throbber
No. 15-
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HOSPIRA, INC.,
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`WILLIAM MCELWAIN
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`
`WILLIAM F. LEE
` Counsel of Record
`LISA J. PIROZZOLO
`MARK C. FLEMING
`JOHN C. POLLEY
`STEPHANIE T. NEELY
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`william.lee@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fresenius-Kabi Exhibit 1037
`IPR2015-00223
`
`

`
`
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383
`U.S. 1 (1966), this Court recognized the relevance of
`“objective indicia” of nonobviousness (also known as
`“secondary considerations”)—including the long-felt
`need for the patented invention, the failure of others to
`arrive at the invention, and the invention’s subsequent
`commercial success—in determining whether a patent’s
`claims were obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art. In this case, the district court created, and the
`Federal Circuit affirmed, two categorical limitations on
`the consideration of objective indicia of nonobviousness
`that exist nowhere in the Patent Act or this Court’s ju-
`risprudence.
`The questions presented are:
`1. Whether a court may categorically disregard
`objective indicia of a patent’s nonobviousness merely
`because the considerations apply to one commercial
`embodiment of a patented invention, rather than all
`embodiments.
`2. Whether a court may categorically disregard
`objective evidence of a long-felt need for a patented in-
`vention merely because the need is not expressly recit-
`ed in the patent claims.
`
`(i)
`
`

`
`
`
`RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC (formerly known as
`Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) is a wholly-owned subsid-
`iary of Merck & Co., Inc. Merck & Co., Inc. is not
`owned by any parent corporation and, to its knowledge,
`no other publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of
`its stock.
`
`
`(ii)
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................ i
`RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................... ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................... v
`OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................... 1
`JURISDICTION ................................................................. 2
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 2
`STATEMENT ..................................................................... 5
`A. Cubist’s
`Inventions
`And
`The
`Development Of Cubicin ...................................... 5
`1. Invention Of The Method of
`Administration Patents ................................ 6
`2. Invention Of The High Purity
`Patents ............................................................. 9
`B. District Court Proceedings ................................ 11
`C. Federal Circuit Proceedings ............................. 13
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .......... 14
`I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI
`TO RESTORE THE PROPER ROLE OF
`OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ............ 14
`A. Evaluation Of Objective Indicia Of
`Nonobviousness Is A Critical And
`Required Step In The Obviousness
`Analysis ................................................................ 15
`
`(iii)
`
`

`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`B. Contrary To The Federal Circuit’s
`Holding, It Is Error To Disregard
`Objective Indicia Of Nonobviousness
`Merely Because They Do Not Apply To
`All Embodiments ................................................ 17
`II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI
`TO DISAPPROVE
`THE ERRONEOUS
`REQUIREMENT THAT LONG-FELT NEED IS
`NOT TO BE CONSIDERED UNLESS
`EXPRESSLY RECITED IN A PATENT’S
`CLAIMS ......................................................................... 22
`CONCLUSION ................................................................. 26
`APPENDIX A: Opinion of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
`dated November 12, 2015 .......................................... 1a
`APPENDIX B: Erratum to the November 12,
`2015 Opinion of the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit, dated
`December 23, 2015 .................................................... 35a
`APPENDIX C: Memorandum Opinion of the
`United States District Court
`for the
`District of Delaware, dated December 8,
`2014 ............................................................................. 37a
`APPENDIX D: Order of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`denying petition for panel rehearing and
`rehearing en banc, dated January 22, 2016........... 97a
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................. 22
`Inc.
`v. Advanced
`Applied Materials,
`Semiconductor Materials America, Inc.,
`98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................... 18
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip
`Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............ 18
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 471 F.3d 1369 (Fed.
`Cir. 2006) ................................................................ 23, 25
`Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366
`(1909) ........................................................................ 3, 16
`Gillette Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
`919 F.2d 720 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .................................... 21
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ..................................... 2, 3, 15, 16, 22
`re
`Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride
`Extended-Release
`Capsule
`Patent
`Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............. 16
`In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................... 18
`In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ................... 16
`In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc., 630 F.3d 1026
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................... 18, 19
`Keystone Manufacturing Co. v. Adams,
`151 U.S. 139 (1894) ................................................. 3, 17
`
`In
`
`
`
`

`
`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................... 15, 22
`Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................ 20, 25
`Monroe Auto Equipment Co. v. Heckethorn
`Manufacturing & Supply Co., 332 F.2d 406
`(6th Cir. 1964) .............................................................. 16
`Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.,
`Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 643 (D. Del. 2012) ................... 25
`Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics,
`Inc., 75 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................... 17
`Co.
`v.
`Procter
`&
`Gamble
`Teva
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................... 20, 21, 23, 24
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248 (Fed Cir.
`2013) ............................................................................. 21
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d
`1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................. 17
`
`STATUTES
`
`21 U.S.C.
`§ 355 .............................................................................. 11
`§ 355a ............................................................................ 21
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1254 .............................................................................. 2
`§ 1331 .............................................................................. 2
`§ 1338 .............................................................................. 2
`§ 2201 .............................................................................. 2
`§ 2202 .............................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`

`
`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 .............................................................................. 15
`§ 112 .............................................................................. 23
`Orphan Drug Act, Pub. L. No. 97-414, 96 Stat.
`2049 (1983) ................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`No. 15-
`
`
`CUBIST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HOSPIRA, INC.,
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`Petitioner Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC (formerly
`known as Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) respectfully
`petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment
`of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit in this case.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit (App. 1a-34a) is reported at 805
`F.3d 1112. The Federal Circuit’s erratum correcting its
`original opinion (App. 35a) is unreported. The Federal
`Circuit’s denial of Cubist’s combined petition for panel
`rehearing and rehearing en banc (App. 97a-98a) is un-
`reported. The memorandum opinion of the United
`
`
`
`

`
`2
`
`States District Court for the District of Delaware find-
`ing the asserted claims of Cubist’s patents invalid as
`obvious (App. 37a-96a) is reported at 75 F. Supp. 3d
`641.
`
`JURISDICTION
`The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction
`over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and
`2202. The Federal Circuit’s judgment was entered on
`November 12, 2015. App. 1a. Cubist filed a timely
`combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en
`banc on December 14, 2015, which was denied on Janu-
`ary 22, 2016. App. 97a-98a. This Court’s jurisdiction is
`invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This case concerns significant and unwarranted
`changes to the standard for evaluating the obviousness
`of patent claims. Through the decisions below, the dis-
`trict court and Federal Circuit have effectively re-
`moved from consideration a key element in the obvi-
`ousness test that this Court set out in Graham v. John
`Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)—
`objective indicia of nonobviousness—in a sizable share
`of patent cases, including the case at bar. The changes
`announced below will restrict a patent owner’s ability
`to rely on relevant, probative evidence bearing on pa-
`tent validity, particularly when claims recite a genus of
`multiple embodiments not all of which have the same
`characteristics.
`The patents at issue in this case relate to daptomy-
`cin, a powerful antibiotic for the treatment of life-
`threatening bacterial infections. Although the prior art
`disclosed daptomycin, it was Cubist that first discov-
`ered particular methods for administering, and pro-
`
`
`
`

