United States: When Is A Broken Record Not A Broken Record?

Decision: Dr. Reddy’s Labs. S.A. v. Invidior UK Ltd., IPR2019-00328, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. June 3, 2019)

Background:  Indivior UK Limited (“Patent Owner”) owns U.S. Patent No. 9,687,454 B2 (“the ’454 patent”). The ’454 patent relates to “self-supporting film dosage forms which provide a therapeutically effective dosage” of buprenorphine and naloxone. ’454 patent, 1:20–25; 4:67–5:4. The ’454 patent contains fourteen claims. Id. at 24:25–26:15. Claim 1 is reproduced below:

  1. An oral, self-supporting, mucoadhesive film comprising:

(a) about 40 wt % to about 60 wt % of a water-soluble polymeric matrix;

(b) about 2 mg to about 16 mg of buprenorphine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof;

(c) about 0.5 mg to about 4 mg of naloxone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and

(d) an acidic buffer;

wherein the film is mucoadhesive to the sublingual mucosa or the buccal mucosa;

wherein the weight ratio of (b):(c) is about 4:1;

wherein the weight ratio of (d):(b) is from 2:1 to 1:5; and

wherein application of the film on the sublingual mucosa or the buccal mucosa results in differing absorption between buprenorphine and naloxone, with a buprenorphine Cmax[1] from about 0.624 ng/ml to about 5.638 ng/ml and a buprenorphine AUC from about 5.431 hr*ng/ml to about 56.238 hr*ng/ml; and a naloxone Cmax from about 41.04 pg/ml to about 323.75 pg/ml and a naloxone AUC from about 102.88 hr*pg/ml to about 812.00 hr*pg/ml.

Claim 13 recites a method for treating opioid dependence in a patient in need thereof comprising sublingually or buccally administering the mucoadhesive film of claim 1 to a sublingual or buccal mucosal tissue of the patient. Although Claim 13 depends on claim 1, it is a different statutory class from claim 1 and hence might be considered an independent claim.

During prosecution, Patent Owner amended the claims originally pending in the application resulting in the ’454 patent to overcome multiple obviousness rejections. For example, the Examiner rejected all pending claims as obvious over Oksche et al., WO 2008/025791 A1, published March 6, 2008 (“Euro-Celtique”). IPR2019-00328, Paper 19, at 10 (P.T.A.B. June 3, 2019). In response, Patent Owner cancelled or amended all of the pending claims but also argued that Euro-Cletique did not teach every element of the claimed subject matter. Id. at 10-11.

In a final Office Action, the Examiner again rejected the pending claims as obvious over Euro-Celtique, and in view of Fuisz et al., WO 03/030883 A1, published April 17, 2003 (“Fuisz”), European Medicines Agency Initial Marketing-Authorization Document for Suboxone® Tablet, 1–42 (2006) (“EMEA”), and the Suboxone® Sublingual Tablets Package Insert. Id. at 11-12. The Examiner found that Euro-Celtique taught many elements recited in the pending claims and that any further experimentation to achieve the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.  Id.

Patent Owner responded by again amending the pending claims and filing a RCE. Id. at 12. The Examiner once again rejected the pending claims over Euro-Celtique, finding that any optimization of the claimed pH/dosage would have been routine. Id. After an interview, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability with an Examiner’s Amendment that amended claim 11 to include “acidic” before “buffer.” Id.

Patent Owner, not satisfied, withdrew the application from issuance, and filed a second RCE; the RCE amended then-pending independent claim 11 (which became claim 1 of the ’454 patent) as follows:

11. An oral, self-supporting, mucoadhesive film comprising:

(a) about 40 wt % to about 60 wt % of a water-soluble polymeric matrix;

(b) about 2 mg to about 16 mg of buprenorphine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof;

(c) about 0.5 mg to about 4 mg of naloxone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and

(d) an acidic buffer;

wherein the film is mucoadhesive to the sublingual mucosa or the buccal mucosa;

wherein the weight ratio of (b):(c) is about 4:1;

wherein the weight ratio of (d):(b) is from 2:1 to 1:5; and

wherein application of the film on the sublingual mucosa or the buccal mucosa results in differing absorption between buprenorphine and naloxone, with a buprenorphine Cmax[1] from about 0.624 ng/ml to about 5.638 ng/ml and a buprenorphine AUC from about 5.431 hr*ng/ml to about 56.238 hr*ng/ml; and a naloxone Cmax from about 41.04 pg/ml to about 323.75 pg/ml and a naloxone AUC from about 102.88 hr*pg/ml to about 812.00 hr*pg/ml ACU from about 5.431 hr*ng/ml to about 56.238 hr*ng/ml..

Patent Owner added “an” before “acidic buffer” and at the end of the claim, changed the recited AUC values and added new units (hr*pg/ml instead of “hr*ng/ml).  The Examiner subsequently issued a second Notice of Allowability, allowing those amended claims, and the ’454 patent issued.

Following issuance, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“Petitioners”) filed a petition to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–3 and 5–14 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’454 patent. Petitioners contended that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious over “Euro-Celtique and Fuisz in view of the Suboxone® PDR, EMEA, and the FDA IIG Database.” IPR2019-00328, Paper 21, at 6 (P.T.A.B. June 3, 2019).   

The Petitioners furthermore indicated to the PTAB that there was also ongoing litigation involving the ’454 patent. Id. at 3.

Issue:

When does the PTAB exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny an IPR petition where the petition is based on the same or substantially the same prior art and arguments presented during prosecution?

Outcome:

Here, the Board denied Dr. Reddy’s petition. Section 325(d) indicates that the PTAB has broad discretionary power when deciding whether to institute an IPR. Specifically, it provides that “[i]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . [t]he Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Whenever a patent owner argues that a petition should be denied because an Examiner already considered prior art, the PTAB applies several non-exclusive factors, known collectively as the Becton Dickinson factors, after Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, at 17–18 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) (informative); those factors include:

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 distinguishes the prior art;

e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and

f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.

IPR2019-00328, Paper 19, at 9. See also, NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, at 11–18 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential) (analyzing the Becton Dickinson factors). 

Here, the PTAB grouped the Becton Dickinson factors into two categories. The first category included factors (a)–(d), which factors address the extent to which the Examiner relied on the asserted prior art during prosecution, and the similarities between the arguments made during prosecution and in the IPR petition. IPR2019-00328, Paper 19, at 15. Of the prior art references asserted in the IPR, Euro-Celtique and the EMEA reference were considered by the Examiner during prosecution. Id. According to the PTAB, the Suboxone® Package Insert (asserted by the Examiner) and the Suboxone® reference (asserted by Petitioners) were substantially the same. Id. at 16. The only asserted reference that was not before the Examiner was FDA IIG, but the PTAB found “that an analysis of the disclosure of FDA IIG suggests hindsight reconstruction and adds little, if anything, to the obviousness analysis.” Id. at 17.

The second category of Becton Dickinson factors included (e) and (f), which both question whether the petition asserted new arguments or ways to view the prior art. Id. at 18. Petitioners contended that the Examiner erred in evaluating Euro-Celtique, among other references. In particular, Petitioner urged that a Delaware litigation opinion, Reckitt Benckiser Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 2016 WL 3186659 (D. Del. June 3, 2016), demonstrated that the Examiner erred in evaluating the asserted prior art. IPR2019-00328, Paper 19, at 18. Flatly rejecting that argument, the PTAB noted that the Delaware opinion involved different patents, claims, and prior art not asserted in the current IPR. Id. Also, the Delaware opinion was cited to and considered by the Examiner in the ’454 patent prosecution. Id.

