UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`Moderna Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`___________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10679120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`Moderna Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`___________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10679120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 1
`A. Patent Owner Fails To Rebut Petitioner’s Showing That The
`Substitute Claims Are Invalid ............................................................... 2
`B. Patent Owner Fails To Rebut Petitioner’s Showing that The
`Prior Art Discloses Systemic Use ......................................................... 6
`C. Patent Owner Fails To Rebut Petitioner’s Showing That
`Narrowed Claimed Concentrations Are Obvious ................................. 8
`D. Patent Owner Fails To Rebut Petitioner’s Showing That The
`Proposed Substitute Claims Lack Support And Are Not
`Enabled ............................................................................................... 11
`III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Baxter-Travenol Labs.,
`952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 9
`In re Clemens,
`622 F.2d 1029 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ............................................................................ 8
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.,
`904 F.3d 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 8
`Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp.,
`572 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................passim
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 11
`Scentair Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00179, Paper 84, 13 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019) ..................................... 2
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS RELIED UPON IN THE REPLY AND THE OPPOSITION TO AMEND
`
`
`References
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`International Publication No. WO 2005/007196
`U.S. Publication No. US2006/0134189
`U.S. Publication No. US2006/0240554
`Lin, Alison J. et al., Three-Dimensional Imaging of Lipid Gene-
`Carriers: Membrane Charge Density Controls Universal
`Transfection Behavior in Lamellar Cationic Liposome-DNA
`Complexes, 84 BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 3307–16 (2003) (“Lin”)
`Ahmad, Ayesha et al., New multivalent cationic lipids reveal bell
`curve for transfection efficiency versus membrane charge density:
`lipid-DNA complexes for gene delivery, 7 J GENE MED 739–48
`(2005) (“Ahmad”)
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew S. Janoff
`Gao, Xiang et al., Nonviral Gene Delivery: What We Know and
`What Is Next, 9 AAPS JOURNAL Article 9, pp. E92-E104 ( 2007)
`(“Gao”)
`Bennett, Michael J. et al., Cholesterol Enhances Cationic Liposome-
`Mediated DNA Transfection of Human Respiratory Epithelial Cells,
`15 Bioscience Reports, pp. 47-53 (1995) (“Bennett”)
`Heyes, James et al., Cationic lipid saturation influences
`intracellular delivery of encapsulated nucleic acids, 107 JOURNAL
`OF CONTROLLED RELEASE 276–87 (2005) (“Heyes”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,613
`U.S. Patent No. 7,939,505
`U.S. Publication No. US2007/0042031
`U.S. Publication No. US2006/0008910
`Excerpts from ’069 Patent File History
`’435 Patent File History
`U.S. Patent No. 5,264,618
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Andrew S. Janoff
`Deposition Transcript of David H. Thompson – Volume 1 (February
`4, 2019)
`Deposition Transcript of David H. Thompson – Volume 2 (February
`5, 2019)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`
`
`References
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Andrew S. Janoff
`Janoff Declaration for Opposition to Motion to Amend
`Patent Owner Response in IPR2018-00739
`Kauffman, et al. Optimization of Lipid Nanoparticle Formulations
`for mRNA Delivery in Vivo with Fractional Factorial and Definitive
`Screening Designs, Nano Letters (2015) (“Kauffman”)
`Decision on Appeal, Appeal No. 2016-008388 (P.T.A.B. July 18,
`2018)
`Transcript of April 30, 2019 Conference Call
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) Reply in support of its MTA is nothing more than
`
`attorney argument and mischaracterizations of the existing record, applicable rules,
`
`and newly added references. It is well established that such attorney argument is
`
`not evidence. Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument ... is not evidence and cannot rebut ...
`
`other admitted evidence ....”). Based upon the actual evidence of record, substitute
`
`claim 21 presented in the MTA fails to remedy the issues raised in these
`
`proceedings and is invalid by the preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, PO
`
`fails to even address a prior Board decision addressing the failure of PO’s own
`
`substantively similar disclosure to adequately describe use of mRNA payloads.
`
`The Board’s reasoning in this prior decision is sound and equally applicable here.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`In its Opposition, Petitioner set forth its position that the “substitute claims …
`
`do not remedy the invalidity issues raised” in the IPR proceeding. See Opp., 1.
`
`Petitioner then went on to explain how each of PO’s added limitations (and the
`
`substitute claim as a whole) are disclosed in the prior art. Id., 3-8.
`
`Unable to substantively rebut Petitioner’s invalidity showing, PO resorts to
`
`mischaracterizations of the record and applicable rules. For example, PO claims that
`
`it cannot fathom the prior art combinations that underlie the discussions. Reply, 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`Immediately thereafter, however, PO sets forth its response to the prior art
`
`combinations of Grounds 1-3 as enumerated in the Petition. Id., 2-4. PO also
`
`complains that the Opposition focuses on new limitations in the substitute claim and
`
`does not reargue limitations that have remained substantively the same. See Reply,
`
`2. There is no rule requiring rehashing of every argument in every filing. PO itself
`
`cites to arguments put forth in its PO Response instead of needlessly repeating them
`
`in this briefing. See, e.g., Reply, 2 (“Patent Owner believes that the addition of
`
`‘serum stable’ is superfluous … (see Response 11-13) ….”). Indeed, PO’s own cited
`
`case support states that “the Board determines whether substitute claims are
`
`unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on the entirety of the record
`
`….” Scentair Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., No. IPR2013-00179, Paper 84, 13-14
`
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019) (emphasis added). While the panel in Scentair did reject a
`
`generic reference in an Opposition to a MTA to un-instituted grounds in a Petition
`
`regarding “one or more … ‘other’ references” presented regarding different claims
`
`(id., 20), that is simply not analogous to the briefing here.
`
`A.
`
`PATENT OWNER FAILS TO REBUT PETITIONER’S SHOWING THAT
`THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`The references of record establish that (1) certain cationic lipids (e.g., DLin-
`
`DMA) are sufficiently non-toxic that they can be tolerated at high concentrations in
`
`vivo and (2) nucleic acid-lipid particles with high cationic lipid concentrations (e.g.,
`
`at or above 50 mol%) can be formed that are “substantially non-toxic” with such
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`lipids. See, e.g., EX1003, [0152] (cationic lipid 2-60 mol%), [0151] (resulting
`
`particles “substantially non-toxic”); EX1022, ¶¶54-57 (sworn expert testimony on
`
`substantially non-toxic ionizable cationic lipids). Rather than addressing the
`
`substance of the prior art disclosures and related sworn expert testimony, PO resorts
`
`to blatant mischaracterizations. See, e.g., Reply, 4 (calling disclosures “attorney
`
`argument [and] a false narrative”). But the same basic science underlies the ’435
`
`patent as well. EX1001, 3:18-20 (using DLin-DMA to create “… lipid particles
`
`[that] are substantially non-toxic” at cationic lipid concentrations greater than 50
`
`mol%). The question is whether this basic science was known prior to the ’435
`
`patent, and the record indisputably demonstrates that this was in fact known.
`
`PO also argues that all cationic lipids are toxic to some extent. Reply, 5. Even
`
`if accepted as true, ionizable cationic lipids like DLin-DMA on the “lower end of
`
`the toxicity spectrum” were admittedly known and used. EX1020, 268:12-15. Patent
`
`Owner’s prior disclosures specifically state that “substantially non-toxic” nucleic
`
`acid-lipid particles can be created using DLin-DMA in ranges up to 60 mol%.
`
`EX1002, [0011], [0088]; EX1003, [0152], [0155]. The ’435 patent is based upon
`
`almost verbatim disclosures but with the cationic lipid range adjusted slightly. See
`
`EX1001, 3:13-31, 6:2-5 (“substantially non-toxic” particles using DLin-DMA). This
`
`is in no way a “false narrative” as PO claims.
`
`PO’s attempt to limit its prior disclosures of the cationic lipid range in
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`particles for systemic use to just 5-15 mol% (Reply, 3) is inconsistent with the other
`
`disclosures therein. For example, the ’189 publication describes systematic in vivo
`
`testing of 40 mol% cationic lipid. EX1003, [0351]-[0391] (2:40 formulation).
`
`Limiting the cationic lipid range to 5-15 mol% for systemic use cannot be reconciled
`
`with this systemic testing at 40 mol%—a fact PO and its expert conveniently ignore.
`
`Unrelated new exhibits (EX2051-EX2052) do not change this analysis. First,
`
`PO offers only unsupported attorney argument regarding these exhibits—this is not
`
`evidence. Gemtron, 572 F.3d at 1380. Second, these references disclose work done
`
`by Petitioner in 2016-2017 to further improve on ionizable cationic lipids. See
`
`EX2051-2052. PO cherry picks single paragraphs from each of these references and
`
`argues that these excerpts confirm that ionizable cationic lipids (e.g., DLin-DMA)
`
`are too toxic to be used at high mol%. See Reply, 5. PO’s proposed conclusion,
`
`however, directly contradicts not only the basic science underlying the ’189
`
`publication, but the ’435 patent as well.
`
`EX2051 is a 50-page disclosure detailing a “method for producing lipid
`
`nanoparticles” using a “lower alkanol solution.” EX2051, 1:21-25. PO cites to a
`
`single paragraph directed to a single embodiment regarding the optional use of
`
`“biodegradable cationic lipids to produce … rapidly eliminated lipid nanoparticle
`
`(reLNP).” Id., 21:9-18. The disclosure notes that such reLNPs can increase
`
`tolerability because “[i]onizable cationic lipids, such as … DLinDMA … have been
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`shown to accumulate in plasma and tissues over time and may be a potential source
`
`of toxicity.” Id. PO ignores that EX2051 discloses various high cationic lipid
`
`embodiments (e.g., id., 9:23-26 (70 mol%)) and nowhere says that only
`
`biodegradable cationic lipids should be used with such embodiments.
`
`EX2052 is a 326-page disclosure detailing nucleic acid-lipid particles having
`
`an improved structure comprising an “inner core” and “outer shell.” See, e.g.,
`
`EX2052, cl. 1. PO again cites to a single paragraph stating that “the lipid compounds
`
`described herein have a lower immunogenicity as compared to a reference lipid (e.g.,
`
`MC3, KC2, or DLinDMA).” Reply, 5 (citing EX2052, 57:29-58:9). Again, the
`
`reference in no way states that the reference lipids (e.g., DLin-DMA) are too toxic
`
`to be used at high cationic lipid concentrations.
`
`PO’s attorney’s argument that toxicity is unrelated to charge or whether a
`
`cationic lipid is ionizable citing Ahmad (Reply, 5) is no more availing. Ahmad
`
`discloses that “[m]embrane charge density is a universal parameter” (EX1006, 743)
`
`and shows that at high membrane charge densities, transfection efficiency drops off
`
`precipitously (id., Fig. 3). This is consistent with other cited prior art emphasizing
`
`the importance of particle charge. EX1002, [0015] (overall neutral charge are
`
`preferred), EX1003, [0219] (same); EX1010, 277 (“low surface charge required for
`
`systemic delivery”). While Ahmad advocates the use of multivalent lipids, nowhere
`
`does it state that toxicity is unrelated to charge. Even PO’s own expert admitted
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`charge may effect toxicity: “Q. … does the charge of the cationic lipid used, the pH
`
`of the in vitro experiment affect its acute toxicity? A. The details matter. I can't—I
`
`can't answer that with—with any kind of precision because it's—it depends on the
`
`material and the formulation.” EX1019, 66:18-23.
`
`B.
`
`PATENT OWNER FAILS TO REBUT PETITIONER’S SHOWING THAT
`THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES SYSTEMIC USE
`PO’s stated purpose for the added limitations regarding “serum stability and
`
`nuclease resistance” is to limit “the claimed particles to those that are suitable for
`
`systemic use.” Reply, 3. Each of the primary prior art references, however, disclose
`
`both of these added limitations and systemic use. See, e.g., EX1002, [0002] (“serum-
`
`stable nucleic acid-lipid particle”), cl.2, [0011] (“… the nucleic acid in the nucleic
`
`acid-lipid particle is resistant in aqueous solution to degradation by a nuclease”),
`
`[0204] (stability tested at 37 degrees for 30 minutes); EX1003, [0182] (“serum-
`
`stable nucleic acid-lipid particles”), cl. 31 (“… the nucleic acid in said nucleic acid-
`
`lipid particle is not substantially degraded after exposure of said particle to a
`
`nuclease at 37° C. for 20 minutes.”), [0013] (nuclease resistance for “at least 20, 30,
`
`45, or 60 minutes” at 37°C); EX1004, [0136] (“the present invention provides a
`
`serum-stable formulated molecular composition ... in which the biologically active
`
`molecule is encapsulated in a lipid bilayer and is protected from degradation”); see
`
`also EX1022, ¶¶54, 60. Contrary to PO’s assertions (Reply, 6), these disclosures are
`
`not limited to mere testing for nuclease degradation.
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`PO offers no substantive argument regarding these disclosures in the ’196
`
`PCT and ’189 publication, arguing only that the provided disclosures are insufficient
`
`without further explanation. See Reply, 6. It is unclear what more is required than
`
`repeated disclosure of verbatim limitations in the prior art.
`
`Regarding the ’544 publication, PO offers attorney argument that the
`
`formulations disclosed therein are limited to the use of chemically modified RNA
`
`constructs to protect the nucleic acid from enzymatic degradation. Reply, 4, 6. But,
`
`that is only one of the disclosed embodiments. The ’544 publication also discloses
`
`embodiments achieving nuclease resistance through encapsulation: “… serum-stable
`
`formulated molecular composition (e.g., comprising a biologically active molecules
`
`… including siNA …) in which the biologically active molecule is encapsulated in
`
`a lipid bilayer and is protected from degradation ….” EX1004, [0136].
`
`In any event, the substitute claim includes the term “serum-stable” only to the
`
`preamble, which a POSITA would not consider limiting. See EX1022, ¶53. PO
`
`nevertheless relies on the term to differentiate prior art. Reply, 2. PO offers no
`
`evidence (e.g., sworn expert testimony) on importing this limitation from the
`
`preamble, instead offering mere attorney argument that the term “is tied to the added
`
`limitation” regarding nuclease degradation. Id., 3. PO also fails to address its own
`
`expert’s testimony that the term “serum stable” has a different scope than the
`
`nuclease degradation limitation. EX1020, 368:2-18 (nuclease degradation limitation
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`can refer to resistance to nuclease in vitro).
`
`C.
`
`PATENT OWNER FAILS TO REBUT PETITIONER’S SHOWING THAT
`NARROWED CLAIMED CONCENTRATIONS ARE OBVIOUS
`As presented in the Petition (Paper 2) and Reply (Paper 28), the overlapping
`
`and encompassing ranges for the various lipid components in the prior art establish
`
`a prima facie case of obviousness. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V.,
`
`904 F.3d 996, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“overlap [in ranges] creates a presumption of
`
`obviousness”). By its motion, PO has proposed a narrowed range for the cationic
`
`lipid to more closely align the claimed range with testing on which PO relies in an
`
`attempt to demonstrate unexpected results to rebut this showing. See Reply, 8
`
`(“The substitute claims narrow the cationic lipid range to 50% to 75% ....”). As
`
`Petitioner has explained, the substitute lipid ranges, if anything, actually increase
`
`the overlap with the prior art. See Opp., 8. PO’s complaint that the Opposition
`
`focuses on the changes to the cationic lipid range (id., 7) makes no sense—of
`
`course Petitioner is focused on PO’s substantive amendment. While PO also
`
`increase the range for the non-cationic lipid accordingly to 23-49.5 mol% (MTA,
`
`4), this amended range similarly increases the overlap with the prior art. EX1002,
`
`[0091] (20-85%); EX1003 [0152] (20-80%); EX1004, [0313] (20-85%).
`
`PO’s further efforts to rebut Petitioner’s showing are also insufficient. PO’s
`
`test data is still not commensurate with the scope of the narrowed claims. In re
`
`Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (test data must be commensurate
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`with the scope of claims). First, the narrowed range for the cationic lipid
`
`concentration is 50-75 mol%. Reply, 8. PO’s test data admittedly covers only
`
`select points between the lesser range of 50-70 mol% and there is no basis to
`
`believe that concentrations between 70-75 mol% would behave the same. MTA, 16
`
`(test data in patent of “54 mol% to 70 mol%” and “post-filing date data” for “50
`
`mol% and 57 mol% cationic lipid” (citing EX2017-19, EX2021)). To explain the
`
`gap in the data, PO cites to a statement from the ’435 patent that “lipid ratios as
`
`target formulations … may vary by ±5 mol%.” Reply, 8. But, as PO has pointed
`
`out previously, the ’435 patent claim “recites a nucleic acid-lipid particle with
`
`specific concentration ranges of” lipid components, not target formulations. POR,
`
`39-40. Moreover, there is no evidence that the cited test formulations have cationic
`
`lipid concentrations other than those stated.
`
`Second, PO’s test data merely shows that the tested formulations, in some
`
`cases, show some efficacy. See Reply, 8. It is well settled that “results must be shown
`
`to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.” In re Baxter-Travenol Labs.,
`
`952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). During prosecution, PO compared the tested
`
`formulations in the ’435 patent to the admitted prior art 2:40 formulation. EX1015
`
`(PO argued Examples 3-4 show 1:57 formulation more effective than “previously
`
`described (‘2:40 SNALP’)”). The testing beyond Examples 3-4 on which PO now
`
`relies contains no basis for comparison to any prior art formulations. See EX1001
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`(Examples 2, 5-11); EX2017-19, EX2021, EX2047-50 (no comparison to prior art
`
`formulations). This new “evidence” is thus irrelevant to the question of unexpected
`
`results and does not impact the inquiry. In addition, PO’s post-’435 patent test data
`
`demonstrates that certain formulations falling within the scope of the claims have no
`
`activity whatsoever, let alone activity better than the prior art. Opp., 10 (discussing
`
`examples). This shows that the data is not coextensive with the substitute claims.
`
`Third, regarding new exhibits (EX2046-50), PO offers only unsupported
`
`attorney argument—not evidence. Gemtron, 572 F.3d at 1380. Also, PO only makes
`
`offhand reference to summary EX2046 without substantive discussion. Reply, 8.
`
`This is improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2).
`
`Given the extensive overlap in the claimed ranges (e.g., 2-60 mol% in the
`
`prior art compared to 50-75 mol% in the substitute claim) in a defined system
`
`using the same lipid components, same formulation methods and same payloads
`
`(see EX1001, EX1003), it would have been a matter of routine optimization for a
`
`POSITA to select a cationic lipid concentration between 50-60% within the prior
`
`art range. EX1007, ¶110 (“… determining the optimal proportion of cationic lipid
`
`for a given lipid combination would be a simple matter of varying the proportion
`
`using prior art methodologies.”). PO’s argument that motivation is lacking (Reply,
`
`7-8) ignores the Federal Circuit’s holding that “[t]he normal desire of scientists …
`
`provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`D.
`
`PATENT OWNER FAILS TO REBUT PETITIONER’S SHOWING THAT
`THE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS LACK SUPPORT AND ARE NOT
`ENABLED
`Petitioner’s expert has offered testimony that a POSITA would not consider
`
`the inventors of the ’435 patent to be in possession of nucleic-acid lipid particles
`
`with an mRNA payload, and thus written description is lacking. EX1022, ¶68-77.
`
`PO offers no rebuttal evidence (e.g., sworn expert testimony), but instead improperly
`
`relies on mere attorney argument. Gemtron, 572 F.3d at 1380.
`
`PO improperly points to disclosures regarding mRNA added to the ’435 patent
`
`in 2015. The ’435 patent as filed contained claims referring only to generic “nucleic
`
`acid” payloads (claim 1) or siRNA (claim 2). EX1016 (8/18/14 application). In 2015
`
`(when PO was seeking to improperly expand the scope of its patent protections), PO
`
`added the unsupported claim to mRNA (claim 2). Id. (2/26/15 Amendment). PO’s
`
`reliance on this late-added claim for written description support is improper. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(2) (support required from “original disclosure”).
`
`Regarding enablement, PO cites to testimony from its expert (Reply, 9) that
`
`(1) conflicts with his prior repeated answers that a formulation for a given payload
`
`is merely a “starting point for whatever nucleic acid [one] might want to deliver”
`
`(EX1019, 109:23-111:17); and (2) PO’s attorneys only elicited on redirect and then
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`only after meeting with the witness for 1 hour and forty minutes to specifically
`
`discuss how he should answer redirect questions. EX1020, 413:7-16.
`
`PO also offers attorney argument that mRNA has been shown to have some
`
`effect with a formulation previously used with siRNA. Reply, 9 (citing to EX2019,
`
`EX2048). These references are silent, however, on the additional research and
`
`testing that was required. Indeed, EX2048 states that as of 2017, the authors “set out
`
`to describe, for the first time, the pharmacology and toxicologic effects of repeated
`
`administration of hEPO-mRNA in LNPs.” EX2048, 2. PO also points to testing
`
`performed by Petitioner’s expert. Reply, 11. Dr. Janoff testified that after spending
`
`3-4 months and $100K to try to make the system of the ’435 patent work with
`
`mRNA, there was no functional system and extensive further testing would be
`
`required. EX2055, 15:17-18:19; 87:11-88:18. This weighs against enablement.
`
`Finally, PO offers no analysis whatsoever regarding the decision in Ex parte
`
`Guild, in which the Board carefully analyzed substantively the same disclosures
`
`regarding nucleic-acid lipid particle payloads in one of Patent Owner’s own prior
`
`disclosures and determined there was a lack of support regarding mRNA. See
`
`EX1025. The Board’s reasoning in Guild is firmly based in the applicable science
`
`and the analysis is equally applicable to the present proceedings.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s motion to amend should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00739
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,364,435
`
`
`
`Dated: May 10, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: Michael R. Fleming
`
`Michael R. Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`C. Maclain Wells (Reg. No. 48,991)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.6, that on May 10, 2019, a
`
`complete copy of the PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND is being served via electronic mail upon
`
`the following:
`
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Michael T. Rosato, Reg. No. 52,182
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Steven W. Parmelee, Reg. No. 31,990
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`
`Sonja R. Gerrard, Reg. No. 72,802
`sgerrard@wsgr.com
`
`Edward R. Reines
`Edward.reines@weil.com
`
`Derek C. Walter
`Derek.walter@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Susan M. Langworthy
`Susan M. Langworthy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
