Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`
` Date: April 30, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`
` Date: April 30, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing of
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”), requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8,
`
`9, 15, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,741,929 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’929 patent”)
`
`on three asserted grounds:
`
`
`
`Claims
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`I
`
`1–4, 8, 9, 15, 20 103(a)
`
`Drach,1 Zeldis2
`
`II
`
`4, 20
`
`103(a)
`
`Drach, Zeldis, Querfeld3
`
`III
`
`1–4, 8, 9, 15, 20 102(a)
`
`Celgene Press Release4
`
`Petitioner supported its challenges with the Declaration of Michael J.
`
`Thirman, M.D., dated February 23, 2018 (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`
`1 Johannes Drach at al., Treatment of Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Targeting the
`Microenvironment, 5 EXPERT REV. ANTICANCER THER. 477–485 (2005) (Ex.
`1003, “Drach”). We refer to the page numbers of the exhibit, rather than the
`page numbers of the journal article.
`2 Jerome B. Zeldis, U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2004/0029832
`A1, published February 12, 2004 (Ex. 1004, “Zeldis”).
`3 Christiane Querfeld et al., Preliminary Results of a Phase II Study of CC-
`5013 (Lenalidomide, Revlimid®) in Patients with Cutaneous T-Cell
`Lymphoma, 106 BLOOD 3351 (2005) (Ex. 1005, “Querfeld”).
`4 Celgene Press Release, titled “Revlimid® (Lenalidomide) Clinical Results
`in Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma Presented at the 11th Congress of the European
`Hematology Association” (2006) (Ex. 1006, “Celgene Press Release”).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`
`Celgene Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`In the Decision on Institution (Paper 8, “Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”),
`
`we determined that the Petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least
`
`one claim challenged in the Petition, and declined to institute an inter partes
`
`review on any of the three grounds asserted. Specifically, with respect to
`
`grounds I and II, we declined to institute pursuant to our discretion under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 22–26. With respect to ground III, we
`
`determined that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing that the
`
`Celgene Press Release was available as a printed publication. Id. at 27–31.
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper 9, “Req. Reh’g”) seeks
`
`rehearing of our decision to deny institution of grounds I and II only.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we deny the relief requested.
`
`II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`
`
`A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a
`
`decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify
`
`all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the
`
`place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an
`
`opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on petition, we review
`
`the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`
`discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of
`
`law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`In the Decision, we evaluated Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
`
`with respect to grounds I and II, together with the prosecution history of the
`
`’929 patent, in light of the non-exclusive factors outlined in Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at
`
`17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph).
`
`Inst. Dec. 22–26. The Becton, Dickinson factors are as follows:
`
`(a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted
`art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the
`cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated
`during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was
`evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art
`was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between
`the arguments made during examination and the manner in
`which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner
`distinguished the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed
`out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its consideration of
`the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional
`evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant
`reconsideration of the asserted prior art or arguments.
`
`Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to whether the art and arguments
`
`presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those
`
`previously presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El
`
`Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10 (Feb. 13,
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`2020) (precedential). Factors (c), (e), and (f) “relate to whether the
`
`petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior
`
`consideration of that art or arguments. Id. If the same or substantially the
`
`same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, we then
`
`consider whether petitioner has demonstrated the Office erred. Id.
`
`In evaluating the Petition and accompanying evidence in light of the
`
`Becton, Dickinson factors, we determined that grounds I and II were “based
`
`on substantially the same prior art and arguments previously presented to the
`
`office,” and that Petitioner had “neither sufficiently pointed out how the
`
`Examiner erred, nor provided additional evidence or facts that warrant
`
`reconsideration of the Examiner’s decision.” Inst. Dec. 26. Accordingly,
`
`we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and denied institution
`
`of grounds I and II on that basis.
`
`According to Petitioner, our analysis erred in several crucial respects.
`
`We will address each of these purported errors in turn, but first, to provide
`
`context, we reproduce illustrative claim 1, and briefly discuss the basis of
`
`our decision to deny institution. Claim 1 is as follows:
`
`A method of treating mantle cell lymphoma in a human, which
`comprises (a) administering to a human having mantle cell
`lymphoma from about 5 mg to about 25 mg per day of 3-(4-
`amino-1-oxo-1,3-dihydro-isoindol-2-yl)-piperidine-2,6-dione[5]
`or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or hydrate thereof for 21
`days followed by seven days rest in a 28 day cycle; and (b)
`
`
`5 The compound recited in claim 1 is “also known as lenalidomide,
`Revlimid® or Revimid®.” Ex. 1001, 1:19–23.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`
`repeating step (a), wherein the mantle cell lymphoma is
`relapsed, refractory, or relapsed and refractory to conventional
`therapy.
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:63–24:4.
`
`The Examiner issued a final office action rejecting the claims that
`
`eventually issued as challenged claims 1–4, 8, 9, 15, and 20 as obvious over
`
`Zeldis, in view of three additional references: Damaj,6 Wilson,7 and
`
`Kaufmann.8 Ex. 2007 (excerpt of the file history of the ’929 patent), 4, 36,
`
`61; Inst. Dec. 14, 22. In particular, the Examiner found that one of skill in
`
`the art would “have been imbued with at least a reasonable expectation that
`
`[lenalidomide] would be effective in treating mantle cell lymphoma given
`
`the broad spectrum anticancer [activity] of this compound as demonstrated
`
`by Zeldis.” Ex. 2007, 69; Inst. Dec. 16. Nevertheless, after considering the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lei Zhang (Ex. 10089) and Goy, an underlying reference
`
`
`6 G. Damaj et al., Thalidomide Therapy Induces Response in Relapsed
`Mantle Cell Lymphoma, 17 LEUKEMIA 1914–1915 (2003) (Ex. 2009,
`“Damaj”).
`7 Edward A. Wilson et al., Response to Thalidomide in Chemotherapy-
`Resistant Mantle Cell Lymphoma: a Case Report, 119 BRITISH JOURNAL OF
`HAEMATOLOGY 128–130 (2002) (Ex. 2008, “Wilson”).
`8 Hannes Kaufmann et al., Antitumor Activity of Rituximab Plus
`Thalidomide in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma,
`104 BLOOD 2269-2271 (2004) (Ex. 2010, “Kaufmann”).
`9 Declaration of Lei Zhang, M.D., submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132, and
`dated October 15, 2013 (Ex. 1008, “Zhang Declaration” or “Zhang Decl.”).
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`(Ex. 200610), the Examiner ultimately concluded that Applicant’s evidence
`
`of unexpected results outweighed the evidence supporting the initial
`
`determination that it would have been prima facie obvious for one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to use lenalidomide to treat mantle cell lymphoma.
`
`Ex. 2007, 81–82; Inst. Dec.18.
`
`In the Decision, we observed that the Zeldis reference relied on by
`
`Petitioner in grounds I and II is the same reference relied on by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution. Moreover, we noted that Petitioner’s
`
`challenges with respect to Zeldis were based on essentially the same
`
`disclosures relied on during prosecution. Inst. Dec. 22. That is, both the
`
`Examiner and Petitioner relied on Zeldis as disclosing that lenalidomide, an
`
`analog of thalidomide, is a preferred immunomodulatory compound in
`
`treating various forms of lymphoma, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas
`
`and B-cell lymphomas; that lenalidomide is more potent than thalidomide in
`
`several respects; and that it can be safely administered according to the
`
`claimed dosage schedule. Inst. Dec. 14–15, 22 (citing Ex. 2007, 62–70;
`
`Pet. 16–17).
`
`
`
`We further observed that Drach, an article reviewing treatment
`
`protocols for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), although not relied on during
`
`prosecution, was listed on an IDS and indicated as considered by the
`
`
`10 Andre Goy et al., Single-Agent Lenalidomide in Patients with Mantle-Cell
`Lymphoma Who Relapsed or Progressed After or Were Refractory to
`Bortezomib: Phase II MCL-001 (EMERGE) Study, 31 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL
`ONCOLOGY 3688–3695 (2013) (Ex. 2006, “Goy”).
