`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUMITOMO DAINIPPON PHARMA CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01053
`U.S. Patent 9,815,827
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. THE ’927 PROVISIONAL APPLICATION PROVIDES WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR THE MANIC DEPRESSIVE CLAIMS ...... 2
`
`III. CLAIMS 1-75 ARE PATENTABLE .................................................................. 9
`
`A. Slayback’s Obviousness Analysis Improperly Focuses on Individual Claim
`Elements and Misrepresents the Experts’ Testimony .................................... 9
`
`1. Slayback Wants To Retract Dr. Kosten’s Admissions ............................... 10
`
`2. Slayback Mischaracterizes Dr. Stahl’s Testimony...................................... 11
`
`B. Slayback Ignores Evidence Demonstrating That Lurasidone’s Lack of
`Weight Gain Was Unexpected ...................................................................... 15
`
`C. Slayback Fails to Rebut Sumitomo’s Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness
` ....................................................................................................................... 16
`
`D. Slayback Misconstrues the Role of Patient Populations in the Context of
`Weight Gain and Obviousness ...................................................................... 19
`
`E. Slayback Fails to Prove That Lack of Weight Gain is Inherent in the Prior
`Art .................................................................................................................. 21
`
`F. Wong Teaches Away From Dosing Regimens in Which Lurasidone Was the
`Sole Active Ingredient (Claims 40-75) .......................................................... 22
`
`IV. SLAYBACK OPTED NOT TO FILE A MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL
`DISCOVERY RELATED TO EXPERT REPORTS FROM EARLIER
`DISTRICT COURT LITIGATION ................................................................. 25
`
`V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Sumitomo’s Patent Owner Response carefully and meticulously sets forth
`
`how Slayback’s arguments fundamentally failed to show that the ’827 patent is not
`
`entitled to its priority date or that the patent claims are obvious. In its Reply,
`
`Slayback fails to address any of Sumitomo’s arguments head on. Instead,
`
`Slayback:
`
` takes statements completely out of context;
`
` cherry picks data from the prior art in a failed attempt to support its
`
`obviousness position;
`
` inconsistently argues that Saji ’372 is too broad to support priority, all
`
`the while relying on it for obviousness;
`
` illogically argues that Sumitomo waived certain positions by failing to
`
`respond to arguments that Slayback never made;
`
` outright fails to respond to both the facts and many of the arguments
`
`that Sumitomo made; and
`
` continues to ignore the complexity of atypical antipsychotics.
`
`
`
`The reason for Slayback’s approach is simple. As set forth below, it is clear
`
`to a person of skill in the art that the ’827 patent is entitled to its priority date and
`
`that its claims are not obvious.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`II. THE ’927 PROVISIONAL APPLICATION PROVIDES WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR THE MANIC DEPRESSIVE
`CLAIMS
`Slayback fundamentally misunderstands and mischaracterizes the written
`
`
`
`description issue. Slayback repeatedly notes that the ’927 provisional only
`
`mentions manic depressive psychosis in the background section and presents data
`
`only for schizophrenia.1 In doing so, Slayback ignores evidence demonstrating
`
`how a POSA would interpret that disclosure. For example, at his deposition Dr.
`
`Stahl testified that a POSA would recognize that the claimed dosing regimen could
`
`treat manic depressive psychosis without weight gain on the basis of the
`
`schizophrenia data disclosed in the ’927 provisional specification:
`
`Q. Is there any mention in the ’927 provisional application of no
`weight gain when treating manic depressive psychosis?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Where?
