Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Decision Date26 April 2019
Docket Number2018-1257,2018-1290,2018-1258,2018-1288
Citation921 F.3d 1372
Parties NEPTUNE GENERICS, LLC, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Appellants v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY, Appellee Mylan Laboratories Limited, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Appellants v. Eli Lilly & Company, Appellee
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Sarah Elizabeth Spires, Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for all appellants. Appellant Neptune Generics, LLC also represented by Paul Skiermont; Mieke K. Malmberg, Los Angeles, CA; Joshua Harlan Harris, Neptune Generics, LLC, Chicago, IL.

Michael B. Cottler, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY, for appellant Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC.

Thomas J. Parker, Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY, for appellant Mylan Laboratories Limited. Also represented by Charles Abraham Naggar, Stephen Yang.

Adam Lawrence Perlman, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by Galina I. Fomenkova, Dov Philip Grossman, David M. Krinsky, Andrew P. Lemens, Charles McCloud; James Patrick Leeds, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN.

Before Moore, Wallach, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

Moore, Circuit Judge.

Neptune Generics, LLC, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, and Mylan Laboratories Ltd. ("Petitioners") appeal the Patent Trial and Appeals Board's inter partes review ("IPR") decisions holding Petitioners did not establish that claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 are unpatentable for obviousness. Because the Board did not err in its obviousness analysis, substantial evidence supports its underlying fact findings, and subject matter eligibility is not properly before the court in an appeal from an IPR decision, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The '209 patent is owned by Eli Lilly & Co. and relates to administering folic acid and a methylmalonic acid ("MMA") lowering agent, such as vitamin B12, before administering pemetrexed disodium, a chemotherapy agent, in order to reduce the toxic effects of pemetrexed, an antifolate. '209 patent at 1:19–21, 57–61. Antifolates inhibit enzymes used in making the components of DNA and RNA, slowing the ability of cells to divide. Id. at 1:36–38. However, antifolates have toxic effects, which can be life threatening. E.g. , id. at 1:11–12; 1:62–2:4.

The two independent claims in the patent are method of treatment claims. They recite:

1. A method for administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof comprising administering an effective amount of folic acid and an effective amount of a methylmalonic acid lowering agent followed by administering an effective amount of pemetrexed disodium, wherein
the methylmalonic acid lowering agent is selected from the group consisting of vitamin B12, hydroxycobalamin, cyano-10-chlorocobalamin, aquocobalamin perchlorate, aquo-10-cobalamin perchlorate, azidocobalamin, cobalamin, cyanocobalamin, or chlorocobalamin.
12. An improved method for administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need of chemotherapeutic treatment, wherein the improvement comprises:
a) administration of between about 350 µg and about 1000 µg of folic acid prior to the first administration of pemetrexed disodium;
b) administration of about 500 µg to about 1500 µg of vitamin B12, prior to the first administration of pemetrexed disodium; andc) administration of pemetrexed disodium.

The Board considered three petitions for IPR, each of which alleged the claims would have been obvious. In IPR2016-00318, Petitioners alleged claims 1–22 would have been obvious over a 1999 article by Hilary Calvert, titled "An Overview of Folate Metabolism: Features Relevant to the Actions and Toxicities of Antifolate Anticancer Agents"; a 1998 abstract by C. Niyikiza, et. al., titled "MTA (LY231514): Relationship of vitamin metabolite profile, drug exposure, and other patient characteristics to toxicity" ("Niyikiza I"); a 1998 article by John F. Worzalla, et al., titled "Role of Folic Acid in Modulating the Toxicity and Efficacy of the Multitargeted Antifolate, LY231514"; European Patent Application 0 595 005 A1 ("EP005"); and U.S. Patent No. 5,217,974. In IPR2016-00237, Petitioner alleged the claims would have been obvious over Niyikiza I, the '974 patent, and EP005. In IPR2016-00240, Petitioners alleged the claims would have been obvious over a 1999 article by James J. Rusthoven, et al., titled "Multitargeted Antifolate LY231514 As First-Line Chemotherapy for Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Study," and EP005.

The Board concluded in each case that the claims were not established to be unpatentable for obviousness. It found that it was known in the prior art that pretreatment with folic acid reduces the toxicity associated with administration of an antifolate, like pemetrexed, but there was not a reason to pretreat with vitamin B12 along with folic acid before administering pemetrexed to treat cancer. It also found that the skepticism of others, particularly the FDA, supported a conclusion of nonobviousness. Because the Board concluded the independent claims would not have been obvious, it did not consider the additional limitations of the dependent claims.

Petitioners appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board's legal determinations de novo and its underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC , 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying facts. Id. Motivation to combine is a question of fact. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. , 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

On appeal, the parties focus on three references: Niyikiza I, EP005, and another abstract by C. Niyikiza, et al., titled "Relationship of Vitamin Metabolite Profile to Toxicity," ("Niyikiza II"). The lead author on Niyikiza I and II is also the sole named inventor of the '209 patent.

Pretreatment with Vitamin B12

The Board found that that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to administer an MMA lowering agent, such as vitamin B12, in addition to folic acid. On appeal, Petitioners argue that in making this finding, the Board did not consider EP005 for all that it teaches. Specifically, Petitioners point to EP005's disclosure of the administration of folic acid and vitamin B12 to lower homocysteine levels for all purposes. We disagree and hold that substantial evidence supports the Board's findings.

The Board's findings are based on the prior art's disclosure of the relationships between various biochemicals and toxicity. The Board found that deficiencies in both vitamin B12 and folate can lead to elevated levels of the biomarker homocysteine. In contrast, it found that elevated levels of MMA are correlated only with vitamin B12 deficiencies and not folate deficiencies. J.A. 61. Therefore, in patients with a vitamin B12 deficiency, but not a folate deficiency, both MMA levels and homocysteine levels would be elevated, while in patients with just a folate deficiency homocysteine levels would be elevated, but MMA levels would not be elevated. The Board further found that while elevated levels of homocysteine were known to be predictive of pemetrexed toxicity, elevated levels of MMA were understood to not be a predictor of pemetrexed toxicity. Because elevated MMA levels are not predictive of toxicity, but do correlate with vitamin B12 deficiency, the Board credited the testimony of Lilly's expert Dr. Bruce Chabner that a skilled artisan would have understood that there was no observed correlation between vitamin B12 deficiency and pemetrexed-induced toxicity. J.A. 62–63.

Each step of the Board's analysis is supported by substantial evidence. In finding that elevated MMA levels correlated with vitamin B12 deficiency but not folate deficiency, the Board considered the disclosures in a prior art article by David G. Savage, et al., which found that in patients with vitamin B12 deficiency 94.8% of MMA levels and 95.9% of homocysteine levels were elevated, but in patients with folate deficiencies, only 12.2% of MMA levels were elevated while 91% of homocysteine levels were. J.A. 61 (citing J.A. 7698). These findings are further supported by additional prior art and are consistent with the testimony of Petitioner's expert Dr. Ron Schiff. J.A. 60–61 (citing J.A. 4404).

The Board's finding that while elevated levels of homocysteine were known to be predictive of pemetrexed toxicity, elevated levels of MMA were understood to not be a predictor of pemetrexed toxicity is also supported by substantial evidence. Niyikiza I discloses that elevated levels of homocysteine are predictive of pemetrexed toxicity, J.A. 4148, and the Board credited Dr. Chabner's testimony that a skilled artisan would have read Niyikiza II to mean that elevated MMA levels were not a predictor of pemetrexed-induced toxicity, J.A. 62–63 (citing J.A. 9084). The Board further credited Dr. Chabner's testimony that given the link between vitamin B12 deficiency and elevated MMA levels, and the lack of a correlation between elevated MMA levels and pemetrexed-induced toxicity, a skilled artisan would have understood "there was no correlation observed between vitamin B12 deficiency and pemetrexed-induced toxicity." J.A. 62 (quoting J.A. 9084). Because vitamin B12 deficiencies are linked to both elevated levels of MMA and homocysteine, the mere fact that homocysteine is correlated with toxicity does not mean that vitamin B12 levels are linked with toxicity. In short, this evidence indicates that pemetrexed-inducted toxicity correlated with folate deficiencies, but not vitamin B12 deficiencies.

Collectively, this constitutes substantial evidence in support of the Board's finding that the art did not provide a motivation for a skilled artisan to administer an MMA lowering agent, such as vitamin B12, in addition to folic acid. In contrast, the Board found that there would have been a motivation to pretreat with folate, which was a known way to reduce the toxicity associated with administration of an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Janssen Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 8 Octubre 2021
    ..."testimony that third parties were ‘worried’ or ‘surprised’ " as "sufficient to establish skepticism." Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 921 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc. , 795 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ). Here, Plaintiffs have proff......
  • Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 9 Agosto 2019
    ...side effects, resulting in infections, nausea, rashes, and even some deaths. See id. ; see also Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 921 F.3d 1372, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (discussing Lilly’s response to adverse clinical data), and Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co. , No. IPR20......
  • Janssen Pharm. v. Teva Pharm. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 8 Octubre 2021
    ...invention at issue, the Court finds that it is evidence of industry skepticism and weighs in favor of nonobviousness. See Neptune Generics, LLC, 921 F.3d at 1378 (affirming skepticism finding based on FDA's with patentee's proposed course of action during clinical trial). c) Praise “Evidenc......
  • Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng'g Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 4 Febrero 2020
    ...Techs., Inc. , 726 F. App'x 779, 782 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ); see also Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 921 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed Cir. 2019) (holding that the Board is not authorized to address challenges to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in an I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Steps and Leaps
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-1, September 2019
    • 1 Septiembre 2019
    ...in the art to combine prior art references need not be the same motivation as the inventor’s. Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 921 F.3d 1372, 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 149305 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPR proceedings holding that the petitioners ......
  • Ethical Representation of Every Inventor, Whether Paying or Pro Bono Patent pro bono programs match financially disadvantaged inventors with registered patent attorneys.
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-1, September 2019
    • 1 Septiembre 2019
    ...in the art to combine prior art references need not be the same motivation as the inventor’s. Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 921 F.3d 1372, 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 149305 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPR proceedings holding that the petitioners ......
  • Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions in Canada
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-1, September 2019
    • 1 Septiembre 2019
    ...in the art to combine prior art references need not be the same motivation as the inventor’s. Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 921 F.3d 1372, 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 149305 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPR proceedings holding that the petitioners ......
  • Arbitration in the Age of Amazon
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-1, September 2019
    • 1 Septiembre 2019
    ...in the art to combine prior art references need not be the same motivation as the inventor’s. Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 921 F.3d 1372, 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 149305 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPR proceedings holding that the petitioners ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT