`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 23
`
`
` Entered: May 8, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`YANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition for an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62–64, 66, 67,
`69, 71–73, 75–78, 80, and 81 of U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 B1 (“the ’213
`patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner challenged those claims
`under five obviousness grounds and one anticipation ground. Pet. 4. In a
`Decision, we instituted an inter partes review on the anticipation ground but
`denied the obviousness grounds. Paper 17 (“Dec.”). Petitioner filed a
`Request for Partial Rehearing of the Decision. Paper 21 (“Reh’g Req.”).
`For the following reasons, we grant Petitioner’s request.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse
`of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous
`conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear
`error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties
`Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The
`request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the
`Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`Claim(s)
`1, 2, 25, 29, 63, 66, 67,
`71–73, 75–78, 80, 81
`1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62–64,
`66, 67, 69, 71–73, 75–
`78, 80, 81
`75–77
`
`75–77
`
`4, 62, 64, 69
`
`1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62–64,
`66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75–
`78, 80, 81
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`DISCUSSION
`In the Petition, Petitioner asserts the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`Ground
`1
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Reference(s)
`Queen 19891 and Protein
`Data Bank (PDB database)
`Queen 19902 and PDB
`database
`
`§ 103 Queen 1989, PDB database,
`and Tramontano3
`§ 103 Queen 1990, PDB database,
`and Tramontano
`§ 103 Queen 1989, PDB database,
`and Kabat 19874
`The ’101 patent5
`
`§ 102
`
`Pet. 4.
`
`
`1 Queen et al., A Humanized Antibody that Binds to the Interleukin 2
`Receptor, 86 PRO. NAT’L ACAD. SCI. 10029–33 (1989) (Ex. 1034).
`2 Queen et al., International Publication No. WO 90/07861 A1, published
`July 26, 1990 (Ex. 1050).
`3 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, 215 J. MOL. BIOL. 175–82 (1990) (Ex. 1051).
`4 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest 4th Ed.,
`Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of
`Precursors, V-Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-
`Cell Surface Antigens (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.) (1987)
`(Ex. 1052).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,530,101, issued June 25, 1996 (Ex. 1136).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`In the Decision, we institute an inter partes review to determine
`whether the ’101 patent anticipate 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73,
`75–78, 80, and 81. Dec. 14. We, however, denied Petitioner’s challenges
`on the five obviousness grounds. Id. at 8. We explained:
`As Patent Owner correctly points out, Grounds 1–5 asserted in
`the Petition “are essentially identical to those already instituted
`in” IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01489. Prelim. Resp. 12–13.
`Petitioner filed this Petition before we issued the decisions
`instituting inter partes reviews in IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-
`01489. Thus, Petitioner could have sought to join the pending
`IPRs. Yet, it did not do so. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. The time
`for requesting joinder has since expired. See id. As such, we
`exercise our discretion under § 325(d) and deny the Petition with
`respect to Grounds 1–5.
`
`Id.
`
`In its rehearing request, Petitioner argues that we previously instituted
`inter partes reviews on Grounds 1–5 in IPR2017-01373 and
`IPR2017-01489. Reh’g Req. 1. According to Petitioner, we should not use
`our discretion to deny meritorious grounds. Id. at 3. In addition, Petitioner
`points out that our Decision leaves claim 72 unchallenged. Id. at 1, 3.
`After Petitioner filed its rehearing request, the Supreme Court held
`that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less
`than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, --- S. Ct. -
`----, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018). The Office issued a
`Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings. See
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`We grant Petitioner’s partial rehearing request and institute an inter
`parte review on all of the challenged claims and all of the grounds presented
`in the Petition.
`The parties shall confer to discuss the impact, if any, of this Order on
`the current schedule. If, after conferring, the parties wish to change the
`schedule beyond that permitted by stipulation under the scheduling order or
`submit further briefing, the parties must, within one week of the date of this
`Order, request a conference call with the panel to seek authorization for such
`changes or briefing.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Partial Rehearing is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted on the
`following grounds:
`1. claims 1, 2, 25, 29, 63, 66, 67, 71–73, 75–78, 80, and 81 as
`obvious over the combination of Queen 1989 and PDB database;
`2. claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 71–73, 75–78, 80, and 81
`as obvious over the combination of Queen 1990 and PDB
`database;
`3. claims 75–77 as obvious over the combination of Queen 1989,
`PDB database, and Tramontano;
`4. claims 75–77 as obvious over the combination of Queen 1990,
`PDB database, and Tramontano;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`5. claims 4, 62, 64, and 69 as obvious over the combination of Queen
`1989, PDB database, and Kabat 1987; and
`6. claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75–78, 80, and 81
`as anticipated by the ’101 patent; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner shall confer
`to determine whether they desire any changes to the schedule not authorized
`by stipulation under the scheduling order in this case or any further briefing,
`and, if so, shall request a conference call with the panel to seek authorization
`for such changes or briefing within one week of the date of this Order.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Ire J. Levy
`Brian A. Fairchild
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`ilevy@goodwinlaw.com
`bfairchild@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Rebecca A. Whitfield
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`rebecca.whitfield@wilmerhale.com
`
`Adam R. Brausa
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`
`
`
`6
`
`