throbber
Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`IPR2021-00881
`
`By: Deborah E. Fishman (Reg. No. 48,621)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-3807
`Telephone: (650) 319-4500
`Facsimile: (650) 319-4700
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., CELLTRION, INC., and
`APOTEX, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2021-008811
`Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`1 IPR2022-00258 and IPR2022-00298 have been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`IPR2021-00881
`
`By Electronic Filing
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By Hand Delivery
`Office of the General Counsel
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`Madison Building East, 10B20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
`
`By Electronic Filing
`Circuit Executive and Clerk of Court
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`717 Madison Place, NW
`Washington, DC 20439
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 142 and 319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.2(a),
`
`90.3(a), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) hereby appeals to the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board’s (“Board”) Final Written Decision entered on November 9, 2022
`
`(Paper No. 94) (“Final Written Decision), and from all underlying findings,
`
`determinations, rulings, opinions, orders, issues, and decisions regarding the inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,254,338 (“the ’338 Patent”). A copy of the
`
`Final Written Decision is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), Patent Owner identifies that
`
`the issues on appeal include, but are not limited to: (1) whether the Board erred in
`
`determining that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Celltrion, Inc., and Apotex, Inc.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`IPR2021-00881
`(“Petitioners”) have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3-11,
`
`13, 14, 16-24, and 26 of the ’338 Patent are unpatentable over Dixon; (2) whether
`
`the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act by taking judicial notice of
`
`evidence that was not of record while ignoring evidence of record; (3) whether the
`
`Board erred in denying-in-part and dismissing-in-part Patent Owner’s motions to
`
`exclude; and (4) any Board finding, determination, judgment or order related to the
`
`foregoing issues, as well as all other issues decided adversely to Patent Owner,
`
`including, without limitation, the Board’s construction and application of the claim
`
`language, the Board’s interpretation of the prior art, the Board’s interpretation of
`
`expert evidence, and the Board’s application of the law.
`
`The Board issued its Final Written Decision on November 9, 2022. This
`
`notice is therefore timely filed within sixty-three (63) days of the Board’s decision
`
`as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. § 142 and 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1).
`
`Patent Owner is concurrently filing this Notice of Appeal with the Director
`
`of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Clerk of the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, along with the required fees.
`
`Patent Owner does not believe that any fees are due to the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office with this Notice of Appeal. However, if any such
`
`fees are due, the Director is authorized to charge the fees to Deposit Account No.
`
`50-2387.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Dated: January 10, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`IPR2021-00881
`
`David A. Caine (Reg. No. 52,683)
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, California 94306-3807
`Telephone: 650.319.4710
`Facsimile: 650.319.4573
`David.Caine@arnoldporter.com
`
`Alice S. Ho (Lim. Rec. No. L1162)
`Victoria Reines (pro hac vice)
`Jeremy Cobb (pro hac vice)
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
`Washington D.C. 20001
`Telephone: 202.942.5000
`Facsimile: 202.942.5999
`Alice.Ho@arnoldporter.com
`Victoria.Reines@arnoldporter.com
`Jeremy.Cobb@arnoldporter.com
`
`/s/ Deborah E. Fishman
`Deborah E. Fishman (Reg. No. 48,621)
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, California 94306-3807
`Telephone: 650.319.4519
`Facsimile: 650.319.4573
`Deborah.Fishman@arnoldporter.com
`
`Daniel Reisner (pro hac vice)
`Matthew M. Wilk (pro hac vice)
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, NY 10019-9710
`Telephone: 212.836.8000
`Facsimile: 212.836.8689
`Daniel.Reisner@arnoldporter.com
`Matthew.Wilk@arnoldporter.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`IPR2021-00881
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that the original of this PATENT OWNER’S
`
`NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed via hand delivery on January 10, 2023 with the
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office at the address below:
`
`Office of the General Counsel
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`Madison Building East, 10B20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314-5793
`
`A copy of this Notice of Appeal is being filed and served on January 10,
`
`2023 as follows:
`
`USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`(via PTAB P-TACTS)
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
`Clerk of Court
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`717 Madison Place, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20439
`
`(via CM/ECF with filing fee)
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`IPR2021-00881
`Counsel for Petitioners Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Celltrion, Inc., and
`Apotex, Inc.:
`
`(via email pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`Teresa Stanek Rea
`Reg. No. 30,427
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`P.O. Box 14300
`Washington, DC 20044-4300
`trea@crowell.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Apotex Inc.
