`
`
`
` Paper 611
`
`
`
`
`
`BoxInterferences@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-4683 Filed: 5 February 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`BIOGEN MA INC.
`Junior Party
`Patent 8,399,514 B2,
`
`v.
`
`FORWARD PHARMA A/S
`Senior Party
`Application 11/576,871.
`
`
`Patent Interference No. 106,023 (McK)
`Technology Center 1600
`
`
`Before FRED E. McKELVEY, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and
`DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McKELVEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`DECISION ON BIOGEN MOTION 6
`Revival of Application 12/526,296
`37 C.F.R. § 41.125(a)
`
`I. Biogen Motion 6
`Biogen Motion 6 (Paper 221) seeks entry of an order reviving abandoned
`
`patent application 12/526,296 (“the ʼ296 application”) inter alia for the purpose of
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`Biogen Exhibit 2103
`Mylan v. Biogen
`IPR 2018-01403
`
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`entry of an amendment (Ex 2009) to claim in the ʼ296 application benefit of the
`filing date of U.S. Provisional Application 60/888,921 (Ex 2006A) (“the ʼ921
`provisional application”). Paper 221, page 1:8–12. Upon entry of the amendment,
`the ʼ296 application again would become abandoned.
`
`According to Biogen, the ʼ296 application became unintentionally
`abandoned without containing a specific reference to the ʼ921 provisional
`application.
`
`Forward Pharma timely opposed. Paper 542.
`
`Biogen timely replied. Paper 561.
`II. Witnesses
`Biogen sought, and obtained from the Board, authorization to file Biogen
`
`Motion 6. Paper 196, pages 9–13.
`
`In addition to documentary evidence, Biogen submitted direct declaration
`testimony of attorneys:
`(1) Thomas L. Irving,
`(2) John M. Covert,
`(3) Adriane M. Antler, and
`(4) Theresa Devlin.
`Cross-examination of attorneys Irving, Covert, and Antler took place live
`
`before one member of the panel. Cross-examination of attorney Devlin took place
`in Cambrige, Massachusetts with two judges of the panel participating via
`telephone.
`
`The exhibits for direct declaration testimony and cross are as follows:
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`Witness
`Thomas L. Irving
`John M. Covert
`Adriane M. Antler
`Theresa Devlin
`
`
`
`Table 1—Witnesses
`Direct Testimony
`2051
`2052
`2053
`2054
`
`Cross-examination
`2074
`2073
`2072
`2075
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`III. Facts
`Biogen is involved in the interference by virtue of U.S. Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`(“the ʼ514 patent”) (Ex 2001A). Application 13/372,426 (“the ʼ426 Application”)
`(Specification: Ex 2007A) matured into the ʼ514 patent.
`
`The ʼ514 Patent claims priority of:
`(1) the ʼ296 application (Specification: Ex 2004A);
`
`
`(2) PCT/US2008/001602 (Ex. 2005A); and
`
`
`(3) the ʼ921 Provisional Application (Ex 2006A).
`
`
`Ex. 2001A, page 1 (60) and (63).
`
`Two other applications are relevant to issues raised in Biogen Motion 6:
`
`
`(4) application 13/767,014 (“the ʼ014 application”) filed as a
`continuation of the ʼ426 application, and
`(5) application 14/718,962 (“the ‘962 application”).
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`In table form, the applications in filing date order are:
`Table 2—Relevant Applications
`Application
`Provisional Application 60/888,921
`PCT/US2008/001602
`Application 12/526,296
`Application 13/372,426 issued as U.S. Patent
`8,399,514 B2 and involved in the interference
`Application 14/767,014
`Application 14/718,962
`
`Filing Date
`8 February 2007
`8 February 2008
`13 January 2011
`13 February 2002
`
`14 February 2013
`21 May 2015
`
`
`A“specific reference” to the ʼ921 provisional application does not appear in
`
`the ʼ296 application. Accordingly, under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), Biogen is not entitled
`to benefit of the ʼ921 Provisional Application.
`
`To overcome the lack of a “specific reference,” Biogen has filed a motion to
`(1) revive the ʼ296 application based on unintentional delay and (2) amend the
`ʼ296 application to make a “specific reference” to the ʼ921 provisional application.
`Paper 221.
`
`The Director is authorized by Congress to establish procedures to revive an
`unintentionally abandoned application for patent upon petition by the applicant for
`patent. 35 U.S.C. § 27.
`
`Among other requirements, any petition must contain a statement that the
`entire delay in filing a reply from the due date of the reply until the filing of a
`grantable petition was unintentional. 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b)(4). In addition to the
`statement, the Director may require additional information. Id.
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`Because the revival issue arose in this interference, any petition to revive is
`
`decided by the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(c)(2).
`
`Rather than reply to an Office Action, Biogen abandoned the ʼ296
`application in favor of the ʼ426 application. Paper 221, page 9:19–20.
`
`We understand that attorneys for Biogen contend that Biogen would not
`have abandoned the ʼ296 application had the relevant attorneys been aware that the
`ʼ296 application did not contain a “specific reference” to the ʼ921 provisional
`application.
`
`We further understand that attorneys for Biogen believed that they had
`claimed benefit, the belief said to have been based in part on documents issued by
`the USPTO and set out below in date order, including:
`Table 3—USPTO Issued Documents
`Application
`Document
`
`Confirmation No.
`ʼ296
`5197 371
`Formalities Letter
`Electronic
`Acknowledgement
`Recipt
`Filing Receipt
`Confirmation No.
`5197 371
`Acceptance Letter
`Published
`Application
`Filing Receipt
`Updated Filing
`Receipt
`
`Date
`
`2010/09/13
`
`
`2011/01/13
`
`2011/02/01
`
`2011/02/01
`
`2011/05/12
`
`2012/03/29
`2012/04/24
`
`Exhibit
`
`2055
`
`
`2056
`
`2015
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2016
`2026
`
`
`ʼ296
`
`ʼ296
`
`ʼ296
`
`ʼ296
`
`ʼ426
`ʼ426
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`
`Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`2065
`2060
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2071
`2064
`
`2068
`
`ʼ014
`ʼ014
`ʼ014
`
`ʼ014
`
`ʼ071
`ʼ014
`
`ʼ962
`
`BIB Data Sheet
`Filing Receipt
`Updated Filing
`Receipt
`Updated Filing
`Receipt
`Printed Publication
`Corrected Filing
`Receipt
`Updated Filing
`Receipt
`
`2013/02/14
`2013/04/03
`2013/08/13
`
`2013/08/19
`
`2013/11/28
`2015/03/13
`
`2015/09/14
`
`
`During prosecution of the applications listed in Table 2, at different times
`
`Biogen was represented by three law firms:
`(1) Finnegan, Henderson, Farbow, Garrett & Dunner;
`(2) Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox; and
`(3) Jones Day.
`Thomas L. Irving, at attorney at Finnegan, Henderson, testified on direct that
`Finnergan, Henderson caused the ʼ921 provisional application to be filed in the
`USPTO on 8 Feburary 2007. Ex. 2051, ¶ 4.
`Within one year, personnel at Finnegan, Henderson caused the PCT
`application to be filed in the USPTO. Id. The record of the USPTO show that the
`PCT application was filed on 7 February 2008.
`Attorney Irving believes personnel at Finnegan, Henderson intended to
`claim benefit of the ʼ921 provisional application in the PCT application. Id.;
`Ex. 2051, ¶ 9; Ex. 2074, page 30:3–11.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`
`In due course, the ʼ296 application was filed as the U.S. national stage
`application. Ex. 2051, ¶ 6.
`Attorney Irving now recognizes that the claim for benefit of the provisional
`application “was not made in [the ʼ296 application in] the manner seet forth in
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78.” Ex. 2051, ¶ 7.
`According to attorney Irving, the failure to make the necessary claim for
`benefit was “inadvertent.” Id.
`Further according to attorney Irving, “any delay in making . . . [a] claim
`priority claim in the specific manner set forth in Rule 78 was unintentional.”
`Ex. 2051, ¶ 9.
`Still further according to attorney Irving, the USPTO “recognized the
`priority claim in the ʼ296 application, as shown in . . . [a] Notification of Missing
`Requirments . . . dated September 13, 2013.” Ex. 2051, ¶ 8; Ex. 2055.1
`There was considerable testimony as to what steps may have been taken, and
`by whom, to be sure that a proper claim for priority of the ʼ921 provisional
`application had been made.
`Cross-examination confirms that attorney Irving was the Finnegan,
`Henderson “partner in charge” of the prosecution of the ʼ921 provisional
`application, the PCT application, and the ʼ296 application. Ex. 2051, ¶ 3;
`Ex. 2074, page 9:3–14.
`
`
`1 In Table 3, the document is listed as Confirmation No. 5197 371 Formalities
`Letter.
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`Attorney Irving “supervised Finnegan’s filing and prosecution of the three
`applications. Ex. 2051, ¶ 3.
`Based on cross-examination, the Board understands that attorney Irving
`directly oversaw prosecution work perfomed by Finnegan, Henderson associates,
`including (1) attorney Konstantin Linnik and (2) attorney Arthur S. Garrett. Also
`involved at various times were (3) attorney Ernest Chapman, (4) attorney Richard
`Burgujign, and (5) attorney Leslie McDonell. Ex. 2051, page 9:8–page 17–16.
`Attorneys Linnik, Garrett, Chapman, Burgujign, and McDonell did not
`testify.
`During the relevant 2007–2011 time period, attorney Irving agrees that he
`and other Finnegan, Henderson personnel consulted with personnel at Biogen.
`Ex. 2051, page 23:18–page 24:9.
`Apart from attorney Theresa Devlin, who did not begin work at Biogen until
`2013, no other Biogen employee testified.
`On direct, attorney Irving, while referencing Finnegan, Henderson, testified
`as to his knowledge not the knowledge of a juristic Finnegan, Henderson entity.
`Ex. 2051, page 31:8–14.
`While attorney Irving cannot testify as to the state of mind of other
`personnel at Finnegan, Henderson, we nevertheless highly credit the following
`cross-examination testimony:
`[I[f anything was amiss, if anybody would have had some idea
`that priority hadn't been properly claimed, they would have come
`to see me. That would have been brought to my attention.
`And, sir, I don't have great recollection of all the facts here, some
`I have no recollection, but I'll tell you, I darn well would
`remembered if there was some big mess like that. Those are the
`kind of things you remember in life, not the things that go well,
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`but the things that go amiss. And I have absolutely no
`recollection that anyone came to me at any time until 2015, when
`evidently this challenge was made to the priority of the PCT, I
`guess it was, and the provisional. I have no recollection. No one
`ever came to me, sir.
`
`***
`If there had been a failure . . . to claim priority, somebody would
`have been in my office giving me the full detail so that we could
`have taken corrective action or done whatever we could then.
`That's how, sir, I run clients.
`
`***
`It's unthinkable that they wouldn't have come to talk to me, sir.
`I told you it was unthinkable if someone had had a problem they
`wouldn't have come to me. It is unthinkable, sir.
`
`Ex. 2074, page 31:21–page 33:18.
`It appears that prosecution of the ʼ296 application as transferred by Biogen
`from Finnegan, Henderson to Sterne, Kessler no later than 13 January 2011.
`Ex. 2051, ¶ 3; Ex. 2074, page 19:14–20.
`John M. Covert, an attorney at Sterne, Kessler, testified on direct that Sterne,
`Kessler took over prosecution of the ʼ296 application no later than 13 January
`2011. Ex. 2052,¶ 3.
`
`During the period 2011 through 2014, attorney Covert was “prosecution
`counsel” representing Biogen in connection with the applications relevant to issues
`before us. Id.
`
`According to attorney Covert, Sterne, Kessler caused an “inventor
`declaration” to be filed in the ʼ296 application. Ex. 2052, ¶ 5.
`
`The declaration made a claim for priority of the ʼ921 provisional application.
`Id.
`
`The ʼ296 application was filed on 13 January 2011.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`
`Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`There may be some confusion at to the accuracy of the 13 January 2011
`transfer date from Finnegan, Henderson to Sterne, Kessler. On cross-examination,
`Forward Pharma attempted to determine a precise transfer date. Ex. 2073,
`page 38:14–page 39:18. A transfer occurred. However, a precise transfer date is
`probably not important. In our view, all individuals who testified would have had
`the same beliefs as to failure to provide a “specific reference” apart from a precise
`transfer date.
`
`According to attorney Covert, Sterne, Kessler “claimed priorty to the
`provisional application.” Ex. 2052, ¶ 7. He thought the priority claim had been
`made. Ex. 2073, page 48:6–14.
`
`Further according to attorney Covert, any failure to claim priority of the ʼ921
`provisional application in the ʼ296 application “in the manner set forth in Rule 78
`. . . was inadvertent.” Id.
`
`Still further according to attorney Covert, “any delay in filing an . . .
`[a]mendment . . . [in] the ʼ296 application . . . was unintentional.” Ex. 2052, ¶ 15.
`
`In due course on 13 February 2012, Sterne, Kessler caused to be filed in the
`USPTO the ʼ426 application as a continuation of the ʼ296 application. Ex. 2052,
`¶ 8.
`According to attorney Covert, the ʼ296 application went abandoned on
`
`10 July 2012. Ex. 2052, ¶ 11.
`
`Our reading of attorney Covert’s direct testimony is that he believed a claim
`for priority of the ʼ921 provisional application has been properly made. Ex. 2052,
`¶ 9.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`His belief was based in part on documents received by Sterne Kessler from
`
`the USPTO indicating that a claim for priority of the ʼ921 provisional application
`had been made. See, e.g., Ex. 2016 and Ex. 2026, mentioned in Table 3.
`
`The ʼ426 application matured into the involved ʼ514 patent on 19 March
`2013. Ex. 1001A, page 1.
`
`Before issuance of the involved ʼ514 patent, Sterne, Kessler caused to be
`filed in the USPTO the ʼ014 application as a continuation of the ʼ426 application.
`Ex. 2052, ¶ 16.
`
`A USPTO issued filing receipt indicated a claim for priority of the ʼ921
`provisional application. Ex. 2060.
`
`On cross-examination, attorney Covert confirmed that he was “directly
`involved in the prosecution of the ʼ296 application” and “was ultimately
`supervising [the prosecution of] these applications.” Ex. 2073, page 12:4–9 and
`page 13:22.
`
`Attorney Covert testified that other Sterne, Kessler personnel also worked on
`prosecution, including at least (1) attorney Marsha Rose Gillentine, (2) patent
`agent Ute Splittgerber. Ex. 2073, page 12:14–16 and page 16:8-12.
`
`In attorney Covert’s opinion, attorney Gillentine knew how to claim priority
`consistent with Rule 78. Ex. 2073, page 18:2–15.
`
`We highly credit the italized portion of the following cross-examination
`testimony of what attorney Gillentine would have done had she noticed that a
`claim for priority of the ʼ921 application had not been made:
`Q. Okay. And you can't rule out that in fact . . . [attorney]
`Gillentine did go back and did observe that there was no
`preliminary amendment for the ʼ296 application making such a
`claim for priority; correct?
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`
`A. I couldn't rule that out, but, you know, if she had seen it, I
`would imagine she would have immediately amended the
`application and put in this cross-reference.
`
`Q. But now you're speculating, right, because you don't know
`what she did or didn't do?
`
`A. Well, I've speculated to every one of your questions so far.
`
`Q. I'm just trying to establish you have no personal knowledge
`of whether she did or didn't go back and observe that there is in
`fact no preliminary amendment in the '296 file containing a claim
`to priority; correct?
`
`A. So I do not have personal knowledge of what she was
`thinking.
`
`Q. And therefore you can't rule out that she did in fact notice that
`there is no preliminary amendment in the '296 file with a
`claim to priority to the U.S. provision[al]; correct? You can't rule
`it out?
`
`A. I can't rule it out, but if Marsha had seen it, she would have
`corrected it.
`
`
`Ex. 2073, page 23:7–page 24:11. Attorney Covert’s impression of what an
`employee under his supervision would have done is entitled to be considered
`given his relationship with attorney Gillentine.
`
`On redirect, attorney Covert adhered to his view that he “had no reason to
`believe that we had not perfected the claim [for priority of the ʼ921 provisional
`application].” Ex. 2073, page 61:10–11.
`
`Attorney Covert further testified that:
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`My expectation would be that Marsha and Ute would have come
`to me to address an issue such as not perfecting the claim of
`priority. Marsha and Ute typically exhibited good attention to
`detail, and we just would have made sure that
`something like this was -- was taken care of.
`Ex. 2073, page 62:8–13.
`
`In June of 2014, prosecution of the ʼ014 application was transferred
`by Biogen from Sterne, Kessler to Jones Day. Ex. 2053, ¶ 4; Ex. 2072,
`page 11:10–11.
`
`Adriane M. Antler, an attorney at Jones Day, represented Biogen in
`applications claiming benefit of the involved ʼ514 patent. Id.
`
`The ʼ014 application was filed as a continuation of the ʼ426 application.
`
`Jones Day caused the ʼ962 application to be filed in the USPTO as a
`continuation of the ʼ014. Ex. 2053, ¶ 8; Ex. 2072, page 16:1–2.
`
`Like, prior counsel Jones Day received notices from the USPTO indicating
`that a claim for priority of the ʼ921 provisional application had been made.
`Ex. 2053, ¶ 10; Ex. 2072.
`
`
`In addition to attorney Antler, associate Jones Day attorney Martha Bergauer
`“was involved.” Ex. 2072, page 14:1.
`
`Attorney Bergauer did not testify.
`
`According to attorney Antler, Jones Day personnel had no “occasion to go
`back and look at the chain [of applications] and see if there was a failure to perfect
`claim for priority [of the ʼ921 provisional application].” Ex.2072, page 18:5-11.
`Attorney Theresa Devlin is employed as a patent attorney by Biogen.
`Ex. 2054, ¶ 1.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Attorney Devlin is an in-house Biogen patent counsel who says she
`reviewed the prosecution history of the involved ʼ514 patent, as well as this
`interference. Ex. 2054, ¶ 4; Ex. 2075, page 9:5–21.
`According to attorney Devlin, the prosecution history was consistent with a
`claim for priority of the ʼ921 provisional application as set out in various
`documents issued by the USPTO. Id.; Ex. 2015, Ex. 2016, Ex. 2022, and
`Ex. 2026.
`Further according to attorney Devlin, “any delay in seeking to . . . enter an
` . . . [a]mendment into the ʼ296 application was . . . unintentional from the . . .
`[declaration] of this interference through the October 23, 2015 . . . date of . . .
`[Biogen Motion 6] to revive.” Ex. 2054, ¶ 11.
`Constance Yeung, at Biogen, was responsible for the ʼ514 patent prior to the
`time attorney Devlin assumed that responsibility. Ex. 2075, page 10:1–3.
`Cara Lowen, a supervisor of a prosecution group at Biogen, may also have
`had some responsibility for prosecuting the involved ʼ514 patent. Ex. 2075,
`page 10:15–page 11:15.
`
`Attorney Devlin dealt with Jones Day attorney Antler in connection with
`prosecution of the involved ʼ514 patent and its continuations. Ex. 2075,
`page 12:17–25.
`
`She also had occasion to deal with attorney Covert of the Sterne, Kessler
`firm. Ex. 2075, page 13:4–23.
`
`With respect to any claim for priority of the ʼ921 provisional application,
`attorney Devlin testified on cross:
`And I can say, since I took over the portfolio, and actually since
`I've been at Biogen, nobody ever questioned the priority claim,
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`so my impression was that nobody knew, and I certainly didn't
`know after April 2013 [about any failure to claim priority of the
`ʼ921 provisional application].
`
`Ex. 2075, page 17:20–24. See also Ex. 2075, page 26:1–5 where attorney
`Devlin further testified that based on the file history, “it seems reasonable to
`. . . [her] today that a claim . . . [for] priority was made.”
`IV. Analysis
`The issue before us is whether Biogen has established by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that it unintentionally abandoned the ʼ296 application without
`realizing that it had failed to properly claim benefit of the ʼ921 provisional
`application.
`
`Based on testimony of four witnesses—testimony we find credible—we
`have little difficulty finding that at the time the ʼ296 application was abandoned
`(10 July 2012) personnel at Biogen and personnel at Sterne, Kessler had not
`realized that a proper claim for priority had not been made.
`
`The failure to properly ensure a “specific reference” in the ʼ296 application
`to the ʼ921 provisional application was nothing more than an inadvertent human
`error. Perfection is not a characteristic of human behavior. Williams v. Russell,
`419 F.2d 1092, 1094 (6th Cir. 1969)(“[l]awyers in cases of this kind are going to
`make mistakes, and it is unavoidable unless we expect perfection of human nature,
`and that we cannot expect”); United States v. Kahaner, 317 F.2d 459, 485 (2d Cir.
`1963)( “Absolute perfection in trials will not be attained so long as human beings
`conduct them”).
`In the course of human activities, including patent application prosecution,
`errors occur. For that reason, there are provisions in the Patent Law to correct
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`errors, including (1) unintentional abandonment, (2) unintentional failure to pay a
`maintenance fee, (3) certificate of correction, and (4) reissues—to name a few.
`The record fails to reveal that the error was in any way intentional. Indeed, it
`would border on incredible to believe that a registered patent attorney/agent would
`intentionally fail to make the “specific reference” or, that if a registered patent
`attorney/agent later discovered a failure to make the “specific reference,” that the
`attorney would play ostrich and ignore the failure. In this respect, we highly credit
`the testimony of attorney Irving (in practice since 1977) and attorney Covert (in
`practice since 1994), both of whom stated that if any failure to claim priority would
`have been discovered by an associate working under their direction that the
`associate immediately would have been in their office reporting the failure. Both
`attorneys were familiar with employees under their direction and we find that
`based on their association with those employees can legitimately form an opinion
`as to what the employees would have done had the error been detected.
`
`The fact of the matter is that the failure to present a “specific reference” was
`not discovered until it became an inter partes issue in this interference. Before the
`issue was raised in the interference, no one responsible for the failure was aware
`that any inadvertent failure had occurred. Once the failure came to light, Biogen
`took reasonable steps to correct the error using available USPTO remedies.
`We find that the abandonment without a “specific reference” was
`unintentional.
`We also find “that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the
`due date until the filing of a grantable petition . . . was unintentional.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.137(b)(4).
`
`Forward Pharma opposes granting the motion. Paper 542.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`To establish unintentional abandonment, Biogen relies heavily on
`
`documentation issued by the USPTO—documentation which indicates that Biogen
`was claiming priority of the ʼ921 provisional application.
`
`According to Forward Pharma, Biogen’s reliance on the documentation
`“does not prove unintentional delay.” Paper 542, page 2:18–19.
`
`We are under the impression that registered practitioners may not fully
`appreciate the significance—or lack thereof—of the kind of documentation relied
`upon by Biogen. The documentation simply acknowledges information provided
`by Biogen to the USPTO and in no way should be considered a finding that the
`USPTO reviewed the documentation to determine whether a claim for priority had
`been perfected. See, e.g., MPEP § 216: MPEP § 201.08; In re Shaw, 202 USPQ
`285, 292 (Comm’r Pat. 1978); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the USPTO does not examine priority
`claims unless necessary, and therefore there is no basis to presume that a reference
`patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application, citing
`MPEP § 211.05(I)(A) (2014)); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) (USPTO does not make priority determinations during examination as a
`matter of course); PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“examiners do not make priority determinations except where
`necessary”).
`
`Attorneys and others acting on behalf of Biogen, based on documentation
`received from the USPTO, had no basis for assuming that the USPTO had
`determined that a “specific reference” had been made in the ʼ296 application to the
`ʼ921 provisional application. Neverthless, the documentation—at least in the
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`minds of those acting on behalf of Biogen—would be consistent with the fact that
`a benefit claim had been made that had been acknowledged by the USPTO.
`
`The USPTO documentation does not establish that those acting on behalf of
`Biogen made, or did not make, an error in failing to provide the necessary “specific
`reference.” Nevertheless, for reasons set out above, an error was indeed made and
`we find that the error was simply an inadvertent human error.
`
`Forward Pharma maintains that Biogen failed to prove its case by a
`preponderance of the evidence via testimony of individuals having first-hand
`knowledge of the facts. Paper 542, page 2:20–page 6:4.
`
`For example, Forward Pharma notes that Biogen failed to call as witnesses
`the following individuals who are characterized as “key proseutors who were
`substantively involved in the prosecution of the ʼ296 application” Paper 542,
`page 4:1–2): :
`(1) Ernest Chapman (Finnegan, Henderson);
`(2) Marsha Rose Gillentine (Sterne, Kessler);
`(3) Ute Splittgerber (Sterne, Kessler);
`(4) Constance Yeung (Biogen in-house counsel); and
`(5) Carol Loeschorn (Biogen in-house counsel).
`Paper 542, page 4:3–17.
`
`Biogen called as witnesses three patent attorneys, partners in their respective
`law firms, who were responsible at different times for prosecution of the chain of
`applications releavant to the issue before us. In other words, Biogen called the
`patent attorneys who “were in charge” of the prosecution. It is true that those
`patent attorneys may have assigned work to associates under their direct or indirect
`responsibility.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`While it may be true a stronger case might have been made had the five
`
`above-identified witnesses been called, the attorneys who testified on behalf of
`Biogen had sufficient first-hand knowledge of the prosecution details to satisfy us
`that an inadvertent error had been made, and that no one responsible for the
`relevant prosecution discovered the error until it was uncovered during this
`interference.
`Biogen was under a burden to make out its case under a preponderance of
`
`the evidence standard—not beyond a reasonable doubt as required in criminal
`matters where perhaps the testimony of the five attorneys might have been
`necessary. Forward Pharma is asking that Biogen put on a perfect case. But, a
`perfect case is not necessary. Walker v. Bailey, 245 F.2d 486, 491 (CCPA 1957)
`(“The issue here, however, is not whether Bailey has presented a perfect case, but
`whether he has presented a sufficient one.”); Environ Products Inc. v. Furon Co.,
`215 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (trials must be fair, not perfect). Biogen has
`put on a sufficient case.
`
`Forward Pharma also maintains that the testimony of the witnesses called by
`Biogen “should not be given weight.” Paper 542, page 6:6. We disagree and, in
`fact, give the testimony considerable weight.
`
`Attorney Irving’s testimony is said to be entitled to no weight for a variety
`of reasons. Paper 542, page 7:4–page 8:2
`
`Mr. Irving “offered no testimony that he drafted, revised or viewed any
`paper submitted during the ʼ296 prosecution.” Paper 542, page 7:4–5. He testified
`that associates at Finnegan, Henderson were assigned prosecution duties, that none
`of the associates discovered any error, and that if an error had been discovered it
`would have been called to his attention. We understand that in law firms partners
`
`19
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`routinely assign work to associate attorneys.
`
`According to Forward Pharma, Mr. Irving’s testimony with respect to
`attorney Chapman is undercut because he was not the partner supervising attorney
`Chapman. Paper 542, page 7:14–17. Attorney Irving testified that he supervised
`attorney Arthur S. Garrett. Ex. 2074, page 10:8 and page 11:17. He also testified
`that he did not remember whether attorney Chapman was directly involved in the
`prosecution. Id, at page 11:20–22. Ultimately attorney Irving testified that
`attorney Chapman reported to attorney Garrett. Id., at page 42:17–19.
`
`Attorney Irving testified that he could not recall the name of any individual
`at Biogen “with whom he allegedly dealt regarding the prosecution, even though
`he was the ‘partner in charge of the client.’” Paper 542, page 7:18–20. His lack of
`recollection would not prove or disprove that an error was made in failing to make
`the needed “specific reference.”
`
`According to Forward Pharma, attorney Irving “was not . . . aware that
`prosecution responsibility for the ʼ296 patent application had been transferred to
`Sterne Kessler . . . .” Paper 542, page 7:21–page 8:2. His lack of awareness would
`not prove or disprove an error in failing to make the needed “specific reference.”
`
`Forward Pharma attacks the testimony of attorney Covert on a variety of
`fronts. Paper 542, page 8:7–page 9:4.
`
`Attorney Covert is said to have admitted that attorney Gillentine and patent
`agent Splittgerber were “directly involved” in the prosecution of the ʼ296
`application and that they would “have first hand knowledge of what they did and
`what they knew.” Paper 542, page 8:7-9. What we find significant is that attorney
`Covert testified that if attorney Gillentine had discovered the failure, she would
`have corrected the error. Ex. 2073, page 23:13–15 (“if she had seen it, I would
`
`20
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`imagine she would have immediately amended the applicaton and put in this cross-
`reference”); page 24:10–11 (“if Marsha had seen it, she would have corrected it”).
`We have no reason to doubt that patent agent Splittgerber would have done
`likewise.
`
`While unusual for us to adopt a party’s argument, in this case we adopt the
`arguments in Biogen Reply 6 (Paper 561, page 6:13–page 8:17) as adequately and
`satisfactorily responding to Forward Pharma’s attack on the credibility of the
`Biogen witnesses (Paper 542, page 7:4–page 11:9). Biogen’s arguments are
`consistent with our independent fact-finding set out earlier in this opinion.
`
`Forward Pharma alleges that Biogen has neve
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
