`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 10
`
` Entered: July 27, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INITIATIVE FOR MEDICINES, ACCESS & KNOWLEDGE (I-MAK),
`INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GILEAD PHARMASSET LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00126
`Patent 9,284,342 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`RICHARD J. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00126
`Patent 9,284,342 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK),
`
`Inc., requests reconsideration of the Board’s decision (Paper 7, “Dec.”)
`
`denying institution of inter partes review of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,284,342 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’342 patent”). Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g).
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we deny the request for rehearing.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board reviews the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`
`discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of
`
`law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.”
`
`PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., Inc., 840 F.2d 1565,
`
`1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must
`
`specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`The Board did not overlook or misapprehend Petitioner’s arguments;
`
`the Board considered them, but was not persuaded by them. We briefly
`
`address Petitioner’s contentions below.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner argues that “the Board misapprehended or overlooked
`
`Petitioner’s evidence of motivation to make alternative crystalline forms that
`
`would lead a POSA to the ’342 patent’s claims.” See Req. Reh’g 1–3. In
`
`making that argument, Petitioner points to one section of the Decision
`
`addressing Petitioner’s argument that “a POSA would be able to prepare the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00126
`Patent 9,284,342 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Sp-4 compound with such 2Ɵ-reflections.” Id. at 1–2, citing Dec. 17.1 As
`
`fully addressed in the Decision, that argument that a POSA could have
`
`prepared the Sp-4 compound with such 2Ɵ-reflections is unpersuasive. Dec.
`
`11–12. In further advancing its argument regarding motivation to make
`
`alternative crystalline forms, Petitioner also cites to excerpts from the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Fortunak (Ex. 1002), but fails to identify where in the
`
`Petition those matters were addressed. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover,
`
`contrary to Petitioner’s argument on rehearing, the Board considered
`
`Petitioner’s “evidence of motivation to pursue alternative crystalline forms”
`
`(Req. Reh’g 1), but found it unpersuasive. See, e.g., Dec. 9, 11, 13, and 15.
`
`Petitioner also argues that the Board ignored, and gave no weight to,
`
`Dr. Fortunak’s opinions. Req. Reh’g 3–4. To the contrary, the Board
`
`considered Dr. Fortunak’s declaration and accorded it appropriate weight.
`
`The fact that the Decision points out that Dr. Fortunak’s statement was
`
`verbatim to that of the Petition (id., citing Dec. 13) does not mean the Board
`
`ignored Dr. Fortunak’s testimony; rather, it shows that the testimony was not
`
`overlooked.
`
`Petitioner further objects to the Board’s alleged “criticism of Dr.
`
`Fortunak’s testimony” because the Board indicated that certain statements in
`
`the Fortunak declaration, relied upon in the Petition, were made “without
`
`citing evidentiary support.” Req. Reh’g 4. Petitioner cites to pages 9, 10,
`
`13, and 15 of the Decision, which refer to Petitioner’s citations to paragraphs
`
`111–113, 137, 147, and 158 of Dr. Fortunak’s declaration. Id. In each
`
`instance, however, we identify a statement in the Petition that is supported
`
`
`
`1The correct cite to the Decision is Dec. 11.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00126
`Patent 9,284,342 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`by a citation to a paragraph in Dr. Fortunak’s declaration that directs us to no
`
`additional evidentiary support beyond that cited or discussed in the
`
`statement. Each of those paragraphs merely repeats the statement in the
`
`Petition. Petitioner directs us to no instance in which we misapprehended or
`
`overlooked evidentiary support identified in paragraphs 111–113, 137, 147,
`
`and 158 of Dr. Fortunak’s declaration. Req. Reh’g 4.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we did not abuse our discretion in denying
`
`institution of inter partes review of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,284,342
`
`B2. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00126
`Patent 9,284,342 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Daniel Ravicher
`dan@ravicher.com
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Emily Whelan
`emily.whelan@wilmerhale.com
`
`Dorothy Whelan
`whelan@fr.com
`
`Mike Kane
`kane@fr.com
`
`Chad Shear
`shear@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`