Petitioners also argued that Patent Owner disavowed arguments made during prosecution of the ’454 patent. Id. at 18–20. First, Petitioners contended that Patent Owner’s arguments in a challenge of a non-involved patent that was related to Euro-Celtique contradicted their statements regarding the same prior art during prosecution of the ’454 patent.  Id. The PTAB rejected characterizing Patent Owner’s argument as a disavowal, noting that the Examiner during the ’454 patent prosecution recognized and expressly stated what the prior art taught. Id.

The second alleged disavowal stemmed from inconsistent arguments between the ’454 patent prosecution and the IPR proceeding. Id. Rejecting this argument, the PTAB found the Petitioners’ argument lacked clarity. Id. Petitioners also did not help themselves by their “terse characterization” of Patent Owner’s three-page argument in a single sentence, their failure to explain the alleged inconsistency, and their unsupported argument that statements made in different contexts involving different claims show that the Examiner erred. Id. at 19-20.

Furthermore, Petitioners asserted that their expert declaration, not before the Examiner in the ’454 prosecution but submitted during the IPR, explained how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted the prior art. Id. at 20. That declaration was supposed to show how the Examiner erred during prosecution of the ’454 patent. Id. The PTAB, however, did not find the declaration to be persuasive, noting that the new information in the expert’s declaration would not warrant reconsideration of the same or substantially the same art and arguments which were before the Examiner during the ’454 patent prosecution. Id. 

After balancing the Becton Dickinson factors, the PTAB concluded that “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments that Petitioners assert[ed] in the IPR were presented to the Office during examination of the ’454 patent.” Id at 20–21. Therefore, the PTAB exercised its discretion under § 325(d) and denied institution of the petition. Id.

Takeaways:

The PTAB is less likely to institute an IPR when an Examiner has already considered the asserted prior art, particularly if, after careful review of the Becton Dickinson factors, the PTAB concludes that an Examiner was correct in its review of that prior art during original prosecution. Even though there are six Becton Dickinson factors, they do not make up an exclusive list and, moreover, the PTAB will not necessarily review each of them individually. Indeed, the PTAB may group the factors together into categories and adopt a more holistic approach.

In this decision, the PTAB concluded, after holistically analyzing at least the six Becton Dickinson factors, that exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution was appropriate because this petition presented prior art that was the same or substantially similar to the prior art reviewed by the Examiner during prosecution. Manifestly, how the Becton Dickinson factors cut will depend on all facts and circumstances of an individual proceeding. However, if Petitioner asserts new arguments or additional information related to art that was before the Examiner, then the PTAB may be more likely to institute the IPR based upon those new arguments or new information.

That raises the question, how does one differentiate between the same art when used in an IPR petition and that had been considered by the Examiner?  Lessons to be gleaned from this denial include:

  1. Use at least one reference that was not mentioned in the prosecution history.
  2. Show that the “new” reference adds a teaching not considered by the Examiner and thus is not cumulative to the prior art considered during prosecution.
  3. Avoid, if relying on previously considered prior art, asserting the same arguments used before the Examiner.
  4. Consider, if relying on the same reference or argument raised during prosecution, submitting an expert declaration to establish that the Examiner had misunderstood or misapplied how a person of ordinary skill in the art would view that reference or argument.
  5. Explain precisely, if arguing that the patent owner made a clear disavowal, why the patent owner’s statements are contradictory and why that inconsistency amounts to disavowal.
  6. From the patent owners’ point of view, consider conducting thorough prior art searches before prosecution and disclose the references to the Examiner. That may make prosecution more difficult, but it could be helpful if subsequent litigation ensues of a fully vetted patent.

Also, estoppel against the Petitioner does not arise in the absence of a Final Written Decision. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). In this case, there was no Final Written Decision, so Petitioners would not be estopped from raising arguments presented in the IPR petition in a subsequent district court litigation. While the PTAB’s denial of institution of the IPR might be considered by a court if the same arguments were raised during litigation, the fact of the denial, alone, may not be fatal to Petitioners’ litigation positions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions