UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`RICETEC, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF SE,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: PGR2021-00113
`
`U.S. Patent 11,096,345
`
`Title: Method for Treating Post-Emergent Rice
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`RICETEC, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF SE,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: PGR2021-00113
`
`U.S. Patent 11,096,345
`
`Title: Method for Treating Post-Emergent Rice
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................... 4
`II.
`III. THE ’345 PATENT ........................................................................................ 7
`A. Overview .............................................................................................. 7
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 10
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 10
`VI. THE CORRECT PRIORITY DATE FOR THE ’345 PATENT ................. 12
`A. Mankin PCT Overview ...................................................................... 12
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS HAVE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`AND ENABLEMENT SUPPORT IN THE MANKIN
`APPLICATION ............................................................................................ 18
`A.
`Claim Chart ........................................................................................ 18
`B.
`RiceTec’s Specific Arguments Regarding Written Description
`and Enablement Are Refuted on the Full Record .............................. 34
`1.
`The Claimed Numerical Ranges of an “Effective
`Amount” of a FOP Herbicide Are Sufficiently
`Described by and Could be Derived by a POSITA
`from the Mankin PCT’s Disclosure of an
`“Effective Amount” of FOP Herbicides ........................ 34
`The G2096S Mutation Is Not “Buried” in the
`Mankin PCT Among a “Laundry List” of Several
`Dozen Other Mutations ................................................. 44
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Inventors Showed Possession of a Rice Plant
`with the G2096S or W2027C Mutations Without
`Actually Reducing the Mutations to Practice or
`Depositing with ATCC Rice Seeds Having the
`Mutations ....................................................................... 47
`The I1781L and D2078G Mutants Experimentally
`Determined to Have FOP-Resistance in the
`Mankin Application Would Lead a POSITA to
`Reasonably Expect that the Claimed G2096S and
`W2027C Mutations Would Have the Same
`Characteristics ................................................................ 48
`A POSITA Could Routinely Make and Select a
`Rice Plant Having the FOP-Resistant G2906S and
`W2027C Mutations Imparted Through Random
`Mutagenesis Following the Instructions in the
`Mankin PCT ................................................................... 55
`The “Less than 10% Herbicide Injury to a Field
`Application” Limitation Is Described in the
`Mankin PCT ................................................................... 60
`VIII. RICETEC HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ‘345
`PATENT CLAIMS FAIL TO SATISFY THE ENABLEMENT AND
`WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS ......................................... 64
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 66
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Alcon Rsch. Ltd. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc.,
`745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 48
`All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prod., Inc.,
`309 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 42
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 48
`Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990 (1967) .......................................................... 46
`Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`647 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 36
`Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.,
`285 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 22) ........................................................................ 48, 49
`Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis,
`448 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 37
`Fujikawa v. Wattanasin,
`93 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 44, 46
`In re Global IP Holdings LLC,
`927 F.3d 1373-78 ................................................................................................ 43
`Grunenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC,
`PGR2017-00008, Paper 43 (PTAB June 22, 2018) ............................................ 43
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 57
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 11
`
`iii
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech Inc.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................. 47
`Source Search Techs., LLC v. LendingTree, LLC,
`588 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 57
`In re Strahilevitz,
`668 F.2d 1229, 212 U.S.P.Q. 561 (C.C.P.A. 1982) ............................................ 48
`The General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`888 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 43, 44
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §102 ..................................................................................................... 4, 45
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 66
`
`iv
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Document
`No.
`2001 Declaration of Lisa M. Ferri
`
`Referred To As
`N/A
`
`2002 Mayer Brown Professional Profile of Lisa
`M. Ferri
`
`N/A
`
`2003 Declaration of Dr. Nilda Roma-Burgos
`
`Burgos Decl.
`
`2004 Prosecution of RiceTec’s U.S. Patent
`Application No. 15/019,701
`
`2005 Prosecution of RiceTec’s U.S. Patent
`Application No. 13/554,675
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`2006 Roma-Burgos N±, K Al-Khatib K, EP
`Webster, BM McKnight, J Bond, M
`Bagavathiannan (2017). Rice Weeds and
`Management in North America. In: Rao,
`A.N. and Matsumoto, H. (Eds.). Weed
`management in rice in the Asian-Pacific
`region. pp. 308 – 345. Asian-Pacific Weed
`Sci Soc (APWSS); Weed Sci Soc of Japan
`and Indian Soc of Weed Sci. ISBN -13:
`978-81-931978-4-4
`
`2007 Hardke J, and CE Wilson, Jr. (2013).
