`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2018-01710 (Patent No. 8,586,045)
`Case IPR2018-01711 (Patent No. 9,884,907)
`Case IPR2018-01712 (Patent No. 9,884,908)1
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`1 Lilly was authorized to file this Reply pursuant to the Board’s email sent on January
`
`16, 2019. The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified
`
`in the caption, pursuant to the Board’s previous order. For convenience, citations
`
`refer to papers filed in IPR2018-01710 involving Teva’s Patent No. 8,586,045.
`
`Emphases are added unless otherwise noted. Lilly does not acquiesce to any of
`
`Teva’s arguments not specifically addressed herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Teva’s § 325(d) arguments are unavailing. First, none of Lilly’s asserted
`
`references—Olesen, Tan or Queen—was used to reject any claims of the ’045, ’907,
`
`or ’908 method-of-treatment patents during prosecution. Second, the asserted
`
`references are not cumulative of the Frobert and Pisenga references used to reject
`
`composition claims. Indeed, Lilly’s asserted references and expert testimony2
`
`establish an explicit motivation to make humanized anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibodies to treat migraine, which Teva argues was missing during prosecution.
`
`Third, Lilly specifically addressed how Teva’s one-sided arguments regarding Tan
`
`were incorrect. Thus, the Becton factors strongly favor institution.
`
`II. Lilly’s Asserted References Were Not Used to Reject Any Claims
`During prosecution of the ’045, ’907, and ’908 patents, the Examiner did not
`
`make any art-based rejections. Ex. 2034, 459-73; Ex. 2044, 172-78; Ex. 2045,
`
`185-92. In fact, Olesen and its key teaching that blocking the CGRP pathway
`
`effectively treated migraine in human patients was not even of record in the ’045
`
`patent. POPR, 16. Because the Office did not consider Olesen, much less in a
`
`
`2 Teva’s reliance on Invidior, Argentum, Dorco, Hologic, Siemens, and Telebrands
`
`(POPR, 28) is misplaced because those cases did not involve new, noncumulative
`
`references and disclosures in addition to undisputed expert testimony.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`combination with Tan and Queen, a § 325(d) denial is not warranted.
`
`III. Lilly’s Asserted References Are Not Cumulative
`Olesen is not cumulative of any purported consideration by the Examiner of
`
`the specification’s limited disclosures about BIBN4096BS. See POPR, 17. Olesen
`
`itself was never cited, and BIBN4096BS itself is referred to in the Background
`
`section only once. Ex. 1001, 2:14-18. Moreover, Lilly’s use of Olesen is not
`
`restricted to “its [alleged] teaching that a small molecule CGRP-receptor antagonist
`
`BIBN4096BS could be used to treat migraine,” as Teva incorrectly contends. POPR,
`
`16-17. Instead, Lilly and its unrebutted evidence3 demonstrates that Olesen’s proof-
`
`of-concept study (1) “established that blocking the CGRP pathway reduced the
`
`incidence of migraine;” (2) “demonstrates that CGRP itself—and not only its
`
`receptors—was also a therapeutic target;” and (3) “confirmed the reasonable
`
`expectation that a CGRP antagonist could be successfully used to reduce incidence
`
`of or treat migraine.” E.g., Pet., 25-26, 38 (emphases added); see also id., 1, 15.
`
`Teva’s reliance on Example 6 is also misplaced. Example 6 merely compares
`
`
`3 Teva did not respond to Lilly’s background references except to incorrectly argue
`
`that the Board should ignore them. POPR, 33-34; Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd.
`
`P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the Board
`
`should consider references illustrating the state of the art under § 103).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`the effects of BIBN4096BS and a murine—not humanized—monoclonal anti-CGRP
`
`antibody in an in vivo animal model. Ex. 1001, 68:64-67, 69:25-27; see also id.,
`
`10:62-11:7. Olesen, by contrast, demonstrates that blocking the CGRP pathway had
`
`already been shown to effectively treat migraine in humans. Teva’s brief discussion
`
`of Example 6 in response to an enablement rejection (Ex. 2034, 497) did not inform
`
`the Examiner of Olesen’s successful treatment of migraine in humans.
`
`Further, Teva’s § 325(d) position relies heavily on a rejection over Frobert
`
`and Pisegna made during prosecution of each of the ’794 and ’649 composition
`
`patents. E.g., POPR, 18-19, 22, 24-25. But Teva fails to explain how that one art-
`
`based rejection is applicable to method of treatment claims that the Office and Teva
`
`treated as separately patentable. Ex. 2033, 391-97, 403-09; Ex. 2034, 331-32;
`
`Ex. 2044, 172-78; Ex. 2045, 185-92; Vizio, Inc. v. Nichia Corp., IPR2017-00551,
`
`Paper 9 at 8 (PTAB July 7, 2017) (rejecting § 325(d) argument where there was “no
`
`evidence that the Examiner considered[] [the prior art] in the context of the claims
`
`of the [challenged] patent”). Thus, prosecution of Teva’s composition patents poses
`
`no basis for a § 325(d) denial here.
`
`Even if Teva’s arguments are considered, however, Olesen is not cumulative
`
`of Pisegna or Frobert. Frobert relates to an immunoassay for measuring biological
`
`levels of CGRP. Ex. 1032, 275. Pisegna focuses on isolating the CGRP receptor
`
`itself, and its antibody disclosure is limited to rat antibodies that were not tested in
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`any way. Ex. 1134, ¶ [0002], Example 1. Neither reference discloses successful
`
`treatment of migraine in humans with a CGRP antagonizing agent.
`
`Nor is Tan cumulative of Frobert and Pisegna.4 Teva attempts to cabin Lilly’s
`
`reliance on Tan to its disclosure of murine anti-CGRP antibodies. POPR, 19. But as
`
`Lilly and its experts have established, Tan discloses that anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibodies (1) effectively block the CGRP pathway in vivo, (2) were known
`
`alternatives to CGRP receptor antagonists (such as CGRP8-37 or Olesen’s
`
`BIBN4096BS) for blocking the CGRP pathway in vivo, and (3) “clearly diffuse[]
`
`into the synaptic cleft,” i.e., the site of action that Teva alleges is necessary for in
`
`vivo effectiveness. Pet. 24, 26-27, 43-48; Ex. 1014, ¶¶ 111, 118. Neither Frobert nor
`
`Pisegna contains these disclosures. Nor do they describe Tan’s guidance to use
`
`higher doses and longer distribution times of antibodies to reach the site of action,
`
`which Teva followed in its specification. Pet., 43-48; Ex. 1014, ¶¶ 88-100.
`
`Instead, Olesen’s disclosure that blocking the CGRP pathway is effective for
`
`treating migraine—along with Tan’s disclosure that anti-CGRP antagonist
`
`antibodies are a known “alternative” or “complementary” technique to using CGRP-
`
`receptor antagonists—establish a motivation to humanize an anti-CGRP antibody
`
`
`4 Contrary to Teva’s assertion, the ’045 patent was allowed before the Examiner
`
`received any Tan arguments from Teva. Ex. 2034, 519-24; Ex. 2005, 179-84.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`for treating migraine in humans. Pet., 25-27 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 31-36, 68-69, 109).
`
`That motivation is precisely what Teva contends was a “critical issue” missing
`
`during prosecution. POPR, 24. Thus, institution is appropriate.
`
`IV. Lilly’s Petition and Experts Addressed the Errors in Prosecution
`Teva incorrectly asserts that Lilly did not explain how the Examiner erred in
`
`allegedly evaluating Tan during prosecution of the ’649 composition patent. POPR,
`
`25-26. Teva’s assertions are misleading because the Examiner failed to make any
`
`statements about Tan (or Olesen or Queen). See Ex. 2005. Nevertheless, Lilly
`
`addressed Teva’s one-sided arguments to the Examiner based on selected portions
`
`of Tan, explaining that Teva’s arguments were incomplete and incorrect. Pet., 43-48
`
`(citing Ex. 1014, ¶¶ 88-100, 135; Ex. 1015, ¶¶ 101-102). Lilly submits that it would
`
`be inappropriate to exercise discretion when there is “no evidence that the Examiner
`
`considered . . . the particular disclosures [of Tan ] cited by Petitioner in the Petition
`
`or addressed arguments similar to those Petitioner now presents” to the Board. Vizio,
`
`IPR2017-00551, Paper 9 at 8; see also Navistar, IPR2018-00853, Paper 13 at 18.
`
`V. Conclusion
`Lilly respectfully submits that the Becton factors weigh in favor of institution
`
`and requests that the Board grant Lilly’s Petitions.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: January 28, 2019
`
`By: /William B. Raich/
`William B. Raich (Reg. No. 54,386)
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response was served electronically via email on
`
`January 28, 2019, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Deborah A. Sterling
`Robert C. Millonig
`Gaby L. Longsworth
`Jeremiah B. Frueauf
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`dsterling-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`bobm-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`glongs-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`jfrueauf-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`
`
`Patent Owner has consented to service by email.
`
`
`
`Date: January 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /William Esper/
`William Esper
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`