`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`(REGARDING FOX FACTORY, INC. v. SRAM, LLC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`Table of Contents
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Legal Standard for Presumption of Nexus ...................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Teva Failed to Meet Its Burden of Establishing that Ajovy® and
`Emgality® Are Coextensive with the Challenged Claims ............................... 3
`A. Unclaimed Sequence and Mutations Materially Impact
`Function ................................................................................................. 3
`Other Unclaimed Features Materially Impact Function ....................... 5
`B.
`IV. No Nexus Exists Outside of the Alleged Presumption .................................... 6
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADCC
`
`CDC
`
`CDR
`
`FDA
`
`IPR
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity
`
`Complement-dependent cytotoxicity
`
`Complementarity-determining region
`
`U.S. Food and Drug Administration
`
`Inter partes review
`
`Italicized text
`
`Emphasis added unless otherwise indicated
`
`Lilly or Petitioner Eli Lilly and Company
`
`pM
`
`picomolar
`
`Teva or Patent
`Owner
`
`’908 patent
`
`’045 patent
`
`’614 patent
`
`’951 patent
`
`’881 patent
`
`’794 patent
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,045 (Ex. 1001 in IPR2018-01710)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,340,614 (Ex. 1001 in IPR2018-01422)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,266,951 (Ex. 1001 in IPR2018-01423)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,346,881 (Ex. 1001 in IPR2018-01424)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,007,794 (Ex. 2024)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`Introduction
`In Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed and
`
`clarified that a patentee bears the burden of establishing a presumption of nexus,
`
`which requires demonstrating that a product cited for secondary considerations is
`
`“coextensive” with the challenged claims. 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The
`
`court rejected the patentee’s attempt to broaden the coextensiveness requirement to
`
`an inquiry of whether the claims “cover” the cited products. Id. at 1377.
`
`For nexus in this case, Teva relied solely on the presumption. Sur-reply, 27.
`
`Like the patentee in Fox Factory, Teva advanced the legally deficient argument that
`
`its claims merely “cover[]” Ajovy® and Emgality®. Id.; POR, 54-55; Ex. 2273, ¶123.
`
`Teva failed to satisfy the coextensiveness requirement because these products have
`
`numerous features that “materially impact” their functionality but are not recited as
`
`limitations in the challenged method-of-treatment claims. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at
`
`1375-76. Indeed, the amino acid sequences of Ajovy® and Emgality® drive their
`
`therapeutic properties, i.e., efficacy and safety for treating migraine, which are
`
`responsible for Teva’s alleged secondary considerations evidence. All challenged
`
`claims, however, broadly recite using antibodies without any requirement for
`
`sequence and without any requirement for particular levels of safety and efficacy, let
`
`alone those observed for Ajovy® and Emgality®. Thus, Fox Factory confirms that
`
`nexus is lacking.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`II. Legal Standard for Presumption of Nexus
`Fox Factory reaffirmed that a patentee bears the burden of establishing a
`
`presumption of nexus. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373, 1378. If the patentee fails to
`
`establish the presumption, the petitioner has no burden of rebuttal. Id. at 1375. When
`
`a product is covered by multiple patents, the patentee must also show that the
`
`secondary considerations are due to the challenged claims, not other patents. Id.
`
`Under Fox Factory, a patentee relying on the presumption must establish that
`
`alleged praise or success is (1) “tied to a specific product” and (2) the product is
`
`“coextensive” with the challenged claims. 944 F.3d at 1373. There, the patentee
`
`relied on the success of thirteen bicycle chainring products “embody[ing]” the
`
`challenged patent. Id. at 1370. The court, however, found a lack of coextensiveness
`
`because the products’ performance (i.e., improved chain retention) was materially
`
`impacted by features not recited as limitations, such as an 80% gap-filling feature
`
`that had been specifically claimed in a different patent. Id. at 1375-76, 1378.
`
`In holding the presumption inapplicable, the court did not require the
`
`unclaimed features (e.g., 80% gap-filling) to be specifically identified in industry
`
`praise or the sole basis for commercial success. Rather, the presumption did not
`
`apply because patentee failed to meet its burden of establishing that those unclaimed
`
`features were “insignificant” to the chainring products’ functionality. Id. at 1375-76.
`
`Accordingly, Fox Factory demonstrates that no presumption of nexus applies
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`to overbroad genus claims that fail to recite, as limitations, features materially
`
`
`
`impacting the properties of a product cited for secondary considerations. See
`
`Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-01374, Paper 85 at 48 (PTAB Nov. 29,
`
`2018) (holding that an FDA-approved antibody drug having specific mutations
`
`lacked nexus to broader sub-genus claims encompassing other mutations).
`
`III. Teva Failed to Meet Its Burden of Establishing that Ajovy® and
`Emgality® Are Coextensive with the Challenged Claims
`The challenged method-of-treatment claims do not reference safety and do not
`
`require clinical efficacy, much less the levels of efficacy that supported FDA
`
`approval for Ajovy® and Emgality®. Pet., 21-24; Reply, 2-3. Multiple unclaimed
`
`features materially impact the therapeutic properties of these antibody drugs,
`
`demonstrating that they are not coextensive with Teva’s overbroad genus claims.
`
`A. Unclaimed Sequence and Mutations Materially Impact Function
`Even one unclaimed feature that materially impacts a product’s functionality
`
`prevents any presumption of nexus. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1375. Here, the
`
`sequences of Ajovy® and Emgality®, not recited in any challenged claim, drive their
`
`therapeutic properties (i.e., efficacy and safety). Teva cannot meet its burden of
`
`proving that sequence is insignificant to Ajovy® and Emgality® and their ability to
`
`safely and effectively treat migraine by antagonizing CGRP.
`
`The materiality of amino acid sequence to an antibody’s function and its
`
`therapeutic properties is universally recognized. E.g., Ex. 1062, 41; Ex. 1063, 63
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`(“the amino acid sequences … determine the shape and ionic properties of the
`
`
`
`antigen-binding site” and “define the specificity of an antibody”); MorphoSys AG v.
`
`Janssen Biotech Inc., 358 F. Supp. 3d 354, 366 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2019) (small
`
`sequence changes can dramatically affect antibody properties). Indeed, the parties’
`
`experts agree that sequence dictates function. Ex. 1236, ¶¶20, 41 (Dr. Vasserot:
`
`CDRs have hypervariable sequences and are “critical” for antigen binding);
`
`Ex. 1301, 81:11-22 (Dr. Tomlinson: CDRs “are responsible” for binding properties).
`
`Ajovy® and Emgality® have specific amino acid sequences that are critical for
`
`their therapeutic function. For example, Teva represented to the FDA that multiple
`
`mutations were introduced into Ajovy® that materially impact properties including
`
`binding affinity, e.g., to residues 99 and 100. Ex. 1320, 8-9 (“A99L” and “R100A”);
`
`Ex. 1301, 115:9-116:9. Binding affinity materially impacts efficacy and safety. Ex.
`
`1236, ¶¶41, 69-70; Ex. 1023, 2:12-27 (affinity is “critical[]” to biological function).
`
`Teva also represented to the FDA that specific mutations were introduced into
`
`Ajovy®’s sequence to eliminate ADCC and CDC, i.e., its ability to kill cells.
`
`Ex. 1320, 8-9 (“A330S” and “P331S”); Ex. 1301, 116:11-21. Killing cells is an
`
`undesired side effect for antibodies used to antagonize CGRP in treating migraine,
`
`and thus these disabling mutations also “materially impact” safety and efficacy.
`
`Ex. 1236, ¶¶141, 151-152; Ex. 1018, ¶¶187, 199-200; Ex. 1062, 43; Ex. 2098, 646.
`
`Emgality® similarly contains mutations eliminating ADCC and CDC. Ex. 2216, 17.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`No presumption applies because none of the challenged claims are limited to
`
`
`
`using antibodies having any particular sequences, let alone sequences with the
`
`functionality-conferring mutations of Ajovy® and Emgality®. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d
`
`at 1375-76; Celltrion, IPR2017-01374, Paper 85 at 48. A huge number of individual
`
`mutations—20220—can be made to the amino acid sequence in an antibody’s variable
`
`region, and the challenged claims exclude none of them. Ex. 1301, 91:25-92:22.
`
`The materiality of sequence is further illustrated by Teva claiming specific
`
`sequences in a separate, unchallenged patent. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377-78.
`
`Teva represented that the unchallenged ’794 patent “protect[s]” Ajovy®. Ex. 2273,
`
`90 n.6; Ex. 2168, 4. Claims 3 and 5 of the ’794 patent recite SEQ ID NO: 1, which
`
`includes the affinity-conferring A99L and R100A mutations. Ex. 2024, col. 73 (SEQ
`
`ID NO 1). Claim 7 is limited to a heavy chain produced from Accession No. PTA-
`
`6867, which includes the mutations to residues 330 and 331 that eliminate ADCC
`
`and CDC. Id., 58:3-17. Lilly also did not challenge the sequence-specific treatment
`
`claims of the ’045 patent, or similar claims of the ’614, ’951, and ’881 patents.
`
`B. Other Unclaimed Features Materially Impact Function
`As in Fox Factory, more unclaimed features materially impact the therapeutic
`
`properties of Ajovy® and Emgality®, further rendering the presumption inapplicable.
`
`Binding affinity materially impacts an antibody’s efficacy and safety.
`
`Ex. 1236, ¶¶41, 69-70; Ex. 1023, 2:12-27; Ex. 1266, 521 (Dr. Tomlinson: “[a]n ideal
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`drug would have … very high affinity”). But while Ajovy® and Emgality® have pM-
`
`
`
`range affinities, all challenged claims encompass affinities up to 10 nM. Dr.
`
`Tomlinson admitted that the 2 pM and 31 pM affinities of these products “do not
`
`represent” the claimed affinities (i.e., 5,000-fold range). Ex. 1301, 101:15-104:19.
`
`Antibody subclass also materially impacts function. Ex. 1018, ¶187;
`
`Ex. 2273, ¶29; Ex. 1058, 100. IgG1 and IgG3, encompassed by the claims, have
`
`robust cytotoxicity (ADCC and CDC). Ex. 1301, 112:5-115:1; Ex. 1236, ¶¶27, 45;
`
`Ex. 1073, 121-122. The subclasses of Ajovy® and Emgality® (IgG2 and IgG4), by
`
`contrast, display only modest cytotoxicity. Ex. 1062, 43. Both antibodies were
`
`further mutated to eliminate even this cytotoxicity, as cell-death is problematic and
`
`undesired in a migraine treatment. Ex. 1320, 8-9; Ex. 2216, 17; Ex. 1018, ¶¶187,
`
`199-200. Dr. Tomlinson admitted that he is unaware of anyone ever successfully
`
`making an FDA-approved antibody using IgG3. Ex. 1301, 34:9-35:1, 114:19-115:1.
`
`Accordingly, differences in sequence, affinity, and antibody subclass would
`
`lead to materially different therapeutic properties as compared to Ajovy® and
`
`Emgality®. Reply, 22-24. Notably, even these antibodies have fundamental
`
`differences in treating headache: Emgality® is FDA-approved to treat cluster
`
`headache while Ajovy® failed in that indication. Ex. 2153, 1; Ex. 1304, 74:17-75:12.
`
`IV. No Nexus Exists Outside of the Alleged Presumption
`Any belated attempt to contend that the beneficial properties of using Ajovy®
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`or Emgality® are attributable to the ’908 patent claims is waived and should be
`
`
`
`rejected. Sur-reply, 27 (relying solely on the presumption). Indeed, Teva’s expert
`
`conceded that the only property he considered was the ability to “block the CGRP
`
`pathway,” which was a mechanism already known in the art to treat migraine and
`
`thus cannot support nexus. Reply, 24; Ex. 1304, 142:1-8. Teva also has not shown
`
`that treatments with other antibodies (e.g., with different sequences and worse
`
`properties) would perform “in the same manner” as Ajovy® or Emgality®, as
`
`required. Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Furthermore, any reliance on the cited products as representative “species”
`
`fails. Even 300 antibodies are not representative of a functionally defined genus like
`
`Teva’s challenged claims here. AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.,
`
`759 F.3d 1285, 1291-92, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Celltrion, IPR2017-01374, Paper 85
`
`at 45, 48 (a small number of species is “inadequate proof” for nexus). Moreover, in
`
`contrast to the claims in Fox Factory and Celltrion, which recited structural features
`
`relevant to functionality (and also involved up to thirteen cited products), Teva’s vast
`
`challenged claims lack any function-conferring structure and encompass an
`
`unfathomable number of amino acid sequences. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1369-70;
`
`Celltrion, IPR2017-01374, Paper 85 at 48. Thus, Teva failed to prove nexus.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: January 24, 2020
`
`By: / William B. Raich /
`William B. Raich (Reg. No. 54,386)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Supplemental Brief was served electronically via email on January 24, 2020, in
`
`its entirety on the following:
`
`Deborah A. Sterling
`Robert C. Millonig
`Gaby L. Longsworth
`Jeremiah B. Frueauf
`Olga A. Partington
`Dennies Varughese
`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
`opartington-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`dvarughe-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`
`
`Patent Owner has consented to service by email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / William Esper /
`William Esper
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 24, 2020
`
`
`
`