) (“Pozzoli”).
`
`Ex. 1016: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
`
`Pleadings for Counts I-V of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Case No. 2015-cv-
`
`00170, Docket No. 54.
`
`Ex. 1017: December 4, 2013 Declaration of Dr. James S. Baldassarre Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.132 Submitted during prosecution of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,846,112.
`
`Ex. 1018: Reserved.
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`Ex. 1019: Deposition Transcript for January 5, 2016 Deposition of Dr. Geoffrey
`
`L. Rosenthal in IPR2015-00529.
`
`Ex. 1020: December 16, 2015 Notice of Abandonment in Application Serial No.
`
`14/451,057.
`
`Ex. 1021: December 1, 2015 Notice of Abandonment in Application Serial No.
`
`14/454,373.
`
`Ex. 1022: March 14, 2016 Notice of Abandonment in Application Serial No.
`
`14/482,704.
`
`Ex. 1023: Definition
`
`of
`
`“Contraindication”
`
`on Medicine.net.com;
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060812144659/http://www.medterms.c
`
`om/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=17824, (Aug. 12, 2006), 2 pages.
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. and NOxBOX Limited (collectively “Petitioner”)
`
`hereby request Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,282,966 (“‘966 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319.
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. (“Praxair”) previously filed a petition seeking IPR
`
`of the ‘966 Patent. However, at the time of filing that petition, Praxair did not
`
`know about the new art cited in this petition. As the present petition is directed to
`
`entirely new art and arguments, including specific recitations that patients with any
`
`type of left ventricular dysfunction (“LVD”) should not be treated with inhaled
`
`nitric oxide (iNO), the Board should institute trial in light of the discretion
`
`permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See infra Section VI.
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`A.
`Summary of the ‘966 Patent
`Nitric oxide (“NO”) is a gaseous chemical compound used to treat patients
`
`with severe breathing problems. Ex. 1002 at ¶ 13. In 1999, the U.S. Food and
`
`Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved iNO to treat term and near-term infants
`
`(born after the 34th week of gestation) with hypoxic respiratory failure associated
`
`with clinical or echocardiographic evidence of pulmonary hypertension. Ex. 1001
`
`at 1:18-22, 3:31-33; see also Ex. 1010. Pulmonary hypertension is characterized
`
`by an increased pulmonary artery pressure and increased pulmonary vascular
`
`resistance. See, e.g. Ex. 1001 at 5:18-25. Nitric oxide is a selective pulmonary
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`vasodilator that increases the partial pressure of arterial oxygen by dilating
`
`pulmonary vessels in ventilated areas of the lung, and directing blood flow away
`
`from areas with low ventilation/perfusion ratios toward regions with normal ratios.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:32-39.
`
`Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd., through its subsidiary INO
`
`Therapeutics, Inc. (“Patent Owner”), is the exclusive supplier in the U.S. for iNO,
`
`which it sells under the brand INOmax®. Ex. 1001 at 3:31-44; see also Ex. 1010.
`
`The originally approved labeling for INOmax in the U.S. (as approved by the FDA
`
`in 1999), attached hereto as Exhibit 1010, recites:
`
`in conjunction with ventilatory support and other
`INOmax,
`appropriate agents, is indicated for the treatment of term and near-
`term (>34 weeks) neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure associated
`with clinical or echocardiographic evidence of pulmonary
`hypertension, where it improves oxygenation and reduces the need for
`extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
`Ex. 1010 at 4; see also Ex. 1001 at 3:34-52. The FDA’s original prescribing
`
`information for INOmax also includes a “CONTRAINDICATIONS section” that
`
`describes situations in which INOmax “should not be used.” Ex. 1001 at 3:44-48;
`
`Ex. 1010 at 4.
`
`Nine years after the FDA approved INOmax for sale in the United States,
`
`INO Therapeutics, Inc. filed the application that ultimately lead to the ‘966 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1001 at cover; see also Ex. 1010.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`The ‘966 Patent does not purport to relate to any inventive method of
`
`treating a patient with iNO or using iNO. To the contrary, it discloses admittedly
`
`well-known diagnostic steps and analyses to determine whether a patient with
`
`LVD is at risk of a Serious Adverse Event (“SAE”), such as pulmonary edema, if
`
`treated with iNO, and excluding such patients from treatment based on the assessed
`
`risk.1 Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 1:46-60; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 11.
