throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., SUN
`PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
`INDUSTRIES, INC., and SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-008541
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER NOVARTIS AG’S AUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
` 1 Cases IPR2017-01550, IPR2017-01946, and IPR2017-01929 have been joined
`with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
`Argument.................................................................................................................... 2
`I.
`The Patent’s Claims Require Efficacy and Daily
`Administration. ...................................................................................... 2
`The Preambles ............................................................................. 2
`“Daily.” ...................................................................................... 4
`B.
`The Prior Art Taught Away From 0.5 mg for RRMS; the
`Results for That Dose Were Unexpected; and Grounds 1 and 2
`Are Without Merit. ................................................................................ 5
`A. Webb, Kahan 2003, and Park 2005 ............................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`The Skepticism of Others and the Clinical Trials’
`Unexpected Results ..................................................................... 9
`Petitioners’ Cherry-Picked References .................................... 12
`C.
`III. Ground 3 Fails For Lack of Legal Basis or Factual Support. ............. 15
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Coalition for Affordable Drubs V LLC, et al. v. Biogen M.A. Inc.,
`IPR2015-01993, Paper 63 (PTAB Mar. 21, 2017) ....................................... 11, 13
`Janssen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.,
`342 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 4
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 4
`Sanofi v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.,
`875 F.3d 636 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 11
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`Inventors Hiestand and Schnell discovered that far lower doses of fingolimod
`
`could help RRMS patients than were previously thought possible. The ’405 Patent
`
`claims these methods for using 0.5 mg daily to reduce relapses, treat the disease, and
`
`slow its progression. Unique EAE rodent model experiments gave the inventors the
`
`insight to see past the art teaching that a dose this low would not work. Later, clinical
`
`trials overcame experts’ skepticism and ultimately proved the dose effective.
`
`The Petition here relied on testimony from only a single expert, MS physician
`
`Dr. Barbara Giesser. (Ex. 1002.) But discovery showed Dr. Giesser conducted no
`
`independent literature review to support her obviousness arguments, instead relying
`
`solely on references supplied by counsel. Courts categorically reject such lawyer-
`
`driven analyses as per se hindsight, and thus unlawful. (Paper 26 at 42-44.) Dr.
`
`Giesser also lacks the qualifications and experience needed to provide the full view
`
`of a person of skill, which the Institution Decision defined to include a
`
`pharmacologist. Dr. Giesser manifestly is not a pharmacologist. (Id. at 44-46.)
`
`Petitioners dispute none of this in their Reply. (Paper 49.) Either the lack of
`
`testimony from a pharmacologist or the undisputed lawyer-driven nature of Dr.
`
`Giesser’s review would, by themselves, defeat the Petition for failing to make out a
`
`prima facie case. Petitioners now seek to back-fill with new testimony from Dr.
`
`Leslie Z. Benet, a pharmacologist. (Ex. 1047.) It is too late. The Board should deny
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`the Petition based on its failure to make a prima facie showing. But even if the
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`Board were to consider Dr. Benet’s views, they cannot save the Petition.
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Benet begin by trying to recast the Board’s claim
`
`constructions contrary to what the Institution Decision says. They then argue the
`
`prior art says something other than what it says; offer opinions on MS and EAE
`
`models beyond Dr. Benet’s expertise; improperly propound new invalidity theories
`
`beyond the Petition’s scope; and otherwise create a smokescreen around the
`
`Petition’s inadequacies. The Board should deny all three Grounds.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Dr. Benet is an eminent pharmacologist, but the wrong witness for this case.
`
`On cross-examination, he admitted his experience with the disease MS, the EAE
`
`animal model system, or the drug fingolimod is limited or non-existent—each key
`
`aspects of this case. (Ex. 2100 at 43:9-46:2; Ex. 2096 at ¶¶ 6-7.) Respectfully
`
`submitted herewith are declarations from experts to address Dr. Benet’s testimony:
`
`Exhibits 2096 (3d Steinman), 2095 (4th Jusko), 2097 (4th Lublin), and 2098 (Chun).
`
`I.
`
`The Patent’s Claims Require Efficacy and Daily Administration.
`The Preambles. The Patent claims methods “for” achieving different
`A.
`
`effects from giving 0.5 mg “daily” to a “subject in need”: (i) “preventing, reducing,
`
`or alleviating” relapses (claims 1 and 2); (ii) “treating” RRMS (claims 3 and 4); and
`
`(iii) “slowing progression” of RRMS (claims 5 and 6). (Ex. 1001 at 12:49-13:9.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`The Board rejected Petitioners’ non-limiting construction in the Institution Decision.
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`Among other things, the Board found that the presumption against claim
`
`“redundancy” requires giving each preamble meaning; otherwise, the claims would
`
`all collapse to the same scope. (Paper 11 at 12.)
`
`Petitioners try to revive their rejected construction by pretending the
`
`Institution Decision only requires the preambles to limit the “subject,” and not to
`
`achieve or intend to achieve the claimed effects. (Paper 49 at 7; Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 20-23.)
`
`Dr. Steinman shows (Ex. 2096 ¶¶ 9-11) this interpretation violates the law against
`
`redundancy. All active RRMS patients need all of the claimed effects. Petitioners
`
`agree. (Paper 49 at 7.) The preambles’ recited effects address different aspects of
`
`RRMS, as Dr. Giesser admitted on cross-examination. (Ex. 2096 ¶ 12.) The
`
`preambles thus must be construed to require that 0.5 mg daily provides these effects.
`
`Tellingly, Petitioners point to nothing in the patent to support their position,
`
`nor could they. As Dr. Steinman shows (id. ¶¶ 13-17), the specification repeatedly
`
`emphasizes the invention’s superior effectiveness over the prior art, as does the file
`
`history. Accordingly, the “ordinary and customary” meaning of the preambles
`
`would include that 0.5 mg be given “for” achieving the claimed effects.
`
`Petitioners rely heavily on In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012),
`
`to argue otherwise. (Paper 49 at 7.) Montgomery is inapposite. To begin with, the
`
`Federal Circuit, while “skeptical,” assumed the claims there in fact required efficacy.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`677 F.3d at 1380-81. Moreover, the challenged claims all related to only one method
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`with one effect—“treatment or prevention of stroke.” The Montgomery claims thus
`
`presented no redundancy issue, unlike here. Lastly, the Montgomery specification
`
`did not “describe any studies that show” stroke treatment or prevention. Id. at 1381.
`
`Here, the specification describes animal studies that show each of the claimed
`
`effects, as Dr. Steinman shows. (Ex. 2096 ¶¶ 14-15.)
`
`The claims here should thus be read to require efficacy. Alternatively, if the
`
`Board felt differently, the claims at the very least should be read to require that 0.5
`
`mg be given for the “intentional purpose for which the method must be performed.”
`
`Janssen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Without
`
`one or the other reading—requiring efficacy or a purpose—the claims would not be
`
`limiting, contrary to the Board’s Institution Decision.
`
`B.
`
`“Daily.” Besides trying to neuter the preambles, Petitioners strain to
`
`argue that the claimed “daily dosage” would be satisfied with a single, one-time 0.5
`
`mg administration, rather than day-by-day dosing. (Paper 49 at 8-9, 24-25; Ex. 1047
`
`¶¶ 107-16.) Petitioners thereby apparently hope to make one of the instituted
`
`references relevant—Budde 2002 describes a single administration of 0.5 mg in a
`
`Phase I safety study of stable renal transplant patients. (Ex. 1008.) But “daily” does
`
`not mean “once.” It means 0.5 mg per day for more than one day. Dr. Steinman
`
`shows that Dr. Benet’s reading is uninformed by any relevant experience. (Ex. 2096
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`¶¶ 21-22.) RRMS has no cure; therapies like fingolimod require continuous
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`administration to be effective. Giving the drug only once would be meaningless.
`
`II. The Prior Art Taught Away From 0.5 mg for RRMS; the Results for That
`Dose Were Unexpected; and Grounds 1 and 2 Are Without Merit.
`Dr. Giesser’s reliance on counsel’s cherry-picked references for her review
`
`missed the full scope of the art in June 2006. Contrary to her view, the art taught
`
`that 0.5 mg daily was unlikely to be effective in RRMS. Dr. Benet’s effort to back-
`
`fill what Dr. Giesser failed to address is improper.
`
`A. Webb, Kahan 2003, and Park 2005: The Art Teaching Away.
`
`Petitioners do not dispute that scientists in June 2006 believed fingolimod worked
`
`by sequestering lymphocytes in lymphatic tissue away from peripheral blood. That
`
`was thought to inhibit these immune cells from attacking transplanted organs or the
`
`body’s own tissues. (See, e.g., Ex. 2096 (3d Steinman) ¶¶ 2-5.)
`
`For RRMS, Webb reported results from EAE animal studies that “a threshold
`
`of about 70% depletion of peripheral lymphocytes was required to see any
`
`efficacy[.]” (Ex. 2014 at 118.) Human PK/PD studies in Kahan 2003 and Park 2005
`
`showed that 0.5 mg daily was unlikely to suppress lymphocytes to these levels. A
`
`person of skill thus would have thought 0.5 mg daily unlikely to be effective. (See
`
`Exs. 2022 (Steinman), 2024 (2d Jusko).)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`With no experience in performing EAE studies or in MS, Dr. Benet tries to
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`
`
`reinterpret graphical data to turn Webb and the human PK/PD analyses into
`
`references for Petitioners. Dr. Benet contends that certain averaged data in Webb
`
`shows that only 60% suppression was needed. (Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 40-48.) Having thus
`
`lowered the bar from 70% to 60%, Dr. Benet asserts that the human PK/PD papers
`
`show 0.5 mg daily suppresses lymphocytes by about 60% at peak levels, although
`
`average suppression was far lower. (Id. ¶¶ 49-53.)
`
`Dr. Chun and Dr. Steinman dismantle Dr. Benet’s analysis. (Exhibits 2096
`
`and 2098.) Dr. Chun, a Webb co-author, testifies the authors meant what they
`
`wrote—about 70% suppression was needed for any efficacy. (Ex. 2098 ¶¶ 2-9, 17-
`
`35.) He explains their judgment was informed by multiple data points, not just the
`
`averaged data Dr. Benet manipulates. (Id. ¶¶ 2-8, 36-41.) As is common, the Webb
`
`authors considered information not specifically graphed in the paper, including data
`
`from individual mice and qualitative assessments of various aspects of the EAE
`
`model. (Id.) Dr. Steinman confirms that a person of skill would have believed Webb
`
`as written. (Ex. 2096 ¶¶ 25-40.) The paper’s conclusions were the result of the
`
`collective judgment of the articles’ esteemed authors and had withstood rigorous
`
`peer review. (Id. ¶¶ 33-40.)
`
`In addition, Dr. Steinman explains that Dr. Benet’s reliance on maximum
`
`suppression data from the human PK/PD studies has no foundation. (Id. ¶¶ 41-54.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`RRMS is a chronic long-term disease that requires continuous, sustained therapy. A
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`dose that provides therapy only intermittently would be unacceptable. (Id. ¶¶ 48-
`
`51.)
`
`A person of skill evaluating 0.5 mg in June 2006 thus would have looked to
`
`average lymphocyte levels. Park 2005 showed that 0.5 mg daily only suppressed
`
`lymphocytes by 42% on average, with wide variation among patients and from
`
`week-to-week. Dr. Steinman explains why such peripatetic effects would be
`
`strongly disfavored for treating RRMS. (Id.) Dr. Chun, too, describes why Dr.
`
`Benet’s effort to use Webb’s analysis as justification for seizing on maximum
`
`suppression levels is misplaced. (Ex. 2098 ¶¶ 42-44.)
`
`Dr. Benet tries to undermine the teaching away evidence by also arguing that
`
`a later EAE study in “Kataoka” (Ex. 1029) supposedly pointed toward doses of 0.5
`
`mg. (Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 64-78.) Kataoka found that doses of 0.1 mg/kg were effective in
`
`treating mouse and rat EAE. Dr. Benet says that the mouse dose in Kataoka scales
`
`up to 0.5 mg in humans using an FDA Guidance on scaling animal doses for the
`
`first-in-human testing. On that basis, Dr. Benet contends that Kataoka would have
`
`undermined the teaching away in Webb, Kahan 2003, and Park 2005.
`
`Dr. Jusko shows why Dr. Benet is wrong. (Ex. 2095.) In June 2006, copious
`
`data existed to permit more accurate estimates of human dosing.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`First, Webb established an efficacy benchmark that Dr. Benet does not
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`
`
`disagree would be applied to humans too, and Kahan 2003 and Park 2005 supplied
`
`human data on whether different doses would meet that benchmark. With that
`
`information, a pharmacologist would not just extrapolate from one dose in an animal
`
`to a human dose. More refined methods existed. (4th Jusko, Ex. 2095 ¶¶ 3-18;
`
`Rowland, Ex. 2103; Troncoso, Ex. 2101 at 372.)
`
`Second, if scaling from an animal to a human dose were nonetheless tried, a
`
`pharmacologist would have used existing animal and human PK data to tailor the
`
`scaled dose to what was known about fingolimod in particular. A pharmacologist
`
`would not use a Guidance aimed at general dose scaling for any drug. Dr. Benet did
`
`not perform that analysis, and Dr. Jusko shows it would point to doses of 1.0 mg or
`
`higher for humans. (Id. ¶¶ 19-26.)
`
`Third, if the FDA Guidance were used—and it would not be—then a
`
`pharmacologist would look not only at Kataoka’s mouse but also its rat data, and
`
`would also explore variants permitted by the FDA Guidance. Dr. Benet limited
`
`himself to a single extrapolation from only the mouse, but a more complete review
`
`again would have pointed to doses of 1.0 mg or higher. (Id. ¶¶ 27-44; Mahmood,
`
`Ex. 2102; CDC Data, Ex. 2104 at 7; Tang, Ex. 2106 at 1298.)
`
`Put differently, Dr. Benet’s use of animal scaling—an idea well outside the
`
`scope of the Petition—points exactly the opposite way he and Petitioners contend.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The Skepticism of Others and the Clinical Trials’ Unexpected Results.
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`
`
`Consistent with the prior art teaching away, persons of skill in June 2006 in fact
`
`thought 0.5 mg unlikely to work, and were surprised when it did. Dr. Lublin was
`
`involved in the fingolimod clinical trials and sets out these facts in his Second
`
`Declaration. (Ex. 2025.) Petitioners offer no rebuttal from anyone else involved in
`
`the trials, or who even purports to have been aware of the trials at the time.
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Benet instead argue that Novartis’s press release touting
`
`successful results from the Phase II trial somehow would have told a person of skill
`
`that 0.5 mg was likely to be effective. (Paper 49 at 16.) Chavez (Ex. 2031) and the
`
`April 2006 press release (Ex. 2072) are nearly identical two-page documents
`
`describing the “sustained efficacy and good tolerability” of 1.25 mg and 5.0 mg in a
`
`Phase II MS study. Near the end of these documents, a few sentences describe an
`
`upcoming “Phase III study program.” The only mention of 0.5 mg is in one sentence:
`
`“Study participants will be equally randomized to either receive either 1.25 mg or
`
`0.5 mg of FTY720 or placebo once daily for up to 24 months.”
`
`Petitioners now say for the first time that these documents make the Patent
`
`obvious (if not anticipated). Far from it. Unlike the higher 1.25 mg dose from Phase
`
`II, 0.5 mg had never been given to a human RRMS patient before. As Dr. Lublin
`
`shows (Ex. 2097 ¶¶ 2-13), the mere announcement of a clinical trial would not tell a
`
`person of skill anything about whether 0.5 mg daily was likely to work.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Indeed, because 0.5 mg daily had never been given to an MS patient before,
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`
`
`Novartis adopted an unprecedented futility analysis to cut short that dosing arm if it
`
`proved ineffective. (Id. ¶¶ 14-16.) Mount Sinai nonetheless refused to participate
`
`in one of the trials at all due to concern that the 0.5 mg dose would be ineffective.
`
`(Id. ¶¶ 16-18; Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 45-47, 50-58.) Dr. Lublin shows that FDA was known to
`
`ask sponsors to evaluate doses lower than a person of skill would think effective.
`
`(Ex. 2097 ¶¶ 19-22.) MS has unique safety issues that prompt FDA to probe the
`
`lowest effective dose range for an potential MS medication. Petitioners and Dr.
`
`Benet offer no evidence to the contrary.
`
`Petitioners glaringly ignore Sanofi v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., 875 F.3d 636
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017), a case Novartis brought to Petitioners’ attention in January (Paper
`
`39 at 9-10). In Sanofi, as here, the patent owner filed an application seeking method
`
`claims after a Phase III trial had begun, but before the trial was done. Before the
`
`application, a paper described the ongoing trial saying the method was “expected”
`
`to work. The Federal Circuit nonetheless upheld the patent finding the clinical trial
`
`paper showed only that the inventors “hypothesized” efficacy. Id. at 647.
`
`Here, the facts are far stronger for Patent Owner. In Sanofi, the claimed
`
`method had already been the subject of extensive “post hoc” statistical analysis
`
`based on data from prior clinical trials (875 F.3d at 640; here, 0.5 mg had never been
`
`tested in an RRMS patient before. Plus, unlike in Sanofi, here nothing said that 0.5
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`mg daily was expected to work; on the contrary, Novartis and others commented
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`only on the prospects for 1.25 mg. (Ex. 2072 at 2; Ex. 2031 at 3; Ex. 2036 at
`
`385.) While Dr. Benet tries to characterize those statements as extending to both
`
`doses (Ex. 1047 ¶ 86), Dr. Lublin shows why Dr. Benet is mistaken (Ex. 2097 ¶¶ 9-
`
`11). Lastly, here the prior art taught away from the invention, a situation not present
`
`in Sanofi at all.
`
`The facts here are also stronger than in Coalition for Affordable Drubs V LLC,
`
`et al. v. Biogen M.A. Inc., IPR2015-01993, Paper 63 (PTAB Mar. 21, 2017), in which
`
`the Board nonetheless upheld an MS drug dosing patent (see Paper 26 at 32).
`
`Petitioners try (Paper 49 at 19) to distinguish Biogen on the theory that the claimed
`
`dosage in that case was close to another dose that had already been found ineffective.
`
`But here, the art taught affirmatively away from the claimed dose, an argument not
`
`presented in Biogen. So this distinction cannot withstand scrutiny.
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Benet acknowledge that 0.5 mg was included in the Phase
`
`III trial essentially as a Phase II built into a Phase III trial—precisely because 0.5
`
`had never gone through Phase II before. (Ex. 1047 ¶ 84.) An earlier Biogen case
`
`held that even a public description of a Phase II trial at most states a “hope” of
`
`efficacy; it does not render the claimed dose obvious. Coalition for Affordable
`
`Drugs V LLC v. Biogen MA Inc., IPR2015-01136, Paper 23 at 10 (PTAB Sept. 2,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`2015). So, too, here, where 0.5 mg daily had never been tested before in RRMS
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`patients.
`
`Petitioners argue that the futility analysis and Mount Sinai emails do not
`
`amount to “skepticism” because they were non-public. (Paper 49 at 20-23.) But the
`
`case Petitioners cite only concerns statements by an inventor inside a company,
`
`which these are not. Moreover, whether or not this evidence amounts to formal
`
`“skepticism,” it is objective, contemporaneous evidence of what experts in the field
`
`actually thought about the likelihood that 0.5 mg daily would be an effective dose.
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Benet argue (Paper 49 at 17-20) that the Phase III trial’s
`
`results were not unexpected given their flawed reading of the prior art, an argument
`
`that fails for the reasons stated above and in Novartis’s Response. Petitioners and
`
`Dr. Benet argue also that Kataoka presaged the unexpected result that 0.5 mg was
`
`equally effective with 1.25 mg. (Id. at 18; Ex. 1047 ¶¶ 71-78.) That argument is
`
`based on Dr. Benet’s flawed animal-scaling methodology, hindsight, and his
`
`misunderstanding of Kataoka. In actual fact, Kataoka buttressed Webb. Every
`
`effective mouse dose in Kataoka suppressed lymphocytes by more than 70%. (Ex.
`
`2095 ¶¶ 10-12; Ex. 2096 ¶¶ 70-74.) To the extent Kataoka teaches anything, it is
`
`that Webb’s fundamental finding remained unchallenged in June 2006.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners’ Cherry-Picked References. Petitioners continue to argue
`
`that any dose that showed any ability to suppress lymphocytes to any extent would
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`have been an obvious dose to use to treat RRMS in June 2006. (Paper 49 at 5-6, 18.)
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`But Webb and similar studies in transplant patients demolish that theory—the art
`
`showed that lymphocytes had to be suppressed beyond a minimum threshold to
`
`provide therapeutic benefit. Petitioners’ arguments based on Kovarik (Ex. 1004)
`
`and Kappos 2005 (Ex. 1007) fail for other reasons too.
`
`Kovarik. Petitioners do not dispute that the Board misread Kovarik in the
`
`Institution Decision. (See Paper 26 at 51-52.) But they continue to mischaracterize
`
`Kovarik as disclosing a 0.5 mg daily dose of fingolimod for multiple sclerosis.
`
`(Paper 49 at 1-3, 5-6, 8.) Dr. Steinman shows Kovarik does no such thing. (Ex.
`
`2096 ¶¶ 56-69.)
`
`Kovarik’s putative invention is located in its claims, none of which mentions
`
`any daily dose for any particular condition. (Id. ¶ 61; Ex. 1004 at 20-22.) The
`
`Kovarik invention instead is a dosage regimen in which a given daily dose or target
`
`drug blood concentration is used to calculate the loading dose. Kovarik’s
`
`specification thus provides many examples of many potential daily doses that could
`
`be used to calculate a loading dose for many possible conditions, but it never
`
`discloses any particular daily dose for any particular condition. (Ex. 1004 at 13-18.)
`
`Among these examples is a range of 0.1-0.5 mg for “an” unspecified
`
`autoimmune disease. Dr. Steinman showed that over 100 autoimmune diseases were
`
`known in June 2006 (Ex. 2022 ¶ 146), a fact Petitioners do not contest. They instead
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`argue that MS was included in an exemplary list in Kovarik, and thus would be
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`covered. (Paper 49 at 2; Ex. 1047 ¶ 27.) But the list in Kovarik is not exclusive—
`
`it is an “e.g.” list—so Kovarik purports to cover all autoimmune diseases. The
`
`Kovarik example Petitioners cite applies only to “an” autoimmune disease—just
`
`one—and Petitioners point to no reason to think it would be RRMS. In truth,
`
`Kovarik had no need to specify, because the passage Petitioners cite is merely an
`
`illustration of how Kovarik’s general loading dose works. (Ex. 2096 ¶¶ 63-69.)
`
`Kappos 2005. This abstract of the Phase II results showing 1.25 mg having
`
`equal efficacy to 5.0 mg would, among other things, have eliminated a person of
`
`skill’s reason for exploring a lower dose. (Paper 26 at 52.) Both doses were safe
`
`enough to be used for RRMS medications and showed good efficacy. (Ex. 2096
`
`¶¶75-77; Ex. 1007 at II/41.)
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Benet argue that Kappos 2005 should be read in light of
`
`Kataoka, and that both together would have predicted the efficacy curve would
`
`remain flat at 0.5 mg daily. (Paper 49 at 15; Ex. 1047 ¶ 71-78.) This argument is
`
`based on Dr. Benet’s flawed animal scaling theories, and should be rejected for those
`
`reasons. In addition, Petitioners fail to put in any evidence to counter Novartis’s
`
`evidence that the safety results in Kappos 2005 would have been sufficient to use
`
`either or both of the doses in that study as a medicine. (Paper 26 at 52.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`III. Ground 3 Fails For Lack of Legal Basis or Factual Support.
`Petitioners do not dispute Novartis’s showing (Paper 26 at 57-61) that the
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`statements in the cases Petitioners’ cite are dicta inconsistent with the AIA’s
`
`command that IPRs be limited “only” to 102 or 103 grounds based “only” on printed
`
`publications. The Board should deny Ground 3 for this reason alone.
`
`Petitioners also still provide no evidence to support their 112 theory that
`
`exclusion of loading doses lacks support. Neither Dr. Giesser nor Dr. Benet say a
`
`person of skill would read the specification as Petitioners contend. Dr. Giesser
`
`herself points to the absence of any loading dose discussion in the specification as
`
`evidence that no loading dose would be needed for the claimed method. (Ex. 1002
`
`¶ 123.) Hence, Novartis’s evidence that a person of skill in fact would understand
`
`the specification to describe “daily” dosing that excludes a loading dose—or at least
`
`permits the exclusion of such a dose in an embodiment—is unrebutted. (See
`
`Steinman, Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 10, 182-89.) Ground 3 should be denied for this reason too.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny the Petitions and find the
`
`’405 Patent valid.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dated: March 23, 2018
`
`
`
` /Jane M. Love, Ph.D./
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`Jane M. Love, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 42,812
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166-0193
`jlove@gibsondunn.com
`Tel: 212-351-3922
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on March 23, 2017, true and
`
`accurate copies of the foregoing Patent Owner Response for IPR2017-00854 (and
`
`accompanying Exhibits 2095-2107) were served via electronic mail, on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioners:
`
`For Apotex:
`
`For Argentum:
`
`
`For Sun:
`
`Steven W. Parmelee: sparmelee@wsgr.com
`Michael T. Rosato: mrosato@wsgr.com
`Jad A. Mills: jmills@wsgr.com
`
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: 206-883-2542
`
`
`Teresa Stanek Rea: trea@crowell.com
`Deborah H. Yellin: dyellin@crowell.com
`Shannon M. Lentz: slentz@crowell.com
`Tyler C. Liu: TLiu@agpharm.com
`
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`1001 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20004-2595
`(202) 624-2620
`
`Samuel Park: SPark@winston.com
`Charles B. Klein: CKlein@winston.com
`Sharick Naqi: SNaqi@winston.com
`
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00854
`U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405
`
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 558-7931
`
`Amanda Hollis: amanda.hollis@kirkland.com
`Eugene Goryunov: egoryunov@kirkland.com
`Gregory Springsted: gregory.springsted@kirkland.com
`
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`(202) 624-2620
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For Teva:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Jane M. Love, Ph.D./
`Jane M. Love, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 42,812
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166-0193
`jlove@gibsondunn.com
`Tel: 212-351-3922
`
`ii
`
`

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