throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 99
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Entered: September 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVENTIS PHARMA S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`______________
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN P. MURPHY, TINA E. HULSE, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Mylan Laboratories Limited (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 7–30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,927,592
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’592 patent”). Paper 3 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Petitioner
`supported its challenge with the Declaration of Dr. Rahul Seth. Ex. 1002.
`Aventis Pharma S.A. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the
`Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On September 22, 2016, we instituted
`an inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 7–30 of the ’592 patent. Paper 9
`(“Institution Decision”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 21, “PO
`Resp.”) and a Contingent Motion to Amend claims 27–30 of the ’592 patent
`(Paper 22, “MTA”). Patent Owner supported its Response and MTA with
`the Declaration of Dr. Alton Oliver Sartor (Ex. 2176), the Declaration of Mr.
`Michael Tate (Ex. 2149), and the Declaration of Mr. Art Lathers (Ex. 2231).
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 42, “Reply”) and Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s MTA (Paper 43, “MTA Opp.”1). Petitioner supported its Reply
`and MTA Opposition with the Reply Declaration of Dr. Seth (Ex. 1043), and
`the Declaration of Mr. Robert McSorley (Ex. 1044).2
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed the MTA Opposition under seal, subject to the Board’s
`ruling on Petitioner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 45). Petitioner filed a redacted
`public version of the MTA Opposition as Paper 44.
`2 Petitioner filed Dr. Seth’s Reply Declaration and Mr. McSorley’s
`Declaration under seal, subject to the Board’s ruling on Petitioner’s Motion
`to Seal (Paper 45). Petitioner filed redacted public versions of the
`declarations using the same respective exhibit numbers.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s MTA. Paper 53 (“MTA Reply”).3 Patent Owner supported its
`MTA Reply with the Reply Declaration of Dr. Sartor (Ex. 2259) and the
`Declaration of Patricia Matthews, RN, BSN (Ex. 2234).
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Exhibits 1089–1090 (Paper
`61), Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 77 (under seal), Paper 78 (public
`version)), and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 86).
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2170, 2171, and 2179
`and certain paragraphs in Exhibits 2001, 2176, and 2149 (Paper 64 (under
`seal), Paper 68 (public version)), Patent Owner filed an Opposition (Paper
`72 (under seal), Paper 73 (public version)), and Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 89 (under seal), Paper 95 (public version)).
`Patent Owner filed Observations (Paper 80) on the cross-examination
`testimony of Dr. Seth (Ex. 2258) regarding Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 42),
`and Petitioner filed a response to Patent Owner’s Observations (Paper 93).
`Patent Owner also filed Observations (Paper 81 (under seal), Paper 82
`(public version)) on the cross-examination testimony of Mr. McSorley (Ex.
`2261) regarding Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 42), and Petitioner filed a
`response to Patent Owner’s Observations (Paper 92 (under seal), Paper 94
`(public version)).
`Petitioner filed Observations (Paper 84) on the cross-examination
`testimony of Dr. Sartor (Ex. 1098) with respect to Patent Owner’s MTA, and
`Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 90).
`
`
`3 Patent Owner filed the MTA Reply under seal, subject to the Board’s
`ruling on Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 54). Patent Owner filed a
`redacted public version of the MTA Reply as Paper 52.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`An oral hearing was held on June 13, 2017, and a transcript of the oral
`hearing is of record. Paper 98 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This is a Final Written
`Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(a) regarding the
`patentability of the challenged claims. In this case, the claimed treatment
`method, administering a 20 to 25 mg/m2 dose of cabazitaxel in combination
`with prednisone to docetaxel-refractory metastatic prostate cancer patients,
`was disclosed more than one year before the earliest effective filing date to
`which the ’592 patent might be entitled.4 Therefore, for the reasons that
`follow and based on our review of the complete trial record, we determine
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5 and
`7–30 of the ’592 patent are unpatentable. We further determine that Patent
`Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend claims 27–30 is denied.
`A. Real Parties in Interest and Related Proceedings
`Petitioner identifies (i) Mylan Laboratories Limited, the Petitioner and
`a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mylan Inc., (ii) Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
`which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mylan Inc., (iii) Mylan Inc., which is
`an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Mylan N.V., and (iv) Mylan N.V.
