`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`EVERGREEN THERAGNOSTICS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`– vs. –
`
`ADVANCED ACCELERATOR APPLICATIONS SA
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`CASE NO. PGR2021-00001
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S AUTHORIZED REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00001
`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 1
`Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 01-CV-1974, 2008 WL 11274580 (N.D.N.Y. May 14, 2008) ........................ 2
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00001
`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in PGR2021-00001 challenged
`
`Petitioner’s showing that Exhibit 1012 (“Protocol”) is a “printed publication.”
`
`This authorized reply addresses two points: (1) Protocol was publicly accessible;
`
`and (2) Petitioner has carried its present burden to demonstrate availability.
`
`Public accessibility is the touchstone for determining qualification as a
`
`printed publication, and public accessibility turns on whether a “person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art interested in the subject matter of the patent[] in suit and exercising
`
`reasonable diligence would have been able to locate the [publication].”
`
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`There was no objection to the printed publication status of Exhibit 1011, the
`
`article that refers to Protocol. Exhibit 1011 is an article from the New England
`
`Journal of Medicine (“NEJM”) and was readily accessible to the interested public.
`
`As noted in the Petition (Paper 2) and the Declaration of Dr. Hsieh-Yee (Ex. 1008),
`
`Exhibit 1011 states, “The protocol and statistical analysis plan are available with
`
`the full text of this article at NEJM.org.” Ex. 1011 at 127 (cited in the Petition at
`
`13-14; Ex. 1008 at ¶¶ 19-23). Thus, Exhibit 1011 itself acted as a “research aid” to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art and provided Protocol’s location.
`
`The Federal Circuit has made clear that even where traditional indexing may
`
`be lacking, a “research aid” such as Exhibit 1011 which provides the location of a
`
`publication renders that publication sufficiently accessible. Bruckelmyer, 445 F.3d
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00001
`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278
`at 1379 (“In this case, however, it does not matter whether the ’119 application
`
`was catalogued or indexed ‘in a meaningful way’ because the ’119 patent was
`
`indexed and could serve as a ‘research aid.’”); Cornell University v. Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co., No. 01-CV-1974, 2008 WL 11274580, at *5-7 (N.D.N.Y. May 14,
`
`2008) (Rader, J.) (finding a master’s thesis was a printed publication despite a lack
`
`of meaningful indexing where an article cited to the thesis and provided its
`
`location). It is not disputed (and was established by Dr. Hsieh-Yee) that following
`
`the instructions of Exhibit 1011 led to Protocol. Thus, because Exhibit 1011
`
`pointed to Protocol, and Protocol could have been accessed, Exhibit 1012 was
`
`publicly accessible and qualifies as a printed publication.
`
`Turning to the second point, Petitioner provided sufficient evidence of the
`
`contemporaneous availability of Protocol. Indeed, the best evidence of
`
`contemporaneous availability is provided by Exhibit 1011, which states: “The
`
`protocol and statistical analysis plan are available with the full text of this article
`
`at NEJM.org.” Ex. 1011 at 127 (emphasis added); see Petition at 13-14. In other
`
`words, Exhibit 1011 indicates that Protocol was available at the time of
`
`publication. Exhibit 1011 also lists exactly what was present in Protocol: the trial
`
`protocol and the statistical analysis plan. Id. The cover of Protocol specifies it
`
`contains“[t]his trial protocol.” See Petition at 14. Moreover, Protocol contains
`
`only the trial protocol and statistical analysis plan noted in Exhibit 1011. Thus,
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00001
`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278
`Exhibit 1011 confirms the contents of Protocol at the time of publication. Dr.
`
`Hsieh-Yee’s Declaration provides further support of the availability of Protocol.
`
`Ex. 1008, ¶¶ 19-23.
`
`Thus, Petitioner believes it sufficiently demonstrated contemporaneous
`
`availability. Nevertheless, Exhibit 1037 provides testimonial evidence from Dr.
`
`Dietze, an attorney representing Petitioner. Dr. Dietze contacted NEJM staff pre-
`
`Petition filing. Ex. 1037, ¶¶ 6-7. As relayed in Dr. Dietze’s Declaration and its
`
`accompanying exhibits, NEJM indicated that the Supplementary Material
`
`(including Protocol) was available at the time of publication of Exhibit 1011. Id. at
`
`¶¶ 7-9. NEJM testimonial evidence is not presently available, however, because
`
`NEJM requires a subpoena to provide a testimonial response. Id. at ¶¶ 10-14.
`
`Upon institution of this PGR, Petitioner will request authorization to compel
`
`testimony from NEJM under 35 U.S.C. § 24.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner sponsored the study in Exhibit 1011 and employed
`
`some of the authors; yet, as of the filing of this paper, Patent Owner has presented
`
`no evidence of unavailability of Protocol. Lack of rebuttal evidence in similar
`
`circumstances was relevant in determining that a document was publicly
`
`accessible. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 897-99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, Patent
`
`Owner’s silence supports a finding that Protocol was contemporaneously available.
`
`Thus, Petitioner requests that the PGR be instituted.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`February 22, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00001
`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/C. Kyle Musgrove/
`C. Kyle Musgrove
`Registration No. 40,742
`Attorney for Evergreen Theragnostics, Inc.
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 34328-00001
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00001
`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that service
`
`was made on counsel of record for the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service: February 22, 2021
`
`Manner of service: electronic mail
`
`Documents served: Petitioner’s Authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response and Exhibit 1037
`
`Persons served:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jane M. Love, Ph.D.
`(Reg. No. 42,812)
`Kyanna Sabanoglu
`(Reg. No. 79,206)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Office: (212) 351-3922
`Mobile: 917-376-8790
`Fax: (212) 351-6322
`Email: jlove@gibsondunn.com
` ksabanoglu@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/C. Kyle Musgrove/
`C. Kyle Musgrove
`Registration No. 40,742
`Attorney for Evergreen Theragnostics, Inc.
`
`- 5 -
`
`