`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORP.
`Patent Owner
`Patent No. 9,339,507
`Issue Date: July 13, 2017
`Title: TREPROSTINIL ADMINISTRATION BY INHALATION
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-01622
`__________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`4817-5210-0442.4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Misapprehended Controlling Precedent By Requiring
`More Evidence Than Necessary To Prove Ghofrani Is Not By
`“Another”............................................................................................................... 3
`
`The Board Erred In Finding Voswinckel’s Authorship Created A
`Genuine Issue Of Material Fact Regarding Whether Ghofrani
`Constitutes the Work of Another. ....................................................................... 9
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`Applied Materials Inc. v. Gemini Research Corp.,
`835 F.2d 279 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp., Inc.,
`249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Katz,
`687 F.2d 450 (CCPA 1982) .......................................................... 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
`
`In re Land,
`368 F.2d 866 (CCPA 1966) ..................................................................... 3, 4, 6, 7
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00369 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2014) ................................................................ 2
`
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
`393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Varian Med. Systs. v. Wm. Beaumont Hosp.,
`IPR2016-00163 (PTAB May 4, 2017) ......................................................... 5, 7, 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................4, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 116(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`Other Authorities
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`MPEP § 2132.01 ............................................................................................... 4, 6, 7
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .................................................................................... 3, 10, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) ..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`United Therapeutics Corporation (“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) and (d) that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“Board”) reconsider one aspect of its Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,339,507 (“the ’507 patent”), entered Jan. 11, 2018 (Paper 9,
`
`hereinafter “Decision”). The Decision instituted trial as to whether claims 1–9 of
`
`the ’507 patent would have been obvious over Voswinckel, Chaudry, Patton, and
`
`Ghofrani. In instituting trial, the Board concluded “that Petitioner has provided a
`
`sufficient basis on which to conclude that Ghofrani was the work of another.”
`
`Decision, p. 15. The Board misapprehended the legal standard in reaching this
`
`conclusion, and Petitioner failed to establish Ghofrani as prior art under the
`
`appropriate standard.1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A party may request rehearing of a Board institution decision. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`1 Patent Owner disagrees with other parts of the decision and does not waive or
`
`forfeit its right to contest those issues in its Response or on appeal, specifically
`
`including the determination under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), if relief is not granted on
`
`this request.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`The Board will review the previous decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an
`
`erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial
`
`evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`
`relevant factors.” Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00369, Paper 39, 2–3 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2014) (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United
`
`States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Patent Owner submitted declarations from multiple authors of Ghofrani,
`
`both a ’507 patent inventor and non-inventor authors, stating that the relevant
`
`portions of Ghofrani were the work of the inventors and not the work of the non-
`
`inventor authors. Patent Owner Preliminary Response, pp. 21-24. Yet the Board
`
`concluded “that Petitioner has provided a sufficient basis on which to conclude that
`
`Ghofrani was the work of another” and, thus, prior art under § 102(a). Decision, p.
`
`15. The Board based this conclusion on (a) a perceived ambiguity in the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Seeger (Ex. 2020, “Seeger Declaration”) as to the contribution
`
`of the non-author co-inventors to the relevant portion of Ghofrani, and (b) the
`
`authorship of Voswinckel (Ex. 1003, which includes the non-inventor Ghofrani co-
`
`authors). Decision, p. 14. The Board’s decision regarding the Seeger Declaration
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`is a result of an erroneous interpretation of the law because it required a showing
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`not required by relevant precedent or PTO practice. In addition, the Board’s
`
`reliance on Voswinckel represents both an error of law and an inappropriate
`
`judgment in weighing the facts of record. Id. Neither the authorship of
`
`Voswinckel nor the Seeger Declaration creates a “genuine issue of material fact”
`
`that must be resolved in favor of the Petitioner under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`A. The Board Misapprehended Controlling Precedent By Requiring More
`Evidence Than Necessary To Prove Ghofrani Is Not By “Another”
`
`The question of whether Ghofrani is prior art turns on “whether Ghofrani is
`
`the work of another.” Decision, p. 12; 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). And the Board
`
`acknowledges that the four Ghofrani author declarations disclaim any contribution
`
`by the non-inventor authors to Ghofrani’s relevant passage and that the Seeger
`
`Declaration states that the relevant portion of Ghofrani originated with the
`
`inventors. Decision, p. 12. Yet the Board found this evidence insufficient to
`
`disqualify Ghofrani as prior art. Specifically, the Board suggests that In re Land,
`
`368 F.2d 866, 881 (CCPA 1966), requires an additional evidentiary showing – that
`
`each named inventor, including the non-author co-inventors, contributed to the
`
`relevant portion of Ghofrani. Decision, p. 14. This was legal error.
`
`Land does not articulate, much less apply, a requirement that a patent owner
`
`must demonstrate an individual contribution of any and all co-inventors to
`
`demonstrate that a reference is not by “another.” Indeed, no declarations were at
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`issue in Land. Rather than imposing a per se rule, Land addressed the facts of that
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`case, which included explicit admissions of prior art individual work not present
`
`here. 368 F.2d at 881. Land merely stands for the proposition that a patent
`
`reference invented by Inventor A and a patent reference invented by Inventor B are
`
`not the same entity (i.e., they are “by another”) relative to a patent application
`
`being examined with A and B named together jointly as inventors.2 The Board’s
`
`extension of Land imposes an unprecedented requirement and burden inconsistent
`
`with the law.
`
`To determine whether a reference under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) is by “another”
`
`when it has overlapping authorship with an inventive entity, the patent owner
`
`needs only to provide declarations from non-inventor co-authors of the reference
`
`stating that they did not contribute to the relevant portion of the reference. In re
`
`Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455 (CCPA 1982) (stating that “disclaimer” declarations from
`
`the non-inventor co-authors would have “ended the inquiry” even though not
`
`required). This is also consistent with PTO practice. See MPEP § 2132.01
`
`2 By contrast, the present case involves only a portion of Ghofrani applied under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 based on qualifying as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) in
`
`combination with other references, where declarations have been provided to show
`
`that the only relevant portion of the Ghofrani reference originated with inventors
`
`named on the present patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`(“[W]here the applicant is one of the co-authors of a publication cited against his
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`or her application, the publication may be removed as a reference by the filing of
`
`affidavits made out by the other authors establishing that the relevant portions of
`
`the publication originated with, or were obtained from, applicant.”).3
`
`Even when a patent’s named inventors are not listed as authors of the
`
`publication, no additional evidence is required. “Unlike the inclusion of a non-
`
`inventor co-author on a publication, however, the omission of a named inventor
`
`from co-authorship has no significance for whether the publication is the work of
`
`‘others.’” Varian Med. Systs. v. Wm. Beaumont Hosp., IPR2016-00163, Paper 79,
`
`31 (PTAB May 4, 2017);4 Applied Materials Inc. v. Gemini Research Corp., 835
`
`F.2d 279 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“[T]he fact that an application has named a different
`
`3 Katz involved an anticipation rejection based upon the sole named inventor’s own
`
`work disclosed in conjunction with non-inventor co-authors.
`
`4 In Varian, the Board found that Jaffray 1999 JRO was not by another, even
`
`though only two of three co-inventors were named as co-authors, and a third non-
`
`author co-inventor, Dr. Siewerdsen, had not been shown to have contributed to the
`
`relevant portion of the publication. IPR2016-00163, Paper No. 79 at 21. The
`
`Board specifically rejected petitioner’s argument that the absent declarations from
`
`the non-author co-inventors “leave unresolved questions regarding the inventive
`
`entity of Jaffray 1999.” Id. at 31.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`inventive entity than a patent does not necessarily make that patent prior
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`art….When the joint and sole inventions are related, as they are here, inventor A
`
`commonly discloses the invention of A & B in the course of describing his sole
`
`invention and when he so describes the invention of A & B he is not disclosing
`
`“prior art” to the A& B invention, even if he has legal status as “another.”)
`
`(citations and quotations omitted; quoting Land). The mere absence of co-
`
`inventors from Ghofrani’s authorship is not a sufficient basis upon which to
`
`require further evidence from Patent Owner where, as here, the non-inventor co-
`
`authors have stated that they did not contribute to the relevant portion of Ghofrani.
`
`See MPEP § 2132.01 (stating that “the publication may be removed as a reference
`
`by the filing of affidavits made out by the other [non-inventor] authors establishing
`
`that the relevant portions of the publication originated with, or were obtained from,
`
`applicant. Such affidavits are called disclaiming affidavits.”).
`
`Here, not only did Patent Owner provide disclaimer declarations from the
`
`non-inventor co-authors of Ghofrani, but Patent Owner also provided a declaration
`
`from co-inventor and co-author Dr. Seeger stating that the relevant portion of
`
`Ghofrani originated with the inventors.5 Patent Owner has thus exceeded the
`
`5 Dr. Seeger states that “[t]he idea to perform the underlying work described in this
`
`section originated with Dr. Voswinckel and myself, in view of our work with the
`
`other inventors listed on the ’507 patent” (emphasis added). Ex. 2020. Whether or
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`requirements for disclaiming declarations and provided a “reasonable showing
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`supporting” its position. Katz, 687 F.2d at 455.
`
`It is unclear if the Board is additionally citing Land for (1) the proposition
`
`that Ghofrani is prior art unless every named inventor contributed to the relevant
`
`portion of Ghofrani or (2) the proposition that any reference listing some, but not
`
`all, inventors shifts the burden to Patent Owner to prove inventorship. Both
`
`propositions are incorrect.
`
`As noted above, not every named inventor needs to have contributed to the
`
`relevant portion of the publication in order to prove that it is not by another.
`
`Varian, IPR2016-00163, Paper 79 at 28. Also, the MPEP does not require any
`
`particular level of contribution by the inventors, only a showing from the non-
`
`inventor authors that the relevant portion was “obtained from” the inventors.
`
`MPEP § 2132.01.
`
`Applying Land to require Patent Owner to show that non-author inventors
`
`contribute equally to the relevant portion of Ghofrani is also inconsistent with
`
`statute because different joint inventors may make different contributions. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 116(a) (amended after Land in relevant part in Pub. L. 98–622, title I,
`
`not all of the other named co-inventors contributed to each claim in the patent and
`
`how much they contributed to each claim has no bearing on whether Ghofrani is
`
`the work of another.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`§104(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3384, to liberalize joint inventorship requirements);
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`see Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(noting “each [joint inventor] needs to perform only a part of the task which
`
`produces the invention” and “a co-inventor need not make a contribution to every
`
`claim…. A contribution to one claim is enough.”). Moreover, not all of their
`
`contributions need to be reflected in the cited portion, particularly where, as here,
`
`the reference is part of a 35 U.S.C. § 103 combination. The Seeger Declaration
`
`accounted for the communication of the relevant contributions of all of the
`
`inventors to the article. Neither the law of inventorship nor any evidence of record
`
`provide any basis for viewing the declaration evidence as insufficient. Patent
`
`Owner has amply met its burden of production, and Petitioner has not met its
`
`burden of production or proof.
`
`Furthermore, the burden does not shift to the Patent Owner to prove
`
`inventorship based merely upon an absence of detail as to how each individual
`
`contributed to the relevant portion of the reference. The Board has rejected the
`
`assertion that submitting “declarations from only a subset of named inventors is
`
`per se insufficient to satisfy Katz.” Varian, IPR2016-00163, Paper 79 at 28. To
`
`the extent the Board requires more inventor testimony and overlooks the
`
`corroboration provided by the non-inventor testimony already of record, it
`
`misapprehended the proper focus of the inquiry. The Seeger Declaration’s
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`uncontradicted, unequivocal statement clearly establishes the fact that the relevant
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`portion of Ghofrani was obtained from the inventors of the ’507 patent.
`
`B. The Board Erred In Finding Voswinckel’s Authorship Created A
`Genuine Issue Of Material Fact Regarding Whether Ghofrani
`Constitutes the Work of Another.
`
`The Board suggests that there is a genuine issue of material fact raised by
`
`the “narrow focus of Voswinckel and the potential that Voswinckel involved the
`
`same study as disclosed in Ghofrani.” Decision, p. 14; see Petitioner’s Reply, pp.
`
`4-5. This cannot create any “genuine issue of material fact as to the contribution of
`
`these non-inventors…by extension, to the relevant portions of Ghofrani”
`
`(Decision, p. 14) under the proper legal standard and proper weighing of the
`
`undisputed facts of record. Voswinckel is a conference abstract containing
`
`different material than Ghofrani, which is a journal publication. Nothing in the
`
`stated authorship of Voswinckel does or ought to affect the unrebutted statements
`
`in the declarations of the Ghofrani authors. Speculation of Petitioner’s counsel
`
`about a separate reference cannot create a genuine issue of material fact in the face
`
`of four sworn declarations regarding the authorship of Ghofrani. Katz, 687 F.2d at
`
`455 (finding that the Board should not have engaged in speculation as to coauthor
`
`roles in publication in view of inventor declaration that the coauthors worked
`
`under his direction and did not contribute to joint inventorship). To hold
`
`otherwise, improperly exalts attorney argument over record evidence. Id. (“[J]oint
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`inventorship cannot be inferred in the face of sworn statements to the contrary.”)
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`Furthermore, authorship creates no presumption regarding inventorship. Id.; see
`
`Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp., Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1353
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (conclusory assertions do not create issue of material fact).
`
`The standard for a “genuine issue of material fact” does not require a Patent
`
`Owner to answer every possible question that might be asked about a series of
`
`publications with overlapping material and authors. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c); cf.
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (a party moving for summary
`
`judgment need not show an absence of a genuine issue of material fact but rather
`
`an absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party’s case).
`
`The issue of Voswinckel’s relevance to the veracity of the “disclaimer”
`
`declarations was first raised in Petitioner’s Reply. Because the issue was raised in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, Patent Owner did not have the opportunity to direct the Board’s
`
`attention to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Seeger Declaration (Ex. 2020), which
`
`address the contributions of the non-inventor co-authors of Ghofrani to
`
`Voswinckel:
`
`In general, when my research center submits abstracts to a conference
`or articles for publication, we include members of the research group
`who contributed in some way to the abstract or article as authors.
`
`For example, the abstract titled ‘Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension:
`New Therapies,’ [Voswinckel] which I understand was submitted by
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`
`Watson as Exhibit 1003, lists as authors members of my research
`center who contributed by performing the administrative work
`supporting the trial, taking care of patients enrolled in the trial, and/or
`collecting data for the trial. Drs. Ghofrani, Reichenberger, and
`Grimminger are among the authors who contributed to the trial in this
`manner.
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶¶10-11. Notably, Petitioner’s Reply regarding Voswinckel failed to
`
`address this portion of the Seeger Declaration, which clearly explains
`
`Voswinckel’s inclusion of the non-inventor Ghofrani authors.
`
`Overlooking this portion of the Seeger Declaration amounts to an
`
`unreasonable weighing of the facts of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The Board
`
`misapprehended the material-fact standard in 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) in Petitioner’s
`
`favor by giving weight to mere attorney speculation and unpermitted presumptions,
`
`rather than record evidence.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the reasons provided above, Patent Owner respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration on the institution decision regarding claims 1–9 of the ’507 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Voswinckel, Chaudry, Patton, and
`
`Ghofrani.
`
`Date: January 25, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`
`Registration No. 35,264
`
`George E. Quillin
`Registration No. 32,792
`
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`3000 K Street, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`
`Shaun R. Snader
`Registration No. 59,987
`United Therapeutics Corporation
`1735 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Second Floor
`Washington, DC 20009
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01622
`
`
`
`
`Request for Rehearing
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 is being served on
`January 25, 2018, by filing this document through the PTAB E2E System as well
`
`as delivering copies via email to the following counsel for the Petitioner:
`Michael K. Nutter (Reg. No. 44,979)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Dr.
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Email: mnutter@winston.com
`
`Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. No. 53,932)
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-3817
`Email: asommer@winston.com
`
`Kurt A. Mathas
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Dr.
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Email: kmathas@winston.com
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`
`George E. Quillin
`Registration No. 32,792
`
`Shaun R. Snader
`Registration No. 59,987
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`4817-5210-0442.4
`
`