`____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`EVERGREEN THERAGNOSTICS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`– vs. –
`
`ADVANCED ACCELERATOR APPLICATIONS SA
`
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`PGR2021-00001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278
`
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`EXPLANATION OF MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`CHALLENGING THE SAME PATENT IN ACCORDANCE
`WITH THE JULY 2019 UPDATED PATENT TRIAL GUIDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Evergreen Theragnostics, Inc., respectfully submits this Paper in
`
`support of its Petition for Post Grant Review of all claims (claims 1-25) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,596,278 (“the ’278 patent”). Petitioner has concurrently filed a
`
`petition for Post Grant Review of claims 1-25 of the ’278 patent (PGR2021-00002)
`
`relying on different prior art. Pursuant to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s Trial
`
`Practice Guide Update released in July 2019, Petitioner provides this separate paper
`
`to identify the difference between its two petitions and need to file separate petitions
`
`regarding the ’278 patent. Petitioner requests that the Board use its discretion to
`
`institute both petitions.
`
`I.
`
`RANKING OF PETITIONS
`
`Petitioner requests that, if the Board uses its discretion to institute the
`
`Petitions, the Board consider the merits of each petition beginning with this petition
`
`(PGR2021-00001), followed by the petition for PGR2021-00002.
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE
`INSTITUTE BOTH PETITIONS
`Petitioner has identified two (2) anticipatory references, i.e., (1) Strosberg
`
`ITS DISCRETION TO
`
`(Ex. 1011) and its accompanying Protocol (Ex. 1012); and (2) Maus (Ex. 1009).
`
`Each Petition relies on one of the anticipatory references as the primary prior art
`
`reference for the unpatentability analysis. This petition relies on Strosberg/Protocol
`
`as the primary prior art reference and PGR2021-00002 relies on Maus as the primary
`
`prior art reference.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Because unpatentability is based primarily on either of two anticipatory
`
`references, and considering the word limitations for petitions, it is not possible to
`
`thoroughly and completely address unpatentability using both Strosberg/Protocol
`
`and Maus as primary references.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner has used an expert witness
`
`to establish
`
`that
`
`Strosberg/Protocol was published more than 1 year before the earliest filing date to
`
`which the ’278 patent could claim priority. Therefore, Strosberg/Protocol is prior
`
`art to the ’278 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(a). The publication date of
`
`Strosberg/Protocol (January 12, 2017), however, is relatively close to the date that
`
`is one year before the ’278 priority date (July 25, 2018), and Petitioner does not
`
`know if Patent Owner will dispute the prior art status of Strosberg/Protocol. If
`
`Petitioner were to file a single petition for Post Grant Review relying on both (1)
`
`Strosberg/Protocol as a primary art reference and (2) Maus as a primary art
`
`reference, and Strosberg/Protocol was later determined to not be prior art, there
`
`would be insufficient space in the petition to thoroughly and completely address
`
`unpatentability on Maus, which is unquestionably prior art. For this reason, the
`
`petitions do not use exactly the same art even with regard to obviousness
`
`combinations. While the Strosberg petition (PGR2021-00001) uses Maus as a
`
`secondary reference regarding some obviousness arguments, the Maus petition
`
`(PGR2021-00002) does not rely on Strosberg/Protocol for unpatentability.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, filing a single petition, relying on both Strosberg/Protocol and
`
`Maus as primary references is further complicated by the number of claims (25) in
`
`the ’278 patent. The larger number of claims precludes being able to provide a
`
`thorough and detailed analysis of why each claim is unpatentable based on both
`
`Strosberg/Protocol as a primary prior art reference and then separately on Maus as a
`
`primary prior art reference.
`
`Finally, where there were issues that needed to be addressed only once (such
`
`as the improper dependency of claim 24), that issue was included only in this petition
`
`(PGR2021-00001).
`
`The differences between the arguments in the two petitions is noted in tabular
`
`format below:
`
`PGR2021-00001
`
`PGR2021-00002
`
`Prior Art Grounds: Claims 1-5, 8-22
`and 24-25 are anticipated by (or would
`have been obvious) over
`Strosberg/Protocol; only obviousness is
`asserted against the other 3 claims
`
`Prior Art Grounds: Claims 1, 8-17 and
`19 are anticipated by (or would have
`been obvious over) Maus; only
`obviousness is asserted against the
`other claims
`
`Obviousness arguments over all claims
`based on Strosberg/Protocol including
`Maus as a secondary reference
`
`Obviousness arguments on all claims
`with various art used as secondary
`reference; Strosberg/Protocol is not
`used as a reference
`
`9 total grounds based on number of
`claims and additional dependent
`limitations
`
`14 total grounds given the different
`primary reference and fewer claims
`asserted to be anticipated
`
`Claim 24 also is invalid for improper
`dependency
`
`Improper dependency argument is not
`included as duplicative of other petition
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`The enumerated Grounds rely on two different anticipatory references as
`
`primary prior art references, necessitating different grounds using different art in the
`
`two petitions. Furthermore, due to the large number of claims, Petitioner required
`
`two petitions to adequately address why the claims of the ’278 patent are
`
`unpatentable. Accordingly, the Board should exercise its discretion to institute both
`
`this Petition and the Petition for PGR2021-00002).
`
`
`
`Dated: October 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ C/ Kyle Musgrove
`C. Kyle Musgrove
`Registration No. 40,742
`Attorney for Evergreen Theragnostics, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that service
`
`was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service: October 2, 2020
`
`Manner of service: FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`Documents served: Explanation of Multiple Petitions Challenging the Same
`
`Patent in Accordance with the July 2019 Updated Patent Trial Guide
`
`Persons served: Attorneys of record for U.S. Patent No. 10,596,278, as
`
`follows:
`
`Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation
`Intellectual Property Department
`One Health Plaza 433/2
`East Hanover, NJ 07936
`
`for Biomedical
`
`Institutes
`Novartis
`Research, Inc.
`250 Massachusetts Avenue
`Cambridge, MA 02139
`
`A courtesy copy of the foregoing was also sent by email to: Lian Ouyang,
`
`
`
`
`Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Inc. to: lian.ouyang@novartis.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ C/ Kyle Musgrove
`C. Kyle Musgrove
`Registration No. 40,742
`Attorney for Evergreen Theragnostics, Inc.
`
`6
`
`