`
`Paul J. Molino
`Registration No. 45,350
`RAKOCZY MOLINO
`MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 222-6300
`Facsimile: (312) 843-6260
`paul@rmmslegal.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`Lora M. Green (Reg. No. 43,541)
`WILSON SONSINI
`GOODRICH & ROSATI
`1700 K Street NW
`5th Floor Washington, DC 20006
`Tel.: 202-791-8012
`lgreen@wsgr.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Celltrion, Inc.
`
`/s/ Deborah E. Fishman
`Deborah E. Fishman (Reg. No. 48,621)
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, California 94306-3807
`Telephone: 650.319.4519
`Facsimile: 650.319.4573
`Deborah.Fishman@arnoldporter.com
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 94
`Date: November 9, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., CELLTRION, INC., and
`APOTEX, INC.
`Petitioners,
`v.
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-008811
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JOHN G. NEW, and
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Denying in part and Dismissing in part Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude
`Denying in part and Dismissing in part Denying Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Exclude
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2022-00258 and IPR2022-00298 have been joined with this
`proceeding. See Papers 35 and 36.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`This is a Final Written Decision in an inter partes review of claims 1,
`3–11, 13, 14, 16–24 and 26 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,254,338 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’338 patent”). We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 6, and enter this Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that
`Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`challenged claims are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`Additionally, we deny in part and dismiss in part the Motions to
`Exclude Evidence.
`
`Procedural History
`A.
`The original petitioner in this case was Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`(“Petitioner Mylan”). Petitioner Mylan filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 311. Paper 1
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”). Petitioner Mylan supported the Petition with the
`Declarations of Thomas Albini M.D. (Ex. 1002), and Mary Gerritsen Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1003). Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent
`Owner supported the Preliminary Response with the Declarations of Diana
`V. Do, M.D. (Ex. 2001). With our authorization, Paper 13, Petitioner Mylan
`filed a Reply to the Preliminary Response, and Patent Owner filed a Sur-
`reply to address further issues involving 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Paper 16
`(“Reply”); Paper 19 (“Sur-reply”).
`On November 10, 2021, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted
`trial to determine whether any challenged claim of the ’338 patent is
`unpatentable based on the six grounds raised in the Petition:
`
`2
`
`

`

`32 U.S.C. § Reference(s)
`102
`Dixon2
`
`Adis3
`
`Regeneron 20084
`
`NCT-7955
`
`NCT-3776
`
`102
`
`102
`
`102
`
`102
`
`103
`
`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`Claims Challenged
`1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, 26
`
`1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, 26
`
`1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, 26
`
`1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, 26
`
`1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, 26
`
`1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24, 26
`
`Paper 21 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`On February 9, 2022, we instituted an inter partes review in IPR2022-
`00258 and granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00881, adding
`Celltrion, Inc. as a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 35. On the
`
`Dixon, Papadopoulos,7 Dix8
`
`
`2 James A. Dixon et al., “VEGF Trap-Eye for the treatment of neovascular
`age-related macular degeneration,” 18(10) Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs
`1573–1580 (2009) (Ex. 1006, “Dixon”)).
`3 Adis Data Information BV, “Aflibercept,” 9(4) Drugs R&D 261–269
`(2008) (Ex. 1007, “Adis”).
`4 Press Release, Regeneron, “Bayer and Regeneron Dose First Patient in
`Second Phase 3 Study for VEGF Trap-Eye in Wet Age-Related Macular
`Degeneration” (May 8, 2008) (Ex. 1013, “Regeneron 2008”).
`5 Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Trap-Eye: Investigation of
`Efficacy and Safety in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
`(VIEW1), NCT00509795, ClinicalTrials.gov (Apr. 28, 2009),
`https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00509795 (Ex. 1014, “NCT-795”).
`6 VEGF Trap-Eye: Investigation of Efficacy and Safety in Wet AMD
`(VIEW2), NCT00637377, ClinicalTrials.gov (Mar. 17, 2008),
`https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00637377 (Ex. 1015, “NCT-377”).
`7 Papadopoulos et al., US 7,374,758 B2, issued May 20, 2008, (Ex. 1010,
`“Papadopoulos”).
`8 Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0217311 A1 by Dix et al.,
`published Sep. 28, 2006 (Ex. 1033, “Dix”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`same date, we also instituted an inter partes in IPR2022-00298 and likewise
`granted the motion for joinder with IPR2021-00881, adding Apotex, Inc. as
`a petitioner in the instant proceeding. Paper 36. Accordingly, we refer to
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Celltrion, Inc. and Apotex, Inc., collectively,
`as “Petitioners.”
`Patent Owner filed a Corrected Patent Owner Response to the
`Petition. Paper 41 (redacted, public version), Paper 40 (sealed version),
`(collectively, “PO Resp.”).9 Patent Owner supported the Patent Owner
`Response with the declarations of Diana V. Do, M.D. (Ex. 2001; Ex. 2051);
`Lucian V. Del Priore, M.D., Ph.D. (Ex. 2048 (sealed version); Ex. 2048
`(redacted, public version)); Alexander M. Klibanov, Ph.D. (Ex. 2049);
`David M. Brown, M.D. (Ex. 2050); Richard Manning, Ph.D. (Ex. 2052
`(sealed version); Ex. 2052 (public, redacted version)).
`Petitioners filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response. Papers 61
`(sealed version), 62 (redacted, public version) (collectively, “Pet. Reply”).
`Petitioners supported the Reply with Supplemental Declarations from
`Dr. Albini (Ex. 1114) and Dr. Gerritsen (Ex. 1115), along with a Declaration
`from Dr. Hofmann (Ex. 1137) (sealed version), (Ex. 1137) (redacted, public
`version). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply to Petitioners’ Reply. Paper 73
`(“PO Sur-reply”).
`Patent Owner and Petitioners each filed a Motion to Exclude
`Evidence. Papers 83 (“PO Mot.”), 81 (“Pet. Mot.”). Each party filed an
`Opposition to the corresponding motion. Papers 85 (“PO Opp.”), 84 (“Pet.
`
`
`9 In this Decision, we refer only to the public versions of papers and exhibits
`and not to confidential material.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`Opp.”). Each party also filed a Reply to the corresponding Opposition.
`Papers 86 (“PO Mot. Reply”), 87 (“Pet. Mot. Reply”).
`On August 10, 2022, the parties presented arguments at an oral
`hearing. Paper 78 (Order Granting Requests for Oral Hearing). The hearing
`transcript has been entered in the record. Paper 93 (“Tr.”).
`Real Parties-in-Interest
`B.
`Petitioner Mylan identifies itself, Viatris Inc., Mylan Inc., Momenta
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development LLC, and Johnson
`& Johnson as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 3, Paper 18 (Petitioner Mylan’s
`Amended Mandatory Notices). Petitioner Celltrion, Inc. identifies itself,
`Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd., and Celltrion Healthcare U.S.A., Inc. as real
`parties-in-interest. See IPR2022-00258, Paper 2, 3. Petitioner Apotex, Inc.
`identifies itself, Apotex Corp., Apotex Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc., and
`Aposherm Delaware Holdings Corp. as real parties-in-interest. See
`IPR2022-00298, Paper 1, 3. Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party-
`in-interest. Paper 5, 2.
`
`Related Proceedings
`C.
`Petitioners and Patent Owner identify Mylan Pharms. Inc. v.
`Regeneron Pharms., Inc., IPR2021-00880 (PTAB May 5, 2021) (“the -880
`IPR”) as a related matter. Pet. 3; Paper 5, 2. The -880 IPR challenges
`claims 1 and 8–12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,669,069 B2 (“the ’069 patent”). The
`parties further identify Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnol. Co. v. Regeneron
`Pharms., Inc., PGR2021-00035 (petition dismissed and proceeding
`terminated, Paper 8 (PTAB June 25, 2021)) challenging the claims of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,828,345 B2 (“the ’345 patent”), which is related to the
`’338 patent and the ’069 patent. Pet. 4; Paper 5, 2.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`Petitioners identify additional patents and patent applications that
`claim priority to the ’338 patent, namely: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,130,681 B2,
`10,857,205 B2, 10,828,345 B2, and 10,888,601 B2; and U.S. Application
`Serial Nos. 17/072,417, 17/112,063, and 17/112,404. Pet. 4.
`The ’338 Patent
`D.
`The ’338 patent relates to methods for treating angiogenic eye
`disorders. Ex. 1001, 1:63–64. Angiogenic eye disorders include age-related
`macular degeneration (“AMD”) and diabetic macular edema (“DME”). Id.
`at 1:24–34. According to the Specification, “[r]elease of vascular
`endothelial growth factor (VEGF) contributes to increased vascular
`permeability in the eye and inappropriate new vessel growth. Thus,
`inhibiting the angiogenic-promoting properties of VEGF appears to be an
`effective strategy for treating angiogenic eye disorders.” Id. at 1:44–48.
