Case IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`APOTEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`Title: USE FOR DEFERIPRONE
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER APOTEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`APOTEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`Title: USE FOR DEFERIPRONE
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER APOTEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ........... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUEST ................................................................... 2
`
`
`A.
`
`
`The Decision Failed to Properly Apply the Law Governing Inherent
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`The Board Misapplied the Law Governing Inherency in the
`Analysis of Hoffbrand 1998 ........................................................ 3
`
`The Board Misapplied the Law Governing Inherency in the
`Analysis of Olivieri Abstract 1995 ............................................. 5
`
`The Board Misapplied the Law Governing Inherency in the
`Analysis of Olivieri 1995 .......................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`
`The Board Misapplied the Law Governing Inherency in its
`Obviousness Analysis ......................................................................... 12
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Agilent Tech., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`
`567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................... 2, 4, 5, 6, 11
`
`Coalition For Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene Corp.,
`
`Case IPR2015-01096, -01102, -01103 (Sept. 8, 2017) (Paper 78) ................. 9
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. Of Regents of the Univ. of Wash.,
`
`334 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................... 2
`
`In re Montgomery,
`
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11
`
`In re Oelrich,
`
`666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) .............................................................. 3, 4, 6, 11
`
`In re Robertson,
`
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................... 4, 6, 7, 11
`
`MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum,
`
`192 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....................................................................... 4
`
`PNY Tech., Inc. v Phison Elecs. Corp.,
`
`Case IPR2013-00472 (PTAB April 23, 2014) (Paper 16) ............................... 1
`
`Stevens v. Tamai,
`
`366 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 2
`
`STATUTES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ...............................................................................................1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763 ............................................................................................... 8
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), Patent Owner, Apotex Technologies, Inc.
`
`Case IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`(“Patent Owner”), hereby submits the following Request for Rehearing in response
`
`to the Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`(“the Decision”) (Paper 7).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Decision ordered review on six grounds of unpatentability: (i) claims 1,
`
`2, 4-11, 13-17, and 19 as anticipated by Hoffbrand 1998; (ii) claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-
`
`17, and 19 as anticipated by Olivieri Abstract 1995; (iii) claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-17,
`
`and 19 as anticipated by Olivieri 1995; (iv) claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19 as obvious
`
`over Hoffbrand 1998; (v) claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19 as obvious over Olivieri
`
`Abstract 1995; and, (vi) claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19 as obvious over Olivieri 1995.
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”)
`
`reconsider its decision to institute on all grounds in light of the governing law on
`
`inherency. See, e.g., PNY Tech., Inc. v. Phison Elecs. Corp., IPR2013-00472,
`
`(PTAB April 23, 2014) (Paper 16) (granting-in-part a request for rehearing because
`
`the Board “misapplied the standard for inherency”). Patent Owner further requests
`
`that no trial be instituted on U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328 (“the ’328 patent”).
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, the panel will review the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion
`
`is found where the decision “(1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2)
`
`is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact
`
`findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board
`
`could rationally base its decision.” Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. Of Regents of the Univ. of Wash., 334
`
`F.3d 1264, 1266-67 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`III. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUEST
`
`A. The Decision Failed to Properly Apply the Law Governing
`Inherent Anticipation
`Patent Owner requests reconsideration of the decision to institute on claims
`
`1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, and 19 as anticipated by Hoffbrand 1998, Olivieri Abstract 1995,
`
`and Olivieri 1995, because the Board failed to adhere to the legal standards for
`
`inherency. Specifically, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the evidence of
`
`record fails to show that any of Hoffbrand 1998, Olivieri Abstract 1995, and
`
`Olivieri 1995 “unavoidably teaches” the treatment of patients who have an iron
`
`overload condition of the heart or iron-induced cardiac disease. See Agilent Tech.,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Oelrich,
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
`
`1.
`
`The Board Misapplied the Law Governing Inherency in the
`Analysis of Hoffbrand 1998
`Independent claims 1, 2, and 4-10 of the ’328 patent require treatment of
`
`patients with a therapeutically effective amount of deferiprone who have “‘an iron
`
`overload condition of the heart’ or ‘iron-induced cardiac disease’ . . . .” (Decision
`
`at 19.) The decision to institute on anticipation by Hoffbrand 1998 rests on a
`
`finding “of the inevitability of treatment success by . . . administration of an
`
`amount of deferiprone, 75 mg/kg . . . to at least ten patients with iron content
`
`‘within the range that has been associated with cardiac disease’.” (Id. at 20.)
`
`Hoffbrand 1998 does not explicitly disclose administering a therapeutically
`
`effective amount of deferiprone to patients having “an iron overload condition of
`
`the heart” or “iron-induced cardiac disease.” (See Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response at 39-40.) Accordingly, the finding that Hoffbrand 1998 discloses this
`
`limitation relies on inherency stemming from the assumption that “‘10 patients
`
`[who] had a liver iron content above 15.0 mg/kg dry weight’ . . . necessarily had
`
`iron levels sufficient for iron overload conditions of the heart.” (Decision at 19.)
`
`The assumption on which the Board relies, however, is insufficient to meet the
`
`legal requirements for inherency.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`It is well settled that inherency “may not be established by probabilities or
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`possibilities.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re
`
`Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581); MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362,
`
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given
`
`set of circumstances is not sufficient.” (Id.) In fact, “inherency does not follow
`
`even from a very high likelihood that a prior art method will result in the claimed
`
`invention.” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Rather,
`
`“[t]he keystone of the inherency doctrine is inevitability.” Id. at 1384 (“Our
`
`precedent has been steadfast in this strict requirement of inevitability.”) Inherency
`
`requires that the “reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent
`
`Tech., 567 F.3d at 1383 (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581).
`
`As stated in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, “there is a discordance
`
`between liver iron content and heart iron content” and “liver iron content cannot be
`
`used to establish that a patient has iron induced cardiac disease.” (Preliminary
`
`Response at 39 (emphasis in original) (citing Ex. 2003 at ¶ 51).) Even Hoffbrand
`
`1998 never discloses that any patient has an iron overload condition of the heart or
`
`iron-induced cardiac disease on the basis of liver iron content. Instead, Hoffbrand
`
`1998 states—as quoted by the Board—that the 10 patients had liver iron content
`
`“‘that has been associated with cardiac disease.’” (Decision at 19, 20 (emphasis
`
`added).)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Despite being fully cognizant that Hoffbrand 1998 merely discloses an
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`“association” between liver iron content and cardiac disease, the Board nonetheless
`
`instituted trial based on inherent anticipation by Hoffbrand 1998 thereby
`
`committing legal error. Indeed, although the Federal Circuit has made clear that
`
`inherency cannot be established based on “probabilities or possibilities,” the Board
`
`based its conclusion on an “association” between liver iron content and cardiac
`
`disease. An “association,” however, does not meet the strict requirement of
`
`inevitability. Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1384 (“The keystone of the inherency
`
`doctrine is inevitability.”) Inherency requires that the “reference unavoidably
`
`teaches the property in question,” see Agilent Tech., 567 F.3d at 1383, and
`
`Hoffbrand 1998 fails to unavoidably or inevitably teach that patients having an
`
`iron overload condition of the heart or iron-induced cardiac disease were treated
`
`using deferiprone.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the decision to institute on claims
`
`1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, 19 as anticipated by Hoffbrand 1998 be withdrawn and the
`
`ground denied.
`
`2.
`
`The Board Misapplied the Law Governing Inherency in the
`Analysis of Olivieri Abstract 1995
`The decision to institute on anticipation by Olivieri Abstract 1995 rests on
`
`an erroneous finding “that the reduced T2 relaxation time [“TRT”] data in Olivieri
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Abstract 1995 is evidence that patients were experiencing an iron overload
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`condition of the heart . . . .” (Decision at 24.) However, Olivieri Abstract 1995
`
`never equates abnormal TRT values with “an iron overload condition of the heart”
`
`or “iron-induced cardiac disease.” Accordingly, the finding that Olivieri Abstract
`
`1995 discloses this limitation relies on inherency stemming from the assumption
`
`that “that the reduced T2 relaxation time data in Olivieri Abstract 1995 is evidence
`
`that patients were experiencing an iron overload condition of the heart . . . .” (Id.)
