`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2018-01712
`Patent 9,884,908
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY BRIEF REGARDING
` FOX FACTORY, INC. V. SRAM, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Fox Factory does not require a patentee to prove that all unclaimed
`features are “insignificant” to obtain a presumption of nexus. ....................... 1
`Ajovy and Emgality are coextensive with the claims and Lilly’s
`analysis vis-à-vis unclaimed features does not support finding
`otherwise. ......................................................................................................... 3
`III. Teva met its burden and demonstrated nexus. ................................................. 4
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`II.
`
`- i-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`The record provides evidence of success and/or praise for three different
`
`anti-CGRP antibodies, all of which embody the challenged claim elements: Teva’s
`
`Ajovy®, Lilly’s Emgality®, and Alder’s eptinezumab. This evidence supports both
`
`a presumption of nexus and actual nexus to the challenged claims. POR, 54-55;
`
`EX2273, ¶123; EX2264, ¶¶21-26; EX2276, ¶20; EX2257, 5.
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) does not
`
`disrupt Teva’s presumption. The holding in that case turned on the fact that SRAM
`
`only argued that the commercial products were “broadly covered” by the claims,
`
`and admitted that the unclaimed features of the product were both material to its
`
`functionality and drove the objective indicia. No such admissions or arguments
`
`exist here. Lacking similar facts, Lilly relies on attorney argument that unclaimed
`
`features of Ajovy and Emgality are responsible for the objective indicia. Br., 1.
`
`The Board should reject these unfounded and late arguments.
`
`Lilly is also wrong that “Teva relied solely on the presumption.” Br., 1. Teva
`
`demonstrated a direct nexus between objective indicia from a representative
`
`number of species and the challenged claims. EX2273, ¶123; EX2264, ¶¶21-26;
`
`EX2276, ¶20; EX2257, 5. Thus, Teva independently demonstrated nexus.
`
`I.
`
`Fox Factory does not require a patentee to prove that all unclaimed
`features are “insignificant” to obtain a presumption of nexus.
`Federal Circuit precedent is clear: while unclaimed features may rebut a
`
`presumption of nexus, their existence cannot prevent a finding of a presumption.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1393-94 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988); Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361,
`
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000); PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF,
`
`LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Fox Factory confirmed as much: “[t]he
`
`mere existence of one or more unclaimed features does not necessarily mean
`
`presuming nexus is inappropriate.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1376.
`
`Ignoring that the unclaimed features were “critical” in Fox Factory, Lilly
`
`fashions a new rule to hold that a presumption does not apply where “patentee
`
`failed to meet its burden of establishing that those unclaimed features were
`
`‘insignificant’ to the [] products’ functionality.” Br., 2. Fox Factory includes no
`
`such holding. Moreover, it did not overturn decades of Federal Circuit precedent
`
`and place that burden on patentees. Demaco, 851 F.2d 1394 (“A patentee is not
`
`required to prove as part of its prima facie case that the commercial success of the
`
`patented invention is not due to factors other than the patented invention.”).
`
`In Fox Factory, the Court unambiguously stated that the “patentee’s own
`
`assertions about the significance of the unclaimed features” were the basis for its
`
`finding of no coextensiveness. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1375. Here, Teva has not
`
`made any such admissions, and does not have to prove that all unclaimed features
`
`of the products are “insignificant” to establish a presumption of nexus.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`II. Ajovy and Emgality are coextensive1 with the claims and Lilly’s analysis
`vis-à-vis unclaimed features does not support finding otherwise.
`
`Under Fox Factory, nexus is not presumed where a product’s unclaimed
`
`features “materially impact[] the product’s functionality” and are responsible for
`
`the objective indicia. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1375. Lilly baldly asserts that
`
`“numerous [unclaimed] features” of Ajovy and Emgality are “responsible for
`
`Teva’s alleged secondary considerations evidence.”2 Br., 1, 3-6. But Lilly relies
`
`purely on attorney argument, belatedly cobbling together cites from a record
`
`without any evidence that the features drive the objective indicia. Br., 1, 3-6. Thus,
`
`Lilly’s assertion that Ajovy and Emgality are “not coextensive” with the
`
`challenged claims is baseless3.
`
`
`1 Teva did not state otherwise. OA (Nov. 22, 2019), 63:13-15. Fox Factory
`
`does not overrule the case law that a patentee can demonstrate nexus with a
`
`representative number of species. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`2 Lilly waived its opportunity to contest Teva’s presumption of nexus
`
`because it failed to do so on Reply.
`
`3 Celltrion v. Genentech did not hold that a presumption never applies to a
`
`genus. IPR2017-01374, Paper 85 at 46 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2018). There, the claims
`
`challenged as obvious were directed “to specific antibodies with specific
`
`framework region substitutions” that admittedly “critically affect[ed]” antigen
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`Moreover, Lilly’s arguments that Ajovy and Emgality each have different
`
`“unclaimed features,” but are both equally praised, underscores the fact that
`
`differences in sequence, class, affinity, etc., do not drive the objective indicia. This
`
`squarely undercuts Lilly’s argument and instead supports a presumption of nexus.
`
`Lilly also improperly argues that “[w]hen 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.” Br., 24. To the contrary, Fox Factory
`
`recognized that a presumption can apply to multiple patents that “generally cover
`
`the same invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377. And there is no dispute that
`
`the challenged claims in the related challenged patents generally cover the same
`
`invention: humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies and their use.
`
`III. Teva met its burden and demonstrated nexus.
`Lilly’s argument that “Teva failed to prove nexus” is wrong. Br., 6-7. Teva
`
`showed that multiple antibodies within the claim scope—Ajovy, Emgality, and
`
`eptinezumab—behave in the same manner and receive the same praise. EX2273,
`
`¶123; EX2257, 5; POR, 54-55. This evidence demonstrates the required nexus
`
`
`binding, and the objective indicia were associated with one antibody having one
`
`claimed substitution. Id., 6, 46. The record here is devoid of such facts.
`
`4 Teva demonstrated nexus for each challenged claim. EX2273, ¶123. Lilly
`
`waived its right to address a presumption for dependent claims.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`between the objective indicia and the full scope of Teva’s claims. In re Kao, 639
`
`F.3d at 1068. Lilly now relies on the inapposite AbbVie and Celltrion cases to
`
`challenge Teva’s showing. Br., 7. But neither is relevant either factually or legally.
`
`Celltrion, IPR2017-01374, Paper 85 at 46; Abbvie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen
`
`Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (a written description
`
`case). As Lilly admitted, Ajovy and Emgality each have different “unclaimed
`
`features.” Br., 5-6. Lilly failed to demonstrate that these antibodies are not
`
`representative of the claimed genus. Thus, Teva has proven a nexus to the claims.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`In sum, the Board should reject Lilly’s attempts to overextend the holding of
`
`Fox Factory to create a new rule that a presumption can never apply to a genus
`
`claim. All Fox Factory did was to apply long-standing law to a unique set of facts:
`
`the patentee’s admission of the criticality of the unclaimed features. Fox Factory,
`
`944 F.3d at 1375. Such facts are absent here. Thus, Fox Factory does not apply and
`
`does not change Teva’s entitlement to a presumption of nexus. Furthermore, even
`
`if the presumption did not apply, Teva has demonstrated nexus to multiple
`
`objective indicia that support nonobviousness of the challenged claims.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: January 31, 2020
`
`
`
`By: /Deborah A. Sterling/
` Deborah A. Sterling, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 62,732)
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “Patent Owner’s
`
`Reply Brief Regarding Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC” was served in its entirety
`
`on January 31, 2020, via email on the following:
`
`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
`
`William B. Raich
`Erin M. Sommers
`Pier D. DeRoo
`Yieyie Yang
`John 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`Date: January 31, 2020
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
` Deborah A. Sterling, Ph.D.
` Registration No. 62,732
` Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`14500065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`