throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.6,407,213
`
`Case IPR2017-02031
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY HALE, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`PATENT NO.6,407,213
`
`
`
`1 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`C.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND ................................................. 1
`A.
`Education and Experience ..................................................................... 1
`B.
`Bases for Opinions and Materials Considered ...................................... 4
`C.
`Scope of Work ....................................................................................... 5
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 5
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 9
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 11
`V.
`THE ’213 PATENT [EX. 1001] .................................................................... 17
`VI. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 33
`A. Antibody Structure and Function ........................................................ 33
`B. Monoclonal Antibodies Expanded Therapeutic and Diagnostic Uses
`of Antibodies ....................................................................................... 35
`Immunogenic Reaction in Humans With Monoclonal Antibody
`Therapy ................................................................................................ 37
`D. Molecular Characterization of Antibody Structure and Function ....... 38
`E.
`Antigen Binding Regions .................................................................... 42
`F.
`Framework Region Important for Antigen Binding ........................... 47
`G.
`Chimeric Antibodies ........................................................................... 51
`H. Antibody Humanization ...................................................................... 53
`VII. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES .............. 68
`A.
`EP 0403156 “Improved Monoclonal Antibodies Against the Human
`Alpha/Beta T-Cell Receptor, Their Production and Use” Published
`December 19, 1990 (“Kurrle”) [Ex. 1071] .......................................... 68
`Queen et al. “A Humanized Antibody that Binds to the Interleukin 2
`Receptor” PNAS 86:10029-33 (1989) (“Queen 1989”) [Ex. 1034] .... 71
`C.
`PCT Publication No.WO 90/07861 (“Queen 1990”) [Ex. 1050] ........ 75
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,530,101 (“the ’101 patent”) [Ex. 1136] ................. 79
`E.
`Jones et al., “Replacing the Complementarity-Determining Regions in
`a Human Antibody with those from a Mouse,” Nature 321:522-25
`(1986) (“Jones”) .................................................................................. 81
`Protein Data Bank Database ................................................................ 83
`Tramontano et al. “Framework Residue 71 is a Major Determinant of
`the Position and Conformation of the Second Hypervariable Region in
`the VH Domains of Immunoglobulins” J. Mol. Biol. 215:175-82
`(1990) (“Tramontano”) [Ex. 1051] ..................................................... 86
`
`B.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`
`
`i
`
`2 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`I.
`
`J.
`
`B.
`
`H. Kabat et al. “Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest”, 4th
`Ed., pp. iii, 41-49, 167-76 (1987) (“Kabat 1987”) [Ex. 1052] ........... 87
`Chothia and Lesk. “Canonical Structures for the Hypervariable
`Regions of Immunoglobulins” J. Mol. Biol. 196:901-17 (1987)
`(“Chothia & Lesk”) [Ex. 1062] ........................................................... 88
`Riechmann et al, “Reshaping Human Antibodies For Therapy,”
`Nature, 332:323-27 (1988) (“Riechmann”) [Ex. 1069] ..................... 88
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE ’213 PATENT .......................................... 89
`A.
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62, 63, 66, 69, 71, 75, 76, 78, 80 and 81 of the
`’213 Patent are Anticipated by Kurrle [Ex. 1071] .............................. 89
`1.
`Claim 1 of the ’213 patent is anticipated by Kurrle .................. 89
`2.
`Dependent claims 2, 25 and 29 are anticipated by Kurrle ........ 91
`3.
`Independent claim 63 is anticipated by Kurrle ......................... 93
`4.
`Independent claim 66 and dependent claims 71, 72, 75 and 76,
`and 78 are anticipated by Kurrle ............................................... 94
`Claims 4, 62, and 69 are anticipated by Kurrle ........................ 95
`Independent claim 80 and dependent claim 81 are anticipated
`by Kurrle ................................................................................... 97
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 62, 63, 64, 80 and 81 of the ’213 Patent are
`Anticipated by Queen 1990 ................................................................. 99
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by Queen
`1990 [Ex. 1050] ......................................................................... 99
`Dependent Claim 2 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by Queen
`1990 .........................................................................................106
`Dependent Claim 4 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by Queen
`1990 .........................................................................................107
`Dependent Claim 29 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by Queen
`1990 .........................................................................................107
`Independent Claim 62 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by
`Queen 1990 .............................................................................108
`Independent Claim 63 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by
`Queen 1990 .............................................................................109
`Independent Claim 64 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by
`Queen 1990 .............................................................................110
`Independent Claim 80 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by
`Queen 1990 .............................................................................112
`Dependent Claim 81 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by Queen
`1990 .........................................................................................114
`
`5.
`6.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62-64, 66-67, 69, 71-73, 75-78, and 80-81 of
`the ’213 Patent are obvious over Queen 1990 in view of Kurrle, and
`Chothia & Lesk .................................................................................115
`1.
`Claim 1 is obvious over Queen 1990 and Kurrle ...................117
`2.
`Claims 2, 25 and 29 are obvious over Queen 1990 and Kurrle
` .................................................................................................121
`Claim 4 is obvious over Queen 1990 and Kurrle ...................123
`Claim 62 is obvious over Queen 1990 in view of Kurrle .......123
`Claim 63 is obvious over Queen 1990 in view of Kurrle .......124
`Claim 64 is obvious over Queen 1990 in view of Kurrle .......126
`Claim 66 is obvious over Queen 1990 in view of Kurrle .......128
`Claims 67, 71, 72, 75, 76 and 78 are obvious over Queen 1990
`in view of Kurrle .....................................................................129
`9.
`Claim 69 is obvious over Queen 1990 in view of Kurrle .......131
`10. Claims 73 and 77 are obvious in view of Queen 1990, Kurrle
`and Chothia & Lesk ................................................................131
`11. Claims 80 and 81 are obvious over Queen 1990 in view of
`Kurrle ......................................................................................134
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62, 63, 64, 66, 69, 71, 73, 75-78, 80 and 81 are
`Anticipated by Jones [Ex. 1033] .......................................................136
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by Jones
`[Ex. 1033] ................................................................................137
`Claims 2, 25, and 29 of the ’213 Patent is anticipated by Jones
`[Ex. 1033] ................................................................................139
`Independent Claim 66 and Dependent Claims 71, 73, and 75-78
`are Anticipated by Jones .........................................................140
`Claims 4, 62, 64, and 69 are anticipated by Jones ..................141
`Independent Claim 80 and Dependent Claim 81 Are
`Anticipated by Jones ...............................................................144
`Claim 63 is anticipated by Jones, or obvious in view of Jones [Ex.
`1033] and Riechmann [Ex. 1069] .....................................................145
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62—64, 66-67, 69 and 71-73, 75-78, and 80-81
`of the ’213 Patent are obvious in view of Queen 1989 or Queen 1990
`and the PDB database ........................................................................147
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 and the PDB database .........................................147
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1990 and the PDB database .........................................160
`
`4.
`5.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`4 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 25 and 29 of the ’213 Patent are obvious
`in view of Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB database
` .................................................................................................163
`Dependent claim 4 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1990 and the PDB database .........................................164
`Independent Claim 62 of the ‘213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1990 and the PDB database .........................................164
`Independent Claim 63 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB database ................165
`Independent Claim 64 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1990 and the PDB database .........................................166
`Independent Claim 66 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB database ................168
`Dependent Claims 67, 71-73 and 78 of the ’213 Patent are
`obvious in view of Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB
`database ...................................................................................170
`10. Dependent Claim 72 of the ‘213 patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 or Queen 1990, and the PDB database ...............171
`11. Dependent Claim 75 of the ’213 patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB database ................172
`12. Dependent Claim 75 of the ’213 patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB database, and further
`in view of Tramontano ............................................................174
`13. Dependent Claims 76-77 of the ‘213 Patent are obvious in view
`of Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB database, and
`optionally in view of Tramontano ..........................................175
`14. Dependent Claim 69 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1990 and the PDB database .........................................183
`Independent Claim 80 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB database ................183
`16. Dependent Claim 81 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 or Queen 1990 and the PDB database ................186
`Claims 4, 62, 64 and 69 of the ’213 Patent are obvious in view of
`Queen 1989, the PDB database and in view of Kabat 1987 .............186
`1.
`Independent Claim 62 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989, the PDB database and in view of Kabat 1987 ...186
`Dependent Claims 4 and 69 of the ’213 Patent are obvious in
`view of Queen 1989 and the PDB database, and in view of
`Kabat 1987 ..............................................................................189
`
`G.
`
`15.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`5 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`3.
`
`H.
`
`Independent Claim 64 of the ’213 Patent is obvious in view of
`Queen 1989 and the PDB database, in view of Kabat 1987 ...190
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62-64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75-78, and 80-81 are
`anticipated by the ’101 patent ...........................................................192
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 is Anticipated by the ’101 patent .........192
`2.
`The ’101 patent Anticipates Dependent Claims 2, 4, 25 and 29
` .................................................................................................193
`Independent claim 63 is anticipated by the ’101 patent .........195
`Independent Claim 66 and Dependent Claims 67, 69, 71, 73,
`and 75-78 are Anticipated by the ’101 patent .........................195
`Claims 4, 62, 64, and 69 are anticipated by the ’101 patent ...197
`Independent Claim 80 and Dependent Claim 81 Are
`Anticipated by the ’101 patent ................................................200
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................201
`X.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................206
`
`
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`
`
`v
`
`6 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`1.
`
`My name is Geoffrey Hale, Ph.D. Counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim
`
`International GmbH (“Boehringer”) retained me to provide my opinions regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No.6,407,213 (the ’213 patent) [Ex. 1001], which is assigned to
`
`Genentech, Inc. I understand that Boehringer intends to file a petition for inter
`
`partes review of the ’213 patent, and will request that the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office cancel certain claims of the ’213 patent as unpatentable in the
`
`petition. My opinions in this expert declaration support Boehringer’s request for
`
`inter partes review of the ’213 patent, and cancellation of the claims.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`2.
`
`Education and Experience
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of Cambridge
`
`in the UK in 1977. Between 1977 and 1980 I worked as a postdoctoral fellow in
`
`the Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, studying the structure
`
`and function of proteins. In 1980 I joined the laboratory of Professor Herman
`
`Waldmann in the Department of Pathology at the University of Cambridge, where
`
`I worked as a postdoctoral fellow from 1980 to 1986 and a Senior Postdoctoral
`
`Fellow from 1986 to 1995. From 1990 to 1995 I was also the Manager of the
`
`Therapeutic Antibody Centre which was based in the Department of Haematology
`
`at the University of Cambridge. During this time monoclonal antibodies were
`
`being actively researched as therapeutic agents and I was part of the team which
`
`
`
`1
`
`7 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`was responsible for the discovery and clinical development of a wide range of
`
`therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.
`
`3.
`
`In 1981 I discovered the “Campath” family of rat monoclonal
`
`antibodies. I researched their structure and function in vitro and in vivo and I
`
`worked with physicians in Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge and elsewhere to
`
`conduct clinical trials. Between 1984 and 1989 I directed studies on the functional
`
`properties of human immunoglobulins, using, among other things, recombinant
`
`chimeric monoclonal antibodies. In 1986 I was involved in discussions with
`
`Professor Waldmann and Sir Gregory Winter which led to the decision to select
`
`Campath-1G, the antibody I had developed earlier, as the first therapeutic antibody
`
`to be humanised. Subsequently I was part of the team responsible for the testing of
`
`the humanised antibody Campath-1H and its manufacture for the first clinical
`
`study which was reported in 1988. See Ex. 1132.
`
`4.
`
`In 1990 I established the Therapeutic Antibody Centre in order to
`
`provide a dedicated facility for the manufacture of a rapidly increasing number of
`
`humanised antibodies and to work with physicians to test them in the clinic.
`
`Among others, these included humanised antibodies directed against the antigens
`
`CD2, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD18 and CD52.
`
`5.
`
`My contributions were originally based on my training as a protein
`
`chemist at the Department of Biochemistry, and during this period (1980 to 1995) I
`
`
`
`2
`
`8 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`learned from being part of a multi-disciplinary team which included
`
`immunologists, molecular biologists, cell biologists and haematologists. I have
`
`continued to work on the research and development of therapeutic monoclonal
`
`antibodies to the present day, both in academia and industry, and I have published
`
`more than 200 articles in this field. I have lectured on the subject of therapeutic
`
`monoclonal antibodies at the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford
`
`and many other institutions worldwide from 1984 to the present day.
`
`6.
`
`Between 1984 and 1996 I supervised three Ph.D. students. In 1995, I
`
`moved with Professor Waldmann to the University of Oxford, where I was
`
`appointed Research Lecturer at the Department of Pathology. I built a new
`
`Therapeutic Antibody Centre, and was its Research Director from 1995 to 2007. In
`
`2000 I was appointed Professor of Therapeutic Immunology. In 2004 the Centre
`
`was licensed by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency as a facility
`
`for the manufacture of therapeutic proteins according to Good Manufacturing
`
`Practice and, based on my experience over the previous nine years, I was
`
`recognised as a Qualified Person, authorized to release batches of experimental
`
`drugs to the clinic.
`
`7.
`
`In 2002 I founded a contract research company, BioAnaLab, which
`
`was devoted to the analysis of biologic drugs such as therapeutic monoclonal
`
`antibodies. I was the Chief Executive Officer from 2004 to 2009 when the
`
`
`
`3
`
`9 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`company was sold to Millipore Inc. Since then I have served on the board of
`
`directors of several biotechnology companies, including one, Absolute Antibody
`
`Ltd, which uses technology that traces a direct line from our pioneering research in
`
`the 1980s to develop and supply recombinant monoclonal antibodies to academic
`
`and pharmaceutical clients around the world. I am currently a self-employed
`
`consultant.
`
`8.
`
`A full description of my background and qualifications can be found
`
`in my curriculum vitae at Ex. 1003A.
`
`B.
`
`9.
`
`Bases for Opinions and Materials Considered
`
`Exhibit 1003B includes a list of the materials I considered, in addition
`
`to my experience, education, and training, in providing the opinions contained
`
`herein.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to the materials set forth in Exhibit 1003B, I have also
`
`reviewed the Expert Declaration of Dr. Lutz Riechmann, which I understand was
`
`filed as Exhibit 1003 in Case Nos. IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374. I have
`
`also reviewed the Expert Declaration of Dr. Eduardo A. Padlan, which I
`
`understand was filed as Exhibit 1003 in Case Nos. IPR2016-01693 and IPR2016-
`
`01694. I note that Dr. Riechmann and Dr. Padlan share many of the same
`
`opinions, and because I agreed with many of the statements and opinions set forth
`
`in their declarations, I have repeated those herein and revised only as necessary.
`
`
`
`4
`
`10 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Dr. Riechmann’s declaration also included a number of exhibits (Riechmann
`
`Exhibits A-P), which he used to support his opinions. I have reviewed these
`
`exhibits and found them to be accurate and useful in support of my own opinions.
`
`Because I agree with his use of the exhibits, I have also used these same exhibits,
`
`where necessary, to support my opinions.
`
`C.
`
`11.
`
`Scope of Work
`
`I have been retained by Boehringer as a technical expert in this matter
`
`to provide various opinions regarding the ’213 patent. I receive £300 per hour. No
`
`part of my compensation is dependent upon my opinions given or the outcome of
`
`this case.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`12.
`
`For my opinions in this declaration, I understand that it requires
`
`applying various legal principles. As I am not an attorney, I have been informed
`
`about various legal principles that involve my analysis. I have used my
`
`understanding of those principles in forming my opinions. I summarize those
`
`principles as I understand them below.
`
`13.
`
`For example, I have been told that Boehringer bears the burden of
`
`proving unpatentability in this proceeding by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`am informed that this preponderance of the evidence standard means that
`
`Boehringer must show that unpatentability is more probable than not.
`
`
`
`5
`
`11 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`14.
`
`I have also been told that when I review and consider the claims, the
`
`claims should be construed to be given what is called their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification, when those claims are viewed from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. (I discuss who qualifies as the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in more detail below.)
`
`15.
`
`I have been asked to consider the question of anticipation, namely,
`
`whether the claims cover something that is new, or novel. I am told that the
`
`concept of anticipation requires that each and every element of a challenged claim
`
`is present in or otherwise taught by a single prior art reference. I also understand
`
`that an anticipatory reference does not need to explicitly describe each element
`
`because anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is necessarily inherent or
`
`otherwise implicit in the relevant reference. I further understand that in order for a
`
`reference to anticipate a claim, it must describe the subject matter with sufficient
`
`detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to carry out or
`
`put into practice the disclosed ideas.
`
`16.
`
`I have been asked to consider the question of obviousness/non-
`
`obviousness. Again, I am told that this analysis must be from the perspective of
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art, and whether the skilled artisan would
`
`consider any differences between the prior art and what is claimed to have been
`
`obvious. I have been informed that the concept of patent obviousness assesses four
`
`
`
`6
`
`12 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art; and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. I further note that I
`
`have been instructed that one cannot use an existing patent as a guide to select
`
`from prior art elements, or otherwise engage in hindsight. Rather, the correct
`
`approach is to consider what the person of ordinary skill in the art knew, and what
`
`the art taught; suggested; or motivated the person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`further pursue.
`
`17.
`
`I am also informed that when there is some recognized reason to solve
`
`a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable and known
`
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known
`
`options within his or her technical grasp. If such an approach leads to the expected
`
`success, it is likely not the product of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense. In addition, when a patent claim simply arranges old elements with each
`
`performing its known function and yields no more than what one would expect
`
`from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that before reaching any final conclusion on obviousness,
`
`the obviousness analysis requires consideration of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness, if such information is offered. These must be considered to ensure
`
`that, for example, there were not some unanticipated problems, obstacles or
`
`
`
`7
`
`13 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`hurdles that may seem easy to overcome in hindsight, but which were not readily
`
`overcome prior to the relevant invention date of the patents/claims at issue here. I
`
`understand that these objective indicia are also known as “secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness,” and may include long-felt but unmet need and
`
`unexpected results, among others. I also understand, however, that any offered
`
`evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness must be comparable with
`
`the scope of the challenged claims. This means that for any offered evidence of
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness to be given substantial weight, I
`
`understand the proponent of that evidence must establish a “nexus” or a sufficient
`
`connection or tie between that evidence and the merits of the claimed invention,
`
`which I understand specifically incorporates any novel element(s) of the claimed
`
`invention. If the secondary consideration evidence offered actually results from
`
`something other than the novel element(s) of the claim, then I understand that there
`
`is no nexus or tie to the claimed invention. I also understand it is the patentee that
`
`has the burden of proving that a nexus exists.
`
`19. With respect to long-felt need, I understand that the evidence must
`
`show that a particular problem existed for a long period of time. More specifically,
`
`I understand that for a “need” to be long-felt and unmet 1) the need must be
`
`persistent and recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, 2) the need must not
`
`be satisfied by another before the alleged invention, and 3) the claimed invention
`
`
`
`8
`
`14 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`itself must satisfy the alleged need. I also understand that long-felt need is
`
`analyzed as of the date that the problem is identified. Furthermore, I understand
`
`that long-felt need should be based upon alleged inadequacies in the technical
`
`knowledge of those skilled in the art, not due to business-driven market forces.
`
`20. With respect to failure of others, I understand that the focus of the
`
`analysis is on the prior failure of others in the relevant industry, not the inventors.
`
`I further understand that, absent a showing of a long-felt, unmet need or the failure
`
`of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not evidence
`
`of non-obviousness.
`
`21. With respect to unexpected results, I understand that any results upon
`
`which a patentee wishes to rely as an indicator of non-obviousness must be based
`
`on a comparison of the purported inventions with the closest prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I also understand that the concept of simultaneous invention may
`
`provide evidence of obviousness, particularly where an invention was arrived at
`
`independently within a comparatively short space of time. I further understand that
`
`such evidence may indicate that the claimed invention was the product only of
`
`ordinary engineering skill.
`
`23. However, I understand that secondary considerations will not
`
`overcome a strong showing of obviousness.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`9
`
`15 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`24. As noted above, I have been informed by counsel that my analysis is
`
`to be conducted from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`“person of ordinary skill”) at the time of the invention.
`
`25.
`
`I have also been informed by counsel that in defining a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art the following factors may be considered: (1) the
`
`educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`(3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; and (5) sophistication of the technology and educational level of active
`
`workers in the field.
`
`26. A person of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’213 patent at the
`
`relevant time would have held a Ph.D. or equivalent in molecular biology,
`
`structural biology or a closely related field, or an M.D. with practical academic or
`
`industrial experience in the production of recombinant proteins. For example, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have the educational background above
`
`with experience in protein engineering. This experience is also consistent with the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art, which could have included performing
`
`three-dimensional computer modeling of immunoglobulin structures, antibody
`
`domain and sequence manipulation and swapping, CDR grafting and framework
`
`substitution in humanizing antibodies, construction and expression of recombinant
`
`antibodies, antibody binding assays (for specificity and affinity), immunogenicity
`
`
`
`10
`
`16 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`testing and the like. The experience may come from the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art’s own experience, or may come through research or work collaborations
`
`with other individual(s) with experience in the medical, pharmaceutical or biotech
`
`industry, e.g., as members of a research team or group. For example, the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art could have worked as part of a team or collaboration to
`
`develop a humanized monoclonal antibody for therapeutic use, including
`
`consulting with others to select non-human monoclonal antibodies (such as a
`
`mouse monoclonal antibody) for humanization, as well as subsequent testing of the
`
`humanized antibody and its intermediates. I should further note that in the prior
`
`art, computer modeling for humanization was a known methodology. The field
`
`was advancing rapidly, and individuals working in the field were highly
`
`sophisticated and using the most advanced scientific techniques.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`27.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, it is my opinion that claims 1, 2, 4, 25,
`
`29, 62, 63, 66, 69, 71, 75, 76, 78, 80 and 81 of the ’213 patent are anticipated over
`
`EP 0403156 to Kurrle et al. [Ex. 1071; “Kurrle”]. Kurrle provided a detailed
`
`roadmap in disclosing the humanization of a mouse monoclonal antibody against
`
`the human alpha/beta T-cell receptor, which included the substitution of claimed
`
`human framework residues 4L, 69H, 71H, 73H and 76H, for the non-human
`
`mouse monoclonal antibody framework residue.
`
`
`
`11
`
`17 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`28.
`
`It is also my opinion that Queen 1990 [Ex. 1050], in also providing a
`
`detailed roadmap for humanizing any non-human monoclonal antibody, anticipated
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 29, 62, 63, 64, 80 and 81 of the ’213 patent. Queen 1990
`
`characterized critical framework residues, including neighboring non-human
`
`antigen-specific Complementarity Determining Region (CDR) amino acid
`
`residues. From the well-known teachings of Kabat 1987 [Ex. 1052] and Kabat
`
`1991 [Ex. 1055], as well as Chothia & Lesk [Ex. 1062], claimed framework
`
`residues 98L and 36H are immediately adjacent to the CDRs according to the
`
`Kabat numbering system.
`
`29.
`
`From the discussion below, it is also my opinion that claims 1, 2, 4,
`
`25, 29, 62-64, 66-67, 69 and 71, 72, 75, 76, 78 and 80-81 are obvious over Queen
`
`1990 [Ex. 1050] in view of Kurrle [Ex. 1071]. Claims 73 and 77 are also obvious
`
`over Queen 1990 and Kurrle, in view of Chothia & Lesk [Ex. 1062]. As outlined
`
`below, Queen 1990 provided a detailed roadmap for one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to humanize a non-human monoclonal antibody, disclosed that human framework
`
`residues immediately adjacent to CDRs, which included claimed residues 98L and
`
`36H, should be substituted for the corresponding non-human framework residue in
`
`order to maintain CDR conformation and antigen binding. In also acknowledging
`
`the importance of neighboring framework residues to the CDRs for maintaining
`
`CDR conformation and antigen binding, Kurrle [Ex. 1071] followed through with
`
`
`
`12
`
`18 of 217
`
`BI Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`the substitution of the human framework residues, including at claimed residues
`
`including 4L, 69H, 71H, 73H, 76H and 93H according to the Kabat numbering
`
`system. Chothia & Lesk [Ex. 1062] moreover provided guidance on the
`
`importance of claimed residue 78H in maintaining antibody conformation, and
`
`thus provided explicit motivation to a skilled artisan for making substitutions at
`
`these residues. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62-64, 66-67, 69 and 71, 72,
`
`75, 76, 78 and 80-81 are also obvious in my opinion over Queen 1990 in view of
`
`Kurrle, and Chothia & Lesk.
`
`30.
`
`Furthermore, given the availability of antibody crystal structures, and
`
`the detailed analysis and characterization of framework residues that contact CDRs
`
`and/or are important in mai

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket