`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`RIMFROST AS
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTIC AS
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`Case: IPR2020-01534
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`_______________________
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR STEPHEN J. TALLON
`
`
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... 2
`
`DECLARATION OF DR STEPHEN J. TALLON ................................................... 3
`
`BASIS FOR OPINION .............................................................................................. 3
`
`‘567 PETITION GROUNDS ................................................................................... 5
`
`PO MISCHARACTERIZES BOTTINO II (EX1038) ......................................... 6
`
`PO’s Attempt to Discredit Bottino II is Invalid. .................................................... 8
`
`Results of Freeman and West cannot be applied to Bottino II ............................11
`
`Rf values for DG, FFA and TG in various solvent systems ............................17
`
`Bottino II disclosures taken as a whole ...............................................................19
`
`independently describe FFA levels as the ‘unknown’ spot. ................................19
`
`Reliability of Bottino II’s results .........................................................................28
`
`A krill oil containing less than 3 wt% free fatty acids .........................................36
`
`is obvious regardless of PO’s arguments, and is conceded by PO. .....................36
`
`CONCLUDING OPINION ...................................................................................39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0002
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF DR STEPHEN J. TALLON
`
`
`
`
`I make this declaration in support of Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s (“PO’s”)
`
`Response (Paper 9) to Petition in IPR2020-01534 (“POR”).
`
`
`
`
`
`BASIS FOR OPINION
`
`1.
`
`I have reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Jacek Jaczynski, EX2001,
`
`(“Jaczynski Dec.”) and accompanying exhibits, and disagree with his conclusions
`
`overall and as described in detail in the discussion below.
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed Patent Owner’s Response to Petition, Paper No. 09, and
`
`disagree with the conclusions set forth therein and as described in detail in the
`
`discussion below.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed the Deposition of Dr. Jacek Jaczynski, EX1170, from
`
`IPR2020-01532 and IPR2020-01533 (“Jaczynski Dep.”). IPR2020-01532 and
`
`IPR2020-01533 were brought by Petition against PO’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,644,169
`
`and 9,816,046, respectively. Like the U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 (“the ‘567
`
`patent”), they all claim priority by continuation applications to PO’s U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,375,453. See, Tallon Dec., EX1006 at ¶ 33.
`
`
`
`3
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0003
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`4.
`
`Furthermore, after reviewing the foregoing, I hereby reaffirm my opinion
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`from my earlier Declaration, EX1006, including that all claims of U.S. Patent
`
`10,010,567 (“the ‘567 Patent”) would have been obvious to a POSITA in view of
`
`the prior art cited.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have also relied on my own education, work
`
`experiences and knowledge, see my CV in my declaration, EX1006, the documents
`
`referenced in Appendix E to my declaration, EX1006.
`
`6.
`
`PO notes (POR at 7) that I was provided with and used an older standard for
`
`claim construction in which claim terms are interpreted according to their
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification”, rather than the
`
`Phillips claim construction standard which I have been informed requires “that
`
`claim construction begins with the ordinary and customary meanings of the terms
`
`used in the claims and that the meanings of terms used in the claims should be
`
`understood primarily in view of the intrinsic record, including the specification and
`
`file history”. I am aware of both claim construction standards and, in my opinion,
`
`my original claim construction remains the most appropriate claim construction
`
`under either standard.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0004
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`‘567 PETITION GROUNDS
`
`7.
`
`The chart below summarizes my understanding of the grounds Petitioner is
`
`asserting for the invalidity of the ‘567 patent.
`
`Basis
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1-5, 7-11, 15-17
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`
`6, 14, 20
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`
`12, 18
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`
`13, 19
`
`References
`
`
`Sampalis I (EX1012)
`Bottino II (EX1038)
`Randolph (EX1011)
`
`
`
`Sampalis I (EX1012)
`Bottino II (EX1038)
`Randolph (EX1011)
`Breivik II (EX1037)
`
`
`Sampalis I (EX1012)
`Bottino II (EX1038)
`Randolph (EX1011)
`Bottino I (EX1007)
`
`
`Sampalis I (EX1012)
`Bottino II (EX1038)
`Randolph (EX1011)
`Fricke (EX1010)
`Yamaguchi (EX1162)
`Hardardottir (EX1164)
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0005
`
`Ground
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`PO MISCHARACTERIZES BOTTINO II (EX1038)
`
`8.
