- Symrise AG / Symrise Inc. v. Inolex Investment CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01035 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–6, 8–10, and 22–28, and denied substitute claims 29–44 because Wright ’451 rendered them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA” or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree and two or more years of experience or a master’s degree in organic synthesis or chemical engineering, with education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 16). Patent Owner took no position on the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition. Dec. Inst. 6–7. In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner states that it accepts the Board’s definition for purposes of this proceeding. MTA 24. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears to be consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although neither party expressly proposes a construction for the term “conversion,” the parties appear to differ in their interpretations of that term. Petitioner interprets “conversion” to mean the percent conversion of the 1- alcohol. See Pet. Opp. RMTA 6–7 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of remaining 1-alcohol); Ex. 1040, 109:2–11. Patent Owner, on the other hand, interprets “conversion” to mean the total percentage of alkenes that have been produced. Ex. 2010 ¶ 123 (interpreting “conversion” as percentage of total alkenes). During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner conceded that “conversion can mean either.” Tr. 27:18–28:13. Without the benefit of briefing by the parties, we decline to expressly construe the term “conversion,” as our Decision would be the same under either interpretation, as discussed further below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Moreover, we do not find it necessary to expressly construe any other claim terms for purposes of this Decision. Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said claimed invention pertains. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Objective evidence of nonobviousness may include” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded. “[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We must, therefore, first consider what results were expected to determine what a POSA would have considered to be unexpected. Id. As seen by the table below, Wright ’451’s disclosure fully encompasses the temperature ranges and purported unexpected results recited by substitute claim 29 and shown in Table 2 of the ’048 Patent: Reference Reaction Calcination Conversion Regioselectivity Rate13 Temperature Temperature Wright ’451 about 220 °C about 200 °C greater than about 90% to to about to 600 °C about 95% about 99% 440 °C Substitute 240 °C to about 420 °C at least 95% to about Claim 29” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 10,995,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,995,048 - PTAB · Oct 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00040 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 1–17 and denied substitute claims 18–30 for lack of written-description support; it did not reach the remaining grounds against the substitute claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“For the reasons discussed below, on the full trial record, we find that Patent Owner has not carried its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed substitute claims introduce no new matter relative to the original disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(d)(1); see also Paper 58, 2 (Patent Owner acknowledging that it “bears the burden to meet the regulatory and statutory requirements” for a motion to amend, including demonstrating that the substitute claims do not “introduce new matter”). Importantly, we note that Patent Owner fails to explain how the material cited in the claim chart supports the claims. See Mot. 15–16. Instead, Patent Owner provides only a claim chart with bare citations, leaving it to the panel to discern how the cited material supports the claim limitations. See id. Patent Owner’s failure to explain the citations constitutes a fatal error, as we have reviewed the passages cited by Patent Owner and are unable to discern where support is found for several of the substitute claim limitations. Where, as here, “the Board is unable to determine how the specification and drawings support the proposed substitute claims, the motion to amend may be denied.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“TPG”),6 71.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuades us that the ’418 Application lacks adequate written description support for the formulation limitations of proposed substitute claim 18 [limitations 18a–8c]. As outlined by Petitioner and its declarants, the ’418 Application, including the Abstract, Field of the Invention, Summary of the Invention, and Detailed Description of the Invention sections, uniformly focuses on phosphate prodrugs of levodopa and carbidopa. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 (Sloan Decl.) ¶¶ 38–55, 64–69; Ex. 1003 (LeWitt Decl.) ¶¶ 89–97; Ex. 1047 (Forrest Decl.) ¶¶ 40–74, 80–92; Opp. 6– 10; Pet. 23–26, 49–55. We agree with Petitioner that “nothing in the specification suggests that the invention includes methods of subcutaneous infusion with anything other than the carbidopa prodrugs and L-dopa prodrugs of Formulas (I) and (II), respectively, or teaches how to get sufficient amounts of either L-dopa or carbidopa into solution, or achieve particular L-dopa plasma levels, without those particular prodrugs.” Pet. 27. Petitioner persuades us that the ’418 Application fails to contain “[so] much as a single generic sentence, anywhere in the application, suggesting the inventors possessed the claimed formulations.” Sur-reply 3. Additionally, the ’418 Application contains no example teaching administration of an aqueous formulation comprising carbidopa itself with levodopa itself or one of the three claimed levodopa prodrugs, let alone one that is suitable for continuous subcutaneous administration. See Ex. 1047 (Forrest Decl.) ¶¶ 61–72, 82–92. Patent Owner is correct that to establish written description support, neither “an actual reduction to practice,” nor a verbatim recitation of the claims is required. Sur-reply 4. Nevertheless, “[a]lthough examples are not always required to satisfy the written description requirement, the lack of any disclosure of examples may be considered when determining whether the claimed invention is adequately described.” Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the lack of an actual reduction to practice or verbatim description of a formulation that falls within the scope of the claims is relevant, because we also see no other description or material in the ’418 Application that suggests the claimed methods extend to continuous subcutaneous administration of a composition comprising levodopa or one of the three claimed levodopa prodrugs, together with carbidopa, in an aqueous carrier.” slip op. at 28