`as real parties in interest. Pet. 11.
`Patent Owner identifies Patent Owner, Aventis Pharma S.A., Sanofi,
`the ultimate parent company of Aventis Pharma S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC, an affiliate of Aventis Pharma S.A., as real parties in interest.
`Paper 6, 2.
`
`
`4 We do not make a determination of the earliest effective filing date,
`because the references qualify as prior art regardless of that date.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following as related district
`court proceedings in the District of New Jersey regarding the ’592 patent:
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mylan Laboratories Limited, No. 15-03392;
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Apotex Corp, C. A. No. 15-01835; Sanofi-
`Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., C. A. No. 15-
`01836; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., C. A. No. 15-
`02520; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. BPI Labs, LLC, C. A. No. 15-02521;
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Dr. Reddy Laboratories, Inc., C. A. No. 15-
`02522; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Glenmark Generics Inc., C. A. No. 15-
`02523; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, C. A. No. 15-
`02631; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Actavis LLC, C. A. No. 15-03107;
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. BPI Labs, LLC, C. A. No. 15-02521. Pet. 12;
`Paper 6, 2–3.
`Petitioner further identifies IPR2016-00627 as an earlier challenge to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,847,170 directed to the compound cabazitaxel. Pet. 12.
`We denied institution in IPR2016-00627 (Paper 10) and Petitioner’s request
`for rehearing (Paper 12).
`B. Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5 and 7–30 of the
`’592 patent on the following grounds of unpatentability under 35
`U.S.C. § 103:
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Winquist (Ex. 1009)5 and TROPIC Listing
`(Ex. 1008)6 in view of Attard (Ex. 1021)7
`and Beardsley (Ex. 1022)8
`Winquist, TROPIC Listing, and Didier (Ex.
`1011)9
`Winquist, TROPIC Listing, and Mita (Ex.
`1012)10
`Winquist, TROPIC Listing, and Tannock
`(Ex. 1013)11
`
`Statutory
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1, 2, 5, 12, 13,
`17–20, 22–25,
`27–29
`3, 4
`
`7–9
`
`10, 11, 14, 16
`
`
`5 Eric Winquist et al., Open clinical uro-oncology trials in Canada, THE
`CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 15(1), 3942–49 (February 2008)
`(“Winquist”). Ex. 1009.
`6 Sanofi-Aventis, XRP6258 Plus Prednisone Compared to Mitoxantrone
`Plus Prednisone in Hormone Refractory Metastatic Prostate Cancer
`(TROPIC), CLINICALTRIALS.GOV (October 23, 2008) (“TROPIC Listing”).
`Ex. 1008.
`7 Gerhardt Attard et al., Update on tubulin-binding agents, PATHOLOGIE
`BIOLOGIE 54, 72–84 (Elsevier 2006) (“Attard”). Ex. 1021.
`8 Emma K. Beardsley and Kim N. Chi, Systemic therapy after first-line
`docetaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, Curr. Op.
`SUPPORT PALLIAT. CARE 2, 161–66 (Wolters Kluwer Health 2008)
`(“Beardsley”). Ex. 1022.
`9 U.S. Patent No. 7,241,907 B2, issued July 10, 2007 to Didier et al.
`(“Didier”). Ex. 1011.
`10 Alain C. Mita et al., Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Study of XRP6258
`(RPR116258A), a Novel Taxane, Administered as a 1-Hour Infusion Every 3
`Weeks in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors, CLIN. CANCER RES.
`2009:15(2), 723–730 (January 15, 2009) (“Mita”). Ex. 1012.
`11 Ian F. Tannock et al., Docetaxel plus Prednisone or Mitoxantrone plus
`Prednisone for Advanced Prostate Cancer, N. ENGL. J. MED., 351:15, 1502–
`1512 (October 7, 2004) (“Tannock”). Ex. 1013.
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Winquist, TROPIC Listing, and Pivot (Ex.
`1010)12
`Winquist, TROPIC Listing, Pivot, and
`Tannock
`
`Paper 9, 22–23.
`
`Statutory
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`21, 26, 30
`
`§ 103
`
`15
`
`C. The ’592 Patent
`The ’592 patent, titled “Antitumoral Use of Cabazitaxel,” issued
`January 6, 2015, from an application filed April 26, 2012. Ex. 1001. The
`’592 patent claims priority through an international application to a series of
`provisional applications, the earliest of which is dated October 29, 2009.
`Ex. 1001, (60), (63). The ’592 patent is directed to the use of cabazitaxel in
`the treatment of prostate cancer, particularly metastatic castration resistant
`prostate cancer (“mCRPC”). Id. at 1:19–26. Because cancer cells may
`develop resistance to docetaxel (“Taxotere®”13), administering cabazitaxel
`is intended to treat prostate cancer in patients with advanced metastatic
`disease that has progressed despite previous treatment with a docetaxel-
`based regimen. Id. at 2:61–67. Cabazitaxel is preferably administered in
`combination with a corticoid, such as prednisone or prednisolone, at a daily
`dose of 10 mg orally. Id. at 3:2–5.
`
`
`12 X. Pivot et al., A multicenter phase II study of XRP6258 administered as a
`1-h i.v. infusion every 3 weeks in taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer
`patients, ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 19, 1547–1552 (April 23, 2008) (“Pivot”).
`Ex. 1010.
`13 Taxotere® is the brand name for docetaxel. We also refer to “Taxotere”
`in this Decision.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`The chemical name for cabazitaxel is 4α-acetoxy-2α-benzoyloxy-5β,
`20-epoxy-lβ-hydroxy-7β, 10β-dimethoxy-9-oxo-ll-taxen-13α-yl(2R,3S)-3-
`tert-butoxycarbonylamino-2-hydroxy-3-phenylpropionate. Id. at 4:28–31.
`Cabazitaxel is a taxane compound, the chemical structure of which is shown
`below:
`
`
`Id. at 4:8–26. Example 1 of the ’592 patent describes a large-scale (phase
`III) comparative clinical trial of mCRPC patients whose disease had
`progressed during or after docetaxel treatment, the docetaxel-refractory
`patients being treated with either 25 mg/m2 of cabazitaxel or 12 mg/m2
`mitoxantrone, and 10 mg/day of prednisone. Id. at 10:30–48. Patients
`receiving cabazitaxel and prednisone demonstrated a median overall survival
`that was 2.4 months longer than those receiving mitoxantrone and
`prednisone. Id. at 11:28–37, 11:45–54. The claimed method is directed to
`administering cabazitaxel and a corticoid to prostate cancer patients whose
`disease has progressed in spite of previous docetaxel treatment. Id. at 5:33–
`67, 18:54–58, 20:25–30.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–5 and 7–30 of the ’592 patent.
`Independent claims 1 and 27 are illustrative and are reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for treating a patient with prostate cancer
`that has progressed during or after treatment with
`docetaxel, comprising administering to said patient a
`dose of 20 to 25 mg/m2 of cabazitaxel, or a hydrate or
`solvate thereof, in combination with a corticoid.
`
`27. A method of increasing the survival of a patient with
`a castration resistant or hormone refractory, metastatic
`prostate cancer that has progressed during or after
`treatment with docetaxel, comprising administering a
`dose of 20 to 25 mg/m2 of cabazitaxel, or hydrate or
`solvate thereof, to the patient in combination with
`prednisone or prednisolone.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS OF THE ’592 PATENT CLAIMS
`A. Claim Construction
`We determine that only the following claim terms require express
`construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v.
`Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms
`need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`(citation omitted)).
`
`1. Claim 1: “A method for treating a patient”
`Petitioner argues that the preamble phrase in claim 1, “a method for
`treating,” is a non-limiting statement of the purpose of the claimed method,
`or, at most, should be construed as “a method intended to benefit a patient.”
`Pet. 17–19. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner opposed Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`proposed construction, arguing that the preamble is limiting and should be
`construed to mean “a method that produces a therapeutic effect in a patient.”
`Prelim. Resp. 15–18. In our Institution Decision, we construed “a method
`for treating a patient” in claim 1 as a non-limiting statement of the purpose
`of the claimed method. Paper 9, 7–10. At most, the phrase would be
`construed as “a method intended to benefit a patient.” Id. (citing Bristol-
`Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375–76
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (The preamble language “a method of treating a patient,”
`“does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim,” and
`the recited method steps “are performed the same way regardless [of]
`whether or not the patient experiences a [therapeutic effect].”)).
`Patent Owner’s Response applies the Board’s construction from the
`Institution Decision and does not argue for a different construction. PO
`Resp. 14; Reply 1. Therefore, we maintain our construction of the preamble
`as non-limiting for the reasons given in our Institution Decision. Paper 9, 7–
`10.
`
`2. Claim 27: “A method of increasing the survival of a
`patient”
`Petitioner argues that the preamble phrase in claim 27, “[a] method of
`increasing the survival of [a patient],” is a non-limiting statement of the
`purpose of the claimed method or, at most, should be construed as “a method
`intended to increase the survival of a patient.” Pet. 19–20. In its
`Preliminary Response, Patent Owner opposed Petitioner’s proposed
`construction, arguing that the preamble is limiting and should be construed
`to mean “a method that prolongs the life of a patient as compared to no
`treatment or palliative treatment, where that method has been demonstrated
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`to provide a statistically significant increase in overall survival.” Prelim.
`Resp. 19. In our Institution Decision, we construed the preamble in claim 27
`as a non-limiting statement of the purpose of the claimed method for the
`same reasons expressed above regarding “a method for treating a patient” in
`claim 1. Paper 9, 10. At most, the phrase would be construed as “a method
`intended to increase the survival of a patient.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s Response applies the Board’s construction from the
`Institution Decision and does not argue for a different construction. PO
`Resp. 14; Reply 1. Therefore, we maintain our construction of the preamble
`as non-limiting for the reasons given in our Institution Decision. Paper 9,
`10.
`
`3. Prosecution History of Independent Claims 1 and 27
`A review of the amendments made to independent claims 1 and 27
`during prosecution of the ’592 patent application provides further context for
`considering the parties’ dispute, discussed in Section II.B., below, over
`whether a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`achieving the treatment method claimed in the ’592 patent.
`On April 26, 2012, patent applicant filed proposed independent
`method of treatment claims 1 and 24 (later amended and issued as claim 27).
`Ex. 1004 (Part 13), 2397–2402. Claim 1 as originally filed recited:
`
`1. A method for treating prostate cancer in a patient in
`need thereof comprising administering to said patient a
`compound of formula [cabazitaxel chemical structure]
`which may be in base form or in the form of a hydrate or
`a solvate, in combination with prednisone or prednisolone.
`Id. at 2397. Dependent claims 8 and 9, which depended directly or
`indirectly from claim 1, recited administering cabazitaxel at “a dose of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`between 15 and 25 mg/m2” and “a dose of 25 mg/m2, respectively. Id. at
`2398. Claim 24 as originally filed recited:
`
`24. A method of increasing the survival of a patient with
`hormone refractory metastatic prostate cancer, comprising
`administering a clinically proven effective amount of a
`compound as defined in claim 1 to the patient in
`combination with prednisone or prednisolone.
`Id. at 2399 (emphasis added). The ’592 patent uses lexicography to define
`“clinically proven” to mean “clinical efficacy results that are sufficient to
`meet FDA approval standards.” Ex. 1001, 4:1–3. The ’592 patent further
`defines “effective amount” to mean “an amount of a pharmaceutical
`compound, such as cabazitaxel, that produces an effect on the cancer to be
`treated.” Id. at 3:65–67.
`On March 17, 2014, following an earlier amendment, claim 1 was
`amended as follows:
`
`1. (Currently amended) A method for treating prostate
`in a patient
`cancer
`in need
`thereof comprising
`administering to said patient an effective amount of a
`compound of formula [cabazitaxel chemical structure]
`which may be in base form or in the form of a hydrate or
`a solvate, in combination with a corticoid . . . .
`Ex. 1004 (Part 2), 280. Patent applicant also added new claims 34, 37, 40,
`and 43 depending directly or indirectly from claim 1, which recited
`administering cabazitaxel at “a dose of 25 mg/m2.” Id. at 282–83. Claim 24
`remained in its original, un-amended form. Id. at 282. Patent applicant
`argued that the claims were patentable over Mita and Tannock, inter alia,
`because the phase III clinical trial results presented in the application (see
`Ex. 1001, Example 1, 10:28–17:33) showed “a statistically significant longer
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`overall survival compared to patients receiving . . . mitoxantrone plus
`prednisone.” Ex. 1004, 285. Patent applicant further argued that Mita’s
`disclosure of a phase I safety and dosing study for cabazitaxel, which
`showed evidence of anticancer activity at a dose of 25 mg/m2 in one
`docetaxel-refractory mCRPC patient, was insufficient to establish a
`reasonable expectation of “successfully treat[ing]” such patients. Id. at 285–
`86.
`
`The Examiner continued to reject the claims over Beardsley
`(anticipation under § 102(b)) and Mita, Tannock, and Beardsley
`(obviousness § 103). Id. at 252–268.
`On July 10, 2014, applicant’s representatives conducted a personal
`interview with the Examiner. Id. at 230. Applicant’s representatives
`presented a draft Rule 132 Declaration by Dr. Sartor, who also attended the
`interview, to demonstrate “the unpredictability and failure of other taxanes
`in Phase III clinical trials despite demonstrating efficacy in Phase I and
`Phase II clinical trials.” Id. The Examiner agreed that submission of the
`Rule 132 Declaration and amendments to independent claims 1 and 24 to
`recite “1) treatment of prostate cancer in patients who had progressed during
`or after docetaxel treatment and 2) administering a dose of 20 to 25 mg/m2
`cabazitaxel . . . in combination with a corticoid” would render the claims
`allowable. Id.
`On July 16, 2014, patent applicant filed another amendment to
`application claim 1 (issued claim 1) and claim 24 (issued claim 27) as
`follows:
`
`1. (Currently Amended) A method for treating prostate
`cancer in a patient with prostate cancer that has progressed
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`during or after treatment with docetaxel, in need thereof
`comprising administering to said patient a dose of 20 to 25
`mg/m2 of cabazitaxel, or a hydrate or solvate thereof, an
`effective amount of a compound of formula [cabazitaxel
`chemical structure] which may be in base form or in the
`form of a hydrate or a solvate, in combination with a
`corticoid.
`
`24. (Currently Amended) A method of increasing the
`survival of a patient with a castration resistant or hormone
`refractory, metastatic prostate cancer that has progressed
`during or after treatment with docetaxel, comprising
`administering a clinically proven effective amount dose of
`20 to 25 mg/m2 of cabazitaxel, or hydrate or solvate
`thereof, a compound as defined in claim 1 to the patient in
`combination with prednisone or prednisolone.
` Ex. 1004 (Part 1), 138, 140.
`In claim 1, patent applicant deleted “in need thereof” in the preamble
`(id. at 138), a phrase Patent Owner adds to the body of proposed substitute
`claim 31 in the MTA (MTA, 27). Patent applicant also deleted “an effective
`amount” from the body of claim 1 and replaced it with “a dose of 20 to 25
`mg/m2” of cabazitaxel. Ex. 1004 (Part 1), 138. Similarly, in claim 24,
`patent applicant deleted “clinically proven effective amount” and replaced it
`with a “dose of 20 to 25 mg/m2” of cabazitaxel. Id. at 140. The deletions
`removed the lexicographically-defined limitations of producing “an effect on
`the cancer to be treated” (“effective amount” in clam 1) and achieving
`“clinical efficacy results that are sufficient to meet FDA approval standards”
`(“clinically proven effective amount” in claim 24), respectively, and
`replaced them with a 20 to 25 mg/m2 dosage range. Ex. 1001, 3:65–4:3,
`10:47–48, 11:1–13:66, 17:31–18:29, Figs. 1–7.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`In remarks, patent applicant argued that the absence of the 20 to 25
`mg/m2 dosage range in the prior art was important evidence rebutting the
`Examiner’s rejections. Ex. 1004 (Part 1), 145 (“Importantly, the doses of
`cabazitaxel and prednisone are not disclosed in Beardsley. . . . Beardsley
`does not describe any dose of cabazitaxel, let alone an effective amount of
`cabazitaxel.”); id. at 148 (“the doses of cabazitaxel and prednisone are not
`disclosed [in Beardsley]”). Patent applicant further argued that the cited art
`was insufficient to justify a reasonable expectation that the claimed method
`“would successfully treat prostate cancer.” Id. at 147. A Notice of
`Allowance ensued. Id. at 91–94. The Examiner was persuaded by patent
`applicant’s arguments and evidence, particularly Dr. Sartor’s Rule 132
`Declaration statements that the prior art, while disclosing “promising early
`clinical results, . . . failed to predict whether therapies would ultimately
`provide a clinically meaningful benefit to the desired patient populations and
`that mCRPC was known to be a particularly challenging and unpredictable
`indication.” Id. at 93.
`As indicated by patent applicant’s final claim language, achieving a
`clinically effective treatment is not a limitation of the ’592 method claims.
`See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 246 F.3d at 1375 (“The express dosage
`amounts are material claim limitations; the statement of the intended result
`of administering those amounts [an antineoplastically effective amount] does
`not change those amounts or otherwise limit the claim.”); see also id. at
`1376 (“We therefore affirm the district court’s interpretation of claims 5 and
`8 as limited only to the actual steps of those claims, without regard to the
`result of performing the claimed steps” [to effect regression of a taxol-
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`sensitive tumor]). In sum, the independent method claims of the ’592 patent
`are limited to the step(s) of:
` administering a 20–25 mg/m2 dose of cabazitaxel (or its hydrate
`or solvate);
` in combination with a corticoid (claim 1), such as prednisone or
`prednisolone (claim 27);
` to a docetaxel-refractory prostate cancer patient (claim 1); or
` to a docetaxel-refractory mCRPC patient (claim 27).
`The recited method steps, although they must have utility, are
`performed without regard to whether the claimed method results in a
`clinically effective treatment.
`
`B. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 17–20,
`22–25, and 27–29 over Winquist and the TROPIC Listing in View
`of Attard and Beardsley
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 17–
`20, 22–25, and 27–29 of the ’592 patent would have been obvious to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art (hereafter “POSA”) based on the combined
`teachings of Winquist and the TROPIC Listing in view of the knowledge of
`a POSA.14 Pet. 25–38. Winquist and the TROPIC Listing together disclose
`
`14 The parties provide largely similar descriptions of a POSA. Compare Pet.
`9–10 with PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences
`should not affect the outcome of this case. PO Resp. 14; Reply 1. We
`agree. For purposes of this decision, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s
`description of a POSA as an oncologist or medical doctor specializing in
`oncology who would have had experience in the treatment of prostate
`cancer, including metastatic prostate cancer, in evaluating therapies for
`prostate cancer, and who would have had access to information regarding
`pharmacokinetics and mechanisms of drug resistance. PO Resp. 14 (citing
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`the same treatment protocol described in Example 1 of the ’592 patent (“the
`TROPIC Study”), more than one year before the earliest effective priority
`date to which the ’592 patent may be entitled (October 29, 2009). Pet. 1–2,
`6–7 (citing Ex. 1008; Ex. 1009), 25–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 115–121); Ex.
`1001, (60), 10:30–48. In our Institution Decision, we amended the ground
`to add “in view of Attard and Beardsley,” two prior art references cited and
`discussed by Petitioner that reflect the knowledge of a POSA. Paper 9, 16
`(citing SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1312–13 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) (noting that governing statutory provisions do not limit the
`Board’s authority to proceed with AIA trial proceedings only on the specific
`statutory grounds alleged in the petition)).
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Winquist and the TROPIC Listing
`are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA). PO Resp. 37–41. Patent
`Owner’s Response to the Petition asserts that a POSA would not have had a
`reasonable expectation of successfully treating docetaxel-refractory prostate
`cancer patients with cabazitaxel. PO Resp. 16–43. Patent Owner further
`asserts that evidence of secondary considerations supports the non-
`obviousness of the challenged ’592 patent claims. Id. at 50–56. We address
`the parties’ arguments below.
`1. Winquist
`Winquist is a February 2008 disclosure of open, uro-oncology clinical
`trials in Canada that qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-
`AIA). Ex. 1009, 3942. The format of each entry is the same; a descriptive
`
`
`Ex. 2176 ¶ 28). We also rely on the cited references as reflecting the level
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`title of the clinical trial followed by an identification of the trial and the
`entity coordinating it, the trial design, patient population, sample size, and
`primary endpoint. Id. Winquist discloses a randomized phase III clinical
`trial coordinated by Sanofi-Aventis involving treatment of mCRPC patients
`previously treated with docetaxel (the TROPIC Study). Id. at 3948.
