`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`ETON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,653,719
`
`PGR2020-00086
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner requests rehearing of the Board’s
`
`decision denying post grant review entered April 23, 2021 (Paper 11, hereinafter
`
`“Decision”).1
`
`II. BASIS FOR REHEARING
`
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each such
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or reply.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(d). The Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion results from an erroneous interpretation of law,
`
`a factual finding that is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision
`
`represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing the relevant evidence. Blue Coat
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 2 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2017).
`
`
`
`Respectfully, the Decision’s conclusion that the Petition allegedly failed to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed aluminum
`
`
`1 On December 18 and 22, 2020, respectively, Petitioner requested re-hearings in
`
`post-grant reviews of related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,478,453 and 10,583,155,
`
`for which the Board previously denied institution. Both of those requests for re-
`
`hearing are currently pending.
`
`1
`
`
`
`levels is based upon both a misapprehension of the Petition and findings that either
`
`lack substantial evidentiary support or are based upon an unreasonable judgment of
`
`the allegedly conflicting evidence in three fundamental respects, any one of which
`
`standing alone warrants rehearing and institution of post-grant review.
`
`A. Error No. 1: The Reasonable Expectation of Success
`Argument is Not New
`
`In refusing to address the Petition’s straightforward analysis that a POSITA
`
`would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving the claimed aluminum levels
`
`by simply removing the known sources of aluminum contamination from the Sandoz
`
`Label product, the decision erroneously concludes that this is a “new argument” that
`
`is not found in the Petition. Paper 11 at 23, n. 7. That finding is demonstrably
`
`incorrect, as illustrated below.
`
`The Petition at Section VIII.C.2, which is titled “The Sources of Aluminum
`
`Contamination Were Well-Known and Easily Rectified,” not only identifies known
`
`sources of aluminum contamination in parenteral drug products (e.g. the drug
`
`product ingredients and the container closure system), but also that the POSITA
`
`would have addressed these known sources by using raw materials and
`
`manufacturing process substantially free of aluminum and a container closure
`
`system that did not leach aluminum into the final drug product. Paper 1 at 32. The
`
`Petition also expressly states at Section VIII.C.2: “By addressing and eliminating
`
`these known sources of aluminum contamination, the POSITA would have had a
`
`2
`
`
`
`reasonable expectation of substantially reducing and eliminating aluminum during
`
`manufacture and storage of the drug product.” (citations omitted). Id. at 32-33.
`
`Later, at Section VIII.E. tilted “Claims 1-30 Are Unpatentable,” the Petition
`
`3
`
`
`
`expressly states in the fifth and sixth bullet points:
`
`Id. at 38-39. This same Section of the Petition then states:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 39-40.
`
`In connection with claim limitation 1[c] (the “less than about 150 ppb of
`
`aluminum” limitation), the Petition again explains the reasonable expectation of
`
`4
`
`
`
`success in optimizing the Sandoz Label product to achieve the claimed aluminum
`
`levels, i.e., a result-effective variable for solving a known problem:
`
`
`
`
`
`(citations omitted). Id. at 43-44.
`
`
`
`Thus, the Petition asserts that the POSITA would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of achieving the claimed aluminum levels by optimizing the Sandoz
`
`Label product to reduce the known sources of aluminum contamination.
`
`B.
`
`Error No. 2: The Petition Does Not Suffer From A Lack of
`Particularity
`
`
`
`The Decision erroneously accepted PO’s accusation that the Petition lacks
`
`5
`
`
`
`particularity because it allegedly “‘improperly mixes-and-matches two different
`
`types of alleged prior art [i.e., the Sandoz Label printed publication with the Sandoz
`
`product that was sold in association with the Sandoz Label]” in attempt to “back-
`
`door unproven” aluminum levels to the Sandoz Label. Paper 11 at 16. Not so. The
`
`Decision conflates the Sandoz Label with the Knowledge possessed by the POSITA,
`
`both of which are pertinent to Ground 1. Ground 1 is based upon the disclosure of
`
`the Sandoz Label (i.e., the printed publication) in combination with the Knowledge
`
`of the POSITA, which includes, among other things, the attributes of the Sandoz L-
`
`cysteine product that was sold in association with the Sandoz Label (Paper 1 at 28)
`
`– attributes which the POSITA could have readily ascertained. The Petition does
`
`not treat the Sandoz Label and its associated product as a “single prior art source”
`
`nor does the Petition attempt to “back-door [allegedly] unproven [aluminum levels]”
`
`from the product into the disclosure of the Sandoz Label. To the contrary, the
`
`Petition relies on the plain language of the Sandoz Label, which discloses “[c]ontains
`
`no more than 5,000 [ppb] of aluminum.” As the Petition contends, the POSITA
`
`would have interpreted the “no more than 5,000 [ppb]” as disclosing a range between
`
`0-5,000 ppb aluminum during the product’s shelf-life (Paper 1 at 27), which
`
`encompasses the claimed ranges. However, as noted above, the Petition also
`
`explained that the POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of optimizing
`
`the product disclosed by the Sandoz Label (as well as the product sold in association
`
`6
`
`
`
`with the Sandoz Label) to have the claimed aluminum levels by merely removing
`
`the known sources of aluminum contamination, regardless of the aluminum levels
`
`disclosed by the Sandoz Label or found in the product sold in association with the
`
`Sandoz Label.
`
`
`
`Thus, the Petition does not attempt (nor did it need) to back-fill the aluminum
`
`levels taught by the Sandoz Label with the levels found in the product that was sold
`
`in association with the Sandoz Label. And, more to the point, Ground 1 is clearly
`
`based upon the Sandoz Label printed publication in combination with the knowledge
`
`possessed by the POSITA, which includes, among other things, the attributes of the
`
`product sold in association with the Sandoz Label.
`
`C. Error No. 3: The Sandoz Label Encompasses the Claimed
`Aluminum Range
`
`
`
`Finally, the Decision’s finding that the Sandoz Label’s disclosure of “contains
`
`no more than 5,000 [ppb] of aluminum” does not encompass the claimed 1-150 ppb
`
`aluminum range lacks substantial evidence and is based upon an unreasonable
`
`judgment of the evidence that the Decision considered. Paper 11 at 17. In reaching
`
`this conclusion, the Decision reviewed the Sandoz Label in a vacuum without
`
`reference to the knowledge possessed by the POSITA, holding that “no more than
`
`5,000” recites the maximum level at product expiration and not a range. Id. at 19-
`
`20. However, the Decision overlooks that the disclosure of a maximum of 5,000
`
`ppb at product expiration is entirely consistent with disclosure of a range below
`
`7
`
`
`
`5,000 ppb during the product’s shelf-life, i.e. prior to the product’s expiration date.
`
`As the unrebutted evidence demonstrates, the POSITA would have understood that
`
`the aluminum levels in parenteral products such as, for example, the product
`
`disclosed by the Sandoz Label gradually increase over the product’s shelf-life,
`
`because it was known that aluminum leaches into the drug product from the closure
`
`system. Paper 1 at 33.2 Armed with the knowledge that aluminum levels increase
`
`during the product’s shelf-life, the POSITA would have interpreted the Sandoz
`
`Label’s disclosure of a 5,000 ppb maximum aluminum level at product expiration
`
`means that the aluminum levels were below 5,000 ppb pre-expiration, during the
`
`product’s shelf-life. Thus, according to Dr. Rabinow, the POSITA would have
`
`interpreted the Sandoz Label’s teaching to include aluminum levels ranging between
`
`0 to 5,000 ppb over the product’s shelf-life. Id. at 38, 42. Indeed, as the Decision
`
`notes, the ’719 patent itself acknowledges that “known L-cysteine compositions
`
`contain up to 5000 ppb Aluminum.” Paper 11 at 4 (emphasis added). “Up to 5000
`
`ppb” plainly includes levels below 5000 ppb and further corroborates the
`
`reasonableness of Dr. Rabinow’s opinion of how the POSITA would have
`
`
`2 PO’s technical expert agrees that it was known that the aluminum content of L-
`
`cysteine hydrochloride solutions packaged in glass containers increases over time.
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶22.
`
`8
`
`
`
`interpreted the Sandoz Label. Thus, even if, as the Decision concludes, the POSITA
`
`would not have interpreted “no more than 5,000” to necessarily include “zero”
`
`aluminum, the POSITA would have understood the Sandoz Label’s disclosure of
`
`“no more than 5,000 [ppb]” at product expiration to include levels below 5,000 ppb
`
`pre-expiration, during the product’s shelf-life. Aluminum levels ranging below and
`
`up to a maximum of 5,000 ppb (even if, according to the Decision, not encompassing
`
`zero ppb) encompasses the claimed 1-150 ppb aluminum levels (which range does
`
`not include “zero”).
`
`Indeed, PO does not directly rebut Dr. Rabinow’s opinion that the POSITA
`
`would have interpreted the “no more than 5,000 [ppb]” disclosure of the Sandoz
`
`Label to encompass the claimed aluminum ranges. PO’s expert, Dr. Kuhn, does not
`
`squarely address how the POSITA would have interpreted the Sandoz label, but
`
`instead answers a different (and irrelevant) question. PO’s expert (who does not
`
`qualify as the POSITA3) merely testified that a “prudent” pharmacist “calculating
`
`the potential aluminum exposure . . . would use the 5,000 [ppb] aluminum
`
`concentration to do so.” Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 21-23. But the assumption a clinician might
`
`make about potential aluminum exposure for purposes of treating a patient does not
`
`
`3 The Decision adopted Petitioner’s definition of the POSITA. Paper No. 11 at 9-
`
`10. PO’s technical expert does not meet that definition.
`
`9
`
`
`
`address, let alone rebut, Dr. Rabinow’s testimony that the POSITA would have
`
`understood from the Sandoz Label that the aluminum content is somewhere within
`
`the range extending between zero (or, according to the Board, some amount above
`
`zero) and 5,000 ppb during the product’s shelf-life.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For each of these reasons independently, Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`rehearing and institution of trial.
`
`May 5, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Ralph J. Gabric
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No 34,167)
`
`HAYNES and BOONE LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel.: (312) 216-1620
`ralph.gabric.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.105 and 42.6, I certify I caused a true and correct
`
`copy of the forgoing document on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`
`
`Date of service May 5, 2020
`
`Person served Dorothy P. Whelan
`PGR48751-0005PS1@fr.com
`
`Alana Mannige
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ralph J. Gabric
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No 34,167)
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel.: (312) 216-1620
`ralph.gabric.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`