`
`A. I don’t know how many times we have to go through this, sir,
`because when you mentioned it first [sic] schizophrenia you are
`mentioning it for bipolar. People don’t gain weight because they have
`schizophrenia. They gain weight because of some undetermined
`property of certain drugs. If you give the same drug that doesn’t
`cause weight gain in A, it won’t cause weight gain in B. There is
`nothing magic about schizophrenia that makes you gain weight on
`
`1 Reply, 13-16.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`antipsychotics as far as we know. Clearly you prefer to have certain
`things in certain places in certain explicit language certain ways, and
`maybe because it’s not explicit you don’t agree with me that these
`things are there, but I’m the POSA. I look at it. I see it.2
`
`
`
`Dr. Stahl specifically explained how a person of ordinary skill would link
`
`the disclosure relating to schizophrenia with manic depressive psychosis because
`
`the conditions are not unrelated. Rather, both can include psychotic symptoms.3
`
`Psychotic symptoms, in turn, are the result of excess dopamine
`
`(“hyperdopaminergic”). Both conventional and atypical antipsychotics were
`
`known to treat schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis by targeting the
`
`dopamine D2 receptor.4 Thus, a POSA, reading the ’927 provisional application
`
`and ’827 patent, would recognize that the claimed dosing regimen could treat
`
`psychoses generally, and schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis
`
`specifically, without weight gain based on the data demonstrating successful
`
`treatment of schizophrenia without weight gain. As Dr. Stahl explained at his
`
`deposition:
`
`Q. Is it your testimony that when the ’827 patent says schizophrenia
`what it really means is schizophrenia or manic depressive psychosis?
`
`
`2 Ex. 1054, 151:4-23.
`
`3 Ex. 2131, ¶¶ 37, 102; Ex. 2140.
`
`4 Ex. 2131, ¶ 102; Ex. 2140.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`
`
`A. No, it means psychosis. It’s a proxy for any kind of psychosis, so
`it should work in senile, or whatever they call it, age-related
`psychosis. It should work in depressive psychosis. It should even
`work in drug-induced psychosis. Psychosis is too much dopamine.
`Schizophrenia is an illness of symptoms, and it’s not symptoms that
`cross across other diagnoses, so you can divide schizophrenia
`categorically by delusions, hallucinations and thought disorder, but
`the hallucinations are the part of psychosis that will cross over other
`diagnostic categories of different types of psychosis which are highly
`related in the fact that they are both hyperdopaminergic and are
`treated by the same drugs but have some differences in terms of some
`of the other dimensions of the psychopathology and sometimes the
`outcome.5
`
`
`
`Slayback’s expert, Dr. Kosten, agreed.6 Furthermore, Dr. Kosten admitted
`
`that a POSA, reading Saji ’372 and its prosecution history, would recognize that
`
`lurasidone could successfully treat psychoses generally, and schizophrenia and
`
`manic depressive psychosis specifically.7 Therefore, a POSA reading the ’927
`
`application, including the reference to Saji ’372 and the data for treating
`
`schizophrenia without weight gain, would understand that the application was
`
`
`5 Ex. 1054, 153:6-154:1; see also id., 125:17-129:20.
`
`6 Ex. 2134, 34:15-17; see also id., 32:8-34:10.
`
`7 Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 111-116; Ex. 2131, ¶ 105.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`teaching administration of lurasidone according to the claimed regimens to treat
`
`schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis without weight gain.
`
`
`
`Simply put, the known relationship between D2 binding affinity and the
`
`ability to treat psychoses provides the “blazemarks” informing a POSA that, on the
`
`basis of the schizophrenia data, the claimed dosing regimen could also treat manic
`
`depressive psychosis without weight gain.
`
`
`
`Slayback has no rational response. Dr. Kosten’s second declaration does not
`
`rebut Sumitomo’s evidence regarding the relationship between D2 binding affinity
`
`and the ability to treat psychoses generally. In fact, Dr. Kosten’s second
`
`declaration is silent on the written description issue. Importantly, he never recants
`
`his earlier testimony regarding lurasidone’s ability to treat psychoses generally,
`
`and manic depressive psychosis and schizophrenia specifically.
`
`
`
`It also is of no consequence that the ’927 provisional does not explicitly
`
`disclose the common link (excess dopamine) among the various psychoses. The
`
`law does not require that a patent explicitly disclose information that would have
`
`been known to a POSA. See Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802
`
`F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“a patent need not teach, and preferably omits,
`
`what is well known in the art.”). This is also not a case, as Slayback alleges, of
`
`conflating written description and obviousness.8 Rather, it relates to the way in
`
`
`8 Reply, 17-18.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`which a POSA, armed with knowledge available to skilled artisans, would interpret
`
`the disclosure of the ’927 provisional. On this point, Dr. Stahl’s deposition
`
`testimony could not have been more clear: a POSA would interpret the ’927
`
`provisional as describing that the claimed dosing regimen could treat manic
`
`depressive psychosis without weight gain.
`
`
`
` Equally unavailing is Slayback’s argument regarding the breadth of Saji
`
`’372’s genus of compounds to which the ’927 provisional refers.9 It is irrelevant
`
`whether the genus includes a large number of compounds – tellingly, when it
`
`comes to obviousness, Slayback is emphatic that it “is undisputed that lurasidone
`
`hydrochloride is a preferred compound of the Saji Patent.”10
`
`
`
`A POSA reading Saji ’372 would have recognized that the specific chemical
`
`compound recited in the ’927 provisional, which is now known as lurasidone,
`
`corresponded to Compound 105 of Saji ’372, and fell within Saji ’372’s genus.11
`
`A POSA also would have appreciated, based on Saji ‘372, that Compound 105
`
`binds to the D2 receptor.12 For the reasons stated above, a POSA, on the basis of
`
`the D2 binding activity, would have known that lurasidone (Compound 105) could
`
`
`9 Reply, 15-16.
`
`10 Reply, 10.
`
`11 See Ex. 1009, 30:30-32:22; Ex. 2131, ¶¶ 93, 98-99, 104, 115-118.
`
`12 See id., 13:5-10 (Table 2) and 30:30-32:32; Ex. 2131, ¶ 119.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`treat both schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis. Even Dr. Kosten
`
`admitted that a POSA, reading Saji ’372 and its prosecution history, would
`
`recognize that lurasidone could successfully treat both schizophrenia and manic
`
`depressive psychosis, and based his obviousness opinion on this fact.13
`
`
`
`Slayback’s reliance on Dr. Stahl’s testimony that antipsychotics exhibit
`
`complex behavior is of no help.14 They do indeed exhibit complex behavior,
`
`which is why, as both Dr. Stahl and Dr. Kosten testified, it is not possible to
`
`predict side effect profiles such as weight gain until the drugs are actually tested in
`
`patients.15 However, for the reasons discussed above, it was well-known that an
`
`agent that exhibited D2 binding affinity could successfully treat psychoses,
`
`including schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis, because psychoses as a
`
`class are characterized by excess dopamine. That much was entirely predictable
`
`and known. As even Dr. Kosten recognized, anti-psychotics such as olanzapine
`
`and lurasidone shared this property, and olanzapine was indicated for treating both
`
`schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis (specifically, manic episodes
`
`associated with bipolar I disorder).16
`
`
`13 Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 111-116; Ex. 2131, ¶ 105.
`
`14 Reply, 14.
`
`15 Ex. 2131, ¶¶ 88, 139; Ex. 2134, 42:4-13.
`
`16 Ex. 2131, ¶ 103; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 117, 122, 143.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`Slayback further argues that even if the ’927 provisional describes using
`
`
`
`lurasidone to treat manic depressive psychosis, Sumitomo somehow waived its
`
`written description argument by not addressing “a method with all limitations of
`
`the manic depressive claims.”17 This argument makes no sense.
`
`
`
`First, it is expressly contradicted by Patent Owner’s Response, which details,
`
`for example, how “[a]s Dr. Stahl explains, a person of ordinary skill, reading the
`
`passage regarding Saji ’372, as well as the Phase II clinical data reported in both
`
`the ’827 patent and the ’927 provisional application, would recognize that the
`
`claimed lurasidone dosing regimen could treat psychoses generally, and
`
`schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis specifically, without causing
`
`weight gain.”18 It goes without saying that “the claimed lurasidone dosing
`
`regimen” means “the claimed method with all limitations.” Second, Slayback
`
`does not challenge the claims limited to treating schizophrenia on the basis of
`
`written description, thereby admitting that these claims are entitled to the ’927
`
`provisional filing date. A POSA would understand, as Dr. Stahl testified during
`
`deposition, that if the claimed dosing regimen treated schizophrenia without weight
`
`gain, it also would treat manic depressive psychosis without weight gain.19
`
`
`17 Reply, 16-17 (emphasis in original).
`
`18 Response, 28-29.
`
`19 Ex. 1054, 151:4-23.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`Slayback is simply wrong—Sumitomo did address all limitations of the
`
`
`
`challenged claims and the ’927 application does provide written description
`
`support for the ’827 claims.
`
`III. CLAIMS 1-75 ARE PATENTABLE
`A.
