`
`
`Paper No. 18
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RIMFROST AS
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTIC AS
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`U.S. Patent 9,375,453
`
`Issue Date: June 28, 2016
`
`Title: Bioeffective Krill Oil Compositions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 (b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDES PO FROM ADVANCING THE
`SAME PATENTABILITY ARGUMENTS REJECTED IN IPR2018-00295,
`IPR2017-00746 AND IPR2017-00745 ........................................................... 4
`III. CLAIMS 1-32 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ....................................... 6
`A.
`Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, 19-20, 23-26, 28 and 30-32 Would
`Have Been Obvious In View of Breivik II, Catchpole, Bottino II
`And Sampalis II ..................................................................................... 6
`1.
`Extract 2 of Catchpole Example 18 Contained
`Approximately 32-37% Triglycerides ........................................ 6
`Catchpole Discloses Krill Oil Extracts Having Greater
`Than 5% Ether Phospholipids As Recited In Claim 23 ............12
`A POSITA Would Have Combined The Conventional
`Extraction Techniques Disclosed In The Cited References
`And Obtained The Claimed Method Of Producing The
`Recited Polar Krill Oil ..............................................................14
`PO’s Argument That PAF Concerns Taught
`Away From Polar Krill Oil Having Greater Than About 3%
`Ether Phospholipid Lacks Merit ...............................................20
`Claim 4 Is Obvious in View of Breivik II, Catchpole,
`Bottino II, Sampalis I and Sampalis II ................................................23
`Claims 11, 18, 21 and 27 Would Have Been Obvious In View of
`Breivik II, Catchpole, Bottino II, Sampalis I And Fricke 1984 .........24
`Claims 13, 22 and 29 Would Have Been Obvious Based On
`Breivik II, Catchpole, Bottino II, Sampalis I and Randolph ...............26
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................28
`V.
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 38 (“POR”) proffers three meritless
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`arguments why challenged claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 (“the ‘453
`
`patent”) would not have been obvious.
`
`First, ignoring the actual data reported in Example 18, Patent Owner (“PO”)
`
`erroneously concludes that Extract 2 did not contain any triglycerides.
`
`Second, PO arbitrarily categorizes conventional extraction techniques as
`
`either “selective” or “non-selective,” and then baselessly contends that a POSITA
`
`would not have combined ranges for polar lipids extracted using these so-called
`
`different techniques.
`
`Third, PO posits that a POSITA would have been deterred from preparing
`
`krill oil having greater than about 3% ether phospholipids because of purported
`
`concerns about Platelet Activating Factor (“PAF”) activity.
`
`If the first and third arguments look familiar, they should - - PO proffered
`
`these same arguments in one or more of the following “krill IPRs”: IPR2018-
`
`00295; IPR2017-00746, IPR2017-00745. In fact, the current Response reads as
`
`though PO believes that repetition and stridency will overcome the fact that PO
`
`had a full and fair opportunity to litigate its “no triglycerides” and “PAF teaching
`
`away” arguments. But that each of these arguments was expressly rejected by the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`Board as evidenced by the factual findings and conclusions of law detailed in three
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`comprehensive Final Written Decisions finding every claim of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`9,320,765 (“the ‘765 patent”), 9,029,877 (“the ‘877 patent”) and 9,078,905 (“the
`
`‘905 patent”) unpatentable. See e.g., IPR2018-00295, Final Written Decision
`
`(Paper 35) (“-295 FWD”, Exhibit 1129); IPR2017-00746, Final Written Decision
`
`(Paper 23) (“-746 FWD”, Exhibit 1104); IPR2017-00745, Final Written Decision
`
`(Paper 24) (“-745 FWD”, Exhibit 1103).
`
`The legitimacy of -746 FWD and -745 FWD was even acknowledged by
`
`PO’s CEO who candidly admitted:
`
`Early in the process, [PO] became aware of the
`weakness in these two patents and have since upgraded
`this particular patent family. The outcome of this
`[PTAB] hearing was therefore as expected. However,
`we wanted to see how the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office argued their decisions. Exhibit
`1111, p. 2 (emphasis added).
`
`The Board has already fully considered and expressly rejected two of the
`
`arguments PO recycles in an effort to rebut substantial evidence demonstrating that
`
`the challenged claims of the ‘453 patent are unpatentable. PO’s remaining
`
`argument fares no better. Conventional extraction techniques, regardless of how
`
`categorized by PO, could have been predictably modified by a POSITA with a
`
`reasonable expectation of obtaining a method of producing polar krill oil as recited
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`in the challenged claims. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`POSITA: (1) would have known that phospholipids and its attendant
`
`phosphatidylcholine and ether phosphatidylcholine sub-components, as well as
`
`triglycerides and astaxanthin esters, were naturally present in krill, and could be
`
`readily extracted within predictable and known ranges using conventional
`
`extraction techniques; (2) would have understood that the process conditions of
`
`these extraction techniques (e.g., temperature, pressure, solvents, solvent
`
`concentration) could be readily modified to obtain predictable changes in the
`
`composition of the resulting krill oil; and (3) would have been motivated to
`
`formulate krill oil for oral consumption containing greater than about 3% ether
`
`phospholipids because of the known health benefits associated with phospholipids
`
`and associated omega-3 fatty acids.
`
`The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that challenged claims 1-32 of
`
`the ‘453 patent would have been obvious.1 See, e.g., Petition, pp. 32-89, Appendix
`
`A.
`
`
`1 Petitioner relies upon its Petition (Paper 2), Tallon Decl. (Exhibit 1006) and
`
`Tallon Reply/Opp. (Exhibit 1086).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`II. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDES PO
`FROM ADVANCING THE SAME PATENTABILITY ARGUMENTS
`REJECTED IN IPR2018-00295, IPR2017-00746 AND IPR2017-00745
`Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, “protects a party from
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action
`
`and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps
`
`South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see, e.g., In re Freeman, 30
`
`F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Collateral estoppel is applicable when:
`
`(1) prior action presents [the] identical issue; (2) the prior
`action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the
`judgment in that prior action necessarily required
`determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior
`action featured full representation of the estopped party.
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Challenged claims 1-32 recite many of the same limitations, and are
`
`materially identical to the unpatentable claims of the ‘765, ‘877 and ‘905 patents.
`
`For example, the claims of the ‘765, ‘877 and ‘905 patents, as well as the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘453 patent, recite krill oil with materially identical ranges
`
`of ether phospholipids, triglycerides and astaxanthin esters.2 That some of the
`
`
`2 The ‘453, ’765, ‘877 and ‘905 patents are in the same patent family and share the
`
`same specification and priority date.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`other limitations of ‘765, ‘877 and ‘905 patents do not appear in haec verba in the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`challenged claims of the ‘453 patent is of no moment as the Federal Circuit has
`
`held that collateral estoppel is not restricted to identical patent claims. See, e.g.,
`
`Ohio Willow, 735 F.3d at 1343 (“the mere use of different words in these portions
`
`of the claims do not create a new issue of invalidity”). Instead, “it is the identity of
`
`the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral estoppel should
`
`apply” so that “[i]f the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and
`
`adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity,
`
`collateral estoppel applies.” Id. at 1342 (italics in original).
`
`In addition to substantially identical claim language, the Board is also very
`
`familiar with the prior art demonstrating that the challenged claims of the ‘453
`
`patent are unpatentable (i.e., Breivik II, Catchpole, Bottino II, Sampalis I, Sampalis
`
`II, Fricke 1984 and Randolph). This is the same prior art that the Board previously
`
`relied on to find each claim of the ‘765, ‘877 and ‘905 patents unpatentable. Given
`
`the substantially identical claim limitations and the same prior art, this proceeding
`
`implicates at least two of the same patentability arguments that were fully
`
`considered, and expressly rejected by the Board. See generally -295 FWD, pp. 35-
`
`39 (“no triglycerides” and “dilution” arguments), pp. 39-47 (“PAF teaching away”
`
`argument); -746 FWD, pp. 53-61 (“PAF teaching away” argument); -745 FWD,
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`pp. 29-38 (“PAF teaching away” argument). See MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (collateral estoppel applies in the
`
`administrative context); see also Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.,
`
`170 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (collateral estoppel applicable despite the
`
`pendency or possibility of an appeal).
