`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00722
`
`Patent No. 8,536,122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`A. Ground 3 Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial .......................................... 1
`B.
`The Prosecution History Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial .................. 2
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020). ................................................. 5
`
`GMG Prods. LLC v. Traeger Pellet Grills LLC,
`PGR2019-00024, Paper 17 (PTAB July 17, 2019) .............................................. 4
`
`Hum Indus. Tech., Inc. v. Amsted Rail Co.,
`IPR2023-00539, Paper 10 (PTAB July 26, 2023) ................................................ 5
`
`Intel Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`IPR2021-00370, Paper 10 (PTAB July 6, 2021) .................................................. 4
`
`ShenZhen Apaltek Co. v. Asetek Danmark A/S,
`IPR2022-01317, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2023) .................................................... 3
`
`Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE,
`IPR2020-00943, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 25, 2020) ............................................... 3
`
`Thorne Rsch., Inc. v. Trs. of Dartmouth Coll.,
`IPR2021-00491, Paper 18 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021) ............................................... 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`MPEP 2131.02(I) ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`MPEP 2144.08 ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`With the Board’s authorization, Petitioner submits this Reply to address two
`
`bases Patent Owner alleges justify denial of institution. Neither basis has merit.
`
`A. Ground 3 does not justify discretionary denial
`
`Patent Owner, citing the title of Ground 3, complains of “extraordinary
`
`vagueness” and insists with a straight face that it lacks “any meaningful opportunity
`
`… to respond.” POPR 19. But Patent Owner does respond on the merits to Ground 3.
`
`See POPR 52-57. Ground 3 relies on the same prior art as Grounds 1 and 2, and
`
`provides specific prior-art and declaration citations for (1) the prior-art disclosures
`
`of the structural fragments of semaglutide and their properties and (2) a POSA’s
`
`motivation to combine those disclosures. The only difference is the analytical
`
`framework for a POSA’s motivation: while Grounds 1 and 2 apply the narrower lead-
`
`compound analysis, Ground 3 explains that a POSA would have been motivated to
`
`reach semaglutide from the same prior art applying broader obviousness
`
`principles—routine optimization of known result-effective variables—because that
`
`is how drug discovery worked at the priority date.
`
`In particular, Ground 3 explains that the three requisite modifications to
`
`liraglutide involved sites known to affect bioactivity in specific ways, that there was
`
`a limited range of realistic options, and that screening those options would have been
`
`a routine part of drug discovery. Pet. 62-65. Ground 3 explained with particularity
`
`(1) why the Aib8 modification would have been obvious, Pet. 62-63; (2) why the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`fatty diacid modification would have been obvious, Pet. 62-63; and (3) why the di-
`
`AEEA spacer modification would have been obvious, Pet. 62, 64. Although Patent
`
`Owner insists that the number of options was large and unpredictable, those are
`
`issues of fact for expert testimony and trial. Ground 3 also relies on the same prior
`
`art for each claim limitation as Grounds 1 and 2. See Pet. 19-26. The additional
`
`references Patent Owner complains of give context to show a POSA’s skill level and
`
`background knowledge; they confirm the declarations are well-reasoned and the
`
`references are not used to show disclosures of the limitations. And although Patent
`
`Owner complains Petitioner is “empower[ed]” by Ground 3 “to argue whatever it
`
`wants throughout the remainder of this proceeding,” that is hyperbole. The rules
`
`ensure Petitioner keeps to the Petition’s framing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).
`
`Patent Owner also insists Ground 3 merits denying the whole Petition.
`
`POPR 19. But its cases do not support such a draconian request. In Adaptics,
`
`EnergySource, InVue, ADT, John Crane, and Sainty Sumex, every obviousness
`
`ground was deficient in some way, and many involved a complete failure to explain,
`
`or they asserted legally impossible arguments like multi-reference anticipation. Nor
`
`is Ground 3 a “catch-all” like in many of those cases—it is a different motivation
`
`theory.
`
`B.
`
`The prosecution history does not justify discretionary denial
`
`Even if some art appeared in the prosecution of the ’122 patent (or its ’343
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`parent), as Patent Owner contends, that does not warrant discretionary denial
`
`because the Petition presents a new combination of art and a new analytical
`
`framework never considered by the Examiner during prosecution. During the ’343
`
`prosecution, the Examiner evaluated the obviousness of the claims—directed first to
`
`a subgenus of GLP-1 inhibitors, then a narrower example—in view of the Knudsen
`
`Patent, which taught a broad genus of GLP-1 analogues and classes of possible
`
`modifications, consistent with MPEP 2144.08 (describing obviousness of
`
`species/subgenus over genus). The Petition, however, takes an entirely different
`
`approach by identifying a single compound (liraglutide) and proposing specific
`
`modifications to arrive at an obvious species that falls within the scope of the claims,
`
`consistent with MPEP 2131.02(I). The Petition is therefore not repetitive of what
`
`happened during prosecution, and the Board should not invoke its discretion.
`
`Advanced Bionics part one (same art/argument). For the “same art” prong,
`
`the inquiry focuses on whether the totality of the art in the Petition overlaps with that
`
`cited during prosecution, not only whether individual references appear in both. See,
`
`e.g., ShenZhen Apaltek Co. v. Asetek Danmark A/S, IPR2022-01317, Paper 7, 9
`
`(PTAB Feb. 6, 2023) (use of same reference does not constitute “same art” when
`
`part of “a significantly different combination than was previously considered by the
`
`Examiner”); see also Thorne Rsch., Inc. v. Trs. of Dartmouth Coll., IPR2021-00491,
`
`Paper 18, 8-9 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2021); Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, IPR2020-00943,
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12, 23-24 (PTAB Nov. 25, 2020). Although the Examiner cited the Knudsen
`
`Patent in the ’343 prosecution as teaching a genus of GLP-1 analogues and possible
`
`further modifications generally, the Examiner never considered any of the art
`
`combinations proposed in the Petition (e.g., combining Knudsen 2004 or 2001 with
`
`the Knudsen Patent, Bridon, and Dong). Indeed, after the applicant narrowed the
`
`claims from a subgenus to the compound of Example 4, Ex. 1004, 34, the Examiner
`
`allowed the claims without identifying any of the art that taught the specific GLP-1
`
`backbone, spacer, and sidechain, id. at 26-27, in contrast to the Petition here.
`
`Patent Owner incorrectly contends Knudsen 2001 and 2004 are cumulative of
`
`the Knudsen Patent. POPR 62-63. But “[b]y merely quoting references without
`
`comparing them to [the references before the Patent Office], Patent Owner
`
`oversimplifies the analysis.” Intel Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2021-00370,
`
`Paper 10, 8 (PTAB July 6, 2021). Of the possible GLP-1 analogues, Knudsen 2001
`
`and 2004 both identify liraglutide as advancing through clinical trials, Ex. 1010, 3;
`
`Ex. 1011, 5—a significant reason to select it as a lead. The Knudsen Patent, while
`
`supporting that selection, describes liraglutide as one of over 75 example analogues.
`
`Ex. 1012, 174:9-216:14. As for Bridon, even if certain of its teachings overlap to
`
`some extent to art cited on the face of the ’122 patent, a reference cited but not
`
`previously applied should be given little weight. See GMG Prods. LLC v. Traeger
`
`Pellet Grills LLC, PGR2019-00024, Paper 17, 27 (PTAB July 17, 2019).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`For the “new argument” prong, Patent Owner contends without support that
`
`the Petition “lay[s] out substantially the same path” as the Examiner, but concedes a
`
`lead-compound analysis was never performed. POPR 65-66. This is a new argument.
`
`Further, Patent Owner points to no factual finding by the Examiner that this Petition
`
`asks the Office to reconsider. Thus, Patent Owner fails at step one.
`
`Advanced Bionics part two (material error). Even if the Board were to reach
`
`step two, institution is still favored if the Petition demonstrates a reasonable
`
`likelihood of unpatentability over references that appeared in the file history, but the
`
`Examiner failed to apply in combination. Hum Indus. Tech., Inc. v. Amsted Rail Co.,
`
`IPR2023-00539, Paper 10, 51-53 (PTAB July 26, 2023). “[M]aterial error may
`
`include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art.”
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-
`
`01469, Paper 6, 8 n.9 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020). Here, the Examiner materially erred by
`
`failing to identify liraglutide and the specific modifications that could be made to it
`
`within the prior art before them, to arrive at an obvious species that would fall within
`
`the scope of the claims. The Examiner further erred by failing to apply a lead-
`
`compound analysis (or something like it, as in Ground 3), and instead simply
`
`performed a genus-to-subgenus obviousness analysis. Moreover, the Examiner
`
`identified no reference as teaching the di-AEEA spacer.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 10, 2023
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`Reg No. 52,354
`Perkins Coie LLP
`700 13th Street NW, Ste 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 654-6200
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that I caused to be served the foregoing PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE electronically by email
`
`on August 10, 2023 in their entirety on the following counsel of record for Patent
`
`Owner:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN & STONE LLP
`steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com
`
`Megan Raymond
`GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN & STONE LLP
`megan.raymond@groombridgewu.com
`
`Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com
`
`
`
`Dated: August 10, 2023
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`
`Reg No. 52,354
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`
`