`
`Paper 21
`
`
`
`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.: IPR2020-01533
`
`U.S. Patent 9,816,046
`
`Issue Date: November 14, 2017
`
`Title: Bioeffective Krill Oil Compositions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S SUBMISSION
`ADDRESSING PURPORTED IMPROPER EVIDENCE AND
`ARGUMENT IN PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2020-01533
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,816,046
`
`In addition to Budziński’s (Exhibit 1008) disclosure that denatured krill is
`
`“stable” and can be stored for at least 13 months, Petitioner noted that Fricke
`
`(Exhibit 1010) also satisfied the 1-36 month storage period limitation of the ‘046
`
`patent. See, e.g., Petition (Paper 2), 44, 53, 62; Tallon Decl. (Exhibit 1006), ¶¶
`
`302-306. Patent Owner in its Response disputed that fact, and argued there was no
`
`teaching in Fricke relating to the period of time denatured krill was stored:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Fricke contains no teaching as to the storage time for the
`
`cooked krill . . . .” POR (Paper 9), 41.
`
`“Fricke contains no details on storage time of its cooked krill
`
`. . . .” Id., 42.
`
`Directly rebutting Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner explained in its
`
`Reply that the denatured krill material described in Fricke was stored “some
`
`months” before solvent extraction. Pet. Reply (Paper 15), 20-21. As support,
`
`Petitioner relied on the testimony of its expert, Dr. Tallon, that Fricke “directly
`
`describes storage of the denatured [krill] material for a period of at least some
`
`months [and] extraction of a krill oil from the denatured and stored material.” See,
`
`e.g., Exhibit 1086, ¶¶ 74, 111. Confirming Dr. Tallon’s testimony regarding
`
`Fricke, and further rebutting Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner also relied on the
`
`Board’s finding in a related proceeding involving a patent in the same family as the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2020-01533
`
`
`challenged ‘169 patent. In that proceeding, based on the disclosure of a different
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,816,046
`
`Fricke publication (Exhibit 2006), the Board found the denatured krill described in
`
`Fricke (Exhibit 1010) was stored “some months” prior to extraction. IPR 2017-
`
`00746, Final Written Decision (Paper 23) Exhibit 1104, 21-22; see Tallon Reply
`
`(Exhibit 1086), ¶¶ 68-71, 74, 111.1
`
`Petitioner’s argument and supporting evidence that Fricke teaches and
`
`discloses denatured krill meal was stored “some months” prior to solvent
`
`extraction directly responded to the argument made in Patent Owner’s Response
`
`and constituted proper rebuttal evidence. In fact, the Federal Circuit has ruled:
`
`if the petition asserts that a claim requirement is met, provides a
`reason that the assertion is true, and cites evidentiary support for
`that reason, then reply material that fairly adds confirmation that
`the initially presented material does in fact support the assertion
`is not prohibited new material but a proper part of the record.
`
`AMC Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Fall Line Patents, No. 2021-1051, 2021 U.S. App.
`
`LEXIS 29547, at * 18 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2021); see, e.g., Genzyme Therapeutics
`
`Prods. L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`1 In this proceeding, Exhibit 2006 has been marked Exhibit 1160.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2020-01533
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,816,046
`
`Consequently, the two sentences of Petitioner’s Reply further addressing
`
`Fricke’s teaching and disclosure of storing denatured krill for “some months” prior
`
`to solvent extraction are not “new argument and new evidence” as Patent Owner
`
`contends. Rather, the two sentences that Patent Owner complains about directly
`
`respond to an argument in Patent Owner’s Response, and is proper rebuttal
`
`evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`Dated: November 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/james f. harrington/
`James F. Harrington
`jfhdocket@hbiplaw.com
`Registration No. 44,741
`
`HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Rimfrost AS
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2020-01533
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,816,046
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 16th day of November, 2021, PETITIONER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S SUBMISSION ADDRESSING
`
`PURPORTED IMPROPER EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT IN
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE was served in
`
`their entirety on the following counsel of record by e-mail at the address provided
`
`in the PO Mandatory Notice Information as set forth below:
`
`
`David A. Casimir, Ph.D.
`J. Mitchell Jones, Ph.D.
`CASIMIR JONES S.C.
`2275 Deming Way, Suite 310
`Middleton, WI 53562
`
`dacasimir@casimirjones.com
`jmjones@casimirjones.com
`docketing@casimirjones.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2294592.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/james f. harrington/
`James F. Harrington
`jfhdocket@hbiplaw.com
`Registration No. 44,741
`
`HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP
`6900 Jericho Turnpike
`Syosset, New York 11791
`(516) 822-3550
`
`