`Slayback’s Obviousness Analysis Improperly Focuses on
`Individual Claim Elements and Misrepresents the Experts’
`Testimony
`Slayback’s flawed obviousness analysis focuses on whether Saji ’372
`
`
`
`teaches individual elements of the ’827 patent claims.20 But Slayback misses the
`
`point.
`
`
`
`Here, the inventors invented a novel dosing regimen for treating psychoses,
`
`including schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis, where patients so treated
`
`surprisingly did not gain weight. There is no dispute that the claimed dosing
`
`regimen is novel, for Slayback’s challenge is based on obviousness, not
`
`anticipation. However, Slayback mischaracterizes what Saji ’372 teaches and fails
`
`to rebut Sumitomo’s extensive evidence of unexpected results.
`
`
`
`Saji ’372 teaches a genus of compounds for treating psychoses, including
`
`schizophrenia and manic depressive psychosis.21 This genus includes “Compound
`
`
`20 Reply, 20-24.
`
`21 Ex. 1009, Abstract; Ex. 2131, ¶¶ 115-116.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`105,” which is now known as lurasidone.22 Saji ’372 further provides D2 binding
`
`affinity data demonstrating to a POSA that Compound 105 could effectively treat
`
`psychoses.23 The Saji Amendment (Ex. 1026), upon which Slayback relies,
`
`similarly teaches that Compound 105 could successfully treat psychoses. Because
`
`the data in the Saji ’372 specification demonstrated that Compound 105 could
`
`successfully treat psychoses, it may be considered a preferred embodiment of Saji
`
`’372. But that in no way establishes that the ’827 claims would have been obvious
`
`over Saji ’372.
`
`1.
`Slayback Wants To Retract Dr. Kosten’s Admissions
`Slayback’s own expert, Dr. Kosten, admitted during his deposition that the
`
`
`
`’827 patent claims directed towards treating schizophrenia would not have been
`
`obvious over Saji ’372.24 Slayback now submits a second declaration from Dr.
`
`Kosten in which Dr. Kosten backtracks and says what he really meant is that “the
`
`clinical data in the ’827 Patent demonstrated the safety and efficacy of using
`
`lurasidone to treat schizophrenia.”25 But Dr. Kosten said much more than that.
`
`Here is what he said:
`
`
`22 Ex. 1009, 30:30-32:23; Ex. 2131, ¶ 118.
`
`23 Ex. 1009, 13:5-10, 30:30-32:23; Ex. 2131, ¶ 119.
`
`24 Ex. 2134, 89:16-90:10 (objections from counsel removed).
`
`25 Ex. 1051, ¶ 4.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`
`Qꞏ ꞏ So is it your view, Dr. Kosten, that after the
`Saji patent which covers the compound of lurasidone --
`after that patent published, that none of the work that
`came after that is patentable?
`. . .
`
`THE WITNESS:ꞏ There are data that were
`presented for use of this in schizophrenia, which was,
`in fact, given a patent.ꞏ And I agree.ꞏ That’s a good
`idea.ꞏ That was fair.
`
`ꞏBY MR. SHEAR:
`ꞏQꞏ ꞏ So you agree that it was fair for claims to be
`ꞏdrawn, and the claims to schizophrenia are patentable?
`
`ꞏAꞏ ꞏ They were –
`ꞏTHE WITNESS:ꞏThey were patented. I don’t have
`ꞏany objection to them having been patented for
`schizophrenia.26
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Kosten’s deposition testimony is unambiguous. In his opinion, the ’827
`
`patent claims directed to treating schizophrenia are patentable over Saji ’372.
`
`2.
`Slayback Mischaracterizes Dr. Stahl’s Testimony
`Slayback desperately makes much of Dr. Stahl’s deposition testimony where
`
`
`
`he stated that a POSA reading Saji ’372 would recognize that lurasidone could
`
`
`26 Ex. 2134, 88:8-24; 89:16-90:10 (objections from counsel removed).
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`successfully treat schizophrenia, calling it a “profound statement of the obvious.”27
`
`But what Dr. Stahl simply meant, when viewed in context, was that a POSA,
`
`seeing the D2 binding affinity data for Compound 105 in Saji ’372, would
`
`immediately recognize that Compound 105 could treat schizophrenia and
`
`psychoses generally. As explained above, this is because psychoses are
`
`characterized by excess dopamine. Accordingly, Dr. Stahl acknowledged that it
`
`was obvious to a POSA that if a compound acts as a dopamine (D2) antagonist, it
`
`will treat psychosis. However, it was not at all obvious from Saji ’372 that the
`
`specific dosing regimen for lurasidone claimed in the ’827 patent could treat
`
`psychoses without weight gain.28
`
`
`
`Dr. Stahl’s testimony that the ’827 patent was the “logical outcome” of Saji
`
`’372 was also made in the context of Compound 105’s ability to act as a D2
`
`antagonist and treat psychosis. Slayback takes Dr. Stahl’s statement out of context
`
`in order to misconstrue it as an admission that the ’827 patent would have been
`
`obvious over Saji ’372.29
`
`
`
`As an initial matter, there is no “logical outcome” test for obviousness, as
`
`Slayback proposes. More importantly, when Dr. Stahl’s testimony is viewed in
`
`
`27 Reply, 20-21; Ex. 1054, 129:22-130:12; 98:19-99:2.
`
`28 See Ex. 1054, 168:21-169:20.
`
`29 Reply, 22.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`context, it is apparent he was not conceding obviousness but rather explaining why
`
`the ’927 provisional and ’827 patent provided written description support for the
`
`manic depressive psychosis claims. Specifically, in response to the question “But
`
`how do you know just looking at this document that the named inventors of the
`
`’827 patent even knew about D2 antagonism?” Dr. Stahl responded: “Because this
`
`patent is a logical outcome of that property.…”30—i.e., the disease states being
`
`treated are based on the D2 antagonism disclosed by Saji ’372.
`
`
`
`It is evident that Dr. Stahl was explaining why the ’927 provisional and ’827
`
`patent provided written description support for the manic depressive psychosis
`
`claims. In no way was he opining as to obviousness, as Slayback would have the
`
`Board believe.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Stahl has consistently testified that Saji ’372 fails to teach or suggest the
`
`claimed dosing regimen or anything about weight gain.31 Saji ’372 generically
`
`states that the compounds covered by its genus may be provided in any of four
`
`broad dose ranges: a “dose of from about 1 to 1000 mg,” a dose “from about 5 to
`
`100 mg,” a dose “from about 0.1 to 100 mg,” and a dose “from about 0.3 to 50
`
`mg,” but includes nothing to suggest which dose range might work for which
`
`compounds, or which route of oral administration or intravenous injection might
`
`
`30 Ex. 1054, 127:20-24.
`
`31 Ex. 2131, ¶¶ 121-123; Ex. 1054, 121:8-122:2, 131:4-16, 133:6-134:18.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`work for which compounds.32 Thus, it is not true, as Slayback alleges, that Saji
`
`’372 teaches orally administering lurasidone at a dose from 5 to 100 mg.
`
`Moreover, while Saji ’372 says that the dose for these compounds may be applied
`
`as a single dose, it also says it may be divided in two or more times.33 Thus,
`
`without the use of hindsight, Saji ’372 fails to teach or suggest the ʼ827 patent’s
`
`specific dosing range of 20-120 mg administered orally once a day for any
`
`compound, let alone for lurasidone.34 Saji ’372 simply is not that specific. As Dr.
`
`Stahl noted during his deposition, Slayback is cherrypicking from Saji ’372’s
`
`disclosure:
`
`Q. In the ’372 patent it did say preferably from 5 to a hundred
`milligrams orally per day, correct?
`
`A. Well, I mean it also said one to a thousand, and it also said I.V.,
`and it also said more than once a day, but in hindsight you are kind of
`cherrypicking what the other one said, but it did say that, but until
`you’ve tested it you don’t know which of the various proposed things
`is actual.35
`
`
`
`
`32 Ex. 1009, 12:19-22; Ex. 2131, ¶ 121.
`
`33 Ex. 1009, 12:24-25.
`
`34 Ex. 2131, ¶ 123.
`
`35 Ex. 1054, 121:17-122:2 (objection omitted).
`
`14
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
` Slayback’s cherrypicking of Saji ’372’s disclosure exposes Slayback’s
`
`
`
`obviousness ground as pure hindsight. See ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc., 159 F.3d
`
`534, 546 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (obviousness “can not be based on the hindsight
`
`combination of components selectively culled from the prior art to fit the
`
`parameters of the patented invention.”). Even more significantly, as explained
`
`below, Slayback entirely fails to offer any rebuttal to Sumitomo’s evidence that
`
`lack of weight gain associated with the claimed dosing regimen was unexpected.
`
`B.
`
`Slayback Ignores Evidence Demonstrating That Lurasidone’s
`Lack of Weight Gain Was Unexpected
`In its Reply, Slayback incorrectly argues that because Sumitomo did not
`
`
`
`swear behind WO 01/76557 (Ex. 1040), Sumitomo admitted that a POSA would
`
`have known that SM-13496 was lurasidone as of the publication date of WO
`
`01/76557.36 Not so. Sumitomo disputed this point but then said it did not matter
`
`because a POSA would not have been able to predict lack of weight gain based on
`
`the receptor data reported in Horisawa for SM-13496.37 In support, Sumitomo
`
`cited numerous scientific publications, as well as Dr. Stahl’s testimony and Dr.
`
`Kosten’s deposition testimony, which illustrated the inability to predict lack of
`
`
`36 Reply, 26.
`
`37 POR, 41-42.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`weight gain based on receptor data.38 But Slayback ignores all of this evidence.
`
`Slayback did not even question Dr. Stahl about Horisawa during his deposition nor
`
`did Slayback submit arguments or evidence in its Reply to rebut Sumitomo’s
`
`extensive evidence. Even though Dr. Kosten submitted a second declaration, he
`
`never addressed Sumitomo’s arguments distinguishing Horisawa, tacitly admitting
`
`that Sumitomo is correct.
`
`
`
`At the end of the day, Slayback has no answer. Its conclusory statements, in
`
`the face of Sumitomo’s unrebutted evidence regarding the unreliability of receptor
`
`data with respect to weight gain, fail to prove unpatentability.
`
`C.
`
`Slayback Fails to Rebut Sumitomo’s Objective Evidence of
`Nonobviousness
`Sumitomo introduced evidence, in the form of documents and the
`
`declarations of Drs. Stahl and Reisetter, demonstrating that the claimed dosing
`
`regimen was commercially successful and satisfied a long-felt but unmet need for
`
`an antipsychotic that was effective against schizophrenia and bipolar disorder,
`
`including bipolar depression, and that had an acceptable side effect profile,
`
`including lack of weight gain.39 Sumitomo also submitted evidence of industry
`
`
`38 POR, 42-45; Ex. 2131, ¶¶ 81-89; Ex. 2134, 42:4-13; Exs. 2022, 2027-2029;
`
`2036-2039; 2046; 1042.
`
`39 POR, 53-58 and exhibits cited therein.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`skepticism on the part of leading pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding the
`
`claimed lurasidone dosing regimen’s ability to fulfill this need, which further
`
`supports non-obviousness.40
`
`Slayback’s only response is to argue lack of nexus on the ground that neither
`
`of Sumitomo’s experts was able to articulate “the novel aspects of the claims,” by
`
`which Slayback meant pointing to individual claimed features that allegedly were
`
`novel.41 But Slayback’s position is contrary to law. “[I]f the marketed product
`
`embodies the claimed features, and is co-extensive with them, then a nexus is
`
`presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present
`
`evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v.
`
`Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Slayback does not dispute that the ’827 claims cover and are co-extensive
`
`with LATUDA®. Therefore, it was incumbent on Slayback to rebut the
`
`presumption of nexus by introducing evidence demonstrating that commercial
`
`success, satisfaction of long felt need, and skepticism of experts were due to
`
`factors other than the merits of the claimed invention. See id. (“The presumed
`
`nexus cannot be rebutted with mere argument; evidence must be put forth.”).
`
`Slayback has not done this. Both Dr. Stahl and Dr. Reisetter established that each
`
`
`40 POR, 58-59 and exhibits cited therein.
`
`41 Reply, 28-29.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`of these objective factors was attributable to the merits of the claimed invention—
`
`specifically, the ability of the claimed lurasidone dosing regimen to treat
`
`schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, including bipolar depression, with an
`
`acceptable side effect profile, including lack of weight gain.42 Dr. Stahl explained
`
`that this was why psychiatrists such as himself prescribed LATUDA®.43 Dr.
