Kumar et al.v.Sun et al.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 9, 2016

13219030 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2016)

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Entered: September 9, 2016
Telephone: 571-272-4683

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

ASHOK KUMAR
and
NELLITHANATH THANKACHEN BYJU,

Junior Party,
(Patent 8,541,422)

v.

HONG -BIN SUNG, JIAQI SHAN, BOYO ZHANG,
and
FANG YUAN,

Senior Party,
(Application 14/322,939).
____________________

Patent Interference 106,039 (JTM)
(Technology Center 1600)
____________________

Before: RICHARD E. SCHAFER, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and
JAMES T. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT - PRELIMINARY MOTIONS - Bd. R. 127
2

The Board has entered a Decision on Motions in this interference. 1
(Paper No. 252). As discussed in the Decision, Kumar’s claims are unpatentable 2
over Pereillo under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and Sun has failed to rebut the presumption of 3
Board Rule 207. 4
Accordingly, both parties claims which correspond to count 1 are 5
unpatentable. 6
It is: 7
Ordered that judgment is entered against both parties. 8
Further Ordered that Kumar is not entitled to claims 1-17 and 28-30 of 9
U.S. Patent 8,541,422, which are hereby canceled; 10
Further Ordered that Sun is not entitled to claims 11, 18-23, and 25-48 of 11
U.S. Application 14/322,939, which are finally refused; 12
Further Ordered that a copy of this judgment and the Decision on Motions 13
shall be entered into the files of U.S. Patent 8,541,422 and U.S. Application 14
14/322,939; and 15
Further Ordered that should there be a settlement agreement, the parties' 16
attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. §135(c) and Bd. R. 205. 17

18
3

cc (via email): 1
2
Attorney for Kumar: 3
4
Barry Bretschneider 5
Peter J. Knudsen 6
Baker & Hostetler 7
bbretschneider@bakerlaw.com 8
pknudsen@bakerlaw.com 9
10
Attorney for Sun: 11
12
Thomas O. Hoover 13
Wei Song 14
McCarter & English, LLP 15
thoover@mccarter.com 16
wsong@mccarter.com 17

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Entered: September 9, 2016
Telephone: 571-272-9797

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

ASHOK KUMAR
and
NELLITHANATH THANKACHEN BYJU,

Junior Party,
(Patent 8,541,422)

v.

HONG -BIN SUNG, JIAQI SHAN, BOYO ZHANG,
and
FANG YUAN,

Senior Party,
(Application 14/322,939).
____________________

Patent Interference 106,039 (JTM)
(Technology Center 1600)
____________________

Before: RICHARD E. SCHAFER, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and
JAMES T. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON MOTIONS

2

I. Introduction 1
This interference was declared June 2, 2015. The reader is referred to the a 2
Declaration (Paper 1) for an identification of (1) the parties, (2) the patent and 3
application involved in the interference, (3) the count and corresponding claims, 4
and (4) earlier constructive reductions to practice (i.e., benefit for the purpose of 5
priority) accorded to the parties. 6
II. Count 7
A count defines the interfering subject matter and limits the scope of proofs 8
on the issue of priority. 9
The count is Count 1. 10
Count 1 is claim 11 of application 14/322,939, reproduced below: 11
11. A method of treating thrombosis and embolism related diseases 12
comprising administering to a patient in need thereof an effective amount of an 13
optically active 2- hydroxytetrahydrothienopyridine derivative, wherein said 14
derivative is (S)-methyl 2-(2-acetoxy-6,7- dihydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridin-5(4H)-yl)-15
2-(2-chlorophenyl)-acetate or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, 16
wherein the thrombosis and embolism related disease is atherosclerosis, 17
myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemic cerebral thrombosis, peripheral arterial 18
disease, acute coronary syndrome, or thrombosis after percutaneous coronary 19
intervention (PCI). (Paper 9, 3). 20
III. Requests for Oral argument 21
Oral argument was requested by Kumar (Paper 213) and Sun (Paper 228). 22
The panel does not deem oral argument necessary for resolution of the pending 23
motions, which have been adequately briefed. Accordingly, the requests are 24
denied. 25
3

IV. Summary of the Motions 1
A. Kumar Motions 2
1. Kumar Motion 2 3
Kumar Motion 2 seeks entry of judgment that Sun’s involved claims are 4
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1) on the basis that Sun added material 5
limitations to its involved claims more than one year after Kumar’s patent issued. 6
Paper 63. Sun opposed. Paper 90. Kumar replied. Paper 151. 7
2. Kumar Motion 3 8
Kumar Motion 3 seeks to deny Sun benefit of its February 2010 Chinese 9
application. Paper 137. Sun opposed. Paper 185. Kumar replied Paper 210. 10
3. Kumar Motion 4 11
Kumar Motion 4 seeks to designate Kumar’s claims 10-14 as not 12
corresponding to the count. Paper 138. Sun opposed. Paper 179. Kumar replied 13
Paper 211. 14
4. Kumar Motion 5 15
Kumar Motion 5 seeks to exclude evidence. Paper 215. Sun opposed. 16
Paper 244. Kumar replied. Paper 247. 17
B. Sun Motions 18
1. Sun Motion 2 19
Sun Motion 2 seeks entry of judgment that Kumar’s involved claims are 20
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Pereillo. Paper 140. Kumar 21
opposed. Paper 176. Sun replied. Paper 205. 22
2. Sun Motion 4 23
Sun Motion 4 seeks to exclude evidence. Paper 229. Kumar opposed. 24
Paper 230. Sun replied. Paper 248. 25
4

