`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 2
` ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The Decision Misapprehended the Differences Between Claim
`1’s Pharmaceutical Batch and the Combination of Moriarty and
`Phares .................................................................................................... 2
`The Decision Misapprehended or Overlooked the Standard for
`Inherency ............................................................................................... 5
`The Decision Overlooked Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness
`Indicating Why a POSA Would Not Have Made or Expected
`To Make a “Pharmaceutical Batch” Using Phares Form B .................. 7
`D. Ground 1 Is Not Sufficient for Institution ........................................... 10
` CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Crown Operations Intern., Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .... 12
`
`Honeywell Int’l v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A., 865 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252 (CCPA 1977) .................................................................. 12
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride, 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................... 8
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas, AG, 812 F. 3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................ 8
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................. 6
`
`Board Decisions
`Ferrum Ferro Capital, LLC v. Allergan Sales, LLC, IPR2015-00858, Paper 10,
`
`(PTAB Sept. 21, 2015) ........................................................................................... 5
`
`Lower Drug Prices for Consumers, LLC v. Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd.,
`
`IPR2016-00379, Paper 14 (PTAB July 1, 2016) ................................................. 11
`
`Semiconductor Component Indus., LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc., IPR2016-
`
`01588, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2017) ................................................................ 8
`
`Tietex International, Ltd. v. Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., IPR2014-01248,
`
`Paper 39 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2016) ........................................................................... 12
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) ..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In response to the decision (Paper No. 7, “Decision” or “Dec.”) instituting
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,604,901 (“the ’901 patent”), United
`
`Therapeutics Corporation (“Patent Owner”) respectfully seeks rehearing of
`
`institution under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), and requests that the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“Board”) reconsider and deny institution.
`
`There are three reasons that the Decision improperly instituted trial, each of
`
`which is independently sufficient to modify the Decision to deny review. First, the
`
`Decision critically rests for both grounds on an inherency finding that lacks
`
`substantial evidence. Specifically, the Decision misapprehended the second ground
`
`in finding that “Moriarty and Phares teaches the same process steps as challenged
`
`claim 1.” Dec., 27. Yet the steps are not the same as the Petition itself
`
`acknowledges (Pet., 61), and the obviousness ground requires removing a step. Id.
`
`Second, based on this unsupported finding, the Decision finds that “the product
`
`from these steps would include the same resulting impurities.” Dec., 27. Yet using
`
`inherency at the point of modification is improper in an obviousness analysis.
`
`Third, the Decision overlooks the objective indicia of nonobviousness described in
`
`the ’901 patent and file history, but ignored in the Petition, and in the POPR.
`
`POPR, 71. The first ground suffers at least the same deficiencies. Dec., 31.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
` LEGAL STANDARD
`A rehearing “request must specifically identify all matters the party believes
`
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
` ARGUMENT
`A. The Decision Misapprehended the Differences Between Claim 1’s
`Pharmaceutical Batch and the Combination of Moriarty and
`Phares
`A linchpin factual determination in the Board’s decision is that Moriarty and
`
`Phares teach the same steps as claim 1: “we are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence
`
`and arguments that because the combination of Moriarty and Phares teaches the
`
`same process steps as challenged claim 1, the product from these steps would
`
`include the same resulting impurities. See Pet., 56.” Dec., 27. Yet this finding is
`
`not supported by substantial evidence and, in fact, goes beyond what even
`
`Petitioner argued.
`
`The Petition acknowledges that claim 1’s recited steps differ from Phares
`
`and Moriarty because they do not involve isolation of treprostinil intermediate.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues that a POSA would be motivated to modify the prior
`
`art steps and not isolate treprostinil (Pet., 37-38, 61) in order to remove a step from
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`the Moriarty and Phares processes.1 This modification would not be required if the
`
`prior art disclosed the “same process steps.”
`
`The POPR also explains that the steps are not the same. The claimed
`
`pharmaceutical batches are an improvement over Moriarty and Phares in part
`
`because they form a salt without prior isolation of the intermediate treprostinil.
`
`POPR, 5, 33, 36, 44-45, and 71. Thus, claim 1 states that the recited impurities
`
`must be those specific impurities that result from a process in which the salt is
`
`formed without isolation of treprostinil intermediate after alkylation and hydrolysis
`
`(step (b) of claim 1 forms “a solution comprising treprostinil” which is the starting
`
`solution of the directly following step). This difference in claim 1 was highlighted
`
`in red in the Table found in the POPR, 44-45.
`
`Portions of the Decision also reflect this distinction noting that Phares teaches
`
`“dissolving treprostinil” and then adding diethanolamine, demonstrating that the
`
`intermediate treprostinil was isolated and in a solid form before being dissolved.
`
`Dec., 23. Moriarty also teaches isolating a solid form of treprostinil in its final step.
`
`Ex. 1009, 1902, right column.
`
`
`
`1 “[N]ot isolating the treprostinil before contacting it with a base is obvious based
`
`on what is taught by Phares.” Pet., 37.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`Nonetheless, the Decision mistakenly finds that “the combination of
`
`Moriarty and Phares teaches the same process steps as challenged claim 1.” Yet it
`
`is uncontested that Moriarty and Phares do not teach the same process steps, and
`
`thus, this finding is based on a misapprehension of the references, the claims, and
`
`the Petition. This factual misapprehension leads to the further mistaken finding that
`
`“the product from these steps would include the same resulting impurities. See Pet.,
`
`56.” This resultant legal error is addressed below in Section III(B).
`
`The Decision relies on the Petition at page 56 (Dec., 23, 27), but this portion
`
`of the Petition is inapposite. Although the Petition asserts that the “combination of
`
`Moriarty and Phares discloses the same process steps…” (Pet., 56), the context is
`
`important. This portion of the Petition addresses whether the combination teaches
`
`one element of claim 1: “A pharmaceutical batch consisting of treprostinil or a salt
`
`thereof and impurities resulting from [the recited steps].” See Pet., 53-56. The
`
`focus is on the product, including impurities. Id. In addressing the relevant process
`
`steps, Petitioner repeatedly acknowledged the different process steps as discussed
`
`above. Indeed, in this same section Petitioner acknowledges that Phares teaches
`
`isolation of treprostinil prior to addition of the base (diethanolamine). Id. at 54.
`
`Petitioner expands on this distinction and makes an obviousness argument based
`
`on this distinction in addressing a relevant claim element, “claim element 1[d].”
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`Id. at 60-61 (acknowledging that “the treprostinil acid [of Phares was] isolated
`
`before addition of the base” but arguing that “not isolating the treprostinil before
`
`contacting it with a base is obvious….”). Thus, read in context, it is clear that even
`
`Petitioner does not contend that Moriarty and Phares disclose the same process
`
`steps as recited in the claims. Petitioner’s other arguments and, more importantly,
`
`Moriarty and Phares themselves belie this claim.
`
`B. The Decision Misapprehended or Overlooked the Standard for
`Inherency
`The Decision misapprehended or overlooked the standard for inherent
`
`disclosure. Although the Board institutes based on a reasonable likelihood the
`
`petitioner will prevail on at least one claim, this does not diminish the requirement
`
`that a limitation undisclosed in the art must be established as a necessary result
`
`prior to the point of institution. Ferrum Ferro Capital, LLC v. Allergan Sales, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00858, Paper 10, 10 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2015). Because the recited steps are
`
`different from those disclosed in Moriarty and Phares (no isolation of treprostinil
`
`after alkylation and hydrolysis steps before forming a salt), then the resulting
`
`products cannot be assumed to be the same.
`
`Inherency requires identity of steps before inherency can be inferred;
`
`otherwise, the challenger must prove that the putative inherency will necessarily
`
`result. POPR, 31-32 (citing Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186,
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Inherency is not proven by probabilities or possibilities.
`
`Par Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1196. Yet Petitioner provided neither argument nor
`
`evidence to demonstrate this different combination of steps would necessarily
`
`result in claim 1’s impurities from Phares’ working example relied upon in the
`
`Decision. Rather, the Decision relies on page 56 of the Petition.
`
`This portion of the Petition addresses only purity level—not impurity type.
`
`Pet., 56 (“[T]hese references would disclose a purity of at least equal purity to that
`
`claimed in the ’901 patent”). Indeed, Petitioner repeatedly makes arguments about
`
`relative purity, e.g., “Form A should be more pure than the starting batch and Form
`
`B more pure than Form A” and “purity of treprostinil may be as low as 90.0%.” Id.
`
`This argument is not accidental. Petitioner must make this argument because it
`
`cannot argue identical impurities, which are what is required by the claim, given
`
`the different process steps. POPR, 9, 33, 39, 44-45, 58-59 (discussing why the
`
`claims require specific impurities rather than a generic impurity level). Moreover,
`
`Petitioner’s own arguments effectively conceded that the resulting impurities may
`
`not necessarily be the same as recited in the claims. Pet., 56 (“A POSA would
`
`understand that this transformation, similar to that described in the ’901 patent,
`
`typically removes impurities. (Id.) As such, Form A should be more pure than the
`
`starting batch and Form B more pure than Form A.” (emphasis added)). Because
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`Petitioner cannot retroactively add this required proof to its Petition, its theory of
`
`unpatentability is doomed.
`
`The Decision mistakenly relied on an out-of-context statement claiming
`
`identical processes, which is a clear misapprehension. Supra Section III(A). Given
`
`different processes and no evidence or argument from Petitioner showing that the
`
`resulting impurities are necessarily the same as those recited in the claims, the
`
`Decision lacked proper basis for provisionally finding inherency.
`
`C. The Decision Overlooked Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness
`Indicating Why a POSA Would Not Have Made or Expected To
`Make a “Pharmaceutical Batch” Using Phares Form B
`The Board overlooked evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness, as
`
`set forth in the ’901 patent specification and prosecution history and outlined by
`
`Patent Owner. Objective indicia of nonobviousness, when present, must always be
`
`considered. In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride, 676 F.3d 1063, 1076 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012); POPR, 69; see also Semiconductor Component Indus., LLC v. Power
`
`Integrations, Inc., IPR2016-01588, Paper 15, 28-29 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2017)
`
`(denying institution for failure to address known objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness). “[W]hen secondary considerations are present ... it is error not to
`
`consider them.” Nike, Inc. v. Adidas, AG, 812 F. 3d 1326, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`As the POPR explained, the Petition did not address the objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness except to assert that they did not exist. POPR, 69 (citing Pet., 71).
`
`Because the Petition failed to address a required element for obviousness apparent
`
`from the patent disclosure and original prosecution, it cannot have shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of obviousness. Rather, the Petition was facially deficient
`
`and cannot be cured retroactively and should have been denied. The Decision
`
`overlooks this facial deficiency of the Petition when it too fails to address the
`
`objective indicia of nonobviousness in the ’901 patent and original prosecution.
`
`Those nonobviousness indicia show that a POSA would not have made or
`
`expected to make a “pharmaceutical batch” as construed in this proceeding2 using
`
`Phares Form B. POPR, 69-71 (relying on data to show improvement over the
`
`
`
`2 Patent Owner’s claim construction for “pharmaceutical batch,” which the
`
`Decision accepts, specifically states “This pharmaceutical batch is defined, in part,
`
`as ‘consisting of . . . impurities’ resulting from the process by which it is made, and
`
`may be stored and then processed into the pharmaceutical products of claims 6 and
`
`7. Id.; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 54-56.” POPR, 8. Thus, “pharmaceutical batch” in claim 1
`
`requires storage stability, while dependent claims 6 and 7 specifically relate to
`
`storage stability at ambient temperature.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`closest prior art, including storage stability); see also 51-55 (distinguishing the
`
`prior art on storage stability). For example, the ’901 file history contains evidence
`
`and argument explaining that a POSA would not have expected certain differences
`
`in the impurity profile resulting from salt formation, which are important for a
`
`“pharmaceutical batch.” POPR, 24 (citing Ex. 2007, 3819-3825 for arguments
`
`about nonobviousness, which led to allowance of the ’901 claims); see also POPR,
`
`51-52 (stating that storage stability of claimed “batches” not suggested by Phares)
`
`and Dec., 30 (“Petitioner and Dr. Winkler have not shown that Phares describes or
`
`suggests Form B as reaching a stability sufficient for storage.”). The Board, like
`
`Petitioner, did not address this evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness,
`
`including unexpected results in relation to claims 1-5, 8, and 9.
`
`The consideration of nonobviousness indicia is especially important when
`
`“substantially the same” arguments had been previously fully considered,
`
`analyzed, and accepted during original prosecution in relation to the particular
`
`claim limitation (“pharmaceutical batch”) at issue here. POPR 24 (citing Ex. 2007,
`
`3819-3825 for arguments about nonobviousness of making claimed
`
`“pharmaceutical batch” based on Phares Form B). Lower Drug Prices for
`
`Consumers, LLC v. Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd., IPR2016-00379, Paper 14
`
`(PTAB July 1, 2016) (denying institution based on unexpected results established
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`during original prosecution). In addition, the Decision appears to improperly rely
`
`on inherency in an obviousness context to address the “pharmaceutical batch”
`
`limitation by citing Moriarty while ignoring the arguments that a storage stable
`
`batch would not have been expected based on Phares (Dec. 26-27). See Honeywell
`
`Int’l v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A., 865 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(holding that the Board erred as a matter of law by dismissing properties of the
`
`claimed invention as merely inherent, without further consideration as to
`
`unpredictability and unexpectedness).
`
`D. Ground 1 Is Not Sufficient for Institution
`Ground 1, which purports to demonstrate obviousness from Phares alone, is
`
`all the more deficient because it lacks whatever value Moriarty purportedly adds,
`
`which as explained above is not enough. The Decision nevertheless institutes on
`
`Ground 1 because “[t]he parties’ [inherency] disputes involve fact intensive issues
`
`[so] the parties [should] fully develop the record during trial before [the Board]
`
`resolv[es] these disputes.” Dec., 31. Yet a petition must be facially complete and
`
`the burden to demonstrate inherency lies with the petitioner. If the petitioner has
`
`not already demonstrated inherency, nothing remains to be tried because the
`
`petitioner may not bolster its case after institution. This is an issue that a petitioner
`
`could have anticipated. Indeed, Petitioner offered conclusory arguments on
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`inherency. Pet., 37. Examiners have some latitude to shift the burden on inherency
`
`to the patent applicant because examiners have no ability to test their inferences
`
`from the record. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). In an inter partes
`
`context, however, petitioners have no such latitude. Tietex International, Ltd. v.
`
`Precision Fabrics Group, Inc., IPR2014-01248, Paper 39, 10-12 (PTAB Jan. 27,
`
`2016) (explaining that the ex parte practice does not apply in inter partes
`
`proceedings); accord Crown Operations Intern., Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d
`
`1367, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Instead, Crown offers only an assumption and its
`
`own contentions”); id. at 1378 n.4 (noting the failure to provide “direct” proof of
`
`inherency). Here, Petitioner has made no effort to justify its reliance on conclusory
`
`statements rather than direct proof. This threshold failure cannot be cured at trial.
`
`Just as Ground 2 does not justify trial, Ground 1 likewise offers no basis for trial.
`
` CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner requests reconsideration of the
`
`Decision and a denial of institution on all grounds presented in the Petition.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date October 27, 2020
`
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K St. NW
`Washington Harbour
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (202) 672-5569
`Facsimile:
`(650) 856-3710
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By /Stephen B. Maebius/
`
`
`
`
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner
`
`Request for Rehearing was served on counsel of record for Petitioner on October
`
`27, 2020 by delivering a copy via email to the counsel of record for the Petitioner
`
`at the following addresses:
`
`zLiquidiaIPR@cooley.com
`
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`
`emilch@cooley.com
`
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Date October 27, 2020
`
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K St. NW
`Washington Harbour
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (202) 672-5569
`Facsimile:
`(650) 856-3710
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /Stephen B. Maebius/
`
`
`
`
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`
`
`4852-7036-8975.4
`
`
`
`