`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 14
`
` Entered: February 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`RICHARD J. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
` INTRODUCTION
`
`Eli Lilly and Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent 9,890,211 B2 (the “’211
`
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 8
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued that we should
`
`exercise our authority to deny the Petition based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously
`
`were presented to the Patent and Trademark Office. Prelim. Resp. 10–27.
`
`Petitioner thereafter requested permission to file a reply to the Preliminary
`
`Response to address that issue. We granted Petitioner’s request, allowing
`
`Petitioner to file a reply and Patent Owner to file a sur-reply. Paper 10.
`
`Petitioner thereafter filed its reply (Paper 11, “Pet. Reply”) and Patent
`
`Owner filed its sur-reply (Paper 12, “PO Surreply”).
`
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to determine whether to
`
`institute an inter partes review. To institute an inter partes review, we must
`
`determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set
`
`forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one
`
`challenged claim of the ’211 patent. Therefore, we institute an inter partes
`
`review for claims 1–15 of the ’211 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner identifies a declaratory judgment action filed by Patent
`
`Owner on October 24, 2017, in the District Court for the District of
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Massachusetts (“the first DJ action”). Pet. 65. According to Petitioner, the
`
`first DJ action seeks a declaration that Petitioner’s investigational drug
`
`galcanezumab will infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,586,045; 8,597,649;
`
`9,266,951; 9,346,881; and 9,340, 614, and Patent Owner filed an amended
`
`complaint in the first DJ action on January 16, 2018. Id. Petitioner also
`
`identifies a declaratory judgment action filed by Patent Owner on February
`
`6, 2018, seeking a declaration that Petitioner’s product will infringe U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,884,907 and 9,884,908 (“the second DJ action”). Id.
`
`Petitioner states that Patent Owner thereafter filed an amended complaint in
`
`the second DJ action to incorporate U.S. Patent No. 9,890,210 and the ’211
`
`patent. Id.
`
`According to Petitioner, all of the patents in the first DJ action and the
`
`second DJ action purport to claim priority to the same provisional
`
`application as the ’211 patent, and that two applications (15/883,218 and
`
`15/956,580) based on the same provisional application are pending before
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Id.
`
`Patent Owner identifies the first DJ action and the second DJ action,
`
`as well as eight inter partes reviews styled Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, IPR2018-01422, IPR2018-01423,
`
`IPR2018-01424, IPR2018-01425, IPR2018-01427, IPR2018-01710,
`
`IPR2018-01711, and IPR2018-01712. Papers 4, 7. Patent Owner also
`
`identifies U.S. Patent Nos. 9,365,648; 9,328,168; 9,115,194; 8,734,802;
`
`8,007,794, in addition to the patents and patent applications identified by
`
`Petitioner. Paper 4. Patent Owner also identifies a litigation styled Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Co., Civ. No. 1-18-cv-
`
`12029 (D. Mass.). Paper 7.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ’211 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’211 patent is titled “Antagonist Antibodies Directed Against
`
`Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide[1]” and “relates to the use of anti-CGRP
`
`antagonist antibodies for the prevention, amelioration, or treatment of
`
`vasomotor symptoms, such as CGRP related headaches (e.g., migraine) and
`
`hot flushes.” Ex. 1001, [54], 1:30–33.
`
`According to the Specification, CGRP is a 37 amino acid
`
`neuropeptide, which belongs to a family of peptides that includes calcitonin,
`
`adrenomedullin and amylin. Id. at 1:37–39. In humans, two forms of CGRP
`
`with similar activities (α-CGRP and β-CGRP) exist and exhibit differential
`
`distribution. Id. at 1:39–42. At least two CGRP receptor subtypes may also
`
`account for differential activities. Id. at 1:42–43. CGRP is a
`
`neurotransmitter in the central nervous system, and has been shown to be a
`
`potent vasodilator in the periphery, where CGRP-containing neurons are
`
`closely associated with blood vessels. Id. at 1:43–47.
`
`CGRP-mediated vasodilatation is also associated with neurogenic
`
`inflammation, as part of a cascade of events that results in extravasation of
`
`plasma and vasodilation of the microvasculature and is present in migraine.
`
`Id. at 1:47–50. CGRP has been noted for its possible connection to
`
`vasomotor symptoms. Id. at 1:51–54. Vasomotor symptoms include hot
`
`flushes and night sweats. Id. at 1:54–55. CGRP is a potent vasodilator that
`
`has been implicated in the pathology of other vasomotor symptoms, such as
`
`all forms of vascular headache, including migraines (with or without aura)
`
`and cluster headache. Id. at 2:16–19.
`
`
`
`1 Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide is abbreviated throughout as CGRP. See
`Ex. 1001, 1:37.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`According to the Specification, the precise pathophysiology of
`
`migraine is not yet well understood. Id. at 3:33–34. Dilation of blood
`
`vessels is associated with and exacerbates the pain symptoms of migraine.
`
`Id. at 3:39–40. The variety of pharmacologic interventions that have been
`
`used to treat migraine and the variability in responses among patients
`
`indicate that migraine is a diverse disorder. Id. at 3:4–6. Different classes of
`
`drugs have been used in treatment (and some patients, usually those with
`
`milder symptoms, are able to control their symptoms with non-prescription
`
`remedies). See id. at 3:7–19. Some patients respond well to sumatriptan,
`
`which is a 5HT1 receptor agonist, which also inhibits release of CGRP;
`
`others are relatively resistant to its effects. See id. at 2:28–30, 3:24–29,
`
`4:20–22.
`
`The ’211 patent is directed, inter alia, to methods of treating or
`
`preventing a vasomotor symptom, migraine headache, or cluster headache in
`
`an individual using an effective amount of an anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibody. See id. at 3:53–4:3. The ’211 patent is also directed to methods of
`
`ameliorating, controlling, reducing incidence of, or delaying the
`
`development or progression of a migraine headache or cluster headache,
`
`with or without additional agents. See id. at 4:4–52. In various
`
`embodiments, the antibody is a human antibody or humanized antibody, the
`
`antibody recognizes a human CGRP, or the antibody comprises modified
`
`regions. See id. at 4:56–5:52, 8:18–20. Other embodiments are directed to a
`
`polypeptide which may or may not be an antibody. See id. at 7:7–8:17.
`
`Other embodiments are directed to a polynucleotide encoding a fragment or
`
`region of the antibody or its variants, or to expression and cloning vectors
`
`and host cells comprising any of the disclosed polynucleotides. See id. at
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`8:30–60. Other embodiments are directed to methods of making the same.
`
`See id. at 9:4–19.
`
`The ’211 patent includes a Table 4 showing amino acid sequences of
`
`different variants of human α-CGRP and related peptides. Id. at 51:64–52:2;
`
`col. 53 (Table 4). Table 4 identifies CGRP 1–37 (WT) as SEQ ID NO:15
`
`and CGRP human β (1–37) as SEQ ID NO:43. See id.
`
`Figure 5 (not reproduced here) shows the amino acid sequence of the
`
`heavy chain variable region (SEQ ID NO: 1) and light chain variable region
`
`(SEQ ID NO:2) of antibody G1. Id. at 10:24–26. Table 6 provides data on
`
`binding affinity for G1 variants. See id. at cols. 62–67. Another table (cols.
`
`72–103) lists additional antibody sequences.
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1, the only independent claim challenged, is illustrative and
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A humanized monoclonal anti-Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide
`(CGRP) antagonist antibody, comprising:
`two human IgG heavy chains, each heavy chain comprising three
`complementarity determining regions (CDRs) and four
`framework regions, wherein portions of the two heavy chains
`together form an Fc region; and
`two light chains, each light chain comprising three CDRs and four
`framework regions;
`wherein the CDRs impart to the antibody specific binding to a CGRP
`consisting of amino acid residues 1 to 37 of SEQ ID NO:15 or
`SEQ ID NO: 43, and wherein the antibody binds to the CGRP
`with a binding affinity (KD) of about 10 nM or less as measured
`by surface plasmon resonance at 37° C.
`
`Ex. 1001, 103:32–45.
`
`
`
`Claims 2–15 depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 1. Id. at 103:46–
`
`104:59.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`sole ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the following
`
`combination of references:
`
`K.K.C. Tan et al., Calcitonin gene-related peptide as an endogenous
`
`vasodilator: immunoblockade studies in vivo with an anti-calcitonin gene-
`
`related peptide monoclonal antibody and its Fab' fragment, 89 CLINICAL
`
`SCI. 6, 565–73 (1995) (“Tan”). Ex. 1022.
`
`S.J. Wimalawansa, Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide and its
`
`Receptors: Molecular Genetics, Physiology, Pathophysiology, and
`
`Therapeutic Potentials, 17 ENDOCRINE REVIEWS 5, 533–85 (1996)
`
`(“Wimalawansa”). Ex. 1096.
`
`Queen et al., US 6,180,370 B1, issued Jan. 30, 2001 (“Queen”).
`
`Ex. 1023.
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Andrew C. Charles,
`
`M.D. (Ex. 1012, “Charles Declaration”) and the Declaration of Dr. Alain P.
`
`Vasserot, Ph.D. (Ex. 1013, “Vasserot Declaration”).
`
` ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that “a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art]
`
`with respect to the aspects of the ’211 patent pertaining to designing and
`
`optimizing anti-CGRP antibodies would have generally possessed a Ph.D. in
`
`immunology, molecular biology, or pharmacology with several years of
`
`post-doctoral research experience focused on antibody engineering and/or
`
`antibody pharmacology.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 84–86). Petitioner
`
`further asserts that “[a] POSA with respect to the aspects of the ’211 patent
`
`pertaining to using anti-CGRP antibodies would have generally possessed a
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Ph.D. in a relevant field (e.g., neurobiology, neurology, pharmacology) or an
`
`M.D. with a residency in a relevant field (e.g., neurology), with several years
`
`of experience studying CGRP or treating patients with a CGRP-related
`
`disease.” Id. (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 78–80.)
`
`Patent Owner contends that “[b]ecause the '211 patent relates to anti-
`
`CGRP antagonist antibody therapeutics, a POSA would draw upon the
`
`knowledge and experience of related disciplines of a multi-disciplinary team
`
`that might lie outside the POSA's primary training.” Prelim. Resp. 29.
`
`Thus, according to Patent Owner, a POSA relevant to the ’211 patent would
`
`have the knowledge of, or be able to draw upon the knowledge of, (for
`
`example): “(1) a scientist having a Ph.D. in immunology, biochemistry, or
`
`an equivalent discipline, with approximately 3-5 years in antibody design
`
`and engineering;” or “(2) a scientist having a Ph.D. in pharmacology,
`
`pharmacy, or an equivalent discipline, with approximately 3-5 years of
`
`experience in preclinical and clinical pharmacokinetics and
`
`pharmacodynamics;” or “(3) a doctor having an M.D. with a specialty in
`
`neurology, specifically in treating headache and migraine, including
`
`approximately 5 years of experience in its research, diagnosis, and/or
`
`treatment.” Id.
`
`On this record and at this stage of the proceeding, we do not discern
`
`an appreciable difference in the parties’ respective definitions of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, for purposes of the present Decision,
`
`we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have (1) a Ph.D. in a
`
`relevant field, such as immunology, biochemistry, or pharmacology, with
`
`several years of post-doctoral experience in antibody engineering,
`
`pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics, or (2) an M.D. with a residency
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`or specialty in neurology, and several years of experience studying CGRP or
`
`treating patients with a CGRP-related disease, such as migraine headaches.
`
`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 regarding
`
`ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an
`
`appropriate level and a need for 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 this inter partes review, filed August 8, 2018,2 a claim in an
`
`unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 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, and absent any special
`
`definitions, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth
`
`
`
`2 The claim construction standard to be employed in inter partes reviews has
`changed for proceedings in which the petition was filed on or after
`November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Nov. 13, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R.
`pt. 42).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen,
`
`30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Petitioner requests construction of the term “specific binding,” citing
`
`to the Specification of the ’211 patent. Pet. 23–24. According to Petitioner,
`
`the term “specific binding” includes antibodies that may bind to more than
`
`one isoform of CGRP, and does not preclude binding to another peptide. Id.
`
`at 23 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 106; Ex. 1013 ¶ 88). Petitioner further asserts that
`
`pursuant to the ’211 patent, a binding preference for a first target or a second
`
`target is not required, and that “specific binding” is not limited to “exclusive
`
`binding.” Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 106; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 88–89; Ex. 1001,
`
`16:32–35).
`
`Patent Owner does not request special construction of any terms,
`
`stating that “for purposes of this proceeding, the Board should construe the
`
`'211 patent claims according to their plain and customary meaning.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 28. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not agree with Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction of the claim term “specific binding.” Id. According
`
`to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s construction is “impermissibly broad” because
`
`it does not require specific binding to any target and does not account for the
`
`language of claim 1. Id.
`
`We provide the following comments, but emphasize that they are
`
`preliminary in nature at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that claim 1 uses the term “specific
`
`binding” in the phrase stating “wherein the CDRs impart to the antibody
`
`specific binding to a CGRP consisting of amino acid residues 1 to 37 of SEQ
`
`ID NO:15 or SEQ ID NO: 43.” Ex. 1001, 103:40–42. However, we do not
`
`view Petitioner’s statement that “under the ’211 patent’s definition, a
`
`binding preference for a first target or a second target is not required” to be
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`inconsistent with the recitation in claim 1 that “the CDRs impart to the
`
`antibody specific binding to a CGRP consisting of . . . .” Rather we view
`
`Petitioner’s statement to be an attempt to capture the Specification’s
`
`statement that “an antibody . . . that specifically or preferentially binds to a
`
`first target may or may not specifically or preferentially bind to a second
`
`target. . . . ‘specific binding’ or ‘preferential binding’ does not necessarily
`
`require (although it can include) exclusive binding.” Ex. 1001, 16:30–35.
`
`Thus, in view of the arguments at this time and the apparent lack of
`
`inconsistency in the positions of the parties, we determine that it is not
`
`necessary to construe the term “specific binding” on this record and at this
`
`stage of the proceeding.
`
`We determine, for purposes of determining whether to institute an
`
`inter partes review in this case, we need not expressly construe any
`
`undisputed terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to
`
`be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`C.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed
`
`to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
`
`account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see Translogic, 504 F.3d at
`
`1262. “Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to
`
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
`
`elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`418.
`
`We analyze the asserted ground of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`D. Obviousness over Tan, Wimalawansa, and Queen
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–15 of the ’211 patent are unpatentable
`
`as obvious over Tan, Wimalawansa, and Queen. Pet. 24–60. Patent Owner
`
`opposes. Prelim. Resp. 27–61.
`
`1.
`
`Tan (Ex. 1022)
`
`Tan states that “[i]mmunoblockade may be described as the blockade
`
`of the effects of a biological mediator by inhibition of its binding to specific
`
`receptors with antibodies directed against the mediator.” Ex. 1022, 566.
`
`Tan describes a comparative study, wherein the results of using an anti-
`
`CGRP monoclonal antibody (MAb) IgG and its Fab' fragment for
`
`immunoblockade in vivo were compared to those obtained by receptor
`
`blockade with hαCGRP8–37. Id.
`
`Tan reports on an in vivo study with intravenous administration of rat
`
`CGRP and various anti-CGRP antibody preparations in male Sprague-
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Dawley rats. See Ex. 1022, 565–566. The effects of an anti-CGRP
`
`monoclonal antibody (MAb C4.19) and its Fab’ fragment on CGRP changes
`
`in blood pressure were studied in anaesthetized rats. Id. at 565. Tan reports
`
`that MAb C4.19 IgG increased MAP [mean arterial pressure] slightly, but
`
`MAP was decreased by rαCGRP in a dose-dependent manner. Id. at 568. In
`
`experiments involving MAb C4.19 Fab' fragment, a control dose of 0.1
`
`nmol/kg rαCGRP decreased MAP by 29.5 mm Hg. Id. at 569. The
`
`hypotensive response to rαCGRP was accompanied by a dose-dependent
`
`tachycardia in some experiments. Id. at 568. Tan states that “[t]his study
`
`has clearly demonstrated the ability of MAb C4.19 IgG and its Fab’
`
`fragment to block the hypotensive effects of exogenous rαCGRP.” Id. at
`
`570.
`
`Tan reports that the skin blood flow response to antidromic
`
`stimulation of the saphenous nerve was effectively blocked 30 min after
`
`administration of MAb C4.19 Fab' fragment (2 mg/rat) but not 60 minutes
`
`after administration of MAb C4.19 IgG (1 mg/rat). See id. at 565, 569–570.
`
`Nerve stimulation performed at 2 hours after 3 mg/rat MAb C4.19 IgG
`
`produced an AUC (area under the flux-time curve attributable to nerve
`
`stimulation) that was slightly smaller compared with baseline stimulation.
`
`Id. at 569. Tan states that the slow distribution of IgG to the site of
`
`immunoblockade could be overcome by chronic or repeated administration
`
`of IgG. Id. at 571. Tan further states that “MAb C4.19 does not cross-react
`
`with rat amylin in vitro” and that “the routine use of Fab' fragment should be
`
`advocated for acute immunoblockade experiments in vivo.” Id. at 572.
`
`2. Wimalawansa (Ex. 1096)
`
`Wimalawansa is a review article that describes the molecular biology,
`
`distribution, activity, and “therapeutic potentials” of CGRP. See Ex. 1096,
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`533–70. According to Wimalawansa, CGRP is a 37-amino acid
`
`neuropeptide resulting from alternative splicing of the primary RNA
`
`transcript of the CT [calcitonin]/CGRP gene. Id. at 534. There are two
`
`genes, responsible for α and β subforms of the peptide. See id.
`
`Wimalawansa teaches that CGRP and CGRP receptors are widely
`
`distributed in the mammalian nervous system (e.g., discrete brain areas and
`
`the peripheral nervous system), in the cardiovascular system (e.g., arteries,
`
`veins, and the heart), the gastrointestinal tract, and several endocrine organs
`
`(e.g., the thyroid gland and pancreatic islet cells), often co-located with other
`
`neurotransmitters and neuropeptides. See id. at 539–40. Wimalawansa
`
`suggests that CGRP has potent vasodilatory activity, may play a major role
`
`in regulating peripheral vascular tone, and has an ability to change coronary
`
`blood flow. Id. at 540. Wimalawansa also suggests an association between
`
`a decrease in CGRP and strokes and heart attacks in older populations, e.g.,
`
`during parts of the circadian cycle. See id. at 543. CGRP has various direct
`
`and indirect mechanisms for its vasodilatory effects, including causing
`
`vasorelaxation through specific receptors in vascular smooth muscle (e.g., in
`
`coronary vasculature). Id. at 553, 556 & Fig. 18 (not reproduced here).
`
`Wimalawansa discloses that α- and β- CGRP are agonists for all
`
`receptor subtypes, but a synthetically-derived fragment of CGRP (e.g.,
`
`CGRP8-37) instead acts as a competitive antagonist at certain receptor
`
`subtypes, e.g., CGRP-type 1 receptors. Id. at 543, 547. Receptors that do
`
`not respond to the antagonist CGRP8-37 are generally grouped as CGRP-type
`
`2 receptors, but other receptor types have been postulated. Id. at 548.
`
`Wimalawansa states: “The fact that different vascular beds respond
`
`differently to CGRP and CGRP8-37 may indicate receptor heterogeneity.” Id.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`In a section titled “Therapeutic potentials of CGRP antagonists,”
`
`Wimalawansa states “[c]learly, more data from carefully designed studies
`
`are necessary before any definitive conclusions can be reached and before
`
`CGRP antagonist, humanized anti-GCRP monoclonal antibodies, or both,
`
`can be evaluated as therapeutic agents in humans.” Id. at 567. In a
`
`subsection on “Migraine headache and premenstrual syndrome,”
`
`Wimalawansa states:
`
`CRGP agonists designed specifically for cerebral vascular bed,
`when available, can be used during the early phase (i.e.
`vasoconstructive phase) of migraine headaches, and CGRP
`antagonist can be used in the late phase (prolonged vasodilatory
`phase). However, the antagonist must be extremely specific to
`the CGRP receptors located in cerebral arteries to avoid potential
`deleterious side effects caused by blocking other vascular and
`nonvascular CGRP receptors. Ideally, this compound should be
`a peptide mimetic of simple structure specific to cardiovascular
`CGRP receptors, so that the drug can be given orally, buccally,
`or sublingually.
`
`Id. at 568.
`
`
`
`Wimalawansa concludes:
`
`CGRP is a potent neuropeptide involved in human
`physiopathology but, in spite of 14 yr of intense research, its role
`is still not fully understood.
`
`. . .
`
`The role of CGRP antagonists and humanized monoclonal
`antibodies should be explored with respect to control of pain and
`inflammation, type II diabetes, and in conditions with intractable
`hypotension, such as septic shock syndrome.
`
`Id. at 569–70.
`
`3.
`
`Queen (Ex. 1023)
`
`Queen is titled “Humanized Immunoglobulins and Methods of
`
`Making the Same,” and “relates generally to the combination of recombinant
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`DNA and monoclonal antibody technologies for developing novel
`
`therapeutic agents and, more particularly, to the[] production of non-
`
`immunogenic antibodies having strong affinity for a predetermined antigen.”
`
`See Ex. 1023, [54], 1:19–23.
`
`
`
`Queen describes problems with prior art monoclonal antibodies, i.e.,
`
`most monoclonal antibodies were mouse derived and did not fix human
`
`complement well, lacked other functional characteristics when used in
`
`humans, and contained substantial stretches of amino acid sequences that
`
`would be immunogenic when injected into a human patient. Id. at 1:26–47.
`
`According to Queen, the production of so-called “chimeric antibodies” (e.g.,
`
`mouse variable regions joined to human constant regions) proved somewhat
`
`successful but a significant immunogenicity problem remained. Id. at 1:58–
`
`61. Queen discloses that then-recent recombinant DNA technology had
`
`been used to produce immunoglobulins with reduced immunogenicity,
`
`called “reshaped” or “humanized” antibodies, which have human framework
`
`regions with complementarity determining regions (CDRs) from a donor
`
`mouse. Id. at 1:65–2:11. However, Queen discloses that a major problem
`
`existed with humanized antibodies, i.e., a loss of affinity for the target
`
`antigen (by 10-fold or more) with poorer function and higher adverse effects
`
`(e.g., if a higher dose is consequently administered). Id. at 2:13–27.
`
`
`
`Queen discloses a method of humanizing donor (e.g., mouse)
`
`antibodies by selecting a human framework sequence (i.e., containing a light
`
`chain or heavy chain) from a collection of sequences based on homology to
`
`the donor sequence such that the selected human framework sequence will
`
`have 65% to 70% homology or more to the donor framework sequence. Id.
`
`at 13:5–36. As further step(s), the human sequence will be replaced by
`
`corresponding amino acids from the donor sequence if they are (1) in a
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`CDR, and/or (2) if the amino acid is rare for that position and that
`
`corresponding amino acid in the donor sequence is common for that position
`
`in human sequences, (3) the amino acid is immediately adjacent to one of
`
`the CDRs, (4) the amino acid is predicted to be within about 3A of the CDRs
`
`in a three-dimensional model and capable of interacting with the antigen or
`
`CDRs of the donor or humanized immunoglobulin, (5) the amino acid is rare
`
`for that position in a human sequence and the corresponding amino acid
`
`from the donor sequence is also rare, relative to other human sequences. See
`
`id. at 2:41–3:26.
`
`4.
`
`Analysis
`
`In its Petition, Petitioner sets forth its contentions as to how the
`
`limitations of claims 1–15 are obvious over the combination of Tan,
`
`Wimalawansa, and Queen. Pet. 24–60. Patent Owner opposes. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 27–59. We address these contentions below. We emphasize that the
`
`following determinations regarding the sufficiency of the Petition are
`
`preliminary in nature at this stage of the proceeding.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Petitioner argues that “[e]ach and every element of [Patent Owner’s]
`
`claims is disclosed or suggested by the prior art.” Pet. 24. Petitioner points
`
`to Tan’s description of murine anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies, including a
`
`full-length antibody, that blocked the effects of CGRP both in vitro and in
`
`vivo, and had a binding affinity of 1.9 nM to αCGRP. Id. (citing Ex. 1012
`
`¶¶ 69–70). Petitioner also points to Wimalawansa as proposing the use of
`
`humanized anti-CGRP monoclonal antagonistic antibodies as therapeutic
`
`agents for CGRP-related diseases (id. (citing Ex. 1096, 567, 570; Ex. 1012
`
`¶ 73)), and Queen’s description of routine and conventional humanization
`
`technologies using human IgG scaffolds (id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 49; see
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`generally Ex. 1023)). Petitioner also points to the Vasserot Declaration as
`
`confirming that surface plasmon resonance (SPR) was a routine assay for
`
`measuring binding affinity. Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 66–67).
`
`Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been motivated to generate the humanized anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibody of claim 1. Pet. 25–34. Petitioner points to Wimalawansa as
`
`teaching that CGRP was implicated in human diseases and conditions
`
`associated with vasodilation such as migraine and inflammation, and that
`
`Wimalawansa specifically identified humanized anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibodies for treating diseases such as migraine, inflammation, and
`
`cardiogenic shock. Id. at 25, 27 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 110–117; Ex. 1096, 567,
`
`570 (“The role of CGRP antagonists and humanized monoclonal antibodies
`
`should be explored. . . .” (emphasis added by Petitioner))). Thus, according
`
`to Petitioner, “the prior art—replete with exemplary disclosures of
`
`anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies, including humanized antibodies, to treat
`
`human diseases and conditions—provided express motivation to prepare a
`
`humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibody against human CGRP suitable
`
`for administration to humans.” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 110–117;
`
`Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 95, 104–109).
`
`Petitioner also argues that a POSA would have targeted a binding
`
`affinity of 10 nM or less. Pet. 30–32. According to Petitioner, a POSA
`
`would have been motivated to prepare a humanized anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibody that binds to human αCGRP or βCGRP with a relatively low KD
`
`(sufficient affinity) to effectively block its interaction with receptors, and
`
`that, by 2005, antibodies with such affinities were known to be associated
`
`with increased biological potency. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 127–131;
`
`Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 101–103; Ex. 1088, 350). Petitioner further contends that most
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01426
`Patent 9,890,211 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`of the FDA-approved antibodies i