`
`Reisetter explained in detail why other factors such as advertising did not account
`
`for LATUDA®’s commercial success, and noted that LATUDA® remained
`
`commercially successful despite the availability of cheaper generic and newer
`
`branded alternatives.44
`
`Slayback did not offer expert testimony to rebut Dr. Reisetter’s thorough
`
`analysis of nexus. Dr. Kosten did not address Sumitomo’s objective evidence at
`
`all, even though he submitted a second declaration. In fact, Slayback has done
`
`nothing to rebut Sumitomo’s objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`
`42 Ex. 2131, ¶ 76; Ex. 2132, ¶¶ 42-59; Ex. 1054, 168:24-169:9 (“the ’827 patent . . .
`
`identified a dose range actually that worked in a human being which had efficacy
`
`in a type of psychosis which was an indicator of a proof of confidence it would
`
`work in all kinds of psychosis, and it also surprisingly didn't have a weight gain to
`
`it.”)
`
`43 Ex. 2131, ¶ 76.
`
`44 Ex. 2132, ¶¶ 42-59.
`
`18
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`Slayback Misconstrues the Role of Patient Populations in the
`Context of Weight Gain and Obviousness
`There is no dispute that “a patient,” as recited in the ’827 claims, refers to
`
`“one or more patients.” Nevertheless, how a patient population behaves is relevant
`
`to the issue of obviousness—in particular, to whether a POSA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation that a patient treated with lurasidone according to the
`
`claimed dosing regimen would not gain weight. During his deposition, Dr. Stahl
`
`succinctly explained this concept:
`
`Q. So as of August of 2021 the person of ordinary skill in the
`art understood that in at least one study of risperidone approximately
`60 percent of the patients administered the risperidone did not gain a
`clinically significant amount of weight, right?
`
`A. Yes, that’s what ended up happening, but again as I say you
`don’t practice in hindsight. Before you give a patient you have to
`have expectations and predictions, and so the practice of medicine is
`taking multi-center trials for the population and treating the
`individual, and as you know nobody treats populations. People treat
`individuals so the art is trying to figure out what does this mean to a
`patient. What this means to a person of ordinary skill in the art is that
`you expect weight gain. You just don’t know who is going to have
`it.45
`
`
`45 Ex. 1054, 48:1-18.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`In other words, how a patient population behaves with respect to weight gain
`
`is relevant to whether a POSA would expect weight gain for a patient. The fact
`
`that some individual patients ultimately do not gain weight is irrelevant to a
`
`POSA’s reasonable expectations. And it is the reasonable expectation of success
`
`that matters in the obviousness context. As Dr. Stahl repeatedly testified, it was
`
`indeed surprising and unexpected that, when compared to other atypical
`
`antipsychotics such as olanzapine and risperidone, patient populations treated with
`
`the claimed lurasidone dosing regimens did not gain weight:
`
`Q. And that’s what a person would expect from giving a drug
`to a population of people, right, some would gain and some would not
`gain?
`
`A. No. You expect everybody to gain weight on drugs that
`have a lot of weight gain associated with it before you give it, and you
`expect nobody to gain weight today on this drug [LATUDA®],
`although at the time it was invented, we’ll get to that, everybody
`would have expected that this one, too, would cause weight gain in
`everybody.46
`
`Dr. Stahl’s declaration is consistent: “There is nothing to suggest that [the
`
`claimed] dose range and dose regimen would successfully treat those disorders
`
`without causing weight gain or clinically significant weight gain.”47 Because a
`
`
`46 Ex. 1054, 57:7-16.
`
`47 Ex. 2131, ¶ 126.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 46094-0002IP1
`Case No.: IPR2020-01053
`POSA’s reasonable expectations are formed based on the population, Slayback’s
`
`argument with respect to individual patients are not relevant to obviousness.
`
`E.
`
`Slayback Fails to Prove That Lack of Weight Gain is Inherent in
`the Prior Art
`Slayback again wrongly asserts that lack of weight gain in one or more
`
`patients is inherent because at least one patient will not gain weight as a result of
`
`practicing the claimed methods.48 Such a hindsight-based assertion that practicing
`
`the claimed method will produce the claimed result does not establish obviousness.
`
`As noted in