newyorkbio conference may 5, 2015 large molecules, small proceedings: the intersection of biologics...
TRANSCRIPT
NewYorkBio Conference May 5, 2015Large Molecules, Small Proceedings: The Intersection of Biologics and IPRs
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 2
The Panel
Larry Coury
Director of Dispute Resolution, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Peter Waibel
Vice President, Head of Patent Litigation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Brian Walsh
Senior Corporate Counsel and Head of the Immunology Patent Group at Bristol-Myers Squibb
Justin Oliver
Partner and Chair of the PTO Contested Proceedings Practice Group at Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto
Alicia Russo - Moderator
Partner at Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 3
Mechanics of IPRs (35 U.S.C. § 311 et al.)
Replaced Inter Partes Reexaminations
Grounds for request
– §§102 and 103
– Patents and printed publications only
When can it be requested
– Patent filing date on or before March 16, 2013 – any time
– Patent filing date after March 16, 2013 – after the later of:
Nine months after date of issue, or
Termination of a post-grant review, if instituted
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 4
Mechanics of IPRs
Timeline – a final decision is rendered within about 18 months from the filing date of the petition
Estoppel – applies to petitioner, real party in interest, and privy of petitioner
– Cannot assert invalidity on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in an IPR that reached a final decision
Standing
– No requirement for a proof of injury or other interest
If petitioner does not succeed before the PTAB, it will need standing to appeal to the Federal Circuit
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 5
Mechanics of IPRs
Claim Amendments
– Claim amendments are allowed, but the burden is on Patent Owner to prove patentability over all prior art and written description support
– Previous grant rate of motion was about 5%
– Via motion to amend
15 page limit – now changed to 25 pages
New rule - appendix for the amended claims permitted
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 6
Mechanics of IPRs
IPR PGR
When After nine months of grant Within nine months of grant
Threshold showing Reasonable likelihood of success
More likely than not or novel legal question
Grounds 102, 103 101, 102, 103, 112
Estoppel Issues raised or reasonably could have been raised
Issues raised or reasonably could have been raised
Appeal Both parties may appeal to Federal Circuit (assuming standing)
Both parties may appeal to Federal Circuit (assuming standing)
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 7
Mechanics of IPRs
Miscellaneous
– Redundancy
– Conclusory basis for reason to combine
– Statistics
IPR – 73% rate of cancelation/unpatentability for cases reaching final decision
• 16% of analyzed claims were canceled by Patent Owner
• 59% of those cases were computer/electrical/data processing
• 3% were pharma
http://www.postgranthq.com/statistics/
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 8
Different Standards at the PTAB v. District Court
Threshold for institution
– PTAB
“reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition” (§ 314 (a))
– District Court
No requirement
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 9
Different Standards at the PTAB v. District Court
Presumption of validity
– PTAB
No presumption of validity
Petitioner has the burden to prove invalidity
• Except for amended claim
– District Court
Patent is presumed valid
Burden is on the party asserting invalidity to overcome the presumption of validity (35 U.S.C. § 282(a))
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 10
Different Standards at the PTAB v. District Court
Burden of proof
– PTAB
Preponderance of evidence
– District Court
Clear and convincing evidence
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 11
Different Standards at the PTAB v. District Court
Claim Construction
– PTAB
“Broadest reasonable interpretation” (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC., Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015)
No Markman hearing
– District Court
Federal Circuit – “the meaning that [a] term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” (Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005))
Markman hearing to decide claim construction
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 12
Different Standards at the PTAB v. District Court
Practical effects
– Success rate of § 102 challenge IPR
PTAB – 37.5%
District Court – 31.1%
– Success rate of § 103 challenge IPR
PTAB – 57.5%
District Court – 27.8%
http://www.postgranthq.com/statistics/
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 13
Biologics IPR Decisions
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Products Ltd. (IPR2013-00534, IPR2013-00537)
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Duke University (IPR2013-00535)
– Genzyme’s Myozyme product is used for the treatment of Pompe disease
– Representative Claim - A method of treating a human patient with Pompe's disease, comprising intravenously administering biweekly to the patient a therapeutically effective amount of human acid alpha glucosidase, whereby the concentration of accumulated glycogen in the patient is reduced and/or further accumulation of glycogen is arrested.
The PTAB determined that all of the challenged claims of the patents were obvious in view of various combinations of several references
BioMarin is currently conducting clinical trials on a competing product for the treatment of Pompe disease
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 14
Biologics IPR Decisions
Biologics decisions since BioMarin
– Baxter/Apatech v. Millenium Biologix (IPR2013-00590; IPR2013-00582)
On March 18, 2015, PTAB determined that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the challenged claims were obvious
– Aker Biomarine/Enzymotec v. Neptune/Bioressources (IPR2014-00003)
On March 23, 2015, PTAB determined that the Petitioner has established by preponderance of evidence that all but two of the challenged claims are unpatentable under both 102 and 103 grounds
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 15
Biologics IPR Decisions
Often, Patent Owner cancels challenged claims or reaches settlement
– CroFab – Laboratories Silanes v. BTG Int’l (IPR2014-01269)
Laboratories Silanes filed petition in August 2014
BTG announced settlement, IPR terminated in December 2014
– Eprex – Hospira v. Janssen (IPR2013-00365)
Hospira filed IPR but Janssen disclaimed all challenged claims
Pending
– Herceptin – Phigenix v. Immunogen/Genentech (IPR2014-00676)
Decision to institute reached in October 2014
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 16
Biologics IPR Decisions
Effects of IPR decisions on Biologics/Pharma products
– The BioMarin decisions mark one of the first times that the PTAB has invalidated a biologics patent in the context of an IPR
– In light of the recent decisions, IPR proceedings warrant the attention of Patent Owners and would-be Petitioners alike
103 ground for invalidation should be considered in light of the recent decisions from the PTAB
“Preponderance of evidence” standard may be easier to meet
“Broadest reasonable interpretation” of claim scope potentially increases the prior art available for anticipation and obviousness arguments
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 17
Rule Changes/Proposed New Rules – Impact on IPRs
USPTO Rule Changes/Proposed New Rules (1st Quick Fix)
– Petitioner’s Reply Brief and PO’s Motion to Amend
Old Rule: 15-Page limit
New Proposed Rule: Increase page limit to 25 pages
http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_s_quick_fixes_for
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 18
Rule Changes/Proposed New Rules – Impact on IPRs
USPTO Rule Changes/Proposed New Rules (2nd Rule Package)
– Motion to Amend
Old Rule: Patent Owner required to prove patentability over all prior art
New Proposed Rule: Patent Owner will be required to prove patentability of the amended claims over the art of record before the Office
http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_s_quick_fixes_for
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 19
Rule Changes/Proposed New Rules – Impact on IPRs
USPTO Rule Changes/Proposed New Rules (2nd Rule Package)
– Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
Old Rule: No new testimonial evidence allowed
New Proposed Rule: Supporting evidence will be allowed
– Establishing the real party-in-interest (RPI)
Old rule: limited discovery by Patent Owner to establish RPI
New Rule: ample discovery to determine RPI
http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_s_quick_fixes_for
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 20
Rule Changes/Proposed New Rules – Impact on IPRs
USPTO Rule Changes/Proposed New Rules (3rd Pilot Program)
– PTAB Panel
Old Rule: Judges participating in a decision to institute a trial also part of the panel deciding the case on its merits
New Proposed Rule: A pilot program where a single judge would make the decision on whether to institute a trial and two new judges would be added to the panel only when and if a trial is instituted
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 21
Proposed Legislation – STRONG Patents Act
STRONG Patents Act - Spearheaded by Senator Christopher Coons (DEL) and introduced 03/03/2015
Proposed changes (http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/03/strong-patent-senator.html)
– Claim Construction standard will:
Be “ordinary and customary meaning”
No longer use “broadest reasonable interpretation”
– Claim amendments to be allowed if “reasonable”
– Presumption of validity – burden of proof is “clear and convincing evidence”
– Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response – supporting evidence will be allowed
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 22
Proposed Legislation – STRONG Patents
STRONG Patents Act - Proposed changes (cont’d)
– Block anonymous petitions – will allow Patent Owner to discover the RPI associated with the petition
– Standing to file a petition will be limited to only entities charged with infringement
Entities such as the Coalition for Affordable Drugs, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hayman Credes Master Fund, LP, will no longer be permitted to file IPR petitions
• the founder of Hayman Capital, publicly announced his intention to go “activist” against the U.S. pharmaceutical industry and its patents, calling it a “short activist strategy”
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 23
Proposed Legislation – Innovation Act
Bill passed the House in 2013 as H.R. 3309 – introduced by Rep. Goodlatte
Bill was re-introduced as H.R. 9 on February 5, 2015, and is the same as H.R. 3309
Proposed changes
– PGR: remove “reasonably could have raised” from the estoppel provisions of § 325(e)(2)
– IPR and PGR: mandate the use of a district court-style claim construction in IPR and PGR proceedings
But Federal Circuit has upheld the USPTO’s use of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of the claims
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2015 | www.fitzpatrickcella.com 24
NEW YORK1290 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10104-3800212.218.2100
WASHINGTON975 F Street, NWWashington, DC 20004-1462202.530.1010
CALIFORNIA650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1600Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7130714.540.8700