LUYE PHARMA GROUP LTD., LUYE PHARMA(USA) LTD., SHANDONG LUYE
`PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and NANJING LUYE PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
`Petitioners
`v.
`ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LTD and ALKERMES CONTROLLED
`THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`IPR2016-01096
`U.S. Patent 6,667,061
`Petitioners’ Oral Argument
`August 28, 2017
`
`1
`
`
`PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and NANJING LUYE PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
`Petitioners
`v.
`ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LTD and ALKERMES CONTROLLED
`THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`IPR2016-01096
`U.S. Patent 6,667,061
`Petitioners’ Oral Argument
`August 28, 2017
`
`1
`
`
`
`Institution of Trial for the ’061 Patent
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 20, 31
`
`2 2
`2
`
`
`
`’061 Patent Claim 1
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claim 1
`
`Paper 5, (Pet.) at 32-33, 49-50
`
`3 3
`3
`
`
`
`’061 Patent Claims 2-3
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 2-3
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 33-34, 50-51
`
`4 4
`4
`
`
`
`’061 Patent Claims 4-5, 10-11
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 4-5
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 10-11
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 34-35
`
`5 5
`5
`
`
`
`’061 Patent Claims 6-7, 12-13
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 6-7
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 12-13
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 34-35, 51-52
`
`6 6
`6
`
`
`
`’061 Patent Claims 8-9
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 8-9
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 34-35, 52
`
`7 7
`7
`
`
`
`’061 Patent Claims 17, 18, and 19
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 17-19
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 53
`
`8 8
`8
`
`
`
`’061 Patent Claims 20-21
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 20-21
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 53-54
`
`9 9
`9
`
`
`
`’061 Patent Claims 22-23
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claims 22-23
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 37-38, 54-56
`
`10 10
`10
`
`
`
`The Overriding Issue of Viscosity
`
`Petitioners have demonstrated that
`the injection vehicles in the Johnson
`and Gustafsson references have an
`inherent viscosity within the
`claimed range
`
`
`Paper 5, (Pet.) at 33, 50
`
`11 11
`11
`
`
`
`The ‘061 Patent Identifies A Vehicle With A Viscosity of
`19.7 cps
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col. 2, ll.34-37
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 15
`
`12 12
`12
`
`
`
`The ‘061 Patent Disclaims An Injection Vehicle
`With 3% CMC
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col. 3, ll.3-8
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col. 3, ll.18-34
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 15; Paper 40 (Reply) at 3, Ex.1024 paragraph 70
`
`
`13 13
`13
`
`
`
`Exemplary Viscosity Values Set Forth In the ‘061 Patent
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col.6, ll.9-20
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 17-18; Paper 40 (Reply) at 16
`
`14 14
`14
`
`
`
`Exemplary Viscosity Values Set Forth In the ‘061 Patent
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col.9, ll.43-47
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col.10, ll.17-27
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 24; Paper 40 (Reply) at 16
`
`15 15
`15
`
`
`
`Patent Office Requires Applicants To Show
`Unexpected Results
`
`4/9/03 Office Action,
`Ex.1016, p.4
`
`* * *
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 16-18
`
`16 16
`16
`
`
`
`Tracy Declaration
`
`Tracy Decl., Ex.1018, p.1-2
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 17-18; Paper 40 (Reply) at 9-10
`
`17 17
`17
`
`
`
`Tracy States “CMC is the viscosity-controlling
`component”
`
`Tracy Decl., Ex.1018, p.2
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 17-18; Paper 40 (Reply) at 14
`
`18 18
`18
`
`
`
`Patent Owners Used Tracy to “Evidence” Viscosity To
`Overcome Prior Art
`
`05/14/03 Applicants’ Response,
`Ex.1017, p.3
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 17-18
`
`19 19
`19
`
`
`
`Tracy Sufficient To Overcome the Cited Prior Art
`
`07/24/03 Notice of Allowance,
`Ex.1019, p.2
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 18
`
`20 20
`20
`
`
`
`The Board Rejected Patent Owners’ Inherency
`Arguments
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 13, p.12
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 12
`
`21 21
`21
`
`
`
`Based On Tracy, the Board Finds That Johnson Meets
`the Viscosity Limitation
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 13, p.14
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 14
`
`22 22
`22
`
`
`
`Based On Tracy, the Board Finds That Gustafsson Meets
`the Viscosity Limitation
`
`Institution Decision,
`Paper 13, p.24-25
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 24-25
`
`23 23
`23
`
`
`
`Johnson And Gustafsson Meet The Claimed
`Viscosity Limitation
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 13, p.32
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 32
`
`24 24
`24
`
`
`
`The Other Limitations Are Known In The Prior Art
`
`25 25
`25
`
`
`
`Syringeabilty, Injectability, and Suspendability Are Well-Known
`Issues Considered By A POSA
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, 1:17-22
`
`Paper 5, (Pet.) at 7; Ex.1002, paragraph 9
`
`26 26
`26
`
`
`
`The ‘061 Patent Admits Any Active or Microparticle
`Works
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col. 4, ll.25-30
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) at 6, 24-25
`
`27 27
`27
`
`
`
`The ‘061 Patent Defines Microparticles
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col. 5, ll.14-18
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 20; Paper 40 (Reply) at 6
`
`28 28
`28
`
`
`
`Polymeric Binder
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col.14, ll.10-18
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) at 7
`
`29 29
`29
`
`
`
`Prior Art For Instituted Grounds
`
`Ground 1
`Claims 1-13, 22, 23
`
`Ground 2
`Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 13, 17-23
`
`
`Gustafsson
`(Ex. 1011)
`International Publication
`No. WO 1997/014408
`
`
`Ramstack
`(Ex. 1005)
`International Publication
`No. WO 1995/013799
`
`
`
`Johnson
`(Ex.1009)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,010
`
`
`Kino
`(Ex. 1010)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,656,299
`
`
`
`PRIMARY
`
`SECONDARY
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 20, 31
`
`30 30
`30
`
`
`
`Prior Art For Instituted Ground 1
`
`Ground 1
`Claims 1-13, 22, 23
`
`Ground 2
`Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 13, 17-23
`
`
`Gustafsson
`(Ex. 1011)
`International Publication
`No. WO 1997/014408
`
`
`Ramstack
`(Ex. 1005)
`International Publication
`No. WO 1995/013799
`
`
`
`Johnson
`(Ex.1009)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,010
`
`
`Kino
`(Ex. 1010)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,656,299
`
`
`
`PRIMARY
`
`SECONDARY
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 20
`
`31 31
`31
`
`
`
`’061 Independent Claim
`
`The ’061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, Claim 1
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 32-33, 49-50
`
`32 32
`32
`
`
`
`Johnson’s Prior Art Vehicles
`
`Johnson, Ex.1009, col.10, ll.17-21
`
`Johnson, Ex.1009, col.11, l.65-col.12, l.5
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 24-26; Paper 40 (Reply) at 11
`
`33 33
`33
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Reads on Johnson’s Vehicle
`
`Johnson, Ex.1009, col.12, ll. 40-45
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 24-26
`
`34 34
`34
`
`
`
`The Johnson Reference and The ‘061 Patent Have A
`Common Inventor
`
`Paper 5, (Pet.) at 9
`
`35 35
`35
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admits That 0.75% CMC Has A Viscosity
`Of Approximately 7 cp
`
`Kino
`Vehicle
`
`Tracy Declaration
`
`Kino
`Vehicle
`
`0.5% CMC
`
`Viscosity < 7cp
`
`• CMC is viscosity
`controlling agent
`• 0.75% CMC has a
`viscosity of approx.
`7cp
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 17-18; Ex.1002 paragraph 44
`
`36 36
`36
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admits That 1.5% CMC Has A
`Viscosity of 27 cp
`
`Johnson
`Vehicle
`
`Tracy Declaration
`
`Johnson
`Vehicle
`
`3% CMC
`
`Viscosity > 27cp
`
`• CMC is viscosity
`controlling agent
`• 1.5% CMC has a
`viscosity of 27cp
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 17-18, 33; Ex.1002 paragraph 44
`
`
`37 37
`37
`
`
`
`‘061 Patent vs. Johnson Prior Art
`
`The ‘061 Patent, Ex.1001, col.9, ll.43-47
`
`The ‘061 Patent, Ex.1001, col. 3, ll.3-8
`
`Johnson, Ex.1009, col.12, ll.39-45
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 24-26; Paper 40 (Reply) at 16-17
`
`38 38
`38
`
`
`
`The ‘061 Patent And The Tracy Declaration Do Not
`Describe CMC Used Or Other Viscosity Factors
`
`Reply, Paper 40, p.13
`
`Reply, Paper 40, p.15
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) 13, 15
`
`39 39
`39
`
`
`
`Kino Teaches Wetting Agents And Density
`Enhancing Agents
`
`Kino, Ex.1010, col. 4, ll.38-60
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 26-27
`
`40 40
`40
`
`
`
`Motivation To Combine Johnson’s Formulation With
`Kino’s Filler To Arrive At Claims 4, 5, 10, 11
`
`DeLuca Supp. Decl.,
`Ex.1024, paragraph 76
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) at 17
`
`41 41
`41
`
`
`
`Prior Art Motivates A POSA To Increase the Viscosity To
`Prevent Sedementation
`
`USP23, Ex.1034, p. 1949
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) at 5
`
`42 42
`42
`
`
`
`Motivation To Combine Johnson’s Formulation With
`Kino’s Wetting Agent To Arrive At Claims 4,5, 10, 11
`
`DeLuca Supp. Decl.,
`Ex.1024, paragraph 76
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) at 17
`
`43 43
`43
`
`
`
`Prior Art For Instituted Ground 2
`
`Ground 1
`Claims 1-13, 22, 23
`
`Ground 2
`Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 13, 17-23
`
`
`Gustafsson
`(Ex. 1011)
`International Publication
`No. WO 1997/014408
`
`
`Ramstack
`(Ex. 1005)
`International Publication
`No. WO 1995/013799
`
`
`
`Johnson
`(Ex.1009)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,010
`
`
`Kino
`(Ex. 1010)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,656,299
`
`
`
`PRIMARY
`
`SECONDARY
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 31
`
`44 44
`44
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Admits That 1.5% CMC Has A
`Viscosity of 27 cp
`
`Gustafsson
`Vehicle
`
`Tracy Declaration
`
`Gustafsson
`Vehicle
`
`3% CMC
`
`Viscosity > 27cp
`
`• CMC is viscosity
`controlling agent
`• 1.5% CMC has a
`viscosity of 27cp
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 17-18, 50
`
`45 45
`45
`
`
`
`Gustafsson Teaches An Injection Vehicle Within The
`Claimed Viscosity Range
`
`Gustafson,
`Ex.1011, p.18, ll.21-24
`
`Gustafsson,
`Ex.1011, p.19, ll.21-24
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 39; Paper 40 (Reply) at 18
`
`46 46
`46
`
`
`
`Gustafsson Teaches All Of The Components Of The
`Injection Vehicle Must Be Pharmaceutically Acceptable
`
`Gustafsson,
`Ex.1011, p.6, ll.29-33
`
`Ex.1024 paragraph 86; Paper 40 (Reply) at 18
`
`47 47
`47
`
`
`
`Gustafsson Teaches Use Of Polymers Including PLGA
`
`Gustafsson
`Ex.1011, p.6, ll.15-29
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) at 24; Ex.1024 paragraph 107
`
`48 48
`48
`
`
`
`Gustafsson’s Invention Is Applicable To Any Active
`Suitable For Parenteral Administration
`
`Gustafsson
`Ex.1011, p.6, ll.33-35
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 39
`
`49 49
`49
`
`
`
`Gustafsson Meets the Limitation of Microparticle
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 13, p.25-26
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 25-26
`
`50 50
`51
`
`
`
`Gustafsson Teaches Microparticles Having A Size
`Within The Claimed Range
`
`Gustafsson,
`Ex.1011, p.7, ll.28-33
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 47
`
`51 51
`52
`
`
`
`The ‘061 Patent Is Directed To A Composition Suitable
`For Injection and Not Any Specific Microparticle
`
`The ‘061 Patent,
`Ex.1001, col. 4, ll.25-30
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) at 6, 24-25
`
`52 52
`53
`
`
`
`Prior Art Teaches Parenterally Adminstratable
`Microparticles
`
`Gustafsson,
`Ex.1011, p.6, ll.33-35
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 39
`
`53 53
`54
`
`
`
`Ramstack Teaches Risperidone As An Active Agent
`
`Ramstack,
`Ex.1005, p.30, l.20
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 46, 54
`
`54 54
`56
`
`
`
`Ramstack Teaches Macromolecular Bioactive Agents
`In Microparticles
`
`Ramstack,
`Ex.1005, p.32 ll.14-17
`
`DeLuca Supplemental Decl., Ex.1024 paragraph 107
`
`55 55
`57
`
`
`
`Ramstack Teaches Various Active Agents
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 13, p.22
`
`Paper 13 (Institution Decision) at 22
`
`56 56
`58
`
`
`
`Patent Owners Did Nothing More Than Combine Well-
`Known Elements
`
`Petition, Paper 5, p.23
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 23
`
`57 57
`59
`
`
`
`Patent Owners Did Nothing More Than Combine Well-
`Known Elements
`
`Petition, Paper 5, p.6
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 6
`
`58 58
`60
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`59 59
`61
`
`
`
`Patent Owners Have Not Demonstrated
`Unexpected Results
`
`Reply, Paper 40, p.27
`
`Paper 40 (Reply) at 27
`
`60 60
`62
`
`
`
`Commercial Success Requires Nexus
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“[C]ommercial success alone is not sufficient to demonstrate
`nonobviousness of a claimed invention.” In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384
`(Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`“[T]he proponent must offer proof ‘that sales were a direct result of the
`unique characteristics of the claimed invention—as opposed to other
`economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the
`patented subject matter.” In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`(citation omitted)
`
`• Patent Owners must establish that any commercial success was based on
`patentable features not found in the prior art. See Asyst Techs., Inc. v.
`Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also J.T. Eaton &
`Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 56; Paper 40 (Reply) at 28, 29
`
`61 61
`63
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Has Not Shown A Nexus Between the
`Alleged Commercial Success And the Patented Invention
`
`Reply, Paper 40, p.28
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 57; Paper 40 (Reply) at 28
`
`62 62
`64
`
`
`
`The Handbook Teaches Low Viscosity Within The
`Claimed Range
`
`Handbook, Ex.1008, p.78
`
`Handbook, Ex.1008, p.79
`
`Paper 5 (Pet.) at 6,9, 25; Paper 40 (Reply) at 4
`
`63 63
`65
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