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`Examiner, and was also cited in the Background section of the ’939 patent.
`
`Inst. Dec. 22–23 (citing Ex. 2007, 28; Ex. 1001, 2:4–6). Moreover, we
`
`noted that Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann each were summarized in Drach,
`
`and that the Examiner cited each of those references as evidence that it was
`
`known to administer thalidomide to patients with relapsed and/or refractory
`
`mantle cell lymphoma. Inst. Dec. 16, 22 (citing Ex. 2007, 4, 36, 61). We
`
`further noted that the Examiner also clarified that “mantle cell lymphoma is
`
`a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma/B-cell lymphoma.” Inst. Dec. 16; Ex.
`
`2007, 69.
`
`We noted that Querfeld discloses the results of a Phase II clinical
`
`study in which lenalidomide was administered orally to patients with
`
`cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and three of eight patients experienced an
`
`objective response after 1 to 3 cycles. Inst. Dec. 11; Ex. 1005, 2. Querfeld
`
`was not relied on during prosecution, but we determined that the reference is
`
`cumulative to Zeldis, in that it is relied on in this proceeding for teaching the
`
`same 28-day cycles disclosed in Zeldis: 25 mg/day for 21 days, with seven
`
`days rest between cycles—albeit for treating cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.
`
`Inst. Dec. 23; Ex. 1005, 2.
`
`Turning to Petitioner’s arguments, Petitioner contends that Drach,
`
`“which discloses the clinical use of lenalidomide and was not substantively
`
`considered by the Examiner” (Req. Reh’g 1), “discloses substantially more
`
`than what was substantively considered by the Examiner” (id.). In
`
`particular, Petitioner contends that Drach discloses that lenalidomide “was
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`successful in treating multiple myeloma (a B-cell cancer like MCL)” and
`
`“was the subject of various clinical trials including those related to
`
`lymphoma (MCL is a lymphoma).” Id. at 4. Petitioner contends we
`
`erroneously found that Drach “was cumulative of references the Examiner
`
`considered that focused only on the use of thalidomide to treat MCL” (id. at
`
`1), even though “the publications before the Examiner make no reference to
`
`lenalidomide whatsoever, much less the clinical application of that drug” (id.
`
`at 4).
`
`These arguments are unpersuasive. We did not find that Drach’s
`
`disclosures regarding lenalidomide were cumulative to the references
`
`considered by the Examiner. Rather, we observed that Petitioner relied on
`
`Drach “in large part for its summaries of Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann . . .
`
`and for the same reason as the Examiner: as evidence that it was known to
`
`administer thalidomide to patients with patients with relapsed and/or
`
`refractory mantle cell lymphoma.” Id. at 23 (emphasis added). “Thus,” we
`
`continued, “Drach is cumulative to Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann in at
`
`least that respect.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`In addition, Petitioner’s contention that “the publications before the
`
`Examiner make no reference to lenalidomide whatsoever, much less the
`
`clinical application of that drug” (Req. Reh’g 4), is misleading. It is true that
`
`Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann do not mention lenalidomide. Nevertheless,
`
`in the Decision we noted that Zeldis explicitly describes several Phase I
`
`clinical studies designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose of
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`lenalidomide in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, malignant
`
`melanoma, metastatic melanoma, carcinoma of the pancreas, renal
`
`carcinoma, breast carcinoma, non-small cell lung carcinoma, adrenal
`
`carcinoma, malignant mesothelioma, refractory solid tumors and/or
`
`lymphomas. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 238–247, 258). We further
`
`noted that Zeldis teaches that lenalidomide “may be administered in an
`
`amount of from about 5 to 25 mg per day,” and may be administered in four-
`
`week cycles—25 mg/day for 21 days, with 7 days rest before resuming the
`
`next cycle. Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 113, 229).
`
`Similarly, Petitioner contends that we “misapprehended that the
`
`Querfeld reference, which was not considered during prosecution, was
`
`cumulative of the Zeldis reference.” Id. at 2. Petitioner acknowledges that
`
`both Zeldis and Querfeld disclose the same dosage schedule—the same
`
`schedule required by the claims (Req. Reh’g 7)—but contends that we
`
`misapprehended that Querfeld “additionally discloses the use of such dosing
`
`regimens in patients being treated for cutaneous T-Cell lymphoma during a
`
`Phase II clinical trial” (id. at 7–8). According to Petitioner, “[t]his
`
`distinction is crucial, because the clinical application of lenalidomide in a
`
`phase II clinical study provides further evidence of reasonable expectation of
`
`success . . . that lenalidomide could be used in the claimed dosages and
`
`regimens for treatment of MCL.” Id. at 8. Petitioner contends “[t]his
`
`distinction also undercuts allegations of unexpected results” and “Querfeld
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`was relied upon by Petitioners and by Dr. Thirman for at least that purpose.”
`
`Id.
`
`These arguments are not persuasive. We agree with Petitioner that
`
`Querfeld “provides further evidence of reasonable expectation of success,”
`
`but as we explained in Decision, Querfeld teaches the same dosage schedule
`
`taught by Zeldis, and the Examiner already found a reasonable expectation
`
`of success based on the art cited during prosecution. According to the
`
`Examiner, “[t]he skilled artisan would thus have been imbued with at least a
`
`reasonable expectation that [lenalidomide] would be effective in treating
`
`mantle cell lymphoma given the broad spectrum anticancer [activity] of this
`
`compound as demonstrated by Zeldis.” Inst. Dec. 16, 23; Ex. 2007, 69. As
`
`for Petitioner’s contention that Querfeld was also relied on as undercutting
`
`allegations of unexpected results, Petitioner does not identify, and we do not
`
`find, where Querfeld is addressed in that context in the Petition or Dr.
`
`Thirman’s Declaration.
`
`
`
` Further, with respect to Drach, Petitioner contends that we
`
`disregarded our own finding that Drach was “stronger evidence” of
`
`obviousness than the references relied on during prosecution. Req. Reh’g 6.
`
`Petitioner contends “Drach discloses a crucial teaching concerning the use of
`
`lenalidomide to treat MCL, namely that ‘thalidomide and its analogs (e.g.,
`
`lenalidomide) are therefore important agents for the new treatment paradigm
`
`of targeting both the tumor cell and its microenvironment (mainly by
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`interference with tumor-stromal interactions) [i.e. MCL].’” Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1003, 10).
`
`Again, Petitioner’s argument is unpersuasive. In the Decision, we
`
`acknowledged that Petitioner additionally relied on Drach’s “explicit
`
`suggestion for using lenalidomide in MCL treatment.” Inst. Dec. 23.
`
`Although we had reservations about whether Drach “makes an ‘explicit’
`
`suggestion to use lenalidomide to treat MCL,” we agreed that it would be “a
`
`logical inference, given Drach’s particular focus on treatment of mantle cell
`
`lymphoma.” Id. We did not disregard our finding that Drach provided
`
`“somewhat stronger evidence” of obviousness than the references relied on
`
`during prosecution. Id. Rather, we agreed with Petitioner that Drach and
`
`Zeldis would have provided a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`administer lenalidomide to patients with relapsed and/or refractory MCL.
`
`Similarly, we agreed with the Examiner’s determination that the combined
`
`teachings of Zeldis, Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann would have provided a
`
`reason to do so. Nevertheless, a reason to modify a reference in the manner
`
`required by the claims is only one aspect of the ultimate conclusion on
`
`obviousness—which brings us to Petitioner’s contentions regarding the
`
`impact of unexpected results on the ultimate conclusion of obviousness.
`
`Petitioner contends that its witness, Dr. Thirman, “squarely disagreed
`
`with the declaration of Dr. Zhang, which was submitted by Patent Owner
`
`during prosecution, on the issue of unexpected results” as well as “many
`
`factual assertions of Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response regarding
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`reasonable expectation of success and unexpected results.” Id. Petitioner
`
`contends “[s]uch factual disputes should have been viewed in a light most
`
`favorable to the Petitioner and should ultimately be resolved at trial.” Id.
`
`As we explained in the Decision, Petitioner bears the burden of
`
`proving unpatentability in an inter partes review, but in this case, Petitioner
`
`“ha[d] neither sufficiently pointed out how the Examiner erred, nor provided
`
`additional evidence or facts that warrant reconsideration of the Examiner’s
`
`decision.” Inst. Dec. 26. Although Dr. Thirman expressed disagreement
`
`with the Examiner and Dr. Zhang on the issue of unexpected results, he did
`
`not explain how the Examiner erred, nor did he point to any particular
`
`“factual assertions of Patent Owner” that were in error, or address Dr.
`
`Zhang’s Declaration and supporting evidence in any substantive way.
`
`Essentially, Dr. Thirman summarized the teachings of Zeldis and
`
`Drach (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–82), and stated that those teachings “would have
`
`provided a clear guidance/motivation for a [person of skill in the art] to use,
`
`or substitute thalidomide with, lenalidomide as a treatment for relapsed
`
`and/or refractory MCL with a reasonable expectation of success” (id. ¶ 77).
`
`Again, on this particular point, we agree with Petitioner and Dr. Thirman.
`
`On the subject of unexpected results, Petitioner relied on the
`
`following testimony of Dr. Thirman:
`
`The prior art teaches, at least, the following: (1) thalidomide
`was being used to treat relapsed and/or refractory MCL
`(Drach), (2) thalidomide had undesirable side effects (Drach),
`(3) lenalidomide was a less toxic, more potent, structurally
`similar analogue of thalidomide being suggested for MCL
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`
`treatment (Drach and Zeldis), and (4) lenalidomide could be
`used for MCL treatment in the dosages, dosage forms and
`cycling regimen claimed by the challenged claims of the ’929
`patent (Zeldis, Querfield [sic], Celgene Press Release).
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 109. “Thus,” according to Dr. Thirman, “the alleged unexpected
`
`properties would have been expected.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 110.
`
`As we explained in the Decision, however, the Examiner maintained
`
`during prosecution that Zeldis, Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann would have
`
`given one of ordinary skill in the art a reason to use lenalidomide to treat
`
`patients with relapsed and/or refractory mantle cell lymphoma, but
`
`concluded that the evidence of obviousness was outweighed by Applicant’s
`
`evidence of unexpected results—particularly the 28% overall response rate
`
`in patients with relapsed and/or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Inst. Dec.
`
`17 & n.11, 18. As we further explained, Drach—given its particular focus
`
`on treating mantle cell lymphoma—is stronger evidence than Damaj,
`
`Wilson, and Kaufmann that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`
`reason to treat MCL patients with lenalidomide, but Drach is no more
`
`informative as to unexpected results than the references the Examiner relied
`
`on in making out a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at 25.
`
`Essentially, Petitioner and Dr. Thirman disagree with the Examiner’s
`
`conclusion that, on balance, the subject matter of the challenged claims
`
`would not have been obvious, in light of the level of response in patients
`
`with relapsed and/or refractory MCL (as described in Dr. Zhang’s
`
`Declaration and the underlying Goy reference), despite one of ordinary skill
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`in the art having had a reason to administer lenalidomide to treat MCL.
`
`Nevertheless, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Thirman advanced any argument or
`
`evidence tending to establish that the Examiner erred in evaluating or
`
`balancing the evidence of unexpected results. We maintain, as we did in the
`
`Decision on Institution, that Petitioner neither sufficiently pointed out how
`
`the Examiner erred, nor provided additional evidence or facts that warrant
`
`reconsideration of the Examiner’s decision. Dec. Inst. 26.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that we
`
`abused our discretion in declining to institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–4, 8, 9, 15, and 20 of the ’929 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is
`
`V. ORDER
`
`denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00685
`Patent 8,741,929 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`John J. Molenda
`Vishal Gupta
`Won Seon Choi
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`lenalidomide@steptoe.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito
`Frank C. Calvosa
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D.
`CELGENE CORPORATIOMN
`pelsevier@cegene.com
`Christopher J. Harnett
`Anthony M. Insogan
`JONES DAY
`charnett@jonesday.com
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
