`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Celltrion, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Genentech, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 6,407,213
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01373
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER CELLTRION’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`Patent Owner is seeking to strike Exhibit 1193 and the arguments and
`
`testimony that rely on this Exhibit1 from the record because they show that Patent
`
`Owner has mischaracterized the prior art relevant to this proceeding. Patent Owner
`
`incorrectly proclaims in its Response that the subject matter claimed in the
`
`’213 patent is different from the prior art because it includes a human consensus
`
`sequence as a framework for humanized antibodies. This is simply incorrect. As
`
`noted throughout Petitioner’s papers, the prior art shows that others had
`
`successfully used a human consensus sequence to humanize antibodies.
`
`Petitioner’s entry of Exhibit 1193 into the record as additional evidence to show
`
`that Patent Owner’s position is wrong is not only proper, but is precisely the
`
`purpose of reply papers. Patent Owner should not be permitted to mischaracterize
`
`the prior art and then seek to strike any evidence that does not fit its narrative.
`
`Exhibit 1193 is a 1989 publication by Dr. Jefferson Foote, a scientist
`
`working in the field of antibody humanization prior to, and concurrently with, the
`
`alleged development of the subject matter of the challenged claims of the
`
`
`1 Patent Owner seeks to strike Exhibit 1193, the first full paragraphs on pages 15
`
`and 21 of Petitioner’s Reply, paragraph 30 of Exhibit 1143, and Exhibit 1138 at
`
`176:25-178:23.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`’213 patent. Exhibit 1193 describes Dr. Foote’s development of a humanized anti-
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`lysozyme antibody in which he created a light chain framework using a human
`
`consensus sequence. (Ex. 1193, 106.) As explained in Dr. Riechmann’s
`
`deposition, in his humanization of the CAMPATH antibody, Dr. Riechmann used
`
`the same light chain framework that Dr. Foote created and used in the anti-
`
`lysozyme antibody. (Ex. 2039 at 118:1-18 .) Dr. Wilson, Patent Owner’s expert,
`
`also testified at deposition about Exhibit 1193—testimony that Patent Owner now
`
`seeks to strike—in response to questions regarding his opinions about whether
`
`consensus sequences were known in the prior art. (Ex. 1138 at 176:15-178:23.)
`
`As discussed in more detail below, Petitioner’s Reply properly relies on
`
`Exhibit 1193 for two arguments in response to Patent Owner’s positions: (1)
`
`contrary to Patent Owner’s argument that the ’213 patent’s consensus sequence
`
`differentiated the claimed antibodies from prior art humanized antibodies, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have known that others in the field had
`
`successfully used a human consensus sequence in a humanized antibody, and (2) it
`
`would not have been unexpected for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the
`
`same consensus sequence to humanize multiple antibodies.
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Arguments are Proper
`
` “There is no blanket prohibition against the introduction of new evidence
`
`during an inter partes review proceeding.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). New evidence is “perfectly permissible” if the
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`opposing party has notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond. Id. But
`
`the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that this is not the only permissible use of
`
`new evidence after the petition:
`
`In addition, the petitioner in an inter partes review
`proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition
`stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence
`introduced by the patent owner, or if it is used ‘to
`document the knowledge that a skilled artisan would
`bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as
`producing obviousness.’
`
`Id. at 1380-81(citing Genzyme Therapeutic Prod. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm.
`
`Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`In Anacor, the petitioner used one of the supposedly untimely references
`
`during the deposition of the patent owner’s expert, in response to statements made
`
`by the expert witness. Anacor, 889 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit held that
`
`introducing a responsive reference into the record in this manner did not deny
`
`Anacor its procedural rights, because the Board did not materially deviate from the
`
`obviousness theory set forth in the petition and Anacor had ample notice of the
`
`reference. Id. at 1382. As in Anacor, the Foote reference was used in at the
`
`deposition of Dr. Ian Wilson, Patent Owner’s expert, in direct response to
`
`testimony that the use of consensus sequences was not known in the prior art. (Ex.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`1138 at 176:15-178:23.) Patent Owner now seeks to strike this testimony of its
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`own expert.
`
`Here, Petitioner’s citation of Exhibit 1193 in its reply was proper not only
`
`because Patent Owner had notice of the subject matter of the disputed material, but
`
`also because it directly contradicts Patent Owner’s arguments in its Response.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Does Not Alter the Instituted Grounds of Invalidity
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner’s invalidity arguments are “new”
`
`or “evolving” are wrong. As stated in both the Petition and Reply, the challenged
`
`claims of the ’213 patent are invalid as obvious in light of the prior art identified in
`
`the instituted grounds. (Paper 2 (Petition) at 26-57; Paper 53 (Reply) at 4-18.) As
`
`Patent Owner acknowledges, a subset of the challenged claims require the use of a
`
`“consensus” sequence, as defined in the ’213 patent. (Paper 59 (Motion to Strike)
`
`at 2.) The Petition explains that the prior art disclosed, or would have taught a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to make, a consensus sequence for use in a
`
`humanized antibody. Specifically, as of the priority date, Queen 1990 (Ex. 1050)
`
`or Queen 1989 (Ex. 1034) in combination with Kabat 1987 (Ex. 1052) and/or the
`
`PDB database would have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a
`
`human consensus sequence or make substitutions to move towards a more human
`
`sequence.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`Petitioner maintains that the grounds set forth in the Petition, and on which
`
`
`
`the Board instituted this proceeding, show the invalidity of the challenged claims.
`
`The paragraph that Patent Owner argues is asserting a “new invalidity theory” does
`
`no such thing. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not offer
`
`Exhibit 1193 as a substitute for the disclosure of a consensus sequence in either
`
`Queen 1990 or Queen 1989 in combination with other prior art. Petitioner relies
`
`on Exhibit 1193 in its Reply at page 15 as rebuttal evidence showing that Patent
`
`Owner had misconstrued the prior art in its Response, in particular regarding what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood about the use of human
`
`consensus sequences. Petitioner did not modify the instituted grounds of invalidity
`
`in this proceeding. (Paper 53 (Reply) at 12-15.) Patent Owner’s claim that it is
`
`prejudiced by new disclosures of elements in the claims is baseless.
`
`B.
`
`The Disputed Material was Raised in Reply to Evidence Introduced
`by the Patent Owner and Reflects the Knowledge of a POSA
`
`1.
`
`The Disputed Material Responds to Patent Owner’s
`Mischaracterizations of the Prior Art and the Knowledge of a
`POSA
`
`Patent Owner misrepresented the prior art in this proceeding by stating in its
`
`Response that the ’213 patent was “[u]nlike prior art humanized antibodies”
`
`because the claimed antibodies were constructed with a human consensus
`
`sequence. (Paper 37 (POR) at 1.) Patent Owner made similar statements when
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`describing the inventors’ development of the claimed subject matter, stating that
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`the inventors “developed a new approach to humanizing antibodies . . . . Rather
`
`than [using] an actual antibody, the inventors developed an artificial ‘consensus
`
`human sequence.’” (Paper 37 (POR) at 8.) Patent Owner went on to tout that
`
`“[a]ntibodies containing the ’213 patent’s consensus sequence were a significant
`
`advance over the prior art.” (Paper 37 (POR) at 9-10.) Additionally, Patent
`
`Owner’s expert, Dr. Wilson, stated in his declaration that it was his opinion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in using a human consensus sequence for a humanized antibody because
`
`there was insufficient information in the prior art. (See, e.g., Ex. 2041 at ¶¶ 219-
`
`225.)
`
`Petitioner relied on Exhibit 1193 to respond to these arguments and correct
`
`the record. The paragraph Patent Owner points to on page 15 of Petitioner’s Reply
`
`merely explains that, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have known that others in the field had successfully used a
`
`consensus sequence in humanization projects. Thus, Petitioner was properly
`
`responding to Patent Owner’s arguments and should not be prevented from
`
`correcting Patent Owner’s mischaracterizations of the prior art or the knowledge of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`2.
`
`The Disputed Material Also Responds to Patent Owner’s
`Assertions of Unexpected Results
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner argued that unexpected results showed that
`
`the challenged claims were not obvious in light of the prior art. Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner argued that it would not have been expected that a consensus
`
`sequence could be used to humanize multiple antibodies. (Paper 37 (POR) at 63-
`
`65.) Relying on Dr. Wilson’s declaration, Patent Owner argued: “Before the ’213
`
`invention, scientists believed that it was necessary to identify an existing human
`
`antibody framework sequence . . . as a starting point. . . . The ’213 patent’s
`
`consensus sequence approach unexpectedly allowed numerous different antibodies
`
`to be humanized from a single consensus sequence. . . .” (POR at 64, citing Ex.
`
`2041 at ¶¶ 261-62.)
`
`To contradict Patent Owner’s unexpected results argument, Petitioner
`
`properly pointed to Dr. Riechmann’s use of Dr. Foote’s consensus sequence to
`
`show that the use of a single sequence in multiple humanization projects would not
`
`have been unexpected. (See Paper 53 (Reply) at 21.) Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that Petitioner could rely on Queen 1990 and Queen 1989 to make the same
`
`argument is incorrect. Petitioner relies on Queen 1990 and Queen 1989 to show
`
`that the prior art disclosed and/or taught the use of a consensus sequence in a
`
`humanized antibody. Petitioner relies on Foote (Ex. 1193) to show that, contrary
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`to Patent Owner’s unexpected results arguments, a human consensus sequence was
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`successfully used in multiple antibody humanization projects in the prior art.
`
`These are distinct arguments, and Petitioner cannot “simply rely on Queen 1990 or
`
`Queen 1989” because Foote does not disclose “the same thing,” as Patent Owner
`
`suggests. (Paper 59 (Motion to Strike) at 6.) Thus, Patent Owner’s assessment
`
`that Petitioner’s use of Foote to rebut the alleged unexpected results “make little
`
`practical sense” misconstrues Petitioner’s argument and is incorrect.
`
`Further, the relevance of this evidence to Patent Owner’s arguments of
`
`unexpected results significantly outweighs any alleged prejudice to Patent Owner,
`
`particularly when Patent Owner was aware of these facts and ignored them. Patent
`
`Owner cannot dispute that it was aware of Exhibit 1193, its contents, and its
`
`relationship to Dr. Reichmann’s work prior to this proceeding. In an amendment
`
`to the claims during prosecution of the ’213 patent, Patent Owner stated to the
`
`examiner that “[a]pplicants have now learnt that the humanized light chain gene of
`
`the CAMPATH-1 antibody in Riechmann et al. [Ex. 1069] was converted from an
`
`anti-lysozyme construct (see page 108 of Foote [Ex. 1193]). Foot’s anti-lysozyme
`
`construct was prepared . . . with consensus human kappa frameworks.” (See Ex.
`
`1002 at 340.) This is precisely the information that Petitioner included in its Reply
`
`and Patent Owner seeks to strike.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`Patent Owner should not now be allowed to suppress this evidence—which
`
`
`
`corrects its mischaracterizations of the prior art—simply because it was not
`
`explicitly addressed in the Petition. Patent Owner acknowledged during
`
`prosecution that another scientist had used a consensus sequence to humanize an
`
`antibody, and that the same consensus sequence was used in yet another
`
`humanized antibody; and yet, Patent Owner still made representations in this
`
`proceeding that use of a consensus sequence differentiated the challenged claims
`
`from the prior art and the use of a single consensus sequence in multiple antibodies
`
`would have been unexpected. (Paper 37 (POR) at 1, 8, 64.) Petitioner should not
`
`be precluded from relying on evidence that Patent Owner knew about, but chose to
`
`ignore because it contradicts Patent Owner’s narrative.2
`
`
`2 Patent Owner also had knowledge of Dr. Foote’s and Dr. Riechmann’s use of a
`
`human consensus sequence from Dr. Foote’s declaration that was submitted as
`
`Exhibit 1003 in the co-pending, related IPR2017-01488 and -01489. (IPR2017-
`
`01488, -01489, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 103.) Patent Owner deposed Dr. Foote regarding his
`
`involvement in Dr. Riechmann’s humanization of the CAMPATH-1 antibody and
`
`did not object when counsel for Pfizer introduced Exhibit 1193 and questioned Dr.
`
`Foote about it. (IPR2017-01488, -01489, Ex. 2039 at 328:6-330:11.)
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`C.
`
`That Petitioner Knew About the Disputed Material Is Irrelevant
`
`There is no requirement that a Petitioner must put all relevant knowledge
`
`into the Petition. That Petitioner knew or should have known about Exhibit 1193
`
`when drafting the Petition does not preclude its use in Petitioner’s Reply,
`
`particularly because, as described above, it was properly raised to rebut Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments and correct its mischaracterizations.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner’s motion to strike should be denied.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 6, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No. 53,179)
`Elizabeth J. Holland (Reg. No. 47,657)
`Robert V. Cerwinski (admitted pro hac vice)
`Linnea P. Cipriano (Reg. No. 67,729)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile)
`
`Sarah J. Fischer (Reg. No. 74,104)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA, 02210
`(617) 570-3908 (telephone)
`(617) 801-8991 (facsimile)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 6th of July, 2018, I
`
`caused a copy of this PETITIONER CELLTRION’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION TO STRIKE by email on the lead and back up counsel for
`
`Patent Owners at:
`
`David Cavanaugh (David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Lauren V. Blakely (lauren.blakely@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Robert Gunther (Robert.Gunther@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Adam Brausa (abrausa@durietangri.com)
`
`Daralyn Durie (ddurie@durietangri.com)
`
`Andrew Danford (Andrew.Danford@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Lisa Pirozzolo (Lisa.Pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Kevin Prussia (Kevin.Prussia@wilmerhale.com)
`
`By: /Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No. 53,179)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`