`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 RESPONSE TO TEVA’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`REGARDING FOX FACTORY, INC. v. SRAM, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I.
`Teva Failed to Establish that Amino Acid Sequence Is Insignificant ........... 1
`Teva Failed to Meet Its Burden of Establishing Coextensiveness................. 2
`II.
`III. Teva Failed to Distinguish Fox Factory ....................................................... 3
`IV. Teva Failed to Address Its Unchallenged Claims Reciting Sequence ........... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`FDA
`
`IPR
`
`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
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,884,908 (Ex. 1001)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,586,045 (Ex. 1001 in IPR2018-01710)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,340,614 (Ex. 1001 in IPR2018-01422)
`
`’614 Hearing Tr.
`
`Record of Oral Hearing (Paper 71 in IPR2018-01422)
`
`’951 patent
`
`’881 patent
`
`’794 patent
`
`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
`Teva Failed to Establish that Amino Acid Sequence Is Insignificant
`Having represented to the FDA that it engineered Ajovy®’s amino acid
`
`
`
`sequence to achieve its therapeutic profile, Teva’s repeated failure to address the
`
`criticality of sequence confirms that no presumption applies. Ex. 1320, 8-9; Reply,
`
`22-23; Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1373, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Teva’s mere attorney argument that sequence is insignificant is baseless. Br., 5.
`
`Depending on their specific sequence, anti-CGRP antibodies within the broad
`
`scope of the claims would have (1) binding affinity orders of magnitude worse than
`
`Ajovy® and Emgality®, (2) strong effector functions having the undesired side effect
`
`of killing cells, and/or (3) an antibody subclass never successfully used before in any
`
`FDA-approved antibody. Reply, 22-24; Ex. 1301, 34:9-35:1, 101:15-104:19; Ex.
`
`1018, ¶¶199-200. These unclaimed features would lead to materially different
`
`properties (e.g., no efficacy or significant adverse events) compared to Emgality®
`
`and Ajovy® and were identified by the FDA as directly bearing on “critical quality
`
`attributes” (CQAs). Ex. 2216, 17; Ex. 1320, 6-9.
`
`Teva’s unsupported argument that “sequences are not driving the praise”
`
`(because Emgality® and Ajovy® have different sequences) is therefore inconsistent
`
`with the admissions of its expert, contrary to its representations to FDA, and contrary
`
`to the fundamental principle of antibody biology that sequence determines function.
`
`Br., 5; Ex. 1063, 59, 63; Ex. 1062, 41; Ex. 1301, 93:14-20; Reply, 22-23.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`II. Teva Failed to Meet Its Burden of Establishing Coextensiveness
`In an effort to argue away its admission that Ajovy® and Emgality® are not
`
`
`
`“coextensive” with its overbroad claims, Teva contends they form a representative
`
`number of species within the claimed genus. ’614 Hearing Tr., 63; Br. 2, n.1, 5-7.
`
`But this is mere attorney argument, unsupported by any evidence.1
`
`Teva’s argument also lacks merit. Two sequence-engineered, FDA-approved
`
`antibody drugs are not representative of broad genus claims seeking to cover using
`
`all humanized anti-CGRP IgG antibodies, regardless of sequence, for treating
`
`migraine (among at least 250 other forms of headache). Ex. 1304, 74:17-75:12.
`
`Indeed, as held in Celltrion, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., a sequence-engineered, FDA-
`
`approved antibody drug lacks nexus to even sub-genus claims reciting specific
`
`mutations. IPR2017-01374, Paper 85 at 45, 48 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2018) (relying on
`
`“one (or a small number of) species” is “inadequate proof” for nexus). Teva’s claims
`
`are much broader because they are not limited by sequence. Reply, 22-23.
`
`
`1 Teva’s representative species argument is waived, as Teva failed to raise it before
`
`the oral argument. See POR, 54-55; Sur-reply, 27; Cablz, Inc. v. Chums, Inc., 708 F.
`
`App’x 1006, 1011-12 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Moreover, Teva’s new arguments alleging
`
`praise and success for Alder’s antibody are also waived, as Teva argued Alder only
`
`in the context of a license agreement. POR, 62-63.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`Teva contends that Ajovy® and Emgality® have the “structure and properties”
`
`
`
`required by the claims (Br., 6), but fails to identify any claimed structure or claimed
`
`properties that confer the therapeutic profiles driving Teva’s alleged praise and other
`
`secondary considerations. Ex. 1236, ¶¶16, 73-75 (the claims recite only generic IgG
`
`features common to all IgG antibodies “regardless of their targets or functions”).
`
`Regardless, Dr. Tomlinson’s consideration of just one sequence-dependent
`
`property—pM-level binding affinity—led him to contradict Teva’s “representative
`
`species” argument, conceding that Ajovy® and Emgality® “do not represent” the full
`
`scope of the claims. Ex. 1301, 103:25-104:19 (“They’re just two antibodies within
`
`[the claimed] range.”); Ex. 1320, 8-9.
`
`III. Teva Failed to Distinguish Fox Factory
`As discussed, the sequences of Ajovy® and Emgality® dictate their therapeutic
`
`function, and are thus responsible for Teva’s alleged secondary indicia. Regardless,
`
`contrary to Teva’s arguments, Fox Factory does not require unclaimed features to be
`
`directly “responsible for” alleged praise and success to find the presumption
`
`inapplicable. Br., 3. Rather, it was sufficient that any one of four unclaimed features
`
`“materially impacts the functioning” of the cited chainring products, contributing to
`
`their praise and success. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1376 (“For each of these features
`
`… nexus can only be presumed … if the claim includes limitations relating to [it].”).
`
`Here, multiple features not recited in the challenged claims each materially impact
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`the efficacy and safety profile of Ajovy® and Emgality® in treating headache, which
`
`
`
`contributes to (and is indeed “responsible for”) Teva’s alleged secondary indicia.
`
`Teva’s diagram betrays its fundamental misunderstanding of Fox Factory and
`
`the coextensiveness requirement. Br., 4. As an initial matter, it misrepresents the
`
`facts of this case, as the cited antibodies constitute, at most, mere specks within the
`
`vast expanse of claims encompassing countless different sequences. More
`
`fundamentally, Teva incorrectly depicts the unclaimed features in Fox Factory (e.g.,
`
`80% gap-filling) as outside the scope of the claims. Id. In Fox Factory, products with
`
`those material, unclaimed features were fully within the scope of the claims—the
`
`problem was that no limitations reciting those material features narrowed the claims
`
`to a scope coextensive with the cited products. 944 F.3d at 1375-76. Here, Teva’s
`
`challenged claims similarly lack any limitations narrowing the claims to a scope
`
`where coextensiveness might be plausible (e.g., for claims reciting sequences).
`
`IV. Teva Failed to Address Its Unchallenged Claims Reciting Sequence
`Ascribing little weight to the ’908 patent’s method-of-treatment recitations,
`
`which do not require any particular levels of safety or efficacy, Teva argues that the
`
`six challenged antibody patents and three method-of-treatment patents “generally
`
`cover the same invention” without any significant differences. Br., 6.
`
`Ignoring its burden, however, Teva never established that only the challenged
`
`claims of these nine patents are relevant for nexus. Teva obtained 188 patents in 8
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`patent families. Ex. 1302, 45:3-46:19. Teva never explained how the ’908 patent had
`
`
`
`any specific nexus to Teva’s purported secondary considerations in view of the other
`
`187 patents, as required. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378. Moreover, Teva flatly
`
`ignored the unchallenged sequence-specific claims of the ’794, ’045, ’614, ’881, and
`
`’951 patents. Teva’s large patent portfolio further shows that no presumption applies.
`
`Alleging that the only critical feature is that the cited products are “humanized
`
`anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies” for treating migraine, Teva forecloses any
`
`possibility of establishing nexus. Br., 3-4. Indeed, this is not novel—multiple
`
`references taught “exploring” humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies to treat
`
`migraine. Ex. 1096, 567, 570; Ex. 1287, 247. Furthermore, the only property Dr.
`
`Rapoport considered for nexus is the ability of antibodies to “block the CGRP
`
`pathway,” which is a mechanism of action previously known to treat migraine.
`
`Reply, 24. As stated by the Federal Circuit, it is a “fundamental requirement” that
`
`secondary indicia must result from something that is “both claimed and novel in the
`
`claim.” In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original).
`
`Because Teva relies exclusively on a non-novel feature, there can be no nexus.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: January 31, 2020
`
`By: / William B. Raich /
`William B. Raich (Reg. No. 54,386)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2018-01712
`Patent No. 9,884,908
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Response to Teva’s Supplemental Brief Regarding Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM,
`
`LLC was served electronically via email on January 31, 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.
`
`
`Date: January 31, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / William Esper /
`William Esper
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`