Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 10
`571.272.7822
`
` Filed: May 21, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INITIATIVE FOR MEDICINES, ACCESS & KNOWLEDGE (I-MAK), INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GILEAD PHARMASSET LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
` Filed: May 21, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INITIATIVE FOR MEDICINES, ACCESS & KNOWLEDGE (I-MAK), INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GILEAD PHARMASSET LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK), Inc.
`(“Petitioner”) requests an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 10–18, and 20–
`25 of U.S. Patent 8,334,270 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’270 patent”). Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). Gilead Pharmasset LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute an
`inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard, for the reasons
`set forth below, we decline to institute an inter partes review because the
`Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim.
`
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify a concurrently filed, second petition for inter
`partes review of the ’270 patent, IPR2018-00121. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 3. Patent
`Owner also identifies additional petitions for inter partes review of
`additional patents: IPR2018-00119 and IPR2018-00120 for U.S. Patent
`No. 7,964,580 B2; IPR2018-00103 for U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572 B2;
`IPR2018-00125 for review of U.S. Patent No. 8,633,309 B2; and
`IPR2018-00126 for review of U.S. Patent No. 9,284,342 B2. Paper 4, 3.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`
`B. The ’270 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’270 patent is directed to, inter alia, phosphoramidate prodrugs of
`a nucleoside derivative for treatment of viral infections in mammals, its
`ester, or a stereoisomer thereof. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’270 patent also
`addresses methods of treatment, uses, and processes for preparing such
`compounds. Id. The ’270 patent claims the benefit of priority of two
`earlier-filed provisional applications, 60/909,315, filed on March 30, 2007,
`and 60/982,309, filed on October 24, 2007. Ex. 1001, 1:4–9.
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Independent claims 1 and 16, each reciting a number of different
`phosphoramidate nucleoside derivatives, are reproduced below in part:
`
`A compound selected from among
`
`1.
`. . .
`(S)-isopropyl 2-(((S)-(((2R,3R,4R, 5R)-5-(2,4-dioxo-3,4-
`dihydropyrimidin-1(2H)-yl)-4-fluoro-3-hydroxy-4-methyl[-]
`tetrahydrofuran-2-yl)methoxy)(phenoxy)phosphoryl)
`amino)propanoate . . . .
`
`16. A compound or its stereoisomer thereof selected from
`among
`. . .
`(S)-2-{[(2R,3R,4R,5R)-5-(2,4-Dioxo-3,4-dihydro-2H-
`pyrimidin-1-yl)-4-fluoro-3-hydroxy-4-methyl-tetrahy-dro-
`furan-2-ylmethoxy]-phenoxy-phosphorylamino}-propionic acid
`isopropyl ester . . . .
`Ex. 1001, 605:35, 52–55, 607:58–59, 608:58–61.
`The compound set forth by name in the reproduced portion of claim 1
`above is the Sp stereoisomer of a phosphoramidate nucleoside derivative,
`known as sofosbuvir, which structure is depicted below:
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`
`
`
`Prelim. Resp. 3–4. The figure depicts the chemical structure of sofosbuvir
`with stereochemistry and identifies the compound’s phosphoramidate
`prodrug moiety, modified sugar, and natural uracil base. Id. at 4. Claim 16
`likewise, in setting forth a compound or stereoisomer of compounds
`identified by name, including that reproduced above, encompasses the Sp
`stereoisomer, the Rp stereoisomer, and mixtures of the two. Id. at 4, 11.
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 10–18, and 20–25 of the ’270 patent
`are unpatentable based on the following grounds. Pet. 3.
`
`References
`Clark ’147,1 Clark 2005,2 and
`Perrone3
`Clark ’147, Clark 2005, and
`McGuigan4
`
`Statutory Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`
`1 Clark, WO 2005/003147 A2, published January 13, 2005 (Ex. 1006).
`2 Clark et al., 48 J. MED. CHEM. 5504–08 (2005) (Ex. 1007).
`3 Perrone et al., 50 J. MED. CHEM. 1840–49 (2007) (Ex. 1008).