`Significantly, and unlike the prior art considered by the Examiner
`during prosecution, Winquist discloses the administration of a 25 mg/m2
`dose of cabazitaxel to mCRPC patients: “A randomized, open-label
`multicentre study of XRP-6258 [cabazitaxel] at 25 mg/m2 in combination
`with prednisone every 3 weeks compared to mitoxantrone in combination
`with prednisone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate
`cancer previously treated with a Taxotere [docetaxel]-containing regimen.”
`Id. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Id.
`With regard to independent claims 1 and 27 of the ’592 patent,
`Winquist does not disclose expressly that the prostate cancer “has
`progressed during or after treatment with docetaxel” (id.; Pet. 25–26), but
`Petitioner contends that progression after treatment with docetaxel was
`implicit and would have been understood by a POSA. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 65, 94 (95), 117).
`2. The TROPIC Listing
`The TROPIC Listing was published in the ClinicalTrials.gov database
`of the National Library of Medicine, and it was archived by The Internet
`Archive on October 23, 2008. Ex. 1026, Ex. A. The TROPIC Listing also
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The TROPIC Listing
`discloses the same phase III clinical trial reported in Winquist (the Sanofi-
`Aventis TROPIC Study), a “randomized, open-label, multi-center study
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`comparing the safety and efficacy of XRP6258 [cabazitaxel] plus prednisone
`to mitoxantrone plus prednisone in the treatment of hormone refractory
`metastatic prostate cancer previously treated with a Taxotere [docetaxel]-
`containing regimen.” Ex. 1008, 1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 118–120. The TROPIC
`Listing, like Winquist, discloses that cabazitaxel is to be administered every
`three weeks and that expected patient enrollment is 720 patients. Ex. 1008,
`1–2; Ex. 1009, 3948. The TROPIC Listing expressly states that patients
`must have a “[d]ocumented progression of disease (demonstrating at least
`one visceral or soft tissue metastatic lesion, including a new lesion) . . . [or]
`rising PSA levels or appearance of [a] new lesion,” after previous treatment
`with docetaxel. Ex. 1008, 2. The primary outcome, as also reported in
`Winquist, is overall survival. Id. at 1; Ex. 1009. The TROPIC Listing notes
`the start date of the clinical trial was December 2006. Ex. 1008, 2.
`With regard to independent claims 1 and 27 in the ’592 patent, the
`TROPIC Listing, unlike Winquist, does not disclose an administration dose
`of cabazitaxel. Id.; Pet. 7.
`
`3. Attard and Beardsley
`
`Attard is a review article reporting, inter alia, on a phase I dosing
`study for cabazitaxel, which was originally reported in Mita (Ex. 1012). Ex.
`1021, 75 (Col. 1 ¶ 2 n.23). Mita discloses administration of a 15 mg/m2 dose
`to one prostate cancer patient and a 25 mg/m2 dose to a docetaxel-refractory
`metastatic prostate cancer patient. Ex. 1012, 727 (Col. 1 ¶ 2). Attard reports
`that Mita’s phase I cabazitaxel study showed two objective responses in
`CRPC patients, and noted that one of the patients was docetaxel refractory
`(25 mg/m2 dose). Ex. 1021, 75 (Col. 1 ¶ 2 n.23). Attard also describes
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`cabazitaxel (XRP6258) as showing improvement over paclitaxel and
`docetaxel with “higher therapeutic indices” and “activity against resistant
`tumours.” Id. at 74.
`Beardsley reports on a phase II clinical trial of cabazitaxel
`administered to docetaxel-resistant metastatic breast cancer patients, which
`was originally reported in Pivot (Ex. 1010). Ex. 1022, 163 (Col. 2 ¶¶ 4–5).
`Pivot administered an initial cabazitaxel dose of 20 mg/m2, then escalated
`the dose to 25 mg/m2 in patients who did not experience a significant
`adverse event during the first treatment cycle. Ex. 1010, 1548 (Col. 2 ¶ 3).
`Beardsley reports that the objective response rate to cabazitaxel treatment in
`docetaxel-refractory metastatic bre

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