`
`The purported invention of the ‘966 Patent is the allegedly new recognition
`
`that patients with non right-to-left shunting dependent LVD (“Non-RTL LVD”)
`
`should be excluded from treatment with iNO. Ex. 1001 at 9:7-16, 14:14-22, 14:45-
`
`54, 15:11-15, 15:21-25, 16:8-13, 16:20-24. Despite Patent Owner’s assertion that
`
`this discovery is new and non-obvious, the prior art cited in this Petition shows that
`
`LVD in all forms was described in the literature as a contraindication (indeed, it is
`
`described in one of the cited references as an “absolute contraindication”) for
`
`treatment with iNO before June 30, 2009, the earliest possible priority date
`
`(“EPD”) of the ‘966 Patent. See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 11-44.
`
`After the allegedly novel aspect of the ‘966 Patent is stripped away, the
`
`claims of the ‘966 Patent describe nothing more than well-known methods and
`
`1 The ‘966 Patent describes a “Serious Adverse Event” or “SAE” as “a
`
`significant hazard or side effect, regardless of the investigator’s opinion on the
`
`relationship to the investigational product.” Ex. 1001 at 4:33-37.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`techniques (e.g., echocardiography, 2 measuring wedge pressure,3 measuring blood
`
`oxygen, etc.) for determining who can or cannot be safely treated with iNO. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:60-62 (“Patients having pre-existing LVD may be described in
`
`general as those with elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure”); id. at 5:4-8
`
`(“Identifying patients with pre-existing LVD is known to those skilled in the
`
`medicinal arts, and such techniques for example may include assessment of clinical
`
`signs and symptoms of heart failure, or echocardiography diagnostic screening”);
`
`id. at 5:11-12 (“Identifying patients with pre-existing PCWP is known to those
`
`skilled in the medicinal arts”); id. at 6:23-41 (“In general, patients approved for
`
`treatment of iNO are term and near-term (>34 weeks gestation) neonates having
`
`hypoxic respiratory failure associated with clinical or echocardiographic evidence
`
`of pulmonary hypertension”. . . .); Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 25-44. Such methods and
`
`techniques are admitted as being well known in the art and thus qualify as admitted
`
`2 Echocardiography is the use of ultrasound waves to image and investigate the
`
`heart. Ex. 1002 at n. 2.
`
`3 “Wedge pressure” is also sometimes referred to as pulmonary capillary wedge
`
`pressure (“PCWP”), pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, or merely “wedge.”
`
`Ex. 1002 at n. 8. Wedge pressure may be determined via measurement through
`
`cardiac catheterization or by extrapolation through echocardiography. Ex. 1002
`
`at ¶ 19.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2129. See Intri–Plex Technologies, Inc. and
`
`Mmi Holdings, Ltd., v. Saint–Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Limited, Case
`
`Nos. IPR2014–00309, Paper 83 at 20-22 (PTAB March 23, 2015) (confirming that
`
`Admitted Prior Art is appropriate prior art for institution of inter partes reviews).
`
`Patent Owner has confirmed the admitted prior art nature of these techniques
`
`in filings made to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
`
`The Patent Owner represented to the District of Delaware that, other than the step
`
`of choosing to exclude patients with non-RTL dependent LVD from treatment with
`
`iNO, all the steps of the patent claims “were well-known and practiced.” Ex.
`
`1016, Dkt. No. 54 at 16 (“the individual analytical techniques” recited in the
`
`claims of the ‘966 Patent, as well as in the other patents in the same family, “were
`
`well-known and practiced.”). These arguments thus confirm what the specification
`
`of the ‘966 Patent admits: the analytical techniques recited in the claims of the
`
`‘966 Patent were well known methods and techniques. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 4:60-
`
`62; 5:4-12, 6:23-41. The prior art references discussed in this Petition reinforce
`
`that concession, as the prior art discloses all of the limitations of the ‘966 Patent,
`
`including the allegedly novel exclusion step.
`
`The prior art references relied on here all relate
`
`to risks and
`
`contraindications associated with treating patients with iNO, and particularly
`
`associated with treating neonatal patients. This petition identifies where printed
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`publication-type prior art teaches the use of well-known practices to determine
`
`whether neonatal patients have non-RTL dependent LVD, and if so, that those
`
`patients should be excluded from treatment with iNO. Accordingly, this Petition
`
`should be granted and trial instituted on claims 1-29 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘966 Patent
`
`B.
`The application leading to the ‘966 Patent was filed on June 22, 2010. Ex.