`4 McGuigan, WO 2005/012327 A2, published February 10, 2005 (Ex. 1009).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`
`Petitioner supports the Petition with the testimony of Joseph M.
`Fortunak, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002). Based on Dr. Fortunak’s statement of
`qualifications (id. ¶¶ 1–20) and curriculum vitae (Ex. 1003), on this record,
`we determine that he is qualified to opine from the perspective of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have held either
`(1) a Ph.D. in chemistry or a closely related field with some
`experience in an academic or industrial laboratory focusing on
`drug discovery or development, and would also have some
`familiarity with antiviral drugs and their design and mechanism
`of action, or
`(2) a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in chemistry or a closely
`related field with significant experience in an academic or
`industrial laboratory focusing on drug discovery and/or
`development for the treatment of viral diseases.
`Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35).
`Patent Owner does not expressly contest the level of ordinary skill.
`See generally Prelim. Resp.
`On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s essentially uncontested
`definition of the level of ordinary skill. We further note that the prior art
`itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining
`that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required]
`‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State
`Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
`B. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
`unexpired patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the specification of the patent in which they occur. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016)
`(affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to inter
`partes review proceedings). Under that standard, we interpret claim terms
`using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
`as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
`account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
`be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
`specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Under
`a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their
`plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification
`and prosecution history.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the
`definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa′ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be
`construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`
`Petitioner contends that “there is no reason to give any of the terms of
`the claims of the ‘270 [patent] a meaning other than their ordinary and
`accustomed meaning.” Pet. 6.
`Patent Owner does not contest that the claim terms should be given
`their ordinary and accustomed meaning. See generally Prelim. Resp. We
`determine that no claim term requires express construction for the purpose of
`determining whether to institute review.
`C. Prior Art
`
`1. Clark ’147 (Ex. 1006)
`Clark ’147 teaches (2′R)-2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyl nucleosides,
`pharmaceutically acceptable salts, and prodrugs, and their use in treating
`hepatitis C infection. Ex. 1006, 1 (Abstract). Clark ’147 teaches a general
`formula with substituents specified by reference to listings of what the
`substituents may be, some of which, if selected, would result in a phosphate
`or stabilized phosphate prodrug of (2′R)-2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyl
`uridine. Ex. 1006, 18:3–20:11, 47:16–25. Clark ’147 also discloses that
`(2′R)-2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyl cytidine has anti-viral activity,
`including against HCV (id. at 88:16–89:30) and lower toxicity than certain
`other nucleoside analogs (id. at 90:1–27).
`2. Clark 2005 (Ex. 1007)
`Clark 2005 reports the synthesis of the (2′R)-2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-
`methyl analogs of both cytidine and uridine, these analogs’ level of anti-
`HCV activity, and their level of cytotoxicity. Ex. 1007, 1, 3. Clark 2005
`reports that the cytidine analog, i.e., compound 1, has anti-HCV activity and
`low cellular toxicity. Id. Clark 2005 reports that the uridine analog, i.e.,
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`compound 9, “demonstrated no activity or cytotoxicity in any assay.” Id.
`at 3.
`
`
`3. Perrone (Ex. 1008)
`Perrone reports that “4′-[a]zidouridine did not inhibit HCV, although
`4′-azidocytidine was a potent inhibitor of HCV replication under similar
`assay conditions” and that “4′-azidouridine triphosphate was a potent
`inhibitor of RNA synthesis by HCV polymerase.” Ex. 1008, 1. Perrone
`reports the synthesis of a number of different phosphoramidate derivatives
`of 4′-azidouridine, their level of anti-HCV activity, and their level of
`cytotoxicity. Id. at 2–4. The derivatives include phenyl phosphoramidate
`and 1-naphthyl nucleotide derivatives,5 including one derivative,
`compound 15, with a phenyl L-alanine isopropyl ester phosphoramidate
`moiety. Id. at 4. Perrone further teaches that the reported results
`“demonstrate[] the ability . . . to successfully bypass the rate limiting initial
`phosphorylation of a ribonucleoside analogue and thus confer significant
`antiviral activity on an inactive parent nucleoside.” Id. at 5.
`
`4. McGuigan (Ex. 1009)
`McGuigan teaches nucleotide derivatives according to a general
`formula I, reproduced below, with substituents Ar, Q, R, R′, R′′, X, Y, Z,
`and Z.
`
`
`
`
`5 Perrone states that “the phenyl substituent on the phosphate [of the phenyl
`phosphoramidate was replaced] with . . . 1-naphthyl” in the 1-naphthyl
`analogs. Ex. 1008, 4; see also id. (Scheme 3, Tables 1 & 3), id. at 4 (Fig. 2).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, 5:11–14. Formula I depicts common structure and points of
`substitution with substituents. Id. McGuigan sets forth different
`possibilities for these substituents. Id. at 5:16–6:8, 7:22–13:22.
`D. Alleged Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims
`1. Obviousness over Clark ’147, Clark 2005, and Perrone
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 10–18, and 20–25 are
`unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Clark ’147, Clark 2005,
`and Perrone. Pet. 28–44.
`Claims 1 and 2 each “recite [a] Markush Group[] of compounds that
`include[s], ‘(S)-isopropyl 2-(((S)-(((2R,3R,4R,5R)-5-(2,4-dioxo-3,4-
`dihydropyrimidin-1(2H)-yl)-4-fluoro-3-hydroxy-4-methyltetrahydrofuran-2-
`yl)methoxy)(phenoxy)phosphoryl)amino)propanoate,’” and claims 16–18
`“recite [a] Markush [Group] of compounds that include, ‘(S)-2-
`{[(2R,3R,4R,5R)-5-(2,4-Dioxo-3,4-dihydro-2H-pyrimidin-1-yl)-4-fluoro-3-
`hydroxy-4-methyl-tetrahydro-furan-2-ylmethoxy]-phenoxy-
`phosphorylamino}-propionic acid isopropyl ester.’” Id. at 28 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 605:35–606:63, 607:57–616:23). The Petitioner identifies these
`compounds as “5’-phosphate (phosphoramidate) prodrugs of the uridine
`analog ‘(2’R)-2’-deoxy-2’-fluoro-2’-C-methyluridine’, wherein the 5’-
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`phosphate group is the ‘(phenyl)(isopropyl-L-alaninyl)phosphate’ group.”
`Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1001, 493:42–46; Ex. 1002 ¶ 160).
`Petitioner sets forth its obviousness ground on the basis of one
`specific uridine analog—2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro-2'-C-methyluridine—with one
`specific phosphoramidate moiety—(phenyl)(isopropyl-L-
`alaninyl)phosphate. See, e.g., Pet. 36 (“claims 1, 2, and 16-18 are different
`from Clark ‘147 only in that the stable 5’-phosphate group on the nucleoside
`analog . . . is the ‘(phenyl)(isopropyl-L-alaninyl)phosphate’ group”); id. at
`39 (“Applying Perrone’s ProTide approach to Clark ‘147 and Clark 2005’s
`promising nucleoside would result in the compound claimed in claims 1, 2,
`and 16-18 . . . . More specifically, Perrone taught that a stable modified 5’-
`phosphate group . . . is the ‘(phenyl)(isopropyl-L-alaninyl)phosphate’
`group . . . .” (emphasis added)); id. at 41–42 (relying on Perrone’s teaching
`as to the “use of the ‘(phenyl)(isopropyl-L-alaninyl)phosphate’ group”). In
`limiting its analysis in that way, Petitioner fails to set forth how, or if, any
`other compound recited in the Markush groups of claims 1, 2, and 16–18,
`would be rendered obvious by the cited references. See generally Pet.
`Petitioner relies generally on Clark ’147 and Clark 2005 for the 2′-
`deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyluridine nucleoside and on Perrone for the
`phosphoramidate moiety. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in
`the art, informed by the teachings of Clark ’147 and Clark 2005, would have
`been led to 2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyluridine, a known nucleoside
`compound, and motivated “to use the well-known strategy to select a
`suitable stable 5’-phosphate group for (2’R)-2’-deoxy-2’-fluoro-2’-C-
`methyluridine . . . in order to increase its activity.” Id. at 28–37. As to the
`“suitable stable 5’-phosphate group” (id. at 37), Petitioner contends that
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`“[o]ne would have been specifically motivated to refer to Perrone, which
`taught a phosphoramidate ‘ProTide’ approach to confer potency against
`hepatitis C virus by activating otherwise inactive nucleosides” (id. at 37–38).
`Petitioner maintains Clark ’147 suggests or teaches the nucleoside
`analog. Petitioner relies on Example 5 of Clark ’147, which discloses that
`(2′R)-2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyl-cytidine has anti-viral activity,
`including against HCV (Ex. 1006, 88:16–89:30), and lower toxicity than
`certain other nucleoside analogs (id. at 90:1–27). Petitioner further relies on
`the common knowledge that uracil is one of the four bases in RNA, and
`contends that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been
`motivated to replace the cytidine in the active (2’R)-2’-deoxy-2’-fluoro-2’-
`C-methylcytidine 5’-triphosphate with a uridine,” and also that they would
`have “had an expectation that this would produce a likewise active and
`potent HCV inhibitor.” Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 168).
`Petitioner maintains Clark ’147 also suggests or teaches
`phosphorylated, or prodrug forms, of the nucleoside analog. Petitioner
`contends that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been . . .
`fully motivated to specifically choose, from the various compounds
`encompassed by Claim 40 [of Clark ’147], the 5’-phosphate (including
`monophosphate, diphosphate, triphosphate, or a stabilized phosphate
`prodrug) of (2’R)-2’-deoxy-2’-fluoro-2’-C-methyl uridine as a practicable
`HCV inhibitor.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 169). Petitioner further relies on
`a portion of Clark ’147 that reads:
`A number of nucleotide prodrug ligands are known. In general,
`alkylation, acylation or other liphophilic modification of the
`mono-, di- or triphosphate of the nucleoside reduces polarity
`and allows passage into cells. . . . Any of these can be used in
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`
`combination with the disclosed nucleosides to achieve a desired
`effect.
`Pet. 35–36 (quoting Ex. 1006, 58:15–24, with added emphasis); Ex. 1002
`¶ 172. Petitioner contends Clark ’147 “explicitly [teaches] that alkylation,
`acylation, arylation, or other lipophilic modification can be made to the
`phosphate group in the 5’-phosphate of (2’R)-2’-deoxy-2’-C-methyluridine
`to increase its activity, bioavailability and stability, and that the modified
`prodrug will convert into the 5’-monophosphate form (U’MP) after its entry
`into the cell.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 173).
`Clark 2005 discloses the nucleoside analog. Petitioner relies on
`Clark 2005’s report that the (2′R)-2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyl analog of
`cytidine—compound 1—has anti-HCV activity and low cytotoxicity and
`that the uridine analog—compound 9—has “no activity or cytotoxicity in
`any assay.” Id. at 36–37; Ex. 1007, 1, 3. Petitioner also relies on
`Clark 2005, without elaboration, as teaching “that the cytidine form of the
`Clark ‘147 nucleoside could metabolically convert in vivo to the uridine
`form.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1007, 3).
`Petitioner contends that “[t]he Clark 2005 results would have
`motivated a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to understand the lack of
`activity of the uridine form and to pursue methods to activate the uridine if
`the lack of activity were due to inefficient phosphorylation.” Id. at 37 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 178).
`Petitioner also contends that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art]
`would investigate the 2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro-2'-C-methyluridine nucleoside in
`Clark 2005 as a lead compound.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 189). In
`contending this, without explanation, Petitioner fails to specifically address
`its earlier contention, as to Clark ’147, that “a [person of ordinary skill in the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`art] would have been . . . fully motivated to specifically choose, from . . . the
`5’-phosphate (including monophosphate, diphosphate, triphosphate, or a
`stabilized phosphate prodrug) of (2’R)-2’-deoxy-2’-fluoro-2’-C-methyl
`uridine as a practicable HCV inhibitor.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 169).
`Rather, Petitioner simply settles, in effect, on the 2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro-2'-C-
`methyluridine nucleoside as its lead compound without adequate
`explanation, which suggests Petitioner relies on an improper hindsight
`reconstruction. Pet. 37, 41; see Prelim. Resp. 2 (persuasively arguing that
`Petitioner “provides no evidence to establish that the genus resulting from its
`proposed Clark ’147/Clark 2005 combination is an appropriate starting point
`or that it is sufficiently narrow to define a lead compound”).
`As to the prodrug moiety, despite the teaching in Clark ’147,
`identified above, that “[a] number of nucleotide prodrug ligands are known”
`and that “[a]ny of these can be used” (Pet. 35–36 (quoting Ex. 1006, 58:17,
`23–24); Ex. 1002 ¶ 172), Petitioner contends that “[o]ne would have been
`specifically motivated to refer to Perrone [Ex. 1008], which taught a
`phosphoramidate ‘ProTide’ approach to confer potency against hepatitis C
`virus by activating otherwise inactive nucleosides” (Pet. 37–38).
`Petitioner’s declarant identifies increased activity and reduced toxicity as
`improvements desired in modifying a lead compound. Ex. 1002 ¶ 32.
`Petitioner also contends, in respect to compositions, that “Perrone also
`taught that applying its phosphoramidate ProTide approach to nucleosides
`could activate them as HCV inhibitors for use in treating people.” Pet. 43
`(citing Ex. 1008, 1); Ex. 1002 ¶ 199.
`Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have “had a reasonable expectation of success . . . because of the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`general knowledge that nucleosides needed to be phosphorylated to [be]
`active in HCV replication and the fact that Perrone provided several
`examples of comparable nucleosides being triphosphorylated by its ProTide
`approach.” Pet. 38–39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 182. Petitioner maintains that “[i]n
`considering the similarity of Clark ‘147, Clark 2005 and Perrone, a [person
`of ordinary skill in the art] would not focus on the structural differences
`between the parent nucleosides, 2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyluridine and
`4′-aziduridne [sic, 4′-azidouridine].” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 189.
`Petitioner refers to additional references, including Wagner
`(Ex. 1010), McGuigan 2006 (Ex. 1012), McGuigan 1994 (Ex. 1013), and
`Cahard (Ex. 1014), in discussing the background knowledge in the art
`(Pet. 15–21), and contends that “it was generally known that, for antiviral 5’-
`phosphate prodrugs, the antiviral activity lies in the nucleoside itself” (id. at
`17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 63)). Cahard is cited, in particular, for teaching “that
`the phenyl alanyl phosphoramidate approach was successful on a range of
`nucleosides by many research groups.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 56;
`Ex. 1014, 1, 4).
`Petitioner also contends that “the range of realistic options is
`reasonably limited” for substitutions to (or the identity of) the amino acid
`moiety, the ester on the amino group, the ester group on the phosphorus, and
`optional substitution on nitrogen of the amino acid. Pet. 18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–
`66. Petitioner cites to Perrone, without further analysis, as demonstrating
`“how the amino acid moiety is most often glycine, alanine or valine, and
`how the ester group on the amino acid is most often methyl, isopropyl, or
`benzyl,” and contends, without cited support, that “[t]he useful ester groups
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`on phosphorous are aryl (typically phenyl).” Pet. 18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–66;
`Ex. 1008.
`Although Petitioner cites to Wagner (Ex. 1010), McGuigan 2006
`(Ex. 1012), McGuigan 1994 (Ex. 1013), and Cahard (Ex. 1014), including in
`referring to specific compounds, Petitioner provides little, if any, analysis as
`to the effects of the various disclosed substitutions (or identities) of various
`elements of the phosphoramidate moiety (see, e.g., Pet. 17, 42 (citing
`Ex. 1012, 1, 4), 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 1013, 3), 16–17 (citing Ex. 1014, 2–
`3)). Petitioner also does not provide particular analysis or evidence to
`support its implicit contention that the effect of any particular
`phosphoramidate, or other prodrug, moiety of a nucleoside analog prodrug is
`independent of the structure of the parent nucleoside analog. See generally
`Pet.