`
`This assumption, however, is insufficient to meet the legal requirements for
`
`inherency. As explained above, inherency “may not be established by probabilities
`
`or possibilities.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745. Rather, “[t]he keystone of the
`
`inherency doctrine is inevitability.” Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1384; see also
`
`Agilent Tech., 567 F.3d at 1383 (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581).
`
`As stated in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response “the presence of cardiac
`
`iron does not definitively [i.e., inevitably] signal an iron overload condition of the
`
`heart.” (Preliminary Response at 43 (citing Ex. 2003 at ¶ 56 (“to the extent that
`
`iron, albeit an unquantifiable amount, was detected in patients in Olivieri Abstract
`
`1995, this does not indicate that said patients necessarily had an iron overload
`
`condition of the heart”).) Indeed, the Board credited Dr. Pennell and Dr. Coates in
`
`confirming that “even if iron were present in the heart, this does not conclusively
`
`[i.e., inevitably] establish that a patient has cardiac disease.” (Decision at 23
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`(citing Ex. 2001 at ¶ 59).) Notably, even “Dr. Olivieri never ascribes abnormal
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`TRT values to a pathological condition, or so much as mentions cardiac disease
`
`(i.e., an iron overload condition of the heart)” in Olivieri Abstract 1995.
`
`(Preliminary Response at 43.) Instead, Olivieri Abstract 1995 merely states—as
`
`quoted by the Board—“MRI demonstrates changes consistent with reduction in
`
`cardiac iron in [deferiprone]-treated pts, in whom baseline T2 relations time (TRT)
`
`. . . has increased . . . .” (Decision at 22.)
`
`Despite being fully aware that Olivieri Abstract 1995 never explicitly
`
`discloses patients having “an iron overload condition of the heart” or “iron-induced
`
`cardiac disease,” the Board nonetheless instituted trial on the basis of inherent
`
`anticipation thereby committing legal error in at least three respects. First,
`
`although the Federal Circuit has made clear that inherency cannot be established
`
`based on “probabilities or possibilities,” the Board improperly based its conclusion
`
`on the notion that abnormal TRT values indicate high cardiac iron, which in turn
`
`indicates cardiac disease. (Decision at 24.) However, as explained above, the
`
`presence of cardiac iron does not inevitably indicate an iron overload condition of
`
`the heart. Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1384. The mere possibility, or even
`
`probability, that patients with cardiac iron might also have an iron overload
`
`condition of the heart or iron-induced cardiac disease is not sufficient to establish
`
`inherency under the Federal Circuit standard. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745;
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`see also Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1384 (“inherency does not follow even from a
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`very high likelihood that a prior art method will result in the claimed invention.”)
`
`Second, the Board committed legal error when it based its assumptions on
`
`unsubstantiated testimony from Dr. Mehta. (Decision at 22-24.) For example, the
`
`Board relies on Dr. Mehta for the notion that “the reduced T2 relaxation time data
`
`in Olivieri Abstract 1995 is evidence that patients were experiencing an iron
`
`overload condition of the heart . . . .” (Id. at 24, citing Ex. 1002 at ¶ 75.)
`
`However, Dr. Mehta’s statement that “lower TRT values indicate cardiac disease
`
`due to iron overload” (see Ex. 1002 at ¶ 75) is not based on any underlying fact or
`
`data, but instead is mere conjecture. Indeed, Dr. Mehta’s sole support for this
`
`statement is citation to Olivieri Abstract 1995, but the patients discussed therein
`
`were never disclosed as having cardiac disease, heart disease, or even an iron
`
`overload condition of the heart. Nor does Olivieri Abstract 1995 ever directly
`
`equate “lower TRT values” with “cardiac disease.” (See Ex. 1010; Preliminary
`
`Response at 43.) Further, Dr. Mehta similarly fails to provide any factual support
`
`for his assertion that “patients who were treated with deferiprone in Olivieri
`
`Abstract 1995, with low TRT values, had iron overload condition of the heart.”
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶ 75.) Accordingly, the Board should have assigned Dr. Mehta’s
`
`testimony little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`opinion is based.”)
`
`Third, the Board appeared to improperly shift the burden of proof by stating
`
`that “although [Patent Owner’s] Declarants criticize the data, they provide no
`
`evidence rebutting the finding in Olivieri Abstract 1995 that particular patients
`
`being treated with deferiprone . . . were not experiencing an iron overload
`
`condition of the heart.” (Decision at 24.) This is legal error. The proper focus is
`
`not whether the Patent Owner, and its Declarants, provided evidence rebutting that
`
`Olivieri Abstract 1995 taught patients having an iron overload condition of the
`
`heart (which, to be clear Patent Owner did (see Preliminary Response at 43-44)),
`
`but whether Petitioner came forth with evidence sufficient to demonstrate this
`
`limitation was disclosed in Olivieri Abstract 1995. See, e.g., Coalition For
`
`Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene Corp., Case IPR2015-01096, -01102, -01103
`
`(Sept. 8, 2017) (Paper 78) (Granting a Request for Rehearing and noting, inter alia,
`
`that “the proper focus is not on whether the Patent Owner disputed the fact, but
`
`whether Petitioner came forward with evidence sufficient to demonstrate”
`
`disclosures in the field.) In this case, Petitioner has not made a threshold showing
`
`that Olivieri Abstract 1995 taught the treatment of patients having an iron overload
`
`condition of the heart (see Preliminary Response at 42-46)—and the Board
`
`improperly applied the inherency standard and relied on unsubstantiated testimony
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`from Dr. Mehta in finding otherwise.
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the decision to institute on claims
`
`1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, 19 as anticipated by Olivieri Abstract 1995 be withdrawn and the
`
`ground denied.
`
`3.
`
`The Board Misapplied the Law Governing Inherency in the
`Analysis of Olivieri 1995
`The decision to institute on anticipation by Olivieri 1995 rests on a finding
`
`that “at least the ten patients discussed in Olivieri 1995 [had] iron levels
`
`‘associated with an increased risk of cardiac disease and early death’” which
`
`“necessarily satisf[ies] the requirement for having ‘an iron overload condition of
`
`the heart’ or ‘iron-induced cardiac disease’ . . . .” (Decision at 30.) However,
`
`much like Olivieri Abstract 1995 and Hoffbrand 1998, Olivieri 1995 never
`
`explicitly discloses patients having “an iron overload condition of the heart” or
`
`“iron-induced cardiac disease.” Accordingly, the finding that Olivieri 1995
`
`discloses this limitation again relies on inherency stemming from the assumption
`
`that patients with hepatic iron stores at “levels associated with an increased risk of
`
`cardiac disease and early death” necessarily had “an iron overload condition of the
`
`heart” or “iron-induced cardiac disease.” (Id.) This assumption, however, is
`
`insufficient to meet the legal requirements for inherency. As discussed above,
`
`inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” In re
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745. Instead, “[t]he keystone of the inherency doctrine is
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`inevitability.” Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1384; see also Agilent Tech., 567 F.3d at
`
`1383 (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581).
`
`Olivieri 1995 merely discloses the treatment of ten patients who had hepatic
`
`iron stores at levels “associated with an increased risk” of cardiac disease, but
`
`Olivieri 1995 never characterized any patient as actually having “an iron overload
`
`condition of the heart” or “iron-induced cardiac disease,” a disclosure that neither
`
`Petitioner nor Dr. Mehta relied upon in alleging inherent anticipation. The Board
`
`nonetheless instituted trial based on inherent anticipation, and in doing so
`
`committed legal error. Patients having an increased risk of cardiac disease does
`
`not and cannot establish the required inevitability that the patients in Olivieri 1995
`
`had cardiac disease. Montgomery, 677 F.3d at 1384 (“inherency does not follow
`
`even from a very high likelihood that a prior art method will result in the claimed
`
`invention.”).
`
`Further, while Olivieri 1995 discloses that “[t]wo patients with insulin-
`
`dependent diabetes had cardiac disease” (see Decision at 29, citing Ex. 1012 at
`
`918), the Board never relies on this disclosure in its inherency analysis over
`
`Olivieri 1995. However, even if the Board had relied on this disclosure, it still
`
`would not establish inherent anticipation by Olivieri 1995. As explained in Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response, “Olivieri 1995 does not state that the cardiac
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`disease observed in these two patients was iron induced.” (Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`at 50 (emphasis in original).) And, as Dr. Coates explained: “it is entirely possible
`
`that the cardiac disease in these two individuals was a result of diabetes, and not
`
`iron overload.” (Id. at 50-51, citing Ex. 2001 at ¶ 74.) Thus, because the etiology
`
`of the cardiac disease in these two patients is unknown, and could reasonably stem
`
`from diabetic complications rather than iron overload, it is not inevitable that these
`
`two patients have “an iron overload condition of the heart” or “iron-induced
`
`cardiac disease.” Thus, the facts of record do not provide sufficient evidence upon
`
`which the Board made its inherent anticipation finding.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the decision to institute on claims
`
`1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, and 19 as anticipated by Olivieri 1995 be withdrawn and the
`
`ground denied.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Misapplied the Law Governing Inherency in its
`Obviousness Analysis
`As discussed above, see supra Section III.A., the Board misapplied the law
`
`governing inherency when it concluded that Hoffbrand 1998, Olivieri Abstract
`
`1995, and Olivieri 1995 each disclosed patients having an iron overload condition
`
`of the heart or iron-induced cardiac disease, and thus anticipate claims 1, 2, 4-11,
`
`13-17, and 19. Applying the same erroneous assumptions from its inherent
`
`anticipation analysis, the Board likewise found in its obviousness analysis that
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`“these three references [i.e., Hoffbrand 1998, Olivieri Abstract 1995, and Olivieri
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`1995] identify patients with levels of iron consistent with iron overload conditions
`
`of the heart . . . .” (Decision at 35.) For the same reasons as discussed above, the
`
`Petitioner has not made a threshold showing that each of these three references
`
`teach patients having an iron overload condition of the heart or iron-induced
`
`cardiac disease, and the Board improperly applied the inherency standard when it
`
`found otherwise.
`
`Accordingly, for at least this reason, Patent Owner requests that the decision
`
`to institute on claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19 as obvious in view of each of Hoffbrand
`
`1998, Olivieri Abstract 1995, and Olivieri 1995, in combination with the
`
`knowledge of the ordinary artisans, be withdrawn and the grounds denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner requests that the decision to
`
`institute on claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, and 19 as anticipated by Hoffbrand 1998,
`
`Olivieri Abstract 1995, and Olivieri 1995, and the decision to institute on claims 1,
`
`2, 4-17, and 19 as obvious in view of these same references, in combination with
`
`the knowledge of the ordinary artisans, be withdrawn and the grounds denied.
`
`Patent Owner further requests that the Board decline to institute Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’328 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: W. Blake Coblentz
`
`W. Blake Coblentz
`
`Reg. No. 57,104
`
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 912-4837
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01446
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on December 12, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of Patent Owner Apotex Technologies, Inc.’s Request For Rehearing Under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) to be served via electronic mail on the following attorneys of
`
`record:
`
`Huiya Wu
`Sarah Fink
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`HWu@goodwin.law.com
`SFink@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 12, 2017
`
`
`
`/s/ W. Blake Coblentz
`W. Blake Coblentz
`Reg. No. 57,104
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 912-4837
`
`
`
`
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
