`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER REPLY
`ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Introduction
`Pursuant to the Board’s September 20, 2019 Order, Patent Owner Teva
`
`IPR2018-01427
`Patent 8,597,649 B2
`
`
`
`
`moves to strike the following arguments and evidence from Lilly’s Reply:
`
` Reply arguments on pages 3, 9, 11-12, 20;
`
` Exhibits 1082, 1240, 1287, 1309;
`
` Paragraphs 15-34, 38, 51, 52, 54, 60, 69 of Exhibit 1329; and
`
` Paragraphs 17, 31, 74, and 77 of Exhibit 1330.
`
`These are not rebuttal arguments and evidence; rather, they represent Lilly’s
`
`impermissible attempt to present new evidence and theories of invalidity. “[A]
`
`reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be
`
`considered.” Trial Practice Guide at 40 (emphasis added). Permitting Lilly to
`
`introduce these new arguments and evidence on Reply would prejudice Teva.
`
`Petitioners are required to provide “[a] full statement of the reasons for the
`
`relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the
`
`evidence including material facts,” in the Petition, in the first instance, not in the
`
`Reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2); see also Tietex Int’l v. Precision Fabrics Group,
`
`IPR2014-01248, Paper 39 at 14-15 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2016). A Reply is for rebuttal,
`
`not to rehabilitate flawed theories in a Petition, as Lilly attempts here by
`
`introducing new arguments and evidence—including the declaration of an entirely
`
`new expert to proffer the same opinions as its first, and since discredited, expert.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01427
`Patent 8,597,649 B2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the
`
`
`
`corresponding opposition.”); Trial Practice Guide at 40; see also Henny Penny
`
`Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, No. 2018-1596, slip. op. at *9 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2019).
`
`Having failed to rely upon these new arguments and evidence in its Petition, Teva
`
`respectfully requests that the Board strike them.
`
`II. Lilly improperly puts forth a new theory and evidence related to
`Exhibit 1287.
`
`For the first time on Reply, Lilly improperly puts forth new Exhibit 1287 to
`
`supplement its motivation to humanize the claimed anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibodies argument. This exhibit should have been filed with Lilly’s Petition.
`
`Exhibit 1287 is an entirely new 275-page dissertation, which was not cited
`
`previously, was not relied upon by any of Lilly’s experts, and, importantly, was not
`
`even shown to be a publicly-available printed publication prior to November 14,
`
`2005. Lilly cites to Exhibit 1287 for motivation in two sections in its Reply. First,
`
`in a three-sentence paragraph beginning: “Providing further motivation …” as an
`
`alleged “contemporaneous” teaching of motivation. Reply at 3, citing EX1287, 247
`
`(emphasis added). Second, to allege that “there was ‘no reason’ why humanized
`
`anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies should not be investigated.” Reply at 11, citing
`
`EX1287, 247. By citing to this dissertation by Dr. Tan, who was not even a POSA
`
`as of his studies, Lilly aims to insert new evidence to bolster its original invalidity
`
`theories. But any arguments and evidence as to motivation must have been made in
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Petition, not newly advanced for the first time on Reply.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01427
`Patent 8,597,649 B2
`
` Exhibit 1287 is not used to rebut an argument, but instead to plug a glaring
`
`deficiency in Lilly’s original evidence on purported motivation. Lilly has given no
`
`reason why it could not have included Exhibit 1287 in its Petition. Permitting Lilly
`
`to introduce it now to cure flaws in the Petition would be improper. Thus, the
`
`Board should strike Lilly’s Reply arguments relating to Exhibit 1287 (pp. 3, 11-12)
`
`and the entirety of Exhibit 1287.
`
`III. Lilly improperly presents a new expert (Dr. Balthasar) to rehabilitate
`the discredited testimony of its first expert (Dr. Charles).
`
`In the Petition, Lilly relied on Dr. Charles’s expert testimony to support its
`
`allegations regarding the effectiveness of Tan 1995’s full-length antibody.
`
`EX1002, e.g., ¶¶56-59, 68-71, 115-123. This argument was central to Lilly’s prima
`
`facie obviousness case because Lilly relies on efficacy of Tan’s antibody to argue
`
`motivation to combine. Petition at e.g., 19-21, 30-32.
`
`But on cross examination, Dr. Charles was shown to be unqualified to
`
`proffer these opinions, and his testimony was discredited. POR, 3-4. Lilly’s other
`
`expert, Dr. Vasserot, undermined Dr. Charles’ opinions, testifying that certain data
`
`in Tan 1995 are “something that [he] would take with caution and would need to
`
`repeat.” POR, 16-18; EX2191, 118:21- 119:1. Thus, Lilly’s Petition Declarants did
`
`not support Lilly’s Petition arguments. And Teva’s experts fully explained that Tan
`
`1995’s data does not demonstrate efficacy. EX2054, ¶52; EX2137, ¶88.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01427
`Patent 8,597,649 B2
`
`Faced with this vital failure in its Petition, Lilly on Reply seeks to introduce
`
`
`
`the testimony of a brand new expert, Dr. Balthasar, on the same efficacy issue Dr.
`
`Charles failed to support in its Petition. Reply, 20; EX1329, ¶¶15-34. Remarkably,
`
`multiple paragraphs in Dr. Balthasar’s declaration on Tan’s full-length antibody
`
`mirror Dr. Charles’s testimony on the same point. Compare EX1329, ¶¶16-18, 20,
`
`22, 24-26, 29-30, 32-33 with EX1002, ¶¶49-51, 56-57, 70, 121, 126, 131-132, 138,
`
`162. This clearly evidences Lilly’s blatant attempt to shore up the same arguments
`
`that Lilly relied on in its Petition through new expert testimony on Reply.
`
`Lilly’s belated introduction of Dr. Balthasar’s declaration to further support
`
`its original argument that there was motivation to arrive at the claimed antibodies
`
`based on Exhibit 1022 is impermissible at this stage. Dr. Balthasar’s declaration
`
`testimony on this point (EX1329, ¶¶15-34) and Lilly arguments based on the same
`
`(Reply, 20) should be stricken.
`
`IV. Lilly improperly puts forth a new theory and evidence relating to
`aptamers.
`
`Teva’s POR revealed that none of the art in Lilly’s Petition demonstrates
`
`that a POSA would have considered a long-acting anti-CGRP drug, like the
`
`claimed full-length antibody, safe and effective. Unable to find any support to
`
`rebut that showing, Lilly on Reply advances new evidence, new expert testimony,
`
`and new art involving “aptamers”—oligonucleotides directed to the CGRP
`
`ligand—to newly argue that the “prior art demonstrated that longer acting anti-
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01427
`Patent 8,597,649 B2
`
`CGRP drugs were desirable and indicated as safe.” Reply at 9; EX1082; EX1240;
`
`
`
`EX1309; EX1329, ¶¶38, 51, 52, 54, 60, 69; EX1330, ¶¶17, 31, 74, 77.
`
`Notably, however, nowhere in its Petition or supporting declarations does
`
`Lilly discuss aptamers. Lilly’s aptamer-argument is entirely new, and is not proper
`
`rebuttal argument or evidence. Lilly’s Petition centered exclusively on art
`
`pertaining to antibodies to argue that a longer half-life is desirable. Petition, 56,
`
`citing EX1056, EX1062, EX1070, EX1074 and EX1075. Lilly cannot now
`
`supplement or replace its original argument with an entirely new theory based on
`
`aptamers, which should have been presented in the Petition. Thus, Lilly’s new
`
`“aptamer” argument in the Reply (Page 9), new related exhibits (EX1082,
`
`EX1240, EX1309), and expert testimony (EX1329, ¶¶38, 51, 52, 54, 60, 69;
`
`EX1330, ¶¶17, 31, 74, 77) should be stricken.
`
`V. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Teva moves to strike the entirety of Lilly’s Reply
`
`arguments on pages 3, 9, 11-12, 20; Exhibits 1082, 1240, 1287, 1309; ¶¶15-34, 38,
`
`51, 52, 54, 60, 69 of Exhibit 1329; and ¶¶17, 31, 74, and 77 of Exhibit 1330 as
`
`impermissible on Reply because they are not provided in rebuttal but instead are
`
`provided to attempt to shore up Lilly’s deficient prima facie case in the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 30, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Deborah A. Sterling/
`Deborah A. Sterling, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 62,732)
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01427
`
`Patent 8,597,649 B2
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “Motion to Strike
`
`Improper Reply Arguments and Evidence” was served in its entirety on September
`
`30, 2019, upon the following parties via electronic mail:
`
`William B. Raich
`Erin M. Sommers
`Pier D. DeRoo
`Yieyie Yang
`John M. Williamson
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`william.raich@finnegan.com
`erin.sommers@finnegan.com
`pier.deroo@finnegan.com
`yieyie.yang@finnegan.com
`john.williamson@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sanjay M. Jivraj
`Mark J. Stewart
`Eli Lilly and Company
`Lilly Corporate Center Patent Dept.
`Indianapolis, IN 46285
`jivraj_sanjay@lilly.com
`stewart_mark@lilly.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`Date: September 30, 2019
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`Deborah Sterling, Ph.D.
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 62,732
`
`
`
`
`
`