`The Specification describes inhibiting the angiogenic-promoting
`properties of VEGF by administering a VEGF antagonist. Id. at 4:37–42.
`VEGF antagonists may include “VEGF receptor-based chimeric
`molecule(s), (also referred to herein as a ‘VEGF-Trap’ or ‘VEGFT’). An
`exemplary VEGF antagonist . . . is a multimeric VEGF-binding protein
`comprising two or more VEGF receptor-based chimeric molecules referred
`to herein as ‘VEGFR1R2-Fc[Δ]C1(a)’ or ‘aflibercept.’” Id. at 2:30–37.
`“VEGFR1R2-FcΔC1(a) comprises three components: (1) a VEGFR1
`component comprising amino acids 27 to 129 of SEQ ID NO:2; (2) a
`VEGFR2 component comprising amino acids 130 to 231 of SEQ ID NO:2;
`and (3) a multimerization component [] comprising amino acids 232 to 457
`of SEQ ID NO:2.” Id. at 4:58–5:3 (citing U.S. Patent No. 7,396,664 B2).
`The Specification discloses that, despite the known methods for
`treating eye disorders using VEGF antagonists, “there remains a need in the
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`art for new administration regimens for angiogenic eye disorders, especially
`those which allow for less frequent dosing while maintaining a high level of
`efficacy.” Id. at 1:53–61. The Specification discloses that
`[t]he present inventors have surprisingly discovered that
`beneficial therapeutic effects can be achieved in patients
`suffering from angiogenic eye disorders by administering a
`VEGF antagonist to a patient at a frequency of once every 8 or
`more weeks, especially when such doses are preceded by about
`three doses administered to the patient at a frequency of about 2
`to 4 weeks.
`Id. at 2:3–10. The Specification describes this dosing regimen as
`sequentially administering initial, secondary, and tertiary doses. See id. at
`1:62–2:3. The Specification refers to “sequentially administering” as “each
`dose of VEGF antagonist is administered to the patient at a different point in
`time, e.g., on different days separated by a predetermined interval (e.g.,
`hours, days, weeks or months).” Id. at 3:22–26. The Specification refers to
`the “initial dose” as “the dose which is administered at the beginning of the
`treatment regimen;” the “secondary doses” as “the doses which are
`administered after the initial dose;” and the “tertiary doses” as “the doses
`which are administered after the secondary doses.” Id. at 3:31–38.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`E.
`Petitioners challenge claims 1, 3–11, 13, 14, 16–24 and 26 of the ’338
`patent. Claims 1 and 14, the only independent claims, are set forth below as
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
`1. A method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a
`patient, said method comprising sequentially administering to
`the patient a single initial dose of a VEGF antagonist, followed
`by one or more secondary doses of the VEGF antagonist,
`followed by one or more tertiary doses of the VEGF antagonist;
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`wherein each secondary dose is administered 2 to 4 weeks
`after the immediately preceding dose; and
`wherein each tertiary dose is administered at least 8 weeks
`after the immediately preceding dose;
`wherein the VEGF antagonist is a VEGF receptor-based
`chimeric molecule comprising (1) a VEGFR1 component
`comprising amino acids 27 to 129 of SEQ ID NO:2; (2) a
`VEGFR2 component comprising amino acids 130–231 of
`SEQ ID NO:2; and (3) a multimerization component
`comprising amino acids 232–457 of SEQ ID NO:2.
`Ex. 1001, 23:2–18.
`14. A method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a
`patient, said method comprising sequentially administering to
`the patient a single initial dose of a VEGF antagonist, followed
`by one or more secondary doses of the VEGF antagonist,
`followed by one or more tertiary doses of the VEGF antagonist;
`wherein each secondary dose is administered 2 to 4 weeks
`after the immediately preceding dose; and
`wherein each tertiary dose is administered at least 8 weeks
`after the immediately preceding dose;
`wherein the VEGF antagonist is a VEGF receptor-based
`chimeric molecule comprising VEGFR1R2-FcΔC1(a)
`encoded by the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:1.
`Id. at 24:2–15.
`
`II.
`
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`Principles of Law
`A.
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of all claims of the
`’338 patent, Petitioners must demonstrate by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(d) (2019). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden
`from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid. Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`(Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter
`partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”). That burden of
`persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375–78 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
`the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
`art reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms, 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`2003) (quoting Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). It is well settled that “a reference can anticipate a
`claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or
`combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference,
`would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.”
`Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (1962)).
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v.
`VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.,
`950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`Petitioners assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the invention would have had
`(1) knowledge regarding the diagnosis and treatment of
`angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`therapies to treat said disorders; and (2) the ability to understand
`results and findings presented or published by others in the field,
`including the publications discussed herein. Typically, such a
`person would have an advanced degree, such as an M.D. or Ph.D.
`(or equivalent, or less education but considerable professional
`experience in the medical, biotechnological, or pharmaceutical
`field), with practical academic or medical experience in
`(i) developing treatments for angiogenic eye disorders (such as
`AMD), including through the use of VEGF antagonists, or
`(ii) treating of same, including through the use of VEGF
`antagonists.
`Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–24).
`In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner asserts in a footnote that
`it disagrees with Petitioners’ definition of the person having ordinary skill in
`the art (“POSA”). PO Resp. 15 n.7. According to Patent Owner, “the POSA
`is an ophthalmologist with experience in treating angiogenic eye disorders,
`including through the use of VEGF antagonists.” Id. (citing Ex. 2051 ¶ 28).
`According to Dr. Do, “only an ophthalmologist would have the firsthand
`experience of diagnosing and treating angiogenic eye disorders to which the
`patent is plainly directed.” Ex. 2051 ¶ 28. Patent Owner, however, asserts
`that it “does not believe that parties[’] differing definitions of ‘the POSA’
`matter for any argument in [the] Patent Owner Response.” PO Resp. 15 n.7.
`Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain that
`Petitioners’ definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and
`consistent with the ’338 patent and the prior art of record. On the other
`hand, we find Patent Owner’s definition to be inappropriately limited to
`those having “firsthand experience” regarding the diagnosis and treatment of
`angiogenic eye disorders, as explained by Dr. Do. See Ex. 2051 ¶ 28. While
`it may be that the claimed methods would be performed an ophthalmologist,
`a person having ordinary skill in the art need not be limited to those
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`performing the claimed method. Rather, we find that Petitioners’ definition
`more appropriately considers that knowledge regarding the diagnosis and
`treatment of angiogenic eye disorders, including the administration of
`therapies to treat said disorders, may be possessed by other professionals
`that are not ophthalmologists. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioners’ definition
`for purposes of this Decision.
`We have reviewed the credentials of Petitioners’ declarants, Drs.
`Albini and Gerritsen, and Patent Owner’s declarants, Drs. Do, Del Priore,
`Klibanov, Brown, and Manning, and consider each of them to be qualified to
`provide the opinions for which their testimony has been submitted.
`Claim Construction
`C.
`The Board applies the same claim construction standard that would be
`used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).
`37 C.F.R. § 100(b) (2019). Under that standard, claim terms “are generally
`given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp.
`v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “In determining
`the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the
`intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
`description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`Petitioners and Patent Owner propose constructions for certain claim
`terms. See Pet. 11–22; PO Resp. 7–24. In the following discussion, we
`address those proposed constructions.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`“A method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder in a patient”
`1.
`At the institution stage, we made a preliminary finding that the
`preambles of claims 1 and 14, i.e., “[a] method for treating an angiogenic
`eye disorder in a patient,” are limiting. Inst. Dec. 18. We also determined
`preliminarily that the claimed methods do not require any “specific degree of
`efficacy.” Id. at 20–21. In the following discussion, we address the parties’
`arguments and our final claim construction for this phrase.
`Petitioners’ Position
`a)
`According to Petitioners, “[t]he ‘method for treating’ preamble of
`independent claims 1 and 14 is ‘merely a statement of purpose or intended’
`use for the claimed dosing regimen(s) and is non-limiting.” Pet. 17 (citing
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Lab’ys, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375
`(Fed. Cir. 2001)). Petitioners further assert that the preamble provides no
`antecedent basis for any other claim element, nor results in a manipulative
`difference in the steps of the claims. Id. at 20 (citing In re Copaxone
`Consol. Cases, 906 F.3d 1013, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`Petitioners assert that even if the preamble is limiting, the plain and
`ordinary meaning of the “method of treating an angiogenic eye disorder”
`does not require a therapeutically effective treatment. Id. at 20. Rather,
`Petitioners assert that the plain and ordinary meaning merely requires
`“administering a therapeutic to a patient, without a specific degree of
`efficacy required.” Id. at 20–21 (citing, Ex. 1002 ¶ 43).
`Patent Owner’s Response
`b)
` Patent Owner asserts that “the claimed ‘method for treating’ must
`actually treat, not merely intend to treat” because the preamble reciting a
`method for treating “is a positive limitation of the claim that must be
`practiced to satisfy the claim.” PO Resp. 9. Further, Patent Owner asserts
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`that “the claimed method for treating requires treatment of a patient with a
`high level of efficacy, on par with the prevailing standard-of-care at the time
`of filing.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 2051 ¶¶ 54–84). In support of that position,
`Patent Owner relies on the results of Regeneron’s Phase III studies, which
`Patent Owner asserts “shows that a similar proportion of subjects in each of
`the VEGF Trap-Eye dosing arms, including the Q8 dosing arm, met the
`primary endpoint of loss of ≤15 letters on ETDRS[10] (95.1% or 95.6%) as
`compared to monthly ranibizumab (94.4%)” and “reports similar mean
`improvement in vision as compared to monthly ranibizumab, with an
`average gain of 7 or more letters for the Q8 dosing regimen.” Id. at 14–15
`(citing Ex. 1001, 14:3–23 (Table 1)). According to Patent Owner, a POSA
`would have concluded from the study data that “VEGF Trap-Eye, including
`on a Q8 dosing schedule, achieved and maintained a high level of efficacy
`that was non-inferior to standard-of-care Lucentis.” Id. at 15.
`Patent Owner also contends that the prosecution history confirms that
`the claimed treatment methods must achieve a high level of efficacy because
`“Regeneron relied on Heier 2012 (Ex. 1018) to overcome a double patenting
`rejection by arguing that the ‘treatment protocol’ encompassed by the
`claimed invention resulted in surprising efficacy, i.e., noninferiority to
`ranibizumab, despite less frequent dosing than the standard of care) i.e.,
`monthly dosing of ranibizumab).” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1017, 288–91, 315).
`Further, Patent Owner argues that “the POSA would have understood
`that a less frequent dosing regimen that was inferior to the standard-of-care,
`or worse yet—ineffective—would not have been viewed as treatment by
`2011.” Id. at 17. In support of that position, Patent Owner asserts that
`
`
`10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (“ETDRS”).
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`although another medication, Macugen, “demonstrated some level of
`efficacy” by slowing vision loss with a recommended dosing schedule of
`once every 6 weeks, “once Lucentis was approved and showed that it could
`restore vision, no one considered Macugen to be effective treatment and
`practitioners stopped using it.” Id. at 17. According to Patent Owner, that
`example demonstrates that “the POSA would have understood what the ’338
`Patent makes explicit—that the claimed ‘method for treating’ must provide
`highly effective treatment (non-inferior to the standard-of-care at the time of
`patent filing) to the patient.” Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 2051 ¶¶ 46–84).
`Additionally, Patent Owner asserts that the claims do not encompass
`“ineffective treatment methods, such as the administration of
`non-therapeutically effective dose amounts,” because methods that are not
`“therapeutically effective” “would not be ‘treatment’ as the term is
`understood by the POSA.” Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 2051 ¶¶ 47–53).
`Patent Owner also challenges Petitioners’ contention that the ’338
`patent only requires a patient to exhibit a loss of fifteen or fewer letters on
`the ETDRS visual acuity chart within 104 weeks of treatment initiation. Id.
`at 20–21 (citing Pet. 21). Patent Owner argues that “the POSA would not
`have considered such loss of ≤15 letters on ETDRS to reflect an effective
`method for treating an angiogenic eye disorder by 2011.” Id. at 21.
`According to Patent Owner, the POSA would have understood that a loss of
`fifteen or fewer letters or a gain of letters on ETDRS are “common clinical
`trial endpoints [that] are used to measure results of angiogenic eye disorder
`treatments in the art, and in the ’338 Patent specification.” Id. at 21. Patent
`Owner contends that those clinical trial endpoints were “not to define an
`outcome that reflects an effective treatment method.” Id.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00881
`Patent 9,254,338 B2
`
`Petitioners’ Reply
`c)
`In the Reply, Petitioners maintain that the preamble is not limiting,
`but rest on their arguments in the Petition regarding that issue. Pet. Reply 7.
`Petitioners explain that for the remainder of the Reply arguments, Petitioners
`apply the Board’s preliminary holding that the preamble is limiting. Id.
`Petitioners maintain also that, if limiting, the preamble should be
`afforded its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., “administering a therape

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket