`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RIMFROST AS
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTIC AS
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00295
`
`U.S Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0001
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
`
`There is no motivation to combine the references ................................ 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`The ranges from Fricke and Catchpole are not interchangeable ..................2
`B.
`The prior art teaches away from increasing ether phospholipids ................7
`III. No reasonable expectation of success ................................................... 9
`
`IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 10
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................... i
`
`
`
`i
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`When assessing obviousness, the claimed subject matter must be considered
`
`as a whole. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The pending claims require specific
`
`amounts of each of ether phospholipids (>3%), total phospholipids (30-60%) and
`
`triglycerides (20-50%) among other components. Petitioner alleges that these are
`
`natural components of krill that could be extracted within predictable ranges by
`
`modifying conventional techniques. Petitioner’s Reply (“Pet. Reply”), Paper 19 at
`
`2. To arrive at the claimed composition, Petitioner takes the triglyceride and total
`
`phospholipid ranges from Fricke and the ether phospholipid range from Catchpole.
`
`However, the krill oils described in those references were extracted by very
`
`different techniques. Id. at 6. Fricke utilized a non-selective Folch extraction
`
`which is intended to extract total lipids, including both neutral and polar lipids,
`
`from the source material. Ex. 1010 at 0001. Catchpole utilized a two-step
`
`supercritical fluid extraction. Ex. 1009 at 0024. In the first step, neat CO2 is used
`
`to selectively extract neutral lipids. Id. In the second step, catchpole using CO2 in
`
`combination with ethanol to selectively extract polar lipids. Id. As will be shown
`
`by the evidence below, the rationale advanced by Petitioner to explain why the
`
`ranges for total phospholipids and triglycerides from Fricke can be simply
`
`combined with the ether phospholipid range from Catchpole is fatally flawed.
`
`Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA): 1) would not combine
`
`
`
`1
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0003
`
`
`
`
`the cited to arrive at the claimed krill oil with specific claimed levels of
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`components; and 2) recognize there is no reasonable expectation of success in
`
`obtaining a composition with the claimed components.
`
`II.
`
`There is no motivation to combine the references
`
`A.
`
`The ranges from Fricke and Catchpole are not interchangeable
`
`
`
`Petitioner alleges that “[b]ased on the teaching of Catchpole in view of
`
`Fricke, it clearly would have been well within the ability of a POSITA to obtain a
`
`krill oil composition” with the defined amounts of ether phospholipids, total
`
`phospholipids and triglycerides. Pet. Reply at 6, citing Tallon Decl. Ex. 1086
`
`¶¶49&25-50. In ¶40-46 of his Reply Decl. (Ex. 1086), Dr. Tallon states that
`
`Extract 2 of Catchpole must contain a significant proportion of triglycerides and
`
`purports to calculate the triglyceride content of Extract 2 of Catchpole by applying
`
`the triglyceride and other neutral lipid ranges from Fricke. However, evidence
`
`obtained from cross-examination of Dr. Tallon demonstrates that this rationale for
`
`combination is fatally flawed and further demonstrates why a POSITA would not
`
`be motivated to combine Catchpole and Fricke (or the other cited references).
`
`Example 18 of Catchpole teaches a two-step extraction process. In Step 1,
`
`the starting freeze-dried krill material was “extracted continuously with
`
`supercritical CO2” until “no further extract was contained.” Ex. 1009, p. 0024. A
`
`
`
`2
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0004
`
`
`
`
`total of 650 g of that extract (Extract 1) was obtained and reported to contain
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`“substantially all neutral lipids” and “no phospholipids.” Id. In Step 2, the residual
`
`powder, containing the phospholipids and lacking neutral lipids, was then
`
`extracted with CO2 and 11% ethanol to provide Extract 2 which has an alleged
`
`ether phospholipid content of 4.8%.
`
`Petitioner argues that Extract 2 must contain triglycerides and that “Patent
`
`Owner’s suggestion that the initial extraction in the Example 18 process would
`
`have removed all triglycerides lacks foundation and is wrong.” Pet. Reply at 8,
`
`citing Tallon Dec. Ex. 1086 ¶¶37,25-46. This is incorrect.
`
`First, Catchpole itself clearly teaches that the “feed material can be
`
`processed using pure CO2 before the co-solvent is introduced to remove much or
`
`all of neutral lipids.” Ex. 1009, p. 11, l. 23-24. In a general description of the
`
`process, Catchpole further teaches the extractions are “optionally carried out using
`
`only CO2 until all of the compounds soluble in CO2 only, such as neutral lipids,
`
`were extracted.” Id., p. 13, l. 2-22. Thus, Catchpole clearly teaches that the Step 1
`
`extraction can remove all neutral lipids, including triglycerides. This is consistent
`
`with Example 18 which indicates that Step 1 was continued until no further extract
`
`was obtained.
`
`Second, evidence obtained during cross-examination of Dr. Tallon
`
`establishes that when his methodology for calculation of the triglyceride content
`
`
`
`3
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0005
`
`
`
`
`of Extract 2 is applied to the Step 1 extraction of the freeze-dried starting material,
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`that all of the neutral lipids were extracted from the freeze-dried krill starting
`
`material. As a result, Extract 2 could not have contained the claimed range of
`
`triglycerides as it contained no neutral lipids.
`
`In ¶40-46 of his Reply Decl. (Ex. 1086), Dr. Tallon purports to calculate the
`
`triglyceride content of Extract 2 of Catchpole by applying the triglyceride and
`
`other neutral lipid ranges from Fricke. Dr. Tallon concludes that “a POSITA would
`
`have known, based on the lipid composition disclosed by Fricke, that the other
`
`compounds disclosed by Catchpole in extract 2 would consist of at least 32 to 37%
`
`triglycerides . . . .” Tallon Decl. Ex. 1086 at ¶46.
`
`However, during cross examination, Dr. Tallon admitted that the triglyceride
`
`and neutral lipid amounts provided in Fricke could also be used to estimate the
`
`amount of neutral lipids in the krill feed material. Ex. 2020, p. 33, l. 4 – p. 34. l. 4.
`
`During the deposition, Dr. Tallon calculated the amount of neutral lipids expected
`
`to be in the freeze-dried krill starting material used in Example 18 of Catchpole.
`
`Id., p. 38, l. 10 – p. 47, l. 18. Dr. Tallon calculated the average neutral lipid content
`
`for the 1977 and 1981 krill lipid samples to be 53.8%. Id., 46, l. 7-18. Example 18
`
`of Catchpole provides that krill feed material weighed 5619.9 grams and contained
`
`21.4% lipids. Ex. 1009 at p. 24, l. 3-4. Dr. Tallon calculated that the starting feed
`
`material contained 1203 grams of lipid, including both neutral lipids and
`
`
`
`4
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0006
`
`
`
`
`phospholipids. Ex. 2020, p.42, l. 21 - p. 43, l. 17. This 1203 grams of total lipids
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`can then be multiplied by the 53.8% average neutral lipid content of Fricke to
`
`estimate the amount of neutral lipids present in the krill feed material. As
`
`confirmed by Dr. Tallon, this amount is 647 grams, which is approximately 650
`
`grams. Id., p.47, l. 14-18.
`
`Using Dr. Tallon’s rationale for calculating triglycerides in Extract 2 based
`
`on the ranges in Fricke, the starting feed material in Example 18 is estimated to
`
`contain about 650 grams of neutral lipids. Example 18 reports that 650 grams of
`
`neutral lipids were removed during the first step of the extraction with neat CO2 (a
`
`neutral solvent). Ex. 1009, p. 24, l. 8. Thus, a POSITA would conclude that Extract
`
`2 could not contain the claimed range of triglycerides because all of the neutral
`
`lipids, including triglycerides, were removed during the first extraction step. This
`
`is consistent with the teaching of Catchpole that the first extraction step with CO2
`
`removes “much or all” of the neutral lipids. Ex. 1009, p. 11, l. 23-24.
`
`The 53.7% “other compounds” in Extract 2 of Example 18 of Catchpole are
`
`unknown, but it would appear to a POSITA using Dr. Tallon’s rationale and the
`
`teachings of Catchpole that the first neat CO2 extractions step removed all of the
`
`neutral lipids, including triglycerides. Thus, a POSITA would not combine the
`
`ether phospholipid content in Extract 2 of Catchpole with the triglyceride content
`
`of Fricke when Fricke’s extracts were obtained by a completely different method.
`
`
`
`5
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0007
`
`
`
`Furthermore, it would be obvious to a POSITA that to provide the claimed
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`
`
`range of 20-50% triglycerides, triglycerides would need to be added to Extract 2
`
`which would necessarily dilute or decrease the ether phospholipid content to
`
`substantially less than 4.8%. In fact, since the claims specify a range of total
`
`phospholipids of 30-60%, then the neutral lipid content of the krill oil would be at
`
`least 40%. Adding 40% neutral lipids to Extract 2 of Catchpole would reduce the
`
`ether phospholipid content to (.60)(4.8%) = 2.88%. Thus, Catchpole does not teach
`
`the claimed range of ether phospholipids and cannot be modified in view of the
`
`other combined references to provide the claimed range of ether phospholipids in
`
`conjunction with the claimed range of triglycerides. This argument applies both to
`
`the independent claims which require greater than 3% ether phospholipids and
`
`with even more force to the dependent claims which require greater than 4% or 5%
`
`ether phospholipids (i.e., claims 9-24 and 33-48) which are both much higher than
`
`2.88%.
`
`It must be noted that since Fricke analyzed the total lipid content of krill, it is
`
`more appropriate to apply the ranges from Fricke to the freeze-dried krill feed
`
`material used in Example 18 than it is to Extract 2 because Extract 2 was derived
`
`from material that had been pre-treated with neat CO2 to remove neutral lipids.
`
`The krill analyzed in Fricke was not pretreated to remove neutral lipids. Thus, it is
`
`not appropriate to use the triglyceride levels reported in Fricke to determine the
`
`
`
`6
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0008
`
`
`
`
`triglyceride levels that would be present in Extract 2 as confirmed by the analysis
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`provided above. A POSITA would not combine or modify the references as
`
`suggested by Petitioner.
`
`Finally, Petitioner relies on Tanaka II as evidence that Extract II of Fricke
`
`contained triglycerides because “a POSITA would have recognized that a
`
`subsequent extraction using CO2 and ethanol would produce an extract that
`
`included triglycerides not removed during the initial extraction.” Pet. Reply at 9,
`
`citing Ex. 1015, p. 0004; see also Tallon Decl. Ex. 1086 ¶32. However, the
`
`experiments described at p. 0004 of Tanaka and discussed in ¶32 of the Tallon
`
`Reply Decl. that produce an extract containing 75% triglycerides did not utilize a
`
`pre-extraction step with neat CO2 to remove neutral lipids as admitted by Dr.
`
`Tallon when cross-examined. Tallon Depo., Ex. 2020, p. 7, l. 11-25. Thus, it is no
`
`surprise that those extracts contained triglycerides as they had not been removed in
`
`a first step with neat CO2.
`
`B. The prior art teaches away from increasing ether phospholipids
`The prior art as a whole teaches away from increasing the ether phospholipid
`
`content of krill oil. Petitioner alleges that this argument is identical to the argument
`
`presented in IPR2017-00745 and -00746. Pet. Reply at 14. This is incorrect as
`
`Patent Owner has presented new evidence intended to address deficiencies noted
`
`by the Board in those cases. As noted by Petitioner, the Board in IPR-00745 (Ex.
`
`
`
`7
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0009
`
`
`
`
`1103) found that “PAF and the PAF-like compounds . . . are structurally and
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`functionally distinct from the ether phospholipids present in Catchpole’s krill
`
`extract which do not exhibit PAF-like behavior . . . .” Pet. Reply at 16. Patent
`
`Owner has provided substantial additional evidence in the proceeding that
`
`addresses the issues noted by the Board. In particular, it is the peroxidation of ether
`
`lipids, especially from krill, after ingestion that is of concern. Hoem Decl., Ex.
`
`2001, ¶55.
`
`As admitted by Dr. Tallon, the references cited by Patent Owner “describe
`
`the possible formation of peroxidation products from dietary ether phospholipids,
`
`and that some of said peroxidation products are similar enough to PAF to trigger
`
`the same inflammatory effects.” Tallon Reply Decl., Ex. 1086, ¶73. During his
`
`deposition, Dr. Tallon admitted that dietary ether phospholipids could influence
`
`the lipid composition of LDL particles in the blood. Ex. 2020, p. 120, l. 2-7. Dr.
`
`Tallon further admitted that peroxidation of ether phospholipids can generate
`
`compounds with PAF-like activity. Id., p. 102, l. 18 - p.103, l. 19. Dr. Tallon
`
`further admitted that Marathe (Ex. 1094) demonstrates that peroxidated ether lipids
`
`in LDL particles can generate an inflammatory response in an in vivo model.
`
`Tallon Depo., Ex. 2020, p. 117, l. 1 - p.118, l. 9. Together, this evidence clearly
`
`establishes the link between ingestion of ether phospholipids and inflammatory
`
`
`
`8
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0010
`
`
`
`
`responses in vivo. A POSITA would understand the prior art as a whole to teach
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`away from increasing the amount of ether phospholipids in krill oil.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Patent Owner’s GRAS statement (Ex. 1089) as
`
`evidence that there is no teaching away is also baseless. Pet. Reply at 21-23.
`
`Aker’s GRAS statement was submitted in December 2010, approximately 32
`
`months after the March 28, 2008 filing date of the initial regular U.S. application
`
`in the priority chain. The GRAS statement specifically refers to human safety
`
`studies using Aker’s Superba krill oil that were published in 2009 and 2010,
`
`specifically Maki et al. and Ulven et al. See Ex. 1089 at 0018-19. As admitted by
`
`Dr. Tallon, these studies demonstrated that administration of Patent Owner’s
`
`Superba krill oil had “no effect or a beneficial effect on inflammation as measured
`
`by markers of inflammation.” Tallon Reply Decl., Ex. 1086, ¶115. Aker’s GRAS
`
`statement has no bearing on whether the prior art taught away from the claimed
`
`invention prior to its priority date and supports the fact that Patent Owner did
`
`establish safety of its krill oil after that date and as reflected in the GRAS
`
`statement.
`
`III. No reasonable expectation of success
`
`The evidence presented above also demonstrates that the combined
`
`references do not provide a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the
`
`claimed compositions. As discussed above, since Extract 2 of Catchpole did not
`
`
`
`9
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0011
`
`
`
`
`contain neutral lipids including triglycerides, it would be necessary to dilute
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`Extract 2 with neutral lipids in order to arrive at the claimed compositions. This
`
`dilution would reduce the ether phospholipid content of Extract 2 to 2.88% which
`
`is below the claimed levels. The combined references do not provide any teaching,
`
`suggestion or evidence that the ether phospholipid content of krill oil can be
`
`increased to beyond 4.8%. In fact, Dr. Tallon confirmed that the highest level of
`
`ether phospholipids obtained in Catchpole was the 4.8% in Example 18. Tallon
`
`Depo., Ex. 2020, p. 88, l.12 - p. 89, l. 3. There is no oil with higher levels that
`
`could be diluted to provide an oil with the claimed values for ether phospholipids
`
`and triglycerides. As above, this argument applies with even more force to the
`
`dependent claims which require greater than 4% or 5% ether phospholipids (i.e.,
`
`claims 9-24 and 33-48) which are both much higher than 2.88%.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner submits that the Petition should be
`
`denied.
`
`Dated: January 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David A. Casimir / Reg. No. 42,395
`
`10
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0012
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00295
`U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 18th day of January 2019, a
`
`copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply was
`
`served in its entirety electronically (as consented to by Petitioner) to the attorneys
`
`of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`James F. Harrington
`
`Reg. No. 44,741
`
`Hoffmann & Baron, LLP
`jfhdocket@hbiplaw.com
`
`
`
`Ronald J. Baron
`
`
`Reg. No. 29,281
`Hoffman & Baron, LLP
`rjbdocket@hbiplaw.com
`
`765ipr@hbiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael I. Chakansky
`Reg. No. 31,600
`Hoffman & Baron, LLP
`micdocket@hbiplaw.com
`
`John T. Gallagher
`Reg. No. 35,516
`Hoffman & Baron, LLP
`jtgdocket@hbiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /David A. Casimir/
`David A. Casimir, Ph.D.
`Registration No. 42,395
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`CASIMIR JONES, S.C.
`2275 Deming Way
`Suite 310
`Middleton, Wisconsin 53562
`(608) 662-1277
`
`i
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1133 Page 0013
`
`