throbber
Paper No. __
`Filed: July 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
`APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP.
`
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`ELI LILLY & COMPANY
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2016-01190
`
`Patent No. 7,772,209
`Filed: July 11, 2007
`Issued: August 10, 2010
`Inventor: Clet Niyikiza
`
`Title: ANTIFOLATE COMBINATION THERAPIES
`
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,772,209
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................... vii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................. 1
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ........................ 2
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ............................ 3
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and § 42.103) ........................... 3
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 4
`
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 ..................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ‘209 Patent Specification........................................... 4
`
`The ‘209 Patent Claims..................................................... 6
`
`The ‘209 Prosecution History ........................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction of Challenged Claims ............................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`“Patient” .......................................................................... 13
`
`“Methylmalonic acid lowering agent” ............................ 13
`
`“An effective amount of pemetrexed disodium” ............ 13
`
`“An effective amount of folic acid and an effective
`amount of a methylmalonic acid lowering agent” ......... 14
`
`“Toxicity” ....................................................................... 14
`
`“Antifolate” and “antifolate drug” .................................. 14
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim
`Challenged ................................................................................ 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ......................... 15
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ..................................... 15
`
`D. Overview of the State of the Art and Motivation to
`Combine .................................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`Summary of the Petition’s Prior Art References ............ 20
`
`E.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 24
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE CHALLENGE .............................. 25
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 are
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Niyikiza in view of
`the’974 Patent and in further view of EP 005 and the
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. .......................... 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 12 are obvious over
`Niyikiza in view of the’974 Patent and in further
`view of EP 005 and the knowledge of one of
`ordinary skill in the art. ................................................... 25
`
`Dependent Claims 2–10 and 14–21 are obvious. ........... 39
`
`Dependent Claims 11, 13, and 22 are obvious. .............. 48
`
`B.
`
`The S.D. of Indiana Decision Finding that Teva Did Not
`Establish by Clear and Convincing Evidence that Certain
`Claims of the ‘209 Patent are Obvious is Not Relevant to
`this Proceeding. ......................................................................... 51
`
`VII. ANY SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO
`OVERCOME THE OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1–22. ........................... 54
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Abbott Labs v. Andrx Pharms., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 49
`
`Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 39
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co.,
`257 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 31
`
`Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 50
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 51
`
`Ex parte Gelles,
`22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ..................................... 54, 57, 60
`
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013).............................................................................. 54
`
`Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 60
`
`In re Aller,
`220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) .................................................................................. 34
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 12
`
`In re Applied Materials, Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 34, 39, 45
`
`In re Cipro Cases I & II,
`61 Cal. 4th 116 (Cal. 2015) .................................................................................. 51
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 12
`
`iii
`
`

`

`In re Dill,
`604 F.2d 1356 (CCPA 1979) ............................................................................... 57
`
`In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc.,
`630 F.3d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 31
`
`In re Graves,
`69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 31
`
`In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 26, 32
`
`In re Klosak,
`455 F.2d 1077 (CCPA 1973) ............................................................................... 57
`
`In re Merchant,
`575 F.2d 865 (CCPA 1978) .................................................................................. 57
`
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d at 1329 ....................................................................................... 35, 43, 48
`
`In re Preda,
`401 F.2d 825 (CCPA 1968) .................................................................................. 31
`
`In re Swanson,
`540 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 51
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................. 39, 44, 50
`
`Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 55
`
`Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd.,
`357 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney, Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 55
`
`NPF Ltd. v. Smart Parts, Inc.,
`187 Fed. App’x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................. 20
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`778 F.3d 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 13
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (2014) ........................................................................................... 33
`
`Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp.,
`776 F.2d 309 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 31
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 38
`
`Rogers v. Desa Int’l, Inc.,
`198 Fed. App’x 918 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 33
`
`Sciele Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 44
`
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc.,
`2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12343 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2015) .................................... 60
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 27, 33, 53
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................... 20, 22, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................... 7, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 .................................................................................................. 1
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`v
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... ..137 CPR. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. ..237 CPR. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq. ........................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq....................................................................................... ..137 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a) ............................................................................................. ..337 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) ............................................................................................... ..337 CPR. §§ 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`ViVi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 to Clet Niyikiza, filed on July 11, 2007,
`and issued on Aug. 10, 2010 (“the ‘209 patent”)
`Exhibit 1002 U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 Prosecution History (“‘209 prosecution
`history”)
`Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,344,932 to Edward C Taylor, issued on Sep. 6,
`1994 (“Taylor”)
`Exhibit 1004 Claim Chart for Niyikiza ‘209 Petition (Attachment 2 to Bleyer
`Declaration)
`Exhibit 1005 Worzalla et al., “Role of Folic Acid in Modulating the Toxicity
`and Efficacy of the Multitargeted Antifolate, LY231514.”
`Anticancer Research 18:3235-3240 (1998) (“Worzalla”)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,140,707 to Cleare et al., issued on Feb. 20, 1979
`(“Cleare”)
`Exhibit 1007 Tsao CS, “Influence of Cobalamin on the Survival of Mice
`Bearing Ascites Tumor.” Pathobiology 1993;61:104-108 (“Tsao”)
`Exhibit 1008 Niyikiza et al., “MTA (LY231514): Relationship of vitamin
`metabolite profile, drug exposure, and other patient characteristics
`to toxicity.” Annals of Oncology, Vol. 9, Suppl. 4, 1998, Abstract
`609P, pg. 126 (“Niyikiza”)
`Exhibit 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,217,974 (“the ’974 Patent”)
`Exhibit 1010 European Patent Application No. 0,595,005 A1 (“EP 005”)
`Exhibit 1011 Rusthoven et al., “Multitargeted Antifolate LY231514 as First-
`Line Chemotherapy for Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell
`Lung Cancer: A Phase II Study.” Journal of Clinical Oncology,
`Vol. 17, No. 4, (April 1999), pp. 1194-1199 (“Rusthoven”)
`Exhibit 1012 Refsum H & Ueland PM, “Clinical significance of
`pharmacological modulation of homocysteine metabolism.”
`Trends in Pharmacol. Sci., Vol. 11, No. 10, 1990, pp. 411-416
`(“Refsum”)
`Exhibit 1013 Calvert AH & Walling JM, “Clinical studies with MTA.” British
`Journal of Cancer (1998) 78 (Suppl. 3), 35-40 (“Clavert 1998”)
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Description
`Exhibit No.
`Exhibit 1014 Calvert H, “An Overview of Folate Metabolism: Features Relevant
`to the Action and Toxicities of Antifolate Anticancer Agents,”
`Seminars in Oncology, Vol. 26, No. 2, Suppl 6 (April), 1999, pp.
`3-10 (“Calvert 1999”)
`Exhibit 1015 O’Dwyer et al., “Overview of Phase II Trials of MTA in Solid
`Tumors.” Seminars in Oncology, Vol. 26, No. 2, Suppl 6 (April),
`1999, pp. 99-104 (“O’Dwyer”)
`Exhibit 1016 Zervos et al., “Functional folate status as a prognostic indicator of
`toxicity in clinical trials of the multitargeted antifolate
`LY231514.” Proceedings of ASCO, Vol. 16, 1997, pg. 256a
`(“Zervos”)
`Exhibit 1017 Allen et al., “Diagnosis of Cobalamin Deficiency I: Usefulness of
`Serum Methylmalonic Acid and Total Homocysteine
`Concentrations.” American Journal of Hematology, 34, 1990, 90-
`98 (“Allen”)
`Exhibit 1018 Savage et al., “Sensitivity of Serum Methylmalonic Acid and Total
`Homocysteine Determinations for Diagnosing Cobalamin and
`Folate Deficiencies. The American Journal of Medicine, 96: 1994,
`239-246 (“Savage”)
`Exhibit 1019 Brönstrup et al., “Effects of folic acid and combinations of folic
`acid and vitamin B-12 on plasma homocysteine concentrations in
`healthy, young women.” Am. J. Clin. Nutr. Vol. 68, 1998, 1104-10
`(“Bronstrup”)
`Exhibit 1020 Carrasco et al., “Acute megaloblastic anemia: homocysteine levels
`are useful for diagnosis and follow-up.” Haematologica, Vol.
`84(8), August 1999, 767-768 (“Carrasco”)
`Exhibit 1021 Thödtmann et al., “Phase I study of different sequences of MTA
`(LY231514) in combination with cisplatin in patients with solid
`tumours.” Annals of Oncology, Vol. 9, Suppl. 4, 1998, Abstract
`618P, pg. 129 (“Thodtmann”)
`Exhibit 1022 Hammond et al., “A Phase I and pharmacokinetic (PK) study of
`the multitargeted antifolate (MTA, LY231514) with folic acid
`(FA).” Annals of Oncology, Vol. 9, Suppl. 4, 1998, Abstract 620P,
`pg. 129 (“Hammond”)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`Exhibit 1023 Morgan et al., “The Effect of Folic Acid Supplementation on the
`Toxicity of Low-Dose Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid
`Arthritis.” Arthritis and Rheumatism, Vol. 33, No. 1, January
`1990, pp. 9-18 (“Morgan”) (Ex. 1023)
`Exhibit 1024 Curriculum Vitae of W. Archie Bleyer, M.D., FRCP[Glasg]
`(Attachment 1 to Bleyer Declaration)
`Exhibit 1025 Declaration of W. Archie Bleyer, M.D., FRCP[Glasg]
`Exhibit 1026 Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parental Medicines, Inc., et al.,
`INSD-1:10-cv-01376 Markman Order (June 20, 2012) (“Teva”)
`Exhibit 1027 Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parental Medicines, Inc., et al.,
`INSD-1:10-cv-01376 Joint Claim Construction Brief (April 19,
`2012) (“Teva Claim Construction”)
`Exhibit 1028 Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parental Medicines, Inc., et al.,
`INSD-1:10-cv-01376 Decision (March 31, 2014) (“Teva
`Decision”)
`Exhibit 1029 Curriculum Vitae of Scott Bennett, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 1030 Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 1031 Copy of Niyikiza from Oxford University Press Journals
`Exhibit 1032 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library directory entry
`for Annals of Oncology
`Exhibit 1033 Statewide Illinois Library Catalog record for Annals of Oncology
`Exhibit 1034 Copy of Niyikiza from the University of Wisconsin Library
`Exhibit 1035 Online copy of Carrasco from the Highwire Press
`Exhibit 1036 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library directory entry
`for Haematologica
`Exhibit 1037 Statewide Illinois Library Catalog record for Haematologica
`Exhibit 1038 Copy of Carrasco from the University of Michigan Taubman
`Medical Library
`Exhibit 1039 Web of Science entry for Carrasco
`Exhibit 1040 Curriculum Vitae of Michael Kelley, M.D.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1041 Declaration of Michael Kelley, M.D.
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”), request Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of Claims 1–22 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the
`
`‘209 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et
`
`seq. Apotex asserts the same grounds of unpatentability directed to the same claims
`
`as IPR2016-00237 (“Neptune IPR”) that the Board already instituted. This Petition
`
`does not add to or alter any arguments, or expand the grounds of unpatentability
`
`from the Neptune IPR the Board has already instituted. Solely to preserve its right
`
`to rely on expert testimony in the event the Neptune IPR is settled, Apotex submits
`
`the Declaration of Michael Kelley, M.D. (Ex. 1041), in which Dr. Kelley adopts the
`
`opinions set forth by Dr. Bleyer in connection with the Neptune IPR. Accordingly,
`
`and as explained below, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Apotex will prevail
`
`in demonstrating unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ‘209 Patent is
`
`available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR
`
`challenging the claims of the ‘209 Patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`This Petition is timely and proper under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and (c), because it is filed
`
`within one month of the institution of the Neptune IPR, and it is accompanied by a
`
`Motion for Joinder.
`
`1
`
`

`

`III. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Petitioner certifies that Apotex Inc., Apotex Corp., Apotex Pharmaceuticals
`
`Holdings Inc., and Apotex Holdings, Inc. are the real parties in interest. No other
`
`party funds, directs, or controls this Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner states the ‘209 Patent is the
`
`subject of the following proceedings: Petition for IPR by Apotex, PTAB-IPR2016-
`
`01191 (filed concurrently); Petitions for IPR by Wockhardt Bio AG, PTAB-IPR2016-
`
`01335 and PTAB-IPR2016-01337 (filed June 30, 2016); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Biocon
`
`Ltd., INSD-1:16-cv-00469 (filed Feb. 26, 2016); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs.,
`
`Ltd., INSD-1:16-cv-00308 (filed Feb. 5, 2016); Petition for IPR by Sandoz Inc.,
`
`PTAB-IPR201600318 (filed Dec. 14, 2015); Petitions for IPR by Neptune Generics,
`
`Inc., PTAB-IPR2016-00240 and PTAB-IPR2016-00237 (filed Nov. 24, 2015); Eli
`
`Lilly & Co. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., INSD-1:15-cv-01244 (filed Aug. 7,
`
`2015); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd, INSD-1:15-cv-01083 (filed July 10, 2015);
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, INSD-1:15-cv-00096 (filed Jan. 23,
`
`2015); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sandoz Inc., INSD-1:14-cv-02008 (filed Dec. 5, 2014); Eli
`
`Lilly & Co. v. Nang Kuang Pharm. Co., Ltd., INSD-1:14-cv-01647 (filed Oct. 8,
`
`2014); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Glenmark Pharm. Ltd., INSD-1:14-cv- 00104 (filed Jan.
`
`23, 2014); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sun Pharm. Global FZE, INSD-1:13-cv-01469 (filed
`
`2
`
`

`

`Sept. 13, 2013); Petition for IPR by Accord Healthcare, Inc., PTAB-IPR2013-00356
`
`(filed June 14, 2013); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., USA, INSD-1:13-
`
`cv-00335 (filed Feb. 28, 2013); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc., INSD-1:12-cv-00499
`
`(filed Apr. 17, 2012); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., USA, INSD- 1:12-
`
`cv-00086 (filed Jan. 20, 2012); Eli Lilly & Co. v. App Pharm., LLC, INSD-1:11-cv-
`
`00942 (filed Jul. 15, 2011); and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parental Medicines, Inc.,
`
`INSD-1:10-cv-01376 (filed Oct. 29, 2010).
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Lead counsel is John D. Polivick (jpolivick@rmmslegal.com), Reg. No.
`
`57,926. Backup counsel are Deanne M. Mazzochi (dmazzochi@rmmslegal.com),
`
`Reg. No. 50,158, and William A. Rakoczy (wrakoczy@rmmslegal.com), pro hac
`
`vice to be filed; and Patrick C. Kilgore (pkilgore@rmmslegal.com), Reg. No.
`
`69,131—all of Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, 6 West Hubbard Street, Suite
`
`500, Chicago, Illinois 60654 (Tel. 312-527-2157; Fax. 312-527-4205).
`
`Please direct all correspondence to lead counsel and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service at the email addresses listed above.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and § 42.103)
`The required fees are submitted herewith in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.103(a) and 42.15(a). Please charge any fees or credit overpayment to Deposit
`
`Account 503626.
`
`3
`
`

`

`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209
`The ‘209 Patent is titled “Antifolate Combination Therapies.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`Front Cover.) The underlying application, U.S. Patent App. No. 11/776,329 (the
`
`“’329 Application”), was filed on July 11, 2007. The ‘209 Patent issued to Clet
`
`Niyikiza on August 10, 2010. (Id.) The earliest application to which the ‘209 Patent
`
`claims priority is U.S. Patent App. No. 60/215,310 (filed June 3, 2000).
`
`The ‘209 Patent Specification
`
`1.
`The ‘209 Patent claims “a method of administering an antifolate to a mammal
`
`in need thereof, comprising administering an effective amount of said antifolate in
`
`combination with a methylmalonic acid lowering agent and a FBP [folate binding
`
`protein] binding agent.” (Id. at 3:1–5.) “A preferred FBP binding agent is folic
`
`acid,” and a preferred methylmalonic acid (“MMA”) lowering agent is vitamin
`
`B12. (Id. at 3:5–6, 4:47–50.)
`
`The ‘209 specification admits the following with respect to the prior art:
`
`Antifolates represent one of the most thoroughly studied classes of
`antineoplastic agents, with aminopterin initially demonstrating clinical
`activity approximately 50 years ago. Methotrexate was developed
`shortly thereafter, and today is a standard component of effective
`chemotherapeutic regimens for malignancies such as lymphoma,
`breast cancer, and head and neck cancer.
`
`4
`
`

`

`(Id. at 1:19–25.) The ‘209 specification states that “life-threatening toxicity remains
`
`a major limitation to the optimal administration of antifolates,” while admitting that
`
`increased homocysteine levels have been known to cause antifolate toxicity. (Id. at
`
`1:11–13, 2:24–26.) The specification also admits that “[f]olic acid has been shown
`
`to lower homocysteine levels.” (Id. at 2:16–17.) And, it admits that “increased levels
`
`of methylmalonic acid is a predicator of toxic events in patients that receive an
`
`antifolate drug,” and further admits that treatment with vitamin B12 was known to
`
`reduce those toxic events: “the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease
`
`with folic acid in combination with vitamin B12 is known….” (Id. at 2:41–43, 50–
`
`52.)
`
`The ‘209 Patent’s purported invention was designed “to lower cytotoxic
`
`activity” associated with antifolate treatment. (Id. at 2:29–37.) The patent states
`
`that “we have discovered that the combination of a methylmalonic acid lowering
`
`agent and folic acid synergistically reduces the toxic events associated with the
`
`administration of antifolate drugs.” (Id. at 2:47–50.)
`
`The ‘209 Patent’s invention can be summarized as: (1) administration of
`
`pemetrexed disodium to a patient in combination with an effective amount of folic
`
`acid and an effective amount of MMA lowering agent, such as vitamin B12; (2)
`
`pretreatment with folic acid prior to pemetrexed disodium treatment; (3)
`
`pretreatment with folic acid and vitamin B12 prior to pemetrexed disodium
`
`5
`
`

`

`treatment; (4) repetition of vitamin B12 administration; and (5) administering
`
`cisplatin with pemetrexed disodium to the patient. (Id. at 10:56–12:29.)
`
`The patent also states that a physician determines the amount of MMA
`
`lowering agent to be administered based on “the relevant circumstances, including
`
`the condition to be treated, the chosen route of administration, the actual agent
`
`administered, the age, weight, and response of the individual patient, and the
`
`severity of the patient’s symptoms….” (Id. at 5:37–50; 6:41–52.)
`
`The ‘209 Patent Claims
`
`2.
`The ‘209 Patent has two independent claims (Claims 1 and 12) and 20
`
`dependent claims. Claim 1 provides:
`
`A method for administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need
`thereof comprising administering an effective amount of folic acid and
`an effective amount of a methylmalonic acid lowering agent followed
`by administering an effective amount of pemetrexed disodium,
`wherein the methylmalonic acid lowering agent is selected from the
`group consisting of vitamin B12, hydroxycobalamin, cyano- 10-
`chlorocobalamin, aquocobalamin perchlorate, aquo-10-cobalamin
`perchlorate,
`azidocobalamin,
`cobalamin,
`cyanocobalamin,
`or
`chlorocobalamin.
`(Id. at 10:56–65.)
`
`Claim 12 provides:
`
`6
`
`

`

`An improved method for administering pemetrexed disodium to a
`patient
`in need of chemotherapeutic
`treatment, wherein
`the
`improvement comprises:
`administration of between about 350 µg and about 1000 µg of
`a)
`folic acid prior to the first administration of pemetrexed disodium;
`administration of about 500 µg to about 1500 µg of vitamin B12,
`b)
`prior to the first administration of pemetrexed disodium; and
`administration of pemetrexed disodium.
`c)
`(Id. at 11:25–12:4.)
`The ‘209 Prosecution History
`3.
`During prosecution of the ’329 Application, the Examiner initially rejected
`
`all claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Taylor (Ex. 1003) in view of
`
`Poydock, and in further view of Worzalla (Ex. 1005) and Cleare (Ex. 1006). (Ex.
`
`1002 at 310.) At the time of this rejection, Claims 40–52 were pending. (Id. at 307.)
`
`Claim 40, the only independent claim, recited “[a] method for administering
`
`pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof comprising administering an
`
`effective amount of pemetrexed disodium in combination with a methylmalonic
`
`acid lowering agent….” (Id. at 345.)
`
`The Examiner rejected Claims 40–52, stating that Taylor taught “N-
`
`(pyrrolo(2,3-D)pyrimidin-3-ylacyl)-glutamic acid derivatives,” including
`
`pemetrexed (LY 231514) and pemetrexed disodium, as effective antineoplastic
`
`agents for inhibition of tumor growth, where other antineoplastic agents could be
`
`7
`
`

`

`combined with pemetrexed, while Poydock taught “a methylmalonic acid lowering
`
`agent such as hydroxocobalamin” for inhibition of tumors implanted in mice. (Id. at
`
`310–11.) The Examiner further stated that Worzalla taught “the supplementation of
`
`folic acid with LY 231514 to enhance LY 231514 antitumor activity,” while Cleare
`
`taught “malonato platinum anti-tumor compounds such as cisplatin to treat
`
`malignant tumors.” (Id. at 311.) The Examiner concluded that “one skilled in the
`
`art would have assumed the combination of three antineoplastic agents into a single
`
`composition would give an additive effect in the absence of evidence to the
`
`contrary.” (Id.) The Examiner further stated that although the cited references do
`
`not teach the dosage range for the MMA lowering agent, “those skilled in the art
`
`would have [] readily optimized effective dosages and concurrent administration
`
`dosage forms as determined by good medical practice and the clinical condition of
`
`the individual patient.” (Id. at 311.)
`
`In response, Applicant amended Claim 45 by disclosing a “specific folic-
`
`binding-protein binding agent species recited in the specification,” and amended
`
`Claim 40 by adding, among other limitations, “lowering agent.” (Id. at 188.)
`
`Applicant also argued that Poydock was “discredited prior to the present
`
`application’s priority date” because, shortly after publication, it was discovered that
`
`MMA lowering agent did not possess antitumor activity. (Id. at 188–89.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`In response, the Examiner rejected the claims as obvious over Taylor in view
`
`of Tsao (Ex. 1007), and in further view of Worzalla and Cleare. (Ex. 1002 at 108.)
`
`The Examiner stated Tsao teaches “a methylmalonic acid lowering agent such as
`
`cobalamin (vitamin B12) is effective as having antitumor activity,” and maintained
`
`rejections with respect to Taylor, Worzalla, and Cleare. (Id. at 108–09.)
`
`Applicant then canceled Claims 45–46, added new Claims 53–63, and
`
`amended Claim 40 by adding, among other limitations, “administering an effective
`
`amount of folic acid and an effective amount of a methylmalonic acid lowering
`
`agent followed by.” (Id. at 82–85.) Applicant argued that the Examiner
`
`misinterpreted “the art concerning vitamin B12 antineoplastic activity and the
`
`teachings of [Taylor].” (Id. at 86.) Applicant also argued that the Examiner
`
`overstated Tsao’s teachings because Tsao disclosed results from hospital surveys
`
`and animal studies with conflicting results on the effectiveness of vitamin B12
`
`therapy alone or in combination with chemotherapeutic agents and “cyanocobalamin
`
`‘did not affect cell growth at a daily dose as high as 1,000 mg/kg body weight.’” (Id.
`
`at 86–87.) Thus, “a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Tsao, would not have
`
`perceived a reasonable expectation of success in making Applicant’s invention in
`
`view of the scientific uncertainty concerning vitamin B12 and its use as an
`
`antitumor agent.” (Id. at 87.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Applicant further submitted “that the activity of B12 as a potential antitumor
`
`therapeutic is still inconclusive even as of today.” (Id.) Applicant argued that
`
`pemetrexed disodium, a folate analog, as a multitargeted antifolate with specific
`
`activity at three enzymes in the biosynthesis of nucleic acids—“dihydrofolate
`
`reductase (DHFR), thymidine synthase (TS), and GAR formyltransferase
`
`(GARFT)”—competes with folate at each of the enzymes’ folate binding sites. (Id.
`
`at 88.) Applicant additionally argued that “[i]f there is an excess of the natural
`
`ligand (the natural folate source) for the three enzymes then the effectiveness of
`
`pemetrexed disodium is reduced.” (Id.)
`
`Applicant also argued that “[a]t the time of the invention, the skilled artisan
`
`would have been aware it was standard of care to avoid vitamins in patients
`
`undergoing chemotherapy, because the usage of vitamins could decrease the
`
`effectiveness of the chemotherapy.” (Id.) Applicant then stated that AstraZeneca’s
`
`compound Tomudex® (TS inhibitor), if administered with folic or folinic acid, may
`
`impair its cytotoxic action; “[v]itamin preparations containing folic acid or its
`
`derivatives may decrease responses to systemically administered methotrexate”
`
`(DHFR inhibitor); and fluorouracil (5-F

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