Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00337-SLR Document 155 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Yousio Connwar Sraaonrr & TAYLOR, LLP
iiltlfalrlhirarrt %§$fl'iKl°” THE BRANDYWWE BWLDYNG iiiiiilliléll" t`.l‘i¥’$lr?¤LEE££“*"
mcuaanrt. Levine g0a1.Agv;1‘m {090 WEST STREET, {7TH FLQQR gumvwaagmaoriai Jossriiét.hi}i.tLrwAso
.·. .· r . . DNALD , WMA _ A I N- I
git{§ii»Ji%ii:ii\5.`ii;i‘iisr Diiiii;;P_Jii•ii}tig5dlN WILMWGTON, DELAWARE iggoi Mtcna1.aSitgnnm‘PAHFi;e:c,xx aiidililiasrtvixiiii-tibilnliiorr
lucimab H. Mouse Camo D. GREAR JEt1=ttarT.CAs1*aLtaNo Tmotrt. Mancan
DAVIDC MCBRIDE TtnioTttrgJA\’HousEAL PO. Box 39l l}$Arm1-{»gur»1oN¤ Corgi; ;IAn1¤rmrL. MiNau..x
- M N . I .L - 'RISTEN LV TORE EP»\LN» . . LM .‘
§,5’§‘.r r.§§l§ii°` ld‘l§tt.58l‘.§l‘~ WeM*N¤T0N— DMVARE *°*l99·°3i’* ».».rm.r?tr."ri.ri...rr;.. " a”’l§°Sm—Sll2;i.t»i.r.rtt
that-t:tt;t;ttS"¤* trttttttar ow in-tat tltttttistt ’t::15ttt.t5E*
Snack G. t=LwN msn B. Goonsim (800) 253*2234 (DE ONLY) KENNETH J. Esos sera J. aaiuasaano
Janome K.GaossMAN Joan \V.SNA\v [JAX; {302) 57;,]]:;,3 EAN S.FREDEatCt:s SAII.r\BEI`IIr\.RE\'§1URN
EUGENE A. DIPRSNZIG JAAIES P. Humans, in. James E. GALLAGRER Cnenvt. A. Siwmrsiatto
’“*‘“‘* "*"’°"·"‘ il?§’.l"’· l"l’t‘i}‘a. ___ ii£l‘Jir?é“i.“ii"&rN tr¤aa—‘§éiiér&"”“‘·`"’
ilciiiitéiixiti-ihiiigjeiitriioa i\[AU¥§N 0. Luka 1 in WEST PW; STREET DAWN M. Jonas: Madinat P. Smrronn
tiruoniv J. Sm·m=Ji Rota: P. Bissau.; ?.O. Box 594 KAREN E. Kettaa {tum 5.C. stoves
BRUCE?. SILVEIl.T£`E|N SCOTI'.·\.HOLT (;Egp_GE·;g\y·;u’DgLA\yARE 19941 JENNIFER l'l·I.KINKU5 JOIEN {€,`l"i‘tACE‘:’
WILLIAM W. Bowsaa Joint T. vonstav Eowruwi. Koszuoivsx: TrzAv1sN Turman
Laruw J. T»\.R.·\BICUS M. BLAKE CLEAR? (302} 856957* JOHN C. Kumzt. Jxirxnonsurr B. \\.'urrt=.—.mN
ancnmm A, £)tLl¤ER.TD_ Jn. cnmsrnw DOUGLAS \VBIGHT {800) 2555,5234 (DE ONLY} KAREN Lawtz Slmnoee M. Zire
MELANIEK SHARP DANIELLEGIBBS ¥_·\x. (S0;) 8569338 T2MD‘I`H\'E. LENGKEEK
R:.i\5SAND?'i\FPrCil;I?l§IiLTS i I - SPECIAL COUNSEL SENIOR COUNSEL
Ta@E\. rtiitaax Esau.; C. Nomttim www‘Y0UNGCONAWAY‘C0hi JOHN D. Mt:LAutJnL1N, Ja. Cunris;.Cnox~i·11tan
Nam.! MULLEN \\'ALstl KAREN L. Prxscnta
nearer out; {302} 57l-6554 *’*“"°‘**‘~‘°’°"°“ ,,,,[},§,?,§}9g‘,%§,;;G,,.,
DIRECT FAX: (302.) 5763467 St1JAnrn.\’ouNG
k;;E[EBr@ycSLmm Eownnnn Maxwtau, IND
July ll, 2007
VIA CMIECF
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: King Plzarnzacemicals et al. v. Sicor Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 05-337-SLR
Dear Judge Robinson:
This firm, along with Goodwin Procter LLP, represents Defendants Sicor Inc. and Sicor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("col1ectively Sicor") in the above-captioned case. I write in response to
the June 29, 2007 submission to the Court by Plaiiitiffs Astellas US LLC, Astellas Pharma US,
inc., and King Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs”),
which seeks to bring to the Court’s attention a recent Federal Circuit case, Takeda Chem. Indzzs.,
Ltd v. Allnhap/1a1·r11Pt3»., Ltd, No. 06-1329 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2007). Sicor disagrees that
Takeda is pertinent authority here and instead believes that Takeda is readily distinguishable on a
number of grounds.
The analysis in Takeda is inapposite here because it is expressly directed to the
obviousness of claims involving structural features of a pharmaceutical compound. Claims to
chemical compounds are evaluated under a specific set of standards, as the courts have long
given special consideration to medicinal chemistry as an especially unpredictable art. See D.I.
154, slip op. at 9. In Takeda, the claims at issue concerned "new chemical corupounds" that
resulted from “specitic molecular modifications" to a "lead compound" during the

Case 1:05-cv-00337-SLR Document 155 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Youuo Counwnr Srnaor-rrr & Tavtoa, LLP
July ll, 2007
Page 2
pharmaceutical development process. See, e. g., D.l. l54, slip op. at 9-10. Takeda repeatedly
refers to a motivation to select a lead compound as a requirement for finding that a claimed
chemical compound is obvious. See, ag., DI. l54, slip. op. at 5. Takeda likewise emphasizes
the need to identify a reason that would have led a chemist to modify the lead compound ‘°in a
particular manner" in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See, e. g., D.l. 154,
slip op. at l0.
By contrast, the asserted claims in this case are directed, not to any new chemical
compound, but to methods of use of a naturally-occurring substance (adenosine) that has been
lcnown for decades. The standards for new chemical compounds, including the selection of a
"lead compound," simply do not apply. The asserted claims recite only a method of use of an
old compound, involving the simple substitution ofthe direct—acting agent (adenosine) for the
indirect acting agent (dipyridamole). The guidance set forth in Takeda concerning the structural
ohviousness of new chemical compounds is thus irrelevant to this case, as no compound claims
are at issue here.
Moreover, and contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Federal Circuit did not advocate a
broad return to the teaching, suggestion, or motivation ("TSM”) test. Such a return would be
contrary to the Supreme Court’s clear directive in {CSR v. Int ’l C0. v. Telejlex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727 (2007). In Takeda, the Federal Circuit echoed the Supreme Courfs instruction that the
TSM test should not be applied as a "rigid and mandatory t`ormula" and carefully limited its
holding to obviousness of chemical compounds. See D.I. 154, slip op. at 10. As discussed
above, the present case does not concern the narrow category of chemical compound patents.
Accordingly, the more flexible test set forth in KSR, which takes into account “int`erences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ" should be applied. KSR,
l2? S. Ct. l741.
Sicor will he prepared to discuss the distinctions between Takeda and the present case
during the oral argument to be held on July 27th.
Respectfully submitted,
rijfr/do
K fen E. Keller ( 4489)
cc: Cleric of the Court (by CM/ECF and hand delivery)
Charles E. Lipsey, Esq. (by electronic mail)
Jonathan A. l\/leunltel, Esq. (by electronic mail)
Mary B. Matterer, Esq. (by CM/ECP and electronic mail)
Annemarie Hassett, Esq. (by electronic mail)