`
`PO wrongly asserts (POR at 5-6, 12-17, see also, Jaczynski Dec., EX2001 at
`
`¶¶ 24-31) that “Bottino II provides no information on free fatty acid content” and
`
`thus Bottino II cannot support a disclosure by it of a krill oil with less than 3% free
`
`fatty acids as required by the ‘567 patent claims.
`
`9.
`
`As I described in my original declaration in support of the petition
`
`(EX1006), Bottino II Table 2, Lipids of Antarctic krill, copied below, reports a
`
`lipid fraction for E. superba krill caught at Station 11 that is labeled Unknown.
`
`The ‘Unknown’ lipid fraction in Bottino II Table 2 is identified in the footnote as
`
`presenting between the triglyceride and diglyceride fractions, and that the amount
`
`recovered was too small to characterize further. A POSITA would have understood
`
`that this fraction would include any free fatty acids that are present in the krill
`
`lipids. Thus a POSITA would have understood the free fatty acid content for the
`
`Station 11 Euphausia superba krill oil extract to be less than 2% - and thus the free
`
`fatty acid content of the krill oil extract was necessarily less than the 3% w/w krill
`
`oil claimed by the ‘567 patent. Bottino II, p. 481, EX1038, p. 0003; see also
`
`Tallon Dec., EX1006, at ¶¶ 174, 459. Moreover, since Bottino II identifies 98% of
`
`the lipid components of the Station 11 E. Superba, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that any free fatty acids would be located in the remaining 2% labeled
`
`as ‘Unknown.’ In addition, a POSITA would have known that free fatty acids
`6
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0006
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`when analyzed by TLC will typically have an Rf value between those of
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`triglycerides and diglycerides, which as noted in the footnote to Table 2 of Bottino
`
`II places the free fatty acids among the 2% ‘Unknown” components. See Bottino
`
`II, EX1038 at 0003, and ¶¶ 17-29, below.
`
`10. The arguments presented by PO (POR at 5-6, 12-17) in relation to the
`
`disclosures of free fatty acid content by Bottino II hold no merit and do not change
`
`my opinion on the obviousness of all of the ‘567 claim terms, including claims
`
`related to free fatty acid content. I discuss the failings of PO’s arguments herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0007
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`PO’s Attempt to Discredit Bottino II is Invalid.
`
`
`11. PO, depending on the declaration of Jaczynski (EX2021), advances two
`
`arguments related to the disclosure of free fatty acid (FFA) levels by Bottino II
`
`(EX1038). Firstly that the FFA levels are not directly disclosed and that the
`
`identified TLC result doesn’t represent FFA in light of results presented by
`
`Freeman and West (EX2002), and secondly that the results in Bottino II are of
`
`insufficient quality for a POSITA to determine FFA levels. Both arguments are
`
`flawed for reasons described below.
`
`12. The ‘567 patent includes two independent claims, 1 and 15, which both
`
`require that the claimed krill oil comprises “less than 3% w/w free fatty acids”. As
`
`Petitioner asserted in its Petition, relying on my declaration, Bottino II discloses in
`
`Table 2 a krill oil containing 2±22% Unknowns which includes the free fatty acid
`
`content of the krill lipid extract. Thus “the free fatty acid content of this extract
`
`would be at most 2%.” Petition, Paper 2, at 22; citing Tallon Dec., EX1006 at ¶
`
`174.
`
`13. Free fatty acids are a natural lipid component present in krill as a small
`
`proportion of the total lipids in the live krill organism. Additional free fatty acids
`
`may also form as a by-product of other lipids through the activity of lipases during
`
`handling and processing of krill after harvesting. Consequently, the level of free
`
`
`
`8
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0008
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`fatty acids present in a krill material is to some extent dependent on, and is a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`reflection of, the way in which the krill has been processed.
`
`14. Lipase activity in krill commonly results in hydrolysis of the fatty acid
`
`groups that are attached to triglycerides and phospholipids. The fatty acid is
`
`cleaved to form a free fatty acid, and a residual lipid. When a single fatty acid
`
`group is removed from a triglyceride the residual lipid becomes a diglyceride. If a
`
`second or third fatty acid group is removed it becomes a monoglyceride or glycerol
`
`respectively. Similarly for phospholipids containing fatty acyl groups, the fatty
`
`acids can be cleaved to form free fatty acids and residual lyso-phospholipids.
`
`Consequently, the formation of free fatty acids by lipase activity results in a
`
`depletion of the levels of triglycerides and phospholipids, and an increase in the
`
`levels of partial glycerides including diglycerides and lyso-phospholipids.
`
`15. Bottino II used a TLC method to measure lipid class information. TLC is a
`
`measurement technique in which the sample to be analysed is placed on a plate
`
`coated in a silica adsorbent and exposed to a solvent or combination of solvents.
`
`Different compounds travel at different rates along the plate depending on the
`
`specific interaction between the compound, the adsorbent, the solvents used, the
`
`composition and quantity of the sample, and other factors including time and
`
`temperature. The rate of movement can be expressed as an Rf value or retardation
`
`factor representing how far along the plate they travel compared to the solvent
`9
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0009
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`front. See also the description by PO’s expert. Jaczynski Dec., EX2001 at ¶¶ 27-
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`29. Quantitative analysis by TLC can be carried out in different ways. In the case
`
`of Bottino II it was by recovering each group of compounds separately from the
`
`plate and weighing them. It is a direct measurement of the weight proportion of
`
`each compound that was in the initial sample.
`
`16. Bottino II describes the lipid classes present in several krill samples,
`
`including neutral and polar lipids classes. Results are presented for two samples of
`
`E. Superba and two samples of E. Crystallorophias, collected from four different
`
`locations in the Antarctic Ocean. These are all disclosed in Bottino II Table 2,
`
`EX1038 at 0003. As I discussed in my previous declaration (EX1006 at ¶ 174),
`
`Bottino II discloses a lipid component which is labelled as ‘Unknown’ in Table 2,
`
`but is described by its position relative to other lipid components and would be
`
`understood by a POSITA to represent the free fatty acid content of the samples.
`
`This understanding is consistent with and supported by other disclosures by
`
`Bottino II, as well as with general prior art knowledge, as discussed below.
`
`Additionally, while putting forward selected arguments in an attempt to discredit
`
`Bottino II, PO does not actually provide, or even attempt to provide, any
`
`interpretation of Bottino II other than as a disclosure of free fatty acid content.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0010
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`Results of Freeman and West cannot be applied to Bottino II
`
`17. Dr Jaczynski argues that the spot reported as ‘Unknown’ by Bottino II, with
`
`Rf between those of Triglycerides and Diglycerides, could not be free fatty acids
`
`because results reported by Freeman and West (EX2002) show free fatty acids
`
`with a lower Rf value:
`
`Figure 1 of Freeman and West [EX2002] demonstrates
`that free fatty acids have an Rf value that is lower than that
`of diglycerides and triglycerides in the solvent systems
`utilized and therefore the free fatty acids do not travel as
`far as triglycerides or diglycerides in solvent system 1
`(panel a of Fig. 1 or the combination of solvent systems 1
`and 2 (panel c in Fig. 1).
`
`
`
`11
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0011
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`As can be seen [in Freeman and West, Exhibit 2002], in
`each solvent system utilized, free fatty acids (designated
`FA in Figure 1) migrate a shorter distance than
`triglycerides (TG in Figure 1) and diglycerides (DG in
`Figure 1), and farther than phospholipids (PL in Figure 1).
`The alterations of the Freeman and West solvent systems
`noted in Bottino II would not be expected to change this
`migration pattern. Thus, Bottino II’s “unknowns,” which
`migrated between the triglycerides and diglycerides, could
`not include free fatty acids as concluded by Dr. Tallon.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Jaczynski Dec., EX2001 at ¶ 28 (detail in [] supplied). Figure 1 also
`
`discloses that Freeman and West’s TLC had Rf for free cholesterol (C) higher than
`
`the Rf for free fatty acids (FFA).
`
`19. Dr Jaczynski’s opinion is incorrect as the Rf values described by Freeman
`
`and West can’t be applied to Bottino II. Indeed, as discussed below, the alterations
`
`of the Freeman and West solvent systems noted in Bottino II would be expected to
`
`change, inter alia, the free fatty acid migration pattern. Bottino II describes the
`
`method used in their analysis as follows:
`
`For quantitative fractionation of lipid classes 20-40 mg of
`lipids were separated by the method of Freeman & West
`(1966) modified as follows: (a) Silica gel without binder
`(Adsorbosil-5, Applied Science) was used instead of silica
`
`
`
`12
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0012
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`gel-G. (b) Acetic acid was eliminated from the solvent
`mixture No. 1
`to simplify
`the drying between
`developments. (c) Quantitation of the spots was done by
`gravimetry and not by colorimetry of dichromate
`reduction.
`Bottino II, EX1038 at 0002.
`
`20. The method used by Bottino II, as copied above, is described as a
`
`modification of the method of Freeman and West, with modifications to the solvent
`
`systems used and to the type of adsorbent used (a different silica). Both of these
`
`modifications are key determinants in the order of presentation of the components
`
`in TLC analysis.
`
`21. Though not expressly mentioned by Bottino II, but which would have been
`
`known to a POSITA, other variations in operational parameters, equipment used,
`
`and individual operating practices will also apply, and will further influence the
`
`observed Rf values for each component ( see, e.g., Neilsen, pp. 450-451, EX1179
`
`at 0004-0005) particularly for a multi-stage solvent system. These include at least
`
`the development times in each solvent system, how the TLC plate is made, the size
`
`and shape of the plate, how the plate is pre-conditioned, how the sample is applied
`
`to the plate, the quantity and composition of the specific sample used, how the
`
`plates are handled when switching between multiple solvent systems, and even on
`
`atmospheric temperature and humidity. The Rf values observed in one analysis
`
`
`
`13
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0013
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`cannot be directly compared to Rf values used with different solvent systems,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`different adsorbent, different equipment, and different operating conditions. That is
`
`why reference standards are used to calibrate the analysis.
`
`22. Further, as also would have been known to a POSITA, many operational
`
`details of the method used by Bottino II will have been adapted to meet the
`
`objectives of the particular analysis being applied, and the equipment available to
`
`carry out the analysis. In the case of Bottino II, the objective is characterisation of
`
`the main lipid classes present in Krill, an objective that differs from that of
`
`Freeman and West which is about demonstrating separation of a broad selection of
`
`neutral lipid class standards. For example, Bottino II is interested in, and reports,
`
`the separation of individual phospholipid classes including PC, PE, Lyso PC, and
`
`PG. See Bottino II, Table 2, EX1038 at 0002. A simple comparison with the results
`
`of Freeman and West, (Figure 1, EX2002 at 0002) will show that phospholipids
`
`remain at the bottom of the plate and are not separated. Further, the separation and
`
`quantification of free cholesterol is not of interest to Bottino II because there are
`
`only trace quantities of free cholesterol in krill. See, e.g., Mimoun-Benarroch, p.
`
`63, EX1099, p. 0003, Lambertsen, Table 1, p. 100, EX1101, p. 0003. The method
`
`described by Freeman and West cannot be directly applied to meet the objectives
`
`of the analysis in Bottino II.
`
`
`
`14
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0014
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`23. The method described by Freeman and West uses two solvent systems
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`sequentially. This introduces further variables in comparing the different analysis
`
`methods. In the first solvent system Bottino II specifically describes the omission
`
`of acetic acid from the solvent mix. The effect of changing the solvent composition
`
`is complex but acetic acid is a strongly polar compound and it would be expected
`
`to influence the mobility of compounds with different polarities, as well as
`
`facilitate interactions between free fatty acids and the alcohol (ethanol) present in
`
`the first solvent system. These interactions are different to the interactions
`
`between the solvent system and partial glycerides and would be expected to
`
`influence the relative Rf values of free fatty acids compared to other components.
`
`24. The second solvent mixture described by Freeman and West consists of
`
`diethyl-ether and hexane, a solvent mixture that typically results in elution of free
`
`fatty acids with an Rf between those of triglycerides and diglycerides, consistent
`
`with the position of the ‘unknown’ free fatty acid spot in Bottino II. This can be
`
`seen in general prior art literature including for example Handbook of Food
`
`Analysis (Second Edition): Volume 1: Physical Characterization and Nutrient
`
`Analysis, Leo M.L. Nollet (2004), Chapter 9, “Fatty Acids”, Zamora and Hidalgo,
`
`Table 11, p. 237 (EX1177 at 0020), copied below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0015
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`25.
`
`In accordance with Zamora and Hidalgo, Table 11, p. 237 (EX1177 at
`
`0020), the solvent system disclosed in the first column (P-E-AA) consists of
`
`“petroleum ether (a mixture of hydrocarbons, commonly including or analogous to
`
`hexane)-diethyl ether – acetic acid” in a ratio of 90:10:1, the solvent system
`
`disclosed in the second column H-E-FA consists of “hexane-diethyl ether – formic
`
`acid” in a ratio of 80:20:2. Both of these solvent systems show that Rf for free fatty
`
`acids falls between the Rf s for diglycerides and triglycerides: For the P-E-AA
`
`solvent system, the Rf in the first column for free fatty acids (0.18) falls between
`
`the Rf for diglycerides (0.08) and the Rf for triglycerides (0.35); For the H-E-FA
`
`solvent system, the Rf in the second column for free fatty acids (0.42) falls between
`
`the Rf for diglycerides (0.21 and 0.24) and the Rf for triglycerides (0.63).
`16
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0016
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`26.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`In general, many solvent systems follow this same pattern, depending on the
`
`relative polarity of the different lipids present. The Rf for free fatty acids falls
`
`between those for diglycerides and triglycerides in additional solvent systems
`
`including for example: the Rf in the fourth column for free fatty acids (0.62) falls
`
`between the Rf for diglycerides (0.41 and 0.46) and the Rf for triglycerides (0.70);
`
`the Rf in the fifth column for free fatty acids (0.39) falls between the Rf for
`
`diglycerides (0.15 and 0.21) and the Rf for triglycerides (0.60); the Rf in the sixth
`
`column for free fatty acids (0.50) falls between the Rf for diglycerides (0.25 and
`
`0.40) and the Rf for triglycerides (0.82). I have summarized these values below.
`
`Rf values for DG, FFA and TG in various solvent systems (EX1177 at 0020).
`
`Compound Col. 1
`
`Col. 2
`
`Col. 3
`
`Col. 4
`
`Col. 5
`
`Col. 6
`
`Col. 7
`
`TG
`
`FFA
`
`1,3 DG
`
`1,2 DG
`
`0.35
`
`0.18
`
`0.08
`
`0.08
`
`0.63
`
`0.42
`
`0.24
`
`0.21
`
`0.79
`
`0.21
`
`0.66
`
`0.53
`
`0.70
`
`0.62
`
`0.46
`
`0.41
`
`0.60
`
`0.39
`
`0.21
`
`0.15
`
`0.82
`
`0.50
`
`0.40
`
`0.25
`
`0.57
`
`0.16
`
`0.36
`
`0.36
`
`
`27. While the Rf values observed in one TLC analysis cannot be directly
`
`compared to another, as supported by Zamora and Hidalgo, Table 11, p. 237
`
`(EX1177 at 0020) and consistent with other prior art including that discussed
`
`below, in the majority of cases Free Fatty Acids will have an Rf value between
`
`those of Triglycerides and Diglycerides as seen in Bottino II.
`
`
`
`17
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0017
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`28. PO’s expert is incorrect in a-priori extension of Freemen and West’s Figure
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`1 Rf ordering (namely, from the origin of the TLC plate of: PL, MG, FAA, C, DG,
`
`TG, CE) (see EX2002 at 0002) to other TLC results. Even references cited by
`
`Freemen and West disclose different Rf orderings. For example, Blank et. al.,
`
`Quantitative Analysts of Lipids By Thin-Layer Chromatography, EX1176, Figure
`
`5 at 0003, provides the following Rf ordering: PL, C, FFA, TG, CE. That is,
`
`FFA’s Rf value is greater than that for free cholesterol (C), different to that
`
`disclosed in Freeman and West. See below.
`
`29. As demonstrated above, the particular solvent systems used in TLC
`
`significantly influences the Rf value for, inter alia, FFAs, triglycerides and
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0018
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`diglycerides and, as discussed above, Freeman and West and Bottino II used
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`different solvent systems, as well as other functional and operational differences,
`
`thus the results reported in the Freeman and West chromatograph and the results
`
`reported in Table 2 Bottino II for, at least, FFAs are not comparable.
`
`
`
`
`
`Bottino II disclosures taken as a whole
`independently describe FFA levels as the ‘unknown’ spot.
`
`30. To understand Bottino II it is necessary to examine what is disclosed in
`
`Bottino II itself as well as other prior art knowledge that supports the
`
`interpretation.
`
`31. Firstly, it is well known that free fatty acids would have been present in the
`
`krill lipids analysed by Bottino II. A POSITA would have understood this, and
`
`PO’s expert agrees that this is the case. “Given the content of diglycerides,
`
`lysophosphatidylcholine, and phosphatidylglycerol reported in Table 2, it would be
`
`reasonable to assume that free fatty acids were present in the sample but not
`
`reported.” Jacyznski Dec., EX2001 at ¶ 29 (emphasis supplied).
`
`32. The presence of free fatty acids in krill lipids was well reported in other
`
`prior art. For example Fricke, EX1010 at 0003, discloses a free fatty acid content
`
`in freshly cooked krill “ranging from 1% to 3% of total lipids” and that this “low
`
`FFA content of freshly caught krill also was confirmed by Ellingsen (11)” and
`19
`
`
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0019
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`Phleger, EX1173, Table 1 at 0004, discloses free fatty acids content for total lipid
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`extracts from E. Superba krill ranging from 1.1% to 1.8%.
`
`33. Fricke also describes higher levels of free fatty acids in samples which have
`
`been subjected to lipase activity (“In the 1977 sample the FFA content [16.1%] is
`
`about twice that of the 1981 sample [8.5%]. The high value could be caused by the
`
`longer storage time of the 1977 sample. A residual lipolytic activity against
`
`phospholipids exists even at temperatures of -30 C and below” (EX1010 at 0002).
`
`Thus free fatty acids are expected to be present in Bottino II’s analysis at levels of
`
`1% to 3% representing fresh krill, or higher levels if lipase activity has occurred,
`
`and their presence would have been expected to be included in the analysis
`
`reported by Bottino II.
`
`34. Dr Jaczynski concedes that these free fatty acids were present, but is unable
`
`to offer an alternative explanation to free fatty acids being the ‘unknown’ spot,
`
`other than to “speculate that the lack of data on free fatty acid content is due to
`
`poor resolution of spots representing lipids on the TLC plates …”. Jaczynski Dec.
`
`at ¶ 29. However, Bottino reports a number of other components of the krill oil
`
`which constitute only 1% of the total oil (see Table 2, Exhibit 1020, page 0003, for
`
`example Lyso-PC, and PG content for Station 11 are recorded as 1%) and Bottino
`
`II is able to quantify these. Thus free fatty acids would not have been missed by
`
`
`
`20
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0020
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`Bottino II due to poor resolution, as alleged by Dr Jaczynski, unless they were
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`present at levels lower than at least 1%.
`
`35. Secondly, as discussed above at ¶¶ 24-26 and further discussed below, the
`
`presence of free fatty acids with a Rf factor between those of triglycerides and
`
`diglycerides, where the ‘unknown’ spot is located in Bottino II, is common in other
`
`prior art using TLC analysis with similar low polarity elution solvents designed for
`
`neutral lipid separation.
`
`36. Yamaguchi discloses analysis of krill oil extracts from two types of krill
`
`powder using TLC analysis. Figure 2 from Yamaguchi (EX1162 at 0003) is
`
`reproduced below. The plates labelled I and II show spots produced using a solvent
`
`mixture of diethyl-ether petroleum-ether and acetic acid where free fatty acids
`
`(identified as spot #4) lies between those of triglycerides (spot #3) and diglycerides
`
`(spot #5), in the same location as the ‘unknown’ spot in Bottino II.
`
`Figure 2 shows TLC patterns of the oils extracted with SC-
`CO2 and the residual lipids. By co-TLC with standard
`reagents, the main component of the extracted oils was
`found to be triglycerides (spot 3) and the minor
`components were
`identified as hydrocarbon
`(1),
`cholesteryl ester (2), free fatty acids (4), diglycerides (5),
`cholesterol (7), monoglycerides (8), and carotenoids (6
`and 9), as illustrated in chromatogram I.
`***
`21
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0021
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi, EX1162 at 0002-0003 (emphasis supplied).
`
`37. Further examples include TLC analysis of krill oil by Tsuyuki (EX1172),
`
`which shows the presentation of Free Fatty acids between triglycerides and
`
`diglycerides using a solvent system consisting of petroleum ether, diethyl ether,
`
`acetic acid.
`
`
`
`22
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0022
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`Tsuyuki, EX1172, Figure 1 at 0004.
`
`38. Thirdly, Bottino II describes several krill compositions in Table 2 in addition
`
`to the one for Station 11, and the only consistent explanation of the combined
`
`results is if the unknown spot is free fatty acids. See Table 2 from Bottino II
`
`(EX1038 at 0003) below:
`
`
`
`23
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0023
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`Bottino II describes results for E. Superba harvested from two stations, identified
`
`in Table 2 as Station 8 and Station 11. For Station 11, a triglyceride content of 36%
`
`is reported, a diglyceride content of 4%, a complex lipid content of 58%, and an
`
`‘unknown’ content of 2%. In contrast, Station 8 is recorded as having a decreased
`
`triglyceride content of 8% and a decreased complex lipid content of 54%, an
`
`increased diglyceride content of 17% and ‘unknown’ content of 21%. The results
`
`for station 11 are consistent with the known lipid composition of fresh krill. The
`
`results for station 8 are consistent with a krill oil which has experienced lipase
`
`activity – i.e., the triglyceride level is reduced due to the removal of a fatty acid
`
`group by the enzymes, and are converted into diglycerides and free fatty acids. The
`
`
`
`24
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0024
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`diglyceride content for station 8 increased significantly, from 4% at Station 11 to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`17% at Station 8, therefore a proportional increase in free fatty acids is expected.
`
`The ‘unknown’ spot in Bottino II’s analysis for Station 8 meets this expectation,
`
`and the only reasonable interpretation for the results of Bottino II is for the
`
`‘unknown’ spot to represent free fatty acid content. Similarly, the reduced level of
`
`total complex lipid in Station 8 indicates a degree of lipase hydrolysis converting
`
`phospholipids into smaller (lyso) phospholipids and adding to the free fatty acid
`
`content.1 All of these effects were well known to a POSITA. As noted above, Dr
`
`Jaczynski concedes that the presence of diglycerides and lysophospholipids gives
`
`the expectation of a corresponding presence of free fatty acids. Jaczynski Dec.,
`
`EX2001 at ¶ 29.
`
`39.
`
`In summary, all of these points serve to identify the ‘unknown’ spot in
`
`Bottino II as representing the free fatty acid content: The presence of free fatty
`
`acids is expected at a level that would have been able to be measured by Bottino II
`
`
`1 Results given by Bottino II for E. Crystallorophias, stations 13 and 16 in Table II
`
`also demonstrate the same pattern, with reduced triglyceride and phospholipid
`
`content at station 16 corresponding with elevated levels of diglycerides and free
`
`fatty acid (‘unknown’) levels.
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0025
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`and would be expected to have been reported; the presentation of free fatty acids
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`
`
`with a Rf factor between those of triglycerides and diglycerides, as observed by
`
`Bottino II, is common (see discussion above); and comparison of the results
`
`reported for Stations 8 and 11 (and 13 and 16) by Bottino II demonstrates that the
`
`‘unknown’ spot must be free fatty acids for a consistent interpretation of the
`
`results. In contrast, PO has not demonstrated that the results of Freeman and West
`
`using a different TLC method changes this interpretation; has not proposed an
`
`explanation for why free fatty acids are not reported by Bottino II (as alleged by
`
`PO) other than ‘speculation’; and has not provided any interpretation of what the
`
`‘unknown’ spot in Bottino II might be if not free fatty acids.
`
`40. Finally, PO’s expert has even recently co-authored an article disclosing FFA
`
`falling between DG and TG in a TLC analysis of krill. The analysis of krill oil and
`
`krill oil fractions by TLC is described by Showman (EX1174, published in 2020),
`
`of which PO’s expert Jaczynski is an author. Figure 1 shows Free Fatty acids
`
`between triglycerides and diglycerides in a solvent system including hexane,
`
`diethyl ether, acetic acid.
`
`
`
`26
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0026
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`Showman, EX1174, Figure 1 at 0004.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`RIMFROST EXHIBIT 1086 Page 0027
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01534
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,010,567 B2
`
`Reliability of Bottino II’s results
`
`41. Dr Jaczynski discusses the reliability of the data reported by Bottino II and
`
`argues that “the data is not reliable and would be disregar