`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALICAPS CO. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2017-00203
`Patent No. 6,649,180
`
`
`
`PETITIONER MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S IDENTIFICATION OF NEW ARGUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request Fundamentally Ignores the Burden of
`Producing Evidence Associated with Alleging Unexpected Results.
`
`While the ultimate burden of persuasion on establishing invalidity lies with
`
`Petitioner, the initial burden of production on secondary considerations, and with
`
`that nexus, lies with Patent Owner. J Squared, Inc. v. Sauder Mfg. Co., 2016 WL
`
`3541199, *16 (PTAB Jun. 27, 2016) (“The burden of showing that there is a nexus
`
`lies with the patent owner.”). Producing evidence of nexus in this proceeding is a
`
`prerequisite for Patent Owner to argue any secondary considerations outweighs the
`
`prima facie case, where the burden of persuasion lies with Petitioner. Petroleum
`
`Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngenco LLC, 2015 WL 1276706, *16 (PTAB Mar. 17,
`
`2015) (“Patent Owner’s citations . . . and respective arguments for legal
`
`insufficiency of the Petition are premature, as the evidence of secondary indicia of
`
`non-obviousness must be first developed in this proceeding by Patent Owner.”)
`
`(emphasis added). The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products
`
`confirms the shifting burden within obviousness is proper. Aqua Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Matal, 2015-1177 Slip. Op., p. 22-23 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2017). Only once Patent
`
`Owner’ evidence is presented can the shifting burdens in obviousness be followed.
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Patent Lit., 676 F.3d 1063, 1078-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`Each of Patent Owner’s positions would require Petitioner to assert
`
`responsive argument and evidence concerning Patent Owner’s nexus case before
`
`Patent Owner ever makes its case. In these proceedings, Patent Owner claims
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`nexus ought be presumed. Paper 26 at 37. In organic prosecution, Patent Owner
`
`made no attempt at showing nexus, presumed or otherwise, despite the MPEP
`
`requiring it to do so. See MPEP Sec. 2145. All the Tanjoh declaration (the alleged
`
`showing of unexpected results) does is reproduce the experiment of Table 1 of the
`
`‘180 patent. Ex. 1010, at 100-108. Petitioner demonstrated producing clear,
`
`precipitate free capsules was not an unexpected property of using HPMC. Paper 1,
`
`at 51-55. Patent Owner’s Response, and subsequent deposition of its expert,
`
`confirmed Patent Owner possesses no evidence of solving a problem by difference
`
`in kind and not degree.
`
`II. The Reply Was Responsive to Patent Owner’s Nexus Presumption and
`Lack of Evidence that the Inventors Solved a Problem.
`
`Petitioner demonstrated that the art was motivated to make clear capsules
`
`and obtaining them was expected. Paper 1, at 55 (“a capsule with an HPMC base
`
`and the claimed percentages of [HPO] and [MO] groups result in the clarity and
`
`stability that is a purported object of the invention …”). In its response, Patent
`
`Owner raised an argument that the inventors “discovered a surprising problem and
`
`invented an unexpected solution.” Paper 26, at 31. But in his deposition, Patent
`
`Owner’s expert stated that whether the cloud spotting (what Patent Owner argues
`
`was the problem) and the precipitates of Table 1 and the Tanjoh Declaration (the
`
`data allegedly supporting the notion the problem was solved) were the same thing
`
`was an assumption, but not his assumption. Paper 38, at 19. Thus, the Reply was
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`the first time Petitioner could rebut Patent Owner’s argument by pointing to the
`
`absence of evidence as to the nexus claim. Thus, the Reply was foundationally
`
`proper and directly responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments on its burden of
`
`showing nexus.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner next argues that Petitioner admitted cloud spotting and
`
`potassium chloride (gelling aid) precipitation were the same thing. But as Patent
`
`Owner’s doctored “quote” on page 1 shows, Petitioner showed capsule shells free
`
`of precipitation were known and expected but Petitioner certainly never postulated
`
`the precipitates were the “gelling aid.” Only after Patent Owner argued its
`
`evidence supports nexus, and that evidence explored, could Petitioner satisfy its
`
`burden.
`
`III. Patent Owner Had to Present Evidence of Criticality before Petitioner
`Could Rebut It.
`For its second and third complaints, Patent Owner again ignores its burden
`
`
`
`to produce evidence showing a problem was solved and that it was a difference of
`
`kind and not mere degree. Petitioner explained in Paper 1 at pages 52-53 the prior
`
`art taught clear, spot free capsules. It was first disclosed in Paper 26 at page 36-37
`
`that Patent Owner contended 37.6% (the upper end of the claimed range) creates “a
`
`property lacking from [the prior art]….” But Table 1 confirms 37.6% still has
`
`precipitation, though measured subjectively. Thus, the Reply was the first time
`
`Petitioner could address Patent Owner’s lack of evidence that 37.6% demonstrated
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`a “solution” or that whatever resulted from choosing 37.6% was anything more
`
`than an subjective improvement on appearance (Paper 1 at 52-53 showed clear
`
`capsules are a motivation) and thus merely a difference in degree. Paper 38, p. 20-
`
`21.
`
`Dated: October 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Registration No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Reg. No. 39,389
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
`LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, NE
`Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`(404) 815 6500
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`D. Clay Holloway
`Reg. No. 58,011
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, NE
`Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`(404) 815 6500
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 13, 2017 a copy of the
`
`foregoing Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Response To Patent Owner’s
`
`Identification Of New Arguments was served by electronic mail by agreement of
`
`the parties on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner.
`
`Jessica L. Parezo (jparezo@cov.com)
`Andrea G. Reister( areister@cov.com)
`Scott E. Kamholz (skamholz@cov.com)
`Michael N. Kennedy (mkennedy@cov.com)
`Megan P. Keane (mkeane@cov.com)
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`MaryAnne Armstrong (maa@bskb.com)
`Lynde F. Herzbach (lynde.herzbach@bskb.com)
`Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
`8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East
`Falls Church, VA 22042
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Registration No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`5
`
`