throbber

`
`
`
`IN THE 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 IPR2018-01427
`Patent 8,597,649 B2
`_____________________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL
`GMBH’S PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`
`I. 
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 
`
`II.  Background................................................................................................... 9 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (“CGRP”) ........................................ 9 
`
`The’649 patent and its commercial embodiments. ............................. 10 
`
`III.  A POSA would not have had a reason to humanize anti-CGRP
`antibodies as of 2005. ................................................................................... 12 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Lilly’s reasons to combine the art as claimed are based on
`“therapeutic use in humans” of humanized anti-CGRP
`antibodies. ............................................................................................ 12 
`
`Lilly mischaracterizes what the cited art would have conveyed
`to the POSA. ........................................................................................ 15 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Tan 1995 provided no “guidance” about treating
`vasomotor symptoms with anti-CGRP antibodies in
`humans. .................................................................................... 15 
`
`Lilly’s experts internally disagree on what the cited art
`discloses. .................................................................................. 16 
`
`3.  Wimalawansa provided no guidance to humanize anti-
`CGRP antagonist antibodies without conducting further
`studies. ...................................................................................... 18 
`
`C. 
`
`Lilly ignored the known potentially deleterious effects of anti-
`CGRP antibodies in its “motivation” analysis. ................................... 21 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`As of 2005, CGRP was known to have an important
`vasoprotective role in humans. ................................................ 23 
`
`Tan 1995 and Wimalawansa also raised substantial safety
`concerns, which Lilly ignored.................................................. 24 
`
`3.  Migraine patients present even greater safety concerns
`with using antibodies, which Lilly failed to address. .............. 26 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Lilly’s cited art does not overcome the known safety
`concerns associated with anti-CGRP antibodies in 2005. ....... 28 
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`
`4. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`The safety concerns that Lilly overlooked provide reasons a
`POSA would not have humanized an anti-CGRP antibody. ............... 36 
`
`Lilly failed to address a motivation to humanize the Fab’
`fragment of Tan 1995. ......................................................................... 38 
`
`IV.  A POSA would not have had a reasonable expectation of success. ............. 41 
`
`A.  A POSA would not have had a reasonable expectation of
`success because Tan 1995 shows that the full-length antibody
`was not successful at achieving immunoblockade. ............................. 41 
`
`B. 
`
`Tan’s speculation would not persuade a POSA of therapeutic
`success in view of Tan’s demonstrated potential for side effects. ...... 43 
`
`V. 
`
`Lilly failed to prove that a POSA would have arrived at the claimed
`antibodies affinity (KD) to CGRP. ................................................................ 44 
`VI.  Lilly’s obviousness case is the product of hindsight, driven only by
`the solution provided in the ’649 patent. ...................................................... 49 
`
`VII.  Strong objective evidence compels finding non-obviousness of the
`challenged claims. ......................................................................................... 54 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The challenged claims have a presumption of nexus to the
`objective indicia of nonobviousness. .................................................. 54 
`
`The claimed humanized anti-CGRP antibodies have received
`industry-wide acclaim. ........................................................................ 55 
`
`Humanized anti-CGRP antibodies satisfied long-felt, unmet
`need. ..................................................................................................... 58 
`
`D.  Humanized anti-CGRP antibodies achieved unexpected results. ....... 59 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Humanized anti-CGRP antibodies faced industry skepticism. ........... 61 
`
`Commercial success reinforces the non-obviousness of the
`claimed invention. ............................................................................... 61 
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`G.  AlderBio’s decision to take a royalty-bearing license to Teva’s
`patents supports nonobviousness. ....................................................... 63 
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`
`H. 
`
`Lilly’s simultaneous invention argument is not supported by the
`facts or the law. ................................................................................... 64 
`
`VIII.  Lilly has failed to carry its burden so the Board must find for Patent
`Owner. ........................................................................................................... 65 
`
`IX.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 66 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT (37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)) ................................ 67 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)) ............................................ 68 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH (“Teva”) submits this Patent
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`
`
`Owner Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,597,649 filed by Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”). Teva’s Response is supported
`
`by the expert declarations of Michel Ferrari, Ian Tomlinson, Steven Foord, Alan
`
`Rapoport, and Robert Stoner. EX2141, ¶¶4-11; EX2137, ¶¶4-9; EX2054, ¶¶4-13;
`
`EX2165, ¶¶4-11; EX2123, ¶¶1-4. This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.120.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The challenged claims recite novel humanized anti-Calcitonin Gene-Related
`
`Peptide (“CGRP”) antagonist1 antibodies useful in the treatment of various
`
`vasomotor-related ailments, including migraine. Patent Owner Teva’s discovery
`
`was a breakthrough, representing the first time that anyone, anywhere in the world
`
`developed a humanized anti-CGRP antibody that could successfully be used as a
`
`human therapeutic. As a result, Teva’s Ajovy® (fremanezumab-vfrm)—the first
`
`commercial embodiment of the challenged patent claims—when approved, was the
`
`
`1 Antagonism is achieved when a molecular blocker inhibits receptor
`
`signaling. EX2054, ¶21.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`first and only anti-CGRP drug to be licensed for use in humans.2 Confronted with
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`the pioneering nature of Teva’s invention, Lilly resorts to hindsight to build its
`
`faulty obviousness case.
`
`In deciding to institute this trial, the Board accepted Lilly’s allegations that a
`
`skilled artisan (“POSA”3) would have been motivated to humanize a murine anti-
`
`CGRP antibody for therapeutic use in humans based on Tan 1995—a basic
`
`laboratory research paper attempting to “prob[e] the role of CGRP as an
`
`endogenous vasodilator” in rats. EX1022, Abstract. At the time of institution, the
`
`Board had a limited record before it reflecting Lilly’s one-sided rendition of the
`
`facts. However, as shown in this Response, Lilly’s arguments suffer from multiple
`
`flaws and missing steps that defeat its obviousness case. Upon consideration of the
`
`full record presented in Teva’s responding papers, the Board may, as it has done in
`
`other instances, find that substantial evidence exists to revisit and reverse its
`
`preliminary determination that was based on a limited record. See Apotex Inc. et.
`
`al. v. Novartis AG, IPR2017-00854, Paper 109, 19, 23-24 (PTAB July 11, 2018).
`
`Lilly failed to show that, as of November 2005, a POSA had reason to humanize an
`
`
`2 Ajovy® is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults.
`
`EX2168, 1.
`
`3 Teva adopts the Board’s definition of a POSA. See Decision, 6-8.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`anti-CGRP antibody for “therapeutic use” because the record evidence does not
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`demonstrate that a POSA would have viewed an anti-CGRP antibody as
`
`sufficiently safe or effective in humans.
`
`Whereas the Board credited Tan 1995’s rat saphenous nerve assay as
`
`“encouraging” investigation into the use of a full-length antibody such as C4.19
`
`(Decision, 18), during cross-examination, Lilly’s expert Dr. Vasserot admitted that
`
`key results with the full-length antibody C4.19 “cannot be statistically evaluated”
`
`and that he would take these results “with caution” and “would need to repeat” the
`
`assay. EX2191, 118:12-119:1. Teva’s expert Dr. Foord agrees, explaining there is
`
`no “encouragement,” only doubt, because of these shortcomings in Tan 1995.
`
`EX2054, ¶¶49, 52-55. The only expert to disagree is the one who is least qualified
`
`to opine on this matter—Lilly’s clinician expert, Dr. Andrew Charles; a treating
`
`physician with admittedly no experience in developing any therapeutic antibodies,
`
`let alone an anti-CGRP antibody. EX2192, 85:14-18. Lilly’s and Dr. Charles’s
`
`contentions are premised entirely on misreading Lilly’s cited references.
`
`For example, Dr. Charles states that Tan 1995 “provides guidance to a
`
`POSA to use anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies, including full-length antibodies, to
`
`treat vasomotor symptoms, which include migraine.” EX1002, ¶121 This is an
`
`unsupported mischaracterization: Tan has nothing to do with humans or treatment
`
`of any conditions whatsoever, as Lilly’s experts admit. EX2191, 122:16-123:13;
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`EX2192, 154:21-156:9. It is a basic research paper, which unambiguously reported
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`that full-length anti-CGRP antibodies failed to show any immunoblockade in a rat
`
`saphenous nerve assay with a full-length mouse antibody. EX2054, ¶52; EX2137,
`
`¶¶10-11, 66, 86-88; EX2141, ¶¶60-61. Similarly, Dr. Charles proclaims that
`
`“Wimalawansa states that humanized anti-CGRP antibodies ‘should’ be developed
`
`and used.” EX1002, ¶61. But Wimalawansa says nothing of the sort, instead
`
`explicitly informing a POSA that “[c]learly, more data from carefully designed
`
`studies are necessary before … humanized anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies …
`
`can be evaluated as therapeutic agents.” EX1096, 567; EX2137, ¶¶80-85; EX2054,
`
`¶59. Notably, Lilly has not shown that such data existed prior to Teva’s invention.
