Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`RIMFROST AS
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTIC AS
`Patent Owner
`
`
`CASE NO: IPR2018-01730
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,072,752 B2
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nils Hoem in Support of Patent Owner’s Response
`and Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I. 
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ........................................................................................................................4 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`Qualifications ...........................................................................................................5 
`Legal Standards ......................................................................................................16 
`
`II. 
`
`RESPONSE TO GROUNDS FOR INSTITUTION IN IPR ........................................24 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`‘752 Patent Claims and Basis for IPR ....................................................................24 
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................27 
`Analysis..................................................................................................................30 
`
`1. 
`2. 
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................30 
`Prior Art .....................................................................................................36 
`
`a.    Catchpole (Ex. 1009). ..........................................................................36 
`b. Enzymotec (Ex. 1048). ........................................................................45 
`c.    Sampalis II (Ex. 1013). ........................................................................46 
`d. Grynbaum (Ex. 1039) ...........................................................................46 
`e. Randolf (Ex. 1011) ...............................................................................47 
`f. Fricke 1984 and 1986 (Ex. 1010 and Ex. 2006) ...................................48 
`
`Ground 1 Analysis – Claims 1, 5-6 and 11 are not anticipated by
`Catchpole ...................................................................................................51 
`Ground 2 Analysis – Claims 4, 7, 12 and 13 are not obvious over
`the combination of Catchpole and Sampalis II ..........................................53 
`Ground 3 Analysis – Claims 8-10 are not obvious over the
`combination of Catchpole, Grynbaum and Randolf ..................................58 
`Ground 4 Analysis – Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 11 are not obvious over
`the combination of Catchpole and Enzymotec ..........................................60 
`Ground 5 Analysis – Claims 14-16 and 20 are not obvious over the
`combination of Catchpole, Enzymotec and Sampalis II ............................67 
`Ground 6 Analysis – Claims 17-19 are not obvious over the
`combination of Catchpole, Enzymotec, Sampalis II, Grynbaum and
`Randolf .......................................................................................................72 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`III. 
`
`SUPPORT FOR MOTION TO AMEND ......................................................................74 
`
`A. 
`
`SUPPORT IN THE ORIGINAL DISCLSOURE FOR THE
`CONDITIONAL PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS .........................................76 
`
`1. Substitute Independent Claims 21 and 28 ........................................................76 
`2. Dependent Claims 22-27 and 29 ......................................................................79 
`3. 
`Claim Construction ....................................................................................80 
`4. 
`Patentability of the proposed substitute claims over the prior art ..............81 
`
`
`
`2
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`a.       Art at Issue in This Proceeding .........................................................81 
`b. The Material Prior Art at Issue During Prosecution ...........................89 
`
`IV.  Conclusion ........................................................................................................................90 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`I, Dr. Nils Hoem, state as follows:
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Petitioner Aker BioMarine AS to
`
`provide an expert declaration in this action. I am currently employed by Aker
`
`BioMarine AS.
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent 9,072,752 (hereinafter ‘752 patent; Ex.
`
`1001) and the claims contained therein. It is my understanding that the ‘752 patent
`
`contains claims to polar krill oil containing greater than 40% phosphatidylcholine
`
`and greater than 5% ether phospholipids. Additional limitations define krill oil
`
`compositions with higher amounts of phosphatidylcholine and ether phospholipids,
`
`specific amounts of omega-3 fatty acids, specific astaxanthin ester content and to
`
`the species of krill, Euphausia superba.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide analysis and expert opinions on the
`
`following: whether the combination of references cited in this proceeding render
`
`claims of the ‘752 patent anticipated or obvious.
`
`4.
`
`In connection with providing my opinions, I have further been asked
`
`to provide an overview of the technology of the ‘752 patent and state of the art that
`
`existing before the ‘752 patent was filed.
`
`
`
`4
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Qualifications
`5.
`I am a licensed pharmacist with master and doctorate degrees in
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`pharmacology. I was Associate Professor at Oslo University from 1989-2002 and
`
`European Director of Pharmacokinetics, Statistics and Data-Management at MDS
`
`Pharma Services, Hamburg Germany from 2004 to 2007. I am now Chief Scientist
`
`at Aker BioMarine. My educational background comprises skills in general,
`
`organic, analytic and biological chemistry in combination with his work at Aker
`
`BioMarine during the last 10 years have provided general and specialized insight
`
`into the complex composition of krill oil as well as the raw materials from which it
`
`has been extracted. In capacity of leading product development at Aker BioMarine,
`
`I have substantial theoretical and practical insight into extraction, fractionation and
`
`purification of krill oil and krill lipids. A more detailed account of my work
`
`experience, publications, and other qualifications is listed in my Curriculum Vitae,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated by my normal salary for Aker BioMarine AS.
`
`My compensation is not contingent on the conclusions I reach in my expert report.
`
`7.
`
`I have reviewed and considered, in the preparation of this report, the
`
`documents below.
`
`EXHIBI
`T NO.
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`5
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,072,752, filed September 6, 2013 (‘752 Patent)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/024,072, filed January 28,
`2008 (‘072 Provisional)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/983,446, filed October
`29, 2007 (‘446 Provisional)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/975,058, filed September
`25, 2007 (‘058 Provisional)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/920,483, filed March 28,
`2007 (‘483 Provisional)
`
`Declaration of Stephen Tallon
`
`Bottino, N.R., “The Fatty Acids of Antarctic Phytoplankton and
`Euphausiids. Fatty Acid Exchange among Trophic Levels of the Ross
`Sea,” 1974, Marine Biology, 27, 197-204 (Bottino I)
`
`Budziński, E., P. Bykowski and D. Dutkiewicz, 1985, “Possibilities
`of processing and marketing of products made from Antarctic krill,”
`FAO Fish. Tech. Pap., (268):46, (Budzinski)
`
`Catchpole and Tallon, WO 2007/123424, published November 1,
`2007, “Process for Separating Lipid Materials,” (Catchpole)
`
`Fricke et al., “Lipid, Sterol and Fatty Acid Composition of Antarctic
`Krill (Euphausia superba Dana),” LIPIDS 19(11):821-827 (1984)
`(Fricke)
`
`Randolph, et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`US/2005/0058728 A1, “Cytokine Modulators and Related Method of
`Use,”(Randolph)
`
`Sampalis [I] et al., “Evaluation of the Effects of Neptune Krill Oil™
`on the Management of Premenstrual Syndrome and Dysmenorrhea,”
`Altern. Med. Rev. 8(2):171-179 (2003) (Sampalis I)
`
`6
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 6
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`Sampalis [II] et al., WO 2003/011873, published February 13, 2003,
`“Natural Marine Source Phospholipids Comprising Flavonoids,
`Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Their Applications,” (Sampalis II)
`
`Tanaka [I] et al., “Platelet – Activating Factor (PAF) – Like
`Phospholipids Formed During Peroxidation of Phosphatidylcholines
`from Different Foodstuffs,” Biosci. Biotech. Biochem., 59(8) 1389-
`1393 (1995) (Tanaka I)
`
`Tanaka (II) et al., “Extraction of Phospholipids from Salmon Roe
`with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide and an Entrainer,” Journal of Oleo
`Science Vol. 53 (2004) No. 9, p. 17-424 (Tanaka II)
`
`Beaudoin et al., “Method of Extracting Lipids From Marine and
`Aquatic Animal Tissues” United States Patent No. 6,800,299 B1 filed
`July 25, 2001 (Beaudoin).
`Folch et al., “A simple method for the isolation and purification of
`total lipides from animal tissues,” J. Biol. Chem. (1957) 226: 497-509
`(Folch)
`
`Bunea, et al., “Evaluation of The Effects of Neptune Krill Oil on the
`Clinical Course of Hyperlipidemia,” Altern Med Rev. 2004; 9:420–
`428 (Bunea)
`
`Complaint filed in Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS v. Olympic Holding
`AS, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00035
`
`Federal Register Notice of Institution of Investigation 337-TA-1019
`on September 16, 2016 by the ITC (81 Fed. Reg. pages 63805-63806)
`
`File History to U.S. Patent No. 9,034,388 B2, Serial No, 12/057,775
`(‘388 File History) 1024 Part 1 - Pages 1-450 1024 Part 2 - Pages
`451-900 1024 Part 3 - Pages 901-1350 1024 Part 4 - Pages 1351-1800
`1024 Part 5 - Pages 1801-2250 1024 Part 6 - Pages 2251-2700 1024
`Part 7 - Pages 2701-3083 1024 Part 8 - Pages 3084-3223
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`Tehoharides, U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`US/2006/0013905 A1, “Anti-Inflammatory Compositions for
`Treating Multiple Sclerosis,” (Tehoharides)
`
`Halliday, Jess, “Neptune-Degussa Deal to Develop Phospholipids,
`Adapt Krill Oil,” http://www.nutraingredients-
`usa.com/Suppliers2/Neptune-Degussa-deal-to-develop-
`phospholipids-adapt-krill-oil, December 12, 2005 (Neptune-
`DeGussa)
`
`Grantham, G.J., “The Utilization of Krill,” UNDP/FAO Southern
`Ocean Fisheries Survey Programme (1977) (Grantham)
`
`Yoshitomi, U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`US/2003/0113432 A1, “Process for Making Dried Powdery and
`Granular Krill,” (Yoshitomi)
`
`Breivik, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0143571
`A1, “Process for Production of Omega-3 Rich Marine Phospholipids
`from Krill,” (Breivik)
`
`Breivik, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/859,289,
`“Processes for production of omega-3 rich marine phospholipids from
`krill,” filed November 16, 2006 (Breivik ‘289 Provisional)
`
`Breivik, WO 2008/060163 A1, “Process for Production of Omega-3
`Rich Marine Phospholipids from Krill,” International filing date
`November 15, 2007 (Breivik II)
`
`Bottino, N.R., “Lipid Composition of Two Species of Antarctic Krill:
`Euphausia Superba and E. Crystallorophias,” Comp. Biochem.
`Physiol., 1975, Vol. 50B, pp. 479 to 484 (Bottino II)
`
`Grynbaum, M., et al. “Unambiguous detection of astaxanthin and
`astaxanthin fatty acid esters in krill (Euphausia superba Dana),” J.
`Sep. Sci., 28, 1685–1693 (2005)
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1040
`
`1043
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`File History to U.S. Patent No. 9,072,752 B1, Serial No, 14/620,784
`(‘752 File History).
`Bruheim, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US2008/0274203
`A1, published November 6, 2008 (this is the publication of patent
`application serial no. 12/057,775 which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`9,034,388)
`
`1044
`
`Declaration of Robert S. McQuate.
`
`1045
`
`Declaration of Rakesh Kapoor.
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,034,388 B2, filed May 28, 2008 (‘388 Patent)
`
`Enzymotec, GRAS Notice No. GRN 000226 for “Krill-based
`Lecithin in Food,” and “Krill-derived lecithin,”
`https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/Ingredients Packaging
`Labeling/GRAS/Notice Inventory/ucm263930.pdf, dated May 26,
`2007 and filed by the FDA May 31, 2007, see Exhibit 1049
`(Enzymotec)
`
`FDA, Agency Response Letter GRAS Notice No. GRN 000226,
`https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/Noti
`ceInventory/ucm153881.htm, January 3, 2008
`
`Gaynor, P, “How U.S. FDA's GRAS Notification Program Works”,
`Reprinted with permission of the publishers from Food Safety
`Magazine December 2005/January 2006.
`http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/ucm
`083022.htm
`Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 74, pp. 18938-18964, April 17, 1997.
`
`FDA GRAS Notices, August 05, 2007, listing GRN 226 on Internet,
`“Krill-derived lecithin,” Wayback Machine,
`
`9
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 9
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070805011458/http://www.cfsan.fda.g
`ov:80/~rdb/opa-gras.html.
`Notice of Commission Determination ending Investigation 337-TA-
`1019, dated May 23, 2017
`
`Markman Order (Public Version), Order 13, U.S. International Trade
`Commission, In the Matter of Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill
`Meal for Production of Krill Oil Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1019,
`dated April 13, 2017
`
`Enzymotec website pages (September 25, 2007)
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20070925024350/http://www.enzymote
`c.com/PageIndex.asp?cc=01020403)
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20070925024521/http://www.enzymote
`c.com/Page.asp?cc=01020408)
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Office Manager of Internet Archive
`dated August 22, 2017 regarding FDA GRAS Notices and Enzymotec
`related webpages.
`FDA, Freedom of Information Annual Report 2007,
`https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/FOI/FOIAAnnualReport
`s/ucm148025.htm.
`File History to U.S. Patent No. 9,644,170 B2, Serial No, 15/180,439
`(‘170 File History) Part 1 - Pages 1-400 1063 Part 2 - Pages 401-800
`1063 Part 3 – Pages 801-1107
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,375,453 B2, filed September 6, 2013 (‘453).
`Krill Bill Bottle and Capsules from IRL
`
`Krill Bill Online Purchase Order and Specification Pages from 2006
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20060715103715/http://www.krillbill.co
`m:80/purchase.htm;
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060715103809/http://www.krill
`bill.com/profile.htm)
`
`10
`
`1054
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1067
`1069
`
`1070
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`Antarctica Select Krill Oil Online Literature and Purchase Order
`Form and linked FDA webpage from 2006
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20060816050841/http://www.aquasourc
`eproducts.com:80/store/;
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060816051009/http://www.aquasource
`products.com:80/krill_oil.html;
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060506115548/
`http://www.aquasourceproducts.com:80/resources.html?osCsid=aee4
`bb3df08470be3a75bc598448dabc;
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060513152744/http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov
`/~dms/ds-oview.html)
`
`Chen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0021000 A1,
`for “Mixtures of and Methods of Use for Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid-
`Containing Phospholipids and Alkyl Ether Phospholipids Species”,
`filing date July 19, 2006, publication date January 24, 2008
`
`Neptune, GRAS Notice [No. GRN 000242] for “High Phospholipid
`Krill Oil”
`https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/
`GRAS/NoticeInventory/ucm269133.pdf, dated January 18, 2008 and
`filed by the FDA February 4, 2008 (Neptune GRAS)
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Office Manager of Internet Archive,
`dated November 8, 2017, for Rimfrost Exhibits 1070 and 1071,
`regarding Krill Bill, Aquasource and FDA related webpages from
`2006
`
`Pure Encapsulations online literature for its Krill-plex NKO™
`product, webpage from August 19, 2004.
`https://web.archive.org/web/20040819183137/www.purecaps.com/ite
`mdy00.asp?T1=KP1.
`Del. District Court Stay of 16-cv-00035, pending resolution of IPRs,
`Order dated September 6, 2017
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`
`1078
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1080
`
`1084
`
`1089
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`Hoem, N., “Composition of Antarctic krill oil and methods for its
`harvesting, production and qualitative and quantitative analysis”,
`Aker BioMarine, Newcastle Australia November 2013 (Hoem).
`Mayzaud et al, “Changes in lipid composition of the Antarctic krill
`Euphausia superba in the Indian sector of the Antarctic Ocean:
`influence of geographical location, sexual maturity stage and
`distribution among organs” Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol.
`173: 149-784 (1998) (Mayzaud)
`
`Aker GRAS [No. GRN 000371], “Notification of GRAS
`Determination of Krill Oil”, December 14, 2010.
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=GRASNo
`tices&id=371
`
`1091
`
`Neptune GRAS Agency Response Letter GRN 000242.
`
`1092
`
`1093
`
`1094
`
`1095
`
`1097
`
`
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Office Manager of Internet Archive,
`dated February 5, 2018, regarding Rimfrost Exhibit 1077, Pure
`Encapsulations online literature for its Krill-plex NKO™ product,
`webpage from August 19, 2004.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,644,170 B2, filed June 13, 2016 (‘170)
`
`Marathe, et al., Inflammatory Platelet-activating Factor-like
`Phospholipids in Oxidized Low-Density Lipoproteins Are
`Fragmented Alkyl Phosphatidylcholines, J Biol Chem. 1999 Oct
`1;274(40):28395-28404
`
`Stremler, et al., Human Plasma Platelet-activating Factor
`Acetylhydrolase - Oxidatively Fragmented Phospholipids as
`Substrates, (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 11095–11103
`
`Britton, G., Structure and properties of carotenoids in relation to
`function, FASEB J, 9, 1551-1558, 1995
`
`12
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`Yuan, “Characteristics and chromatographic separation of astaxanthin
`and its esters from the microalga Haematococcus pluvialos,” Doctoral
`Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, 1999
`(http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b3123971)
`
`Mimoun-Benarroch, et al., The Bioavailability of Astaxanthin is
`Dependent on both the Source and the Isomeric Variants of the
`molecule, Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and
`Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca: Food Science and Technology,
`Volume 73, Number 2, 2016, pp. 61-69(9)
`
`Higuera-Ciapara, et al., Astaxanthin: A Review of its Chemistry and
`Applications, Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2006;46(2):185-96
`
`Lambertsen, et al., Method of Analysis of Astaxanthin and its
`Occurrence in some Marine Products, J. Sci. of Food and Agriculture,
`1971, Vol. 22, February
`
`Foss, et al., Natural occurrence of enantiomeric and Meso astaxanthin
`
`7∗-crustaceans including zooplankton, Comparative Biochemistry
`
`and Physiology Part B: Comparative Biochemistry, Volume 86, Issue
`2, 1987, Pages 313-314
`
`Final Written Decision, IPR2017-00745, August 10, 2018, Paper 24
`(U.S. Patent No. 9,078,905).
`
`Final Written Decision, IPR2017-00746, August 10, 2018, Paper 23
`(U.S. Patent No. 9,028,877).
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend the Claims, Paper 16 in IPR2018-
`00295 (U.S. Patent No. 9,320,765).
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nils Hoem in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`to Amend, Exhibit 2013 in IPR2018-00295 (U.S. Patent No.
`9,320,765).
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`1098
`
`1099
`
`1100
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 13
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nils Hoem in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response and Motion to Amend
`Yamaguchi, K. et al. “Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Extraction of
`Oils from Antarctic Krill”, J. Agric. Food Chem. 1986, 34, 904-907
`Prescott, S. et al. “Platelet-Activating Factor and Related Lipid
`Mediators”, Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2000. 69:419-45
`Zimmerman, G. et al. “The platelet-activating factor signaling
`system and its regulators in syndromes of inflammation and
`thrombosis”, Crit. Care Med 2002, Vol. 30, No. 5 (Suppl): S294-
`S301
`Calder, P. “n-3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids, inflammation, and
`inflammatory diseases1-3”, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006; 83(suppl):
`1505S-19S
`Fricke, H. et al. “1-O-Alkylglycerolipids in Antarctic Krill
`(Euphausia Superba DANA)”, Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Vol. 85B,
`No. 1, pp. 131-134, 1986
`Reserved
`
`14
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 14
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`Zierenberg et al., Intestinal absorption of
`polyenephosphatidylcholine in man, J. Lipid. Res. (1982) 23:1136-
`1142
`Blank et al., Meats and fish consumed in the American diet contain
`substantial amounts of ether-linked phospholipids. J Nutr. (1992)
`122(8):1656-61
`Hartvigsen et al., 1-O-Alkyl-2-(w-oxo)acyl-sn-glycerols from Shark
`Oil and Human Milk Fat Are Potential Precursors of PAF Mimics
`and GHB. Lipids (2006) 41, 679–693
`Marathe et al., Inflammatory Platelet-activating Factor-like
`Phospholipids in Oxidized Low-Density Lipoproteins Are
`Fragmented Alkyl Phosphatidylcholines. J. Biol. Chem. (1999)
`274(40):28395-28404
`U.S. Appl. 14/020,784 as filed
`Petition for Post Grant Review, U.S. Patent No. 9,644,170, Case No.
`PGR2018-00033
`Patent Abstract JP 04-057853 published February 25, 1992 (Tsuneo)
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 4,814,111
`Reserved
`US Pat. Publ. 2006/0193962 (Kamiya)
`WO 2007/136281
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Stephen Tallon, June 4, 2019
`Reserved
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Stephen Tallon, December 12, 2018
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`2008
`
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`2013
`
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 15
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`2023
`2024
`
`Reserved
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Stephen Tallon, August 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standards
`8.
`In this section I describe my understanding of certain legal standards.
`
`I have been informed of these legal standards by Patent Owner’s attorneys. I am
`
`not an attorney, and I am relying only on instructions from Patent Owner’s
`
`attorneys for these legal standards. I have applied these understandings in my
`
`analysis as detailed below.
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed that under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) the “specification
`
`shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process
`
`of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
`
`person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`
`connected, to make and use the same.” I also understand that the written
`
`description must include every feature or limitation of the claimed invention.
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed that the written description must convey clearly
`
`to those skilled in the art, that, as of the filing date sought, the applicant was in
`
`possession of the invention claimed.
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed that, in conducting a written description
`
`analysis:
`
`
`
`16
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 16
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`(1) The written description analysis is based on an objective inquiry
`
`into the four corners of the specification.
`
`(1) This inquiry into the specification is done from the perspective
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`(2) The written description requirement does not require any
`
`particular form of disclosure, and support may be based on a
`
`combination of
`
`figures and disclosures
`
`throughout
`
`the
`
`specification.
`
`(3) The specification need not recite the claimed invention in haec
`
`verba, i.e., it need not use the same words, phrasings or
`
`presentation style as the claims.
`
`(4) A description that merely renders the invention obvious does not
`
`satisfy the written description requirement.
`
`(5) The level of detail required to satisfy the written description
`
`requirement depends on (i) the nature and scope of the claims
`
`and (ii) the complexity and predictability of the relevant
`
`technology.
`
`(6)
`
`Factors to be taken under consideration include the existing
`
`knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, and the
`
`predictability of the aspect at issue.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed that the written description question is not
`
`whether a POSITA presented with the ‘752 patent would have been enabled to make
`
`the Claimed Invention, but whether the ‘752 patent discloses the invention to the
`
`POSITA as something that was within the inventor’s possession.
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is not enabled under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(a) if the specification does not teach those of ordinary skill in the art
`
`how to make and use the invention as broadly as it is claimed, without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that the assessment of undue experimentation is
`
`based on the level of skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the applications
`
`on which the ‘752 patent claims priority. Thus, a specification enables a claimed
`
`invention when it does in fact teach those of ordinary skill in the art how to make
`
`and use the invention as broadly as it is claimed, without undue experimentation.
`
`15. Additionally, I have been informed that the full scope of the claimed
`
`invention must be enabled.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that a finding of undue experimentation must
`
`consider multiple factors to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support such
`
`
`
`18
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`a determination. I understand that these factors, which are referred to as the Wands
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`factors, include:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`(8)
`
`the breadth of the claims;
`
`the nature of the invention;
`
`the state of the prior art;
`
`the level of one of ordinary skill;
`
`the level of predictability in the art;
`
`the amount of direction provided by the inventor;
`
`the existence of working examples; and
`
`the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the
`
`invention based on the content of the disclosure.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that the determination of non-enablement must
`
`be based on the evidence as a whole.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior
`
`art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim. I understand that documents
`
`and materials that qualify as prior art can be used to invalidate a patent claim as
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the “priority date” of a patent is taken to be the date
`
`on which it is filed. I further understand that a patent may be entitled to a priority
`
`
`
`19
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`date that corresponds to the filing date of an earlier-filed patent or application if two
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`criteria are met: 1) the patent expressly claims priority to the earlier-filed patent or
`
`application, and 2) the earlier-filed patent or application provides adequate support
`
`for the patent’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). I am aware that patents may claim
`
`the benefit of priority of an earlier-filed patent or application through one or more
`
`intermediate patents and/or applications. In such a case, the patent is entitled to the
`
`priority date of the earlier-filed patent or application if: 1) express claims of priority
`
`are made to the earlier filed patent or application and to the intermediate patents
`
`and/or applications, and 2) each of the patents and/or applications provide adequate
`
`support for the patent’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the priority date of each patent claim is to be resolved
`
`independently of the priority dates of other claims. Indeed, different priority dates
`
`may apply for different claims within a common patent.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that the “critical date” for a patent is one year prior
`
`to its effective filing date. It is my understanding that the critical date is significant
`
`because patents, systems, or documents that are public prior to the critical date are
`
`prior art that can invalidate a patent claim regardless of the purported date of
`
`invention.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a
`20
`
`
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a limitation-
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`by-limitation basis.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present or
`
`implied).
`
`24.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding obviousness,
`
`and understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it will be unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a POSITA provides a reference point from which the
`
`prior art and claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point prevents
`
`one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is
`
`obvious. Thus, “hindsight reconstruction” cannot be used to combine references
`
`together to reach a conclusion of obviousness.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the Claims, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`
`
`21
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations of non-
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`obviousness.
`
`27. Secondary considerations must be examined to determine whether a
`
`certain invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand that secondary considerations of non-obviousness are part of the
`
`obviousness inquiry under § 103, and that some examples of secondary
`
`considerations that tend to show non-obviousness include:
`
`(1)
`
`any long-felt and unmet need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`invention of the patent;
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`any failure of others to achieve the results of the invention;
`
`any commercial success or lack thereof of the products and processes
`
`covered by the invention;
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`any deliberate copying of the invention by others in the field;
`
`any taking of licenses under the patent by others;
`
`any expression of disbelief or skepticism by those skilled in the art
`
`upon learning of the invention;
`
`(7)
`
`(8)
`
`(9)
`
`
`
`
`
`any unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
`any praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; and
`
`any lack of contemporaneous and independent invention by others.
`
`22
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2001 Page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 9,072,752
`Ex. 2001, Hoem Declaration
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the factfinder(s) must determine whether potential
`
`evidence of secondary considerations is relevant. In particular, the factfin