`
`
`
`
`
`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 8,586,045 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 October 15, 2019 Order, Patent Owner Teva moves
`
`IPR2018-01710
`Patent 8,586,045
`
`
`
`
`to strike the following arguments and evidence from Lilly’s Reply:
`
` Reply arguments on pages 6, 10-11, and 15;
`
` Exhibit 1287; and
`
` Paragraphs 22, 24-25, and 30-33 of Exhibit 1337.
`
`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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710
`
`
`Patent 8,586,045
`
`
`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).
`
`Because Lilly 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.
`
`Teva’s Response exposed a hole in Lilly’s Petition: Tan 1995 is a basic
`
`science pharmacology paper that draws no therapeutic or clinical conclusions.
`
`POR, 14-15. 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. EX2265, ¶¶83, 121; EX2268, ¶137.
`
`Facing this hole in its primary case, Lilly improperly puts forth new Exhibit
`
`1287 for the first time on Reply to supplement its deficient motivation argument to
`
`humanize the claimed anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies. 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 relies on EX1287 in Reply to allege that “there [was] ‘no reason’ why
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710
`
`
`Patent 8,586,045
`
`
`humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies should not be developed and used for
`
`treating migraine.” Reply at 6, citing EX1287, 247; see also Reply, 15. By citing to
`
`this dissertation by Tan, who was a student and not a POSA as of his writing, Lilly
`
`aims to insert new evidence necessary to its original invalidity theories. But any
`
`arguments and evidence as to motivation must have been made in the Petition, not
`
`newly advanced for the first time on Reply. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating that a reply
`
`or reply evidence may be excluded if it introduces new evidence that is necessary
`
`to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability).
`
`Exhibit 1287 is not used to rebut an argument, but instead to plug a
`
`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. 6 and
`
`15) 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.
`
`EX1014, e.g., ¶¶56-59, 70-71, 135-136. This argument was central to Lilly’s prima
`
`facie obviousness case because Lilly relies on efficacy of Tan’s antibody to argue
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710
`
`
`Patent 8,586,045
`
`
`motivation to combine. Petition at e.g., 16-17, 24, 26-27, 30-32, 38-40.
`
`But on cross examination, Dr. Charles was shown to be unqualified to
`
`proffer these opinions, and his testimony was discredited. POR, 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, 3-4, 15-17; 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. EX2265, ¶¶84-85;
`
`EX2268, ¶91.
`
`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, 10-11; EX1337, ¶¶22, 24-25, 30-33;
`
`EX1014, ¶¶56-59. This clearly evidences Lilly’s 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 methods
`
`based on Exhibit 1022 is impermissible at this stage. Dr. Balthasar’s declaration
`
`testimony on this point (EX1337, ¶¶22, 24-25, 30-33) and Lilly’s arguments based
`
`on the same (Reply, 10-11) should be stricken.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Teva moves to strike the entirety of Exhibit 1287;
`
`IPR2018-01710
`Patent 8,586,045
`
`
`
`
`paragraphs 22, 24-25, and 30-33 of Exhibit 1337; and Lilly’s Reply arguments on
`
`pages 6, 10-11, and 15 based on the same, 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 22, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01710
`
`Patent 8,586,045
`
`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 October
`
`22, 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: October 22, 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
`
`- 6 -
`
`