`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________________
`
`FUSTIBAL LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC
`
`Patent Owner of
`
`U.S. Patent 8,637,553 to Boyer et al.
`
`Appl. No. 10/895,985 filed Jul. 22, 2004
`
`Issued Jan. 28, 2014
`
`________________________________
`
`IPR Trial No. Unassigned
`
`_______________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,637,553
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1
`
`Identification of Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............................... 2
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 2
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENT ......... 2
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................. 3
`
`IV. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ............... 3
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ............... 4
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Argument .................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 6
`
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 6
`
`D.
`
`Printed Publications Relied On ............................................................. 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Riedl (Ex. 1002) .......................................................................... 8
`
`Park (Ex. 1004) .........................................................................10
`
`Aherne (Ex. 1005) .....................................................................12
`
`Additional Prior Art Confirming the General Knowledge of a
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...........................................12
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-16 Are Anticipated by Riedl. .............................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 13 Is Anticipated by Riedl .............................................13
`
`Claim 1 Is also Anticipated by Riedl ........................................17
`
`Claims 2-5 and 15 Are also Anticipated by Riedl ....................17
`
`Claims 6-9, 14, and 16 Are also Anticipated by Riedl .............17
`
`Claims 10, 11, and 12 Are Anticipated by Riedl ......................18
`
`F.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-16 Are Unpatentable as Obvious over Riedl ......19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 13 Is Obvious over Riedl................................................19
`
`Claim 1 Is also Obvious over Riedl ..........................................22
`
`Claims 2-5 and 15 Are also Obvious over Riedl ......................22
`
`Claims 6-9, 14, and 16 Are also Obvious over Riedl ...............23
`
`Claims 10, 11, and 12 Are Obvious over Riedl ........................23
`
`G. Ground 3: Claims 1-16 Are Unpatentable as Obvious over Aherne,
`
`Park, and Riedl ....................................................................................24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 13 Is Obvious over Aherne, Park, and Riedl .................25
`
`Claim 1 Is also Obvious over Aherne, Park, and Riedl ............34
`
`Claims 2-5 and 15 Are also Obvious over Aherne, Park, and
`
`Riedl ..........................................................................................34
`
`4.
`
`Claims 6-9, 14, and 16 Are also Obvious over Aherne, Park,
`
`and Riedl ...................................................................................35
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Claims 10, 11, and 12 Are Obvious over Aherne, Park, and
`
`Riedl ..........................................................................................35
`
`H. Ground 4: Claims 1-16 Are Unpatentable as Obvious over Riedl and
`
`Park ......................................................................................................37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 13 Is Obvious over Riedl and Park ................................37
`
`Claim 1 Is also Obvious over Riedl and Park ...........................44
`
`Claims 2-5 and 15 Are also Obvious over Riedl and Park .......44
`
`Claims 6-9, 14, and 16 Are also Obvious over Riedl and Park 45
`
`Claims 10, 11, and 12 Are Obvious over Riedl and Park .........45
`
`I.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1-16 Are Unpatentable as Obvious over Aherne and
`
`Park ......................................................................................................46
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 13 Is Obvious over Aherne and Park .............................47
`
`Claim 1 Is also Obvious over Aherne and Park ........................55
`
`Claims 2-5 and 15 Are also Obvious over Aherne and Park ....55
`
`Claims 6-9, 14, and 16 Are also Obvious over Aherne and Park
`
` ...................................................................................................56
`
`4.
`
`Claims 10, 11, and 12 Are Obvious over Aherne and Park ....566
`
`VI. TABLE OF ADDITIONAL PRIOR ART ....................................................58
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................59
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`Boyer et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553, titled “Fluoro
`
`Substituted Omega-Carboxyaryl Diphenyl Urea for the
`
`Treatment and Prevention of Diseases and Conditions,” issued
`
`Jan. 28, 2014.
`
`1002
`
`Riedl et al., WO 00/42012, titled “ω-Carboxyaryl Substituted
`
`Diphenyl Ureas as RAF Kinase Inhibitors,” published July 20,
`
`2000.
`
`1003
`
`Answer in Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bayer Corp. et al.,
`
`No. CV-09 2145 MHP, (N.D.C.A. filed Aug. 12, 2009).
`
`1004
`
`Park et al., titled “Metabolism of fluorine-containing drugs,”
`
`41 Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol., 2001, p. 443-470.
`
`1005
`
`Aherne et al., titled “Finding the Needle in the Haystack: Why
`
`High-throughput Screening Is Good for your Health”, 4 Breast
`
`Cancer Research 4, (June 10, 2002).
`
`1006
`
`Wakefield (Dr. Basil Wakefield), titled “Fluorinated
`
`Pharmaceuticals”, Innovations in Pharm. Tech (Jan. 2000).
`
`1007
`
`Seebach, Dieter, titled “Organic Synthesis – Where now?”,
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 29 (1990), p. 1320-1367.
`
`1008
`
`Declaration of Brian Shoichet, Ph.D.
`
`1009
`
`Dr. Brian Shoichet’s curriculum vitae
`
`1010
`
`Regan et al., titled “Pyrazole Urea-Based Inhibitors of p38
`
`MAP Kinase: From Lead Compound to Clinical Candidate”,
`
`45 J. of Medicinal Chemistry 14 (May 25, 2002), p. 2994-
`
`3008.
`
`1011
`
`Suganuma et al., titled “Mechanisms of Cancer Prevention by
`
`Tea Polyphenols Based on Inhibition of TNF-α Expression”,
`
`BioFactors 13 (2000), p. 67–72.
`
`1012
`
`First Amended Complaint in Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.
`
`Bayer Corp. et al., No. CV-09 2145 MHP, (N.D.C.A. filed
`
`June 15, 2009).
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Fustibal LLC
`
`(“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”) of Claims 1 through 16
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553 to Boyer et al., titled “Fluoro Substituted Omega-
`
`Carboxyaryl Diphenyl Urea for the Treatment and Prevention of Diseases and
`
`Conditions” (“the ’553 patent,” Ex. 1001). Concurrently filed herewith is a Power
`
`of Attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103,
`
`Petitioner authorizes the PTO to charge Deposit Account 05-1323 for the fee set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and authorizes any additional fees to be charged to
`
`the same account.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Fustibal LLC (“Fustibal”) is the real party-in-interest for Petitioner.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the ’553 patent. Petitioner is not a party to, or aware of,
`
`any prior or pending litigation regarding infringement or invalidity of the ’553
`
`patent. However, one case discusses Bayer’s conduct (breach of contract; breach
`
`of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of fiduciary duty;
`
`and declaratory relief) in the development of regorafenib (the claimed compound
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`of the ʼ553 patent) to avoid payments to a collaborator. That case is Onyx Pharms.
`
`Inc. v. Bayer Corp., Case No. C 09-2145 (EMC) (N.D. Cal. Oct 17, 2011) in the
`
`United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco
`
`Division.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`Anne Elise Herold Li
`(Reg. No. 45,810)
`(Reg. No. 58,131)
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`590 Madison Avenue, 20th Fl. 3 Park Plaza, 20th Fl.
`New York, NY 10022
`Irvine, CA 92614-8505
`ali@crowell.com
`jlindsay@crowell.com
`Tel: 212-895-4279
`Tel: 949-798-1325
`Fax: 212-223-4134
`Fax: 949-263-8414
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please direct all correspondence to lead counsel and back-up counsel at the
`
`contact information above. Petitioner consents to service by electronic mail at
`
`ali@crowell.com and jlindsay@crowell.com.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENT
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’553 patent
`
`is available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`III.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 through
`
`16 of the ’553 patent on one or more of the grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`
`103 set forth herein. The ’553 patent is to be reviewed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and 103.
`
`Petitioner’s detailed statement of the reasons for the relief requested is set
`
`forth below in the section titled “Statement of Reasons for Relief Requested.” In
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c), copies of the exhibits are filed herewith. In
`
`addition, this Petition is accompanied by the Declaration of Brian Shoichet, Ph.D.,
`
`Ex. 1008.
`
`IV. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This Petition meets this threshold.
`
`As explained below, for each of the grounds of unpatentability proposed, there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The challenged claims of the ’553 patent are generally directed to
`
`pharmaceutical compounds to treat diseases mediated by raf, VEGFR, PDGFR,
`
`p38 and flt-3, and, in particular, to regorafenib (the claimed compound) and
`
`compositions containing regorafenib. Claims 1-16 of the ’553 patent are
`
`unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-16 are Anticipated by Riedl;
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-16 are Unpatentable as Obvious Over Riedl;
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-16 are Unpatentable as Obvious Over Aherne, Park,
`
`and Riedl;
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-16 are Unpatentable as Obvious Over Riedl and Park;
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1-16 are Unpatentable as Obvious Over Aherne and
`
`Park.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Argument
`
`The structure of the claimed compound, regorafenib, is identical to that of its
`
`predecessor compound sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) but for the substitution of a
`
`single fluorine atom. See Figures 1(a) and 1(b) below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`Figure 1(a). Claimed Compound, Regorafenib (Claim 1 of the ’553 patent)
`
`
`
`CH3
`
`N H
`
`O
`
`N
`
`CF3
`
`O
`
`O
`
`N
`
`H
`
`N
`
`H
`
`F
`
`Cl
`
`
`
`Figure 1(b). Predecessor Compound, Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits that claims of the ’553 patent are invalid as anticipated by
`
`prior art that discloses regorafenib that reads on independent claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 11,
`
`12 and 13.
`
`Petitioner further submits that the subject matter of all of the claims of
`
`the ’553 patent would have been arrived at by following the teachings and
`
`suggestions of the prior art which would have motivated a person ordinarily skilled
`
`in the art to develop regorafenib by choosing sorafenib as a starting compound and
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`increasing functionality of that compound by substituting a single fluorine atom in
`
`place of a single hydrogen atom at the claimed fluorine position on the central
`
`benzene ring. In the present case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had more than a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would have
`
`improved the safety and efficacy of the drug.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (abbreviated as “POSA”) is presumed to
`
`be aware of pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a
`
`person of ordinary creativity. With respect to the ’553 patent, a POSA would have
`
`had knowledge of the scientific literature concerning pharmaceutical compositions.
`
`A POSA typically would have a PhD, MD, MS, or another degree relating to
`
`pharmaceutical chemistry (e.g. biology, chemistry, medicinal chemistry, medicine,
`
`pharmacology, or a closely related discipline), and such a POSA would have
`
`substantial familiarity, training, or experience with pharmaceutical compositions.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), each of the claims is presumed to
`
`take on its ordinary and customary meaning based on the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claim language. Petitioner does not believe that the Applicant
`
`attributed any special meanings to the claim terms in the ’553 patent when the
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard is applied, except for the following
`
`terms:
`
`• “pharmaceutically acceptable salt” appearing in claims 1-4, 9 and 10,
`
`has been defined as “a relatively non-toxic, inorganic or organic acid
`
`addition salt of a compound of the present invention.” (See Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 9, ll. 56-62).
`
`• “physiologically acceptable carrier” appears in claims 6-9, 14 and 16,
`
`and at page 10 of the specification. However, the specification only
`
`defines the term “pharmaceutically acceptable carrier” (Ex. 1001, col.
`
`20, ll. 46-51). Therefore, the term “physiologically acceptable
`
`carrier” has been interpreted as its ordinary and customary meaning
`
`(i.e. a carrier that is relatively non-toxic for human
`
`ingestion/administration).
`
`Petitioner’s position regarding the scope of the claims should not be taken as
`
`an assertion regarding the appropriate claim scope in other adjudicative forums
`
`where a different claim interpretation standard may apply.
`
`D.
`
`Printed Publications Relied On
`
`Petitioner relies on the following patents and publications:
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`1.
`
`Riedl (Ex. 1002)
`
`WO 00/42012, titled “ω-Carboxyaryl Substituted Diphenyl Ureas as RAF
`
`Kinase Inhibitors” (“Riedl,” Ex. 1002) published on July 20, 2000. Riedl is prior
`
`art to the ’553 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Riedl discloses a family of
`
`compounds for treating RAF mediated diseases, such as cancer, including the
`
`sorafenib compound. See Figure 2 (below), the structure of sorafenib.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002 at p. 42 (numbers added on the central benzene ring for clarity of
`
`discussion).
`
`Riedl also teaches single modifications of the sorafenib compound on the
`
`middle ring. See Figure 3 (below).
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`Ex. 1002 at p. 43 (numbers added for clarity on the central benzene ring). In this
`
`example, a methyl group was substituted at position 3. In another example, a
`
`chlorine is substituted on sorafenib middle ring at position 3’. Ex. 1002 at p. 63,
`
`line 5 (entry 49); see also p. 80-81, Table 4 (entry 49). It is noted that a chlorine
`
`substitution at position 3’ on sorafenib middle ring makes the same compound as a
`
`chlorine substitution at position 3 on sorafenib middle ring. See also Ex. 1008 at
`
`¶51-54. Riedl also discloses an example with a chlorine substituted at position 2’.
`
`Ex. 1002 at p. 63, lines 22-26 (entry 52); see also p. 80-82, Table 4 (entry 52). It is
`
`noted that a chlorine substitution at position 2’ on sorafenib middle ring makes the
`
`same compound as a chlorine substitution at position 2 on sorafenib middle ring.
`
`See also Ex. 1008 at ¶51-54.
`
`Riedl further discloses that halogens are good candidates to be substituted.
`
`Ex. 1002, at p. 4. “Suitable halogen groups include F, Cl, Br, and/or I, from one to
`
`per-substitution (i.e. all H atoms on a group replaced by a halogen atom) being
`
`possible where an alkyl group is substituted by a halogen, mixed substitution of
`
`halogen atom types also being possible on a given moiety.” Ex. 1002, p. 6, lines 5-
`
`8.
`
`Critically, the assignee of the ’553 patent admits that Riedl broadly discloses
`
`sorafenib with a fluorine substitution at position 3 (which is regorafenib, the
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`claimed compound in the ’553 patent). Ex. 1003, p. 15, lines 13-241. This
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`admission was made in the Onyx case (discussed supra in Section I.B.). The
`
`complaint in that case alleged that Riedl disclosed “sorafenib and its halogenated
`
`brethren.” Ex. 1012 (Complaint). In response to that assertion, the patent
`
`assignee “further admit[s] that certain generic claims of [Riedl] could be read to
`
`cover a variety of compound structures including the structure of sorafenib and
`
`regorafenib.” Ex. 1003, Answer, p. 15, lines 22-24. Despite this admission, the
`
`patent assignee denied that “the regorafenib molecule was disclosed in [Riedl].” Id.
`
`at p. 15, lines 26-27.
`
`2.
`
`Park (Ex. 1004)
`
`“Metabolism of Fluorine-Containing Drugs,” by Park et al. (“Park,” Ex.
`
`1004) was published in the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology in
`
`2001. Park is prior art to the ’553 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`1 In Exhibit 1003, the German Bayer Entities are referring to the January 13, 1999
`
`patent application and the issued patent U.S. Pat. No. 7,351,834 of Riedl et al. It is
`
`noted that Exhibit 1002 (WO 00/42012 to “Riedl”) cited in Ground 1 is the PCT
`
`application that U.S. Pat. No. 7,351,834 claims priority to, where the disclosure
`
`and claims are substantially the same.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`Park discloses that fluorine substitution on a drug molecule “can be used
`
`constructively by medicinal chemists to improve both the safety and the efficacy of
`
`the drug.” Ex. 1004 at 443. Park also discloses a flow diagram to illustrate the
`
`benefits of substituting a fluorine (relating to physicochemical properties,
`
`pharmacokinetic properties, pharmacological consequences), which is reproduced
`
`below. Ex. 1004 at 444. Park also discloses that fluorine substitution “can be used
`
`to alter the rate of drug metabolism and thereby produce a drug with a longer
`
`duration of action. Such an approach has already been used successfully for several
`
`classes of drugs”. Id at 464.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`3.
`
`Aherne (Ex. 1005)
`
`“Finding the Needle in the Haystack: Why High-throughput Screening Is
`
`Good for your Health,” by Aherne et al. (“Aherne,” Ex. 1005) was published in
`
`Breast Cancer Research on June 10, 2002. Aherne is prior art to the ’553 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Aherne discloses a high throughput screening method for compounds used
`
`in treatment of cancers. Ex. 1005 at 148, 150-51. In particular, Aherne discloses
`
`using a high-throughput screening method in combination with the Lipinski Rule
`
`of 5 (features of most successful drugs) when assessing drug candidates. Id. at 151.
`
`Aherne further discloses several compounds that have been successfully tested this
`
`way, including the sorafenib compound (referred to as BAY 43-9006). Id. at 152.
`
`Aherne discloses that it is desirable to optimize drug candidates. Ex. 1005 at 149-
`
`151.
`
`4.
`
`Additional Prior Art Confirming the General Knowledge of
`a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In addition to the prior art discussed above, Dr. Shoichet addresses
`
`additional prior art confirming the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in July 2003. See infra at Section VI for a table summarizing the disclosure of
`
`these additional printed publications. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that the addition of a fluorine atom to a pharmaceutical active to
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`improve its pharmacological properties was common in the field. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1006 (Wakefield) (“According to a recent book, by 1990 around 220 fluorinated
`
`drugs were on the market, representing 8 percent of launched synthetic drugs, and
`
`at the time of its publication around 1,500 were under development . ..”); Ex. 1007
`
`(Seebach); Ex. 1008 (Shoichet Dec) at ¶30-33. Additionally, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have also understood that introduction of a fluorine improves
`
`pharmacological properties such as increasing stability and lipophilicity. Ex. 1006
`
`(Wakefield) at 74. Ex. 1008 (Shoichet Dec) at ¶30 and 73.
`
`E. Ground 1: Claims 1-16 Are Anticipated by Riedl.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 13 Is Anticipated by Riedl
`
`Claim 13 of the ’553 patent recites the chemical compound regorafenib.
`
`Riedl discloses sorafenib. It also discloses three different examples of
`
`sorafenib with a single substitution on the middle benzene ring. For example,
`
`Riedl discloses methylated sorafenib (which is regorafenib with a methyl group
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`instead of a fluorine), where a methyl group is substituted on sorafenib middle ring
`
`at position 3.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002 at p. 43 (numbers added for clarity on the central benzene ring). In this
`
`example, a methyl group was substituted at position 3. In another example, a
`
`chlorine is substituted on sorafenib middle ring at position 3’. Ex. 1002 at p. 63,
`
`line 5 (entry 49); see also p. 80-81, Table 4 (entry 49). It is noted that a chlorine
`
`substitution at position 3’ on the sorafenib middle ring makes the same compound
`
`as a chlorine substitution at position 3 on the sorafenib middle ring. See also Ex.
`
`1008 at ¶51-54. Riedl also discloses an example with a chlorine substituted at
`
`position 2’. Ex. 1002 at p. 63, line 5 (entry 52); see also p. 80-82, Table 4 (entry
`
`52). It is noted that a chlorine substitution at position 2’ on the sorafenib middle
`
`ring makes the same compound as a chlorine substitution at position 2 on the
`
`sorafenib middle ring. See also Ex. 1008 at ¶51-54.
`
`Riedl further discloses that halogens are good candidates to be substituted.
`
`Ex. 1002, at p. 4. “Suitable halogen groups include F, Cl, Br, and/or I, from one to
`
`per-substitution (i.e. all H atoms on a group replaced by a halogen atom) being
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`possible where an alkyl group is substituted by a halogen, mixed substitution of
`
`halogen atom types also being possible on a given moiety.” Ex. 1002 at p. 6, lines
`
`5-8.
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that the question of anticipation depends on
`
`whether the claimed combination would be immediately apparent from the prior art
`
`disclosure to one of skill in the art. Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy
`
`Inst. of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In some cases,
`
`patents only broadly disclose a genus. See Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
`
`441 F.3d 991, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“It is well established that the disclosure of a
`
`genus in the prior art is not necessarily a disclosure of every species that is a
`
`member of that genus.”). However, when the genus disclosed is small, it will
`
`anticipate the species, as a person of ordinary skill in the art can “at once envisage
`
`each member of this limited class” when the class of compounds that falls within
`
`the genus is so limited. .In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(internal citations omitted); In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1962). Further,
`
`the “anticipation analysis asks solely whether the prior art reference discloses and
`
`enables the claimed invention, and not how the prior art characterizes that
`
`disclosure or whether alternatives are also disclosed.” Perricone, M.D., v. Medicis
`
`Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`specific disclosure of a component that was listed as one of fourteen alternatives in
`
`the prior art was not merely part of a disclosed genus).
`
`In this case, Riedl discloses the structure of sorafenib. Riedl also discloses a
`
`single halogen substitution at positions 3 or 3’ and 2 or 2’ (with examples of a
`
`chlorine substitution at either of these positions in sorafenib). As discussed above,
`
`a single substitution at position 3 in sorafenib makes the same compound as a
`
`single substitution of the same substituent at position 3’ in sorafenib. Also, a
`
`single substitution at position 2 in sorafenib makes the same compound as a single
`
`substitution of the same substituent at position 2’ in sorafenib. Thus, there are two
`
`possible distinct positions (positions 3/ 3’ and 2/ 2’) at which a halogen can be
`
`substituted on the middle ring of sorafenib. As such, Riedl discloses both possible
`
`distinct positions for a single halogen substitution on the middle ring of sorafenib.
`
`There are only four suitable halogen groups specifically disclosed by Riedl: F, Cl,
`
`Br, or I. Thus, there are eight individual chemical compounds possible when
`
`substituting a halogen (of one of the suitable halogen groups disclosed by Riedl) at
`
`one of these positions. These eight possible compounds are disclosed and would
`
`be readily apparent to one of skill in the art who was looking to modify sorafenib.
`
`See also Ex. 1008, ¶49-54. Therefore, Riedl expressly discloses the regorafenib
`
`compound, rendering claim 13 anticipated.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 Is also Anticipated by Riedl
`
`Because Claim 1 encompasses Claim 13, it is also anticipated by Riedl.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 2-5 and 15 Are also Anticipated by Riedl
`
`Claims 2-5 and 15 are also anticipated by Riedl. These claims are directed to
`
`pharmaceutically acceptable salts of regorafenib, among others. Riedl discloses
`
`that the “present invention is also directed to pharmaceutically acceptable salts of
`
`formula I.” Ex. 1002, p. 6, line 11. Because these claims encompass regorafenib
`
`plus pharmaceutically acceptable salts, they are anticipated by Riedl.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 6-9, 14, and 16 Are also Anticipated by Riedl
`
`Claims 6-9, 14, and 16 are also anticipated by Riedl. These claims are
`
`directed to physiologically acceptable carriers of regorafenib, among others. Riedl
`
`discloses the use of a pharmaceutical composition of regorafenib and a
`
`physiologically acceptable carrier. Ex. 1002, p. 108. Furthermore, Riedl
`
`specifically teaches that the carrier is “non-toxic” (Ex. 1002, p. 10, lines 10-14),
`
`and that it is intended for human ingestion or administration (Ex. 1002, p. 2, lines
`
`10-13 and 22-28; p. 10, lines 10-13). Because these claims encompass regorafenib
`
`plus physiologically acceptable carriers, they are anticipated by Riedl.
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`5.
`
`Claims 10, 11, and 12 Are Anticipated by Riedl
`
`Claims 10-12 of the ‘553 patent all recite substantially similar elements
`
`directed to a compound which is a metabolite of the compound of Formula (I).
`
`A compound which is a metabolite of a compound of Formula (I) is a
`
`derivative of a compound of Formula (I). Claim 10 specifies the substitution sites
`
`as any nitrogen atom of Formula (I) for modification to form such derivative
`
`compounds: “the two urea nitrogen atoms, or the pyridine nitrogen atom, or the
`
`methylamide functionality, or any combination of the above.” For those specified
`
`substitution sites, claim 11 lists possible chemical substitutions (a-g). Claim 12
`
`lists three derivative compounds of the compound of Formula (I): the first
`
`compound is a compound of Formula (I) where “the amide functionality is de-
`
`methylated” (11c); the second compound is a compound of Formula (I) where “the
`
`pyridine nitrogen atom is oxidized” (11b); and the third compound is a compound
`
`of Formula (I) where “the pyridine nitrogen atom is oxidized and the amide
`
`functionality is de-methylated” (11d).
`
`Claims 10, 11, and 12 are directed to metabolites that include regorafenib
`
`that has been de-methylated. Riedl discloses regorafenib as discussed above with
`
`respect to claims 1, 3, and 13. Riedl also discloses that the methyl amide (NH-
`
`CH3) functionality attached to the “L1” ring of Formula (I) can be replaced by a
`
`substituent such as an NH2 group. Ex. 1002 at p. 3, lines 9-10 and 18-19. Thus,
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`Riedl also discloses regorafenib that has been de-methylated. In addition, Riedl
`
`discloses sorafenib that has been de-methylated in entry 43 of Table 4 in Riedl.
`
`Ex. 1002 at p. 62 and 80-81. Therefore, claims 10, 11, and 12 are anticipated by
`
`Riedl.
`
`F. Ground 2: Claims 1-16 Are Unpatentable as Obvious over Riedl
`
`Petitioner submits that Claims 1-16 are unpatentable as anticipated over
`
`Riedl. If, for the sake of argument, the Board finds that Riedl fails to anticipate
`
`Claims 1-16 of the ’553 Patent, then such claims would have been obvious over
`
`Riedl for the reasons set forth below.
`
`
`
`For a single reference to be obvious in the chemical field, there must
`
`“structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by
`
`combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation
`
`to make the claimed compositions, creates a prima facie case of obviousness.”
`
`Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (quoting Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d
`
`1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir.2007)).
`
`1.
`
`Claim 13 Is Obvious over Riedl
`
`Claim 13 of the ’553 patent recites the chemical compound regorafenib.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,637,553
`
`
`
`Riedl discloses sorafenib. Riedl also discloses three different examples of
`
`sorafenib with a single substitution on the middle benzene ring. For example,
`
`Riedl discloses methylated sorafenib (which is regorafenib with a methyl group
`
`instead of a fluorine), where a methyl group is substituted on sorafenib middle ring
`
`at position 3.
`
`
`
`In another example, a chlorine is substituted on sorafenib at position 3’. Ex. 1002
`
`at p. 63, line 5 (entry 49); see also p. 80-81, Table 4 (entry 49). A chlorine
`
`substitution at position 3’ on the sorafenib middle ring makes the same compound
`
`as a chlorine substitution at position 3 on sorafenib middle ring. See also Ex. 1008
`
`at ¶61. Riedl also discloses an example with chlorine substituted