throbber
Paper No. ___
`Filed: December 14, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GRÜNENTHAL GMBH,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANTECIP BIOVENTURES II LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,283,239
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8...................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) .....................................................3
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2)) ..............................................................3
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))..............................................3
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))........................................................4
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES .....................................................................................4
`
`TIME FOR FILING PETITION......................................................................4
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING........................................................................4
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND
`RELIEF SOUGHT...........................................................................................5
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII. THE ’239 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY..........................................5
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................8
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..........................................9
`
`THE ’239 PATENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR PGR................................................9
`
`A.
`
`The Pre-AIA Applications Fail to Describe or Enable the
`Dosing Regimens Limitation of Claim 1. ...........................................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Pre-AIA Applications Fail to Provide Proper
`Written Description of the Dosing Regimens
`Limitation..................................................................................12
`
`The Pre-AIA Applications Fail to Properly Enable
`the Dosing Regimens Limitation. .............................................15
`
`B.
`
`The Pre-AIA Applications Fail to Describe or Enable the
`Duration of Pain Limitation of Claim 2. .............................................18
`i
`
`

`

`C.
`
`The Pre-AIA Applications Fail to Describe or Enable the
`Percentage of Zoledronic Acid Present in Dosage Form
`Limitation of Claim 17........................................................................19
`
`XI. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE........................................................................................19
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Lack of Written Description for Claims 1-17
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-17: “about 80 to about 500 mg
`zoledronic acid within a period of six months”........................19
`
`Claim 17: “a dosage form containing at least 10%
`zoledronic acid” ........................................................................25
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Lack of Enablement of Claims 1-17 Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1-17: “A method of treating complex
`regional pain syndrome” “to a human being in
`need thereof”.............................................................................26
`
`Claim 2: “wherein the human being experiences
`pain relief that lasts for a duration of at least 48
`hours”........................................................................................28
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9-17 Are Anticipated by
`or Obvious over Fox............................................................................30
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1......................................................................................32
`
`a.
`
`“A method of treating complex regional pain
`syndrome”.......................................................................32
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`CRPS Is Characterized by Pain,
`Allodynia, and Hyperalgesia................................32
`
`CRPS Has Inflammatory and
`Neuropathic Pain Components.............................33
`
`iii.
`
`Claim Construction ..............................................35
`
`ii
`
`

`

`iv.
`
`Fox Describes a Method for Treating
`CRPS ....................................................................36
`
`“comprising orally administering” .................................40
`
`“zoledronic acid” ............................................................40
`
`“to a human being in need thereof”................................41
`
`wherein the human being receives about 80
`mg to about 500 mg of zoledronic acid
`within a period of six months .........................................42
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 2......................................................................................45
`
`Claims 4, 9, 10, 12-14...............................................................46
`
`Claims 11 and 15.......................................................................48
`
`Claim 16....................................................................................49
`
`Claim 17....................................................................................49
`
`Alternatively, Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9-17 Are
`Obvious Over Fox.....................................................................50
`
`D.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-17 Are Obvious over Fox in view of
`Manicourt, de Castro, and Zaspel........................................................51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1......................................................................................51
`
`Claims 3 and 5-8 .......................................................................60
`
`Claims 9-16...............................................................................61
`
`Claim 17....................................................................................62
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1-17 Are Obvious over Fox in view of
`Manicourt, de Castro, and Zaspel, in further view of
`McHugh...............................................................................................62
`
`No Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness support
`patentability.........................................................................................64
`
`iii
`
`

`

`XII. GROUNDS ARE NOT REDUNDANT........................................................65
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................65
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac,
`344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .....................................................................10
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................9, 13
`
`Catalina Mktg. Intl. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................35
`
`ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.,
`668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .....................................................................43
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S,
`108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .....................................................................10
`
`In re Petering,
`301 F.2d 676 (CCPA 1962))................................................................... 47, 50
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................... 10, 26
`
`In re Wertheim,
`541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976).......................................................................25
`
`In re Wright,
`999 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................. 27, 29
`
`Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp.,
`783 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 43, 48
`
`Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.,
`342 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .....................................................................36
`
`Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500 (Fed. Cir. 1987).....................................................22
`
`Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc.,
`166 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .....................................................................10
`v
`
`

`

`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................. 14, 22
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................ 47, 50
`
`Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .....................................................................20
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................31
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102..........................................................................................................5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .....................................................................................................5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103......................................................................................................5, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112............................................................................................... 5, 9, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321(c) .....................................................................................................4
`
`35 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................8
`
`35 C.F.R. § 42.202 .....................................................................................................4
`
`35 C.F.R. § 42.204 .....................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)...................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203(a).................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .........................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)................................................................................................4
`
`vi
`
`

`

`P.T.A.B.
`Inguran, LLC v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd.,
`Case PGR2015-00017, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)..............................9
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exh. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Declaration of Dr. Stephen Bruehl, Ph.D.
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Stephen Bruehl, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,283,239 (“the ’239 patent”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0063670 (“the Fox application”)
`D.H. Manicourt, et al., “Role of Alendronate Therapy for
`Posttraumatic Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I of the Lower
`Extremity,” 50(11) Arthritis & Rheumatism 3690 (Nov. 2004)
`(“Manicourt”)
`A.P.C. de Castro, et al., “Zoledronic acid to treat complex regional
`pain syndrome type I in adult: case report,” 12(1) Rev. Dor. Sao
`Paulo 71 (Mar. 2011) (“de Castro”)
`J. Zaspel, et al., “Treatment of early stage CRPS I – cortisone
`(methylprednisolone) versus bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid),”
`German Congress for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery. 71st Annual
`Meeting of the German Society of Trauma Surgery, 93rd Meeting of
`the German Society of Orthopedics and Orthopedic Surgery, 48th
`Meeting of the Professional Association of Specialists in Orthopedics.
`Berlin, October 24-27, 2007. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science
`GMS Publishing House; 2007. DocP23-1583 (October 9, 2007)
`(“Zaspel”)
`Catherine McHugh, Thomas Leonard, et al., “MER-101 tablets: A
`pilot bioavailability study of a novel oral formulation of zoledronic
`acid,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, Volume 6, Issue 11
`Supplement pp. B194 (November 2007) (“McHugh”)
`U.S. App. No. 14/635,857 (“the ’857 Application”) File History
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/646,538 (“the ’538 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/647,478 (“the ’478 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/654,292 (“the ’292 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/654,383 (“the ’383 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/655,541 (“the ’541 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/655,527 (“the ’527 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/762,225 (“the ’225 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/764,563 (“the ’563 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/767,647 (“the ’647 provisional”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/767,676 (“the ’676 provisional”)
`viii
`
`

`

`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/803,721 (“the ’721 provisional”)
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 (abandoned after Final Rejection in favor
`of Continuing App. No. 15/014,994) (“the ’274 application”) File
`History, Pages 1-300
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 301-600
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 601-800
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 801-1000
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 1001-1300
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 1301-1600
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 1601-1900
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 1901-2200
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 2201-2450
`U.S. App. No. 13/894,274 File History, Pages 2451-2724
`U.S. App. No. 14/063,979, issued as Pat. No. 8,802,658
`(Continuation-in-Part) (“the ’979 application”)
`U.S. App. No. 14/279,232, issued as Pat. No. 9,149,487
`(Continuation) (“the ’232 application”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,216,168
`U.S. Patent No. 9,408,862
`U.S. Patent No. 7,704,977
`G.D. Schott, “Bisphosphonates for pain relief in reflex sympathetic
`dystrophy?” 350 The Lancet: Commentary (October 18, 1997).
`(“Schott”)
`S. Adami, et al., “Bisphosphonate therapy of reflex sympathetic
`dystrophy syndrome,” 56(201-204) Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
`(1997). (“Adami”)
`J.F. Maillefert, et al.,“Treatment of refractory
`reflex sympathetic dystrophy with pamidronate,” 54(687) Ann.
`Rheum. Dis.(1995). (“Maillefert”)
`K. Siminoski, et al.,“Intravenous pamidronate
`for treatment of reflex sympathetic dystrophy during breast feeding,”
`15(10) Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (2000). (“Siminoski”)
`[Reserved]
`B. Cortet, et al., “Treatment of severe, recalcitrant reflex sympathetic
`dystrophy: assessment of efficacy and safety of the second generation
`bisphosphonate pamidronate,” 16(1) Clinical rheumatology (1997).
`(“Cortet”)
`J.N. Robinson, et al., “Efficacy of pamidronate in
`
`ix
`
`

`

`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`complex regional pain syndrome type I,” 5(3) Pain Medicine (2004).
`(“Robinson”)
`Kubalek, et al., “Treatment of reflex sympathetic dystrophy with
`pamidronate: 29 cases,” 40 Rheumatology 1394-1397 (2001).
`(“Kubalek”)
`H. Merskey and N. Bogduk, Classification of Chronic Pain:
`Descriptions of Chronic Pain Syndromes and Definitions of Pain
`Terms, 2nd ed. IASP Press (1994). (“Merskey and Bogduk”)
`S. Bruehl, “An Update on the Pathophysiology of Complex Regional
`Pain Syndrome,” 113 Anesthesiology 713-725 (2010).
`S. Bruehl, et al., “External validation of IASP diagnostic criteria for
`Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and proposed research diagnostic
`criteria 81 Pain 147-154 (1999).
`R.N. Harden, et al., “Validation of proposed diagnostic criteria (the
`‘‘Budapest Criteria”) for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome,” 150
`Pain 268-274 (2010).
`G.J. Bennett and Y.K. Xie, “A peripheral mononeuropathy in rat that
`produces disorders of pain sensation like those seen in man,” 33 Pain
`87-107 (1988).
`M. Daeman, et al., “Neurogenic Inflammation and Reflex
`Sympathetic Dystrophy,” 64(4) Acta Orthopaedica Belgica (1998).
`Z. Seltzer, R. Dubner, and Y. Shir, “A novel behavioral model of
`neuropathic pain disorders produced in rats by partial sciatic nerve
`injury,” 43 Pain 205-218 (1990).
`
`x
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Complex regional pain syndrome (“CRPS”) is a condition characterized by
`
`severe, continuing pain, usually following an injury or other triggering event,
`
`where the pain is disproportionate in intensity or duration to the pain that would
`
`normally be expected from the triggering event. Exh. 1001, ¶ 39-40. U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,283,239 (Exh. 1003) claims methods of treating CRPS by orally
`
`administering about 80 mg to about 500 mg zoledronic acid to a human being
`
`within a period of six months. Exh. 1003, claims 1-17. However, those claimed
`
`inventions were not novel because methods for treating CRPS by oral
`
`administration of zoledronic acid were already well-known in the prior art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’239 patent.
`
`The earliest possible filing date for any claim of the ’239 patent is May 14,
`
`2012.1 But much earlier than May 2012, since at least the 1990s, bisphosphonates,
`
`including zoledronic acid, had been in widespread commercial use as treatments
`
`for osteoporosis and other diseases involving problems with bone resorption. Exh.
`
`1001, ¶ 54-55. CRPS had been known to involve enhanced bone resorption, and
`
`1 As discussed in Section X and subsections A and B of Section XI below, none of
`
`the claims of the ’239 patent is entitled to this filing date. Regardless, the cited
`
`prior art pre-dates even this May 2012 filing date.
`
`

`

`therefore various researchers had investigated the use of bisphosphonates for
`
`treatment of CRPS. By 2012, a large and growing body of literature and clinical
`
`studies demonstrated that bisphosphonates, including zoledronic acid, were
`
`effective in treating CRPS. Exh. 1001, ¶ 153.
`
`Indeed, during the prosecution of the application underlying the ’239 patent,
`
`the Examiner maintained that the use of zoledronic acid to treat CRPS was taught
`
`by the prior art, and only allowed the ’239 patent claims on the basis that it would
`
`not have been obvious to use an amount of zoledronic acid from about 80 to about
`
`500 mg over a period of 6 months. See Exh. 1009, at 00426. Yet at least eight
`
`years before the Patent Owner applied for the ’239 patent, U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2004/0063670 (Exh. 1004) disclosed the use of orally
`
`administered zoledronic acid, including about 80 mg to about 500 mg over six
`
`months, to treat the exact type of pain that constitutes CRPS: inflammatory and
`
`neuropathic pain, allodynia, and hyperalgesia. Exh. 1004, ¶¶ 75-77; Exh. 1001, ¶¶
`
`120-126.
`
`As shown in this Petition, and supported by the expert declaration of Dr.
`
`Stephen Bruehl (Exh. 1001), all of the claims of the ’239 Patent are anticipated by
`
`Fox or, at a minimum, are obvious over Fox in combination with other prior art
`
`showing the efficacy of zoledronic acid in treating CRPS. The claims are also
`
`invalid for insufficient written description and lack of enablement. Accordingly,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner Grünenthal GmbH (“Petitioner”) requests post-grant review (“PGR”) of
`
`claims 1-17 of the ’239 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Petitioner Grünenthal GmbH and Thar
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. Petitioner Grünenthal GmbH owns 100% of Thar
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`As of the filing date of this Petition and to Petitioner’s best knowledge, the
`
`’239 Patent is not involved in any judicial or administrative matters that would
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel
`Bruce C. Haas
`Registration No. 32,734
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER &
`SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Tel: 212-218-2290
`Fax: 212-218-2200
`bhaas@fchs.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Justin J. Oliver
`Registration No. 44,986
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER &
`SCINTO
`975 F Street, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: 202-530-1010
`Fax: 202-530-1055
`joliver@fchs.com
`
`3
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please direct all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at the above
`
`addresses. Petitioner consents to electronic service to GrunenthalPGR@fchs.com
`
`and at the e-mail addresses above.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.203(a) and 42.15(a), the required fees are
`
`submitted herewith. If additional fees are due during this proceeding, the Office is
`
`authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 50-3939.
`
`IV. TIME FOR FILING PETITION
`
`The ’239 patent issued on March 15, 2016 and the instant Petition was
`
`timely filed on or before the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of
`
`the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 321(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.202.
`
`V.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’239 patent is
`
`available for PGR, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`PGR of the ’239 patent challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in
`
`this Petition.
`
`The ’239 patent is available for PGR pursuant to the America Invents Act
`
`(“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011), because, as
`
`4
`
`

`

`explained below in Sections X and XI, at least one claim has an effective filing
`
`date on or after March 16, 2013.
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND RELIEF
`SOUGHT
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests post grant review of claims 1-17 of the ’239
`
`patent and cancellation of claims 1-17 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102,
`
`103, and/or 112. It is more likely than not that claims 1-17 are unpatentable in
`
`view of the following prior art references and unpatentability grounds:
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`1-17
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Statutory Basis
`35 U.S.C. §112
`(written
`description)
`35 U.S.C. §112
`(enablement)
`35 U.S.C. §
`102(a) or 35
`U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1-17
`
`1, 2, 4, 9-17
`
`1-17
`
`1-17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Prior Art References
`
`Fox (Exh. 1004)
`
`Fox (Exh. 1004)
`Manicourt (Exh. 1005)
`De Castro (Exh. 1006)
`Zaspel (Exh. 1007)
`Fox (Exh. 1004)
`Manicourt (Exh. 1005)
`De Castro (Exh. 1006)
`Zaspel (Exh. 1007)
`McHugh (Exh. 1008)
`
`VII. THE ’239 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`The ’239 patent, entitled “Compositions for Oral Administration of
`
`Zoledronic Acid or Related Compounds for Treating Complex Regional Pain
`5
`
`

`

`Syndrome,” issued on March 15, 2016 from U.S. Application No. 14/635,857 (“the
`
`’857 application”) (Exh. 1009) filed on March 2, 2015. The ’857 application
`
`claims priority to a chain of three U.S. non-provisional patent applications and 11
`
`provisional applications, identified in the following table (the “Related
`
`Applications”):
`
`Patent Application/Patent No.
`Provisional App. No. 61/646,538
`Provisional App. No. 61/647,478
`Provisional App. No. 61/654,292
`Provisional App. No. 61/654,383
`Provisional App. No. 61/655,541
`Provisional App. No. 61/655,527
`Provisional App. No. 61/762,225
`Provisional App. No. 61/764,563
`Provisional App. No. 61/767,647
`Provisional App. No. 61/767,676
`Provisional App. No. 61/803,721
`App. No. 13/894,274 (abandoned after Final
`Rejection in favor of Continuing App. No.
`15/014,994)
`App. No. 14/063,979, issued as Pat. No.
`8,802,658 (Continuation-in-Part)
`App. No. 14/279,232, issued as Pat. No.
`9,149,487 (Continuation)
`
`Filing Date
`May 14, 2012
`May 15, 2012
`June 1, 2012
`June 1, 2012
`June 5, 2012
`June 5, 2012
`Feb. 7, 2013
`Feb. 14, 2013
`Feb. 21, 2013
`Feb. 21, 2013
`Mar. 20, 2013
`
`Exhibit
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`May 14, 2013
`
`1021
`
`Oct. 25, 2013
`
`May 15, 2014
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`The only independent claim of the ’857 application as originally filed did
`
`not include a dosing regimen limitation. Exh. 1009, at 00066. Certain claims as
`
`originally filed did include limitations related to dosing regimens. Id. at 00066-67,
`
`claims 3, 4, 6, 11-13, 15-18. During prosecution, Patent Owner submitted twelve
`
`6
`
`

`

`Information Disclosure Statements identifying over 320 references for
`
`consideration.
`
`On July 28, 2015, the Examiner issued a non-final rejection of all claims of
`
`the ’857 application under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over several prior art references
`
`including “Zoledronic acid to treat complex regional pain syndrome type I in adult.
`
`Case report” (“De Castro”). Exh. 1009, at 00276-81. The Examiner found “[i]t
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant
`
`invention to treat CRPS in a human by orally administering zoledronic acid.” Id.
`
`at 00279. With respect to the dependent claims that included limitations related to
`
`dosing regimens, the Examiner found “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to administer the zoledronic acid in [the claimed amounts and at
`
`the claimed frequencies] because the prior art shows that CRPS can be successfully
`
`treated via the administration of bisphosphonates in a variety of schedules and
`
`amounts” and “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
`
`routine experimentation.” Id. at 00280. All claims were also provisionally
`
`rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
`
`claims of several copending applications. Id. at 00282-89.
`
`In an attempt to overcome the Examiner’s rejections, Patent Owner amended
`
`the claims to for the first time include the following dosing regimen limitation:
`
`“wherein the human being receives about 80 to about 600 mg of zoledronic acid
`
`7
`
`

`

`within a period of two months” (Exh. 1009, at 00363) and filed a terminal
`
`disclaimer. Id. at 00403. Ultimately, however, in order to overcome the prior art
`
`the Examiner required the claims to be amended to recite: “wherein the human
`
`being receives about 80 to about 500 mg of zoledronic acid within a period of six
`
`months.” Id. at 00426. The examiner reasoned that given the low oral
`
`bioavailability of bisphosphonates, “[o]ne of skill in the art would not have found
`
`it obvious to administer an oral dose that was significantly less than the estimated
`
`dose, and still effectively control CRPS for a full six months.” Id. at 00427.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The following claim terms of the ’239 patent require construction and should
`
`be given the proposed constructions set forth below. The reasons why the Board
`
`should adopt these proposed claim constructions are given in detail below in
`
`Petitioner’s arguments. Unless a specific construction is proposed below, the
`
`terms in the ’239 patent claims should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Claim Term
`“A method of treating
`complex regional pain
`syndrome”
`
`“to a human being in need
`thereof”
`“experiences pain relief
`
`Claim(s) Proposed Construction
`1
`A limiting preamble requiring that the
`claimed method be performed “for the
`purpose of diagnosing, curing, mitigating,
`or preventing pain in a patient having
`CRPS.” See Exh. 1003, col. 3, ll. 28-32.
`“to a human being with CRPS in need of
`treatment of pain”
`Non-limiting statement of an intended
`
`1
`
`2
`
`8
`
`

`

`that lasts for a duration of
`at least 48 hours”
`
`result of the claimed method
`
`IX. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The ’239 patent is directed to the use of claims methods of treating CRPs by
`
`administering zoledronic acid. For this patent, a POSA would have an M.D. or a
`
`Ph.D. in a pain medicine relevant discipline, such as clinical health psychology or
`
`neuroscience, and 3 to 5 years of experience in the treatment or study of chronic
`
`pain management. Exh. 1001, ¶¶ 36-37.
`
`X.
`
`THE ’239 PATENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR PGR
`
`A patent that issues from an application filed after March 16, 2013, that
`
`claims priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013, is available for PGR
`
`“if the patent contains . . . at least one claim that was not disclosed in compliance
`
`with the written description and enablement requirements of § 112(a) in the earlier
`
`application for which the benefit of an earlier filing date prior to March 16, 2013
`
`was sought.” Inguran, LLC v. Premium Genetics (UK) Ltd., Case PGR2015-
`
`00017, Paper 8 at 11 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015).
`
`To meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the earlier
`
`application(s) must “reasonably convey[ ] to those skilled in the art that the
`
`inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad
`
`Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d, 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In essence,
`
`the specification must describe an invention in a manner “understandable to [a]
`9
`
`

`

`skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.”
`
`Id. To meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the earlier
`
`application(s) must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full
`
`scope of the claimed invention without “undue experimentation.” Genentech, Inc.
`
`v. Novo Nordisk, A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Wands, 858
`
`F.2d at 736-37). “When a range is claimed, there must be reasonable enablement
`
`of the scope of the range.” AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003). A specification that “provides a starting point from which one of skill
`
`in the art can perform further research in order to practice the claimed invention”
`
`does not fulfill the enablement requirement. Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Here, ten of the provisional applications underlying the ’239 patent were
`
`filed before March 16, 2013. But the claims of the ’239 patent are not described or
`
`enabled by any of the pre-AIA applications, see Section X below, or even by the
`
`’239 patent specification itself, as discussed in Section XI.B below. The pre-AIA
`
`applications do not describe or enable the full scope of the dosing regimen
`
`limitation recited in claim 1 and incorporated into all of the dependent claims. Exh.
`
`1003, claims 2-17. Furthermore, the pre-AIA applications do not even mention, let
`
`alone enable or describe, the limitation related to the duration of pain relief recited
`
`10
`
`

`

`in claim 2, or the amount of zoledronic acid in a dosage form recited in claim 17.
`
`Therefore, the ’239 patent is available for PGR.
`
`A.
`
`The Pre-AIA Applications Fail to Describe or Enable the Dosing
`Regimens Limitation of Claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’239 patent recites a range of dosing regimens “wherein the
`
`human being receives about 80 to about 500 mg of zoledronic acid within a period
`
`of six months.” However, none of the pre-AIA applications provide information
`
`sufficient to describe or enable the entire range of dosing regimens found in claim
`
`1. Regarding Patent Owner’s failure to satisfy the written description requirement,
`
`as discussed below, the first eight pre-AIA applications fail to provide sufficient
`
`information from which a POSA would have understood that the claimed invention
`
`included a dosing regimen comprised of an amount within any particular dosing
`
`period.
`
`While, the ninth and tenth pre-AIA applications do include dosing regimens
`
`comprised of an amount within a particular period, as also discussed below, they
`
`fail to properly describe the dosing regimen limitation because they fail to direct a
`
`POSA to the particular range claimed. Regarding Patent Owner’s failure to satisfy
`
`the enablement requirement, as discussed below, the first six and the eighth pre-
`
`AIA applications fail to provide information from which a POSA might determine
`
`how long to administer zoledronic acid in order to effectively treat CRPS. As also
`
`11
`
`

`

`discussed below, the seventh, ninth and tenth provisional applications
`
`indiscriminately provide possible dosing regimens that fall within and outside the
`
`claimed range of dosing regimens and thus fail to enable a POSA to practice the
`
`full range of dosing regimens.
`
`1.
`
`The Pre-AIA Applications Fail to Provide Proper Written
`Description of the Dosing Regimens Limitation.
`
`There is nothing in the pre-AIA applications from which a POSA would
`
`have concluded that a dosing regimen comprised of a particular amount of
`
`zoledronic acid and a corresponding dosing period is an aspect of the alleged
`
`invention. In fact, the first time the claimed dosing regimen limitation appeared
`
`was via an Examiner’s Amendment made on February 2, 2016 during the
`
`prosecution of the ’857 application (issued as the ’239 patent) in order to overcome
`
`the Examiner’s rejections based on the prior art. Exh. 1009, at 00425-26.
`
`Information re

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