`
`Paper 11, April 27, 2023
`
`In the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`TWI PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MERCK SERONO SA,
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,713,947 B2
`Ser. No. 11/722,018
`Issue Date: May 11, 2010
`Title: Cladribine Regimen for Treating Multiple Sclerosis
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00049
`
`Patent No. 7,713,947 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF DENIAL OF
`INSTITUTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. iii
`
`I.
`
`Statement Of Precise Relief Requested ...................................................... 1
`
`II. Legal Standard ............................................................................................ 2
`
`III. Background, Including Statement of Facts Materials to Rehearing. ......... 3
`
`IV. Argument, With Full Statement of the Reasons for Relief Requested ....... 9
`
`A. The Decision Misapprehended or Overlooked the Treatment of
`Weight-Based Dosing in Both the’947 Patent and in Bodor. ............. 9
`
`B. The Decision Erred as a Matter of Law in Applying Inherency. ...... 11
`
`C. The Decision Overlooks or Misapprehends the Sufficiency of
`Bodor’s Disclosure During the Maintenance Period. ...................... 12
`
`D. The Decision Overlooks or Misapprehends the Basis for
`Obviousness over Bodor in Light of the Level of Ordinary Skill. .... 14
`
`E. The Decision Overlooks or Misapprehends the Combination of
`Bodor and Rice 2000. ....................................................................... 14
`
`V. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`AdjustaCam, LLC v. NewEgg, Inc.,
`861 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 2
`Arnold P’ship v. Dudas,
`362 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 3
`CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 13
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 13
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 12
`Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`783 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 12
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................. 15
`Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc.,
`827 F.2d 744 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 13
`Peters v. Active Mfg. Co.,
`129 U.S. 530 (1889) ............................................................................................. 13
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
`393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 3
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 12
`UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Lab'ys UT, Inc.,
`No. 2021-1924, 2021-2336,
`2023 WL 2904757,
`[65 F.4th 679] (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................ 12
`
`– iii –
`
`
`
`
`
`Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC,
`872 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 2
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`– iv –
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Statement Of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner TWi Pharmaceuticals Inc. respectfully requests rehearing of the
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 10 (“Decision”) because
`
`the Decision overlooked or misapprehended that it allows Patent Owner to remove
`
`from the public domain use of the very treatment disclosed in Bodor (Ex. 1029) on
`
`a patient of average weight and claim an exclusive property right in that previously
`
`disclosed treatment. The Decision overlooked or misapprehended the scope of the
`
`prior art references (including materials incorporated by reference therein) and
`
`mistakenly applied an inherency standard (where instead the claim reads directly on
`
`the prior art disclosure) to conclude, incorrectly, that the Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonably likelihood of showing invalidity over the prior art.
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant rehearing and institute inter
`
`partes review of claims 36, 38–39, and 41–48 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,713,947 B2 (“the ’947 patent”) (Ex. 1001). This Request is timely filed within
`
`30 days of the entry of the Decision.
`
`It is undisputed that the Challenged Claims do not include a limitation
`
`requiring that the total dose of Cladribine during the “maintenance period” be lower
`
`than the total dose of Cladribine during the “induction period,” which the patent
`
`repeatedly characterizes as the invention. The patent never describes “weight-based”
`
`dosing as the invention but instead admits that expressing cladribine dosage in terms
`
`– 1 –
`
`
`
`
`
`of weight was old and known in the art. The Decision treats the Challenged Claims
`
`as though they recited a “weight-based method” different from what it calls the “flat
`
`dosing method” of Bodor. But the dosages in Bodor when administered to any
`
`patient (including a patient of average weight) necessarily correspond to a total dose
`
`in mg/kg of that patient’s body mass, which is just a different expression. The dosage
`
`regimen of the Challenged Claims does not vary day-to-day based on weight but
`
`instead reads on a flat dosage over the induction period and the maintenance for a
`
`given total dose. And Bodor discloses expressing dosage in mg/kg both in the text
`
`of the document itself and in other art it expressly incorporates by reference.
`
`II. Legal Standard
`
`A rehearing request must identify matters the decision “misapprehended or
`
`overlooked” and “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d). The Board reviews its decision for abuse of discretion. Id. § 42.71(c). An
`
`abuse of discretion occurs when a decision makes a legal error, clear factual error,
`
`or clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. AdjustaCam, LLC v. NewEgg, Inc.,
`
`861 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d
`
`1267, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“(1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is
`
`based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings;
`
`or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could
`
`rationally base its decision.”). Abuse of discretion may be indicated if the decision
`
`– 2 –
`
`
`
`
`
`is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported
`
`by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in
`
`weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`III. Background, Including Statement of Facts Materials to Rehearing.
