Patentee’s Own Clinical Trial Renders Unpatentable Patent Claims Directed to Antibody Treatment

October 9, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

In a final written decision of an inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all 12 claims of a challenged patent unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. Each ground of unpatentability relied, in whole or in part, on Patent Owner’s own prior art, including clinical trials published at ClinicalTrials.gov.

The challenged patent was directed to methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis comprising administering a fixed dose of tocilizumab, an antibody that binds to the receptor of interleukin-6. Petitioner asserted that the challenged claims were anticipated by a clinical trial posted by Patent Owner. Petitioner also argued that the challenged claims were obvious over the clinical trial and an international patent application filed by a group of scientists employed by Patent Owner. Petitioner’s remaining grounds of unpatentability asserted that the challenged claims were obvious over the clinical trial, the patent application and an additional prior art reference.

As an initial matter, Patent Owner argued that the clinical trial, which was posted before the critical date of the challenged patent, was nevertheless not publicly available by that date and therefore not prior art. Petitioner provided testimony of an expert who had worked on drafting the statute governing ClinicalTrials.gov. The expert testified that the website was designed to be a consumer-friendly database to be used by members of the public. Petitioner’s expert also showed how the clinical trial could be found by a person of ordinary skill in the art by searching for the clinical trial number. Patent Owner faulted Petitioner’s expert for not showing how to find the clinical trial by searching keywords such as “tocilizumab” or “rheumatoid arthritis,” as a POSA might have done. Patent Owner also argued that keyword searches on ClinicalTrials.gov are not always reliable because the names of drugs and health conditions are not standardized. The PTAB disagreed that these alleged deficiencies rendered the clinical trial not publicly available before the critical date for the patent.

After finding that the clinical trial was prior art to the challenged patent, the PTAB determined that nine of the 12 challenged claims were anticipated by the clinical trial. The PTAB found that the clinical trial disclosed a method of treating rheumatoid arthritis comprising subcutaneously administering tocilizumab as a fixed dose of 162 mg per dose every week or every two weeks, as recited by two independent claims. Patent Owner argued that the clinical trial did not anticipate the challenged claims because the prior art trial did not teach administering tocilizumab in a single injection or that the method was efficacious. The Board rejected these arguments as inconsistent with the adopted claim construction, which required neither administration of tocilizumab as a single injection nor efficacy.

Turning to Petitioner’s second ground of unpatentability, the PTAB found that the same nine challenged claims were also obvious over the clinical trial combined with the international patent application filed by Patent Owner. The international patent application taught high-concentration formulations for administration of antibodies in a single subcutaneous injection. The PTAB was persuaded that a POSA would be motivated to combine the teachings of the international patent application with the tocilizumab clinical trial with a reasonable expectation of success because the patent application was published by Patent Owner, which was known for innovating tocilizumab. Thus, even if the challenged claims require a single subcutaneous injection, contrary to the Board’s claim construction, the challenged claims would still be unpatentable as obvious over the clinical trial and the international patent application.

Practice Tip: Publishing scientific findings serves a strategic benefit of creating prior art to potentially invalidate the patents of competitors. Such publication may even be required, as in the case of clinical trials. However, a prospective patent applicant should take care to avoid creating prior art against itself. It is especially important to coordinate between inventors and patent agents to ensure that a patent application is timely filed such as to avoid attacks based on any unintended public disclosure of the claimed invention.

Celltrion, Inc. v. Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha, No. IPR2022-00578, Paper 78 (P.T.A.B. August 29, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the
Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel
litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a
parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB
would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in
view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to
invalidate claims in district court.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s
later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s
patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory
forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.
...

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.