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

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

...

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.