`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UPL LTD,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`Page
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Requirements Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.204 ................................................ 2 
`A.  Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Timing ................................................................................................... 3 
`III.  Mandatory Notices Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................................ 4 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 4 
`B. 
`Notice of Related Matters ..................................................................... 4 
`C. 
`Lead, Back-Up Counsel and Service Information ................................ 5 
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 CFR § 42.204(b) and Precise
`Relief Requested .............................................................................................. 6 
`Background ...................................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`The ’727 Patent ..................................................................................... 7 
`1. 
`The Specification and Claims ..................................................... 7 
`2. 
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 10 
`3. 
`Effective Filing Date of the Claims .......................................... 15 
`Background Regarding the Technology .............................................. 16 
`B. 
`VI.  The Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art ....................................................... 18 
`VII.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 18 
`VIII.  It Is More Likely Than Not That At Least One of the Challenged
`Claims is Unpatentable .................................................................................. 19 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`B. 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 10 are Anticipated by
`Godoy .................................................................................................. 19 
`1. 
`Claims 1, 3, and 4 are Anticipated by Godoy ........................... 19 
`2. 
`Claim 5 is Anticipated by Godoy ............................................. 21 
`3. 
`Claim 7 is Anticipated by Godoy ............................................. 21 
`4. 
`Claim 9 is Anticipated by Godoy ............................................. 22 
`5. 
`Claim 10 is Anticipated by Godoy ........................................... 23 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-10 are Anticipated by Tobler and/or
`Obvious Over the Combination of Tobler and Godoy ........................ 27 
`1. 
`Claim 1 is Anticipated or Obvious Over Tobler—
`Optionally in view of Godoy .................................................... 29 
`Claim 2 is Obvious Over Tobler—Optionally in view of
`Godoy ........................................................................................ 34 
`Claim 3 is Anticipated or Obvious Over Tobler—
`Optionally in view of Godoy .................................................... 36 
`Claim 4 is Anticipated or Obvious Over Tobler—
`Optionally in view of Godoy .................................................... 36 
`Claim 5 is Anticipated or Obvious Over Tobler—
`Optionally in view of Godoy .................................................... 36 
`Claim 6 is Anticipated or Obvious Over Tobler—
`Optionally in view of Godoy .................................................... 37 
`Claim 7 is Anticipated or Obvious Over Tobler—
`Optionally in view of Godoy .................................................... 39 
`Claim 8 is Anticipated or Obvious Over Tobler—
`Optionally in view of Godoy .................................................... 39 
`Claims 9 and 10 are Anticipated or Obvious Over
`Tobler—and Optionally Godoy ................................................ 41 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-10 are Obvious Over De Oliveira—
`Optionally in view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy. ................... 50 
`1. 
`Claim 1 is Obvious Over De Oliveira—Optionally in
`view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy ................................ 51 
`Claim 2 is Obvious Over De Oliveira—Optionally in
`view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy ................................ 55 
`Claim 3 is Obvious Over De Oliveira—Optionally in
`view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy ................................ 56 
`Claim 4 is Obvious Over De Oliveira—Optionally in
`view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy ................................ 56 
`Claim 5 is Obvious Over De Oliveira—Optionally in
`view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy ................................ 57 
`Claim 6 is Obvious Over De Oliveira—Optionally in
`view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy ................................ 58 
`Claim 7 is Obvious Over De Oliveira—Optionally in
`view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy ................................ 59 
`Claim 8 is Obvious Over De Oliveira—Optionally in
`view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy ................................ 59 
`Claims 9 and 10 are Obvious Over De Oliveira—
`Optionally in view of Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy .......... 60 
`Patentee’s Results are not Unexpected and do not Overcome
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 68 
`1. 
`As early as 2010, Mancozeb was the “go-to” Fungicide
`to Add to a Mixture to Improve Disease Control or
`Efficacy. .................................................................................... 69 
`Synergy Cannot be Determined From the Data in the
`’727 Patent by a POSA. ............................................................ 71 
`
`2. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`F. 
`
`E. 
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-10 Are Invalid Under the Written
`Description Requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ................................. 73 
`1. 
`Patentable Distinction Argued Not in Claims .......................... 73 
`Ground 5: Claims 1-10 Lack Enablement Under 35 U.S.C. §
`112(a) ................................................................................................... 76 
`1. 
`Patentee’s Data is Not Reproducible/Petitioner is Unable
`to Reproduce Alleged Synergy ................................................. 80 
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 81 
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 75, 76
`Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,
`490 F.3d 946 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 75
`Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................... 75
`Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.,
`780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 33
`MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 78
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
`874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ...................................................................... 75, 76
`Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`862 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 76
`Osram Sylvania Inc. v. American Induction Tech. Inc.,
`701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 32, 33
`In re Petering,
`301 F.2d 676 (CCPA 1962) ................................................................................ 33
`Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976) .................................................................................... 75
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 18
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 77
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`In re Ziegler,
`992 F.2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .......................................................................... 78
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................ 78
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ......................................................................... 6, 10, 11, 12, 19
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................6, 10, 12, 13, 34, 68
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ............................................................................. 7, 10, 74, 76, 77
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ................................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b) ................................................................................................... 18
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 ................................................................................................ 1
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 371 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) ..................................................................................................... 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) .............................................................................................. 18
`37 C.FLR. § 42.200(D) ooo... ce eccccsscssecessesseeeseceseeeseeesseecsaessaecaeesseesceseeeeeeeeeneeeneeenees 18
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.200 et seq. ........................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.200 Cf SCG. ....ccccccccccccccssssccecsssssseececessnssececesseseeeecsesessececeeceeaeeeeeseesaeeees 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204. .................................................................................................... 2
`37 CLFLR. § 42.204. occ cecsssecssessecsseceseessceeseeeseeesneesneesseecseecsaesseeseeeseeseneeeneeeneeeneees 2
`M.P.E.P. § 2142. ................................................................................................ 68, 74
`M.P.E.P. § 2142. occ cceccsseessecseseeseeeeecesneesneesseecseecsaesaecsseseseeeeeeeeaeeneeeneeeseees 68, 74
`
`
`
`
`iii
`ill
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`
`
`Ex.
`No.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727 (“the ’727 Patent”).
`
`1002 Selected Excerpts of the File History of the ’727 Patent
`
`1003 Declaration of Phillip M. Brannen, Ph.D.
`
`1004 Godoy et al. “Eficiência de fungicidas multissítios no controle da
`ferrugem-asiática da soja, Phakopsora pachyrhizi, na safra 2015/16:
`resultados sumarizados dos ensaios cooperativos”, Londrina, PR Agosto
`2016 (Embrapa Soja, Circular Técnica, 121) (“Godoy”)
`
`1005 Certified Translation of Godoy
`“Efficiency of multisite fungicides in controlling Asian soybean rust,
`Phakopsora pachyrhizi, in the 2015/16 harvest: summarized results of
`cooperative trials”, Londrina, PR August 2016 (Embrapa Soja, Circular
`Técnica, 121)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 9,314,022 to Tobler et al. of Syngenta (“the ’022 Patent”
`or “Tobler")
`
`1007 WO Application Pub. No. 2015/079334 to De Oliveira of UPL, Ltd (the
`“WO’334” or “De Oliveira”)
`
`1008 Wiglesworth et al. “Solatenol™ fungicide – a new SDHI fungicide from
`Syngenta” Phytopathology (2015) 105(Supl. 2) No. 4, p. S2.11
`(“Wiglesworth”)
`
`1009 Elatus EPA Reg. No. 100-1480 dated 8/28/2015 (“Elatus EPA Label”)
`
`1010 Gullino et al. “Mancozeb Past, Present, and Future”, Plant Disease (2010)
`Vol. 94, No. 9, pp. 1076-1087 (“Gullino”)
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`Ex.
`No.
`
`Description
`
`1011 The Pesticide Manual, 17th Ed. Turner, J.A. Editor (2015), excerpted
`monographs
`
`1012 Colby, S.R., “Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of
`Herbicide Combinations”, Weeds, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1967) pp. 20-22
`(“Colby”)
`
`1013 Gisi et al. “Synergistic Interations of Fungicides with Different Modes of
`Action”, Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. (1985) 85(2), pp. 299-306 (“Gisi”)
`
`1014 Levy et al. “The joint action of fungicides in mixtures: comparison of two
`methods for synergy calculation”, European and Mediterranean Plant
`Protection Organization (EPPO) Bulletin (1986) 16(4), pp 651-657
`(“Levy”)
`
`1015 Koller et al. “Evaluation of Tactics for Managing Resistance of Venturia
`inaequalis to Sterol Demethylation Inhibitors”, Plant Disease (1999) pp
`857-863 (“Koller”)
`
`1016 Emery et al. “Assessment of interactions between components of
`fungicide mixtures against Monilinia fructicola”, Crop Protection (2002)
`21, pp 41–47 (“Emery”)
`
`1017 Moura et al., “Effects of cyproconazole, azoxystrobin and mineral oil on
`soybean leaf anatomy”, Dourados (2013) v.6, n.20, p.154-160 (“Moura”)
`
`1018 Della Vechia et al., “Physical characteristics of insecticide spraying
`liquids with mineral oil and droplets formed on citrus leaves”, Citrus
`Research & Technology, (2016) v. 37, n. 1, pp. 102-107 (Della Vechia”)
`
`1019 Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`1020 Declaration of Caio Prates
`
`1021 Declaration of Gilson Aparecido Hermenegildo de Oliveira submitted in
`U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 15/673,316
`
`ii
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 321-329 and 37 C.F.R. §§42.200 et seq.,
`
`Syngenta Crop Protection AG (“Petitioner”) requests Post-Grant Review of claims
`
`1-10 of United States Patent No. 11,445,727 to Fabri et al., titled “Fungicidal
`
`Combinations” (“the ’727 Patent”; Ex. 1001), owned by UPL Ltd. This Petition
`
`demonstrates that Petitioner is more likely than not to prevail in invalidating at
`
`least one of the challenged claims.
`
`The challenged claims, which are directed to combinations and compositions
`
`of known fungicides and use thereof should be cancelled as unpatentable. Godoy
`
`published September 1, 2016, before the filing date of the ’727 Patent. See Ex.
`
`1019, ¶ 47. Godoy discloses a fungicidal combination that falls within the scope
`
`of independent claims 1, 5, and 10 of the ’727 as well as dependent claims 3, 4, 7,
`
`and 9.
`
`Godoy therefore anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 and anticipates or
`
`renders obvious claims 2, 6, and 8. Because Godoy discloses a species claimed in
`
`the ’727 Patent, a POSA would readily understand and be able to identify the
`
`genus claimed.
`
`U.S. 9,314,022 (the ’022 or Tobler) anticipates or renders obvious claims 1
`
`and 3-10 and/or claims 1-10 are obvious over Tobler and Godoy.
`
`1
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`WO2015079334 (“DeOliveira”) in combination with Wiglesworth, Tobler
`
`and Godoy renders claims 1-10 obvious.
`
`UPL argued that using their claimed combinations having the addition of
`
`mancozeb resulted in “enhanced efficacy and surprisingly gave a synergistic
`
`result.” These results were neither synergistic nor surprising as it was well known
`
`in the art to add mancozeb to improve disease control. Further, UPL’s alleged test
`
`results do not provide sufficient information for one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`determine synergy. In addition, Petitioner, Syngenta attempted to duplicate the
`
`results in an effort to see if synergy occurs; Petitioner was unable to observe
`
`synergy. See Ex. 1020, ¶ 14.
`
` There is insufficient data or evidence of the alleged synergy, without this
`
`the patent and claims are insufficient to support written description and lack
`
`enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). For the reasons above, the Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that claims 1-10 be cancelled.
`
`II. REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.204
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’727 Patent is eligible for Post-Grant Review
`
`(“PGR”) and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting PGR
`
`challenging the claims of the ’727 Patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`2
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`B.
`Timing
`The ’727 Patent was granted on September 20, 2022, and this Petition is
`
`being filed on or before the date that is nine months after the date of grant of the
`
`patent, or on or before June 20, 2023. See Ex. 1001. As discussed in Section
`
`V.A.3, the ’727 Patent is subject to the AIA and is eligible for PGR because the
`
`effective filing date of the claims is after March 16, 2013.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the prior art and arguments presented in this
`
`Petition are not the same or substantially the same prior art and arguments
`
`previously presented to the Office. The anticipation argument of Ground 1 was not
`
`previously raised by the Examiner as the Examiner was unaware of the Godoy
`
`reference and although the Patentee was, they did not disclose Godoy. As a result,
`
`Godoy is not in the record of the ’727 Patent.
`
`In addition, the anticipation and obviousness argument of Ground 2 using
`
`U.S. Patent 9,314,022 was also not raised by the Examiner.
`
`Although the published PCT document, De Oliviera, of Ground 3 was used
`
`by the Examiner, the Examiner was not aware of the language at the end of the De
`
`Oliviera reference (e.g., regarding the alleged unexpected results when using
`
`mancozeb). This language contradicts the Patentee’s representation to the
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`Examiner, that the “invention” of the ’727 was the at all surprising effect of
`
`adding mancozeb to other known fungicides. Ex. 1007, p. 25.
`
`Not only was the Examiner unaware of the previous UPL discussion
`
`regarding the addition of mancozeb to other fungicides, but as noted above, the
`
`Examiner was also unaware that UPL had submitted the Godoy reference (Ground
`
`1) in the prosecution of a related U.S. application corresponding to the published
`
`De Oliveira (Ground 3). As such, neither the Godoy reference, U.S. Patent ’022,
`
`nor the previous disclosure regarding the alleged unexpected results when using
`
`mancozeb was relied on by the Examiner for a rejection.
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`The real party-in-interest for this Petition is Syngenta Crop Protection AG, a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of Switzerland with its principal offices in
`
`Basel, Switzerland (“Petitioner”). While not a real-party-in-interest, Syngenta AG
`
`owns 100% of Syngenta Crop Protection AG; Syngenta Group owns 100% of
`
`Syngenta AG; and China National AgroChemical Company Ltd. owns 99.1% of
`
`Syngenta Group.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner notices the following related
`
`U.S. applications in as much as the applications claim priority to the ’727 Patent:
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
` U.S. App. Ser. No. 17/130,193, filed Dec. 12, 2020, is a continuation
`
`of the ’727 Patent; and
`
` U.S. App. Ser. No. 17/936,560, filed Sep. 29, 2022, is a continuation
`
`of the ’727 Patent.
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following applications to which the ’727 claims
`
`priority:
`
` PCT/IB2017/056710, WO2018083577A1, filed Oct. 30, 2017; and
`
` IN201631037704, filed in India on Nov. 4, 2016.
`
`C. Lead, Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner designates
`
`counsel as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Toni-Junell Herbert
`Registration Number 34,348
`BakerHostetler LLP
`Washington Square, Suite 1100
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5403
`Telephone: 202.861.1500
`Facsimile: 202.861.1783
`Email: therbert@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`David M. Klecyngier
`Registration Number 72,632
`BakerHostetler LLP
`Washington Square, Suite 1100
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5403
`Telephone: 202.861.1500
`Facsimile: 202.861.1783
`Email: dklecyngier@bakerlaw.com
`Daniel Bucca Ph.D.
`Registration Number 42,368
`BakerHostetler LLP
`Washington Square, Suite 1100
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5403
`Telephone: 202.861.1500
`Facsimile: 202.861.1783
`Email: dbucca@bakerlaw.com
`
`Please send all correspondence to the lead counsel at: Baker & Hostetler
`
`
`
`LLP, Washington Square, Suite 1100, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
`
`Washington, DC 20036-5403. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at
`
`the following addresses: therbert@bakerlaw.com, dklecyngier@bakerlaw.com,
`
`dbucca@bakerlaw.com, and mrick@bakerlaw.com. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.204(B)
`AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Ground 1: Petitioner challenges claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 10, and seeks a
`
`ruling that they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) by Godoy.
`
`Ground 2: Petitioner challenges claims 1-10, and seeks a ruling that they
`
`are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`in view of Tobler and Godoy.
`
`Ground 3: Petitioner challenges claims 1-10, and seeks a ruling that they
`
`are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of De Oliveira—optionally in view of
`
`Wiglesworth, Tobler, and Godoy.
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`Ground 4: Petitioner challenges claims 1-10, and seeks a ruling that they
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lack of written description.
`
`Ground 5: Petitioner challenges claims 1-10, and seeks a ruling that they
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lack of enablement.
`
`Petitioner relies upon publications cited therein in support of Grounds 1-5,
`
`and upon the Declaration of Phillip M. Brannen , Ph.D., Ex. 1003, Declaration of
`
`Caio Prates, Ex. 1020, and the documents cited therein. Filed herewith is an
`
`Exhibit List and copies of the references, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(c).
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’727 Patent
`1.
`The Specification and Claims
`As the title “Fungicidal Combinations” would imply, the ’727 Patent is
`
`directed to “combination[s] comprising a dithiocarbamate fungicide, a succinate
`
`dehydrogenase fungicide and at least one of ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitor
`
`fungicide or a quinone outside inhibitor fungicide.” Ex. 1001, title, abstract.
`
`The ’727 Patent contains 10 claims. Id., 21:40-23:30. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 10 are
`
`independent. Id. The ’727 specification provides disease control test data for three
`
`different two fungicide combinations (Table 1) and a fourth with a three fungicide
`
`combination as the control. Specifically, each of the combinations contains
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`prothioconazole combined with another fungicide. Data is then provided for the
`
`same combinations with the addition of mancozeb. The four test combinations
`
`each contain prothioconazole, mancozeb, and either benzovindiflupyr, isopyrazam,
`
`penthiopyrad, or azoxystrobin.
`
`Benzovindifluyr, isopyrazam, and penthiopyrad are identified as succinate
`
`dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicides; and azoxystrobin is identified as a quinone
`
`outside inhibitor fungicide. Ex. 1001, 6:49-51, 7:41-43, and 8:33-35. The results
`
`of these tests for the addition of mancozeb on the mixtures is described in Table 1
`
`of the ’727. Ex. 1001, 20:37-63. The patent discloses what appear to be two test
`
`points for each control and test combination; specially “2015/16” and “2016/17.”
`
`Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`Table 1 of ’727 Patent (Ex. 1001 at col. 20)
`
`A1
`
`A2
`
`B1
`
`B2
`
`C1
`
`C2
`
`
`
`Table 2 of ’727 Patent (Ex. 1001 at col 21)
`
`D1
`
`D2
`
`As for discussing or characterizing the data and results, the specification notes
`
`9
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`that “[t]able 1 clearly demonstrates the increase in control when mancozeb is added
`
`to
`
`the combination of ergosterol biosynthesis
`
`inhibitors and succinate
`
`dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicides.” Ex. 1001 20:60-63. “Table 2 demonstrates
`
`efficacy when mancozeb is added to the combinations of succinate dehydrogenase
`
`inhibitor fungicides and quinone outside inhibitor fungicides and ergosterol
`
`biosynthesis fungicides.” Ex. 1001 20:64-67. The specification then concludes that
`
`“the addition of mancozeb enhanced the efficacy of the combination and surprisingly
`
`gave a synergistic effect.” Ex. 1001 21:19-21.
`
`Other than the above comments and conclusions centered around mancozeb,
`
`the specification is devoid of any discussion as to the existence of any difference
`
`between the four examples. See Ex. 1001.
`
`2.
`Prosecution History
`The ’727 was filed as a Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) application on
`
`October 30, 2017, and entered under 35 U.S.C. § 371 as Application No.
`
`16/347,283 (“the ’283 Application”) on May 3, 2019. The ’727 claimed priority to
`
`Indian application 201631037704 filed on November 4, 2016.
`
`In the first Office Action, dated August 21, 2020, the Examiner made
`
`rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and (b) and § 103, as well as a number of
`
`rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Ex. 1002. Notably the Examiner utilized
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`two § 102 references to demonstrate the teaching of a method to improve
`
`treatment of soybean rust infection comprising the combination of a
`
`dithiocarbamate fungicide (mancozeb) and at least another fungicide selected from
`
`the group including quinone outside inhibitors (azoxystrobin), succinate
`
`dehydrogenase inhibitors (penthiopyrad and isopyrazam) and demethylation
`
`inhibitors (prothioconazole) already existed in the art. Ex. 1002, pp. 203-205.
`
`In particular, the Examiner stated that De Oliviera disclosed a method to
`
`improve treatment of soybean rust infection comprising the combination of a
`
`dithiocarbamate fungicide (mancozeb) and at least another fungicide selected from
`
`the group including quinone outside inhibitors (azoxystrobin), succinate
`
`dehydrogenase inhibitors (penthiopyrad and isopyrazam) and demethylation
`
`inhibitors (prothioconazole) already existed in the art. Ex. 1002, pp. 204-205.
`
`The Examiner used Gewehr as disclosing a method for controlling
`
`pathogenic fungi using penthiopyrad in combination with at least one further
`
`fungicide such as prothioconazole, mancozeb, or azoxystrobin. Ex. 1002, p. 207.
`
`In their November 11, 2020, response, the Patentee amended claim 1 to
`
`specify the combination must include benzovindiflupyr and mancozeb as well as at
`
`least another fungicide selected from an ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitor and a
`
`quinone outside inhibitor fungicide. They also argued that De Oliveira “does not
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`even disclose benzovindiflupyr as one of the systemic fungicides.” Ex. 1002,
`
`p.195. While the DeOliveira specification does not specifically disclose
`
`benzovindiflupyr, UPL was aware that benzovindiflupyr was used with mancozeb.
`
`In fact, UPL submitted a declaration containing and referring to the Godoy
`
`reference, which does disclose benzovindiflupyr in combination with mancozeb
`
`during the U.S. prosecution of De Oliveira; the U.S. application to De Oliveira is
`
`the equivalent of the De Oliveira published PCT that the Examiner was using for
`
`her rejection.
`
`As to the §102 rejection involving Gewehr, UPL argued that the reference
`
`taught that penthiopyrad was an essential component, whereas their amended
`
`claims now did not include penthiopyrad.
`
`An Information Disclosure Statement filed December 14, 2021, identified
`
`Tobler as U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100216640. Ex 1002, pp. 66-68.
`
`Despite being disclosed, there is no rejection on the record using this reference.
`
`In the Office Action of January 22, 2021, the Examiner dropped all of the
`
`§102 rejections but maintained and expanded on the three rejections under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103. In their April 22, 2021, response the UPL substantially amended
`
`their claims to replace “a fungicidal combination comprising …” to “a fungicidal
`
`combination consisting of.” In an effort to overcome the §103 rejection involving
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`De Oliveira and Grammenos, UPL also represented to the Examiner that “the
`
`technical effects achieved by the claimed combinations, i.e., an enhancement of the
`
`efficacy, and a surprising reduction in fungal disease incidence when mancozeb is
`
`added to the claimed combinations.” See Ex. 1002, p. 138. The Examiner was
`
`unaware that these alleged technical effects achieved were not only anticipated by
`
`Godoy, but were also not as unexpected as described.
`
`As for the §103 rejection involving Gewehr and Kemmitt, UPL argued that
`
`penthiopyrad is not benzovindiflupyr, mancozeb, or at least another fungicide as
`
`defined in the claims.1
`
`As a result of the above arguments and representations, the Examiner issued
`
`a third office action June 14, 2021, maintaining only the double patenting
`
`rejections. The Examiner dropped all the §103 rejections in light of UPL’s
`
`amendment and representation as to “the technical effects achieved by …
`
`mancozeb … to the claimed combinations.” See Id. The Examiner’s reliance on
`
`this was unjustified as UPL’s assertion as to mancozeb was inconsistent with the
`
`prior art and in fact incorrect. The Examiner was unaware that UPL had made
`
`exactly the same representation regarding mancozeb years earlier in the discussion
`
`
`1 Yet benzovindiflupyr like penthiopyrad is a pyrazole carboxamide class of
`succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide as defined by UPL in patent. Ex.
`1001, 3:56-65.
`
`13
`
`

`

`PGR2023-00017
`U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727
`
`
`of data at the end of the De Oliviera patent specification. Ex. 1007 p. 25. There
`
`UPL specifically stated that:
`
`it was thus concluded that the addition of a multi-site
`contact fungicide such as mancozeb acted as a synergist
`to the combination products … for the treatment of Asian
`soybean rust.
`
`Id.
`
`Interestingly, in the U.S. prosecution of De Oliviera, UPL noted that “the
`
`addition of a dithiocarbamate increased disease control and improved yield of
`
`plants.” Id. These are the very same words used by UPL in the ’727 specification
`
`after their discussion of mancozeb in the results; in particular, the ’727 reads: “the
`
`addition of a dithiocarbamate increased disease control and improved yield of
`
`plants.” Ex. 1001, 21:20-22.
`
`Not only was the Examiner unaware of this earlier disclosure by UPL in De
`
`Oliviera, but UPL also did not disclose the Godoy reference, despite the fact that
`
`they had previously submitted it along with a declaration in the De Oliviera U.S.
`
`prosecution history. Ex. 1021, ¶ 38.
`
`On June 21, 2022, after th