`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ETON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2020-00086
`Patent No. 10,653,719
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner files this sur-reply pursuant to the Board’s Oral Order of
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`February 8, 2021 (Exhibit 1124).
`
`Eton’s Reply further highlights the deficiencies of its Petition. The Reply is
`
`based almost entirely on new arguments, despite the Board’s clear admonition not
`
`to do so.1 Many of those new arguments come from Requests for Rehearing Eton
`
`recently filed in related PGR matters (where the Board declined to institute), on
`
`which Eton now relies.2 This approach speaks volumes; Eton has so little
`
`confidence in its Petition that it seeks a wholesale redo. But as discussed below,
`
`even with its new, improper arguments, Eton cannot remedy the shortcomings of
`
`its Petition regarding the reasonable expectation of success and the lack of
`
`particularity of Eton’s Ground.
`
`I. THE PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS
`Eton’s argument regarding what the Sandoz Label discloses to a POSITA as
`
`to aluminum content continues to morph throughout these proceedings. Originally,
`
`Eton argued that the Sandoz Label discloses “a range of aluminum extending from
`
`
`
`1 Ex. 1124 at 15:1-8, 18:21-19:5.
`
`2 Exs. 1125 and 1126.
`
`1
`
`
`
`0-5,000 ppb,” which “encompasses the claimed range” of aluminum.3 The Board
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`correctly rejected this argument—twice4—and also found that Eton had not
`
`provided sufficient evidence to show that a POSITA would have reasonably
`
`expected to achieve the claimed aluminum levels through routine optimization.5
`
`In its Reply, Eton now argues that a POSITA would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success regardless of how the Sandoz label is interpreted.6 This
`
`argument does not appear in Eton’s Petition, as evidenced by Eton’s citation that
`
`simply points back to Eton’s defective 0-5,000 ppb range argument.7 Instead,
`
`Eton now argues that the aluminum problem “was to a large extent already solved
`
`by the Sandoz Label product.”8 This assertion is not only new, but false. As Eton
`
`
`
`3 Paper 1 at 27, 42.
`
`4 Ex. 2015 at 20-22; Ex. 2017 at 19-20
`
`5 Ex. 2015 at 22; Ex. 2017 at 19-20.
`
`6 Paper 8 at 1.
`
`7 Paper 8 at 1-2, n.3 (citing Paper 1 at 27). The footnote also cites the
`
`Requests for Rehearing (Ex. 1125 at 9-11 and Ex. 1126 at 9-11), but these passages
`
`merely rehash Eton’s argument that the Sandoz Label discloses a range.
`
`8 Paper 8 at 4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`acknowledges, “product quality must be guaranteed both at the time of
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`manufacture and throughout the product’s expected shelf-life.”9 Even if, as Eton
`
`contends, the alleged Sandoz product had low aluminum levels “prior to product
`
`release,”10 Eton has admitted those levels were known to increase over the shelf
`
`life of the product,11 and for that reason “the POSITA would have interpreted ‘no
`
`more than 5,000 [ppb]’ to disclose aluminum levels ranging between 0 up to 5,000
`
`ppb, depending on the age of product”12 – the exact problem that Exela’s claimed
`
`invention solved. Leaving no doubt, Eton admitted in its Petition that this problem
`
`had gone unsolved by Sandoz: “the POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`
`
`9 Paper 1 at 39; see also id. at 17 (stating that “[t]he ’719 patent is generally
`
`directed to ‘compositions for parenteral administration comprising L-cysteine that
`
`are stable and have desirable safety attributes for extended periods of time.’”); id.
`
`at 36 (“specifications (e.g., tests, procedures, and acceptance criteria) ‘play a major
`
`role in assuring the quality of the new drug product at release and during shelf
`
`life.’”) (emphasis in original); Ex. 1106 at 16:44‒48 (defining “stable”).
`
`10 Paper 8 at 3.
`
`11 Paper 1 at 29; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 33.
`
`12 Paper 8 at 1-2, n.3 (emphasis added).
`
`3
`
`
`
`substantially reduce and eliminate aluminum from parenteral nutritional drug
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`products such as the Sandoz product disclosed by the Sandoz Label.”13
`
`Eton also now argues that by 2019, “the POSITA motivated to reduce
`
`aluminum contamination would not have opted for the ‘historically’-used glass
`
`vials, because they were not coated or otherwise treated to prevent leachables such
`
`as aluminum.”14 But again, Eton’s own evidence shows otherwise. According to
`
`Eton, the Schott Type I Plus vial with the silicon dioxide lining was available at
`
`least as early as 2006.15 Yet, as of May 2019 Sandoz still had not solved the
`
`problem and instead sought to license Exela’s low-aluminum ELCYS® product
`
`within weeks of Exela’s NDA approval.16 Eton itself (collaborating with AL
`
`Pharma) similarly failed; after seeking approval of an L-cysteine injection with
`
`“not more than 5,000 ppb aluminum” in January 2018, and that application being
`
`
`
`13 Paper 1 at 32; see also id. at 39‒40.
`
`14 Paper 8 at 5.
`
`15 Ex. 1014 at 2, 8 (published in 2006 and describing Schott glass vials
`
`coated “with an ultrathin film of silicon dioxide [that] forms a highly efficient
`
`diffusion barrier that practically eliminates glass leachables”).
`
`16 Paper 6 at 5-6.
`
`4
`
`
`
`rejected by FDA, Eton abandoned its NDA and chose to copy Exela’s ELCYS®
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`product instead.17 This begs the question: if the Schott Type I Plus vial were the
`
`simple and obvious solution to solving the aluminum problem of L-cysteine
`
`products, why had Sandoz and Eton/AL Pharma still not solved the problem more
`
`than 15 years after this vial became available?
`
`Eton also still fails to show why the POSITA would have known that
`
`particulate matter (cystine precipitates formed from oxidation of L-cysteine) was a
`
`problem with the formulation needing optimization, despite making yet another
`
`new (and improper) argument in its Reply in an attempt to address this issue.18 In
`
`its Petition, Eton treated aluminum and precipitate issues as independent and
`
`unrelated variables, apparently failing to appreciate the complexity of the
`
`problem.19 As a consequence, Eton failed to show why, upon reducing the
`
`aluminum level in an L-cysteine product, a POSITA would have been concerned
`
`with addressing oxygen levels beyond replacing the vial headspace with nitrogen,
`
`
`
`17 Id. at 6-7.
`
`18 Paper 6 at 45-53; Paper 8 at 5-6.
`
`19 Paper 1 at 32-37.
`
`5
`
`
`
`as described in the Sandoz Label.20 In an attempt to paper over this hole, Eton now
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`introduces a new argument that the POSITA would have reasonably expected that
`
`“by substantially eliminating oxygen and controlling pH (and thus the known
`
`oxidation of L-cysteine to cystine) the formation of cystine precipitates would be
`
`substantially prevented regardless of the alleged stabilizing influence of aluminum
`
`on cystine.”21 This argument does not appear in Eton’s Petition, and Eton does not
`
`even purport to rely on its expert or any other authority.22 Instead, Eton offers only
`
`rank speculation and attorney argument in an attempt to undermine Exela’s
`
`discovery of the complexity of the problem at hand.23
`
`
`
`20 Paper 6 at 52.
`
`21 Paper 8 at 5-6.
`
`22 Paper 8 at 5-6 (citing Paper 1 at 33-35, 47).
`
`23 The interaction of cystine and aluminum is part of the complexity of the
`
`claimed solution described in Exela’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response, support
`
`for which is provided by Eton’s own cited references. See Paper 6 at 55-59 (citing
`
`Eton’s Exs. 1020, 1003, 1059, 1058, 1061, 1008, and 1012).
`
`6
`
`
`
`II. THE PETITION LACKS PARTICULARITY
`Eton’s Reply underscores Eton’s failure to meet the particularity
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`requirement. The “particularity” section of Eton’s Reply begins: “The Petitioner’s
`
`sole Ground relies on the four corners of the Sandoz Label …,” and ends with
`
`Eton arguing about “the pre-release aluminum levels in the Sandoz Label product
`
`manufactured by Allergy Labs…”24 Throughout its entire Reply, as it did
`
`throughout its Petition, Eton continues to conflate the Sandoz Label and a “Sandoz
`
`product” to improperly backfill holes within the “four corners” of the Sandoz
`
`Label.25 Eton even went so far as to coin its own term for the amalgam of the two
`
`references—the “Sandoz Label product.”26
`
`To be clear, nowhere in its Petition does Eton purport to establish that any
`
`particular product qualifies as prior art. Instead, Eton’s petition identifies “[t]he
`
`
`
`24 Paper 8 at 8, 9.
`
`25 Paper 8 at 3-4, 9.
`
`26 See, e.g., Paper 8 at 3 (“To the contrary, years before the alleged
`
`invention, the Sandoz Label product manufactured by Allergy Labs had the
`
`claimed aluminum levels shortly prior to product release…”) (emphasis added);
`
`see also Paper 1 at 28, 40; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 65, 112.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Sandoz Label” as the only reference in its Ground,27 and Eton argues that “[t]he
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`Sandoz Label (Ex. 1005), revised 2010, was publicly available no later than
`
`August 24, 2016…” and “[a]ccordingly, the Sandoz Label qualifies as AIA §
`
`102(a) prior art.”28 Eton’s Petition makes no such argument or showing for the
`
`alleged “Sandoz Label product.” Despite this, Eton inappropriately mixed-and-
`
`matched the contents of the Sandoz Label with the alleged features of a Sandoz
`
`product, treating them as a single prior art reference wherever convenient.29
`
`Eton’s Reply fares no better. While arguing “no backfilling is required to
`
`establish obviousness,”30 Eton injects the new argument (in a footnote, no less) that
`
`“the Sandoz Label product manufactured by Allergy qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(a).”31 Eton’s new argument only exacerbates the lack of particularity.
`
`For example, Eton’s arguments based on the conflated Sandoz Label and
`
`product rely on attributes of a product to which a POSITA would not have had
`
`
`
`27 Paper 1 at 6.
`
`28 Id. at 7-8.
`
`29 Paper 6 at 27-30.
`
`30 Paper 8 at 9.
`
`31 Paper 8 at 4, n.6 (citing Ex. 1022 but not the Petition).
`
`8
`
`
`
`access. In its Reply, Eton cites to the aluminum levels in a product manufactured
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`by Allergy Labs “shortly prior to product release,” but provides no explanation as
`
`to how a POSITA would have had access to such a product prior to its release.32
`
`Indeed, Eton itself acknowledges that the product to which it refers was not
`
`publicly available until “post-release.”33 Adding further ambiguity, in its Reply
`
`Eton appears to abandon its original argument, which was based on alleged post-
`
`release aluminum levels of the alleged Allergy Labs/Sandoz product, perhaps
`
`because Eton’s Petition failed to cite any credible evidence in support of those
`
`levels.34
`
`Finally, Eton argues that it is not required to expressly list “corroborating
`
`prior art” in its asserted Grounds.35 But unlike the Petitioner in Google Inc. v.
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V., Eton does not rely on these unlisted references merely to
`
`show that the POSITA would have been generally aware of certain techniques. 948
`
`F.3d 1330, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Rather, here, as in PGR2020-00064, Eton
`
`
`
`32 Paper 8 at 3, 9.
`
`33 Paper 8 at 4, n.6.
`
`34 See Paper 6 at 33-35.
`
`35 Paper 8 at 8 (citing Ex. 1125 at 12-13).
`
`9
`
`
`
`incorporates specific teachings of references into its asserted Ground, such as the
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`dissolved oxygen level disclosed in the Butler reference that Eton uses to establish
`
`an oxygen range for water and a reason to reduce the oxygen content in the liquid
`
`carrier of the product described in the Sandoz Label.36 Thus, Eton is not using
`
`these references as “corroborating prior art” at all, but improperly using them to
`
`meet claim limitations that the art in its Ground does not. The Board found that
`
`this “catch all” approach of relying on unlisted references to establish specific
`
`claim limitations fails to meet the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`322(a)(3).37
`
`III.
`
` DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 324(A) IS
`APPROPRIATE
`Eton appears to take the position that a parallel proceeding in the District
`
`Court on two related patents involving the same parties, the same issues, and the
`
`same prior art references as the current proceeding in front of the Board is an
`
`efficient use of judicial and party resources. Exela respectfully disagrees.
`
`
`
`36 See Paper 6 at 28, n.65; Ex. 2015 at 15-16.
`
`37 Ex. 2015 at 14-17. Eton’s assertion that the Board “did not accept” a
`
`similar argument in PGR2020-00068 is misleading at best; Exela did not make this
`
`“catch all” argument in that matter. See PGR2020-00068 Paper 6 at 22-30.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dorothy P. Whelan/
`Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 25, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26191
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2509
`Facsimile: (877) 769-7945
`
`11
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 48751-0009PS1
`Case No. PGR2020-00086
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on February
`
`25, 2021, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response was provided via email
`
`to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence email addresses of record as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Eugene Goryunov
`Judy K. He
`Jeff Wolfson
`Haynes and Boone LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Email: ralph.gabric.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Email: eugene.goryunov.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Email: judy.he.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Email: jeff.wolfson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`