`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Adam R. Brausa (Reg. No.
`60,287)
`Daralyn J. Durie (Pro Hac Vice
`to be filed)
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner Genentech, Inc. by:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`Rebecca A. Whitfield (Reg. No. 73,756)
`Robert J. Gunther, Jr. (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
`Lisa J. Pirozzolo (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
`Kevin S. Prussia (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
`Andrew J. Danford (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-02031
`Patent No. 6,407,213
`____________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`A.
`The Invention of the ’213 Patent ........................................................... 3
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 4
`C. Other IPR Petitions Involving the ’213 Patent ...................................... 5
`D.
`The Redundant Boehringer Petitions .................................................... 9
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 10
`A.
`The Board Should Deny Institution of Grounds 1-3 and 5 Because
`the Board is Already Considering Those Same Grounds in the
`Ongoing Celltrion and Pfizer IPRs ..................................................... 12
`The Board Should Deny Institution of Grounds 4 and 6 Because
`the PTO Already Considered the Cited References During the
`’213 Original Prosecution ................................................................... 15
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings Violate the Constitution ................. 16
`C.
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 17
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC,
`IPR2017-00777, Paper 7 (Aug. 22, 2017) .......................................................... 10
`Google Inc. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00980, Paper 10 (Oct. 30, 2014) ......................................................... 14
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 10
`Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 (July 27, 2017) ................................................... 11, 13
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ............................................................................................ 16
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co.,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898) ............................................................................................ 16
`Neil Ziegmann N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Paper 13 (Sept. 6, 2017) .................................................... 11, 16
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.,
`IPR2017-01118 and IPR2017-01119, Paper 8 (Oct. 4, 2017) ............................ 13
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (Dec. 14, 2016)......................................................... 11
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................passim
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ................................................................................................ 19
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122 ................................................................................................... 14
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Constitutional Provisions
`U.S. Const. Amendment VII .................................................................................... 16
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Genentech, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “Genentech”) submits this Preliminary
`
`Response to the Petition that Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Boehringer”) filed challenging certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,407,213 (“the ’213 patent”) (Paper 2).
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 1, 2017, the Board instituted four IPRs in which Celltrion,
`
`Inc. (IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374) and Pfizer, Inc. (IPR2017-01488 and
`
`IPR2017-01489) have challenged numerous claims of the ’213 patent (based on a
`
`total of 32 separate grounds). Patent Owner’s responses in those proceedings are
`
`due on February 15, 2018.
`
`More than three months after Celltrion and Pfizer filed their now-instituted
`
`petitions, Boehringer filed the present Petition (and a second petition in IPR2017-
`
`02032). The Board should deny institution of the Boehringer petitions under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d) for at least two reasons.
`
`First, Boehringer copied Grounds 1-3 and 5 of this Petition from IPR2017-
`
`01374 (Celltrion) and IPR2017-01488 (Pfizer), and copied Grounds 1-5 of
`
`IPR2017-02032 from IPR2017-01373 (Celltrion) and IPR2017-01489 (Pfizer)—
`
`without seeking joinder with those earlier-filed proceedings. Boehringer thus asks
`
`the Board to institute its IPRs on the same grounds already instituted in the
`
`Celltrion and Pfizer proceedings—but on a schedule trailing those proceedings by
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`several months. This redundancy would waste the Board’s and Patent Owner’s
`
`resources, and also would unfairly allow Boehringer to preview the parties’
`
`arguments before having to address them itself. Given this resulting waste and
`
`prejudice, institution of Grounds 1-3 and 5 of this Petition (and Grounds 1-5 of
`
`IPR2017-02032) should be denied.
`
`Second, Boehringer’s remaining Grounds 4 and 6 in this proceeding are
`
`based on a 1986 article by Jones et al. (Ex. 1033) (“Jones”) and a 1988 article by
`
`Riechmann et al. (Ex. 1069) (“Riechmann”). But those grounds are not “new” at
`
`all. To the contrary, both references are discussed in the ’213 specification, and
`
`during prosecution of the ’213 patent, Patent Owner brought both references to the
`
`Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) attention on several occasions and
`
`specifically overcame an obviousness rejection based on Riechmann. As such,
`
`because the PTO has already found the challenged ’213 claims patentable over
`
`both cited references, the Board should reject Boehringer’s invitation to second-
`
`guess this prior patentability determination by denying institution of Grounds 4 and
`
`6.
`
`Patent Owner therefore respectfully requests that the Board exercise its
`
`discretion and deny institution of all grounds pursuant to Section 325(d).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
` BACKGROUND
`A. The Invention of the ’213 Patent
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`In the early 1990s, the field of therapeutic antibodies was still in its infancy.
`
`Although scientists had known since the 1970s how to obtain antibodies from
`
`animals (e.g., mice) that would bind to specific targets, those antibodies generally
`
`could not be used in humans because, over time, the body’s own immune system
`
`would attack and inactivate them (known as an “immunogenic” response). (Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:52-58.)
`
`Beginning in the late 1980s, a few scientists created “humanized” antibodies
`
`that incorporated the binding site from a non-human antibody into a human
`
`antibody framework—which they hoped might address the immunogenicity
`
`problem by reducing the amount of non-human amino acid sequences in the
`
`antibody. But those early humanized antibodies suffered from reduced binding
`
`affinity and/or still produced an immunogenic response. (Id. at 2:21-35, 3:50-55.)
`
`The ’213 inventors, Drs. Paul Carter and Leonard Presta, at Genentech
`
`developed a new “consensus human sequence” approach to humanizing antibodies
`
`that solved the prior art binding and immunogenicity problems of other humanized
`
`antibodies. (Id. at 11:32-38.) That “consensus” approach involved a single human
`
`amino acid sequence that could be used for any humanized antibody of a particular
`
`immunoglobulin subclass or subunit structure (e.g., light chain κ1). (Id. at 16:20-
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`22 (“All of the humanized antibody models of this invention are based on a single
`
`three-dimensional computer graphics structure hereafter referred to as the
`
`consensus structure.”).) Drs. Carter and Presta also identified specific amino acids
`
`important to maintaining binding affinity. (Id. at 20:32-35.)
`
`The ’213 challenged claims are directed to humanized variable domains or
`
`humanized antibodies containing certain specified amino acid substitutions
`
`identified using the inventors’ novel consensus sequence approach.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’213 patent is a continuation-in-part of an application filed on June 14,
`
`1991. (Ex. 1001, coversheet.) During prosecution, Patent Owner presented, and
`
`the PTO considered, a number of references describing humanized antibodies,
`
`including each of the references relied upon by Boehringer in its petitions.
`
`For example, the ’213 specification discussed both Jones and Riechmann at
`
`length, including by explaining that the references describe “substitut[ing] rodent
`
`CDRs or CDR sequences for the corresponding segments of a human antibody.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:20-28.) The specification further contrasts Jones’s approach of
`
`“substituting CDRs from rodent antibodies for the human CDRs in human
`
`frameworks [which was] sufficient to transfer high antigen binding affinity,” with
`
`Riechmann’s disclosure that it was “necessary to additionally replace one . . .
`
`framework region (FR) residue[].” (Id. at 2:53-61.)
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Moreover, during prosecution, Patent Owner raised Jones in overcoming a
`
`written description rejection (Ex. 1002 at 370), and overcame an obviousness
`
`rejection based on Riechmann (id. at 253-54 (Examiner asserting that Riechmann
`
`teaches “altering the sequence of the antibody to restore packing or to increase
`
`binding affinity”); id. at 372-74 (Patent Owner addressing rejection based in part
`
`on Riechmann); id. at 508-11 (Examiner no longer raising Riechmann rejection).)
`
`The Examiner ultimately allowed the challenged claims to issue over Jones and
`
`Reichmann.
`
`During prosecution of the ’213 patent, the Examiner also raised U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,530,101 (“the ’101 patent”) (which Boehringer relies upon in IPR2017-
`
`02032) as a Section 102(e) reference and initially rejected several ’213 claims
`
`based on it. (E.g., Ex. 1002 at 739-40.) In response, Patent Owner explained how
`
`the Examiner had misconstrued the teachings of the ’101 patent and submitted a
`
`joint affidavit from Drs. Carter and Presta to antedate the ’101 patent. (Id. at 793,
`
`802-07.) The Examiner allowed the claims to issue over the ’101 patent after
`
`accepting that antedation evidence. (Id. at 813.)
`
`C. Other IPR Petitions Involving the ’213 Patent
`
`In August 2016, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. challenged the ’213 patent in
`
`two separate IPRs (IPR2016-01693 and IPR2016-01694), which the Board
`
`terminated after settlement in March 2017. (IPR2016-01693, Paper 24 (Mar. 3,
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`2017); IPR2016-01694, Paper 23 (Mar. 3, 2017).) In May 2017, Celltrion and
`
`Pfizer each filed “copy-cat” petitions of the two original Mylan petitions.
`
`(IPR2017-01373 (Celltrion); IPR2017-01374 (Celltrion); IPR2017-01488 (Pfizer);
`
`IPR2017-01489 (Pfizer).)
`
`As shown in the table below, the copy-cat Celltrion IPR2017-01373 and
`
`Pfizer IPR2017-01489 proceedings assert identical grounds based on six
`
`references, including a 1989 article (“Queen 1989”), a PCT application published
`
`on July 26, 1990 (“Queen 1990”), the Protein Data Bank Database (“PDB
`
`Database”), a 1990 article (“Tramontano”), a 1987 reference book (“Kabat 1987”),
`
`and a March 1989 publication (“Hudziak”):
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Claims and Basis
`IPR2017-01373 (Celltrion)
`IPR2017-01489 (Pfizer)
`Claims 1, 2, 12, 25, 29, 63, 64, 66,
`Claims 1, 2, 12, 25, 29, 63, 66, 67,
`67, 71-81
`69, 71-81
` Queen 1989
` Queen 1989
` PDB Database
` PDB Database
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 25, 29, 62-67,
`69, 71-81
` Queen 1990
` PDB Database
`
`Claims 65, 75-77, 79
` Queen 1989
` PDB Database
` Tramontano
`
`Claims 65, 75-77, 79
` Queen 1990
`
`Claims 65, 75-77, 79
` Queen 1989
` PDB Database
` Tramontano
`
`Claims 65, 75-77, 79
` Queen 1990
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 25, 29, 62-64,
`66, 67, 69, 71-81
` Queen 1990
` PDB Database
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
` PDB Database
` Tramontano
`
`Claims 4, 62, 64, 69
` Queen 1989
` PDB Database
` Kabat 1987
`
`Claims 30, 31, 42, 60
` Queen 1989
` PDB Database
` Hudziak
`
`Claims 30, 31, 33, 42, 60
` Queen 1990
` PDB Database
` Hudziak
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
` PDB Database
` Tramontano
`
`Claims 4, 62, 64, 69
` Queen 1989
` PDB Database
` Kabat 1987
`
`Claims 30, 31, 42, 60
` Queen 1989
` PDB Database
` Hudziak
`
`Claims 30, 31, 33, 42, 60
` Queen 1990
` PDB Database
` Hudziak
`
`In the other two copy-cat proceedings, Celltrion IPR2017-01374 and Pfizer
`
`IPR2017-01488 assert similar grounds based on seven references, including a
`
`European patent application published on December 19, 1990 (“Kurrle”), Queen
`
`1990, a 1983 publication (“Furey”), a 1987 publication (“Chothia & Lesk”), a 1985
`
`publication (“Chothia 1985”), and Hudziak:
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Claims and Basis
`IPR2017-01374 (Celltrion)
`IPR2017-01488 (Pfizer)
`Claims 1, 2, 25, 29, 63, 66, 67, 71,
`Claims 1, 2, 25, 29, 63, 66, 71,
`72, 75, 76, 80, 81
`75, 76, 78, 80, 81
` Kurrle
` Kurrle
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 62-64, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62-64, 66, Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62-64, 66,
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 62-64, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`67, 69, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
`
`67, 69, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
`
`Claim 12
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Furey
`
`Claims 65, 73, 74, 77, 79
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Chothia & Lesk
` Chothia 1985
`
`Claims 30, 31, 33
` Queen 1990
` Hudziak
`
`Claim 42
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Hudziak
` Furey
`
`Claim 60
` Queen 1990
` Hudziak
` Chothia & Lesk
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Claim 12
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Furey
`
`Claims 73, 77
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Chothia & Lesk
`
`
`Claim 74
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Chothia 1985
`
`Claims 65, 79
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Chothia & Lesk
` Chothia 1985
`
`Claims 30, 31, 33, 42
` Queen 1990
` Hudziak
`
`Claim 42
` Queen 1990
` Hudziak
` Furey
`
`Claim 60
` Queen 1990
` Hudziak
`
`10
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
` Chothia & Lesk
`
`
`On December 1, 2017, the Board instituted IPRs on all grounds recited in the
`
`four Celltrion and Pfizer petitions. (IPR2017-01373 (Paper 16); IPR2017-01374
`
`(Paper 15); IPR2017-01488 (Paper 27); IPR2017-01489 (Paper 27).) Patent
`
`Owner’s response in those proceedings is due on or before February 15, 2018.
`
`In September 2017, Samsung Bioepis also filed copy-cat petitions of the
`
`Mylan/Celltrion/Pfizer petitions (IPR2017-02139 and IPR2017-02140). Unlike
`
`Boehringer, however, Samsung filed motions seeking to join its petitions with the
`
`earlier-filed Pfizer proceedings. (IPR2017-02139, Paper 3; IPR2017-02140, Paper
`
`3.) Samsung’s motions remain pending.
`
`D. The Redundant Boehringer Petitions
`
`Boehringer filed its two petitions on August 31, 2017—i.e., over seven
`
`months after Genentech filed its December 2016 Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response in the original Mylan proceedings, over three months after Celltrion and
`
`Pfizer filed their petitions, and without any explanation as to why it could not have
`
`filed its petitions earlier. As shown in the chart below, Boehringer asserts the
`
`following grounds of unpatentability in this proceeding:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims and Basis
`Claims 1, 2, 25, 29, 63, 66, 71, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81
` Kurrle
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 62-64, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62-64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81
` Kurrle
` Queen 1990
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62, 64, 66, 69, 71, 73, 75-78, 80, 81
` Jones
`
`Claims 73 and 77
` Queen 1990
` Kurrrle
` Chothia & Lesk
`
`Claim 63
` Jones
` Riechmann
`
`
`(Paper 2 at 4.)
` ARGUMENT
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board may exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution where “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office.” Id.; see Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech.,
`
`Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never
`
`compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”); Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC,
`
`IPR2017-00777 (Aug. 22, 2017) (Paper 7) (designated as informative) (exercising
`
`discretion to deny institution where same prior art and arguments were presented to
`
`the PTO).
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Where a petitioner raises substantially the same prior art or arguments that
`
`were previously raised to the examiner or the Board, the patent owner’s interests in
`
`avoiding harassment and the Board’s interests in conserving resources often
`
`outweigh the petitioner’s desire to be heard. See Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 at 16-18 (July 27, 2017) (designated as informative)
`
`(explaining considerations under Section 325(d)); Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (Dec. 14, 2016) (designated as informative) (same); Neil
`
`Ziegmann N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens, IPR2015-01860, Paper 13 at 6-14 (Sept. 6,
`
`2017) (expanded PTAB panel) (explaining the rationale and purpose of § 325(d)).
`
`As detailed below, four of Boehringer’s six asserted grounds (1-3 and 5)
`
`duplicate grounds that the Board has already instituted in the Celltrion and Pfizer
`
`proceedings, and the remaining two grounds (4 and 6) assert prior art that the PTO
`
`already considered when issuing the claims. Because the Board’s and Patent
`
`Owner’s interests in avoiding duplicative challenges far outweigh any interest
`
`Boehringer has in retreading these grounds, and because Patent Owner would be
`
`prejudiced if Boehringer is permitted to proceed separately on the same grounds at
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`issue in other proceedings, institution of all grounds should be denied pursuant to
`
`Section 325(d).1
`
`A. The Board Should Deny Institution of Grounds 1-3 and 5 Because
`the Board is Already Considering Those Same Grounds in the
`Ongoing Celltrion and Pfizer IPRs.
`
`As shown in the chart below, four of Boehringer’s grounds (1-3 and 5) are
`
`essentially identical to those already instituted in the Celltrion and Pfizer IPRs (the
`
`few minor differences are underlined):
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`5
`
`IPR2017-02031
`(Boehringer)
`Claims 1, 2, 25, 29,
`63, 66, 71, 75, 76, 78,
`80, 81
` Kurrle
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 62-
`64, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29,
`62-64, 66, 67, 69, 71,
`72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
`
`Claims 73, 77
`
`IPR2017-01374
`(Celltrion)
`Claims 1, 2, 25, 29,
`63, 66, 71, 75, 76, 78,
`80, 81
` Kurrle
`
`IPR2017-01488
`(Pfizer)
`Claims 1, 2, 25, 29,
`63, 66, 67, 71, 72, 75,
`76, 80, 81
` Kurrle
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 62-
`64, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29,
`62-64, 66, 67, 69, 71,
`72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
`
`Claims 65, 73, 74, 77, Claims 73, 77
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 62-
`64, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29,
`62-64, 66, 67, 69, 71,
`72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
`
`
`1
`For this preliminary response, Patent Owner has only presented argument
`
`under Section 325(d). Should the Board institute any aspect of this Petition, Patent
`
`Owner will present arguments on the merits at that time.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Chothia & Lesk
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Chothia & Lesk
`
`
`
`
`79
` Queen 1990
` Kurrle
` Chothia & Lesk
` Chothia 1985
`
`
`Specifically, Boehringer’s Grounds 1-3 and 5 raise the same prior art (Kurrle (Ex.
`
`1071), Queen 1990 (Ex. 1050), and Chothia & Lesk (Ex. 1062)), and challenge the
`
`same claims as Celltrion IPR2017-01374 and Pfizer IPR2017-01488 (claims 1, 2,
`
`4, 25, 29, 62-64, 66, 67, 69, 71-73, 75-78, 80, 81). The only difference is that, for
`
`certain grounds, Celltrion and Pfizer have asserted invalidity of additional claims
`
`that Boehringer has not challenged.
`
`Thus, because Boehringer’s Grounds 1-3 and 5 are wholly redundant of the
`
`already-instituted grounds in the Celltrion and Pfizer IPRs, instituting an IPR on
`
`those same grounds in this proceeding would unnecessarily waste both the Board’s
`
`and Patent Owner’s resources. See R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Fontem Holdings 1
`
`B.V., IPR2017-01118 and IPR2017-01119, Paper 8 at 4 (Oct. 4, 2017) (denying
`
`institution where “[t]he asserted art is identical to that presented in the earlier inter
`
`partes reviews”); Hospira, IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 at 18 (recognizing interests
`
`“in conserving the resources of the Office and granting patent owners repose on
`
`issues and prior art that have been considered previously” (citation omitted)).
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Denying institution also is necessary to protect Patent Owner from the
`
`significant prejudice that would result if Boehringer’s later-filed petition is
`
`instituted. Over the last eighteen months, Boehringer could have sought to join the
`
`earlier-filed Mylan, Celltrion, and/or Pfizer petitions, including after the Board
`
`instituted the Celltrion and Pfizer decisions on December 1, 2017. But Boehringer
`
`declined to do so (offering no explanation for its delay), and the time for joinder
`
`has now passed. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 (providing that “[a]ny request for joinder
`
`must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter
`
`partes review for which joinder is requested”); see also Google Inc. v. Personal
`
`Web Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00980, Paper 10 at 4-5 (Oct. 30, 2014) (denying
`
`untimely motion for joinder).
`
`By failing to seek joinder, Boehringer essentially asks for an unfair tactical
`
`advantage—one that would allow it to preview all of Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`and evidence in the Celltrion and Pfizer IPRs (Patent Owner’s Responses are due
`
`on February 15, 2018) well before they are presented in this proceeding. The
`
`Board should not allow Boehringer to engage in that sort of gamesmanship,
`
`particularly when coupled with the inherent inefficiency that would result by
`
`proceeding on the same grounds already instituted in the Celltrion and Pfizer IPRs.
`
`Patent Owner therefore requests that the Board deny institution of Grounds 1-3 and
`
`5 for these reasons as well.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`The Board Should Deny Institution of Grounds 4 and 6 Because
`the PTO Already Considered the Cited References During the
`’213 Original Prosecution.
`
`Boehringer bases Ground 4 on Jones, and Ground 6 on Jones in combination
`
`with Riechmann. Boehringer fails to acknowledge in its Petition that Patent Owner
`
`already presented these references during prosecution and after fully considering
`
`them, the PTO allowed the claims. In particular, Patent Owner discussed both
`
`references at length in the ’213 patent specification. (Ex. 1001 at 2:20-26
`
`(explaining that Jones and Riechmann describe “substitut[ing] rodent CDRs or
`
`CDR sequences for the corresponding segments of a human antibody”); id. at 2:53-
`
`61 (explaining in Jones, “substituting CDRs from rodent antibodies for the human
`
`CDRs in human frameworks [was] sufficient to transfer high antigen binding
`
`affinity,” and in Riechmann it was “necessary to additionally replace one . . .
`
`framework region (FR) residue[]”).)
`
`Patent Owner also addressed Jones and Riechmann in responding to PTO
`
`office actions during prosecution. For example, in overcoming a written
`
`description rejection, Patent Owner pointed to Jones as describing an antibody
`
`candidate for humanization using the invention of the ’213 patent. (Ex. 1003 at
`
`370.) And Patent Owner overcame obviousness rejections that the Examiner
`
`raised based on Riechmann. (Ex. 1002 at 253-54, 386-87, 416-17 (Examiner
`
`asserting that Riechmann teaches “altering the sequence of the antibody to restore
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`packing or to increase binding affinity”); id. at 372-74, 431-35 (Patent Owner
`
`addressing rejection based in part on Riechmann); id. at 508-11 (Examiner no
`
`longer raising Riechmann rejection).) See also Application of Flint, 330 F.2d 363,
`
`365 n.1 (C.C.P.A. 1964) (“[W]ithdrawal of a reference upon which a rejection is
`
`based unequivocally withdraws that rejection.”).
`
`Because both Jones and Riechmann are “the same prior art . . . previously . .
`
`. presented to the Office,” the Board should exercise its discretion under Section
`
`325(d) and deny institution of Grounds 4 and 6. See also Neil Ziegmann, N.P.Z.,
`
`IPR2015-01860, Paper 13 at 19 (“[T]he use of the word ‘or’ in ‘prior art or
`
`arguments’ indicates that the presence of previously presented prior art or
`
`arguments is sufficient to invoke Section 325(d).”).
`
`C. Inter Partes Review Proceedings Violate the Constitution.
`The Board should terminate this proceeding because it violates Patent
`
`Owner’s constitutional rights. Because patents are private property rights and
`
`disputes concerning their validity were traditionally decided by courts, patent
`
`validity must be litigated in an Article III court, not before an executive branch
`
`agency. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co., 169 U.S. 606,
`
`609 (1898). Adversarial challenges to an issued patent—like inter partes
`
`reviews—are also “Suits at common law” for which the Seventh Amendment
`
`guarantees a jury trial. U.S. Const. amend. VII; Markman v. Westview
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 377 (1996). Moreover, even if inter partes review
`
`
`
`
`
`is constitutional in other circumstances, it is unconstitutional for patents—like the
`
`’213 patent—that issued before passage of the America Invents Act.
`
`The Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutionality of inter
`
`partes reviews in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group,
`
`LLC, No. 16-712. Patent Owner presents this constitutional challenge now to
`
`preserve the issue pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
`
` CONCLUSION
`Boehringer’s Petition raises grounds that the Board is already addressing in
`
`other proceedings, and that rest on prior art that the PTO already considered during
`
`prosecution. Allowing Boehringer to raise those redundant arguments in a new
`
`IPR proceeding would waste the Board’s and Patent Owner’s resources, and
`
`present Boehringer with an unfair tactical advantage. Genentech therefore
`
`respectfully requests that the Board exercise its discretion to deny institution of all
`
`grounds pursuant to Section 325(d).
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No. 36,476
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20006
`TEL: 202-663-6000
`FAX: 202-663-6363
`EMAIL: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,
`
`contains 3,372 words as measured by the word processing software used to prepare
`
`the document, in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d).
`
`
`
`Dated: January 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No. 36,476
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on January 5, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the following materials:
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
` Certificate of Compliance
`
`to be served electronically via electronic mail, as previously agreed by the parties,
`
`on the following attorneys of record:
`
`Ira J. Levy
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`ILevy@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Brian A. Fairchild
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210
`bfairchild@goodwinlaw.com
`
`DG-BI213@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`/Rebecca A. Whitfield/
`Rebecca A. Whitfield
`Reg. No. 73,756
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
`20
`
`
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
