`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Mylan Laboratories Ltd.
`Petitioner,
`
`v .
`
`Janssen Pharmaceutica NV
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 to Vermeulen et al.
`Issue Date: September 13, 2016
`Title: Dosing Regimen Associated with Long
`Acting Injectable Paliperidone Esters
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2020-00440
`
`AUTHORIZED REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`145116331v3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`1. The Apple Factors Favor Institution .................................................................... 1
`
`2.
`
`Janssen Has Failed to Remove PI-74 and PI-75 .................................................. 7
`
`145116331v3
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`1. The Apple Factors Favor Institution
`
`Apple Factor 1: When the record lacks any evidence of a stay or whether it
`
`may or may not be granted, Factor #1 is neutral. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., Case
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (May 13, 2020) (informative) (“Apple II”); Sand
`
`Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 7 (June 16, 2020) (informative).
`
`Apple Factor 2: The FWD is due approximately September 2021. POPR at
`
`11. Trial in the district court is not scheduled. While in the Joint Proposed
`
`Discovery Plan the parties proposed a trial date of “June 2021 or at the Court’s
`
`convenience” (EX2004, p. 5 of 12), the District Court declined to set a trial date.
`
`EX2003; Sand, IPR2019-01393 at 9 (qualifiers like “or as available” evidences
`
`uncertainty around trial schedule); Apple II, IPR2020-00019 at 13 (District Court
`
`schedules generally taken at “face value.”). “Patent Owner has not provided the
`
`Board with any procedural schedule from the District Court showing a trial
`
`date.” Oticon Medical AB et al. v. Cochlear Ltd., IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 at 22-
`
`24 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019) (precedential). Under precedential PTAB authority, the
`
`parties’ intentions are irrelevant. To prevail on this factor, Janssen must provide
`
`concrete evidence “from the District Court showing a trial date” (id.), which
`
`Janssen cannot do because the District Court expressly declined to set a trial date.
`
`Like Oticon, Factor #2 favors Petitioner and trial should be instituted. Id. at 24.
`
`145116331v3
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Apple Factor 3: Factor #3 addresses prior investment by the Court and the
`
`parties “at the time of the institution.” Apple, 9. At best, Janssen argues that “[i]n
`
`Mylan, the parties have exchanged binding validity contentions (nearly 400 pages
`
`worth), and fact discovery is ongoing.” POPR at 13. Not a single deposition has
`
`occurred and Janssen points to no activity by the District Court in Mylan. Further,
`
`the Petition was filed prior to receiving Janssen’s responsive contentions. POPR at
`
`4-5. And, little will have occurred “at the time of the institution.” (EX2004). Under
`
`similar facts, the PTAB has instituted the review. Oticon, IPR2019-00975 at 23
`
`(“Patent Owner simply informs us that ‘discovery is well underway.’”); Apple, 9-
`
`10 (lack of activity by District Court weighs against denial); Mylan Pharms. Inc. v.
`
`Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., IPR2020-00040, Paper 21 at 33-34 (PTAB May
`
`11, 2020) (“Merck”); Sand, IPR2019-01393 at 11. Instead, Janssen focuses on an
`
`unrelated defendant in another proceeding. POPR at 13. “Mylan should not,
`
`however, be foreclosed from petitioning the Board to hear its challenge based on
`
`choices of the other drug manufacturers.” Merck, IPR2020-00040 at 29.
`
`Apple does state that when a petitioner is unrelated to a defendant (i.e.,
`
`Teva), a Petitioner should still explain “why addressing the same or substantially
`
`the same issues would not be duplicative of the prior case.” Apple, 14. Janssen
`
`provided an excerpt of Teva’s invalidity contentions. EX2007 at 40-41; POPR at
`
`16. Other than stating in a conclusory manner that “all claims are challenged as
`
`145116331v3
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`obvious for reasons overlapping with Mylan’s Grounds here” (POPR at 12),
`
`Janssen offers no further explanation. Each of Teva’s positions rely on Cleton
`
`2008 as the primary reference. EX2007, p.41. “Cleton 2008 refers collectively to
`
`PI-74 and PI-75.” POPR at fn. 9. Thus, Teva’s entire case is premised on the same
`
`§102(a) art that Janssen is seeking to antedate in this IPR. POPR at 20-24. But
`
`Mylan is not using Cleton 2008 as its primary reference; Citrome is Mylan’s
`
`primary reference—a reference not even used by Teva. Petition at 14-15; EX2007
`
`at 40-41. Citrome is §102(b) art that cannot be antedated, and no antedation
`
`challenge has been made against Ground 3 or 4 because they only rely on §102(b)
`
`art. The Cleton 2008 threshold issue will presumably cut across Teva’s entire case
`
`whereas it will not cut across all Grounds in this IPR. Citrome’s unchallenged prior
`
`art status makes Mylan’s challenge substantially different.
`
`There is more. Apple Factor 3 also considers the timing of the Petition.
`
`Apple, 11. Janssen admits Mylan filed its Petition six months before the statutory
`
`deadline and without the benefit of Janssen’s responsive validity contentions
`
`(POPR at 7, 8) which, as explained by Oticon, avoids any prejudice to Janssen.
`
`IPR2019-00975 at 22-23; Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks LLC, IPR2020-00156,
`
`Paper 10 at 11 (PTAB Jun. 15, 2020) (declining to exercise §314(a) discretion
`
`when the Petition was filed four months in advance of bar). Janssen complains that
`
`Mylan had on hand its positions at the time it served its notice letter as required by
`
`145116331v3
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`the Hatch-Waxman statute but then delayed filing. POPR at 4. Such a position
`
`finds no support in the PTAB’s decisions. Mylan filed its IPR six weeks after
`
`serving its invalidity contentions. EX2003 at p. 1 of 5. Seven Networks, IPR2020-
`
`00156 at 11 (declining to exercise §314(a) discretion when Petition filed “fourteen
`
`weeks after its initial invalidity contentions”). It was reasonable for Mylan to avoid
`
`any IPR expenses until litigation ensued and Janssen identified the asserted claims.
`
`Apple, 11 (“reasonable for a petitioner to wait to file its petition until it learns
`
`which claims are being asserted against it”). Janssen next complains Mylan
`
`remained blind to its secondary considerations (POPR at 8-9) even though Janssen
`
`never provided any objective indicia evidence in its POPR. Even with knowledge,
`
`Mylan did not have to address secondary considerations in its Petition. Petition at
`
`64 (citing cases). Factor #3 favors institution.
`
`Apple Factor 4: As shown in Janssen’s own table, the primary reference in
`
`Mylan’s IPR is Citrome. POPR at 15. Citrome is never mentioned in Janssen’s
`
`corresponding district court table; the primary reference there is NCT 548, which
`
`“is a clinicaltrials.gov protocol.” Id. at fn. 7. Janssen’s table is also missing IPR
`
`Grounds 3 and 4. And, Janssen admits that these Grounds are not before the
`
`District Court. Oticon, IPR2019-00975 at 23 (“Patent Owner seems to
`
`acknowledge that the Board proceeding would not be directly duplicative of the
`
`District Court consideration of validity.”).
`
`145116331v3
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Janssen next alleges that the single clinical trial described in NCT 548
`
`(EX1032) and Citrome, which tabulates information from multiple clinical trials,
`
`including NCT 548 (EX1004 at 656), have the “same content.” POPR at fn. 7. But
`
`the Petition relies on multiple trials described in Citrome. Petition at 25 (NCT 548,
`
`NCT 717, NCT 756, and NCT 634); id at 27, 29, 32. NCT 548 is not duplicative of
`
`Citrome’s other clinical trials. The different challenged grounds “might produce a
`
`different outcome without the [the district court and IPR] trials necessarily yielding
`
`inconsistent results.” Seven Networks, IPR2020-00156 at 19. Even where the IPR
`
`and the district court prior position positions overlap, the PTAB has still instituted
`
`IPRs. Merck, IPR2020-00040 at 34. Factor #4 favors institution.
`
`Apple Factor 5: The District Court and the IPR actions involve the same
`
`parties. Already at least one other panel has questioned the relevance of this factor.
`
`Seven Networks, IPR2020-00156 at 20, fn.12 (not disagreeing that Factor #5 could
`
`appear “contrary to the goal of providing district court litigants an alternative
`
`venue to resolve questions of patentability.”); see also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Ramot at
`
`Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd., IPR2020-00122, Paper 15 at 10 (PTAB May 15, 2020) (APJ
`
`Crumbley, dissenting). According to 35 U.S.C. §315(b), the defendant who was
`
`“served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” has one year to file
`
`its Petition. And Congress has mandated that the defendant file the IPR, or be
`
`subject to the one year bar. Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.,
`
`145116331v3
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`467 US 837, 842-843 (1984) (“First, always, is the question whether Congress has
`
`directly spoken to the precise question at issue.”). Thus, Factor #5 is neutral.
`
`Apple Factor 6: “Fairness strongly favors Petitioner here, as this is
`
`Petitioner’s only (indeed, the only) IPR challenge to the validity of the [’906]
`
`patent’s claims.” Merck, IPR2020-00040 at 36. Moreover, the primary reference in
`
`all four grounds is Citrome, thereby reducing the draw on Board resources. Id. at
`
`27 (Petitioner “raises six grounds, each of which relies substantially on WO ’498
`
`(or its counterpart, the ’871 patent).”) With an unopposed expert and only attorney
`
`argument in response, Mylan’s arguments are “particularly strong on the
`
`preliminary record.” Apple, 14, 15 n.29; Apotex, IPR2019-00400 at 18-19 (noting
`
`the absence of countervailing expert testimony). Janssen does not argue that the
`
`IPR would burden the district court, “[i]f anything, there are possibilities for
`
`streamlining [district court’s work].” Merck, IPR2020-00040 at fn. 22.
`
`Janssen conflates a §325(d) analysis with a §314(a) analysis. POPR at 17-18.
`
`Under the two-part test of Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe
`
`Gerӓte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8-10 (Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential)
`
`(“Bionics”), the first part asks whether the same or substantially the same art
`
`previously was presented to the Office, or whether the same or substantially the
`
`same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Citrome—Mylan’s
`
`primary reference—was not disclosed to the Examiner. EX1001. Janssen does not
`
`145116331v3
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`claim Citrome is duplicative of any art that was before the Office. Whether
`
`Citrome is duplicative of anything in the Teva litigation (which as explained
`
`above, it is not) is not the issue. Under Bionics, the issue is what art was presented
`
`“to the Office.” Janssen also argues the “Examiner made an express finding that
`
`[the Cleton] references were ‘not applicable as prior art’ because ‘the instant
`
`claims are fully supported by [the ’918 provisional].” POPR at 18. But as Janssen
`
`admits, this has no bearing on Grounds 3 and 4. Id. Further, there is no evidence
`
`the Examiner considered the specific priority issue discussed in the Petition. In any
`
`event, Janssen’s antedation argument fails for multiple reasons. Infra. Factor #6
`
`favors institution. Thus, balancing all six Apple factors favors institution.
`
`2. Janssen Has Failed to Remove PI-74 and PI-75
`
`Janssen bears the burden on its attempt to antedate PI-74 and PI-75.
`
`Medtronic, Inc. et al v. Teleflex Medical Devices SARL f/k/a Teleflex Innovations
`
`SARL et al., IPR2020-00135, Paper 22 at 11 (PTAB June 8, 2020). Although
`
`antedating questions are typically reserved for trial – in order to ensure the
`
`Petitioner has had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the evidence – Janssen
`
`does not wait to provide such an opportunity. Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Boehringer
`
`Ingelheim Pharms. Inc., IPR2016-01563, Paper 14 at 4 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2016).
`
`Instead, it charges ahead with two antedating arguments, both of which fail.
`
`145116331v3
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
` Janssen primarily alleges that a 1957 case, In re Stempel, 241 F.2d 755, 759
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1957), mandates disqualification of PI-74 and PI-75 as prior art. But,
`
`Janssen expands Stempel well beyond its ultimate holding, and fails to account for
`
`the facts of this case. Janssen ignores that the CCPA later narrowed the application
`
`of Stempel, explaining that “in retrospect” it was “necessary . . . to restrict
`
`somewhat certain broad language in Stempel” and relegated it “as applied to the
`
`facts.” In re Tanczyn, 347 F.2d 830, 832-33 (C.C.P.A. 1965). In restricting the
`
`application of Stempel to its facts, the CCPA noted: (1) that Stempel dealt with an
`
`anticipation challenge; and (2) “the reference showed a species of the generic
`
`invention being claimed.” Id. at 833. Neither of those facts are present here.
`
` First, this IPR relates to obviousness, not anticipation. The CCPA expressly
`
`noted that “[a] different situation may prevail when the [challenge] is based upon
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.” Tanczyn, 347 F.2d at 833. That is not surprising as Tancyzn
`
`makes clear that a reference used in a § 103 analysis cannot be antedated merely by
`
`showing possession of the prior art. Id. (Rule 131 affidavit found ineffective to
`
`overcome the prior art used in a § 103 rejection). Second, Janssen does not even
`
`argue that PI-74 and PI-75 by themselves disclose a species of the claimed dosing
`
`regimen. To the contrary, Janssen notes that they each disclose specific fixed
`
`dosage regimens. POPR at 47 (“[PI-74 and PI-75] disclose fixed-dose regimens, in
`
`which the amount in each injection is the same for a given patient.”) (emphasis
`
`145116331v3
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`original). Given Stempel’s limited application and the stark factual differences
`
`between it and the present case, Janssen’s reliance on Stempel is misplaced.
`
` Perhaps recognizing the fallacy of their primary argument, Janssen
`
`alternatively asserts that Tanczyn stands for the proposition that “[p]rior possession
`
`of something falling within the claims suffices to remove a later reference as prior
`
`art.” POPR at 22-23. Janssen alleges that the protocol for clinical trial “PSY-
`
`3006”—which is referenced in the ’918 provisional—discloses “what the inventors
`
`considered to be an ‘optimized loading dose regimen[],’ namely ‘150 [mg] deltoid
`
`(day 1), 100 mg deltoid (day 8), then every 4 weeks maintenance (gluteal or
`
`deltoid).’” POPR at 24 (citing ’918 provisional (EX1016) at 28:13-14). Simply put:
`
`that is not enough to succeed on its antedation claim. Janssen must demonstrate
`
`that the ’918 provisional provides both written description and enablement support
`
`for the claimed invention. Frazer v. Schlegel, 498 F.3d 1283, 1287 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Janssen has not met that burden. For example, during prosecution, the
`
`Examiner stated in the Notice of Allowance, “Applicant has enabled the present
`
`treatment [regimens] at least by Example 8 in the specification.” EX1019 at p.
`
`295. Example 8 is the only example that provides any efficacy data. Yet, Example
`
`8 is not present in the ’918 provisional. EX1012, 30-42 (underline indicates new
`
`matter added to the ’276 provisional). That alone undermines reliance on the ’918
`
`provisional for antedating purposes.
`
`145116331v3
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
` Janssen’s reliance on PSY-3006 fares no better. PSY-3006 was not
`
`completed until June 2009, well after the December 2007 ’918 provisional filing
`
`date. (EX1049 at 2; see also id. at 6 (identifying PSY-3006)). Thus, PSY-3006
`
`cannot provide § 112 support for the claimed invention. Further, Janssen is
`
`foreclosed from arguing that Examples 2 and 3 (which are the equivalents of PI-75
`
`and PI-74, respectively) provide § 112 support for the claimed invention in light of
`
`express statements made in Janssen’s very own POPR. POPR at 45 (the claimed
`
`regimen “is not remotely suggested by PI-74 and PI-75”); id. at 59 (“the single-
`
`dose Phase I study [of PI-74] provides no information about any dosing regimen,
`
`let alone the claimed dosing regimens”); id. at 32 (“nothing in PI-75 indicates that
`
`achieving a higher median Cmax, and doing so through deltoid injection, is
`
`‘better.’”) Janssen should be held to its word.
`
`Finally, it is axiomatic that if Janssen believes the ’918 provisional provides
`
`sufficient § 112 support to antedate PI-74 and PI-75, it should have provided an
`
`expert declaration with its POPR—written description and enablement are
`
`considered from the perspective of the skilled artisan. MPEP §2163 (written
`
`description); id. §2164 (enablement). Simply providing attorney argument does
`
`nothing to carry Janssen’s burden. Medtronic, IPR2020-00135 at 11; Merck,
`
`IPR2020-00040 at 53 (“[A]ttorney argument is not evidence.”).
`
`145116331v3
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
`
`/s/ Jitendra Malik
`Jitendra Malik, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 55823)
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Date: July 20, 2020
`
`145116331v3
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00440
`Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing AUTHORIZED
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE, the updated
`
`exhibit list and with any associated exhibits was filed and served electronically via
`
`the PTAB electronic filing system on July 20, 2020, in its entirety on the
`
`following:
`
`JANS-INVEGAIPR@akingump.com
`
`JanssenInvegaIPR@pbwt.com
`
`bmullin@pbwt.com
`
`jcho@pbwt.com
`
`acohen@pbwt.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
`/s/ Jitendra Malik
`Jitendra Malik, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 55823)
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`145116331v3
`
`12
`
`