`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2018-01710 (Patent No. 8,586,045)
`Case IPR2018-01711 (Patent No. 9,884,907)
`Case IPR2018-01712 (Patent No. 9,884,908)1
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S SURREPLY TO PETITIONER'S REPLY TO PATENT
`OWNER'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This paper was authorized by email on January 16, 2019, and is filed in
`
`each proceeding identified in the caption. Citations refer to papers filed in
`
`IPR2018-01710. Emphases are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`During prosecution, the Office thoroughly considered substantially the same
`
`prior art teachings and arguments in Lilly's Petition, and still found the claimed
`
`subject matter patentable. These facts warrant denying institution under § 325(d).
`
`Lilly's Reply does not overcome these fatal deficiencies, nor otherwise provide any
`
`valid reason for the Board to wastefully redo the examiner's analysis.
`
`A. The examiner reviewed the same prior art teachings and already
`rejected arguments similar to Lilly's during prosecution
`
`Lilly's unremarkable statement that the examiner did not present an
`
`obviousness rejection based on Olesen, Tan, or Queen (Reply, 1) is legally
`
`irrelevant because the teachings from Lilly's cited references are the same as, or
`
`cumulative of, those the examiner considered during prosecution of the challenged
`
`patents and raised in rejections during prosecution of related patents. The Board
`
`routinely denies institution under § 325(d) when the art is not new or is cumulative,
`
`as the art is here. Cultec Inc. v Stormtech LLC, IPR2017-00777, Paper 7 (PTAB
`
`Aug. 22, 2017); see also Unified Patents Inc. v. John L. Berman, IPR2016-01571,
`
`Paper 10 (PTAB Dec.14, 2016); Dorco Co. v. Gillette Co, IPR2017-00500, Paper 7
`
`(PTAB June 21, 2017); and Indivior Inc. v. Rhodes Pharms, L.P., IPR2018-00795,
`
`Paper 23 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2018).
`
`1. Olesen is cumulative of teachings the examiner considered
`and applied in prosecution
`
`It is irrelevant whether Olesen itself was cited to the office when the same
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`teachings Lilly relies upon from Olesen are cumulative of teachings that were.
`
`Olesen reported results of a clinical trial using the small molecule CGRP-receptor
`
`antagonist BIBN4096BS for migraine. See generally EX1025. Teva's patent
`
`specification explicitly mentions BIBN4096BS's effects on migraine via CGRP
`
`involvement: "[p]ossible CGRP involvement in migraine has been the basis for the
`
`development and testing of a number of compounds that ... antagonize at the
`
`CGRP receptor (e.g., dipeptide derivative BIBN4096BS (Boehringer Ingelheim)."
`
`EX1001, 2:14-23. It also provides data relating to Olesen's disclosures, by way of
`
`Example 6, which compares the effects of BIBN4096BS to an anti-CGRP
`
`antagonist antibody in an in vivo migraine model. Id., Example 6 and Figure 9.
`
`And the examiner was aware of these data, as seen by Applicant's discussion of
`
`Example 6's use of anti-CRGP antagonists in a migraine model when responding to
`
`a rejection during the prosecution of the '045 patent. EX2034, 497. Olesen provides
`
`nothing new.
`
`Lilly attempts to extend Olesen beyond its small molecule receptor
`
`antagonist to anti-CGRP antagonists in general.2 But, the examiner was also well
`
`aware of anti-CGRP antagonists in general through Frobert and Pisegna; the
`
`references the examiner used in rejections during prosecution of related patents.
`
`2 Notably, Lilly supports its characterization of Olesen (and Tan) by quoting
`
`its own Petition, rather than Olesen (or Tan). See Reply 2 and 4, citing Petition.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`Indeed, Lilly acknowledges that Frobert teaches anti-CGRP antibodies (Petition
`
`12) and that Pisegna taught potential therapeutic antibodies that "compete with
`
`each other or with other possible ligands to the CGRP-receptors." Id., 53. Thus,
`
`Olesen is cumulative of the prior art teachings in the specification of the patents
`
`and already considered and applied in prosecution.
`
`Tellingly, Olesen's teachings suffer from the same deficiency as Pisegna:
`
`they focused on targeting the CGRP receptor, not CGRP itself. Olesen does not
`
`expressly mention any CGRP antagonists other than a receptor antagonist, a fact
`
`that Lilly does not dispute. Indeed, Lilly admits that Olesen's focus is on
`
`"BIBN4096BS, a known CGRP-receptor antagonist." Petition, 14. The Board need
`
`not expend its resources reviewing these cumulative teachings of Olesen.
`
`2.
`
`The examiner expressly considered Tan during prosecution;
`Lilly fails to show that the examiner erred when doing so
`
`Lilly argues—ineffectively—that Tan is not cumulative to Frobert and
`
`Pisegna. Id., 4. Even assuming Lilly is correct—which it is not—its argument is
`
`irrelevant because Tan itself was squarely before the Office and discussed during
`
`prosecution, as fully explained in the POPR. POPR, 17-20. As Lilly acknowledges,
`
`the patents' specification cites Tan for teaching anti-CGRP antibodies (EX1001,
`
`25:59-61) and when describing the rat saphenous nerve assay (id., 55:55-58). See
`
`Petition, 7. Moreover, Applicant expressly highlighted that Tan's rat saphenous
`
`nerve assay results provided no motivation to humanize an anti-CGRP antibody in
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`response to an Office Action. POPR 18-19; EX2005, 1823. There can be no
`
`dispute: the examiner considered Tan's disclosure of anti-CGRP antagonist murine
`
`antibodies and the rat saphenous nerve assay, the key teachings upon which Lilly
`
`hangs its challenge4. The filed IDS noting the date on which Tan was considered
`
`(EX2034, 480) is additional dispositive evidence that Tan was fully considered.
`
`Instead of refuting this evidence, Lilly simply disagrees with the examiner's
`
`decision to allow Teva's patents; but that does not justify institution. Apotex Inc. v.
`
`Celgene Corp., IPR2018-00685, Paper 8, 26 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2018).
`
`Lilly's reliance on Navistar (Reply, 5) and Vizio (Reply, 3 and 5) is
`
`misplaced. Both cases are readily distinguishable. In Navistar and Vizio, the
`
`examiner presented no §§ 102/103 rejections evincing consideration of the prior art
`
`teachings. Navistar Inc. v. Fatigue Fracture Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00853, Paper 13
`
`at 17; Vizio Inc. v. Nichia Corp., IPR2017-00551, Paper 9 at 8. Here, in contrast,
`
`3 In Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., the Board considered
`
`references relied upon during prosecution of related patents relevant to its § 325(d)
`
`analysis and denied institution. IPR2018-00279, Paper 11, 8-18.
`
`4 Lilly ignores that the '045 patent's Corrected Notice of Allowance issued
`
`the same day as the Notice of Allowance for the '649 patent. Reply FN4; EX2005,
`
`278-280; EX2034, 542-544. The same examiner considered Teva's Tan arguments
`
`in the '649 prosecution before allowing the '045 patent.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`the record demonstrates that the examiner considered prior art teachings and
`
`addressed arguments the same as, or cumulative to, those presented in the Petition,
`
`confirmed by the examiner's rejections and Teva's response thereto. POPR, 15-24.
`
`This case is much closer to the facts before the Board in Microsoft and Indivior,
`
`where the Board exercised its discretion to deny institution under § 325(d) given
`
`the extensive prosecution before the examiner, the overlapping and cumulative
`
`references cited in the petition, and the examiner's signed IDS. See, e.g., Microsoft,
`
`IPR2018-00279, Paper 11, 8-18; Indivior, IPR2018-00795, Paper 23, 9.
`
`Finally, Lilly has not demonstrated that the examiner erred when considering
`
`Tan. To the contrary, Lilly actually admits that the sections from Tan presented to
`
`the examiner during prosecution "appear to support [a] contention" that Tan
`
`teaches away. Petition, 45. Nevertheless, Lilly wants this Board to disregard those
`
`teachings and admissions, and instead rely upon unsupported speculation that Lilly
`
`cobbled together from Tan. The Board should not do so.
`
`II. Conclusion
`The POPR demonstrates that the Becton factors favor denial under § 325(d).
`
`Lilly's Petition and Reply do not show otherwise.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Date: February 6, 2019
`
`
`
`Deborah A. Sterling, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 62,732)
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710, -01711, -01712
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`I certify that the above-captioned "Patent Owner's Surreply to Petitioner's
`
`Reply to Patent Owner's Preliminary Response" was served in its entirety on
`
`February 6, 2019, upon the following parties via electronic mail:
`
`William B. Raich
`Erin M. Sommers
`Pier D. DeRoo
`Yieyie Yang
`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
`
`
`
`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 L.L.C.
`
`
`
`Deborah A. Sterling, Ph.D.
`Date: February 6, 2019
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Registration No. 62,732
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner
`(202) 371-2600
`
`11153377_1.docx
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`