Coherus Challenges One AbbVie Humira Patent In Four PTAB Proceedings

18 July 2017 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

I’ve written previously about sequential PTAB challenges to the same patent, but the dispute between Coherus Biosciences Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. has engendered six Inter Partes Review proceedings against the same Humira patent, four of which are pending and awaiting institution decisions. Coherus’s aggressive use of PTAB proceedings to challenge Humira patents shows that biosimilar applicants may be able to eliminate at least some patent disputes without participating in the patent dance of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).

The Humira Patent At Issue

The Humira patent at issue is U.S. Patent 9,085,619. Only claims 16–19, and 24–30 are challenged. Independent claim 16 recites:

16. An aqueous pharmaceutical formulation comprising:
(a) an anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha antibody comprising a light chain variable region (LCVR) having a CDR3 domain comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:3, a CDR2 domain comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:5, and a CDR1 domain comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 7, and a heavy chain variable region (HCVR) having a CDR3 domain comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4, a CDR2 domain comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 6, and a CDR1 domain comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:8, wherein the concentration of the antibody is 50 to 200 mg/ml; and (b) water;
wherein the formulation does not comprise a buffering system.

The January 2017 IPR Petitions

Coherus filed the first four IPR petitions on January 31, 2017.

The petition filed in IPR2017-00822 asserted anticipation by WO 2006/138181 (“Gokarn PCT”) (published December 28, 2006) and obviousness over the Gokarn PCT and the 2003 Humira® Label.

The petition filed in IPR2017-00823 asserted anticipation by US 2016/0319011 (“Gokarn ‘011”) which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 60/690,582, filed June 14, 2005 .

The petition filed in IPR2017-00826 asserted obviousness in view of the 2003 Humira® Label, Fransson & Espander-Jansson, J. Pharm. Pharmacol., 48:1012-1015 (1996), and the 2005 Gamimune ® Label.

The petition filed in IPR2017-00827 asserted obviousness in view of the 2003 Humira® Label, Fransson and Gorkan ‘011, and obviousness over Gorkarn ‘011 in view of the 2003 Humira® Label.

The March 2017 IPR Petitions

Coherus filed the next two IPR petitions on March, 2, 2017.

The petition filed in IPR2017-01008 asserted obviousness in view of the 2003 Humira® Label, Fransson and Gorkan ‘011, and obviousness over Gorkarn ‘011 in view of the 2003 Humira® Label.

The petition filed in IPR2017-01009 asserted obviousness in view of the 2003 Humira® Label, Fransson, and the 2005 Gamimune ® Label.

On April 11, 2017, the PTAB granted Coherus’s unopposed motions to dismiss IPR2017-00826 and IPR2017-00827 without prejudice. Coherus essentially replaced IPR2017-00826 and IPR2017-00827 with IPR2017-01008 and IPR2017-01009.

The Patent Owner Preliminary Responses

AbbVie has filed Patent Owner Preliminary Responses in the four pending IPR proceedings. In addition to arguing against the proposed findings on the merits, AbbVie argued in IPR2017-00823 and IPR2017-01008 that Coherus failed to establish that Gokarn ‘011 can be cited as of its priority date. In particular, AbbVie asserted that Coherus did not show that the “Gokarn Provisional provides written description support for both (1) the subject matter relied on in Gokarn ‘011 to allege anticipation and (2) at least one claim of Gokarn ‘011. ”

(See Dynamic Drinkware and this article for a discussion of requirement (2))

Other Humira IPR Proceedings

Coherus successfully challenged three other Humira® patents in IPR proceedings decided in May: U.S. Patent 8,889,135, U.S. Patent 9,017,680, U.S. Patent 9,073,987. AbbVie has appealed those PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit.

Who Needs To Dance?

Coherus’s aggressive use of PTAB proceedings shows that biosimilar applicants may be able to resolve at least some patent disputes without participating in the BPCIA patent dance. However, since AbbVie claims to have over 100 patents in its Humira® estate, Coherus may not be able to eliminate all patent issues within the patent office.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services