`
`Ultimately, when confronted on cross-examination, Dr. Charles admitted
`
`that these were “his interpretations” of the references, and that he didn’t even know
`
`whether humanizing Tan’s anti-CGRP antibody would make an antibody within
`
`the scope of a claim challenged in these IPR proceedings. EX2192, 154:18-20. The
`
`Board, accordingly, should give little or no weight to Dr. Charles’s and Lilly’s
`
`unsupported “interpretations.”
`
`Moreover, Lilly’s motivation arguments fail because they hang entirely on
`
`alleged efficacy—that a POSA reading Tan 1995 would somehow conclude that
`
`anti-CGRP antibodies would be successful at treating human diseases, such as
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`migraine, and, thus, would have been motivated to humanize a murine antibody,
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`such as disclosed in Tan. This is an extreme and unsupported conclusion.
`
`In contrast, the principal conclusions of Tan 1995 were far more prosaic; a
`
`Fab’ fragment was advantageous over IgG in immunoblockade studies, and the
`
`results supported the role of CGRP in mediating skin vasodilation. EX1022,
`
`Abstract; EX2054, ¶51. But even if Lilly was right that Tan 1995 somehow
`
`suggests efficacy in using such compounds to treat, e.g., migraine, Lilly’s Petition
`
`still ignores the very important question of whether a POSA would have expected
`
`the use of anti-CGRP antibodies to treat humans to be safe. To prove motivation to
`
`humanize the anti-CGRP antibody based on the potential for human therapeutic
`
`use, as Lilly argues, requires both efficacy and safety. See, e.g., EX2137, ¶¶43-58,
`
`60. Yet on the issue of safety, Lilly says nothing.
`
`Lilly’s silence should not be surprising because record evidence firmly
`
`undercuts Lilly’s argument that a POSA, aware of the potential for substantial
`
`safety risks, would nevertheless have pursued using anti-CGRP antibodies in
`
`humans. The record shows that a POSA would have expected anti-CGRP
`
`antibodies to eliminate CGRP’s vasoprotective role, potentially leading to
`
`significant cerebrovascular and cardiovascular consequences during, e.g., ischemic
`
`attacks. EX2141, ¶¶12, 27-66. Indeed, Lilly’s principal reference, Tan 1995,
`
`illustrates this very concern by reporting an increase in blood pressure in
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`experimental rats upon removing CGRP’s vasoprotective role. EX1022, Figures 2
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`and 3; EX2054, ¶¶79-80; EX2141, ¶51. Moreover, Lilly’s expert Dr. Charles
`
`admitted that patients presenting with migraine exhibit a higher incidence of
`
`cerebrovascular and cardiovascular co-morbidities, e.g., risk of stroke, heart attack,
`
`and hypertension. EX2192, 116:13-21. In such patients, the sustained (i.e., weeks
`
`to months) vasoconstrictive effects of an anti-CGRP antibody, particularly given
`
`its long half-life, could be catastrophic. EX2141, ¶¶55-59; EX2054, ¶¶77, 81.
`
`Contrary to Lilly’s suggestion, the Olesen reference would not have
`
`assuaged these concerns over safety. EX2141, ¶22; EX2054, ¶¶83-95. Olesen
`
`describes using a small-molecule receptor antagonist BIBN4096BS, not a CGRP
`
`antagonist antibody as claimed. EX1025, Abstract; EX2054, ¶84. And, per
`
`Olesen’s own admission, the study did not assess cardiovascular safety of
`
`BIBN4096BS, and it is silent on cerebrovascular safety. EX1025, 1109. Thus,
`
`questions of cardiovascular safety remained unanswered. And BIBN4096BS has a
`
`half-life of hours, whereas an anti-CGRP antibody has a half-life on the order of
`
`about a month, meaning much longer exposure to cardiovascular and
`
`cerebrovascular side-effects. EX2054, ¶84; EX2137, ¶¶60-71; EX2141, ¶62, 68.
`
`And there are material differences between receptor and ligand antagonism that
`
`would have further diminished the value a POSA would have drawn from Olesen
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`vis-à-vis cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety of anti-CGRP antibodies.
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`EX2054, ¶¶85-95; EX2137, ¶¶73-75; EX2141, ¶¶67-70.
`
`When accounting for safety, Lilly’s alleged therapeutic motivation begins to
`
`unravel. As Lilly’s expert Dr. Vasserot admitted, a POSA would have needed to
`
`see much more in the way of safety and efficacy beyond what Tan disclosed before
`
`having any meaningful reason to embark on the costly and burdensome endeavor
`
`to humanize a murine anti-CGRP antibody. EX2191 65:2-71:19, 75:4-13; 97:15-
`
`106:19. This is exactly what Wimalawansa, Lilly’s second primary reference, says:
`
`“Clearly, more data from carefully designed studies are necessary before any
`
`definitive conclusions can be reached and before CGRP antagonist, humanized
`
`anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, or both, can be evaluated as therapeutic agents
`
`in humans.”4 EX1096, 567.
`
`Likewise, nothing on the record Lilly advanced gave a POSA a reasonable
`
`expectation of humanizing an anti-CGRP antibody to provide therapeutic benefit
`
`that outweighed the substantial expected cerebrovascular and cardiovascular risks.
`
`Lilly instead repeatedly relies upon data related to a small-molecule CGRP
`
`receptor antagonist. But Lilly’s reliance on data relating to small-molecule
`
`receptor antagonism as a proxy for ligand antagonism with an antibody is fraught
`
`
`4 Emphasis added throughout unless otherwise noted.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`with holes, as explained by Drs. Foord and Dr. Tomlinson, and is insufficient to
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`prove obviousness. EX2054, ¶¶83-95; EX2137, ¶¶72-76.
`
`Lilly’s petition also fails to prove that a POSA would have been motivated
`
`to arrive at an antibody having the claimed binding affinity (KD). As Dr.
`
`Tomlinson explains, Tan 1994’s radioimmunoassay (RIA) was not designed in a
`
`manner to draw conclusions regarding affinity. EX2137, ¶¶104-110. RIA allows
`
`for estimating the KD of the antibody to the ligand only when the radiolabelled and
`
`unlabeled ligands are the same. Id. But Tan 1994 did not use the same ligands: he
`
`attempted to displace radiolabelled human CGRP with unlabeled rat CGRP,
`
`and did so at 4 ºC, not 37 ºC as claimed. EX1021, 704-705. Dr. Charles admits,
`
`human and rat CGRPs are not the same. EX1002, ¶18. And Dr. Vasserot
`
`confirms that differences in amino acids and in temperature matter. EX2191,
`
`154:21-156:12, 165:19-157:10. When different ligands are used in an RIA, like in
`
`Tan 1994, there is no way to independently measure the interaction between each
`
`ligand and the antibody. EX2137, ¶¶106-107. Therefore, the 1.9 and 2.5 nM values
`
`for anti-CGRP antibodies that Lilly relies on are, in fact, not instructive to a POSA.
`
`Id., ¶107.
`
`Finally, multiple objective indicia provide real-world, corroborating
`
`evidence that Teva’s invention was not obvious. Lilly’s arguments ignore the long-
`
`standing admonition that inventions should be viewed as real problems solved by
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`real people, and that patent validity is not a game played with “pieces of paper.”
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`Rosemount, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 727 F.2d 1540, 1544 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1984). Lilly’s assertion that its four-reference combination would have rendered
`
`Teva’s groundbreaking compounds obvious to a POSA is directly contradicted by
`
`real world facts, which couldn’t be summed up any better than Lilly’s own expert’s
`
`statement, made outside the context of this case: “The notion that we would be
`
`using antibodies to treat migraine is really quite a radical concept.” EX2053, 23.
`
`Dr. Charles was quoted as saying this in 2018 when speaking about anti-CGRP
`
`antibodies in the real world, well over a decade after Teva’s invention. If Teva’s
`
`invention were obvious in 2005, as Lilly contends, Dr. Charles would not be
`
`calling it “radical” in 2018. Teva’s patent claims should be upheld.
`
`II. Background
`A. Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (“CGRP”)
`Calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”) is a 37-amino acid
`
`neurotransmitter belonging to a family of peptides that include calcitonin,
`
`adrenomedullin, and amylin. EX2054, ¶¶22-24; EX1022, 569-570; EX2003, 904-
`
`905. CGRP is expressed as two isoforms, α- and β-CGRP, which have similar
`
`activities but differential distribution. EX2054, ¶22; EX2003, 905; EX2008, 153.
`
`CGRP is “the most potent vasodilating substance known” and is “distributed
`
`throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems.” EX2003, 905-906;
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`EX2054, ¶23.
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`In 2004, researchers believed that CGRP interacted with receptors that are
`
`widely distributed throughout the body, including in the gastrointestinal tract,
`
`thyroid gland, pituitary, adrenals, kidneys, bones, skin, skeletal muscles, and
`
`cardiovascular, peripheral nervous and central nervous systems. EX1031, 317, 318,
`
`320; EX1096, 539; EX2054, ¶22; EX2003, 904.
`
`Because of its potent vasodilation properties, CGRP plays a “pivotal role” in
`
`the “physiology and pathophysiology of cardiovascular regulation.” EX2003, 923;
`
`EX2054, ¶23; EX2003, 923. By 2005, CGRP was known to be involved in the
`
`long-term regulation of resting blood pressure, protecting against development of
`
`hypertension, and preventing escalation of mild ischemic events into full-blown
`
`infarctions, like stroke and heart attacks. EX2137, ¶¶64-65, 69-70; EX2141, ¶¶36-
`
`41; EX2054, ¶74; EX2058, Abstract; EX2150, 503; EX2164, 174; EX2151;
`
`EX2079, Abstract; EX2003, 919; EX2009, 614-615; EX1035, 293; EX2019, 139.
`
`The’649 patent and its commercial embodiments.
`
`B.
`The art at the time of Teva’s invention was focused on investigating
`
`blocking the CGRP receptors, not antagonizing the CGRP ligand itself. EX2054,
`
`¶¶57-59. For example, Wimalawansa—one of Lilly's primary references—
`
`provided a summary of literature exclusively dealing with tissue-specific CGRP
`
`receptors. EX1096, 545-568. In describing the ideal “CGRP antagonist” for
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`treating migraine, Wimalawansa stated: the compound “should be a peptide
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`mimetic of simple structure specific to cardiovascular CGRP receptors, so that the
`
`drug can be given orally, buccally, or sublingually,” and “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.” Id., 568. And Wimalawansa specifically cited
`
`adverse events as the reason for focusing on tissue specific receptors (as opposed
`
`to ligand antagonists): “[s]ome of the potential side effects of CGRP antagonists
`
`could possibly be minimized by being designed specifically to act on only one
`
`subtype of receptor.” Id., 567.
`
`Against this backdrop, and in contrast to the conventional thinking at the
`
`time, the inventors of the ’649 patent developed humanized monoclonal anti-
`
`CGRP antagonist antibodies, pivoting away from 1) CGRP receptor antagonism; 2)
`
`small molecule or even peptide-based CGRP receptor antagonists; and 3) oral
`
`administration. These inventors demonstrated, for the first time, the therapeutic
`
`value of a humanized monoclonal anti-CGRP antagonist antibody by showing
`
`activity in a therapeutically-relevant headache model. EX1001, 68:59-69:38.
`
`Teva’s Ajovy® and Lilly’s Emgality® fall within the challenged claims, and each
`
`has satisfied a long-felt need, enjoyed industry-wide acclaim, and captured a
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`significant portion of the migraine market within just a few months of approval.
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`See §VI.
`
`The USPTO rightly awarded the inventors the ’649 patent for their
`
`innovative contribution. Lilly’s petition has not justified why this Board should
`
`reverse that decision, and strip the inventors of what they rightfully earned.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`It is well-settled, “[a] patent composed of several elements is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`
`Rather, obviousness requires proof that a POSA would have had (1) reason to
`
`combine the references to solve a real-world problem by making the claimed
`
`invention; and (2) a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Institut Pasteur
`
`v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`
`
`III.
`
`Lilly has failed to establish either prong of obviousness.
`
` A POSA would not have had a reason to humanize anti-CGRP
`antibodies as of 2005.
`A. Lilly’s reasons to combine the art as claimed are based on
`“therapeutic use in humans” of humanized anti-CGRP antibodies.
`
`Lilly predicates its obviousness ground on a POSA being motivated to
`
`develop a humanized anti-CGRP antibody for human therapeutic use. Lilly
`
`repeatedly emphasizes CGRP’s role in human diseases. For example, Lilly states
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`“CGRP has powerful vasodilatory effects that, by 2005, had been directly linked to
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`various human diseases;” and that “[a]nti-CGRP antibodies were well known in
`
`the art and had been disclosed for therapeutic use in humans.” Petition, 13-14.
`
`Lilly’s alleged reason to combine references stems from the “clinical value” of
`
`anti-CGRP antibodies, e.g., “to treat human diseases and conditions.” Id., 27-30.
`
`Lilly states the prior art “provided express motivation to prepare a humanized anti-
`
`CGRP antagonist antibody against human CGRP … suitable for administration
`
`to humans,” and that “[t]hese factors would have motivated a POSA to make an
`
`anti-CGRP antagonist antibody that binds human CGRP for therapeutic uses.”
`
`Id., 30, 32. Further, Lilly also highlights that Wimalawansa “proposes using
`
`humanized anti-CGRP monoclonal antagonistic antibodies as therapeutic agents
`
`for CGRP-related diseases.” Id., 26 The Petition’s very reason for humanizing a
`
`murine antibody is to retain “the antibody’s therapeutic utility” “in humans” by
`
`minimizing “the risk of immunogenicity.” Id., 34-35.
`
`Moreover, Lilly especially focuses on migraine, asserting “the prior art had
`
`expressly proposed generating humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies for
`
`treating human diseases such as migraine and other conditions [and] validated
`
`blocking the CGRP pathway as a therapeutic target for treating diseases and
`
`conditions such as migraine.” Id., 31. Also, “[b]y November 14, 2005, the art
`
`recognized th[ese] general principle[s] and described anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`antibodies for treating migraine.” Id., 30. Lilly’s expert, Dr. Charles, an expert in
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`“treating patients with migraine and other neurological diseases,” admitted that
`
`migraine was part of Lilly’s motivation argument during cross examination: “Q. Is
`
`understanding of migraine relevant to designing anti-CGRP antibodies? A. Yes.”
`
`EX2192, 73:6-74:11; see also EX1002 ¶¶3, 12, 104-105, 107-108, 111, 114, 167.
`
`Dr. Vasserot too relies on migraine as motivation. EX1003, ¶¶85-86, 96, 138;
`
`EX2054, ¶¶61-68. Lilly cannot now retreat from its “therapeutic use in humans”
`
`motivation rationale and argue that a POSA simply would have had just any reason
`
`to humanize a murine anti-CGRP antibody.
`
`Finally, the Federal Circuit typically considers the specific therapeutic utility
`
`of a chemical/pharmaceutical compound, even when such utility is not recited in
`
`the claims. Otsuka Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Sandoz Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1291 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). The claims in Otsuka were directed to carbostyril compounds the
`
`specification described as useful antipsychotics to treat schizophrenia. In assessing
`
`obviousness, the Federal Circuit highlighted that “[t]here were no carbostyril
`
`compounds that were … known to have potent antipsychotic activity with minimal
`
`side effects. Carbostyrils were thus not plausible lead compounds, except in
`
`retrospect.” Id., 1293. Similarly, the utility of the claimed antibody must be
`
`considered here, namely “preventing or treating CGRP associated disorders such as
`
`vasomotor symptoms, including headaches (e.g., migraine, cluster headache, and
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`tension headache) and hot flushes.” EX1001, Abstract. Lilly agrees. Petition, 4.
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`And when utility is considered, it is readily apparent that Lilly failed to
`
`demonstrate obviousness.
`
`B.
`
`Lilly mischaracterizes what the cited art would have conveyed to
`the POSA.
`
`Lilly vastly overstates what a POSA would have allegedly understood about
`
`anti-CGRP antibodies from Tan 1995 and Wimalawansa. As explained below,
`
`neither of those references, nor the art as a whole, provided any reason to a POSA
`
`to pursue an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody for human therapeutic use. EX2054,
`
`¶59-60, 82-83; EX2137, ¶¶79-100; EX2141, ¶¶60-64, 71-77.
`
`1.
`
`Tan 1995 provided no “guidance” about treating vasomotor
`symptoms with anti-CGRP antibodies in humans.
`
`Tan 1995 is a basic science pharmacology paper that draws no therapeutic or
`
`clinical conclusions. EX2054, ¶50; EX2141, ¶¶60-64; EX2137, ¶¶86-88. The
`
`authors intended simply “to investigate immunoblockade as an alternative strategy
`
`for probing the role of CGRP as a vasodilator in vivo.” EX1022, Abstract. Thus,
`
`Tan 1995 was trying to elucidate CGRP’s role in vasodilation in an experimental
`
`animal; not whether an anti-CGRP antibody could be safely developed for human
`
`therapeutic use. EX2054, ¶50; EX2141, ¶61. Lilly and its expert Dr. Charles
`
`grossly mischaracterize Tan 1995 by arguing that it provides “guidance to a POSA
`
`to use anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies, including full-length antibodies, to treat
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`vasomotor symptoms, which include migraine.” EX1002, ¶121 Petition, 32-33, 35-
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`36; EX2054, ¶53. Nothing in Tan 1995 has anything to do with humans,
`
`treatments, or dosing. Indeed, Lilly’s expert Dr. Vasserot admitted that Tan 1995 is
`
`silent as to “specific human diseases” or “efficacy of administering an anti-CGRP
`
`antagonist antibody to humans to treat a disease.” EX2191, 122:16-123:13. And
`
`Dr. Charles could not show otherwise. EX2192, 182:21-183:12. The evidence
`
`simply does not support Lilly’s assertion that Tan 1995 teaches use of anti-CGRP
`
`antibodies in humans, let alone provides “guidance” on how to use them to treat
`
`human diseases, and migraine in particular. Thus, Lilly has no basis to contend that
`
`Tan 1995 would have motivated a POSA “to obtain an anti-CGRP antibody … for
`
`the treatment of human disease and conditions.” Petition, 33.
`
`2.
`
`Lilly’s experts internally disagree on what the cited art
`discloses.
`
`Given the liberties Dr. Charles takes in interpreting the prior art, it is
`
`unsurprising that Lilly’s other expert, Dr. Vasserot, disagrees with his opinions.
`
`For example, Dr. Charles asserts that “the full-length antibody showed a 16%
`
`reduction in skin blood flow using a two hour incubation period and slightly higher
`
`dose” in a saphenous nerve assay. EX1002, ¶121 But he bases his opinion on Tan
`
`1995’s ambiguous statement that further nerve stimulation with longer incubation
`
`time of a full-length anti-CGRP antagonist antibody “produced an AUC which was
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`slightly smaller compared with baseline stimulation, but not by more than 16%
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`(n=2).” EX1022, 569. As Teva’s pharmacology expert, Dr. Foord explains, a
`
`POSA would have understood that this result is not statistically significant given
`
`the small sample size (n=2), and would have considered the result to be negative
`
`(i.e., not effective). EX2054, ¶52. Tan acknowledged as much. EX1022, 517 (“the
`
`results could not be evaluated statistically due to the inadequate sample sizes (n =
`
`2).”). Dr. Tomlinson agrees. EX2137, ¶88. More notably, Lilly’s other expert, Dr.
`
`Vasserot, also agreed with Teva’s experts on the significance of Tan 1995’s small
`
`sample size. EX2191, 118:12-119:1. According to Dr. Vasserot, a POSA would
`
`not have drawn any meaningful conclusion from Tan 1995’s “not more than 16%
`
`(n=2)” statement; instead, Dr. Vasserot testified that these results are “something
`
`that [he] would take with caution and would need to repeat.” EX2191, 118:21-
`
`119:1.
`
`Dr. Vasserot’s conclusions regarding Tan 1995 in his deposition do not align
`
`with the motivations to humanize he gives in his declaration. But during his
`
`deposition, it came to light that Dr. Vasserot’s declaration conclusions on the state
`
`of the art for CGRP antibodies were based on erroneous facts Lilly’s attorneys
`
`asked him to assume. For example, Lilly’s attorneys asked Dr. Vasserot to
`
`presuppose key facts like “several research groups explored an antibody against
`
`alpha CGRP as a treatment option for diseases such as migraine, psoriasis,
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`neurogenic inflammatory pain, and opiate withdrawal;” and that “several research
`
`Case IPR2018-01427
`Patent No. 8,597,649
`
`groups expressly suggested using an anti-CGRP antagonist antibody in treating
`
`diseases such as migraine.” EX2191, 21:13-22:1; 22:22-23:5. Dr. Vasserot cited no
`
`evidence to support these facts, and, when not being told what to say by his
`
`attorneys5, Dr. Vasserot correctly acknowledged that Tan 1995 offered little insight
`
`on the utility of an anti-CGRP antibody for treatment in

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket