Paper No. ___
`Filed: September 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AVENTIS PHARMA S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`_____________________________
`
`PETITIONER MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED’S
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: September 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AVENTIS PHARMA S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`_____________________________
`
`PETITIONER MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED’S
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`BASIS FOR REHEARING........................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard for Rehearing ............................................................. 1
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Petition ..................................................................... 1
`
`III. KANT COMPOUND 20 AS A LEAD COMPOUND .................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`Erroneous Legal Standards ................................................................. 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Requiring Motivation to Modify to Justify Lead Selection ........ 3
`
`Confusing a Synthetic Precursor with a Lead Compound.......... 5
`
`Requiring More Potency than Docetaxel & Compound 22 ........ 7
`
`4. Misattributing Graham Factor 3 Analysis as Improper
`Hindsight .................................................................................. 8
`
`B.
`
`The Decision Overlooks Evidence About Taxane Formulation ........... 9
`
`IV. PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE LEADS ...................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`“Synthetic Simplicity” for Simultaneous Methylation ....................... 11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Neither Ground Requires Deacetylation at the C-10 Hydroxyl .......... 12
`
`Synthetic Simplicity and Ring Rearrangement Rationales For
`Retaining the C-9 Carbonyl .............................................................. 13
`
`D.
`
`Lipophilicity and Potency Analyses .................................................. 14
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`I.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Mylan Laboratories Limited (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the
`
`Board reconsider its decision (Paper 10) denying inter partes review.
`
`II. BASIS FOR REHEARING
`A. Legal Standard for Rehearing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), a party may request rehearing of an
`
`institution decision by “specifically identify[ing] all matters the party believes the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. The Board reviews
`
`the prior decision for abuse of discretion, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), such as an
`
`erroneous interpretation of law, a factual finding that is not supported by
`
`substantial evidence, or an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.
`
`IPR 2013-00369, Paper 39 at 2-3.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Petition
`
`The Petition shows in Ground 1 that a combination of Kant (Ex. 1005) and
`
`Klein (Ex. 1006) renders obvious the compound of claim 1, based on (i) the
`
`selection of 10-methoxy docetaxel (Compound 20) as a lead compound from Kant,
`
`(ii) Klein’s teaching that methylation of both docetaxel and paclitaxel analogues at
`
`the C-7 hydroxyl results in potent anti-cancer compounds, and (iii) the simpler
`
`synthetic pathway that was known to result from simultaneously methylating both
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`the C-7 and C-10 hydroxyls when making taxanes from the readily available
`
`synthetic precursor 10-DAB. Pet. at 31-35.
`
`In Ground 2, (i) Colin (Ex. 1007) provides docetaxel as a lead compound,
`
`(ii) Klein teaches that functionalization of both the C-7 and C-10 hydroxyls (e.g.,
`
`methylation of the C-7 hydroxyl and acetylation of the C-10 hydroxyl) provides
`
`potent anti-cancer compounds, (iii) Klein demonstrates that reduction of the C-9
`
`carbonyl to form 9-dihydro analogues is not responsible for the increased potency
`
`observed with functionalization of the C-7 and C-10 hydroxyls as the C-9
`
`reduction diminished potency somewhat; and (iv) Kant teaches methylation is
`
`more potent than acetylation at the C-10 hydroxyl. Pet. at 38-39, 41, 43-44.
`
`Following either route, the wide availability of the synthetic taxane
`
`precursor 10-DAB provided further motivation for methylating at both the C-10
`
`and C-7 hydroxyls simultaneously, rather than a more laborious selective
`
`modification process of one, or sequential modification of one and then the other.
`
`Pet. at 39-41, 44, 47. Both Grounds also rely on synthetic simplicity to support
`
`retention of the C-9 carbonyl present in docetaxel and paclitaxel as an obvious
`
`choice for making a potent anti-cancer compound. Pet. at 34-35, 43-45. Both
`
`Grounds show dependent claim 2 (pharmaceutical composition) as obvious. Pet. at
`
`35-38, 46-47.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`III. Kant Compound 20 as a Lead Compound
`
`The Petition, with supporting evidence, shows in Ground 1 that a skilled
`
`artisan would reasonably select Compound 20 of Kant “as an anti-tumor
`
`compound” because of its “superior combination of tubulin binding ability and
`
`potency.” Pet. at 31. The Decision misapprehends the legal standards, and
`
`misunderstands or overlooks key arguments and evidence.
`
`A. Erroneous Legal Standards
`
`The evaluation of Kant Compound 20 as a lead compound misapprehends
`
`the proper legal test by: (1) requiring Kant itself teach or suggest modifications to
`
`Compound 20; (2) conflating “lead compound” with the ideal synthetic precursor;
`
`(3) requiring proof Compound 20 was more potent than docetaxel and Compound
`
`22; and (4) labeling a Graham factor 3 analysis as improper hindsight.
`
`1. Requiring Motivation to Modify to Justify Lead Selection
`
`The Decision rejects Compound 20 as a lead compound, reasoning that Kant
`
`does not teach or suggest modifications of Compound 20. Dec. at 12 (“Kant does
`
`not teach or suggest additional structural modifications to Compound 20 or
`
`docetaxel, which cuts against the notion of selecting Kant Compound 20 as a lead
`
`compound for further modification of this docetaxel analogue.”); id. at 13 (“Kant
`
`also does not teach or suggest the possibility of simultaneous substitution of both
`
`the C-7 and C-10 positions…”). This holding contradicts Federal Circuit precedent
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`that lead compound selection and motivation to modify analysis are separate and
`
`sequential:
`
`First, the court determines whether a chemist of ordinary skill would
`
`have selected the asserted prior art compounds as lead compounds, or
`
`starting points, for further development efforts.… The second inquiry
`
`in the analysis is whether the prior art would have supplied one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art with a reason or motivation to modify a lead
`
`compound to make the claimed compound with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success.
`
`Otsuka Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Sandoz Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(emphasis added). Requiring a motivation in Kant itself to modify Compound 20 to
`
`select it as a lead compound misapprehends the case law.
`
`Consistent with the case law, describing a lead compound as a compound for
`
`further development or modification does not require proof of motivation to
`
`modify to justify lead selection. Such language merely reflects that the lead
`
`identification is merely the first step. Id. at 1292 (lead compound analysis focuses
`
`on whether “the skilled artisan would have had a reason to select” proposed leads
`
`from the prior art). The second step then considers modifications to improve
`
`properties or show other obvious variations to the known structure. Requiring that
`
`Kant alone provide motivation to modify Compound 20 in order to select it as a
`
`lead was legal error. See Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Matrix Labs., 619 F.3d 1346,
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`1352 (2010) (“the flexible nature of the inquiry after KSR” means “the motivation
`
`to select and modify a lead compound need not be explicit in the art”).
`
`2. Confusing a Synthetic Precursor with a Lead Compound
`
`The Decision conflates the legal concept of a “lead compound” with “the
`
`ideal starting material to synthesize” various taxane analogues. Dec. at 12 (“We
`
`begin by observing that Kant uses 10-DAB as ‘the ideal starting material’ to
`
`synthesize paclitaxel analogues by selective substitution at only the C-10
`
`position”). However, the fact (discussed in the Petition at 18-19, 24-25, and 35)
`
`that 10-deacetylbaccatin III (10-DAB) served as the synthetic precursor for
`
`paclitaxel and docetaxel analogues, including Compound 20, does not preclude or
`
`even weigh against Compound 20 as a lead compound. But, as discussed below in
`
`Section IV.A-B, it supports Petitioner’s rationale for simultaneous methylation.
`
`Moreover, the Decision’s further characterization (at 12) of compounds
`
`(including those with docetaxel side chains) as “paclitaxel analogues” made via
`
`selective substitution also does not preclude selection of Compound 20 as a lead
`
`and misapprehends that Kant studied compounds with the paclitaxel and the
`
`docetaxel side chains. Kant itself highlights Compound 20 compared to other
`
`analogues with the characteristic paclitaxel or docetaxel side chains:
`
`Kant teaches the greater potency of docetaxel analogues with a C-10
`
`methoxy group as opposed to a C-10 acetyl group, or to an
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`
`unfunctionalized, free hydroxyl group. Ex. 1005 at 5545; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶61-63. Kant states that: ‘Analogues with C-10 methyl ether
`
`([compound] 20) or methyl carbonate (22) with [the] TaxotereTM side
`
`chain (i.e., 3’-NHBOC) were found to be more cytotoxic than
`
`paclitaxel (1) or 10-acetyl taxotere (15).’ Ex. 1005 at 5546, Table II.
`
`Pet. at 6. Table II confirms that the tubulin ratio of Compound 20 vs. paclitaxel
`
`(Taxol®) was 0.3, representing an improvement of more than three times the
`
`tubulin binding affinity of paclitaxel. Ex. 1002, ¶¶62, 79 (cited in Pet. at 6, 28, 31).
`
`Table II also confirms that the IC50 of Compound 20 was 1.3 nM, as compared to
`
`2.0 nM for paclitaxel, representing almost a doubling of cytotoxicity. Id.
`
`The Petition explains why comparison of Compound 20 to paclitaxel was
`
`notable and appropriate, stating that paclitaxel was “approved by the [FDA] for the
`
`treatment of cancer and is known to exhibit impressive biological activities against
`
`a range of human cancers” at least in part because of its “ability to promote tubulin
`
`polymerization and stabilization of microtubules, thereby leading to cell death.”
`
`Pet. at 17-18. Thus, the Petition argues that the “superior combination of tubulin
`
`binding ability and potency” of Compound 20 would have provided ample
`
`motivation for the skilled artisan to select Compound 20 as a lead. Id. at 31. This
`
`evidence was sufficient to establish that “the skilled artisan would have had a
`
`reason to select [Compound 20] from the panoply of known compounds in the
`
`prior art.” See Otsuka, 678 F.3d at 1292.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`
`3. Requiring More Potency than Docetaxel & Compound 22
`
`The Decision states that “without a docetaxel control, Kant does not provide
`
`any information as to whether a particular compound performs better or worse than
`
`docetaxel.” Dec. at 12. Petitioner, however, need not prove that Compound 20
`
`would have better efficacy than docetaxel. Rather, the law requires only that “a
`
`medicinal chemist of ordinary skill would have been motivated to [i] select and
`
`then [ii] to modify a prior art compound (e.g., a lead compound) to arrive at a
`
`claimed compound with a reasonable expectation that the new compound would
`
`have similar or improved properties compared with the old.” Daiichi, 619 F.3d at
`
`1352 (emphasis added); see also Otsuka, 678 F.3d at 1293 (“As we have
`
`explained, ‘it is sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds
`
`possess a sufficiently close relationship… to create an expectation, in light of the
`
`totality of the prior art, that the new compound will have similar properties’ to the
`
`old.’” (quoting Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293,
`
`1301 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (emphasis added)). Kant appropriately used paclitaxel, the
`
`first FDA-approved taxane, as a potency comparator for new taxanes.
`
`After erroneously requiring superiority over docetaxel (Dec. at 12), the
`
`Decision also overlooks the Petition’s reliance on Table II of Kant and Table I of
`
`Klein, which permit a direct comparison of the tubulin binding activity of Kant
`
`Compound 20 to both paclitaxel and docetaxel, as well as provide cytotoxicity data
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`in various cell lines. Klein provides a comparison between docetaxel and
`
`paclitaxel. Ex. 1006 at 280 & Table I. At pages 7, 28 and 43, the Petition refers to
`
`the data in Table I of Klein. At pages 6, 28, and 31, the Petition references the data
`
`in Kant for Compounds 20 and 22, paclitaxel (Compound 1), and 10-acetyl
`
`docetaxel (Compound 15). Even if superior properties to docetaxel were required,
`
`Kant and Klein disclose the superior tubulin binding activity of Compound 20 (0.3)
`
`as compared to docetaxel (0.7) and paclitaxel (1.00).
`
`Moreover, contrary to any suggestion in the Decision at page 12 (“Kant does
`
`not otherwise analyze the significance of the structural differences between
`
`Compounds 20 and 22”), Petitioner was not required to prove Compound 22,
`
`which had about half as much tubulin affinity as Compound 20 (0.8 vs. 0.3) and
`
`was somewhat less potent in the cell line tested, was not also an obvious lead
`
`compound. Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1008
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]o the extent Altana suggests that the prior art must point to
`
`only a single lead compound for further development efforts, that restrictive view
`
`of the lead compound test would present a rigid test similar to the teaching-
`
`suggestion-motivation test that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in KSR.”).
`
`4. Misattributing Graham Factor 3 Analysis as Improper Hindsight
`
`As part of its lead compound analysis, the Decision states: “We agree with
`
`Patent Owner that Petitioner also errs by starting with a hindsight-biased structural
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`comparison of docetaxel, Kant Compound 20, and cabazitaxel in side-by-side
`
`fashion. Prelim. Resp. 31-34.” Dec. at 12. However, nowhere does the Petition
`
`argue that Compound 20 should be selected as a lead because of its structural
`
`similarity to cabazitaxel. As discussed above in Sections III.A.2-3, the Petition
`
`relies on the potency of Compound 20 compared to paclitaxel and other Kant
`
`analogues, including tubulin ratios and IC50 values, and argues that the skilled
`
`artisan would have selected Compound 20 as a lead “because of its superior
`
`combination of tubulin binding ability and potency.” Pet. at 31.
`
`In contrast, the structures of docetaxel, 10-methoxy docetaxel (Compound
`
`20), and 7,10-dimethoxy docetaxel depicted on page 31 simply and appropriately
`
`display the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, the third
`
`factor required by the Graham analysis. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17-18 (1966) (obviousness requires evaluating “(3) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art”). Petitioner’s illustrations comply with
`
`Graham and were not improper hindsight.
`
`B.
`
`The Decision Overlooks Evidence About Taxane Formulation
`
`In its lead compound analysis for Ground 1, the Decision at pp. 13-14 states,
`
`“Petitioner … does not address the well-known problems with lipophilicity and
`
`limited aqueous solubility of intravenously administered paclitaxel and docetaxel.”
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`Regarding Ground 2, the Decision again mistakenly states that Petitioner did not
`
`address “the well-known difficulties of formulating highly lipophilic, water-
`
`insoluble paclitaxel and docetaxel into a useful intravenous dosage form.” Id. at 19.
`
`These statements overlook the extensive evidence set out in the Petition
`
`(including in the Grounds) and in the supporting Jacobsen declaration that taxane
`
`solubility issues had been thoroughly addressed through formulation optimization
`
`well prior to the priority date of the alleged invention. See, e.g., Pet. at 25-26, 35-
`
`36, 47; Ex. 1002, ¶¶54-55, 93-94. Dr. Jacobsen is a Professor of Chemistry and
`
`former Chair of the Department of Chemistry at Harvard University. Pet. at 12; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶1; Ex. 1003. Despite briefly acknowledging the existence of Dr. Jacobsen’s
`
`testimony, the Decision fails to address the substance of this testimony, as relied on
`
`in the Petition. Instead, the Decision credits the unsupported attorney argument
`
`from the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. The decision provides no basis for
`
`crediting mere attorney argument over testimony from an unchallenged expert.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (genuine issue of material fact created by testimonial
`
`evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to petitioner in institution
`
`decision).
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`IV. Proposed Modification of the Leads
`A.
`
`“Synthetic Simplicity” for Simultaneous Methylation
`
`The Decision misapprehends Petitioner’s argument as being “that a POSA
`
`would have selectively methylated both the C-7 and C-10 positions of docetaxel to
`
`create a more potent analogue (cabazitaxel) based on the teachings of Klein and
`
`Kant,” and deems it “not persuasive.” Dec. at 20 (emphasis added). This shows the
`
`Decision fundamentally misapprehended Petitioner’s evidence.
`
`Ground 1 sets forth at least three rationales for methylating the C-7
`
`hydroxyl, to create “a compound with [1] improved potency, [2] a simpler
`
`synthetic pathway, and [3] improved lipophilicity.” Pet. at 29. The Decision
`
`overlooks or misunderstands the simpler synthetic pathway rationale.
`
`The Petition first explains that a skilled artisan would reasonably select 10-
`
`methoxy docetaxel (Kant Compound 20) “as an anti-tumor compound” because of
`
`its “superior combination of tubulin binding ability and potency.” Pet. at 31. Klein
`
`teaches that methylating the C-7 hydroxyl of a docetaxel analogue results in a more
`
`potent compound than leaving the C-7 hydroxyl un-methylated. Id. at 32. The
`
`skilled artisan “would have appreciated that a simultaneous functionalization of C-
`
`7 and C-10 hydroxyls” present on 10-DAB “would have been more straightforward
`
`than a chemo-selective approach.” Pet. at 34-35 (italics added; citing Ex. 1016, Ex.
`
`1008, and Ex. 1002 ¶¶50, 53, 90). Thus, the skilled worker would have been
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`motivated to methylate simultaneously to create a potent anti-cancer compound
`
`using a simpler synthetic pathway. Id. (citing Jacobsen Ex. 1002 ¶¶87-89; see also
`
`Pet. at 44-45 (synthetic simplicity in Ground 2 (citing Ex. 1002 at ¶¶107-08)).
`
`The Jacobsen declaration supports this rationale, explaining that 7,10-
`
`dimethoxy docetaxel was favored “from a synthetic standpoint,” because the
`
`“selective substitution at the C-10 hydroxyl [described in Kant] required two
`
`additional synthetic steps i.e., a chemoselective protection, followed by a
`
`deprotection reaction, that would not be necessary for the preparation of a 7,10-
`
`disubstituted docetaxel analogue.” Ex. 1002, ¶90 (emphasis in original); Pet. at 34.
`
`Dr. Jacobsen explains that preparing 7,10-dimethoxy docetaxel “would have been
`
`synthetically easier to access than a docetaxel analogue chemoselectively modified
`
`at the C-10 hydroxyl.” Id. However, because the Decision misapprehends it as a
`
`selective methylation, it never addresses simultaneous methylation of the C-10 and
`
`C-7 hydroxyls as a rationale for creating a potent anti-cancer compound through a
`
`simpler synthetic pathway.
`
`B. Neither Ground Requires Deacetylation at the C-10 Hydroxyl
`
`In its analysis of Ground 1, the Decision states:
`
`Petitioner argues that a POSA would have retained Kant Compound
`
`20’s C-10 methoxy group over Klein’s C-10 acetyl.... Klein, however,
`
`states that “facile deacetylation of the C-10 acetate is not trivial in the
`
`C-9 carbonyl series and reflects the greater stability of the 9(R)-
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`
`dihydro series.” Ex. 1006, 279. Klein, therefore, does not necessarily
`
`teach or suggest replacing the C-10 acetyl unless the C-9 carbonyl is
`
`reduced to a hydroxyl group[.]
`
`Dec. at 16-17. However, the Decision misapprehends that neither Ground requires
`
`a synthesis pathway that involves deacetylation at C-10. 7,10-Dimethoxy
`
`docetaxel could be most simply synthesized from the well-established synthetic
`
`taxane precursor, 10-DAB, in two steps – simultaneous methylation at the C-7 and
`
`C-10 position, and addition of the docetaxel side chain at the C-13 hydroxyl. Ex.
`
`1002, ¶52; Pet. at 24-25, 33-34, 44-45. Deacetylation is simply not involved in this
`
`process. Whether 10-DAB, docetaxel, or 10-methoxy docetaxel was the synthetic
`
`precursor, the reaction would still not require deacetylization because there is no
`
`C-10 acetyl to remove. Pet. at 19, 31, 33-35, 44-45; Ex. 1002, ¶¶87-90, 107-08.
`
`C.
`
`Synthetic Simplicity and Ring Rearrangement Rationales For
`Retaining the C-9 Carbonyl
`The Decision overlooks the Petitioner’s argument that “a preference for a
`
`more simple synthesis pathway would countenance in favor of retaining the C-9
`
`carbonyl of Kant over the C-9 hydroxyl of Klein because the C-9 carbonyl
`
`reduction requires an additional synthetic step.” Pet. at 34-35; see also id. at 42-45.
`
`Moreover, the Petition points out that Klein’s additional synthetic step (C-9
`
`reduction) could not have caused the increased potency shown in Klein’s C-7 and
`
`C-10 functionalized analogues because C-9 reduction diminished potency. Id. C-9
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`reduction also resulted in novel rearrangement analogues with even more reduced
`
`efficacy. Id. at 34, 43; see also Jacobsen Decl. Ex. 1002, ¶¶84, 89 (in one case a
`
`10- to 30-fold reduction in potency). The Decision overlooks or misunderstands
`
`synthetic simplicity as a reason it would have been an obvious choice to retain the
`
`C-9 carbonyl present in 10-DAB, docetaxel, and Compound 20.
`
`The Decision further misapprehends Petitioner’s argument: “Contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s argument, Klein teaches that a C-9 carbonyl was not required to
`
`maintain anti-tumor activity and that reducing the C-9 carbonyl to a hydroxyl
`
`improves aqueous solubility and chemical stability of these notoriously insoluble
`
`compounds.” Dec. at 15. As discussed above, however, Petitioner identifies
`
`reasons to make a potent anti-cancer compound by retaining the C-9 carbonyl
`
`found in 10-DAB, docetaxel, and Compound 20. Petitioner did not argue, and was
`
`not required to argue, that the C-9 carbonyl was required to maintain activity.
`
`D. Lipophilicity and Potency Analyses
`
`In its lead compound analysis, the Decision appears to require the Petition to
`
`prove that methylation of the C-7 and C-10 hydroxyls would achieve significantly
`
`improved anti-cancer activity or lipophilicity over that of docetaxel to establish a
`
`motivation to modify the lead compound. E.g., Dec. at 12 (“…Kant does not
`
`provide any information as to whether a particular compound performs better or
`
`worse than docetaxel.”); id. at 13 (“…a POSA would have known docetaxel and
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`paclitaxel were highly lipophilic and insoluble in water, which made their
`
`commercial formulation challenging.”). However, proper reasons to modify are not
`
`restricted to increasing potency or solubility over docetaxel. See KSR International
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (“Under the correct analysis, any
`
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
`
`addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed.”). Moreover, as discussed in Section III.A.3 above, Compound
`
`20 provides approximately twice as much improvement in tubulin binding over
`
`paclitaxel as was obtained with docetaxel. Thus, the Decision overlooks the
`
`superior properties established by the tables cited and discussed in the Petition.
`
`Finally, as noted above in Section III.B, the Petition and Jacobsen
`
`declaration extensively discuss how taxane solubility issues had been thoroughly
`
`addressed by formulation optimization prior to the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention. Pet. at 25-26, 35-36, 47; Ex. 1002, ¶¶54-55, 93-94.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing
`
`and institution of inter partes review of claims 1 and 2 of the ’170 patent.
`
`
`Dated: September 22, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Steven W. Parmelee /
`Steven W. Parmelee, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 31,990
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00627
`Patent 5,847,170
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Petitioner Mylan Laboratories Limited’s Request for Rehearing Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71, on this 22 day of September, 2016, on the Patent Owner at
`
`the correspondence address of the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Dominick A. Conde
`William E. Solander
`Jason A. Leonard
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Email: dconde@fchs.com
`Email: wsolander@fchs.com
`Email: jleonard@fchs.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 22, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Steven W. Parmelee /
`Steven W. Parmelee, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 31,990
`
`
`
`
`-16-
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