`
`3
`
`cesses for manufacturing, daptomycin in a way that
`made it consistently safe and effective for use in pa-
`tients. Cubist’s commercial embodiment of the claimed
`inventions, Cubicin®, was widely recognized as a
`breakthrough treatment for serious bacterial infec-
`tions. Many follow-on manufacturers, including re-
`spondent Hospira, sought to capitalize on Cubist’s dis-
`covery, and Cubist brought suit to protect its intellec-
`tual property.
`At trial in the district court, Hospira argued that
`Cubist’s asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious.
`In response, Cubist presented extensive, real-world
`evidence that this was not so. Specifically, Cubist
`showed that there was a long-felt need for the claimed
`inventions, that the inventions displayed unexpected
`properties, that drug development leader Eli Lilly had
`tried and failed to discover safe and effective methods
`of administering daptomycin, and that Cubicin has been
`a great commercial success.
`Such evidence, generally called “objective indicia”
`or “secondary considerations” of nonobviousness, is
`highly relevant when adjudicating an obviousness de-
`fense. It is one of four factors this Court identified for
`evaluation in assessing obviousness, stating that it may
`“serve to ‘guard against slipping into use of hindsight.’”
`Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, 36. Indeed, the Court has ac-
`corded significant weight to objective indicia of nonob-
`viousness for over a century. See, e.g., Expanded Metal
`Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366, 381 (1909); Keystone Mfg.
`Co. v. Adams, 151 U.S. 139, 143-145 (1894).
`The district court nonetheless categorically disre-
`garded Cubist’s strong objective indicia evidence,
`based on two unprecedented bright-line rules nowhere
`
`
`
`

`
`4
`
`supported by the Patent Act or this Court’s jurispru-
`dence:
`• First, the court held that all objective indicia of
`nonobviousness must be “coextensive” with the
`scope of the claims at issue to receive significant
`weight in the obviousness analysis (App. 79a).
`• Second, the court held that patent claims must
`expressly recite the long-felt need met by the
`claimed invention (App. 92a).
`The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling,
`holding that the district court did not commit “reversi-
`ble error” with respect to Cubist’s method of admin-
`istration patents, and “sustain[ing] the district court’s
`determination” with respect to its patents on manufac-
`turing high purity daptomycin. App. 26a, 33a, 35a.
`Under these rules, courts could disregard evidence
`of objective indicia of nonobviousness unless it related
`to commercial embodiments that practice the full scope
`of a patent’s claims, and any long-felt need would have
`to be recited in the claims themselves before it could be
`given weight in an obviousness analysis. Such rigid
`rules have no basis in law or common sense; the effect in
`this case was to disregard Cubist’s extensive and proba-
`tive objective indicia that its methods of manufacturing
`and administering Cubicin were groundbreaking and
`not obvious to skilled artisans. More broadly, a re-
`quirement that objective indicia be “coextensive” with a
`claim’s full scope will almost always be unmet whenever
`asserted claims have multiple embodiments—a frequent
`characteristic not only of pharmaceutical patents, but of
`patents in other fields as well. The new requirement
`that claims specifically recite any long-felt need will al-
`most never be satisfied, as patent claims are supposed
`
`
`
`

`
`5
`
`to recite the patented invention, not prior art problems
`that the invention solves.
`This Court has not considered the doctrine of ob-
`jective indicia in decades, likely because the lower
`courts were generally able to apply it faithfully. The
`decisions below signal an unwarranted diversion from
`this Court’s precedent that cannot stand. This Court
`should grant the petition, vacate the judgment below,
`and remand for further consideration of Cubist’s objec-
`tive indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`STATEMENT
`A. Cubist’s Inventions And The Development Of
`Cubicin
`Cubicin is an antibiotic used to treat serious infec-
`tions caused by a bacterium called methicillin-resistant
`Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. App. 39a. MRSA
`bacteria infect approximately 80,000 Americans each
`year, resulting in 11,000 deaths. CAJA 1143-1144. Pri-
`or to the discoveries at issue here, only one antibiotic—
`vancomycin—was available to treat serious MRSA in-
`fections. Vancomycin did not work for everyone, and
`when vancomycin failed, patients died. App. 17a;
`CAJA 488, 763-765, 1144.
`The active ingredient in Cubicin is daptomycin, a
`potent antibacterial agent for treating MRSA. App.
`39a. Prior to the inventions at issue, no daptomycin
`treatment was commercially available, even though
`skilled artisans had been trying to develop daptomycin
`treatments since the early 1980s. Despite a long-felt
`need for a serious MRSA treatment, and despite eight
`years of ultimately failed efforts by drug development
`expert Eli Lilly, no safe and effective dosing regimen
`had been found, and no commercially scalable purifica-
`
`
`
`

`
`6
`
`tion method had been discovered. CAJA 764, 887-888,
`2242. After Cubist arrived at surprising solutions to
`both problems, Cubist was able to develop daptomycin
`into a commercially available drug to treat
`life-
`threatening infections. Since the FDA’s approval of
`Cubicin in 2003, gross revenues of Cubicin have totaled
`over $3 billion. App. 40a; CAJA 1346.
`
`1.
`
`Invention Of The Method of Administra-
`tion Patents
`Cubicin is indicated to treat complicated skin and
`skin structure infections, bloodstream infections (bac-
`teremia) and heart infections (endocarditis) caused by
`MRSA. App. 39a-40a; CAJA 1144. These are serious
`infections that require hospitalization and, particularly
`in the case of bacteremia and endocarditis, can be fatal
`if untreated. CAJA 488, 1144. Before Cubicin, vanco-
`mycin was the only available treatment for these seri-
`ous infections. CAJA 1144.
`Clinicians had long felt a need to develop an alter-
`native to vancomycin for treating serious MRSA infec-
`tions. Not all patients responded to vancomycin, and
`those that failed to respond risked death. Moreover,
`clinicians expected that MRSA might eventually devel-
`op resistance to vancomycin, as it had with prior antibi-
`otics. When that happened, unless another treatment
`was available, there would be no way to treat these
`deadly infections. CAJA 488, 763-765, 1143-1145.
`Eli Lilly, one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical
`companies, spent years and significant resources trying
`to develop daptomycin into a safe and effective drug to
`treat serious MRSA infections. After discovering dap-
`tomycin, Lilly spent approximately eight years trying
`to develop it, founding a team in 1983 of chemists, toxi-
`
`
`
`

`
`7
`
`cologists, pharmacologists, microbiologists, and clini-
`cians. CAJA 764, 825-826, 6846. Lilly conducted nine-
`teen human clinical trials, along with numerous in vitro
`and animal studies. CAJA 2178-2179, 2242, 6725-6783.
`Despite this effort, Lilly failed to find a dosing reg-
`imen for daptomycin that could treat serious infections
`without causing toxicity. CAJA 776-779. Lilly first
`tried administering 2 mg/kg1 of daptomycin once daily
`to patients, but patients suffering from serious infec-
`tions did not respond to treatment and Lilly was forced
`to suspend the study before it was completed. App. 20a;
`CAJA 768-770, 5936, 5939. Lilly then tripled the daily
`dose to 3 mg/kg every 12 hours, but that regimen still
`failed to treat patients with S. aureus endocarditis.2
`App. 20a-21a; CAJA 771-774, 6490. Finally, Lilly tried
`administering 4 mg/kg every 12 hours, but this dose led
`to serious unexplained skeletal muscle toxicity which,
`again, forced Lilly to halt its study. App. 21a; CAJA
`777-779. After Lilly informed the FDA of these serious
`adverse events, the agency put all daptomycin clinical
`studies on hold, forbidding the further administration of
`daptomycin to patients. CAJA 779-780, 6847.
`Lilly could not determine the cause of this skeletal
`muscle toxicity, and thus was unable to develop a dos-
`ing regimen that could safely and effectively treat seri-
`
`1 The term “mg/kg” refers to the amount of daptomycin in
`milligrams (mg) administered per kilogram (kg) weight of the pa-
`tient. CAJA 768.
`2 Lilly recognized that it was particularly important that dap-
`tomycin be able to treat endocarditis, because patients with bacte-
`remia are predisposed to endocarditis, and clinicians are unable to
`tell whether a patient has only a lower grade infection or also en-
`docarditis. Because untreated endocarditis can be fatal, daptomy-
`cin’s clinical and commercial success required effectiveness against
`endocarditis. CAJA 488, 800-801, 1138-1141, 1292-1293.
`
`
`
`

`
`8
`
`ous infections. Lilly eventually suspended further de-
`velopment of daptomycin and turned its attention to
`other candidates for treatment of MRSA. App. 17a;
`CAJA 778-783, 837-839, 6846.
`In 1997, six years after Lilly ceased work on dap-
`tomycin, Cubist licensed the compound from Lilly.
`Cubist initially planned to develop an oral or topical
`treatment that would avoid skeletal muscle toxicity.
`CAJA 2242, 5113. But Cubist scientists, impressed by
`daptomycin’s potential, decided to study its toxicity by
`conducting a series of studies in dogs. These studies
`showed that, surprisingly, larger doses of daptomycin
`administered once daily were less toxic than smaller
`doses administered multiple times a day. App. 17a;
`CAJA 189-190, 1161-1166. This was unexpected; at the
`time of the invention, persons of ordinary skill in the
`art generally understood that smaller, more frequent
`doses of a drug would be safer and more effective than
`larger doses administered less frequently. Specifically,
`it was thought that larger doses would lead to higher
`concentrations of drug in the blood, which would in-
`crease toxicity, and longer intervals would lead to low-
`er trough concentrations of drug in the blood between
`doses, which would decrease efficacy. CAJA 782, 784,
`813-814, 1147.
`The results of Cubist’s dog studies, and of subse-
`quent clinical trials which demonstrated the safety and
`efficacy of once-daily daptomycin dosing in humans,
`were published in prestigious journals including Anti-
`microbial Agents and Chemotherapy, Clinical Infec-
`tious Diseases, and The New England Journal of Med-
`icine. Cubist’s results surprised the field; it was
`thought at the time that daptomycin simply could not
`be used to treat serious infections, since doses large
`
`
`
`

`
`9
`
`enough to be effective also appeared to be toxic. CAJA
`1146-1149, 5766-5774, 5775-5787, 6849-6854.
`Cubist obtained two patents (the Method of Admin-
`istration Patents) covering the dosing methods it had
`discovered. Asserted claims 16, 17, 34, and 35 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,468,967 (’967 patent) and 51 and 52 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,852,689 (’689 patent) are directed to meth-
`ods for administering therapeutically effective amounts
`of daptomycin using larger amounts and longer inter-
`vals, which surprisingly minimize skeletal muscle tox-
`icity. App. 17a-18a; CAJA 179, 195. The dosing regi-
`mens recited in those claims are the same as those de-
`scribed in the FDA-approved label for Cubicin, and are
`also the only approved dosing regimens for daptomycin.
`
`2.
`Invention Of The High Purity Patents
`Finding a safe and effective dosing regimen for
`daptomycin was not the only challenge Cubist faced be-
`fore it could bring daptomycin to market. Cubist also
`needed to develop a purification method that would al-
`low daptomycin to be developed on a commercial scale.
`Cubist first tried producing daptomycin using a pu-
`rification method described in Lilly’s Investigational
`New Drug Application for daptomycin. That method
`resulted in a daptomycin composition containing unsafe
`levels of dangerous contaminants known as endotoxins.
`Moreover, Lilly’s method only enabled recovery of ap-
`proximately 2-5% of the daptomycin created. This yield
`was too low for daptomycin to be developed on a com-
`mercial scale. App. 85a, 91a-92a; CAJA 887-888, 890-
`891, 901, 910, 4245.
`However, as part of its effort to remove endotoxins
`so that daptomycin would be safe for use in clinical tri-
`als, Cubist made a surprising discovery: daptomycin
`
`
`
`

`
`10
`
`molecules aggregate into clumps or “micelles” at acidic
`pH, and break apart into single molecules again at neu-
`tral pH. App. 28a-29a, 93a; CAJA 901-902. By taking
`advantage of this unexpected property, Cubist devel-
`oped a purification method that reduced endotoxins to
`undetectable levels. CAJA 117, 901-904, 906-907, 973-
`974. This method also increased the yield of daptomy-
`cin from 2-5% to 25-35%. This increase in yield enabled
`daptomycin production on a commercial scale. App.
`91a-92a; CAJA 910-911, 1121-1122.
`Cubist obtained two patents (the High Purity Pa-
`tents) that describe the commercial-scale manufactur-
`ing methods that Cubist invented: U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,058,238 (’238 patent) and 8,129,342 (’342 patent). The
`asserted claims of the High Purity Patents—claims 91,
`98, and 187 of the ’238 patent and 23 and 53 of the ’342
`patent—are product-by-process claims directed to the
`highly pure form of daptomycin produced using Cub-
`ist’s methods of manufacture. App. 26a-28a; CAJA 119-
`121, 123-124, 158-160. The common specification of the
`High Purity Patents repeatedly emphasizes that one
`purpose of the invention was to address the need for a
`process that could be “easily scaled for commercial pro-
`duction.” CAJA 100. For example, the specification
`states that “[t]here is a need for a commercially feasible
`method to produce more highly purified daptomycin
`and, if possible, to increase its yield after purification”
`and that “[t]he instant invention addresses these prob-
`lems by providing commercially feasible methods to
`produce high levels of purified lipopeptides [such as
`daptomycin].” CAJA 101; see also CAJA 101-104 (3:50-
`66, 5:9-11, 5:56-58, 8:66-9:3, 10:34-37).
`
`
`
`

`
`11
`B. District Court Proceedings
`In 2012, Hospira filed two applications with the
`FDA seeking approval of generic versions of Cubicin.
`Both included “Paragraph IV” certifications, stating
`(inter alia) that Cubist’s Method of Administration and
`High Purity Patents were invalid. App. 51a-53a; see 21
`U.S.C. §§ 355(b)(2)(A)(iv), (j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV). Cubist
`filed the present suit in response, seeking a declaration
`that Hospira’s generic daptomycin products would in-
`fringe the asserted patents.3 Hospira counterclaimed
`that the asserted patents’ claims were invalid because,
`among other things, they would have been obvious to a
`person of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`App. 2a-3a. Hospira subsequently stipulated to in-
`fringement of the asserted patent claims. Stip. 1-3, No.
`12-367, D.I. 88 (D. Del. July 25, 2013).
`At trial, Cubist presented extensive evidence that
`the asserted claims could not have been obvious at the
`time of the invention, given the objective, real-world
`evidence from that time. With respect to the Method of
`Administration Patents, Cubist showed that: (1) there
`had been a long-felt need for a new antibiotic to treat
`serious MRSA infections; (2) others (in particular Eli
`Lilly) tried and failed to discover a dosing regimen that
`would enable daptomycin to treat such infections safe-
`ly; (3) the invention produced the unexpected result
`that larger daptomycin doses administered less fre-
`quently were safe and effective; and (4) following FDA
`approval, the invention achieved great commercial suc-
`
`3 A fifth patent, United States Patent No. RE39,071, was also
`asserted in the present suit. The district court found that patent
`was valid and infringed, and this finding was affirmed by the Fed-
`eral Circuit. App. 16a. That patent, which is scheduled to expire
`on June 15, 2016, is not at issue in this petition. Suppl. Info. For
`Patent Cases, No. 12-367, D.I. 2 (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2012).
`
`
`
`

`
`12
`
`cess. With respect to the High Purity Patents, Cubist
`showed that (inter alia) there had been a long-felt need
`for a way to manufacture highly-pure daptomycin on a
`commercial scale, a need that was satisfied by Cubist’s
`patented invention.
`After a bench trial, the district court issued an
`opinion that disregarded Cubist’s evidence of objective
`indicia. With respect to the Method of Administration
`Patents, the district court did not deny the connection
`between each of the above objective indicia of nonobvi-
`ousness and the claimed inventions. App. 79a-82a.
`Nevertheless, because the district court found that “the
`nexus is strongest for the use of Cubicin to treat [S. au-
`reus endocarditis],” while “the claims cover bacterial
`infections generally,” it categorically refused to give
`these objective indicia substantial weight. App. 80a-
`81a; see also App. 79a-82a. That was because the court
`created a bright-line rule that objective indicia of non-
`obviousness “must be commensurate
`in scope—
`‘coextensive’—with the claimed features of the inven-
`tion.” App. 79a (emphasis added).
`With respect to the High Purity Patents, the dis-
`trict court similarly disregarded Cubist’s evidence of
`the long-felt need for a commercial-scale purification
`process. The court expressly found that, “[u]sing the
`processes outlined in the purity patents, … Cubist was
`able to obtain yields between 25% and 35%, making
`daptomycin a commercially viable drug for the first
`time.” App. 92a. Nevertheless, the court held that this
`evidence did not affect the obviousness analysis be-
`cause, “[a]lthough the processes described in the purity
`patents may have ultimately led to more efficient pro-
`
`
`
`