`
`The Board’s prior factual findings and conclusions of law in -295 FWD,
`
`-746 FWD and -745 FWD regarding, inter alia, the teachings of the prior art, the
`
`motivation to combine those teachings, and its previous claim construction ruling
`
`should be given preclusive effect. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis, Indus., Inc., 135
`
`S. Ct. 1293, 1303 (2015) (collateral estoppel applies to issues of fact and law).
`
`III. CLAIMS 1-32 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`A. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, 19-20, 23-26, 28 and 30-32
`Would Have Been Obvious In View of Breivik II,
`Catchpole, Bottino II and Sampalis II
`Extract 2 of Catchpole Example 18 Contained
`1.
`Approximately 32-37% Triglycerides
`PO’s renewed attempt to argue that all neutral lipids, including triglycerides,
`
`were removed during the initial extraction described in Example 18, and that
`
`Extract 2 contained no triglycerides is futile for at least two reasons. First, the
`
`same “no triglycerides” argument was proffered in IPR2018-00295, fully
`
`considered, and soundly rejected by the Board. See -295 FWD, pp. 35-39.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`Second, as detailed in IPR2018-00295, and as amplified below, PO’s “no
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`triglycerides” and subsidiary “dilution” arguments are each predicated upon the
`
`faulty premise that all neutral lipids/triglycerides were necessarily removed during
`
`the initial extraction so that no triglycerides remained to be extracted during the
`
`second extraction of Example 18. POR, p. 17-20; see IPR2018-00295, PO Sur-
`
`Reply (Paper 27) (“-295 PO Sur-Reply”, Exhibit 1133), pp. 3-6.
`
`As an initial matter, PO’s “no-triglycerides” argument incorrectly
`
`presupposes that Extract 2 of Catchpole Example 18 is being relied upon to satisfy
`
`the triglycerides limitation of the challenged claims. The teachings of Bottino II,
`
`not Catchpole, are being relied on to demonstrate that a POSITA would have
`
`understood that conventional extraction techniques would have produced polar
`
`krill oil having 20-50% triglycerides. See Petition, pp. 42-43, 73; Tallon
`
`Decl.,¶¶182, 185, 415.
`
`The foundation of the rejected “no triglycerides” argument rests on PO’s use
`
`of Fricke 1984 (Exhibit 1010) and some associated mathematical hand waving to
`
`approximate the neutral lipids, including triglycerides, in Example 18’s krill feed
`
`material. POR, pp. 19-20; see -295 PO Sur-Reply, pp. 4-5. This approximation,
`
`however, is unnecessary, and wrongly concludes that the feed material contained at
`
`most, 647 grams of neutral lipids/triglycerides. See Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶37-51. A
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`POSITA would have understood that Extract 2 contained 32-37% triglycerides.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶13-14, 32-36; see -295 FWD, p. 37 (“the evidence of record
`
`supports the conclusion that Extract 2 of Catchpole contained a significant amount
`
`of triglycerides”).3 This is consistent with the actual data in Example 18 reporting
`
`that the krill feed contained 765 grams of neutral lipids, including triglycerides
`
`(i.e., weight total lipids - weight phospholipids = weight neutral lipids) which
`
`corresponds to approximately 33% triglycerides. See, e.g., Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶45,
`
`n.7.
`
`That the triglyceride content of Extract 2 fell within the recited range of the
`
`challenged claims should come as no surprise. Catchpole expressly discloses that
`
`in addition to lipids and phospholipids, Extract 2 contained “53.7% other
`
`compounds” which included a “significant amount” of triglycerides. -295 FWD, p.
`
`37 (“Dr. Tallon has credibly testified that, based on his calculations, the other
`
`materials would include a significant amount of triglycerides.”); see Tallon
`
`Decl.,¶¶224, 414.
`
`3 Even accepting Patent Owner’s argument that the feed contained some lyso-
`
`phospholipids, a POSITA would have expected that the triglyceride content of
`
`Extract 2 to still be greater than 20%. Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶52-62.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`PO tries to salvage its “no triglycerides” argument by pointing to an excerpt
`
`from Example 18 that the initial extraction was conducted “until no further extract
`
`was obtained,” and then arguing that this “indicate[s] to a POSITA that the
`
`[Example 18] process was intended to remove all neutral lipids (including
`
`triglycerides) in the first step.” POR, p. 19. PO is grasping at straws. A POSITA
`
`would have understood, however, that the krill feed contained some triglycerides
`
`that were bound or associated with other feed constituents, would not be soluble in
`
`100% CO2, and therefore could not be extracted using the initial extraction process
`
`conditions. Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶64-76. In fact Catchpole even teaches that the
`
`extraction could be carried out “using CO2 only until all of the compounds
`
`soluble in CO2” were extracted. Exhibit 1009, p. 0013, lines 20-22.
`
`Nevertheless, a POSITA would have recognized that even after an initial CO2
`
`extraction to remove as much triglycerides as possible, a second CO2-ethanol
`
`extraction would remove additional triglycerides from the first extracted feed. .
`
`See Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶77-84. Accordingly, the use of the phrase “until no
`
`further extract is obtained” merely acknowledges that not all triglycerides present
`
`in the krill feed were soluble in neat CO2, and were therefore incapable of being
`
`extracted under the process conditions of the initial extraction; not, as PO suggests,
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`the point where all triglycerides present in the feed have been recovered. POR, p.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`19. See Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶74-75.4
`
`PO attempts to buttress its faulty “no triglycerides” argument by citing two
`
`excerpts from Catchpole. POR, pp. 18-19.5 However, both excerpts simply
`
`acknowledge what was disclosed in Catchpole, and what was already known in the
`
`art; a supercritical extraction process can be readily adjusted by varying, inter alia,
`
`4 This is consistent with, inter alia, Tanaka II, cited in the “Background of the
`
`Invention” of the ‘453 patent (Exhibit 1001, 1:65-2:2), which teaches that treating
`
`krill with CO2-ethanol (20%) after an initial extraction using CO2 and a low
`
`ethanol concentration (5%) results in a fraction rich in triglycerides (i.e., more than
`
`75%). Exhibit 1015, p. 0004; Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶77, 82-84; see -295 FWD, p.
`
`38 (“Breivik II [Exhibit 1027] teaches that significant amounts of triglycerides are
`
`present after CO2 extraction”).
`
` Both statements in Catchpole are similar to those in Tanaka II that state the first
`
` 5
`
`extraction removed “as much of the TGs [triglycerides] as possible,” and that
`
`additional triglycerides were removed after the polar solvent concentration was
`
`increased. Exhibit 1015, pp. 0006-0007; Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶77, 82-84.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`the extraction time, temperature, solvents, and solvent concentration, depending
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`upon the amount of neutral lipids desired in the resulting extract. See, e.g.,-295
`
`FWD, p. 37 (“[W]e find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood
`
`Catchpole as teaching that a CO2 extraction step can be used to vary the neutral
`
`lipid composition of the extract. Our finding is supported by Catchpole’s express
`
`disclosure that ‘[t]he feed material can be processed using pure CO2 before the co-
`
`solvent is introduced to remove much or all of neutral lipids,’ thereby enriching
`
`soluble phospholipid content.”); Catchpole (Exhibit 1009), p. 11, lines 11-18, p.
`
`12, lines 1-3; Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶287-300.
`
`Attempting to build on the false narrative that all neutral lipids/triglycerides
`
`were removed during Example 18’s initial extraction, PO again postulates that
`
`triglycerides must be added to Extract 2 to increase the triglycerides from 0% to
`
`20-50% as recited in the challenged claims, thereby diluting the ether
`
`phospholipids from 4.8% to 2.88-3.84%. POR, p. 20; see -295 PO Sur-Reply, p. 6.
`
`Finding Extract 2 included a “significant amount of triglycerides,” the Board
`
`rejected PO’s “dilution argument,” concluding that it was “unpersuasive.” -295
`
`FWD, p. 38; see Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶11-14, 282-284.
`
`A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success that, using
`
`conventional extraction techniques, a lipid composition, including phospholipids,
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`triglycerides and astaxanthin esters, could be readily extracted from Euphausia
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`superba krill as recited in the challenged claims. Tallon Decl.,¶¶409-438; see
`
`Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶213-221, 288.
`
`2.
`
`Catchpole Discloses Krill Oil Extracts Having Greater
`Than 5% Ether Phospholipids As Recited In Claim 23
`PO proposes, as it did in IPR2018-00295, that the phrase “greater than about
`
`5%” ether phospholipids should be narrowly construed to mean “greater than
`
`4.95%.” Compare POR, pp. 14-15 with IPR2018-00295, PO’s Response (Paper
`
`14) (“-295 POR”, Exhibit 1130), pp. 11-13. In that proceeding, the Board rejected
`
`PO’s proposed construction, and agreed with Petitioner that “greater than about
`
`5%” means “greater than 4.5%” ether phospholipids. -295 FWD, pp. 11-13. PO
`
`should be estopped from relitigating the Board’s adjudicated claim construction.6
`
`The same evidence supports adopting the Board’s construction from
`
`IPR2018-00295. For example, a POSITA would have understood that because the
`
`claimed ether phospholipid values are modified by the word “about,” those values
`
`
`6 The Board should similarly construe “greater than about 40%”
`
`phosphatidylcholine as recited in dependent claim 2 to mean “greater than 39.5%.”
`
`Petition, pp. 31-32; Talon Decl.,¶¶153-158; Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶326.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`encompass a range extending 0.5% below the claimed numerical limitation, e.g.,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`4.5% that is rounded up to 5%. Tallon Decl.,¶¶153-158; Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶321-
`
`325. In fact, applying basic principles of significant figures and rounding rules, the
`
`term “5%” encompasses all amounts that round up to that claimed value (e.g., 4.5-
`
`4.9%). Further, the six claims of the ‘453 patent that expressly recite an ether
`
`phospholipid limitation use only whole number values which are accurate only to
`
`within the rounding values. Consequently, phrase “greater than about 5%” should
`
`be construed to mean “greater than 4.5%.” Tallon Decl.,¶158; Tallon
`
`Reply/Opp.,¶325.
`
`Lost in PO’s claim construction argument is that Catchpole teaches krill oil
`
`extracts having “greater than 5%” ether phospholipids. See, e.g.,
`
`-295 FWD, p. 49 (“Catchpole specifically teaches a preference for compositions
`
`containing greater than 5% by weight acylalkyphospholipids”). For example,
`
`Catchpole discloses a process to extract a product (Claim 1) from marine animals
`
`(e.g., krill) (dependent Claim 40) where the resulting product has “greater than
`
`5%” ether phospholipids (e.g., acylalkyphospholipids) (dependent Claim 95).
`
`Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶97-101; see, e.g., -295 FWD, p. 51 (“[A]lthough Catchpole
`
`might not contain a specific example of a krill oil composition having in excess of
`
`5% ether phospholipids, Catchpole teaches that it is desirable to prepare such a
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`composition. As Dr. Tallon has testified, one skilled in the art would have been
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`able to create such a composition using conventional extraction techniques.”).
`
`3.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined The Conventional
`Extraction Techniques Disclosed In The Cited References
`And Obtained The Claimed Method Of Producing The
`Recited Polar Krill Oil
`PO wants the Board to categorize the conventional extraction techniques
`
`disclosed in the cited references as either “selective” or “non-selective.” POR, pp.
`
`24-31. Based upon its self-styled distinction, PO contends that “a POSITA would
`
`not combine references using selective extraction techniques such as Catchpole and
`
`Breivik II with a reference using a non-selective extraction technique such as
`
`Bottino II or Fricke to arrive at a krill oil with a specific, defined lipid profile as
`
`claimed.” POR, p. 31 (bold and italics in original). PO’s “litigation-induced”
`
`distinction fails to support the patentability of the challenged claims. In point of
`
`fact, all extraction techniques are selective. Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶18, 107-115.
`
`Even PO’s expert conceded he was unaware of any reference drawing the
`
`distinction PO proposes, and acknowledged that it is what the process does that
`
`actually matters. Exhibit 1128, 19:21-20:24, 25:5-19.
`
`PO incorrectly posits “it was far from predictable or easy to extract complex
`
`lipids, including phospholipids, from a source material,” citing testimony from Dr.
`
`Tallon. POR, pp. 25-26; see -295 POR, pp. 15-17. That testimony, however, was
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`limited to a question about a PCT application’s broad definition of the phrase
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`“complex lipids.” Exhibit 2019, pp. 82-85. Cleary, the prior art demonstrates that
`
`it was very well known to extract phospholipids from krill. See, e.g., Tallon
`
`Decl.,¶¶ 188-225.
`
`By focusing on its self-serving categorization of conventional extraction
`
`techniques, PO attempts to confuse the issue of patentability by asserting that a
`
`“POSITA would understand that the polar extraction method used in Catchpole
`
`will selectively extract components that are different than the combination of polar
`
`and non-polar solvents used in Bottino is intended for non-selective extraction of
`
`all classes of lipids.” POR, p. 27. Contrary to PO’s contrived process “selectivity”
`
`strawman, properly framed, the obviousness question is whether a method of
`
`producing polar krill oil having the broad ranges of phospholipids, triglycerides
`
`and astaxanthin esters recited in the challenged claims would have been obvious in
`
`view of the conventional extraction techniques readily available to a POSITA.
`
`Challenged claims 1-32 recite a conventional extraction technique that
`
`produces an almost limitless number of compositions having broad ranges of
`
`components naturally present in krill (e.g., greater than about 3% ether
`
`phospholipids, 27-50% non-ether phospholipids, 20-50% triglycerides and greater
`
`than about 100 mg/kg of astaxanthin esters) that, based upon the teachings in the
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`art, would have been well within the purview of a POSITA. Tallon Decl.,¶¶409-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`443. Based on the teachings of Breivik II and Catchpole in view of Bottino II, a
`
`POSITA would have possessed a reasonable expectation of obtaining a method of
`
`producing polar krill oil falling within the recited ranges of ether phospholipids,
`
`non-ether phospholipids, triglycerides and astaxanthin esters. Tallon Decl.,¶¶408-
`
`443; Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶18, 103-104, 110-115, 216-250, 288-300; see -295
`
`FWD, pp. 64-65.
`
`PO’s gratuitous statement that “[d]ifferent solvents and different extraction
`
`schemes applied to krill will produce krill lipid extracts with different lipid
`
`profiles” is simply redundant and unremarkable. POR, p. 28; see -295 POR, p. 18.
`
`Contrary to PO’s suggestion, the art recognized that conventional extraction
`
`techniques employing different process conditions (e.g., temperatures, pressures,
`
`solvents and solvent concentrations) could be predictably modified to produce krill
`
`oil having different percentages of, inter alia, ether phospholipids, triglycerides
`
`and astaxanthin esters. Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶289-300; see, e.g., Catchpole (Exhibit
`
`1009), p. 0011, lines 11-18, p. 12, lines 1-3, 13-17; see -295 FWD, p. 37
`
`(Catchpole “teach[es] that a CO2 extraction step can be used to vary the neutral
`
`lipid composition”).
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`The fallacy of PO’s distinction between so-called “selective” and “non-
`
`selective” techniques is underscored by its assertion that no ‘“combination’ of
`
`solvents can be devised from the prior art to provide the specific claimed krill oil
`
`composition which includes a specific combination of lipid classes, both neutral
`
`and polar.” POR, p. 31. However, even the ‘453 patent acknowledges that it was
`
`known in the art to extract krill oil with organic solvents, and that neutral lipids
`
`could be removed using supercritical CO2. Exhibit 1001, 1:31-2:2. Further, both
`
`Catchpole and Breivik II disclose extraction processes using a combination of
`
`solvents (e.g., CO2 and ethanol) to obtain krill oil extracts having both neutral and
`
`polar lipids. See, e.g., -295 FWD, p. 37; see Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶107. In fact, the
`
`Board previously credited Dr. Tallon’s testimony that “the relative proportions of
`
`krill oil constituents could be varied in predictable ways by applying a single
`
`solvent or combination of solvents including supercritical fluid extraction to
`
`selectively extract specific groups of lipid components based on their different
`
`solubility.” -295 FWD, p. 37.
`
`Catchpole describes a host of health benefits associated with the
`
`administration of phospholipids, including ether phospholipid compositions
`
`extracted from krill, and discloses a process to produce krill oil that contains
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`desirable levels of particular phospholipids. Exhibit 1009, p. 1, line 11 - p. 2, line
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`2, p. 25, lines 9-13; see Tallon Decl.,¶¶216-217.
`
`Similarly, Breivik II discloses treating and processing freshly captured krill
`
`using a CO2 and ethanol extraction process resulting in a krill oil extract having
`
`phospholipids, triglycerides and astaxanthin. Exhibit 1037, p. 8, lines 11-21; p. 9,
`
`lines 4-11; see -295 FWD, p. 37; Tallon Decl.,¶204. Breivik II also discloses the
`
`health benefits of marine phospholipids and that the omega-3 fatty acid bound to
`
`the marine phospholipids have particularly beneficial properties. Exhibit 1037, p.
`
`0005, lines 20-30; see Tallon Decl.,¶191.
`
`Bottino II discloses a process that produces Euphausia superba krill oil
`
`having triglyceride levels between 20-50%. Exhibit 1038, p. 0003; see Tallon
`
`Decl.,¶¶182-187. Additionally, Sampalis II discloses that krill oil phospholipids
`
`have a superior lipid profile, the highest quantities of DHA, and are the only
`
`phospholipids that contain a combination of EPA and DHA on the same molecule.
`
`Exhibit 1013, p. 0036, 34:16-18. It was also known that the unique association
`
`between the phospholipids and long chain omega-3 fatty acids increase
`
`bioavailability and are beneficial, particularly in connection with cardiovascular
`
`disease. Tallon Decl.,¶¶90, 292, 299, 326-330. Further, astaxanthin was
`
`recognized as a well-known antioxidant, and it was known that Neptune’s NKO
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`krill oil product was “rich in phospholipids and triglycerides.” Sampalis I (Exhibit
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`1012), p. 0004. It was also recognized that krill oil was safe for oral administration
`
`as evidenced by Neptune’s commercial krill oil product. See, e.g., Exhibit 1070;
`
`Exhibit 1075; Tallon Decl.,¶¶60, 94-96, 227, 284; Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶ 144, 175,
`
`190-200, 226-227.
`
`In sum, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence there
`
`would have been a reasonable expectation that a POSITA would arrive at the
`
`claimed method of producing polar krill oil having the recited ranges of ether
`
`phospholipids, triglycerides and astaxanthin esters, why the recited ranges would
`
`have been desirable, and, therefore, why a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine the elements disclosed in the prior art detailed in Ground 1. See, e.g.,
`
`Petition, pp. 33-56; Tallon Decl.,¶¶408-443; Tallon Reply/Opp.,¶¶18, 103-115,
`
`216-227, 288.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2018-01178
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453
`
`4.
`
`PO’s Argument That PAF Concerns
`Taught Away From Polar Krill Oil Having Greater
`Than About 3% Ether Phospholipid Lacks Merit
`In what is now its fourth attempt, PO again tries to convince the Board that
`
`PAF concerns taught away from krill oil having enhanced levels of ether
`
`phospholipids. POR, pp. 31-33. PO’s current rendition of its “PAF teaching
`
`away” argument offers nothing that has not already been fully considered and
`
`expressly rejected by the Board on three prior occasions. See, e.g., -295 FWD, pp.
`
`39-47; -746 FWD, pp. 53-61; -745 FWD, pp. 29-38. The Board and Petitioner
`
`should not have to expend additional time and resources addressing this meritless
`
`argument.
`
`The two “PAF references” expressly cited by PO, Tanaka I and Blank, are
`
`not new to the Board. POR, pp. 32-33; see, e.g., -295 FWD, pp. 25-26, 44.
`
`Tanaka I states the identified foodstuffs, including krill, are only “potential
`
`sources of compounds with high PAF-like activity,” and “[t]he occurrence of
`
`PAF-like lipids in some stored foods is still speculative and requires further
`
`investigation.” Exhibit 1014, pp. 0001, 0005 (emphasis added); Tallon
`
`Reply/Opp.,¶¶138-140, 148-152. Tanaka’s speculation and call for “further
`
`investigation” does not teach away from krill oil having greater than 3% ether
`
`phospholipids. See, e.g., -295 FWD, pp. 44, 46-47; -746 FWD, pp. 57-59; -745
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Rev