`
`1001 at cover. Patent Owner submitted several declarations during prosecution to
`
`overcome various claim rejections by arguing that the INOT22 study results
`
`rendered the claims novel and nonobvious because that study was allegedly the
`
`first time anyone had seen a patient with LVD who was not dependent on right-to-
`
`left shunting of blood harmed by treatment with iNO. See, e.g. Ex. 1005 at 925-28,
`
`936-950. The factual premise of these declarations is demonstrably untrue. As
`
`shown below, prior art publications disclosed that LVD was a contraindication to
`
`iNO treatment.4
`
`
`4 Patent Owner has argued to this Board that the INOT22 study renders the
`
`claims of the ‘966 patent novel. See, e.g., IPR2015-00522 IPR, Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response, Paper No. 8 at 2 (“…the evidence submitted during
`
`prosecution demonstrating that those of extraordinary skill in the art were
`
`unaware that all children with LVD should be excluded from iNO therapy.”).
`
`However, this Petition explicitly shows that Patent Owner’s statements
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`The prosecution history is also contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, as the
`
`Examiner did not find that the exclusion step was novel. The Examiner even stated
`
`that “What did Applicant actually do? The instant specification teaches that
`
`children with pulonary [sic] hypertension where treated with 80 ppm NO
`
`inhalation gas therapy [0066] and two patients developed signs of pulmonary
`
`edema which has been previously reported in 1994 and 1996, over ten years before
`
`the present application was filed, with the use of iNO in patents [sic] with LVD
`
`due to decreasing PVRI and overfilling of the left atrium.” Ex. 1005 at 155-187
`
`(internal citations omitted). Relying on this conclusion, the Examiner noted in the
`
`August 14, 2012 interview that even in view of the previously-submitted
`
`declarations, the independent claims needed to be further amended to define the
`
`wedge pressure as “greater than or equal to 20 mm Hg” in order to “put the case in
`
`condition for allowance.” Ex. 1005 at 51.
`
`Thus, on August 15, 2012, Applicants amended all four independent claims
`
`to specify that the dosage of iNO should be 20 parts per million (“ppm”), and that a
`
`child identified as needing treatment has a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure
`
`greater than or equal to 20 mm Hg and thus has LVD. Ex. 1005 at 883 (additions
`
`
`regarding the INOT22 study are incorrect: at least Greenough and Jaypee teach
`
`that children and neonates with LVD should be excluded from treatment.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`via amendment underlined). Representative application Claim 31 (which issued as
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘966 Patent) reproduced below illustrates this Amendment:
`
`
`Applicants did not provide any substantive arguments regarding the cited prior art,
`
`nor did they make any arguments based on the declarations they submitted with the
`
`prior response to the Office Action. Instead, Applicants merely amended the
`
`claims as shown and stated: “Applicants do not agree that the claims as they stood
`
`prior to the present amendment were obvious. Nonetheless, in the interest of
`
`advancing prosecution, Applicants have amended the claims in a manner consistent
`
`with the above-described communications with the Examiner.” Ex.1005 at 130.
`
`On August 31, 2012, the Examiner issued a notice of allowance including
`
`the following reasons for allowance:
`
`[T]he cited art of record does not teach or suggest, alone or in
`combination, the patient population of a child in need of the
`administration of 20 ppm iNO and determining the [wedge pressure]
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`as greater than or equal to 20 mm Hg in the method as instantly
`claimed to reduce the risk of occurrence of pulmonary edema.
`Ex. 1005 at 986, emphasis added.
`
`The same day, Applicants filed comments asserting that “the Examiner’s
`
`statement of reasons for allowance . . . are just some of many reasons that the
`
`present claims are allowable over the cited art of record.” Ex. 1005 at 1001.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the ‘966 Patent, issued on October 9, 2012, is
`
`available for IPR; (2) Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR
`
`on the grounds identified in this Petition; (3) Petitioner has not filed any complaint
`
`relating to the ‘966 Patent and (4) Petitioner is filing this petition within one year
`
`of being served with a complaint for infringement. See Ex. 1004 (waiver of
`
`service filed March 26, 2015); see also The Brinkmann Corporation v. A&J
`
`Manufacturing, LLC, Case IPR2015-00056, Paper 10 at 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 23,
`
`2015); Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse, Case IPR2013-00010, Paper 20 at 6
`
`(PTAB Jan. 30, 2013). This Petition is filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.106(a). Concurrently filed herewith is a Power of Attorney and an Exhibit List
`
`per 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) and § 42.63(e), respectively.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 and § 42.103, Petitioner authorizes the
`
`USPTO to charge any required fees to Deposit Account 02-1818.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real-Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner certifies that Praxair Distribution, Inc., with its head office at 28
`
`McCandless Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15201; NOxBOX Limited, a company
`
`incorporated and registered in the United Kingdom with company number
`
`09563860 whose registered office is at 139-141 Watling Street, Gillingham, Kent,
`
`ME7 2YY; and Praxair, Inc., with its worldwide headquarters at 39 Old Ridgebury
`
`Rd., Danbury, CT 06810 are the real-parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner states that on February 19,
`
`2015, Patent Owner filed a complaint averring that Praxair’s Abbreviated New
`
`Drug Application (“ANDA”) infringes the ‘966 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(e)(2). Praxair waived service on March 26, 2015. See Ex. 1004. The lawsuit
`
`is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and is
`
`captioned: INO Therapeutics LLC et al. v. Praxair Distribution, Inc. et al., Civil
`
`Action No. 1:15-cv-00170 (GMS). In that case, Praxair Distribution, Inc. and
`
`Praxair, Inc. filed a Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings seeking a ruling that all
`
`the claims of the ‘966 Patent (as well as the other patents in the same family) were
`
`directed to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Exhibit 1016 is
`
`Patent Owner’s opposition to that Motion, which was filed on January 27, 2016.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`In January 2015, Praxair filed a petition requesting IPR of the ‘966 Patent in
`
`IPR2015-00522 (“the ‘522 IPR”). On July 29, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“Board”) denied that petition. IPR2015-00522, Paper 12. Praxair also filed
`
`three other petitions directed to patents in the same family as the ‘966 Patent that
`
`were denied on July 29, 2015 in the same decision that denied the ‘522 IPR. See
`
`IPR2015-00524, Paper 12; IPR2015-00525, Paper 12; IPR2015-00526, Paper 12.
`
`As described below, the Board should nonetheless institute this petition under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d). See Section VI.
`
`On January 5, 2015, Praxair filed a petition requesting IPR of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,846,112, also in the same family as the ‘966 Patent in IPR2015-00529. The
`
`Board instituted review of that patent on July 29, 2015. IPR2015-00529, Paper
`
`No. 12. That proceeding is currently pending, with a final written decision
`
`expected in the July/August 2016 timeframe.
`
`Petitioner is concurrently requesting IPR of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,284;
`
`8,431,163; 8,795,741; and 8,846,112, which are in the same family as the ‘966
`
`Patent.
`
`One pending U.S. patent application claims priority to the ultimate parent
`
`application of the ‘966 Patent: U.S. Application Serial No. 13/683,444 filed on
`
`November 21, 2012, which has been on appeal from a final rejection in the Patent
`
`Office since August 12, 2013. Three other applications claim priority to the
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S_ Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`ultimate parent application of the ‘966 Patent
`
`(U.S_ Application Serial Nos.
`
`14/451,057, 14/454,373, and 14/482,704), but all are abandoned by virtue of Patent
`
`Owner not filing responses to office actions based on, among other references,
`
`Greenough and Jaypee. See Ex. 1020, Ex. 1021, Ex. 1022.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backu Counsel
`
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Reg. No. 65,939
`benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com
`
`Margaux Nair
`Reg. No. 68,897
`margauxnair.PTAB@klgates_com
`
`K&L Gates LLP
`
`K&L Gates LLP
`
`70 W. Madison St_, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`T: (312) 781-7166
`F: 312 345-1843
`
`70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`T: (312) 807-4280
`F: 312 827-8057
`
`Backu u Counsel
`
`Backu o Counsel
`
`Sanj ay K. Murthy
`Reg. No. 45,976
`sanjay_murthy_@morganlewis.com
`
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`77 West Wacker Dr., Fifth Floor
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: (312) 324-1448
`F: 312 324-1001
`
`Michael J. Abernathy
`Pro
`Hac
`Vice
`
`Admission
`
`To Be Requested
`mike.abemathy@morganlewis.com
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`77 West Wacker Dr., Fifth Floor
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: (312) 324-1447
`F: 312 324-1001
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S_ Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`Backu n Counsel
`Maria E. Doukas
`
`Reg. No. 67,084
`maria.doukas@morganlewis.com
`
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`77 West Wacker Dr., Fifth Floor
`Chicago, IL 60601
`T: (312) 324-1454
`F: (312)324-1001
`
`Petitioner consents to service by email.
`
`VI. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE IPR UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`Praxair previously filed a Petition for IPR of the ‘966 Patent on January 5,
`
`2015. ‘522 IPR, Paper 1.
`
`In that proceeding, Patent Owner filed a Preliminary
`
`Response on May 4, 2015.
`
`‘522 IPR, Paper 8. The Board issued a Decision
`
`declining to institute trial on July 29, 2015.
`
`‘522 IPR, Paper 12. Notwithstanding
`
`the ‘522 IPR, this Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one of
`
`the challenged claims is unpatentable (37 C.F.R. § 42.l08(c)), and the Board
`
`should institute trial in View of the discretion permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is titled “MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS” and provides:
`
`In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this
`
`chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account
`
`whether, and reject the petition or request because,
`
`the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`
`presented to the Office.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`The Board frequently addresses this section when deciding whether to exercise its
`
`Congressionally-granted discretion and institute a second petition directed to a
`
`previously-challenged patent. See, e.g., Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures
`
`I LLC, Case IPR2015-01367, Paper 6 at 5-6 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2015). Here, the
`
`Board should decline to exercise its discretion, and should institute trial.
`
`The instant Petition is based on an entirely new theory with regard to the
`
`allegedly patentable exclusion claimed in the ‘966 Patent. That theory involves
`
`using the teachings of the Greenough and Jaypee references previously unknown
`
`to Petitioner and previously unconsidered by the Examiner or the Board, which
`
`teach that LVD is an absolute contraindication5 from treatment with iNO.
`
`5 The March 14, 2011 definition for “contraindication” from Medicine.Net is
`
`listed in a reference on the face of the ‘966 Patent and found in the file history.
`
`The definition provided from the same source in 2006, 3 years before the EPD,
`
`is: “Contraindication: A condition which makes a particular treatment or
`
`procedure potentially inadvisable. A contraindication may be absolute or
`
`relative . . .” Ex. 1023, Definition of “Contraindication” on Medicine.net.com;
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060812144659/http://www.medterms.com/script
`
`/main/art.asp?articlekey=17824, (Aug. 12, 2006), 2 pages. The same definition
`
`goes on to describe “absolute contraindication,” as “a situation which makes a
`
`particular treatment or procedure absolutely inadvisable.” Id. As described in
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`Greenough, Jaypee and additional secondary reference Widlitz have never been
`
`considered with regard to the claims of the ‘966 Patent, and the theory of
`
`combination presented here has never been considered with regard to the claims of
`
`the ‘966 Patent. Accordingly, this Petition unquestionably does not raise the
`
`“same” “prior art or arguments.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`The prior art and arguments relied on herein also are not substantially the
`
`same as those previously considered by the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The
`
`theory described herein is completely different than the theory presented in the
`
`‘522 IPR, as the reference(s) relied on to exclude patients with LVD from
`
`treatment with iNO explicitly contraindicate patients with LVD from iNO
`
`treatment and do not merely suggest that patients with LVD may want to avoid
`
`iNO treatment.6 The art and arguments relied on herein also are substantially
`
`different from those previously considered by the Office because all of the
`
`
`the ‘966 Patent, the contraindications listed on the label for the INOmax drug
`
`product appear to be a general or relative contraindications, as it states that
`
`“INOmax® should not be used. . .” instead of saying “must not” or “cannot”.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:53-56 (emphasis added).
`
`6 Therefore, these references squarely address the primary deficiency identified
`
`by the PTAB in the Denial of Institution in the ‘522 IPR. ‘522 IPR, Paper 12.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`references unquestionably relate to neonates; by contrast, some of the references
`
`previously relied on arguably related to other categories of patients.
`
`Greenough explicitly teaches that children with LVD are contraindicated
`
`from receiving iNO treatment. Ex. 1006 at 187. Given the Board’s prior finding
`
`that the art in the ‘522 IPR was deficient with regard to the explicit teaching of
`
`excluding children with LVD from iNO treatment, the reliance on Greenough here
`
`renders the instant Grounds substantially different than those previously considered
`
`by the Board. The arguments presented here are of a different character and
`
`advance a different theory and thus are substantially different from arguments and
`
`prior art previously presented. See International Bus. Machines Corp. v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case IPR2015-01323, Paper 12 at 5-7 (PTAB Dec. 8,
`
`2015).7 The substantial difference between the prior art and arguments here is
`
`7 The Board has declined to exercise its § 325(d) discretion where different
`
`disclosures were relied upon in previously presented prior art for which review
`
`was denied. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. LED Tech Devel., LLC, Case
`
`IPR2014-00590, Paper 23 at 8 (PTAB Sept. 3, 2014); Valeo N. Am., Inc. et al.
`
`v. Magna Elec., Inc., Case IPR2014-01203, Paper 13 at 10-11 (PTAB Jan. 28,
`
`2015); Oxford Nanopore Techs. Ltd. v. Univ. of Wash. et al., Case IPR2015-
`
`00057, Paper 10 at 20-21 (PTAB April 27, 2015); Atlas Copco Airpower N.V. v.
`
`Kaeser Kompressoren SE, Case IPR2015-01421, Paper 8 at 6-8 (PTAB Dec.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. P