`
`13
`
`duction, the claims themselves do not speak of yield.”
`Id. (emphasis added).4
`Ultimately, the district court held the asserted
`claims of the Method of Administration and High Puri-
`ty Patents invalid as obvious. App. 96a.5
`
`C. Federal Circuit Proceedings
`In a published opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed
`the district court’s decision that the Method of Admin-
`istration and High Purity Patents were obvious, and
`specifically affirmed the district court’s ruling on objec-
`tive indicia of nonobviousness.
`For the Method of Administration Patents, the
`Federal Circuit acknowledged that “prior art daptomy-
`cin treatment methods had not proved effective” for
`treating S. aureus endocarditis. App. 24a-25a. Never-
`theless, it endorsed the district court’s decision not to
`give significant weight to Cubist’s evidence regarding
`long-felt need, failure of others, unexpected results, and
`commercial success, because the evidence did not apply
`to the treatment of all infections covered by the claims.
`App. 24a-26a, 79a-82a. In its original opinion, the Fed-
`
`4 The district court also found that it was “not clear why there
`would be a need to develop a commercially viable purification pro-
`cess,” because daptomycin was considered a “dead drug” due to
`Lilly’s abandonment of its development in 1991. App. 92a-93a.
`The district court did not discuss whether daptomycin was still
`considered a “dead drug” in January 2000, when the High Purity
`Patents’ provisional application was filed—nine years after Lilly
`abandoned the drug and three years after Cubist licensed it.
`CAJA 2242, 6846.
`5 Certain claims of the Method of Administration and High
`Purity Patents were also found invalid as anticipated. App. 96a.
`However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision
`on the basis of obviousness alone. App. 16a.
`
`
`
`

`
`14
`
`eral Circuit stated that the district court did not commit
`“legal error” in its analysis of the secondary considera-
`tion evidence. App. 26a. However, after Cubist peti-
`tioned for rehearing, the panel issued an “erratum” to
`its opinion changing the word “legal” to “reversible,”
`such that the opinion now reads: “We are not persuad-
`ed that the district court committed reversible error in
`its analysis of the secondary consideration evidence.”
`App. 26a, 35a (emphasis added). The panel neither cor-
`rected nor addressed the district court’s statement that
`objective indicia of nonobviousness must be coextensive
`with the claimed invention. Id.
`The Federal Circuit also sustained the district
`court’s holding disregarding Cubist’s evidence of long-
`felt need for a commercially viable method to manufac-
`ture daptomycin. App. 33a. In doing so, the Federal
`Circuit specifically recited the district court’s state-
`ment that “the asserted claims [of the High Purity Pa-
`tents] did not refer to production-scale purification.”
`Id. The Federal Circuit denied Cubist’s petition for re-
`hearing and rehearing en banc. App. 97a-98a.
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI TO RESTORE
`THE PROPER ROLE OF OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF
`NONOBVIOUSNESS
`Since this Court’s opinion in Graham, which con-
`firmed objective indicia of nonobviousness as one of
`four factors to be evaluated in assessing obviousness,
`the Court has not provided further guidance regarding
`the role and proper analysis of objective indicia. That is
`likely because this Court’s review was not previously
`needed: prior to the Federal Circuit’s ruling in this
`case, that court had generally applied the Graham doc-
`trine appropriately, noting that objective indi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket