Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`Paper No. 16
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v .
`
`BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859 B2
`
`PETITIONER MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.’S MOTION FOR
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`Patent 9,173,859
`Paper No. 16
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v .
`
`BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859 B2
`
`PETITIONER MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.’S MOTION FOR
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT................................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Legal Standard for Rehearing.............................................................. 4
`B.
`Legal Standard for Obviousness Where The Claimed Invention
`Falls Within The Prior Art Disclosed Range ....................................... 5
`The Proper Obviousness Standard Was Not Applied. ......................... 6
`The Board Routinely Applies an Obviousness Presumption
`When The Prior Art Range Encompasses the Claimed Amount ......... 9
`The Presumption of Obviousness was Not Overcome....................... 12
`E.
`III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 13
`
`C.
`D.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ex Parte Berlin
`No. 2011-009313, 2013 WL 3339398 (PTAB May 31, 2013) ..................... 9, 10
`
`Ex Parte Fehr
`No. 2013-006774, 2015 WL 4349960 (PTAB July 14, 2015).......................... 11
`
`Ex Parte Reinsinger,
`No. 2009-013204, 2012 WL 991653 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2012)........................... 11
`
`Ex Parte Saini,
`No. 2009-004238, 2013 WL 3805052 (PTAB June 23, 2013) ........................... 8
`
`Ex Parte Saitou
`No. 2010-003525, 2011 WL 2174633 (PTAB May 31, 2011) ......................... 10
`
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013).................................................................... passim
`
`In re Baird,
`16 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................................................................... 8
`
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................. 5, 7, 9, 12
`
`In re Jones,
`958 F.2d 347 (Fed. Cir. 1992)............................................................................. 8
`
`In re Malagari,
`499 F.2d 1297 (CCPA 1974) .......................................................................... 5, 9
`
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................... 5, 6, 9
`
`In re Woodruff,
`919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)......................................................................... 12
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`
`Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC,
`No. 13-cv-2088, 2016 WL 4497054 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2016) .......................... 11
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................... 6, 9
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Home Semiconductor Corp.,
`No. IPR2015–00467, 2016 WL 3228146 (PTAB June 13, 2016)....................... 6
`
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
`393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................... 5
`
`Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`89 F. Supp. 3d 641, 654, 673–74 (D.N.J. 2015) aff’d, 642 F. App’x 996
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 4, 5, 11
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71..................................................................................................... 4
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. respectfully requests rehearing of the
`
`Board’s February 3, 2017 decision denying inter partes review of claims 1–22
`
`(collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,173,859 (the “’859
`
`patent”) as obvious based on Petitioner’s Ground 3.1 (Paper 15 at 2). Rehearing is
`
`warranted because the Board’s decision was based on an incorrect legal standard for
`
`obviousness.2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Under Federal Circuit precedent,
`
`the Challenged Claims are presumed
`
`obvious because the claimed linagliptin dosages (2.5 mg and 5.0 mg) fall squarely
`
`within the prior art range disclosed in the ’510 Publication (Ex. 1003), and Patent
`
`Owner did not meet its burden to overcome this presumption. See Galderma Labs.,
`
`L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 737–38 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Patent Owner has
`
`burden of overcoming obviousness presumption “where there is a range disclosed in
`
`the prior art, and the claimed invention falls within that range.”). For at least this
`
`1 The Board denied inter partes review of claims 1–22 as obvious over the ’510
`Publication (Ex. 1003) and Glucophage Label (Ex. 1004) (Ground 1) and of claims
`14 and 20 as anticipated by the ’510 Publication (Ground 2). (Paper 15 at 9, 13).
`Petitioner does not seek rehearing of the Board’s decision on Grounds 1 and 2.
`2 On February 17, 2017 Petitioner requested rehearing in IPR2016-01563 (the
`“Companion IPR”) concerning the ’859 patent’s parent, U.S. Patent No. 8,673,927.
`The ’927 and ’859 patents share the same specification and each claims methods of
`administering specified dosages and/or dosage ranges of linagliptin and metformin.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`reason, the Board should have instituted review of the Challenged Claims. The
`
`Board erred in not doing so.
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to administrating specified dosages and
`
`dosage ranges of metformin in combination with specified dosages of linagliptin to
`
`treat patients with type II diabetes. (Paper 2 at 36, 41–43 and Table 1). It is
`
`undisputed that linagliptin was a known compound and was disclosed in the ’510
`
`Publication specifically for the purpose of treating type II diabetes in a preferred oral
`
`dosage range of “1 to 100 mg, administered ‘1 to 4 times a day.’” (Paper 15 at 16;
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ [300]). It is also undisputed that the preferred range encompasses the
`
`claimed dosages of linagliptin. (Id. at 8–9). The ’510 Publication also expressly
`
`teaches that linagliptin will be effective in treating type II diabetes, including when
`
`combined with metformin. (See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ [297]–[298]). In fact, in the Companion
`
`IPR, this Board found, on the same evidence presented in this case, that Petitioner
`
`sufficiently established that the POSA would have been motivated to substitute the
`
`preferred linagliptin oral doses disclosed in the ’510 Publication—“1 mg to 100 mg,
`
`in each case 1 to 4 times a day”—for the DPP-IV inhibitors in the prior art metformin
`
`combination therapies of Ahrén (Ex. 1005), Hughes (Ex. 1006), and Brazg (Ex.
`
`1007). (See IPR2016-01563, Paper 16 at 20–21).3
`
`3 The Board here “assume[d], without deciding, that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined the teachings of the prior art.” (Paper 15 at 15).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`Moreover, the Board does not dispute Petitioner’s evidence that the POSA
`
`would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully treating type II diabetes
`
`using metformin in combination with the preferred “linagliptin oral doses disclosed
`
`in the ’510 Publication”—i.e., linagliptin dosages from 1 mg to 100 mg, 1 to 4 times
`
`a day. (Paper 2 at 38–39; See e.g., Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 71, 81–82, 84, 86–88). Instead, the
`
`Board faults petitioner for not calling out the specific claimed linagliptin dosages in
`
`its “motivation to combine” and “reasonable expectation of success” analysis,
`
`despite the fact that the ’510 Publication’s preferred range includes the claimed
`
`linagliptin dosages. In the Board’s words:
`
`As explained [in the anticipation section of the Board’s decision], based
`on the current record, we are not persuaded that an ordinary artisan
`would have had a reason to modify the teachings of the ’510
`publication—a preferred dose of 1 to 100 mg administered ‘1 to 4 times
`a day’—to arrive at the claimed linagliptin dosages of 2.5 mg or 5 mg.
`
`(Paper 15 at 16). The Board erred.
`
`Rather than require Petitioner to show that a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to arrive at precisely the claimed linagliptin dosages, the Board instead
`
`should have presumed that the Challenged Claims are obvious, as a matter of law,
`
`because the ’510 Publication’s preferred dosage range encompasses the claimed
`
`linagliptin dosages. See Galderma, 737 F.3d at 737–38. As such, the Board should
`
`have then required Patent Owner to overcome this presumption with sufficient
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`evidence showing: (i) unexpected results; or (ii) that the prior art taught away from
`
`the claimed invention. Id. The Board did not.
`
`Had the Board properly presumed that the Challenged Claims were obvious,
`
`Patent Owner on this record would have been unable to rebut this presumption
`
`because it produced no evidence of unexpected results; it failed to rebut Petitioner’s
`
`evidence that there were no unexpected results; and the Board rejected Patent
`
`Owner’s argument that the prior art taught away from using 2.5 mg and 5 mg dosages
`
`of linagliptin. (See generally Paper 9; see Paper 15 at 13).
`
`The Board’s decision denying institution of the Challenged Claims is thus not
`
`premised on the correct legal standard for obviousness. Under the proper standard,
`
`Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial on its assertion
`
`that
`
`the Challenged Claims are obvious. Accordingly,
`
`the Board’s errors are
`
`material, and Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s decision not
`
`to institute inter partes review on Ground 3 with respect to the Challenged Claims.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Legal Standard for Rehearing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), a party may request rehearing of a decision
`
`by the Board whether to institute a trial. “The request must specifically identify all
`
`matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or reply.” Id.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`The Board will review the previous decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous
`
`interpretation of law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial
`
`evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Star
`
`Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard for Obviousness Where the Claimed Invention
`Falls Within a Prior Art Disclosed Range
`The claimed use of a specified amount of a known compound is presumed
`
`obvious if that amount falls within a range disclosed in a prior art reference, and that
`
`reference also discloses the claimed use of the compound. See Warner Chilcott Co.,
`
`LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 89 F. Supp. 3d 641, 673–74 (D.N.J. 2015), aff’d, 642
`
`F. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner failed to rebut presumption that claimed
`
`100 mg of EDTA was obvious in light of prior art 20–175 mg EDTA range); see
`
`also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (where the “claimed
`
`ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art, the conclusion [of obviousness]
`
`is even more compelling than in cases of mere overlap”); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
`
`1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (prima facie case of obvious established by prior art
`
`where disclosed range overlapped with claimed range at a single point); In re
`
`Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303 (CCPA 1974) (claimed invention is rendered prima
`
`facie obvious by the teachings of a prior art reference that discloses a range that abuts
`
`the range recited in the claim).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`Moreover, “where there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed
`
`invention falls within that range, the burden of production falls upon the patentee to
`
`come forward with evidence” that the claimed invention possess unexpected results
`
`over the prior art or that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention.
`
`Galderma, 737 F.3d at 737–38; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330. If the Patent Owner fails
`
`to adequately rebut this presumption, the claims must be found invalid as obvious.
`
`Id.; see also Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Home Semiconductor Corp., No. IPR2015–
`
`00467, 2016 WL 3228146, at *8 (PTAB June 13, 2016) (patent owner failed to rebut
`
`presumption of obviousness where prior art range “fully encompasses” claimed
`
`range by showing unexpected results or teaching away4).
`
`The Proper Obviousness Standard Was Not Applied.
`C.
`Petitioner presented evidence and the Board made a factual finding that the
`
`’510 Publication discloses a preferred oral dosage range of linagliptin from 1 to 100
`
`mg, 1 to 4 times a day, for treating type II diabetes and that the specific linagliptin
`
`dosages recited in the Challenged Claims fall within that range. (Paper 15 at 8–9).
`
`Despite this finding, the Board did not apply the correct legal standard and, as a
`
`result, it did not afford the Challenged Claims the presumption of obviousness and
`
`4 In order to teach away, a prior art reference must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise
`discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” Galderma, 737 F.3d at 739. “A
`reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an
`alternative invention . . . .” Id. at 738.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`require Patent Owner to overcome this presumption. (Id. at 16). See Ormco Corp. v.
`
`Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Galderma, 737 F.3d 737–
`
`38 (looking only to whether the claimed range was encompassed by the prior art
`
`range in applying the obviousness presumption).
`
`Instead, the Board found that Petitioner did not meet its burden because
`
`Petitioner provided no evidence showing why the POSA would have arrived at the
`
`precise linagliptin dosages (2.5 mg and 5.0 mg) recited in the Challenged Claims
`
`from the preferred oral dosage range disclosed in the ’510 Publication. (Paper 15 at
`
`15–16). While the ’510 Publication does not specify the precise linagliptin dosages
`
`claimed, Petitioner is not required to show that a POSA would have arrived at those
`
`precise dosages to establish obviousness. This is because the claimed dosages fall
`
`within the ’510 Publication’s dosage range. Galderma, 737 F.3d 737–38. As such,
`
`the Challenged Claims are prima facie obvious without having to show the POSA
`
`would have had a reason to modify the ’510 Publication’s range to achieve the exact
`
`same dosages recited in the Challenged Claims. Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1469. For at
`
`least this reason, the Board erred in requiring Petitioner to make such a showing.
`
`Further, based on the record evidence at this stage of the proceeding, the
`
`preferred range disclosed in the ’510 Publication is not so broad that it would
`
`preclude the presumption of obviousness from applying to the Challenged Claims.
`
`For instance, in its anticipation analysis, which the Board relied on in its obviousness
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`determination, the Board found that the ’510 Publication discloses a range between
`
`“20% to 160 times the claimed dosages.” (Paper 15 at 8–9). Even assuming,
`
`arguendo, that the Board correctly interpreted the scope of the ’510 Publication’s
`
`range, such scope is not even remotely comparable to those situations where the
`
`breadth of the prior art range is so outrageously broad that the presumption of
`
`obviousness cannot apply.5
`
`Indeed, the only time the presumption of obviousness will not be found is in
`
`extreme situations, such as where the scope of the disclosed prior art range is
`
`“potentially infinite” or encompasses millions of different compounds or
`
`combinations with different properties. See e.g., In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1992) (claims not obvious where prior art encompassed a “potentially infinite
`
`genus” of salts); In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (obviousness not
`
`found where prior art encompassed “more than 100 million different diphenols”); cf.
`
`Ex Parte Saini, No. 2012-004238, 2013 WL 3805052, at *2 (PTAB June 23, 2013)
`
`(distinguishing Jones and Baird and affirming the Examiner’s finding that the claims
`
`5 Although not critical to Petitioner’s request, Petitioner disputes the Board’s
`adoption of Patent Owner’s characterization of the ’510 Publication’s disclosure “1
`to 100 mg, in each case 1 to 4 times a day” as directed to only a total range of 1 mg
`to 400 mg of linagliptin. (See Paper 15 at 8–9). This is not the appropriate range for
`the Board’s obviousness determination as it is contrary to the disclosure’s plain
`meaning. The ’510 Publication plainly reveals “1 to 100 mg” 1X, 2X, 3X or 4X a
`day and necessarily includes administering “1 to 100 mg” of linagliptin once daily
`as a preferred, standalone dosage range.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`were prima facie obvious because broader prior art range encompassed narrower
`
`claimed range).
`
`In the present case, however, the preferred range disclosed in the ’510
`
`Publication is by no means “potentially infinite” nor does it encompass “more than
`
`100 million” dosages. The ’510 Publication’s preferred range of linagliptin is only
`
`“1 to 100 mg, in each case 1 to 4 times a day.” (See Paper 15 at 8–9). Thus, any
`
`finding that the scope of the ’510 Publication’s range is so extremely broad as to
`
`preclude a presumption of obviousness is not supported by substantial evidence and
`
`would represent an unreasonable judgment in weighing the evidence of record at this
`
`stage of the proceeding.
`
`D.
`
`The Board Routinely Applies an Obviousness Presumption When
`the Prior Art Range Encompasses the Claimed Amount
`The Board has routinely applied the legal standard of Ormco, Geisler,
`
`Peterson, Malagari, and Galderma in finding claimed inventions prima facie
`
`obvious, even where the prior art range—when compared to the claim limitation at
`
`issue—is relatively much broader than the ’510 Publication’s range as compared to
`
`the claimed linagliptin dosages. For example, in Ex Parte Berlin, the Board applied
`
`a legal presumption of obviousness for claims directed to pharmaceutical
`
`compositions of ibuprofen and phenylephrine because the prior art disclosed broader
`
`ranges of the two drugs encompassing the claimed ranges. No. 2011-009313, 2013
`
`WL 3339398, at *5 (PTAB May 31, 2013) (Scheiner, J.). There, the prior art taught
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`using a combination of 50–800 mg of ibuprofen with 1–100 mg of phenylephrine,
`
`while the claimed ranges were 150–250 mg of ibuprofen with less than 10 mg of
`
`phenylephrine. Id. at *1–*4. In Berlin, the patent applicant argued that it would not
`
`have been obvious to select the claimed dosage amount (< 10 mg) of phenylephrine.
`
`Id. at *5. The Board rejected applicant’s argument, explaining that the “claimed
`
`amounts fall squarely within the ranges suggested” by the prior art and that it “is
`
`well settled that selecting a narrow range from a broader disclosed range is prima
`
`facie obvious, absent a demonstration that the selected range is critical, generally by
`
`showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results.” Id. at *5–*6. Because
`
`the applicant failed to establish unexpected results,
`
`the Board affirmed the
`
`examiner’s rejection. Id.
`
`Similarly, in Ex Parte Saitou the Board held that the disclosure of a “very
`
`broad” range of “1,000 µm or less” was enough to establish a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness for the claimed range of “10 to 90 µm.” No. 2010-003525, 2011 WL
`
`2174633, at *1–*2 (PTAB May 31, 2011). There, the Board rejected the patent
`
`applicant’s argument that the prior art range was too broad to provide the motivation
`
`to select the more narrow claimed range. Id. at *2. After finding the applicant’s
`
`evidence of unexpected results insufficient to rebut the prima facie case, the Board
`
`affirmed the examiner’s rejection. Id. at *2–*4.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`Likewise, in Ex Parte Fehr, the Board held that a claimed molecular weight
`
`range of 600 to 770 was obvious over a “somewhat broader” molecular weight range
`
`of 200 to 10,000 that completely encompassed the claimed range. No. 2013-006774,
`
`2015 WL 4349960, at *3 (PTAB July 14, 2015). There, the Board agreed that the
`
`examiner was correct in finding the claims prima facie obvious. Id. at *2–*3. See
`
`also Ex Parte Reinsinger, No. 2009-013204, 2012 WL 991653, at *2 (PTAB Mar.
`
`22, 2012) (prior art range of +/- 8000 ppm disclosed a claimed range of +/- 300 ppm,
`
`and applicant failed to meet its rebuttal burden to establish that the claimed range
`
`was critical).
`
`The District Courts have also applied the same legal principle for presuming
`
`a claimed limitation would have been obvious. See, e.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V.
`
`v. Warner Chilcott Co., LLC, No. 13-cv-2088, 2016 WL 4497054, at *13 (D. Del.
`
`Aug. 26, 2016) (claims were prima facie obvious where the claimed dosage ranges
`
`fell “within the broad ranges” of the prior art disclosures); Warner Chilcott Co., 89
`
`F. Supp. 3d at 673–74.
`
`Importantly, in each decision discussed above: (i) the prior art did not disclose
`
`the precise amount recited in the claim(s)-at-issue; (ii) the claimed amount fell
`
`within the prior art disclosed range; and (iii) notably, the presumption of obviousness
`
`was applied without requiring a showing that the POSA would have had reason to
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`modify the prior art to arrive at the precise claimed amount or range. Accordingly,
`
`the Board erred in not presuming that the Challenged Claims were obvious.
`
`The Presumption of Obviousness was Not Overcome.
`E.
`Had the Board properly presumed the Challenged Claims were obvious, then
`
`it would have been required to shift the burden of production on the Patent Owner
`
`to come forward with sufficient evidence showing either that the claimed linagliptin
`
`amounts possessed unexpected properties relative to the prior art or that the prior art
`
`taught away from using the claimed amounts. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1990); Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1469. This the Board did not do.
`
`Even so, Petitioner provided evidence that there were no unexpected results
`
`(Paper 2 at 43–45; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 107–110). Patent Owner, on the other hand, did
`
`not provide any unexpected results, let alone address Petitioner’s evidence that there
`
`was a lack of unexpected results. (See generally, Paper 9). Moreover, the Board
`
`rejected Patent Owner’s contention that the prior art “taught away” from using 2.5
`
`mg and 5.0 mg of linagliptin. (Paper 15 at 13). Patent Owner also provided no expert
`
`declaration testimony to support its contention regarding the scope of the ’510
`
`Publication’s preferred oral dosage range of linagliptin. Accordingly, at this stage of
`
`the proceeding,
`
`there is insufficient record evidence adequately rebutting the
`
`presumption that the Challenged Claims were obvious. Thus, the Board erred in
`
`denying inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. respectfully
`
`requests that the Board institute inter partes review of claims 1–22 of the ’859 patent
`
`on the ground that the claims are obvious over the ’510 Publication, Ahrén, Hughes,
`
`and Brazg (Ground 3).
`
`Dated: March 1, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Thomas J. Parker /
`Thomas J. Parker
`Reg. No. 42,062
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: 212.210.9400
`Fax: 212.210.9444
`Thomas.parker@alston.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01566
`Patent 9,173,859
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that, on the
`
`1st day of March, 2017 a complete copy of the foregoing “MOTION FOR
`
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71” was served via e-mail on counsel for
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Leora Ben-Ami (Reg. No. 32,455)
`Email: leora.benami@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Tel: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`Jeanna Wacker (Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: jeanna.wacker@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Tel: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`Email: eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Tel: (312) 862-2000
`Fax: (312) 862-2200
`
`Mira Mulvaney (Reg. No. 69,850)
`Email: mira.mulvaney@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Tel: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`Dated: March 1, 2017
`
`/ Thomas J. Parker /
`Thomas J. Parker
`(Reg. No. 42,062)
`
`14
`
`
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