`
`Petitioner stated three grounds of invalidity in its Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,713,947 under 45 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.100 et seq. at 24, Paper 1 (“Petition”). The primary reference in each ground
`
`is Bodor (Ex. 1029), which (as the prosecution history shows) disclosed the claimed
`
`treatment method if the total dose in the maintenance period is not lower than that
`
`in the initial period. (See Ex. 1003 at 391–392 (“However, neither of the above
`
`references teach that the total dose of cladribine reached at the end of the
`
`maintenance phase is lower than the total dose reached at the end of the induction
`
`phase.”).) Ground I is that the Challenged Claims are anticipated by Bodor (Ex.
`
`1029). Petition at 24. Ground II is that the Challenged Claims are obvious over
`
`Bodor in view of the common knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Petition
`
`at 25 Ground III is that the Challenged Claims are obvious over Bodor in view of
`
`Rice 2000 (Ex. 1008). Id.
`
`The ’947 patent does not purport to have invented “weight-based” oral dosing.
`
`On the contrary, the ’947 patent specification admits that expressing dosage in mg/kg
`
`– 3 –
`
`
`
`
`
`of the patient’s body mass was already well-known in the art, including for cladribine
`
`to treat MS. (Ex. 1001, col. 2, ℓℓ. 31–49.) It cites Selby 1998 (Ex. 1031) as disclosing
`
`a cladribine weight-based dose of 0.1 mg/kg/day. (Ex. 1001, col. 2, ℓℓ. 37–39.) It
`
`cites Romine 1999 (Ex. 1016) as disclosing a weight-based dose of 0.07 mg/kg/day.
`
`(Ex. 1002, col. 2, ℓℓ. 40–42.) It also cites Rice 2000 (Ex. 1008) as disclosing a
`
`weight-based dose of 0.07 mg/kg/day. (Ex. 1001, col. 2, ℓℓ. 43–49.)
`
`The ’947 patent specification describes its alleged invention as “an improved
`
`dosing regimen” (Ex. 1001, col. 3, ℓℓ. 42–43) which it repeatedly characterizes as
`
`“the total dose of Cladribine reached at the end of the maintenance period is lower
`
`than the total dose of Cladribine reached at the end of the induction period” (Ex.
`
`1001, col. 3, ℓℓ. 60–63; col. 4, ℓℓ. 8–11; col. 8, ℓℓ. 36–39; col. 9, ℓℓ. 47–50; col.
`
`10, ℓℓ. 10–12, 27–31, 55–58; col. 12, ℓℓ. 29–31, 48–52; col. 13, ℓℓ. 1–4.). The
`
`specification says that with this regimen “adverse effects are reduced, allowing
`
`further use of Cladribine.” (Ex. 1001, col. 3, ℓℓ. 47–48.)
`
`The prosecution history confirms this understanding. The Examiner rejected
`
`all claims over Bodor and other references, stating that the only difference from the
`
`claims was that Bodor did not “teach that the total dose of cladribine reached at the
`
`end of the maintenance phase is lower than the total dose reached at the end of the
`
`induction phase.” (Ex. 1003 at 391–392.) The response acquiesced in the Examiner’s
`
`analysis that Bodor disclosed the same initial dosage but traversed that Bodor
`
`– 4 –
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosed a maintenance period with a lower dose. (Ex. 1003 at 415 (“a ‘maintenance
`
`period’ during which a cladribine formulation is administered such that the total dose
`
`administered in the ‘maintenance period’ is lower than the total dose first
`
`administered to the patient.”).) It was only by arguing that the maintenance period
`
`required a lower dose that applicant was deemed to have overcome the rejection.
`
`The examiner, however, did not notice that the Challenged Claims omitted
`
`this critical limitation that the total dose in the “maintenance period” be less than the
`
`total dose in the “induction period.” Because of that omission, Bodor (Ex. 1029)
`
`anticipates and/or Bodor in combination with the level of ordinary skill and/or with
`
`Rice 2000 (Ex. 1008) renders obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`Bodor discloses “weight-based” dosing (i.e., total dose expressed as mg/kg)
`
`both in the four corners of the document and in other materials it incorporates by
`
`reference. First, Bodor itself expressly discloses such “weight–based” dosing in
`
`mg/kg. (Ex. 1029, col. 12, ℓℓ. 53–58 (“Therapeutically effective dosages described
`
`in the literature include…for multiple sclerosis (from about 0.04 to about 1.0
`
`mg/kg/day …).” (emphasis added).)
`
`Bodor also incorporates by reference numerous articles which also disclose
`
`this “weight based” expression of dosage. (Ex. 1029, col. 4, ℓℓ. 36–40 (“The patents,
`
`published applications, and scientific literature referred to herein establish the
`
`knowledge of those with skill in the art and are hereby incorporated by reference in
`
`– 5 –
`
`
`
`
`
`their entirety to the same extent as if each was specifically and individually indicated
`
`to be incorporated by reference.”).)
`
`Among others, Bodor lists the same three references of Selby 1998 (Ex. 1031),
`
`Romine 1999 (Ex. 1016), and Rice 2000 (Ex. 1008) that the ’947 patent specification
`
`(Ex. 1001, col. 2, ℓℓ. 31–49) had admitted to being prior art disclosing weight-based
`
`dosing. Selby 1998 (Ex. 1031, cited at Ex. 1029, col. 13, ℓℓ. 2–3) teaches weight-
`
`based dosing of cladribine by reporting a clinical study where “Cladribine
`
`(Leustatin7®, Ortho-Biotech) was administered at a dose of 0.07 mg/kg/day by
`
`subcutaneous injection for 5 days per cycle, or 0.35 mg/kg/cycle, repeated every 4
`
`weeks for 6 cycles in total.” (Ex. 1031 at 2 (emphasis added).) Romine 1999 (Ex.
`
`1016, cited at Ex. 1029, col. 12, ℓ. 67–col. 13, ℓ. 2) discloses a clinical study where
`
`“[e]ach patient received a course of five consecutive daily subcutaneous injections
`
`of cladribine, 0.07 mg/kg/day … given monthly for 6 months for a total cumulative
`
`dose of 2.1 mg/kg of cladribine.” (Ex. 1016 at 2 (emphasis added).) Rice 2000 (Ex.
`
`1008, cited at Ex. 1029, col. 13, ℓ. 5) also teaches weight-based dosing where the
`
`total dose administered during the first year is 0.7 mg/kg and 2.1 mg/kg. (Ex. 1008
`
`at 2 (“Patients received six courses of cladribine 0.07 mg/kg/day SC for 5
`
`consecutive days (total dose, 2.1 mg/kg), followed by two courses of placebo or two
`
`courses of cladribine 0.07 mg/kg/day SC for 5 consecutive days (total dose, 0.7
`
`mg/kg), followed by six courses of placebo or eight courses of placebo SC for 5
`
`– 6 –
`
`
`
`
`
`consecutive days.”) (emphasis added).) In addition to the general incorporation by
`
`reference above, Bodor explicitly states of these references “all of which are
`
`incorporated by reference herein in their entireties and relied upon.” (Ex. 1029, col.
`
`13, ℓℓ. 7–8.)
`
`Other references also included within Bodor’s incorporation by reference
`
`similarly disclose weight-based dosing and were included as exhibits with the
`
`Petition. Liliemark (Ex. 1009, cited at Ex. 1029, col. 1, ℓ. 55) teaches that cladribine
`
`“when administered orally at about twice the intravenous dose, the areas under the
`
`concentration-time curve (AUC) are similar” and taught weight-based dosing where
`
`intravenous infusions of 0.12 mg/kg and 0.24 mg/kg were administered. (Ex. 1009
`
`at 3.) Tortorella (Ex. 1026, cited at Ex. 1029, col. 13, ℓℓ. 3–5) is a review article with
`
`numerous examples of such “weight-based” dosing expressions. (Ex.1026 at 2
`
`(“cladribine was administered sc at 0.07 mg/kg for 5 consecutive days for 2 to 6
`
`monthly courses, ie, at a total dose of 0.7 to 2.1 mg/kg” and “monthly courses of
`
`0.07 to 0.1 mg/kg cladribine/ day for 7 days” and “recommended cladribine doses
`
`for MS treatment (0.7 and 2.1 mg/kg)” (emphasis added)); at 3 (“each subject
`
`received seven daily infusions of 0.1 mg/kg of cladribine each month (total dosage:
`
`2.8 mg/kg)” and “Cladribine 2.8 mg/kg was effective in…” and “[t]he Scripps C
`
`study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cladribine 2.1 mg/kg in 52
`
`patients with RRMS” and “159 MS patients… randomly received 2.1 mg/kg or 0.7
`
`– 7 –
`
`
`
`
`
`mg/kg of cladribine or placebo.” (emphasis added)); and at 5 (Table titled
`
`“Clinical”).)
`
`Bodor also teaches treating patients using an oral administration method of a
`
`cladribine formulation (Ex. 1029, col. 13, ℓℓ. 9–30, col. 12, ℓℓ. 43–52; Ex. 1005, ¶¶
`
`97–98) and the ’947 patent specifically recites the Bodor formulation as one of its
`
`embodiments (Ex. 1001, col. 6, ℓ. 23–24; col. 12, ℓℓ. 3–9; col. 14, ℓ. 44).
`
`In addition to disclosing “weight-based” oral dosing, Bodor also describes and
`
`discloses a repeated dosing regimen as follows:
`
`At the present time, it is envisioned that, for the treatment of
`
`multiple sclerosis, 10 mg of cladribine in the instant complex
`
`cladribine-cyclodextrin complex in the instant solid dosage form would
`
`be administered once per day for a period of five to seven days in the
`
`first month, repeated for another period of five to seven days in the
`
`second month, followed by ten months of no treatment.
`
`(Ex. 1029, col. 13, ℓℓ. 19–25.) Ten months of “no treatment” necessarily means that
`
`the treatment is then repeated, otherwise the “no treatment” period would never end
`
`and would not last for only ten months. (See Ex. 1004 at 104, 141.)
`
`Moreover, the 5 to 7 days dosing regimen in Bodor accommodates adapting
`
`or fine tuning the dosing regimen to factors including the patient’s weight, as was
`
`already well-known in the art. As a matter of simple mathematics, dosing for 5 days
`
`– 8 –
`
`
`
`
`
`for each of two months results in a 1.67 mg/kg dose for a 60 kg (~132 pound) patient.
`
`Dosing the intermediate 6 days for each of two months results in 1.71 mg/kg in a 70
`
`kg (~154 pound) patient, which a person of ordinary skill would consider average.
`
`(Ex. 1005 ¶ 105.) Dosing 7 days for each of two months results in 1.75 mg/kg for an
`
`80 kg (176 pound) patient. Combining 5 and 6 or 6 and 7 days allows for finer
`
`adjustments, and all lead to the claimed about 1.7 mg/kg for patients in a normal
`
`range of body mass. (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 101–107; Ex. 1003 at 390–391.)
`
`IV. Argument, With Full Statement of the Reasons for Relief Requested
`
`A.
`
`The Decision Misapprehended or Overlooked the Treatment of
`Weight-Based Dosing in Both the’947 Patent and in Bodor.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument and the Decision, the ’947 patent does
`
`not purport to have invented weight-based dosing. The term “weight-based” does
`
`not appear anywhere in the disclosure. The claims, (including not only the
`
`Challenged Claims but also other claims), recite the “total dose” administered in the
`
`induction period and in the maintenance period in mg/kg, but the patent’s discussion
`
`under the heading “Background of the Invention” makes clear that this expression
`
`of the total dose was well-known in the art and not the invention of the ’947 patent.
`
`Moreover, Bodor not only expressly discloses expressing dosage in mg/kg, it also
`
`incorporates by reference the art cited in the ’947 patent disclosing that expression.
`
`Petitioner previously addressed this point in Petition at 9–10, 29–33, 44–48, & 51–
`
`54.
`
`– 9 –
`
`
`
`
`
`The Decision states, “Petitioner has not shown, nor do we see, any description
`
`in Bodor implementing that weight-based dosage approach for Bodor’s treatment
`
`method.” (Decision at 12.) But that is not the standard for disclosure or anticipation.
`
`Bodor is anticipatory for all that it discloses, not just for what it claims or
`
`exemplifies. Regardless of whether it recited that well-known prior art expression of
`
`dosage in its treatment method, it is undisputed that it disclosed that form of dosing,
`
`and the ’947 patent admits that form of dosing was not novel, citing the same art that
`
`Bodor incorporates by reference.
`
`The Decision also states, “Whether administered for 10 days or up to 14 days
`
`during the treatment period, the daily dosage remains a fixed amount.” (Decision at
`
`12.) But that is not a distinction. The Challenged Claims of the ’947 patent recite no
`
`limitation about whether the “daily dosage” varies or remains fixed. Instead, it’s
`
`limitations are directed to the “total dose” administered during the induction period
`
`and maintenance period (which can be in equal daily doses), and the ranges it recites
`
`encompass data points disclosed in Bodor for a person of average mass. And
`
`Mavenclad®, alleged to be a commercial embodiment of the ’947 patent, instructs
`
`taking 10 mg tablets for two treatment weeks one month apart, just as Bodor taught.
`
`(Ex. 1011 at 30.)
`
`Because “weight-based” amounts are not a valid distinction for the ’947
`
`patent, and because Bodor discloses the same recitations of “weight-based” dosing
`
`– 10 –
`
`
`
`
`
`expressions as recited in the ’947 patent, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of establishing that Bodor discloses a method of treating MS with an oral
`
`dosage of cladribine, wherein the total dose of cladribine reached at the end of the
`
`induction period and at the end of the maintenance period is about 1.7 mg/kg.
`
`B.
`
`The Decision Erred as a Matter of Law in Applying Inherency.
`
`The Decision denying institution also errs as a matter of law in its anticipation
`
`analysis. It states, “Petitioner’s examples involve a strategic selection of patient
`
`weight and treatment duration that support calculations resulting in a 1.7 mg/kg total
`
`dosage for the treatment period” and that “such a strategy is insufficient to establish
`
`inherency as it demonstrates only the total dose that is possible for some patients.”
`
`(Decision at 13.)
`
`But inherency is a red herring. The Petition did not make an inherency
`
`argument. The word “inherently” appears only once (Petition at 26) in a quotation
`
`of the general standard for anticipation, not in analyzing any prior art. Instead, the
`
`Petition points out that specific recited points in Bodor (such as administering 120
`
`mg in 10mg/day for 6 days each for the first and second months) would fall within
`
`the ranges recited in the claims for what a person of ordinary skill would understand
`
`to be an average human weight of 70 kg. (Ex. 1005 at 54–55, ¶ 105.) As the Federal
`
`Circuit has recently explained, disclosure of a point that falls within the claimed
`
`range is sufficient for anticipation:
`
`– 11 –
`
`
`
`
`
`“Our precedent sets forth an established framework for analyzing
`
`whether a prior art reference anticipates a claimed range. … If the prior
`
`art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates
`
`the claim.”
`
`UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Lab'ys UT, Inc., No. 2021-1924, 2021-2336, 2023 WL 2904757,
`
`*4 [65 F.4th 679] (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis added) (citing Ineos USA LLC v. Berry
`
`Plastics Corp., 783 F.3d 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`
`778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Moreover, “strategic selection” does not avoid
`
`anticipation because “a prior art product that sometimes, but not always, embodies
`
`a claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the invention.” Hewlett-Packard
`
`Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This is not a case of
`
`overlapping ranges, and certainly not a case of “inherency” of unstated values.
`
`Instead, one or more of Bodor’s specific dosing regimes fall within the claim. Even
`
`if this “point within the claimed range” were an outlier of the points disclosed that
`
`would not matter and the reference would still anticipate—but here it is not even an
`
`outlier. It is in the middle of the points disclosed. Petitioner previously addressed the
`
`correct standard for anticipation in Petition at 13–14, 25–26, 29–30, 36–37.
`
`C.
`
`The Decision Overlooks or Misapprehends the Sufficiency of
`Bodor’s Disclosure During the Maintenance Period.
`
`The Decision overlooks or misapprehends the scope of the Challenged Claims
`
`when it states, “Petitioner has not identified disclosures in Bodor that adequately
`
`– 12 –
`
`
`
`
`
`support Petitioner’s assertion that a subsequent round of Bodor’s therapy, during
`
`what Petitioner refers to as the maintenance period, would necessarily be at the same
`
`dosage administered in the first round.” (Decision at 13.) But the Challenged Claims
`
`do not require the maintenance period to be at the same dosage—the issue is that
`
`they allow the maintenance period to be at the same dosage, which Bodor also
`
`discloses. Despite repeatedly describing its alleged invention as requiring a lower
`
`total dose in the maintenance period, as stated in both the specification and the
`
`prosecution history remarks, the ’947 patent omitted that key limitation from the
`
`Challenged Claims. Because the Challenged Claims do not require a lower total dose
`
`during the maintenance period, Bodor discloses the entire method. The speculation
`
`that the dosage could be adjusted during the maintenance period does not take the
`
`disclosure outside the scope of the claims, and additional motivation to repeat the
`
`cycles is seen in prior art such as Beutler (Ex. 1027) which had shown an improved
`
`therapeutic response for multi-year treatments. One practicing Bodor, using exactly
`
`the specific dosage points disclosed, could be held to infringe the Challenged
`
`Claims. “As the Supreme Court has stated, ‘[t]hat which infringes, if later, would
`
`anticipate, if earlier.’” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., 10 F.4th 1289,
`
`1294 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889));
`
`see also Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc., 827 F.2d 744, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1987);
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Petitioner
`
`– 13 –
`
`
`
`
`
`previously addressed this scope of the Challenged Claims in Petition at 1–2, 10–11,
`
`12–20.
`
`D.
`
`The Decision Overlooks or Misapprehends the Basis for
`Obviousness over Bodor in Light of the Level of Ordinary Skill.
`
`In addition to the issues discussed above concerning the scope of the
`
`Challenged Claims and the disclosure of Bodor, the Decision also overlooks or
`
`misapprehends the evidence when it states, “What is missing from Petitioner’s
`
`argument is why, apart from hindsight, a skilled artisan would have exchanged
`
`Bodor’s flat dosing method for oral administration of a cladribine complex with the
`
`weight-based method disclosed in Rice for use with subcutaneous administration of
`
`cladribine.” (Decision at 19.) Nothing in the Challenged Claims excludes “flat
`
`dosing” with the same dose given every day during the induction period cycles and
`
`or during the maintenance period cycles. All that is required is that the total dose
`
`reach a stated level in each period, and Bodor discloses a total dose within that range
`
`for what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be an average
`
`patient. Although in different units, the disclosure is in effect the same as that in the
`
`Challenged Claims and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Petitioner previously addressed this in Petition at 42–48.
`
`E.
`
`The Decision Overlooks or Misapprehends the Combination of
`Bodor and Rice 2000.
`
`The Decision also misapprehends or overlooks the scope of the art in stating
`
`– 14 –
`
`
`
`
`
`that “Petitioner’s proposed combination of Bodor and Rice involves modifying
`
`Bodor’s method of treating MS with a 10 mg daily oral dosage of its cladribine-
`
`cyclodextrin complex to instead depend upon a patient’s weight to determine an oral
`
`dosage amount, in view of the weight-based dosage disclosed in Rice for a
`
`subcutaneous cladribine treatment” and “Petitioner has not persuasively identified
`
`any teaching or suggestion in Rice or Bodor to convert Rice’s subcutaneous weight-
`
`based dosage to an orally administered weight-based dosage.” (Decision at 24–25.)
`
`But the Petition at 47 explained the calculation from Bodor for converting to oral
`
`strength based on bioavailability. Bodor also expressly incorporates by reference
`
`Rice 2000. (Ex. 1029, col. 13, ℓℓ. 5, 7–8.) As explained above that is anticipatory,
`
`but is also an express teaching, suggestion, and motivation to combine, even though
`
`that high standard is not required for obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398, 415 (2007) (“[O]ur cases have set forth an expansive and flexible approach
`
`inconsistent with the way the Court of Appeals applied its TSM test here.”).
`
`Petitioner previously addressed this issue in Petition at 49–55.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons stated, Petitioner respectfully requests reconsideration and
`
`that trial be instituted on all three Grounds stated in its Petition.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`April 27, 2023
`
`/Philip D. Segrest, Jr./
`
`– 15 –
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philip D. Segrest Jr. (Reg. No. 39,021)
`philip.segrest@huschblackwell.com
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Nathan P. Sportel
`Steven R. Howe
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel. 312-655-1500
`Fax. 312-644-1501
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 16 –
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.105, Petitioner certifies that the foregoing
`
`document was served via electronic mail to the attorneys of record in this proceeding
`
`at the following:
`
`Emily R. Whelan (Reg. No. 50,391)
`Emily.Whelan@wilmerhale.com
`Deric X. Geng, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 73,434)
`Deric.Geng@wilmerhale.com
`Cindy Kan (Reg. No. 76,385)
`Cindy.Kan@wilmerhale.com
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`April 27, 2023
`
`/Philip D. Segrest, Jr./
`Philip D. Segrest Jr. (Reg. No. 39,021)
`philip.segrest@huschblackwell.com
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Nathan P. Sportel
`Steven R. Howe
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel. 312-655-1500
`Fax. 312-644-1501
`
`
`
`– 17 –
`
`
`
`
`
`