`Filed: Enter a date.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`NEPTUNE GENERICS, LLC
`
`PETITIONER
`
`V.
`
`AVENTIS PHARMA S.A.
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`___________________
`
`CASE NO.: IP2019-00136
`PATENT NO. 5,847,170
`FILED: MARCH 26, 1996
`ISSUED: DECEMBER 8, 1998
`INVENTORS: HERVÉ BOUCHARD,
`JEAN-DOMINIQUE BOURZAT, ALAIN COMMERÇON
`
`
`TITLE: TAXOIDS, THEIR PREPARATION, AND PHARMACEUTICAL
`COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING THEM
`___________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ....................................................................... 1 
`II.  Legal Standard for Rehearing ....................................................................................... 3 
`III.     Statement of Reasons for Relief Requested .............................................................. 4 
`A.  The Panel Erred in Determining Neptune’s Use of a Different Lead
`Compound Was Substantially Similar to Mylan’s Arguments ............................. 5 
`B.  The Panel Erred in Finding Commerçon and Neptune’s Related Arguments
`Are Cumulative to Arguments Presented in Mylan ............................................... 9 
`C.  The Decision Erred in Finding Wong and Klein Substantially Similar ....... 14 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner Neptune Generics, LLC (“Neptune”), requests rehearing, pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1), of the Board’s Decision denying institution of review
`
`for challenged claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 5,847,170 (“the ’170 patent”). (Paper
`
`15, “Decision” or “Dec.”). Petitioner is simultaneously requesting a Precedential
`
`Opinion Panel by contacting the appropriate e-mail address, as instructed in the
`
`relevant Standard Operating Procedure. The proper application of 325(d) to a new
`
`chemical compound obviousness analysis is of such extraordinary and recurring
`
`importance to the PTAB and its participants that a precedential panel is necessary
`
`to supply uniform guidance for future cases. The panel denied institution because
`
`the prior art or arguments in Neptune’s petition were purportedly “substantially
`
`similar” to those presented in a previous petition in Mylan Laboratories Limited v.
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A., IPR2016-00627 (filed Feb. 17, 2016). See Dec. at 25-35.
`
`This finding distorts both 325(d) and the law of obviousness.
`
`The panel found “substantial similarity” even though Neptune presented:
`
`(1) a different lead compound (paclitaxel) and different reasons for selecting the
`
`lead compound than Mylan’s lead compounds (Kant Compound 20 or docetaxel);
`
`(2) a different primary reference for selection of paclitaxel as the lead compound
`
`and for promising areas for substitutions of that lead compound (Commerçon) than
`
`Mylan used to select and modify its different lead compounds (Kant); (3) different
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`primary references for substitution at the C-7 position (Commerçon and Wong)
`
`than Mylan used for C-7 substitution (Klein); and (4) a different primary reference
`
`for substitution at the C-10 position (Commerçon) than Mylan used (Kant), as well
`
`as different arguments for applying Kant—the only Neptune primary reference
`
`that overlaps with a Mylan primary reference—as an additional basis to substitute
`
`paclitaxel’s C-10 position (Kant’s paclitaxel data as a control) than Mylan used
`
`when it applied Kant as its sole reference to modify its different lead compound
`
`(Kant contains no data as a control that supports modifying the C-7 position of
`
`Compound 20 or docetaxel); and (5) a different expert declarant presenting a
`
`different lead compound and different primary references.
`
`Neptune respectfully submits that the panel overlooked or misapprehended
`
`the law governing new chemical compound obviousness, the plain and material
`
`factual differences between the art and arguments in the Neptune and Mylan
`
`petitions, and misapprehended or misapplied recent 325(d) decisions to reach an
`
`unreasonable judgment in weighing the relevant factors. Section 325(d) simply
`
`does not (and cannot) support discretionary denial of an obviousness challenge to a
`
`new chemical compound where the lead compound, and two of the three primary
`
`references presented in support of modifying it—have never been presented to or
`
`considered by the Patent Office—particularly where the Office rejected the prior
`
`petition because the lead compounds selected had no evidentiary support and were
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`based entirely on hindsight. Neptune argued the challenged claims are obvious
`
`when a POSA starts with paclitaxel, and modifies it based on Commerçon, Kant
`
`and Wong. Mylan’s petition did not select paclitaxel as a lead compound—and it
`
`did not even cite Commerçon or Wong. A discretionary denial under these
`
`circumstances makes a mockery of both 325(d) and the law governing obviousness
`
`of new chemical compounds.
`
`For these reasons, as discussed in detail below, Neptune respectfully
`
`requests rehearing of the panel’s decision declining to institute review.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR REHEARING
`A rehearing request “must specifically identify 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. Institution
`
`decisions are reviewed on rehearing for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an
`
`erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial
`
`evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`
`relevant factors.” Google LLC v. Cywee Group Ltd., IPR2018-01257, Paper No. 12
`
`at 2 (Jan. 30, 2019) (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F. 3d 1277, 1281 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`Neptune’s Petition established that a POSA starting with paclitaxel as the
`
`lead compound renders the cabazitaxel of challenged claim 1 in view of the
`
`Commerçon (Ex. 1009), Kant (Ex. 1010), and Wong references (Ex. 1011). (Pet. at
`
`36-37.) Mylan’s prior petition selected Kant Compound 20 or docetaxel as lead
`
`compound argued obviousness based on Kant and Klein. (Pet. at 77-78.) Neither
`
`Neptune’s obviousness argument, nor Neptune’s combination of references has
`
`ever been considered by the Office. (Pet. at 77-78; Reply at 1-4.) In fact, Neptune’s
`
`lead reference, Commerçon—has never been presented to or considered by the
`
`Office. (Pet. at 26, 77-78; Reply at 1.) And Neptune’s Wong reference has never
`
`been considered by the Board, and although a European counterpart to Wong was
`
`cited during prosecution, the Office has never commented on Wong or applied any
`
`rejection based on Wong. (Pet. at 31, 77-78; Dec. at 19, n.4, and at 30, n.21.)
`
`In denying institution, the panel overlooked or misapprehended both the law
`
`of new chemical compound obviousness and the differences between Neptune’s
`
`and Mylan’s petitions. Under black-letter law governing the obviousness analysis
`
`for a new chemical compound, neither Neptune’s art, nor its arguments presented
`
`in its Petition are similar—much less substantially similar—to the arguments
`
`presented to and considered by the Board in Mylan’s petition.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`A. The Panel Erred in Determining Neptune’s Use of a Different Lead
`Compound Was Substantially Similar to Mylan’s Arguments
`
`In a challenge to a claim directed to a new chemical compound, the selection
`
`of a lead compound is the “anchor” of any obviousness theory. Eisai Co. Ltd. v.
`
`Dr. Reddy's Labs., Ltd, 533 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A lead compound is
`
`“a compound in the prior art that would be most promising to modify in order to
`
`improve upon its [] activity and obtain a compound with better activity.” (Pet. at
`
`37, citing Takeda at 1357.) The analysis “focuses” on the identification of a lead
`
`compound to determine whether “the skilled artisan would have had a reason to
`
`select from the panoply of known compounds in the prior art.” Otsuka Pharm. Co.
`
`v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012). (Pet. at 36, citing Otsuka.)
`
`Mylan selected Kant Compound 20 and docetaxel as its lead compounds for
`
`grounds one and two, respectively. (Pet. at 78.) The Board denied institution
`
`because it found Mylan failed to present sufficient evidence showing a POSA
`
`would select Compound 20 as a promising compound for further modification.
`
`(Pet. at 77-78; Reply at 2, n.1.) Not a single one of the reasons the Board raised in
`
`rejecting Compound 20 as the lead applies to paclitaxel as the lead compound (Pet.
`
`at 2-3)—and nothing in the Decision found to the contrary. That should end the
`
`inquiry under 325(d). (Pet. at 78); Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2019-
`
`00026, Paper 7 at 25 (PTAB April 9, 2019) (instituting review, “[b]ecause [the
`
`new reference] does not share those deficiencies [of previously presented
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`reference], we find that Petitioner’s arguments concerning [new reference], also
`
`differ substantively from those present by the previous petitions.).
`
`First, the Mylan decision denying institution (“Mylan”) held that a POSA
`
`would not select Compound 20 as the lead compound—a finding the Decision here
`
`did not and could not make—which unmistakably establishes Neptune presented
`
`different art and different arguments to the Board than Mylan’s petition:
`
`Kant Compound 20 as a lead compound
`
`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. Ex. 1005, 5543 ¶ 3. 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.
`Kant itself indicates the authors chose to use 10-DAB as the starting
`material for making selective C-10 substitutions in order to synthesize
`“novel paclitaxel analogues.” Id. (Mylan at 12.)
`
`Mylan found that starting with Compound 20 as the lead compound was not
`
`supported by the sole reference (Kant) Mylan cited in support of selecting it. (Pet.
`
`at 2, n.1.) And it is indisputable that Neptune identified paclitaxel as lead—which
`
`is not subject to Mylan’s finding that Kant does not support selecting Compound
`
`20 as the lead compound. To the contrary, Neptune uses Kant as a supporting
`
`reference to modify lead compound paclitaxel—which Mylan expressly found
`
`Kant to teach. (Reply at 2, n.1, citing Mylan, 10-11.) Paclitaxel is not only a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`suitable lead compound, as was detailed in Neptune’s petition, it is the most
`
`suitable lead compound, as Patent Owner admitted. (Pet. at 37-38.)
`
`Mylan also rejected Compound 20 as the lead base on hindsight bias:
`
`Petitioner also errs by starting with a hindsight-biased structural
`comparison of docetaxel, Kant Compound 20, and cabazitaxel in side-
`by-side fashion. Prelim. Resp. 31–34 (citing Pet. 31). As noted by Patent
`Owner, without a docetaxel control, Kant does not provide any
`information as to whether a particular compound performs better or
`worse than docetaxel. Id. at 33. Kant makes clear that the authors were
`synthesizing paclitaxel analogues and using paclitaxel, not docetaxel, as a
`control. Ex. 1005, 5545 Table II n.a (IC50 cytotoxicity measured as a “[r]atio
`of analogue relative to paclitaxel”). (Mylan at 12, cited in Reply at 2, n.1.)
`
`Here again, Mylan’s criticism of using Kant to modify lead Compound 20
`
`does not apply to Neptune’s Petition—because the lead compound is paclitaxel—
`
`which is the very compound Kant used as a control in the context of synthesizing
`
`paclitaxel analogues. (Pet. at 47-48.)
`
`Mylan also rejected the argument that Kant suggested the possibility of
`
`simultaneous substitutions of both the C-7 and C-10 positions of Compound B to
`
`increase lipophilicity:
`
`Kant also does not teach or suggest the possibility of simultaneous
`substitution of both the C-7 and C-10 positions, whether to increase
`potency and lipophilicity (cell membrane permeability) as argued by
`Petitioner (Pet. 21–22, 33), or for some other reason. Prelim. Resp. 20–26.
`Rather, Kant focuses on the possibility of improving anti-tumor cytotoxicity
`of paclitaxel analogues by selective substitution and functionalization of
`only the C-10 position, a point aptly made in the title, abstract, and text of
`Kant’s article… Petitioner does not address why a POSA would have
`simultaneously modified the C-7 and C-10 positions in Kant Compound
`20 to optimize lipophilicity, thereby minimizing aqueous solubility, when a
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`POSA would have known docetaxel and paclitaxel were highly
`lipophilic and insoluble in water, which made their commercial
`formulation challenging… Petitioner recognizes that alkylating the C-7 and
`C-10 functional groups would optimize lipophilicity (Pet. 22) but does not
`address the well-known problems with lipophilicity and limited aqueous
`solubility of intravenously administered paclitaxel and docetaxel.
`(Mylan at 13.)
`
`In contrast, Neptune relied on Commerçon and laboratory best practices—
`
`not Kant alone—to establish motivation and expected success for substitutions of
`
`both the C-7 and C-10 positions. (Pet. at 39-40, citing Commerçon, best practices,
`
`Dr. Wood; see also Reply at 4 (“nor does Neptune’s petition focus on a motivation
`
`to increase lipophilicity…[which] separately addressed and accounted for
`
`motivations regarding increased stability and any solubility concerns”).) Neptune
`
`relied on Kant and Wong to establish an “additional motivation” (i.e., additional to
`
`Commerçon) (Pet. at 40) for a POSA to make a substitution at the C-7 position—
`
`which is exactly what Mylan found Kant to teach—and did so in the context of
`
`modifications to paclitaxel (Neptune’s lead compound) not modifications to
`
`Compound 20 (Mylan’s lead compound). Mylan at 13. Moreover, unlike Mylan’s
`
`petition—Neptune did not argue that a POSA would be motivated to make
`
`substitutions of the C-7 and C-10 positions to increase lipophilicity—an argument
`
`Mylan appropriately rejected as shown above. Likewise, Neptune both
`
`acknowledged and addressed the potential lipophilicity issue from the C-7 and C-
`
`10 substitutions (Pet. at 46-50; Reply at 4)—but did not argue that increased
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`lipophilicity is a reason to make the substitutions. Both the art and arguments
`
`Neptune presented on this issue are completely different than presented before.
`
`Mylan also found a POSA would not modify Compound 20 based on the
`
`teachings of Mylan’s second reference, Klein. Critically, Mylan found that the
`
`petition failed to explain “why a POSA would have disregarded [a] key teachings
`
`of Klein [to] increase aqueous solubility and chemical stability by reducing the C-9
`
`carbonyl to a hydroxyl…in order to synthesize cabazitaxel from Kant Compound
`
`20.” Mylan at 15.
`
`This criticism simply does not apply to the art and arguments in Neptune’s
`
`petition. Unlike the art and arguments in Mylan, Neptune did not select Compound
`
`20 as the lead compound for modification—nor did it rely on the Klein reference
`
`for modifications of its lead compound in its obviousness ground based on
`
`Commerçon, Kant, and Wong. Juniper Networks, IPR2019-00026, Paper 7 at 25.
`
`B.
`
`The Panel Erred in Finding Commerçon and Neptune’s Related
`Arguments Are Cumulative to Arguments Presented in Mylan
`
`Mylan’s petition does not identify or rely in any way on the Commerçon
`
`reference (Ex. 1009), which Neptune relied upon as its lead reference for selecting
`
`its lead compound and how to modify it. (Pet. at 78; Reply at 1.)1 “That the
`
`principal reference asserted by Petitioner in this proceeding” was not previously
`
`
`1 Mylan’s petition refers to a different Commerçon reference, (Mylan Ex. 1016),
`referred to as the Margraff reference in the Neptune petition (Ex. 1018).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`“considered on the merits weighs against a discretionary denial when applied” to
`
`the 325(d) factors. Garmin Intl. v. Wisc. Archery Prod., LLC, IPR2018-01137
`
`(PTAB Dec. 11, 2018) (Paper 11 at 40).
`
`Indeed, no better lead compound obviousness illustration could be presented
`
`than in the prior art by Commerçon Fig. 2. (Pet. at 27, 37-42.) Titled
`
`“Modifications influencing the cytotoxicity of paclitaxel” the figure succinctly
`
`shows paclitaxel as a lead compound, shows portions of the molecule that are
`
`“crucial” and must not be altered, shows a portion that is flexible at position 3’
`
`(with a preference for the patent’s claimed BOC over paclitaxel’s PhCO), and
`
`shows two flexible portions at positions C-7 and C-10. (Id.) The Decision simply
`
`does not identify any reference cumulative to Commerçon—and its broad-brush
`
`reliance on Mylan’s “background” as a substitute for Neptune’s lead reference is
`
`clear error. Plain as could be, this lead compound is revealed along with a roadmap
`
`for well-defined changes that would lead one directly to the claimed cabazitaxel, in
`
`view of Kant and Wong. There is no such roadmap in Mylan’s petition, and thus
`
`the two petitions are not cumulative or “substantially similar.”
`
`The Decision misapprehended or overlooked Neptune’s scope of reliance
`
`upon Commerçon when it adopted Patent Owner’s argument that Commerçon
`
`merely disclosed that functional groups located at the C-7 and C-10 positions of an
`
`analog were available for possible substitution. (Dec. at 31-32 citing POPR at 23-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`24.) But Neptune relied on Commerçon to show much more, including: 1) the
`
`phenylisoserine side-chain, as well as main carbon skeleton defined by C-1
`
`through C-14, and most functional groups on the lower portion of the molecule are
`
`all “crucial” to biological activity; 2) replacing the benzoyl with a BOC group at
`
`C-3’in paclitaxel presented superior activity; (3) the C-7 and C-10 positions on the
`
`main skeleton were flexible, able to withstand replacements without decreasing
`
`activity; (4) the phenyl group directly attached at C-3’ was important and
`
`significantly more active than methyl or hydrogen at that position, and that it is
`
`most active in its unsubstituted rather than substituted form; and (5) per Figure 2,
`
`Neptune argued Commerçon disclosed to a POSA that the vast supermajority of
`
`locations in the paclitaxel analog, following the substitution of the benzoyl with a
`
`BOC group at C-3', should be maintained, because they constituted either the most
`
`active known functional groups at those locations, or those groups were crucial and
`
`their removal would otherwise decrease an analog’s biological activity. (Pet. at 27-
`
`29, 39, 40-42; Reply at 1.)
`
`The Decision compounded its error when it did not even consider the alleged
`
`cumulative nature of Commerçon on its own, but stated simply that all of
`
`“Petitioner’s background discussion and reliance on Commerçon is, on balance
`
`cumulative to art and arguments that the Board already considered in the Mylan
`
`proceeding.” Dec. at 32. By painting with such an overly broad brush—and not
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`even addressing the totality of disclosures from Commerçon, and arguments
`
`Neptune presented about Commerçon, the Decision committed clear error.
`
`“A reference is cumulative when it teaches no more than what a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider to be taught by the prior art already before the PTO.”
`
`Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N.V., 864 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The
`
`Decision at 31-32 provides no basis to determine that many of the specific
`
`disclosures within Commerçon identified by Neptune, and relied upon in
`
`Neptune’s arguments (such as the motivation and basis for not changing the vast
`
`majority of the disclosed paclitaxel analog, except at the C-7 through C-10
`
`locations, such that these unchanged portions remain consistent with the claimed
`
`cabazitaxel structure of the challenged claims) are cumulative with arguments in
`
`Mylan’s Petition. (Pet. at 1, 3-5, 27-29, 39, 40-42, 56; Reply at 1.)
`
`Likewise, Mylan and Neptune’s background sections reveal numerous
`
`distinct, non-cumulative arguments presented. (Compare, e.g., Mylan’s reference
`
`to the purported superiority of docetaxel over paclitaxel (Ex. 2011 at 20-21) which
`
`was of course absent from Neptune’s background section (Pet. at 17-18); Mylan’s
`
`affirmative motivation to increase a taxol analog’s lipophilicity (Ex. 2011 at 22)
`
`versus Neptune’s absence of such an affirmation motivation, instead emphasizing a
`
`motivation to maximize an analog’s biological activity before addressing solubility
`
`issues, which could be significantly addressed through formulation studies (Pet. at
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`23-24; Reply at 3-4). Far from being cumulative, each petition’s background
`
`section presented and emphasized issues more central to their respective different
`
`lead compounds, and respective different primary references in support of
`
`different steps taken by a POSA using different motivations to make different
`
`modifications of their different lead compounds. Further Neptune presents an
`
`extensive discussion of best laboratory practices involving detailed examples and
`
`images of homologation and explanations regarding prodrugs (Pet. 20-22),
`
`compared to Mylan’s lengthy discussion based on different motivations for
`
`simultaneous substitution of functional groups at the C-7 and C-10 positions. (Ex.
`
`2011 at 24-25). Accordingly, the Decision abused its § 325(d) discretion by
`
`erroneously and unreasonably determining that key disclosures and arguments
`
`Neptune made with respect to Commerçon (such as the motivation to maintain the
`
`majority of the taxane analog that is consistent with the claimed cabazitaxel
`
`structure) are cumulative of arguments made in by Mylan. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.
`
`v. Immersion Corp., IPR2018-01469, Paper No. 10 at 13-14(PTAB March 7, 2019)
`
`(rejecting 325(d) argument where it “is not merely the presence of an additional
`
`reference but rather that the additional reference changes the character of the
`
`overall teaching of the art to be something different from what the examiner
`
`considered before.”) In view of the above, the Decision overlooked the way
`
`Neptune’s arguments, particularly with respect to Commerçon and the process of
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`modifying paclitaxel, are “presented in a different manner with a different focus”
`
`than Mylan’s failed petition. Becton Dickinson, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18.
`
`C. The Decision Erred in Finding Wong and Klein Substantially Similar
`No reasonable examiner reviewing Klein and Wong would find these
`
`references remotely similar—much less find that Wong “teaches no more” than
`
`Klein. Klein discloses 9-dihydrotaxane analogs, which Mylan used in support of
`
`modifications to Compound 20 (which is not a 9-dihydrotaxane)—and Wong
`
`discloses paclitaxel analogs, which Neptune used in support of modifications to
`
`paclitaxel. Thus, apart from the fact that Klein and Wong are clearly different
`
`references directed to synthesizing different compounds—those different
`
`references were used in support of making different modifications to different
`
`lead compounds. There is no interpretation of 325(d) that can result in a finding
`
`that these references are even a little bit similar—much less substantially similar.
`
`See, e.g., Unified Patents Inc., v. Bradium Tech. LLC., IPR2018-00952, Paper 31
`
`at 16 (PTAB December 20, 2018) (325(d) not triggered where a different petitioner
`
`relied on combination involving one new and two old references).
`
`In short, Mylan used Klein in error (as the Board found) in an attempt to
`
`show motivation to make a substitution of Kant Compound 20 at the C-7
`
`position. The Board found a POSA would not use Klein to modify Kant Compound
`
`20 because it required ignoring a key teaching of Klein—a teaching that is not in
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`any of Neptune’s references Commerçon, Kant, or Wong. The Board found Mylan
`
`could not use Klein in support of making a change to Compound 20 at C-7—while
`
`rejecting Klein’s teaching about position C-9. Mylan at 16. Wong does not suffer
`
`from this deficiency. Finding the references cumulative was legal error. This,
`
`however, constitutes legal error. Regeneron, 864 F.3d at 1350; Juniper Networks,
`
`IPR2019-00026, Paper 7 at 25; Amneal Pharma. v. Almirall, LLC, IPR2019-00207
`
`at 115-117 (PTAB May 10, 2019) (Paper 8) (rejecting Patent Owner “swapped”
`
`arguments amid improved or better disclosure). Although Neptune cited Klein, it
`
`was for motivation to not alter the C-9 functional group in view of Commerçon,
`
`Kant, or Wong disclosures. (Pet. at 44-45.) Unlike Mylan, Neptune did not rely
`
`upon Klein as a primary reference. Neptune and Mylan used Klein for
`
`fundamentally different purposes. See Vestas-American Wind Tech., Inc. v. Gen.
`
`Elec. Co., IPR2018-01563 (reference that is found deficient or insufficient for
`
`reading on a particular limitation can nonetheless still serve a different purpose).2
`
`
`2 The Decision erred in finding that District Court litigation on appeal supports
`non-institution. First, this was not an independent reason to decline institution, and
`if the 325(d) analysis fails, rehearing is required. Second, Neptune’s obviousness
`combination was not presented, its references appear only as part of a list of
`references, and the District Court did not consider or rely upon the combinations or
`even the art presented in this petition as a basis for its decision. Third, the Decision
`failed to consider the merits of this petition as part of its balanced assessment
`under section 314(a), relying wholesale on the District Court’s order which did not
`address the merits of this petition at all. The burdens of proof differ between the
`forums such that a decision rendered under a more stringent “clear and convincing
`standard” is not dispositive in an IPR where there is no presumption of validity.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Dated June 5, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Alexander E. Gasser/
`Alexander E. Gasser (Reg. No. 48,760)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm Street, Suite 4400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Sarah Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`Paul J. Skiermont (pro hac vice to be
`requested)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm Street, Suite 4400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`
`Mieke Malmberg (pro hac vice to be
`requested)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1450
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`P: 213-788-4500/F: 213-788-4545.
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that on June 5, 2019, a copy of this Petitioner’s Request for
`
`Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1), including any papers filed therewith, was
`
`served by delivering a copy via electronic mail to the attorneys of record for the
`
`Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Daniel J. Minion (Reg. No. 53,329)
`Dominick A. Conde (Reg. No. 33,856)
`William E. Solander (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Melinda R. Roberts (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Venable LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`DMinion@Venable.com
`DConde@Venable.com
`WSolander@Venable.com
`MRRoberts@Venable.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Alexander E. Gasser/
`
`Alexander E. Gasser (Reg. No. 48,760)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm Street, Suite 4400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`
`17
`
`