V. Motions Decisions 1
Kumar Motion 2 2
A. Introduction 3
The Board may take up motions in any order. 37 C.F.R. § 125(a). 4
We elect to take up Kumar Motion 2 first because it raises a “threshold” 5
issue. If the motion is granted, Kumar prevails. 37 C.F.R. § 411.201 (definition of 6
“Threshold issue” (2)(ii)); 37 C.F.R. § 41.208(a)(1). 7
Kumar Motion 2 seeks entry of judgment as to all involved Sun claims based 8
on a statutory bar of 35 U.S.C. § 135 (b)(1). Paper 63. 9
B. Facts1 10
1. Kumar’s involved patent issued September 24, 2013. Ex. 2019. 11
Paper 63, 3. 12
2. The “critical date” for including claims which were the same, or 13
substantially the same, as Kumar’s claims, so as not to be time-barred 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1) was September 24, 2014. 15
3. Claim 11 first appeared ipse dixit and in its present form on 16
April 3, 2015. Paper 63, 6. 17
4. Claim 11 presently reads as follows: 11. A method of treating 18
thrombosis and embolism related diseases comprising administering 19
to a patient in need thereof an effective amount of an optically active 20
2-hydroxytetrahydrothienopyridine derivative, wherein said 21
derivative is (S)-methyl 2-(2-acetoxy-6, 7-dihydrothieno[3,2-c l 22
pyridin-5( 4H)-yl)-2-(2-chlorophenyl)-acetate or a pharmaceutically 23

1 To the extent that a finding is a conclusion of law, it may be treated as such.

5

acceptable salt thereof, wherein the thrombosis and embolism related 1
disease is atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemic 2
cerebral thrombosis, peripheral arterial disease, acute coronary 3
syndrome, or thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention 4
(PCI). Paper 9, 3; Ex. 2007, 2–3 (emphasis added). 5
5. On July 3, 2013, claims 11 and 12 existed in this format in the parent 6
case, albeit withdrawn from consideration as directed to nonelected 7
subject matter: 11. (Withdrawn-Currently Amended) A method of 8
treating thrombosis and embolism related diseases comprising 9
administering to a patient in need thereof an effective amount of (S)-10
methyl 2-(2- acetoxy-6,7-dihydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridin-5(4H)-yl)-2-(2-11
chlorophenyl)-acetate or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. 12
12. (Withdrawn) The method of claim 11, wherein the thrombosis and 13
embolism related diseases is selected from atherosclerosis, 14
myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemic cerebral thrombosis, 15
peripheral arterial disease, acute coronary syndrome, and thrombosis 16
after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Paper 90, 3; 17
Ex. 2016, 5 (emphasis added). 18
6. Additional facts may be found below. 19
2. Issue 20
1. According to Kumar, Sun’s amendments in April 2015 were material 21
and the amended claim is barred. Paper 63, 10–11. 22
2. Sun, on the other hand, takes the position that particular previous 23
claims presented in 2013, but subject to restriction requirement, in the 24
6

parent case overcome the potential § 135(b) bar. Paper 90, 1. Corbett 1
v. Chisholm, 568 F.2d 759 (C.C.P.A 1977) 2
3. Burden and Standard of Proof 3
3. Kumar has the burden of proof. 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(b). 4
4. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., 5
Bilstad v. Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1120-21 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (in 6
connection with a motion for judgment based on a lack of written 7
description, movant has a burden by a preponderance of the evidence). 8
5. A party seeking to prevail on the bar must show in its motion that the 9
claim sought to be deemed unpatentable is (1) the same as, or for the 10
same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an issued 11
patent, and (2) that it was made in any application not prior to one 12
year from the date on which the patent was granted. 35 U.S.C. § 135 13
(b)(1); Regents of the University of California v. University of Iowa 14
Research Foundation, 455 F.3d 1371, 1376–1377 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 15
6. A party refuting and opposing the bar movant, if sufficient evidence 16
has been put forth by the movant, must show that the later filed claim 17
does not differ from an earlier claim in an application in any “material 18
difference.” Id. 19
4. Discussion 20
Both Kumar and Sun raise issues which stray from the central issue in 21
deciding this motion. Although we have carefully considered even the ancillary 22
observations and arguments, we hew to the principal facts and arguments of record 23
and focus our analysis on those pertinent facts. 24
7

Kumar bases this motion on the premise that the amendment of a pre-critical 1
date claim to overcome a rejection creates a rebuttable presumption that the change 2
is to a material limitation and the post-critical date claim is therefore barred. 3
Paper 63, 11. See Adair v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 4
Kumar’s analysis is focused on the amendment of claim 11 on July 3, 2014. 5
That those amendments on that date, from immediately prior claim 11, were 6
material, is beyond question. Kumar then also notes in the “interests of 7
completeness” that Sun had claims in the parent application. Paper 63, 17. Kumar 8
then argues that those claims (11 and 12) were subject to a restriction requirement 9
and therefore are not directed to the same invention as the elected species were. Id. 10
Sun, in opposition, urges that the claim was initially presented as claims 11 11
and 12 in the parent application 13/576,534. Paper 90, 2. The only difference 12
between those claims is stated to be the phrase “an optically active 2- 13
6 hydroxytetrahydrothienopyridine derivative” Paper 90, 4. Accordingly, Sun 14
urges that no material differences exist. Sun relied upon the declaration of a 15
witness, Dr. Duan. Ex. 1014, in dealing with the comparison of “optically active” 16
and “S” between the two sets of claims. 17
In reply, Kumar again states that Sun’s amendments must have been 18
material. Paper 151, 4–6. Kumar challenges Dr. Duan’s statements based on lack 19
of expert qualifications. Id. at 3. Kumar also raises numerous other ancillary 20
issues concerning the opposition contents. Id. at 4-7. 21
Where any claim is contained in an application prior to one year from the 22
patent issuance date, then it is not barred. See, e.g. Bowen v. Bihlmaier, 231 USPQ 23
662, 665 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986); Pizzuro v. Pfund, 1 USPQ2d 1056, 1061(Bd. 24
Pat. Int. 1984). It does not matter if the claims were cancelled. Tezuka v. Wilson, 25
8

224 USPQ 1030, 1036 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1984). It is also logical to us under these 1
facts that it does not matter if the claims were restricted and withdrawn. 2
We also note that a restriction requirement is simply a matter of 3
administrative convenience, and is not a definitive conclusion that claims are 4
patentably distinct. See Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor 5
Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting restriction 6
requirement is for “administrative convenience”); Transco Prods. Inc. v. 7
Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 558–59 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (same); In re 8
Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 233 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (restriction is “a matter within the 9
discretion of the examiner and not tantamount to a rejection of claims”); In re 10
Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971) (restriction is a “discretionary, 11
procedural or nonsubstantive” matter). 12
Thus, the central question to be decided presently is whether the difference 13
between claims 11-12 pre-bar in the parent application and claim 11 post-bar is 14
“material.” Kumar’s reply relies on its position that the restriction requirement de 15
facto means that the claims are separate inventions. 16
We take notice that the term “S” in the structure in the claim is a well-known 17
term for a particular type of chiral enantiomeric stereoisomers. Using the Cahn-18
Ingold-Prelog (CIP) priority rules, R- and S- assign the absolute configuration 19
around a stereocenter. S stands for counterclockwise rotation about the center.2 20
Thus, we find that there is no material difference between “optically active” and 21
the designation (S) for the particular enantiomer, which is itself optically active. 22

2 See, e.g., Carey and Sundberg, Advanced Organic Chemistry, Third Edition,
1990, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 67–75, see esp. p. 71 (Board Ex. 3001). See
also Ex. 2034, pp. 285-288.
9

In reply, Kumar points out that Sun also amended the claim to limit the 1
claim to a single species, and to certain specific disease. Paper 151, 4. Those 2
elements, however, are present in the 2013 claims reproduced above. We therefore 3
do not find the existence of a material difference. 4
Accordingly, we Deny Kumar Motion 2. 5
Kumar Motion 4 6
A. Background 7
Kumar Motion 4 seeks to designate Kumar’s claims 10-14 and 16 as not 8
corresponding to the count. Paper 138. 9
Sun opposed. Paper 179. 10
Kumar replied Paper 211. 11
B. Facts 12
1. Kumar claim 10 reads as follows: 13
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the S oxo- 14
clopidogrel or the compound of formula IIA is about 20 to about 100 mg as 15
a loading dose. Paper 5, A-2. 16
2. Kumar claim 11 reads as follows: 17
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the S oxo- 18
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA is about 35 to about 70 mg as a 19
loading dose. Id. 20
3. Kumar claim 12 reads as follows: 21
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the S oxo-22
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA is about 20 to about 100 mg as 23
a loading dose. Id. This claim appears to be a duplicate of claim 10. 24
4. Kumar claim 13 reads as follows: 25
10

13. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the S oxo-1
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA is about 5 to about 30 mg as a 2
maintenance dose. Id. 3
5. Kumar claim 14 reads as follows: 4
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of S oxo-clopidogrel 5
or the compound of Formula IIA is about 6 to about 20 mg as a maintenance 6
dose. Id. 7
6. Kumar claim 16 reads as follows: 8
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the administration step comprises 9
administering an initial loading dose of about 20-100 mg of the (S)-oxo-10
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA to the person in need thereof, 11
followed by administering a maintenance dose of about 5-30 mg. Id. at A-3. 12
7. Additional facts are found below. 13
C. Analysis 14
A motion to have a claim designated as not corresponding to a count 15
must show why the subject matter of the count, if treated as prior art, would not 16
have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 17
207(b)(2). The gravamen of Kumar Motion 4 is that “[a]bsent undue 18
experimentation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have not known what an 19
effective dosage range was or how to determine one for the derivative set forth in 20
the count from the count and the other prior art.” Paper 138, 3. 21
While admitting that an effective amount of clopidogrel was known by 22
pharmacologists, Kumar contends that it would not have been possible to predict 23
the relative potency of the optically active (S)-2-oxoclopidogrel acetyl compound 24
11

of the count from that prior knowledge. Id. at 4, citing Ex. 2019 cols. 16-18; 1
Ex. 2040 at ¶ 20. 2
Kumar asserts that its results with optically active 2-oxo-clopidogrel are 3
surprising and unexpected over the teachings of Pereillo. Id. at 7, citing FF 52; Ex. 4
2045 passim; Ex. 2019 at cols. 17-18; Ex. 2040 at ¶ 29. 5
Kumar Motion 4 is flawed in its approach. Whether it would have been 6
possible to predict the relative potency is not the correct issue to be decided in a 7
motion to undesignate claims. The question to be addressed is whether it would 8
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dose of (S)-2-9
oxoclopidogrel acetyl compound of the count as a loading dose, a maintenance 10
dose, or a combination of doses at the levels recited in the claims, knowing to use 11
“an effective amount” as recited in the count.3 12
Where general conditions of the appealed claim are disclosed in the prior art, 13
it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine 14
experimentation. See, e.g. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); In re 15
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). 16
Neither Kumar Motion 4 nor the Declaration of Dr. Jafari discusses 17
conventional methods of dosage determination and why any experimentation 18
required would have been undue. Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Kumar’s 19
assertion that the results are unexpected in view of the count and known prior art. 20
That determination is made by Dr. Jafari, who simply and conclusorily refers a 21
reader to Pierello as a whole “Exhibit 2045, passim.” and a selection of the Sun 22
patent in rendering that judgment. To the extent Dr. Jafari has testified 23

3 Maintenance doses and loading doses are conventional approaches to initiating
maintaining levels of medicaments in the patient. See, e.g. Ex. 2050, p. 1483 and
Ex. 2049, pp. 225–228.
12

conclusorily and her background has not been adequately established, we give her 1
testimony diminished weight. 2
We are not provided with sufficient credible evidence as to why 3
conventional, even if laborious, optimal dosage determination methods would not 4
have resulted in a determination of the optimal ranges as claimed. Dr. Jafari also 5
fails to address the known higher activity of the 2-oxo-clopidogrel acetyl 6
compound observed by Pereillo, who notes the S enantiomer is the active chiral 7
molecule. Ex. 2045, 1294. This is despite Dr. Jafari’s testimony that she has 8
studied Pereillo (Ex. 2040 ¶ 27). 9
We need not consider either the opposition or reply, as the Motion fails to 10
carry the initial burden of persuasion. Accordingly, Kumar Motion 4 is denied. 11
Sun Motion 2 12
A. Background 13
Sun Motion 2 seeks entry of judgment that Kumar’s involved claims are 14
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Pereillo. Paper 140. 15
Kumar opposed. Paper 176. 16
Sun replied. Paper 205. 17
B. Facts 18
1. Pereillo4 was published in 2002. 19
2. Periello describes the structure and stereochemistry of the active 20
metabolite of clopidogrel. Ex. 1018, title. 21
3. Clopidogrel is also known as Plavix®. Id. 22

4 Jean-Marie Pereillo et al. “Structure and Stereochemistry of the Active
Metabolite of Clopidogrel,” Drug Metabolism and Disposition, Vol 30. No. 11,
pp. 1288–1295(2002) (Ex. 1018) (also present in the record as Ex. 2045).
13

4. Plavix is a known antiplatelet agent used to inhibit blood clots in the 1
treatment of various vascular diseases. Id. 2
5. The claims of the Kumar patent are directed to a method comprising 3
administering S-oxo-clopidogrel, or a compound of the formula: 4
5
or its pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof, wherein R is 6
hydrogen or an acyl group or alkyl substituted silyl group. Paper 5, 3. 7
6. Pereillo describes that clopidogrel has an absolute S configuration at 8
carbon 7, and that the corresponding R enantiomer is totally devoid of 9
antiaggregating activity. Ex. 1018 at 1288. 10
7. Pereillo describes that clopidogrel is not itself an active compound, it 11
is a precursor to an active compound formed by metabolism in the 12
liver. Id. 13
8. Pereillo describes that S-oxo-clopidogrel is formed by metabolism of 14
clopidogrel in the liver. Id. 15
9. Pereillo describes that S-oxo-clopidogrel is not itself an active 16
compound, and the active antiaggregating compound is formed in 17
downstream metabolism. Id. 18
10. Pereillo describes that clopidogrel is known for preventive treatment 19
of patients at risk for vascular thrombotic events. Id. 20
11. Pereillo describes that its compounds can be acquired by methods 21
described in US Patents 4,740,510 and 5,190,938. Id. 22
14

12. Pereillo describes that 2-oxo-clopidogrel has been shown to be 1
generated from clopidogrel by the liver and to show a higher 2
antiaggregating activity ex vivo. Id. at 1294. 3
13. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was 4
made would have person having experience in stereochemistry, 5
pharmacology, receptor physiology, clinical cardiovascular therapy 6
involving the use of P2Y12 receptor blockers and human metabolic 7
processes. Such a person of ordinary skill could be a pharmacologist, 8
cardiologist, or researcher having a Ph.D. or M.D. degree and at least 9
three years of experience in the field. Ex. 1025, ¶ 11. 10
C. Analysis 11
A party seeking to show the unpatentability of a claim has the burden of 12
establishing unpatentability. 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(b). When a motion for judgment 13
of unpatentability against an opponent’s claim on the basis of prior art is granted, 14
each of the movant’s claims corresponding to the same count as the opponent’s 15
claim will be presumed to be unpatentable in view of the same prior art unless the 16
movant in its motion rebuts this presumption. 37 C.F.R. § 41.207(c). 17
Sun asserts that the metabolic pathway of clopidogrel was known, and ultra-18
rapid metabolism of clopidogrel was a known problem. Paper 140, 5. Further, 19
Sun asserts that S-oxo-clopidogrel was “known for 20 years” (Paper 140, 6). 20
Finally, Sun is of the belief that “it is readily apparent that administering the 21
metabolite immediately after the problematic metabolic step would avoid the 22
problem of that problematic metabolic step.” Paper 140, 8. 23
Kumar, in opposition, notes that Sun has failed to address the presumption 24
of cross-applicability of prior art under 37 C.F.R. § 41.207. Paper 176, 3. We 25
15

note that Kumar is correct in that observation. Accordingly, the decision on this 1
motion will equally impact the corresponding Sun claims. 2
Kumar’s substantive opposition is that Pereillo does not suggest or describe 3
a method of treatment or prophylaxis of thrombosis or embolism with an effective 4
amount of S-oxo-clopidogrel or a compound of Formula IIA. Paper 176, 6. 5
According to Kumar, Pereillo ‘s objective was “to identify the chemical structure 6
of the active metabolite of clopidogrel.” Id. at 6. Because Pereillo only uses in 7
vitro compositions that are mixtures of S-oxo-clopidogrel and liver enzymes, it is 8
urged that no therapeutically effective treatment is disclosed. Id. at 7., citing FF17; 9
Ex. 1018 at 1289, left column; and Ex. 2058 at ¶ 5. 10
1. Kumar Claim 1 11
Kumar claim 1 recites the following: 12
1. A method for reducing or alleviating inter individual platelet response 13
variability and metabolic loading in humans in the treatment or prophylaxis of 14
thrombosis or embolisms observed following administration of clopidogrel 15
comprising administering to a person in need thereof, a composition containing an 16
effective amount of S-oxo-clopidogrel or a compound of Formula IIA 17
Formula IIA 18
19
20
or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof, wherein R is hydrogen or an acyl or 21
alkyl substituted silyl group. Ex. 2019, at 18:49-67. 22
16

Initially, we observe that the preamble can be construed broadly as 1
essentially a statement of intended use. The intended use is in that patient 2
population who have not responded well (the so-called “inter individual platelet 3
response variability and metabolic loading”5) to an initial dose of clopidogrel. As is 4
well settled, an intended use generally does not make a claimed invention new and 5
patentable. See, e.g., In re Thuau, 135 F.2d 344, 347 (CCPA 1943). See also 6
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 7
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope 8
of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in 9
which the invention operates.”) 10
The preamble does, on the other hand, provide some basis for interpreting 11
what an “effective amount” is in the context of use. The claimed method is a 12
single step, the administration of an “effective amount” of S-oxo-clopidogrel or a 13
compound of Formula IIA to a patient in need thereof.6 We interpret the term 14
“effective amount” to be an amount of S-oxo-clopidogrel effective “in the 15
treatment or prophylaxis of thrombosis or embolisms.”7 16

5 Serious adverse drug reactions associated with clopidogrel therapy include
bleeding (hemorrhage), particularly at higher dosages. Ex. 2042, at 121. Ex. 2043,
at 13-19. Ex. 2051, at 445. Ex. 2040, at ¶ 5.

6 We observe that Kumar did not draft Claim 1 to recite multiple steps, e.g. those
of administering clopidogrel, observing the response, and administering S-oxo-
clopidogrel as an alternative. Consequently, we do not read those steps into the
body of the claim.

7 Because the language of the claim preamble is somewhat vaguely drafted, it is
also possible to read the effective amount as that amount required for “reducing or
alleviating inter individual platelet response variability and metabolic loading in
humans,” which would not make sense chemically. However, the evidence of
17

We next turn to the most objective evidence of record. The documentary 1
evidence of record supports a finding that S-oxo-clopidogrel was known. 2
Ex. 1018, 1288-1289 (also denominated 2-oxo-clopidogrel [(7S) SR121683] – as 3
opposed to the inactive enantiomer [(7R) SR121682]). A racemic mixture of both 4
enantiomers was also known. [(7R,S) SR25552]. Ex. 1018, 1289, first column. 5
See also Id. at 1291, where it is noted “SR121683 is the 2-oxo-SR25990C and 6
therefore should have an S configuration at carbon 7.” 7
Clopidogrel generally was known to be an anti-aggregant and anti-8
thrombotic drug in human patients at risk. Ex. 1018, 1288. Having no in vitro 9
activity of its own, it was known that it must be metabolized by the liver first 10
before activity is observed. Clopidogrel is a precursor of an active component. Id. 11
Similar to Clopidogrel, 2-oxo-clopidogrel is also inactive in vitro. When 12
SR121683 (the active enantiomer) is incubated with liver enzymes in vitro, a 13
further metabolite fraction called H4 was known to have activity. Id. at 1292. See 14
also Paper 140, 11–12. 15
It had further been known that 2-oxo-clopidogrel has a higher anti-16
aggregating activity than clopidogrel ex vitro. Id. at 1294. 17
To further support the objective evidence, Sun supplied the testimony of 18
Dr. Paul Gurbel, a medical doctor (Ex. 1025). We find him to be qualified to 19
testify to the subject matter of this proceeding. Ex. 1025, ¶¶ 2–6. 20

record supports the finding that S-oxo-clopidogrel’s purpose in the method is in the
treatment or prophylaxis of thrombosis or embolisms. Ex. 2019, Abstract. This
interpretation also corresponds with Kumar’s own interpretation. Paper 176, 6,
lines 11–12.
18

Dr. Gurbel testifies that the two-step metabolic pathway of clopidogrel by 1
CYP450 enzymes to S-oxo-clopidogrel and then to the active metabolite was 2
described in Pereillo. Id. at ¶ 13. 3
Dr. Gurbel also testifies that Pereillo 1294, left column, last four lines 4
describes that “2-oxo-clopidogrel was used instead of clopidogrel because it has 5
been shown to be generated from clopidogrel by the liver and to show a higher 6
antiaggregating activity ex vivo.” This testimony and reference cite Savi et al., 7
1992 (Ex. 1031) and Savi et al., 1994 (Ex 1030). Ex. 1025, ¶ 15. 8
Dr. Gurbel testifies that “[g]iven the known metabolic scheme of 9
clopidogrel, the known poor responsiveness and resistance to clopidogrel, and the 10
prior evidence of a superior anti-aggregating effect of 2-oxo-clopidogrel as 11
compared to clopidogrel, a person with ordinary skill in the art would conclude 12
that 2-oxo-clopidogrel would be associated with less resistance and improved 13
responsiveness in comparison with clopidogrel.” Id. He also testifies that 14
Pereillo suggests that 2-oxo-clopidogrel (i.e., S-oxo-clopidogrel) could be used as 15
an active agent in the treatment or prophylaxis of thrombosis or embolisms with a 16
better effect than clopidogrel since it is an intermediate as compared with 17
clopidogrel. Id. at ¶17. We find this testimony credible, insofar as it relates to the 18
known superior anti-aggregating ability of 2-oxoclopidogrel. 19
Kumar’s principal substantive opposition8 is that Pereillo does not disclose 20
or suggest either the relative potency of S-clopidogrel or the common elements of 21
Kumar’s claims directed to administering to a person in need thereof a composition 22

8 Kumar makes numerous procedural arguments, including reliance on additional
prior art (Paper 176, 3), sufficiency of statement of material facts (Id. at 4), and
weight to be given Dr. Gurbel’s declaration (Id. at 5). We have considered these
arguments, but they are not persuasive.
19

containing an effective amount of S-oxo-clopidogrel or a compound of Formula 1
IIA. Paper 176, 6. This is said to be so because Pereillo’s “objective” was to 2
identify the chemical structure of the active metabolite of clopidogrel. Id. In 3
furtherance of that goal, it is argued that the only description of biological activity 4
lo is “inhibition of binding of radiolabeled 3 2-methyl-S-ADP to rat platelets.” Id. 5
at 7, citing FF 19; Ex. 1018 at 1288, left column, and Table 1 at page 4. 6
According to Kumar, this in vitro bioactivity is exclusively limited to the 7
binding of an active metabolite to a receptor on the surface of platelet cells, and S-8
oxo-clopidogrel is inactive when measured in vitro by this assay. FF 19; Ex.1018 9
at 1288, left column. 10
The problem with this analysis is that it omits the entire context of Pereillo’s 11
description, which is as a study of the metabolic pathway of Plavix® (clopidogrel), 12
a known antithrombotic drug. One with ordinary skill in the art is presumed to 13
have skills apart from what the prior art references explicitly say. See In re Sovish, 14
769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a 15
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex 16
Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). 17
One of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the entire thrust of 18
the Pereillo article is in the context of determining which metabolite makes 19
clopidogrel function as a preventer of thrombosis in humans by its antiaggregating 20
ability. Ex. 1018, Abstract. One of ordinary skill would also immediately 21
recognize that Plavix® must have a dosing regimen for patients. See, e.g., 22
Ex. 2050, p. 1483 (75 mg/day maintenance and 300 mg initial loading dose). See 23
also Ex. 2049, pp. 225–228 (discussing 300 and 600 mg loading dose and 150 and 24
75 mg maintenance doses for efficacy). Thus, the identification of S-oxo-25
20

clopidogrel as being the more efficacious fraction, even ex vivo, is a powerful 1
motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art, regardless of the particular problem 2
being solved by the present inventors. Finding the correct dosage is a technical 3
challenge only, which – as Kumar’s witness notes, requires only a commonly done 4
dosing study.9 5
Kumar also urges that the lack of actual comparative biological results are 6
fatal to the case of obviousness. Paper 176, 8. We are not persuaded that this is 7
the case. Pereillo indicates the choice to use 2-oxo-clopidogrel for its work was 8
because of its known status as a metabolite of clopidogrel and it had already shown 9
a higher anti-aggregating ability ex vivo. Ex. 1018 1294, left column. 10
Kumar also urges that Pereillo fails to describe clopidogrel resistance, poor 11
responsiveness, inter individual platelet response variability, metabolic loading, 12
and other side effects in its independent claims 1, 28, 29, and 30. Paper 176, 8. As 13
noted above, each of those elements are a statement of intended use of the method, 14
which is a single step of administering the composition to a patient. For example, 15

9 Dr. Jafari, Kumar’s witness testified as follows:
14 BY MR. HOOVER:
15 Q. So, if you were to do a clinical trial for
16 S-oxo-clopidogrel, would that involve incrementally
17 increasing the dose given to patients in the study to
18 determine its safety and effectiveness?
19 MR. KNUDSEN: Objection, relevance.
20 THE WITNESS: I would not say incrementally
21 increasing.
22 I would call it a dose-finding study, which is
23 commonly done. But you are not talking about a big
24 range of dosing because this is a drug that can cause
25 bleeding, so ...

Ex. 1054, page 22.
21

each of claims 28, 29, and 30 contain the same administering step of the same 1
compound, but the preambles each read differently for a different patient 2
population for the method to be used on – 3
28. A method of treatment or prophylaxis of thrombosis or 4
embolisms in a patient in need thereof comprising administering a 5
composition containing an effective amount of S-oxo-clopidogrel … 6
wherein said administration avoids the side effects associated with the 7
clopidogrel acid metabolite…” 8
29. A method of treatment or prophylaxis of thrombosis or 9
embolisms in a clopidogrel non-responder- or poor-responder-patient in 10
need thereof comprising administering a composition containing an effective 11
amount of S-oxo-clopidogrel …” 12
30. A method of treating clopidogrel resistance in a patient in need 13
of treatment or prophylaxis of thrombosis or embolisms, comprising 14
administering a composition containing an effective amount of S-oxo-15
clopidogrel …” (emphasis added). 16
Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive. 17
Kumar next urges that Pereillo identifies not a single problem associated 18
with clopidogrel’s use and accordingly there was no motivation to use S-oxo-19
clopidogrel. Paper 176, 8–9. This argument fails to consider that Pereillo itself 20
notes higher anti-aggregating ability for the oxo-clopidogrel racemic mixture. 21
Ex. 1018, 1294, left column. A claim may be nonetheless obviousness even if the 22
problem being addressed by the reference solved is not the same one faced by the 23
inventors. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 24
22

Kumar next urges that this higher anti-aggregating ability noted in Pereillo is 1
not the specific S isomer, but is due to the racemic mixture of 2-oxo-clopidogrel. 2
Paper 179, 9. Kumar urges that Dr. Gurbel’s testimony substantially 3
“mischaracterizes” Pereillo. Id. We disagree. Kumar’s position itself ignores a 4
later discussion in Pereillo of anti-aggregating superiority, which expressly notes 5
that “[i]ncubation of (7S) 2-oxo-clopidogrel with human microsomes led to a pool 6
of metabolites (fraction H), which exhibited a potent in-vitro activity as assessed 7
by measuring P-2-methyl-S-ADP binding to human platelets.” Ex. 1018, 1294, 8
right column. Pereillo thus expressly highlights the S-enantiomer of 2-oxo-9
clopidogrel as generating the potent fractions. 10
Kumar next urges that Dr. Gurbel is generally unreliable and inaccurate. 11
Paper 176, 5 and 10–16. First, Kumar asserts the opinions are mere attorney 12
arguments unsupported by facts and should be disregarded. Id. at5. We disagree 13
that the testimony should be disregarded in its entirety; instead, we will assign the 14
testimony appropriate weight if it is adequately and factually supported. 15
Second, Kumar urges that Dr. Gurbel is inaccurate. Id. at 10. With this, we 16
agree in part. Dr. Gurbel occasionally mis-cites the references, in part because the 17
references mis-cite other references. 18
Given the importance of this issue, we reproduce text of the actual Pereillo 19
reference below: 20

23

24

Ex. 1018, 1294. 1
As to the substance of the reference itself, Pereillo states that the 2-oxo-2
clopidogrel has higher anti-aggregating abilities. But Kumar is correct that the two 3
cited references do not stand for the specific proposition cited. We have carefully 4
reviewed the Savi references (Ex. 1030 and Ex. 1031), and are surprised that Dr. 5
Gurbel failed to note this problem. However, despite Pereillo’s mis-citation, the 6
statement stands as a prior art acknowledgement that the 2-oxo-clopidogrel has 7
higher anti-aggregating ability. Indeed, it appears that the citation in Pereillo is in 8
error and should have been to Savi 2000 (Ex. 1024), cited on page 1295 of 9
Pereillo, reproduced below: 10

Ex. 1024. 11
Accordingly, despite the compounded error in citation, we are not persuaded 12
by this argument. 13
Kumar next urges that Dr. Gurbel’s publications all fail to observe S-oxo-14
clopidogrel would be a solution to the clopidogrel resistance facing certain 15
patients. Paper 176, 11–13. More specifically, Kumar observes that even armed 16
25

with the same facts as are presented in Pereillo, “Dr. Gurbel’s publications betray 1
no appreciation whatever of the solution of Kumar’s involved claims to the 2
problem he wrote about in dozens of his publications and which he now testifies 3
would have plainly been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is 4
evidence of Dr. Gurbel’s use of hindsight in arriving at his opinions on 5
unpatentability.” Id.at 12. According to Kumar, all of Dr. Gurbel’s solutions 6
involved the use of different approaches using different inhibitors. Id. at 13. 7
We are not persuaded by this argument. That Dr. Gurbel did not pursue the 8
path in Kumar’s claims, noted issues, and instead was looking to other solutions 9
does not in our view negate the express disclosure in Pereillo that 2-oxo-10
clopidogrel has a higher anti-aggregating ability and the active fraction is the S 11
enantiomer. We are therefore persuaded that the single step method claims are 12
rendered obvious by the description in Pereillo. We need not reach whether the 13
intended use of overcoming clopidogrel resistance would have been obvious, as the 14
intended use does not confer patentability. 15
Turning now to the dependent claims, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and 16
also recites administering one or more anti-platelet agents selected from the group 17
consisting of aspirin, cilostazol, and dipyridamole. Paper 5, A-1. 18
Sun asserts that these additional therapeutic agents are commonly known 19
agents used for the treatment of thrombosis or embolism. Moreover, Sun contends 20
that in the absence of unexpected synergistic effects from the combination 21
administration, it would be obvious for one skilled person in the art to combine 22
these agents in order to achieve the desired therapeutic effects. Paper 140, 17–18. 23
Kumar does not appear to have a contrary argument in Opposition 2 24
(Paper 176). 25
26

The use of a known product for its known use to achieve an expected result 1
is obvious, i.e., a pharmaceutical composition with a known use. In re Gorman, 2
933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991). While Sun has not pointed us to specific 3
evidence in the record, we observe that the therapeutic effect of at least aspirin in 4
platelet anti-aggregation is well-known. Ex. 1018, 1288, left column. 5
Accordingly, we agree that claim 2 is obvious. 6
Claim 3 recites that the response variability of claim 1 is due to a CYP450 7
polymorphism or a failure to efficiently metabolize clopidogrel. Claim 4 depends 8
from claim 3 and recites that the polymorphism is CYP2C19*2 or CYP2C19*17. 9
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that the platelet response variability is 10
due to P-glycoprotein efflux transports. Paper 5, A-1. 11
Sun urges that it does not matter which genotype of polymorphism causes 12
the patient issues. Paper 140, 16. Kumar does not appear to have any contrary 13
argument for these specific claims. Paper 176. We agree that these claims further 14
define the intended use of the method, and accordingly do not impart patentability. 15
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites that the method avoids or 16
alleviates the side effects associated with the clopidogrel acid metabolite of 17
Formula IV. Paper 5, A-2. We fail to see how this claim differentiates in any 18
meaningful way from claim 1, which inherently would accomplish the same effect 19
of avoiding the side effects of a metabolite which does not now form. 20
Compositions are not rendered patentable merely by including a recitation of 21
the assertedly different properties in the claims. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 22
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, “the mere recognition of latent properties in the prior 23
art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” In re Geisler, 116 24
F.3d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The same holds true for the present method. 25
27

Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and further recites that the method achieves a 1
therapeutic effect greater than or equivalent to that observed following the 2
administration of a substantially higher dose of clopidogrel. Paper 5, A-2. 3
Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and further recites that the method results in 4
the in vivo formation of the active metabolite of clopidogrel at a concentration 5
greater than or equivalent to that observed following administration of a 6
substantially higher dose of clopidogrel. Paper 5, A-2. 7
Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and further recites that the onset of 8
therapeutic action is at least 50% more rapid than that observed following 9
administration of a substantially higher dose of clopidogrel. Paper 5, A-2. 10
Sun asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these results as 11
a result of administering a dose of S-oxo-clopidogrel due to the description of its 12
higher anti-aggregating ability. Paper 140, 16. We agree that Pereillo does 13
describe a higher anti aggregating ability ex vivo, which provides motivation to 14
substitute S-oxo-clopidogrel for clopidogrel. Ex. 1018, 1294. Dr. Gurbel testifies 15
that these results would be expected by utilizing a later more efficacious metabolite 16
in the metabolic pathway. Ex. 1025, 14–15. We find this testimony credible, 17
despite Kumar’s insistence that it is hindsight-based and ignores the 18
unpredictability in clinical research. Paper 176, 15. 19
Claim 10 depends from claim 1, and recites that the amount of the S oxo-20
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA is about 20 to about 100 mg as a 21
loading dose. Paper 5, A-2. 22
Claim 11 depends from claim 1, and recites the amount of the S oxo-23
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA is about 35 to about 70 mg as a 24
loading dose. Id. 25
28

Claim 12 depends from claim 1, and recites that the amount of the S oxo-1
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA is about 45 to about 100 mg as a 2
loading dose. Id. 3
Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and recites that the amount of the S oxo-4
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA is about 5 to about 30 mg as a 5
maintenance dose. Id. 6
Claim 14 depends from claim 1, and recites that the amount of S oxo- 7
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA is about 6 to about 20 mg as a 8
maintenance dose. Id. 9
Claim 15 depends from claim 1, and recites the additional step of 10
administering a proton inhibitor. Id. 11
Claim 16 depends from claim 1, and recites that the administration step 12
comprises administering an initial loading dose of about 20-100 mg of the (S)-oxo-13
clopidogrel or the compound of Formula IIA to the person in need thereof, 14
followed by administering a maintenance dose of about 5-30 mg. Id. 15
Sun, relying on the testimony of Dr. Gurbel, asserts that it would be routine 16
to try different dosage levels to achieve a desired therapeutic effect. Paper 140, 16, 17
citing Ex. 1025, ¶ 22. Kumar in response asserts that only its patent describes the 18
relative potency of S-oxo-clopidogrel. Paper 176, 19. Therefore, according to 19
Kumar, it is impossible to predict the dosage levels. Id. 20
Kumar’s argument ignores the known routine methods of dosage 21
determination. Kumar’s own witness admitted that such determinations were 22
standard procedure. Ex. 1054, page 22. Accordingly, we agree with Sun that 23
claims 10-16 are obvious. 24
29

Claim 17 depends from claim 1, and recites that R is an acyl group having 1
the formula R1---CO- wherein R1 is selected from the group consisting of aryl, 2
alkyl, alkenyl and alkynyl. Paper 5, A-3. 3
Claim 18 depends from claim 17, and further recites that R1 is acetyl. 4
Paper 5, A-3. 5
Sun asserts that this narrowing does not exclude S-oxo-clopidogrel. 6
Paper 140, 17. Kumar does not appear to challenge this assertion. Paper 176. As 7
it is evident that these claims do not further limit the S-oxo-clopidogrel of claim 1, 8
we agree that they, likewise, are obvious. 9
Sun Motion 2 is therefore GRANTED. 10
As Sun has failed to indicate why the cited prior art is not applicable to its 11
claims in a timely fashion, Sun’s corresponding claims are likewise found to be 12
obvious. 13
As the claims of both parties have been determined to be obvious over the 14
description in Pereillo, Ex. 1018, we need not address any additional substantive 15
motions. 16
Kumar Motion 5 17
Kumar Motion 5 seeks to exclude evidence. 18
The first objected to piece of evidence is Exhibit 1014 – the declaration of 19
Dr. Duan. As we have not relied upon this exhibit, the motion is dismissed as to 20
this exhibit. 21
The second objected to piece of evidence is Exhibit 1025, Dr. Gurbel’s first 22
declaration. The objection is to the fact that Dr. Gurbel utilized additional 23
references in his declaration. To the extent that those references (the Savi 24
References) were utilized in the present decision, we find that they were expressly 25
30

cited and discussed in Pereillo, and as such under the specific facts of this case, it 1
is proper that Dr. Gurbel’s declaration relied upon them and discussed them. We 2
therefore deny the motion as it relates to Exhibit 1025. We also deny the motion as 3
to Exhibits 1030 and 1031 for the same reasons. 4
The remaining objected to pieces of evidence are Exhibits 1027, 1029, 1040, 5
1041, 1043, 1045, 1046, 1055, 1058, and 1059. As we have not relied upon these 6
pieces of evidence, the motion is dismissed as to these exhibits. 7
Sun Motion 4 8
Sun Motion 4 seeks to exclude Exhibits 2040, 2058, and portions of 1054 9
and 1070. Exhibit 2040 and 2058 is Dr. Jafari’s declaration testimony while 10
Exhibits 1054 and 1070 is her deposition testimony. We have already determined 11
an appropriate weight to ascribe to her testimony, and deny the motion. 12
Judgment will be entered against both parties. 13

ORDER 14
15
Kumar Motion 2 is denied. 16
Kumar Motion 3 is dismissed as moot. 17
Kumar Motion 4 is denied. 18
Kumar Motion 5 is denied in part and dismissed in part. 19
Sun Motion 2 is granted, but under the rule of cross-applicability applies 20
also to Sun’s claims. 21
Sun Motion 4 is denied. 22
23
31

cc (via email): 1
2
Attorney for Kumar: 3
4
Barry Bretschneider 5
Peter J. Knudsen 6
Baker & Hostetler 7
bbretschneider@bakerlaw.com 8
pknudsen@bakerlaw.com 9
10
Attorney for Sun: 11
12
Thomas O. Hoover 13
Wei Song 14
McCarter & English, LLP 15
thoover@mccarter.com 16
wsong@mccarter.com 17
18