`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00554
`Patent No. 8,058,069
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10821224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`Moderna’s Reply appropriately addresses (1) questions that the Board
`
`raised in its Institution Decision (Paper 8 (“ID”)) and (2) arguments Protiva put
`
`forth in its Response. See 37 C.F.R. §42.23(b) (reply “may…respond to
`
`arguments raised in…patent owner response”), Trial Practice Guide Update, 83
`
`Fed. Reg. 29,989, 18 (Aug. 2018) (“TPG”) (reply may “address issues discussed
`
`in the institution decision”). Unable to fill the holes in its responsive arguments,
`
`Protiva seeks to limit the record available for the Board’s consideration. But, the
`
`issues that Protiva claims are “new” are nothing of the sort—the Board
`
`specifically acknowledged these very issues when instituting this proceeding.
`
`While Protiva complains that the Reply goes beyond the Petition,
`
`“expan[sion] of the same argument made in [the] Petition” to address a Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments is the purpose of a Reply. See Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC, 901 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[T]he Board is capable
`
`of identifying new issues or belatedly presented evidence when weighing the
`
`evidence at the close of trial … [thus] striking the entirety or a portion of a party’s
`
`brief is an exceptional remedy that the Board expects will be granted rarely.”
`
`TPG, 17-18. Protiva presents basis to grant such an exceptional remedy here.
`
`1. The Petition Raised Routine Optimization Arguments
`The Board has already rejected Protiva’s argument that the Petition did
`
`not raise routine optimization (Mot., 1- 2). See ID, 24-25, n.11. The Petition,
`
`e.g., pointed to “testing relating to the 2:40 formulation that the Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00554
`
`
`identified as a prior art formulation” as a starting point (Pet., 31; EX1008, ¶109)
`
`Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`
`
`
`
`and argued, e.g., that “determining the optimal proportion of cationic lipid for
`
`a given lipid combination would be a simple matter of varying the proportion
`
`using prior art methodologies” (Pet. 33; Ex. 1008, ¶112).
`
`Protiva’s argument that disclosure of a phospholipid range in the prior art
`
`is a “new” issue (Mot., 2) is similarly unfounded. The Board already determined
`
`that the Petition identified an overlapping phospholipid range and rejected
`
`Protiva’s arguments to the contrary: “[t]urning first to Patent Owner’s contention
`
`that neither the ’196 PCT nor the ’189 Publication discusses concentration
`
`ranges for phospholipids … we do not find this argument persuasive.” ID, 23-
`
`24; see also Pet. 38-39 (citing 5-90% range for the non-cationic lipid (e.g., the
`
`phospholipid) and noting that it must be adjusted when cholesterol (also a non-
`
`cationic lipid) is included), see also id., 13, 24, 27 (citing 5-90% range). The
`
`Reply properly expands on these arguments.
`
`Protiva’s argument that the Petition included no motivation to include the
`
`four claimed lipid components (in particular a phospholipid and cholesterol) in
`
`carrier particles (Mot., 3) similarly ignores arguments from the Petition. As
`
`discussed above, the Petition identified prior art testing of the 2:40 SNALP
`
`formulation as a basis for its obviousness arguments and noted that “[t]his
`
`formulation includes 40% cationic lipid and 2% conjugated lipid, 10%
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00554
`
`
`phospholipid and 48% cholesterol … [and had] [d]emonstrated efficacy in vitro
`
`Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`
`
`
`
`and in vivo.” Pet. 26; EX1008, ¶¶96, 109. The Petition further described that
`
`“[n]on-cationic ‘helper’ lipids, e.g., certain phospholipids and/or cholesterols,
`
`can be combined with the cationic lipid to influence the ability of the particles
`
`to transfect cells.” Pet., 8; EX1008, ¶63. These are thus not “new” issues.
`
`2. Moderna’s Rebuttal Of Evidence Of Non-Obviousness Is Proper
`After Protiva offered evidence of non-obviousness in its preliminary
`
`response, the Board stated that Moderna should have “an opportunity to respond
`
`… [as] Patent Owner’s evidence is better evaluated in the context of a
`
`completed trial where the record has been fully developed.” ID, 27. The Reply
`
`points to glaring holes in Protiva’s alleged evidence, including that patisiran, the
`
`alleged commercial embodiment, does not even use the claimed formulation. See
`
`EX1020, ¶¶139-141. The Board should reject Protiva’s efforts to avoid
`
`Moderna’s responsive arguments showing such inaccuracies.
`
`Protiva’s position that a Petitioner must guess what evidence of non-
`
`obviousness a patent owner may offer or be foreclosed from responding is
`
`untenable. Protiva’s case support, Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt
`
`Hospital Products, IPR2016-00777, Paper 10, dealt with (1) serial IPRs
`
`regarding the same patent (id., 2), (2) likelihood of success in the initial
`
`determination (id., 9), and (3) the lack of analysis of non-obviousness evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00554
`
`
`from the original patent file wrapper (id.). Here, the Board already found a
`
`Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`
`
`
`
`likelihood of success, this is the first IPR on the ’069 patent, and the Petition
`
`addressed alleged unexpected results discussed in the file wrapper (Pet., 12-14).
`
`3. Protiva’s Mischaracterizations Of Dr. Janoff’s Opinions
`Moderna’s original expert, Dr. Janoff, passed away in December 2019.
`
`Petitioner’s new expert, Dr. Anchordoquy stated: “I may have emphasized
`
`different points or stated things differently, I agree with the general premises set-
`
`forth regarding the invalidity of the ’069 patent as stated [by Dr. Janoff]”).
`
`EX1020, ¶3. Protiva’s argument that Moderna “abandons testimony of Dr.
`
`Janoff” (Mot., 5) is simply wrong. Moreover, Protiva had the opportunity to
`
`depose Dr. Anchordoquy on any alleged inconsistencies (EX2043) and could
`
`have presented any such inconsistencies to the Board in its sur-reply.
`
`The Board should reject Protiva’s mischaracterizations of Dr. Janoff’s
`
`opinions to manufacture alleged inconsistencies. Protiva points to ambiguous
`
`testimony from the ’435 IPR arguing that Dr. Janoff opined that the claims
`
`should be limited to SNALPs (Mot., 4-5), but in that proceeding he testified that
`
`the broad definition of a “lipid particle” from the specification should inform the
`
`meaning of “nucleic acid-lipid particle.” EX2001, 200:4-201:9. In this
`
`proceeding, Dr. Janoff unambiguously agreed with the Board’s prior refusal to
`
`limit the claims to SNALPs. EX1008, ¶88; EX1022, 10-13 (Board decision). Dr.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00554
`
`
`Anchordoquy agrees that the claims are not limited to SNALPs and encompass
`
`Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`
`
`
`
`all types of nucleic acid-lipid particles, including potentially lipoplexes and
`
`liposomes. See EX1020, ¶¶36-37. These positions are not inconsistent.
`
`Protiva also points to statements from Dr. Janoff that the field is complex
`
`and unpredictable to argue that Dr. Anchordoquy is offering contradictory
`
`opinions by asserting routine optimization. Mot., 5. When you have a defined,
`
`efficacious system like the 2:40 formulation tested in the prior art the
`
`unpredictability in the field is minimized. EX1020, ¶56; EX2033:51:7-18 (Dr.
`
`Janoff's reference to an “immense” range refers to the “hundreds of cationic
`
`lipids known”), 60:5-15 (unpredictable because of that immense range of
`
`available lipid species). Thus, both Drs. Anchordoquy and Dr. Janoff opine that
`
`varying the lipid component percentages using such a defined system as a
`
`starting point would require mere routine optimization. Id., ¶57; Ex. 1008, ¶112.
`
`Finally, Protiva argues that Dr. Janoff admitted that patisiran uses the
`
`claimed formulation citing a declaration from the ’435 IPR. Mot., 5. Dr. Janoff
`
`cited to Protiva’s expert’s assertion regarding the patisiran formulation.
`
`IPR2018-00739, EX1021, ¶33. The opinions of Protiva’s expert containing the
`
`incorrect factual assertion regarding the patisiran formulation are part of the
`
`record in this proceeding. See EX2004, ¶192.
`
`For these reasons, Protiva’s motion to strike should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00554
`
`
`Dated: April 6, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /C. Maclain Wells/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael R. Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933
`C. Maclain Wells, Reg. No. 48,991
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00554
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,058,069
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e), a
`
`copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`
`OWNER MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 42.64 was
`
`served electronically, as agreed to by the parties, on counsel for the Patent
`
`Owner as follows:
`
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Michael T. Rosato, Reg. No. 52,182
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Steven W. Parmelee, Reg. No. 31,990
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`
`Sonja R. Gerrard, Reg. No. 72,802
`sgerrard@wsgr.com
`
`Lora M. Green, Reg. No. 43,541
`lgreen@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`By: /Susan M. Langworthy/
` Susan M. Langworthy
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`April 6, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`