`
`As to Perrone’s disclosure, Petitioner emphasizes that “Perrone . . .
`prepared about 20 stable phosphate-based prodrugs of [4′-azidouridine]” (id.
`at 38), including compound 15 which has a phenyl L-alanine isopropyl ester
`phosphoramidate moiety (id. at 39). Petitioner maintains that “only 6 highly
`active phosphoramidate groups [are] particularly identified in Perrone (i.e.
`No.14, 15, 17, and 33–35)” and contends that “[a person of ordinary skill in
`the art] would have been motivated to try to attach each to the 5’-position of
`. . . (2’R)-2’-deoxy-2’-fluoro-2’-C-methyluridine resulting in the compounds
`of claims 1, 2, [and] 16–18.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 186; Ex. 1008, 4).
`Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would in
`particular prepare the derivatives . . . that correspond to compounds 14, 15
`and 17 in Perrone because they are described as having ‘exceptional’
`antiviral activity.” Id. at 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 188; Ex. 1008, 3–4. As noted
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`above, however, the only analysis, or even mention of compounds recited in
`the claims, is limited to the two that Petitioner identifies as corresponding to
`the 5′-phosphate (phosphoramidate) prodrugs of (2R)-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-2-C-
`methyluridine, wherein the 5-phosphate group is the (phenyl)(isopropyl-L-
`alaninyl)phosphate group, the phosphoramidate moiety of Perrone’s
`compound 15. See generally Pet.
`Petitioner has, in effect, set forth two different, intertwined, theories
`of obviousness; a lead compound theory grounded on selection of 2′-deoxy-
`2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyluridine as a lead compound, followed by its
`modification, and a theory grounded on combining 2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-
`methyluridine, or the corresponding portion of a 5′-phosphate or stabilized
`prodrug, with the phosphoramidate moiety of a phosphoramidate 4′-
`azidouridine analog to arrive at claimed subject matter, in particular, the 5′-
`phosphate (phosphoramidate) prodrugs of (2R)-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-2-C-
`methyluridine, wherein the 5-phosphate group is the (phenyl)(isopropyl-L-
`alaninyl)phosphate group.
`The lead compound analysis follows a two-part inquiry. In the first
`part, we “determine[] whether a chemist of ordinary skill would have
`selected the asserted prior art compounds as lead compounds, or starting
`points, for further development efforts.” Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1280, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The question of whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have selected a compound as a lead compound
`is “guided by evidence of the compound’s pertinent properties.” Id. at 1292.
`In the second part, we determine whether the artisan would have had reason
`to modify the lead compound to make the claimed compound, and whether
`they “would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Id.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`
`As to the non-lead compound analysis, we simply determine whether
`“a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior
`art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” In re
`Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation
`omitted). “Where a skilled artisan merely pursues ‘known options’ from ‘a
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions,’ the resulting invention is
`obvious under section 103.” Id. at 1070 (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).
`Evidence of obviousness, especially when that evidence is
`proffered in support of an “obvious-to-try” theory, is
`insufficient unless it indicates that the possible options skilled
`artisans would have encountered were “finite,” “small,” or
`“easily traversed,” and that skilled artisans would have had a
`reason to select the route that produced the claimed invention.
`Id. at 1072 (citing Ortho–McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d
`1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`Although Patent Owner presents its arguments generally as addressing
`deficiencies as to a lead compound theory of obviousness (Prelim. Resp. 12–
`16), some arguments are applicable to both theories (id. at 16–29).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to establish the requisite
`motivation to combine the 2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyluridine nucleoside
`with any of Perrone’s phosphoramidate moieties, and particularly
`(phenyl)(isopropyl-L-alaninyl)phosphate. Prelim. Resp. 26–29. Patent
`Owner further argues that Petitioner ignores structural differences between
`2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-methyluridine and Perrone’s 4′-azidocytidine
`nucleoside and that such differences “can have a huge impact on the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`properties of the final molecule, including whether the molecule is effective
`against HCV and whether it has toxic side effects.” Id. at 27–28. Patent
`Owner further argues that Petitioner “offers no evidence . . . that a person of
`ordinary skill would disregard these structural differences.” Id. at 28 (citing
`Pet. 37–41; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 182, 189).
`Patent Owner contends that “for a different nucleoside compound one
`would need to conduct research to determine which phosphoramidate
`prodrugs may or may not work.” Id. at 28–29. Patent Owner cites to
`Perrone itself as teaching that “the disclosed phosphoramidate prodrugs
`would be expected to behave differently if used with different parent
`compounds” in having “noted that ‘quite distinct [structure-activity
`relationships]’ were found for the particular nucleoside studied compared to
`nucleosides previously studied.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1008, 4).
`Perrone also reports, in discussing certain phosphoramidate variants:
`These results [with 4′-azidouridine] were striking when
`compared to the 60–70 fold reduction in anti-HIV potency for
`d4T ProTides with an L-alanine to glycine replacement and a
`20–40 fold reduction for the corresponding abacavir ProTides.
`This reinforces our earlier conclusion that a separate ProTide
`motif optimization process is needed for each nucleoside
`analogue versus a given target.
`Ex. 1008, 4 (emphasis added) (endnotes omitted).
`Patent Owner similarly contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill . . .
`would not have had a reasonable expectation that combining Perrone’s
`phosphoramidate with 2’-deoxy-2’-fluoro-2’-C-methyluridine would yield
`an effective anti-HCV drug.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Patent Owner, in discussing
`the search for “effective treatments for HCV” (id. at 4–10), highlights that
`both activity and toxicity are factors (id. at 6) and that “changes to the
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`structure of a nucleoside, or a prodrug used with a nucleoside, could have
`unpredictable and often negative impacts on the activity and toxicity of that
`nucleoside” (id.).
`We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence along with
`the Preliminary Response, and, on this record, for reasons that follow, we
`agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not met the threshold for
`instituting an inter partes review of the ’270 patent.
`We turn first to the lead compound analysis. As set forth above,
`Petitioner contends that Clark ’147 “explicitly taught that alkylation,
`acylation, arylation, or other lipophilic modification can be made to the
`phosphate group in the 5’-phosphate of (2’R)-2’-deoxy-2’-fluoro-2’-C-
`methyluridine” for improved properties and that “the 5’-phosphate
`(including monophosphate, diphosphate, triphosphate, or a stabilized
`phosphate prodrug) . . . [are] practicable HCV inhibitor[s]” providing
`increased activity, bioavailability, and stability. Pet. 34, 36; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 169, 173.
`In selecting the 2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro-2'-C-methyluridine nucleoside as
`the lead compound, Petitioner fails to adequately explain why this particular
`compound was chosen over other compounds, particularly the
`monophosphate, or any of a number of stabilized monophosphate prodrugs.
`See generally Pet.
`Also, as set forth above, Petitioner and its declarant contend that one
`of ordinary skill in the art—with the known nucleoside 2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-
`2′-C-methyluridine in hand—would turn first to Perrone for its teaching of
`phosphoramidate prodrug moieties, and then to those moieties that provide
`greater activity, without significant toxicity, in phosphoramidate
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00122
`Patent 8,334,270 B2
`
`4′-azidouridines. The difficulty, however, is that Petitioner fails to set forth
`a sufficient showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`a reasonable expectation of the same benefit with 2′-deoxy-2′-fluoro-2′-C-
`methyluridine.
`Petitioner relies variously on asserted similarity in structure of the
`parent nucleosides without directly addressing the structural differences
`(Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 189) and on the notion that the antiviral activity lies on
`the nucleoside itself (Pet. 17). This reliance is insufficient, however, in light
`of potentially significant differential effects on activity (and toxicity) when a
`particular phosphoramidate moiety is used to modify different nucleoside
`analogs, as highlighted by Patent Owner. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 28–29.
`Petitioner’s citation to other references that disclose phosphoramidate
`nucleoside analog prodrugs, likewise, as discussed above, is inadequate to
`support trial institution because there is insufficient analysis by Petitioner,
`particularly as to
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