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“All of the exhibits that are the subject of Patent Owner’s motion to exclude relate to the prior-art status and/or authenticity of Yacoby-Zeevi and ancillary related documents underlying Petitioner’s prior art-based challenges to the proposed substitute claims. See generally MTE. Because we deny Patent Owner’s request to enter proposed substitute claims 18–30 based on lack of written description support and do not reach Petitioner’s prior-art based challenges to the patentability of these claims, we do not rely on Exhibits 1005, 1007, 1040–1044, 1046, or 1048–1050 in this Decision. Accordingly we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 49
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“On the other hand, Petitioner shows that Patent Owner took positions in its Motion to Amend that it only later sought to support with technical declarations. For example, in the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner elected to assert “that levodopa and carbidopa could be ‘interchanged’ in a formulation with their prodrugs, and that a skilled artisan could ‘perform a pharmacokinetic analysis to predict steady state levodopa plasma levels’ using the ‘parent compounds’ based on Example 24.” MTS 2 (citing Mot. 12–13). Patent Owner, however, “chose to forgo any expert support” on these issues at the time it filed its Motion to Amend, and instead waited until the Reply to submit technical declarations in support of these arguments. Id. We agree with Petitioner that although Patent Owner “was not required to anticipate the arguments that [Petitioner] would make in its Opposition” to the Motion to Amend, if Patent Owner “wanted to provide expert testimony to support the positions it actually took” in that Motion, “the TPG required [Patent Owner] to do so at that time, instead of waiting until [Petitioner] had limited ability to respond.” Id. at 5. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that in this respect at least some portions of Patent Owner’s Declarations are untimely, because it is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” TPG 74. Nevertheless, an order striking arguments and evidence in their entirety is an “exceptional remedy,” particularly under the circumstances here, where some portions of the Declarations are proper, while other portions are untimely. TPG 80. Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012- 00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014). Under the facts of this case, Patent Owner was permitted to file evidence to respond to Petitioner’s unpatentability claims, but also belatedly supported positions it made in earlier attorney argument. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike, however, challenges all of Patent Owner’s evidence, without acknowledging that some portions constitute proper reply. Although “[t]he Board is not required to attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply” (TPG 74, emphasis added), under the circumstances here, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s lack of specificity as to what it seeks to strike is fatal to Petitioner’s motion. Accordingly, we decline to strike the Declarations in their entirety as untimely.” slip op. at 46
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,091,507 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / MSN Laboratories Private Ltd et al. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00016 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable: the unexpected results supporting claim 1 outweighed the evidence of obviousness, and the other grounds depended on that unestablished premise.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Peterson, Petitioner” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Petitioner asserts that “[t]he claim terms do not require construction to apply the grounds.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not respond to this contention, or otherwise address claim construction in its Response. Accordingly, neither party has identified any claim term for construction.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“in which the pKa of aspartic acid’s R group was the same or even higher than that of glutamic acid when incorporated into a peptide, which directly undermines Petitioner’s position that the relative difference would be the same. Ex. 2045, 37 (Table 1). Petitioner dismisses this evidence, urging that it relates to “residues buried inside a peptide” that “are not analogous to the Asp3 or Glu3 pKas in plecanatide.” Reply 20. But that misses the point. The record shows there are interactions beyond just whether the residue is buried that can affect the pKa. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, 127 (“interactions with other peptide R groups, and other environmental factors can affect the pKa”); Ex. 2069, 96:19–97:2, 97:19–98:1 (Dr. Peterson acknowledging that intrachain hydrogen bonds can affect pKa). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Peterson, sufficiently address these other interactions, much less do they do so within the context of the particular amino acid sequences at issue here. Accordingly, we credit Dr. Davies’s testimony that a POSA “would have understood that the pKa values of amino side chain groups could not be predicted when the amino acid was incorporated into a peptide” and therefore would not have expected the Glu3 substitution to result in a peptide that would “remain protonated at a higher pH as compared to Asp or result in better activity in less acidic environments.” Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 178–186.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusMixed
“For these reasons, Patent Owner has established a sufficient nexus” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,041,786 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. et al. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2023 · IPR2022-00722 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable: the unexpected results evidence outweighed the obviousness showing for claim 1, and the other grounds depended on that unproven premise.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“above, we conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Currie and Li. The evidence suggesting that it would have been obvious to make the Glu3 substitution because it is a conservative substitution is substantially outweighed by Patent Owner’s comparatively strong evidence demonstrating unexpected results relating to improved interconversion stability, potency, and binding affinity from the Glu3 substitution. Indeed, Patent Owner’s unexpected results showing is sufficiently strong that we would reach the same conclusion even if we had found the other rationales Petitioner offers for making the Glu3 substitution (i.e., higher side-chain pKa and avoiding aspartimide formation) to be persuasive. See Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Evidence of objective indicia [such as unexpected results] ‘can be the most probative evidence of nonobviousness in the record,’ and . . . enable[s] ‘the court to avert the trap of hindsight.’”) (quoting Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 60
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner
“above, we conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Currie and Li. The evidence suggesting that it would have been obvious to make the Glu3 substitution because it is a conservative substitution is substantially outweighed by Patent Owner’s comparatively strong evidence demonstrating unexpected results relating to improved interconversion stability, potency, and binding affinity from the Glu3 substitution. Indeed, Patent Owner’s unexpected results showing is sufficiently strong that we would reach the same conclusion even if we had found the other rationales Petitioner offers for making the Glu3 substitution (i.e., higher side-chain pKa and avoiding aspartimide formation) to be persuasive. See Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Evidence of objective indicia [such as unexpected results] ‘can be the most probative evidence of nonobviousness in the record,’ and . . . enable[s] ‘the court to avert the trap of hindsight.’”) (quoting Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 60
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“Opp. at 4 (citing FRE 803(14)–(15), 804(b)(3) and 806). But even so, Petitioner’s argument plainly does not apply to the Currie submission, which is not a statement or admission from Patent Owner, but rather statements from an adverse party. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the Currie submission (i.e., pages 88–98 and 120–127 of Exhibit 1067) is hearsay without exception and therefore should be excluded under FRE 802.” slip op. at 69
Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,041,786 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research And Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01981 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Rehearing
Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted as to the Pinchasi–Flechter combination analysis; rehearing was denied on the remaining issues, and a modified final written decision was entered.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“found instead that the data taught that less-frequent-than-daily administration would have been more tolerable than daily administration.” Reh’g Req. 6 (citing Dec. 29). Upon review of the Decision, we agree that the analysis in the cited portion of our Decision does not conflate efficacy with tolerability. See Final Dec. 32–33. Accordingly, we grant this portion of Patent Owner’s Request for Reconsideration and retract our reliance on the efficacy data of Flechter in Section II.C.5 of the Decision as the basis for rejecting Patent Owner’s argument regarding the lack of motivation to combine Pinchasi and Flechter. We concurrently issue a modified Final Written Decision (Paper 90) to reflect this change.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As explained above, we were not persuaded that the prior art suggested decreased tolerability. Indeed, in light of the prior art references each stating that the dosage regimens were well tolerated, we were persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the cited references to reach the claimed dosing regimen with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsDecided for petitioner
“Finally, Patent Owner asserts that the Board overlooked evidence regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 12–13. Patent Owner also states that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 24) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. First, we did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence 5 Khan et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 14 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S296 (2008) (Ex. 1010) (“Khan 2008”). 6 Caon et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in RRMS, 72 NEUROLOGY A317 (Mar. 17, 2009) (Ex. 1011) (“Caon 2009”). of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient evidence of record showing any unexpected results between the claimed requirement of three doses per week compared to dosing every other day.” Dec. 24 (emphasis added). As explained above, we did not find Patent Owner’s characterizations of the prior art, including Cohen, persuasive.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We note—and agree with—Dr. Ziemssen’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art “generally would not view this type of cross-study comparison between different study populations as a basis for drawing any comparative conclusions.” Ex. 2135 ¶ 87. We are therefore unpersuaded by his ad hoc comparison of Flechter’s data with that of Meiner. Id. ¶ 89. Instead, we find more credible Flechter’s conclusion that alternate-day administration of glatiramer acetate was “well tolerated, comparing favorably with the effects of daily injections of Copolymer 1 in patients with relapsing MS.” Ex. 1008, 1; see also id. at 5 (“The results of this trial suggest that alternate-day treatment with Copolymer 1 is safe, well tolerated, and probably as effective as daily Copolymer 1 in reducing relapse rate and slowing neurologic deterioration.”).” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,969,302 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-00643 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing on the Pinchasi–Flechter motivation issue, denied rehearing on the remaining issues, vacated the prior Final Written Decision, and entered a modified decision concurrently.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“§ 42.71 (d), which requires the party requesting rehearing to “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.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMixed
“Patent Owner first asserts that we “misconstrued data in Flechter illustrating that alternate day dosing was as effective as daily dosing and found instead that the data taught that less-frequent-than-daily administration would have been more tolerable than daily administration.” Reh’g Req. 7 (citing Dec. 32). Upon review of the Decision, we agree. See Dec. 32–33. Accordingly, we grant this portion of Patent Owner’s Request for Reconsideration and retract our reliance on the efficacy data of Flechter in Section II.F of the Decision as the basis for rejecting Patent Owner’s argument regarding the lack of motivation to combine Pinchasi and Flechter. We concurrently issue a modified Final Written Decision (Paper 90) to reflect this change.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 14–15. Patent Owner argues that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 26) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. We did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Ziemssen, however, qualifies this comparison and explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “generally would not view this type of cross-study comparison between different study populations as a basis for drawing any comparative conclusions.” Ex. 2135 ¶ 87. We agree. As a result, we are unpersuaded by the conclusion drawn from the ad hoc comparison of the data in Flechter with those in Meiner. This is especially so in view of Flechter’s conclusion that alternate-day administration of glatiramer acetate was “well tolerated, comparing favorably with the effects of daily injections of Copolymer 1 in patients with relapsing MS.” Ex. 1008, 1; see also id. at 5 (“The results of this trial suggest that alternateday treatment with Copolymer 1 is safe, well tolerated, and probably as effective as daily Copolymer 1 in reducing relapse rate and slowing neurologic deterioration.”).” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,232,250 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research And Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-00830 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing on the Pinchasi–Flechter combination, retracting reliance on Flechter’s efficacy data, and denied rehearing on the remaining issues.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“STANDARD OF REVIEW The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing must identify, specifically, 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.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We note—and agree with—Dr. Ziemssen’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art “generally would not view this type of cross-study comparison between different study populations as a basis for drawing any comparative conclusions.” Ex. 2135 ¶ 87. We are therefore unpersuaded by his ad hoc comparison of Flechter’s data with that of Meiner. Id. ¶ 89. Instead, we find more credible Flechter’s conclusion that alternate-day administration of glatiramer acetate was “well tolerated, comparing favorably with the effects of daily injections of Copolymer 1 in patients with relapsing MS.” Ex. 1008, 1; see also id. at 5 (“The results of this trial suggest that alternate-day treatment with Copolymer 1 is safe, well tolerated, and probably as effective as daily Copolymer 1 in reducing relapse rate and slowing neurologic deterioration.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art considering combining a higher dose of GA with Flechter’s alternateday dosing schedule would conclude that such a regimen would likely exacerbate the frequency of injection site reactions, as Patent Owner asserts. See PO Resp. 36.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Flechter suggests that less frequent injections were less tolerable than daily injections reported in Meiner.3 In particular, Patent Owner points us to the Patent Owner Response, which compares the alternate-day data in Flechter with the daily administration data of Meiner. Reh’g Req. 7–8 (citing PO Resp. 35–36). Although Flechter itself did not compare the data, Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Tjalf Ziemssen, M.D., Ph.D., compare Flechter’s data reporting adverse events in its patients with Meiner’s data reporting adverse events in a different cohort of patients. PO Resp. 35–36; Ex. 2135 ¶ 89. From that comparison, Patent Owner argues that Flechter’s data allegedly teaches that alternate-day administration is less tolerable than daily administration. Reh’g Req. 8.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsDecided for petitioner
“Finally, Patent Owner asserts that the Board overlooked evidence regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 12–13. Patent Owner also states that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 24) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. First, we did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence 5 Khan et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 14 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S296 (2008) (Ex. 1010) (“Khan 2008”). 6 Caon et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in RRMS, 72 NEUROLOGY A317 (Mar. 17, 2009) (Ex. 1011) (“Caon 2009”). of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient evidence of record showing any unexpected results between the claimed requirement of three doses per week compared to dosing every other day.” Dec. 24 (emphasis added). As explained above, we did not find Patent Owner’s characterizations of the prior art, including Cohen, persuasive.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,969,302 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01976 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board modified its decision and held claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over Pinchasi with the 1996 SBOA and over Pinchasi with Flechter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingGranted in part
“we entered a Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Patent Owner filed a request for rehearing of our decision. Paper 87. In a concurrently issued Order, we grant-in-part Patent Owner’s request and vacate our original decision. Paper 89. We hereby issue this modified Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“in the art. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) several years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry or in practicing medicine; (2) experience with the administration or formulation of therapeutic agents, dosing schedules and frequencies, and drug developmental study and design; and (3) a Ph.D. in pharmacology or an M.D. with experience in clinical pharmacology. Pet. 13. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserted that a skilled artisan would have had knowledge of, and experience with, both MS and GA. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner. Dec. 9. We noted that Dr. Green, one of Petitioner’s declarants, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “direct experience administering therapeutic agents for the treatment of MS, as well as familiarity with the dosing schedules and frequencies of the different therapeutic agents available for MS treatment.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 27). During trial, neither party contests our findings of the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Upon considering the full record, we see no reason to deviate from our prior determination. Thus, we reiterate that in addition to the qualifications specified by Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would also have experience treating MS with GA.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, we note that, in its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner challenged the status of the 1996 SBOA as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Prelim. Resp. 47–48. In the Decision to Institute, we determined that, based on the record available then, the 1996 SBOA constitutes prior art under § 102(b). Dec. 12–13. In its Response, Patent Owner does not dispute this finding. Having considered the complete record developed at trial, we reiterate that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence (see Ex. 1007) to show that the 1996 SBOA was publicly accessible at least by July 17, 2007, more than one year before the earliest possible priority date of the ’250 patent (i.e., August 20, 2008). See Dec. 12–13. Thus, the 1996 SBOA constitutes prior art under § 102(b).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Upon considering the evidence as a whole, we also find that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to administer GA three times over a period of seven days to increase patient compliance. We note again that Pinchasi teaches administering 40 mg GA every other day, which equates to seven doses over two weeks. Ex. 1005, 9. Thus, the difference between the challenged claims (three doses over a period of seven days, or six doses over two weeks) and the prior art is one less injection every two weeks. Dr. Green testifies that it was a well-known principle that decreasing the frequency of injections would have a positive impact on patients to stay on course with treatment. Ex. 1004 ¶ 101. The desirability of less frequent injections is supported by the 1996 SBOA, in which the reviewer recommended that Teva evaluate the necessity of daily injections as opposed to more infrequent intermittent administration of Copaxone®. Ex. 1007, 252.” slip op. at 13
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,232,250 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01976 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing on the Pinchasi–Flechter combination, denied rehearing on the remaining issues, vacated the prior final written decision, and entered a modified decision concurrently.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“§ 42.71 (d), which requires the party requesting rehearing to “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.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMixed
“person of ordinary skill in the art “generally would not view this type of cross-study comparison between different study populations as a basis for drawing any comparative conclusions.” Ex. 2135 ¶ 87. We agree. As a result, we are unpersuaded by the conclusion drawn from the ad hoc comparison of the data in Flechter with those in Meiner. This is especially so in view of Flechter’s conclusion that alternate-day administration of glatiramer acetate was “well tolerated, comparing favorably with the effects of daily injections of Copolymer 1 in patients with relapsing MS.” Ex. 1008, 1; see also id. at 5 (“The results of this trial suggest that alternateday treatment with Copolymer 1 is safe, well tolerated, and probably as effective as daily Copolymer 1 in reducing relapse rate and slowing neurologic deterioration.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art considering combining a higher dose of GA with the alternate-day dosing schedule in Flechter would, as Patent Owner asserts, conclude that 5 Meiner et al., Copolymer 1 in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: a Multi-Centre Trial, in Frontiers in Multiple Sclerosis: Clinical Research and Therapy (Abramsky et al. eds., 1997) (Ex. 1009). such a regimen would likely exacerbate the frequency of injection site reactions. See PO Resp. 36.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 14–15. Patent Owner argues that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 26) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. We did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient 8 Khan et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 14 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S296 (2008) (Ex. 1010). 9 Caon et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in RRMS, 72 NEUROLOGY A317 (Mar. 17, 2009) (Ex. 1011). evidence of record showing any unexpected benefit between the claimed three-times-weekly as compared to the prior art every-other-day dosing.” Dec. 26 (emphasis added). Substantively, as explained above, we find Patent Owner’s characterizations of the prior art, including Cohen, unpersuasive. As a result, we were not, and remain not, persuaded that the nonobviousness of the challenged claims is supported by evidence of unexpected results.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsDecided for petitioner
“regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 14–15. Patent Owner argues that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 26) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. We did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient 8 Khan et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 14 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S296 (2008) (Ex. 1010). 9 Caon et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in RRMS, 72 NEUROLOGY A317 (Mar. 17, 2009) (Ex. 1011). evidence of record showing any unexpected benefit between the claimed three-times-weekly as compared to the prior art every-other-day dosing.” Dec. 26 (emphasis added). Substantively, as explained above, we find Patent Owner’s characterizations of the prior art, including Cohen, unpersuasive. As a result, we were not, and remain not, persuaded that the nonobviousness of the challenged claims is supported by evidence of unexpected results.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,232,250 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01980 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing on the Pinchasi–Flechter combination issue, denied rehearing on the remaining issues, vacated the original decision, and entered a modified final written decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part
“STANDARD OF REVIEW The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing must identify, specifically, 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.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“found instead that the data taught that less-frequent-than-daily administration would have been more tolerable than daily administration.” Reh’g Req. 7 (citing Dec. 25–26). The cited pages 25–26 of our Decision address the misinterpretation of data in Flechter. Dec. 25–26. But, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, we do not conflate the efficacy data of Flechter with tolerability. Rather, we find that “we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Flechter as showing that decreasing the dosing frequency would decrease the efficacy of the drug.” Dec. 25–26 (emphasis added). Although the cited portion of our Decision does not conflate efficacy with tolerability, we acknowledge that our Decision regarding the combination of Pinchasi and Flechter does. See Dec. 32–33. Accordingly, we grant Patent Owner’s request for reconsideration as to this portion of our Decision. We, therefore, do not rely on the efficacy data of Flechter in Section II.E.2 of the Final Written Decision as the basis for rejecting Patent Owner’s argument regarding the lack of motivation to combine Pinchasi and Flechter. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Flechter suggests that less frequent injections were less tolerable than daily injections reported in Meiner.3 In particular, Patent Owner points us to the Patent Owner Response, which compares the alternate-day data in Flechter with the daily administration data of Meiner. Reh’g Req. 7–8 (citing PO Resp. 35–36). Although Flechter itself did not compare the data,” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We note—and agree with—Dr. Ziemssen’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art “generally would not view this type of cross-study comparison between different study populations as a basis for drawing any comparative conclusions.” Ex. 2135 ¶ 87. We are therefore unpersuaded by his ad hoc comparison of Flechter’s data with that of Meiner. Id. ¶ 89. Instead, we find more credible Flechter’s conclusion that alternate-day administration of glatiramer acetate was “well tolerated, comparing favorably with the effects of daily injections of Copolymer 1 in patients with relapsing MS.” Ex. 1008, 1; see also id. at 5 (“The results of this trial suggest that alternate-day treatment with Copolymer 1 is safe, well tolerated, and probably as effective as daily Copolymer 1 in reducing relapse rate and slowing neurologic deterioration.”).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsDecided for petitioner
“regarding the expected decrease in tolerability in our discussion of secondary considerations. Reh’g Req. 14–15. Patent Owner also states that our “finding that Patent Owner failed to provide any evidence of improved tolerability over the Pinchasi reference (FWD at 26–27) is also incorrect.” Id. at 14. First, we did not state that Patent Owner failed to provide any 8 Khan et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 14 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S296 (2008) (Ex. 1010) (“Khan 2008”). 9 Caon et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year, Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in RRMS, 72 NEUROLOGY A317 (Mar. 17, 2009) (Ex. 1011) (“Caon 2009”). evidence of improved tolerability—we stated that Patent Owner provided “insufficient evidence of record showing any unexpected results between the claimed requirement of three doses per week compared to dosing every other day.” Dec. 26–27 (emphasis added). As explained above, we did not find Patent Owner’s characterizations of the prior art, including Cohen, persuasive.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,399,413
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.