Celgene Fights Back Against PTAB’s Determination of Unpatentability of Cancer-Related Patent Claims

Dec 1, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

The petition for inter partes review was filed on April 23, 2015, by Kyle Bass through the Coalition for Affordable Drugs IV LLC. Mr. Bass is a hedge fund manager who gained notoriety in recent years for challenging the patentability of U.S. drug patents. In 2015, for example, Mr. Bass filed almost three dozen petitions for inter partes review.

In his petition, Mr. Bass alleged that all claims of the ’501 Patent were obvious in light of three prior art references. IPR2015-01092, Paper 73 at 13. The claims of the ’501 Patent recite a method for ensuring that teratogenic drug prescriptions, which can cause serious birth defects, are not filled for persons who are pregnant or who are at a high risk of becoming pregnant so as to prevent delivery of the teratogenic drug to a fetus. ’501 Patent at Claim 1. Particularly, the ’501 Patent discusses thalidomide, a teratogenic drug synthesized and marketed as a sedative in the late 1950s, but removed from the market in 1962 due to reports of severe birth defects. IPR2015-01092, Paper 73 at 3. Since thalidomide’s removal from the market, Celgene has received FDA approval for the use of thalidomide to treat leprosy and certain cancers. IPR2015-01092, Paper 73 at 3. In addition, it is believed that thalidomide may be effective for treating AIDs-related ulcers and possibly inflammatory bowel diseases, Behcet’s Disease, rheumatoid arthritis and macular degeneration. ’501 Patent at 1:29-36.

In its response to the petition, Celgene presented evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have found certain claims of the ’501 Patent obvious (IPR2015-01092, Paper 40 at 48-49), as well as evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness, including long-felt but unresolved need, industry praise and unexpected results. Id. at 55-58. The PTAB, however, found Celgene’s evidence unpersuasive and held all of the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. IPR2015-01092, Paper 73 at 28-29, 33. The PTAB held that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine, in the manner claimed, the disclosures . . . to address the problem of limiting thalidomide access to patients likely to suffer serious adverse side effects, including birth defects in a developing fetus.” Id. at 23–24.

In its Request for Rehearing, Celgene argues that the PTAB misapprehended arguments presented by Mr. Bass relating to claim 10 of the ’501 Patent. Specifically, Celgene asserts that Mr. Bass wrongly stated that a prior art reference disclosed an element of Claim 10 – a misstatement by Mr. Bass upon which the PTAB expressly relied in its decision.  IPR2015-01092, Request for Rehearing, filed 11/25/2016, at 3-4. Mr. Bass, however, never argued that the missing element was an obvious modification to the reference. Id. at 4.  Mr. Bass’s opposition to Celgene’s Request for Rehearing is currently due on December 25, 2016. 37 C.F.R. §42.25.

Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI LLC v. Celgene Corp., IPR2015-01092 (PTAB, Nov. 25, 2016)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.