`Introduction. pp. 1-8. In: Hardke, J. (Ed.).
`Arkansas Rice Production Handbook.
`University of Arkansas Division of
`Agriculture, Cooperative and Extension
`Service MP192, Little Rock, Arkansas,
`USA.
`
`Roma-Burgos et al. 2017
`
`Hardke and Wilson 2013
`
`2008 Hardke J, Barber T, Bateman N, Butts T,
`Hamilton M, Henry C, Lorenz G, Mazzanti
`
`Hardke et al. 2021
`
`v
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`
`R, Norsworthy J, Roberts T, Wamishe Y
`(2021) Rice Information: 2021 Rice
`Management Guide. 28 pp.
`
`2009 Hardke JT, Chlapecka JL (2020) Arkansas
`Furrow-irrigated Rice Handbook. Little
`Rock: University of Arkansas Division of
`Agriculture, Arkansas Cooperative
`Extension Service. 38 p
`
`2010 Carvalho-Moore P, Rangani G, Heiser J,
`Findley D, Bowe SJ, Roma-Burgos N±
`(2021) PPO2 mutations in Amaranthus
`palmeri: Implications on cross-resistance.
`Agriculture 11:760.
`doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11080760
`
`2011 Roma-Burgos N±, Butts TR, Werle IS,
`Bottoms S, Mauromoustakos A (2021a).
`Weedy rice update in Arkansas, USA, and
`adjacent locales Weed Sci 69(5): 514 - 525
`doi: 10.1017/wsc.2021.45
`
`2012 Roma-Burgos N±, San Sudo MP, Olsen
`KM, Werle I, Song B-K (2021b). Weedy
`Rice (Oryza spp.): What’s in a name?
`Weed Sci Sp. Issue 69(5): 505-513. DOI:
`10.1017/wsc.2021.22
`
`2013 Norsworthy JK, Bond J, Scott RC (2013)
`Weed management practices and needs in
`Arkansas and Mississippi rice. Weed
`Technol 27:623–630
`
`2014 Burgos NR, JK Norsworthy, RC Scott, and
`KL Smith (2008). Red rice status after five
`years of ClearfieldTM rice technology in
`Arkansas. Weed Technol. 22:200-208.
`
`vi
`
`Hardke and Chlapecka 2020
`
`Carvalho-Moore et al. 2021
`
`Roma-Burgos et al. 2021a
`
`Roma-Burgos et al. 2021b
`
`Norsworthy et al. 2013
`
`Burgos et al. 2008
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`
`2015
`
`Jang SR, J Marjanovic, P Gornicki (2013).
`Resistance to herbicides caused by single
`amino acid mutations in acetyl-CoA
`carboxylase in resistant populations of
`grassy weeds. New Phytol. 197:1110-1116.
`Doi: 1111/nph.12117
`
`2016 Christoffers MJ, ML Berg, CG
`Messersmith (2002). An isoleucine to
`leucine mutation in acetyl COA
`carboxylase confers herbicide resistance in
`wild oat. Genome 45(6):1046 p
`
`2017 Cui H, W Cangyue, Y Han, L Chen, X Li
`(2015). Cross-resistance of Japanese foxtail
`(Alopecurus japonicus) to ACCase
`inhibitors in China. Weed Technol. 29:444-
`450 DOI:10.1614/WT-D-14-00134.1
`
`2018 Maneechote C, S Samanwong, and X-Q
`Zhang (2005). Resistance to ACCase-
`inhibiting herbicides in sprangletop
`(Leptochloa chinensis). Weed Sci. 53:290-
`295.
`
`2019 Mohamed IA, R Li, Z You, Z Li (2012).
`Japanese foxtail (Alopecurus japonicus)
`resistance to fenoxaprop and pinoxaden in
`China. Weed Sci. 60:167-171.
`DOI:10.1614/WS-D-11-00111.1
`
`2020 Eleftherohorinos IG and KV Dhima
`(2002). Red rice (Oryza sativa) control in
`rice (O. sativa) with preemergence and
`postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol.
`16:537-540
`
`2021 Uchiyama M, N Washio, T Ikai, H
`Igarashi, K Suzuki (1986). Stereospecific
`responses to R-(+)- and S-(-)-quizalofop-
`
`vii
`
`Jang et al. 2013
`
`Christoffers et al. 2002
`
`Cui et al. 2015
`
`Maneechote et al. 2005
`
`Mohamed et al. 2012
`
`Eleftherohorinos and Dhima
`2002
`
`Uchiyama et al. 1986
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`
`ethyl in tissues of several plants. J Pestic
`Sci 11:459-467
`
`2022 Huan Z, Z Xu, D Lv, J Wang (2013).
`Determination of ACCase sensitivity and
`gene expression in quizalofop-P-ethyl-
`resistant and -susceptible barnyardgrass
`(Echinochloa crus-galli) biotypes. Weed
`Sci. 61:537-542 DOI: 10.1614/WS-D-13-
`00010.1
`
`2023 Bushong J, T Peeper, M Boyles, A Stone
`(2011). Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne),
`feral rye (Secale cereale), and volunteer
`wheat (Triticum aestivum) control in winter
`canola.
`
`Huan et al. 2013
`
`Bushong et al. 2011
`
`2024 Targa®, Gowan Co Label
`
`Targa®, Gowan Co
`
`2025 Assure® II, AMVAC Chem. Corp. Label
`
`Assure® II, AMVAC Chem.
`Corp.
`
`2026 Hoelon®, Bayer Crop Science Label
`
`Hoelon®, Bayer Crop Science
`
`2027 Poast Plus®, BASF Chem. Co. Label
`
`Poast Plus®, BASF Chem. Co.
`
`2028 Arrow®, ADAMA Essentials Label
`
`Arrow®, ADAMA Essentials
`
`2029 Burgos NR (2015). Whole-plant and seed
`bioassays for resistance confirmation.
`Weed Sci. 2015 Special Issue:152-165.
`DOI: 10.1614/WS-D-14-00019.1
`
`Burgos 2015
`
`2030 https://rapdb.dna.affrc.go.jp/ ;
`https://www.gramene.org/
`
`N/A
`
`2031 Barber LT, TR Butts, JW Boyd, K
`Cunningham, G Selden, JK Norsworthy,
`NR Burgos, M Bertucci (2021).
`Recommended chemicals for weed and
`
`Barber et al. 2021
`
`viii
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`
`brush control. MP44. Cooperative
`Extension Service, University of Arkansas
`System, U.S. Department of Agriculture
`and County Governments Cooperating. 104
`pp.
`
`2032 Rouse CE, NR Burgos±, JK Norsworthy,
`TM Tseng, CE Starkey, RC Scott (2018).
`Echinochloa resistance to herbicides
`continues to increase in Arkansas rice
`fields. Weed Technol.
`https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2017.82
`
`2033 Talbert RE and NR Burgos (2007).
`History and management of herbicide-
`resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-
`galli) in Arkansas rice. Weed Technol.
`21:324-331.
`
`2034 WO2011/028832
`
`2035 WO2013/074524
`
`Rouse et al. 2018
`
`Talbert and Burgos 2007
`
`Mankin PCT or Mankin
`
`Neuteboom PCT or
`Neuteboom
`
`2036 Declaration of Dr. David Alan Somers
`
`Somers Decl.
`
`2037 May 4, 2022 Dr. Dale Shaner Deposition
`Transcript
`
`Shaner Depo. Tr.
`
`2038 Discover® NG, Syngenta Crop Protection
`Label
`
`Discover® NG, Syngenta
`
`2039 Fusilade® II, Syngenta Crop Protection
`Label
`
`Fusilade® II, Syngenta
`
`ix
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner BASF SE submits this Response to RiceTec’s Petition for Post
`
`Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345 (“’345 Patent”). RiceTec argues in its
`
`Petition that (1) the ’345 Patent is statutorily eligible for Post Grant Review, (2)
`
`the ’345 Patent claims do not satisfy the written description and enablement
`
`requirements (Grounds 1 and 2), and (3) the ’345 Patent claims are anticipated or
`
`rendered obvious by the Hinga and Hinga 2013 (collectively “Hinga”) prior art
`
`references (Grounds 3-5). In its Institution Decision, the Board found that the ’345
`
`Patent was eligible for post-grant review and instituted on all grounds. Paper 21 at
`
`9-22, 27-33. However, concerning Grounds 1-2, the Board found that Petitioner
`
`failed to establish that it is more likely than not that any of the claims of the ’345
`
`Patent failed to meet the written description and enablement requirements (id. at 22-
`
`27)—and found so sua sponte, on the record presented only by RiceTec, insofar as
`
`BASF in its Preliminary Response chose not to rebut Petitioner’s arguments and did
`
`not address the issues of enablement and written description of the ’345 Patent.
`
`BASF now asks the Board to find that all of the claims of the ’345 Patent are
`
`entitled to an effective filing date as early as September 1, 2009, and no later than
`
`1
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`March 1, 2012,1 based on a series of priority claims to earlier-filed applications. In
`
`particular, the ’345 Patent predecessor application number 13/393,780 (“the ‘780
`
`Application,” EX1013) contains a disclosure which satisfies the written description
`
`and enablement requirements for all of the ‘345 Patent claims.2 Although the Board
`
`found in the Institution Decision on the preliminary record before it that the ’345
`
`Patent claims lacked written description support in the Mankin Application—and in
`
`1 Although U.S. Application No. 13/393,780 entered the United States from
`
`the Mankin PCT on March 1, 2012, only after a number of preliminaries were
`
`addressed did the Patent Office assign an Official filing date of January 7, 2013.
`
`2 The disclosure of the ’780 Application (filed March 1, 2012) is substantively
`
`the same as the disclosure of Application No. PCT/US2010/047571 (“the Mankin
`
`PCT,” EX2034, filed September 1, 2010), which in turn is identical to Provisional
`
`Application No. 61/238,906 (“’906 Provisional Application,” EX1015, filed
`
`September 1, 2009). Petition, Paper No. 2, at 31; Institution Decision, Paper No. 21,
`
`at 13. In this Response, BASF cites primarily to the Mankin PCT but also provides
`
`parallel citations to the ’780 Application in the claim charts appearing at pages 18-
`
`34. Collectively, the ’780 Application, Mankin PCT, and ’906 Provisional
`
`Application are referred to herein as “the Mankin Application.”
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`particular the “effective amount” limitation for the claimed “FOP” herbicides and
`
`their associated numerical ranges (Institution Decision, Paper No. 21, at 13-20)—
`
`the full record, including the deposition testimony from Petitioner’s expert Dale
`
`Shaner (EX2037), now refutes Petitioner’s arguments and the initial conclusions
`
`regarding priority.3 Dr. Shaner testified that the numerical range of an effective
`
`amount of a FOP herbicide could be determined by a POSITA at the time of filing
`
`of the Mankin Application by reference to the publicly available labels for the
`
`herbicide: a POSITA would start with half of the lower end of the label range and
`
`increase that four-fold, with the “rule of thumb” being that the rice crop must be able
`
`to tolerate twice the maximum label amount. When this framework is applied to the
`
`FOP herbicide labels available when the Mankin Application was filed, the resulting
`
`calculated ranges align with the numerical ranges in the ’345 Patent claims.
`
`An effective filing date for the ’345 Patent of September 1, 2009 (or as late as
`
`March 1, 2012), would antedate the Hinga and Hinga2013 references (published
`
`3 In its Preliminary Response, BASF also relied on the priority filing date of
`
`a separate family of applications (referred to as the Neuteboom line) related to
`
`the ’345 patent. Paper No. 16, at 2, n. 1. In this Response, BASF relies only on the
`
`Mankin Application for priority.
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`February 5, 2015, and January 24, 2013, respectively) and remove them as prior art
`
`under Sections 102(a)(1) and 103. This would require a finding by the Board that all
`
`of the claims of the ’345 Patent are not unpatentable based on Grounds 3-5.
`
`Moreover, because the Mankin Application describes and enables the claims of
`
`the ’345 Patent, this necessarily means that the ’345 Patent claims themselves are
`
`also not unpatentable for lack of written description and enablement insofar as
`
`the ’345 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the Mankin Application and has at least
`
`the same amount of disclosure in its specification as the Mankin Application.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`The claims of the ’345 Patent are directed to a method of treating rice crops
`
`with certain “FOP” herbicides at established ranges of effective amounts (in grams
`
`of herbicide active ingredient per hectare, “g AI/Ha”) that are known to kill weeds
`
`of rice crops by inhibiting the enzyme Acetyl‐CoA carboxylase (“ACCase”).
`
`Importantly, the herbicide does not substantially injure the rice crop plant because it
`
`has one of three mutations (imparted by random mutagenesis) in the rice ACCase
`
`enzyme, which confers FOP herbicide tolerance to the rice crop. Rice plants having
`
`one of the claimed ACCase mutations will exhibit less than 10% injury when
`
`exposed to the FOP herbicide applied within the claimed ranges of effective
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`amounts. (Relatedly, the mutant ACCase rice plants can also have resistance to
`
`another class of herbicides, called “DIMs.”)
`
`The crux of RiceTec’s argument that the ’345 Patent is not entitled to an
`
`effective filing date that would antedate the Hinga references is this: the Mankin
`
`Application does not describe or enable a randomly mutagenized rice crop plant
`
`actually having the claimed randomly imparted genetic mutation to the rice ACCase
`
`gene designated “G2906S”,4 where the mutation imparts resistance (< 10% injury)
`
`to the rice plant against the FOP herbicide “quizalofop” (and three other members
`
`of the FOP family of herbicides) used at a range of known effective amounts for
`
`weed control. The full extent of RiceTec’s arguments is found at pages 34 to 44 of
`
`its Petition, based on the disclosures of the ’780 Application as representative of the
`
`earlier-filed applications (i.e., the Mankin PCT and the ‘906 Provisional
`
`Application).
`
`Across these ten pages, RiceTec’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
`
`1) The claimed numerical ranges of effective amounts of the FOP
`herbicides are not expressly disclosed in the Mankin Application
`(Petition, Paper No. 2, at 40-44; see also Institution Decision,
`
`4 Other ACCase mutations are also claimed (“I17181L” and “W2027C”) but
`
`Petitioner does not set forth any arguments as to a lack of priority with respect to
`
`these mutants.
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`Paper No. 21, at 13);
`2) The ’345 Patent inventors could not have possessed a rice plant
`with the G2096S mutation without having actually reduced the
`mutation to practice and demonstrated that it imparts the claimed
`FOP resistance or without depositing with ATCC a rice seed
`having the mutation (id. at 34-35, 36-37);
`3) The G2096S mutation is “buried” in the ’780 Application among
`a “laundry list” of several dozen other mutations (id., at 34-36);
`4) The I1781L mutant FOP-resistance data in the Mankin
`Application would not lead a POSITA to reasonably predict that
`the G2096S mutation would have the same characteristics (id. at
`41, n. 3); and
`5) A POSITA could not make and then select a rice plant having the
`FOP-resistant G2906S mutation imparted through random
`mutagenesis
`following
`the
`instructions
`in
`the Mankin
`Application because the only experimental selection in the
`Mankin Application (for the I1781L mutant) was with a DIM
`herbicide (Petition, Paper No. 2, at 38-40).
`(Notably, RiceTec presents no arguments regarding lack of priority with respect to
`the specific weed species covered by dependent claims 11-14.)
`Of these five arguments, RiceTec frames the first four as being based on a
`
`lack of written description; only the fifth argument expressly references enablement.
`
`The Board’s Institution Decision relied exclusively on RiceTec’s first argument in
`
`finding that the ’345 Patent claims were not entitled to the Mankin Application filing
`
`date, while also focusing on the “less than 10% injury” limitation. Institution
`
`Decision, Paper No. 21 at 13-20. As discussed below in Sections VII.B.1-6, each
`
`one of these arguments is refuted on the full record developed by BASF in discovery
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`of Petitioner and in the accompanying declaration of BASF’s expert David Somers
`
`(EX2036).
`
`III. THE ’345 PATENT
`A.
`Overview
`The ’345 Patent is generally directed to a method for treating domestic rice
`
`crops by applying certain Acetyl‐CoA carboxylase (“ACCase”)-inhibiting
`
`aryloxyphenoxypropanoate herbicides (“FOPs”) to a rice plant that has certain
`
`ACCase mutation(s) in the rice genome, which confer herbicide tolerance to the rice
`
`crop. A number of commercially available herbicides were developed to target
`
`ACCase because ACCase catalyzes the first step of fatty acid biosynthesis, and the
`
`inhibition of ACCase leads to serious developmental arrest or death in plants. FOPs
`
`and cyclohexanediones (“DIMs”) are examples of herbicides that work by inhibiting
`
`ACCase, which in turn downregulates fatty acid synthesis and blocks the production
`
`of phospholipids used in building new membranes required for cell growth.
`
`The claims of the ’345 Patent cover herbicide-tolerant rice plants grown from
`
`seeds that have I1781L, G2096S, or W2027C mutations of the ACCase gene within
`
`the rice genome. The single independent claim is reproduced below, with limitations
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`highlighted in gray that the Board considered in the Institution Decision (Paper No.
`
`21, at 12-13) to be dispositive to the priority determination.5
`
`1. A method for treating rice, comprising:
`(A) providing
`(1) a domestic rice crop plant grown from seed, the domestic
`rice crop plant
`(a) comprising and expressing an endogenous non-transfected
`mutant ACCase nucleic acid whose sequence encodes a multi-
`functional, plastidic ACCase containing a mutation selected
`from the group consisting of I1781L (Am), G2096S (Am),
`and W2027C (Am); and
`(b) possessing a phenotype of tolerance to quizalofop or an
`ester thereof, fluazifop or an ester thereof, clodinafop,
`clodinafop-propargyl, or diclofop or diclofop methyl, wherein
`said plant exhibits less than 10% herbicide injury to a field
`application of at least 70 g AI/ha to 140 g AI/Ha of
`clodinafop-propargyl, at least 11 g AI/Ha to 34 g AI/Ha of
`clodinafop, at least 56 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of fluazifop or
`an ester thereof, at least 14 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of
`quizalofop or an ester thereof, or at least 226 g AI/Ha to 540 g
`AI/Ha of diclofop or diclofop-methyl; and
`(2) at least one ACCase-inhibiting aryloxyphenoxypropanoate
`herbicide comprising quizalofop or an ester thereof, fluazifop or
`an ester thereof, clodinafop, clodinafop-propargyl, diclofop, or
`diclofop-methyl;
`(B) applying an effective amount (measured in grams of active
`ingredient per hectare (g AI/Ha)) of the at least one
`
`5 The Board referred to the highlighted language collectively as the “effective
`
`amount” limitation. Institution Decision, Paper No. 21, at 13.
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`aryloxyphenoxypropanoate herbicide to the domestic rice crop
`plant, post-emergence, thereby creating a treated rice plant; and
`(C) growing the treated rice plant;
`wherein the effective amount of the at least one ACCase-inhibiting
`aryloxyphenoxy-propanoate herbicide is at least 70 g AI/Ha to 140 g
`AI/Ha of clodinafop-propargyl, at least 11 g AI/Ha to 34 g AI/Ha of
`clodinafop, at least 56 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of fluazifop or an ester
`thereof, at least 14 g AI/Ha to 140 g AI/Ha of quizalofop or an ester
`thereof, or at least 226 g AI/Ha to 540 g AI/Ha of diclofop or
`diclofop-methyl.
`“I1781L” indicates an isoleucine (I) to leucine (L) mutation at position 1781
`
`of the amino acid sequence of ACCase based on the numbering of the ACCase in
`
`Alopercurus myosuroides (blackgrass) (GenBank CAC84161.1) and is denoted with
`
`an (Am). “G2096S” indicates a glycine to serine mutation at position 2096 of the
`
`ACCase enzyme (Am), and “W2027C” indicates a tryptophan (W) to cysteine (C)
`
`mutation at position 2027 of the ACCase enzyme (Am).6 These herbicide-tolerant
`
`mutations are “endogenous non-transfected,” meaning that they are “produced
`
`randomly by a technique involving no step of introducing exogenous nucleic acid(s)
`
`6 In comparison to the standard blackgrass numbering of positions 1781(Am),
`
`2096(Am), and 2027(Am), the rice ACCase contains these same residues at the
`
`corresponding rice (Oryza sativa “(Os)”) positions 1792(Os), 2107(Os), and
`
`2038(Os).
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`or nucleic acid analog(s), into a plant cell or into other plant material.” ’345 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001), at 7:1-16. Example 1 of the ’345 Patent teaches production of these
`
`herbicide-tolerant mutants via in vitro tissue culture mutagenesis assays utilizing the
`
`spontaneous nature of somaclonal variations. Example 2 teaches selection of the
`
`herbicide-tolerant rice calli by application of DIMs and FOPs to the mutant tissues.
`
`Example 3 teaches regeneration of the herbicide-tolerant plants having the ACCase
`
`gene sequence mutation. Example 4 describes the sequence analysis process for the
`
`ACCase mutation. Examples 5 and 8 discuss the herbicide-tolerance data for the
`
`selected ACCase-inhibitor-tolerant mutants.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`For purposes of this proceeding only, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) relevant to the ’345 Patent would have at least a PhD in agriculture,
`
`weed science, or related discipline with at least five years of research experience in
`
`the same field.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In its Institution Decision, the Board considered “the ‘less than 10% injury’
`
`[limitation] together with the effective amounts of herbicides to constitute the
`
`‘effective amount’ limitation.” Paper No. 21 at 18. Although the Board did not
`
`formally construe the term “effective amount” of the claimed FOP herbicides to
`
`encompass the “less than 10% injury” limitation (see Paper No. 21, at 7-8 (“Claim
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`Construction”)), in the Institution Decision for the related BASF patent, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 11,096,346 (“the ’346 Patent”), the subject of PGR2021-00114, the Board did
`
`formally construe the term “effective amount” to mean “the recited amount of
`
`quizalofop or its equivalent that causes the specified phytotoxicity (at least 65%) to
`
`conventional rice and causes less than 10% injury to the treated rice plant in field
`
`applications.” PGR2021-00114, Paper No. 21, at 8-9 (emphasis added).
`
`Because the specifications of the ’345 Patent and ’346 Patent are identical,
`
`and the term “effective amount” is used in a consistent manner in the claims of both
`
`patents, BASF presumes the Board intended to construe the term “effective amount”
`
`in the ’345 Patent to have the same meaning as in the ’346 Patent. BASF respectfully
`
`disagrees with the Board’s construction. The inventors of the ’345 Patent clearly and
`
`expressly defined “effective amount” to mean “the amount of herbicide required to
`
`achieve at least about 65% phytotoxicity of conventional [i.e., wild, non-mutant] rice
`
`(e.g., red rice) in field applications.” ’345 Patent, EX1001, at 6:28-31. In acting as
`
`their own lexicographers, the inventors’ definition is controlling on the issue of
`
`claim construction. Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363,
`
`1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“When a patentee explicitly defines a claim term in the patent
`
`specification, the patentee’s definition controls.”) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). While the “less than 10% injury”
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`language is indeed a limitation of the ’345 Patent claims, it is not part of the
`
`inventors’ definition of “effective amount,” nor is it implicated in the question of
`
`whether “effective amount” per se is described in the Mankin PCT (as discussed
`
`below in Section VII.B.1). The “less than 10% injury” language serves only to
`
`further clarify the required effect on the mutant ACCase rice plant of applying a
`
`fixed “effective amount” of herbicide falling within the claimed numerical ranges
`
`that otherwise results in at least 65% injury on the non-mutated red (“weedy”) rice
`
`plants. (Of course, there must also be a written description of the “less than 10%
`
`injury” limitation in the Mankin PCT, which BASF addresses below in Section
`
`VII.B.6).
`
`VI. THE CORRECT PRIORITY DATE FOR THE ’345 PATENT
`RiceTec argues that the challenged claims should have an effective filing date
`
`of December 30, 2016 (the U.S. filing date of the application that eventually issued
`
`as the ʼ345 Patent) and that the challenged claims are not entitled to the filing dates
`
`of any related applications. As explained below, because the ’345 Patent is entitled
`
`to the filing date of the Mankin Application (exemplified below in the Mankin PCT),
`
`the ’345 Patent antedates the alleged Hinga prior art references.
`
`A. Mankin PCT Overview
`WO 2011/028832 (“Mankin PCT,” EX2034) was filed September 1, 2010 and
`
`generally discloses herbicide-tolerant plants and methods for controlling weed
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00113
`U.S. Patent No. 11,096,345
`Patent Owner Response
`growth with herbicides to which the plants are herbicide-tolerant. The Mankin PCT
`
`relates specifically to the growth of rice crops and an ACCase mutation in rice crops
`
`making them herbicide-tolerant. “Examples of amino acid positions at which an
`
`acetyl-Coenzyme A carboxylase of an herbicide-tolerant plant of the invention
`
`differs from the acetyl-Coenzyme A carboxylase of the corresponding wild-type
`
`plant include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following positions:
`
`1,781(Am) . . . 2,027(Am) . . . 2096(Am) . . . .” EX2034, Mankin PCT, at [0007]. In
`
`addition to these three positions (corresponding to the three positions in the patent
`
`claims), the Mankin PCT also lists a number of other positions (for a total of twenty-
`
`two positions) amenable to mutation to confer herbicide resistance, including
`
`1,999(Am), 2,041(Am), 2,078(Am) and 2,088(Am). Id. Specific mutations at all
`
`twenty-two of these positions that would confer herbicide res
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
