[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:05] Speaker 02:
God save the United States and this honorable court.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:00:11] Speaker 04:
We have two cases for argument this morning.

[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
Three others are on the calendar that are being decided on the briefs.

[00:00:19] Speaker 04:
First case is trustees of Columbia University versus Illumina, 2019-23-02.

[00:00:25] Speaker 04:
Mr. Murnane, please proceed.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
Columbia believes that Judge Worth's dissent, which noted that Metzger in 1994 discouraged the development of a labeled allele caps nucleotide, eroded any motivation that may have been created by Chen to pursue that nucleotide.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
The majority, despite acknowledging uncertainty, concerns,

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
obstacles regarding Metzger 1994's allele, still found that Chen's prophetic disclosures and the possibility of modifying Metzger's reaction conditions would have motivated a person of skill in the art to develop the labeled allele-capped nucleotides with a reasonable expectation that it would work for SBS.

[00:01:27] Speaker 04:
Mr. Murnane, when I look at these patents,

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
I see 28 columns of prior art cited, hundreds of references.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
And the only ethical reason for citing all those references is to help the examiner determine whether the claims are patentable.

[00:01:53] Speaker 04:
This obviously is a crowded art.

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
And these claims seem to be essentially

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
known compounds with a generic protective group, which includes allele.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
And isn't that essentially what these claims are?

[00:02:17] Speaker 04:
Known compounds with a known type of protective group.

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
I would respectfully admit that what these claims cover

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
is the breakthrough invention by Columbia.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
The Columbia inventors were the first to recognize the problem that had plagued efforts to achieve SBS for more than 10 years.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
The Columbia inventors.

[00:02:47] Speaker 04:
But they claimed compounds.

[00:02:49] Speaker 04:
When you look at claims to compounds, you look at how they differ from the prior us.

[00:02:54] Speaker 04:
And isn't essentially the only way they differ here is with the protective group, particularly allyl, which was known?

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
The discovery of the inventors as reflected by the specifications of the patents, the prior art in Columns 1 and 2, Your Honor mentioned, all of that is incorporated by reference fully.

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
And then the invention, which is described at the bottom of Column 2 to the top of Column 3 in each patent.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
is the Columbia inventor's recognition, only recognition by anyone, that the active site of the polymerase was very crowded.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
And up till that time, that had not been appreciated.

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
Columbia appreciated that the capping group had to be small.

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
It could not be a ketone.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
It could not be a methoxy.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
It could not be an ester.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
That's what the claim describes and recites.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
Previously, beginning with Chen in

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
the early 90s, the preferred compound was a 2-nitrobenzoyl, which is not small.

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
Metzger in 1994, cognizant of Chen, also focused on the 2-nitrobenzoyl, said it was ideal.

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
Thereafter, in the later 1990s, others focused on the 2-nitrobenzoyl.

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
Even if allyl is not the best, it was known in the us.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
Allyl was known, it was mentioned in the de-blocking groups, not the preferred capping groups of Chen.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
It was mentioned in the de-blocking groups of Chen.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
We take issue with the majority calling it prominently noted.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
We don't believe it was prominent.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
It was noted the words appear, Allyl ether, together with mercury, de-blocking.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
However, it was then tested.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
It was tested.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
And by the way, Metzger,

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
in Metzger's paper, considered it a novel compound.

[00:04:55] Speaker 01:
Metzger, aware of Chen, considered it a novel compound.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
And Metzger, when testing it, found it to be a problem.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
Metzger says many times... So what you're saying is you concede that the board made a factual finding, that Chen does disclose this.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
And so, as I understand it, your primary argument is that Metzger then somehow backs away from it and says,

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
No, it may have been disclosed there, but it doesn't work.

[00:05:25] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
With one caveat, Your Honor.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
Metzger doesn't say it may have been disclosed in Shen, because Metzger says it's a novel compound for Metzger.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
So Metzger doesn't acknowledge it was disclosed in Shen.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
But the word alleleether appears in Shen.

[00:05:39] Speaker 01:
But Metzger evaluated it.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
And Metzger says throughout Metzger, you have to have terminators, whether it's for Sanger sequencing,

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
whether it's for SBS, you have to have terminators.

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
But MESKER Table 2 says that it did terminate it, just not completely, right?

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
It says there was a problem.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
If you look at Table 2, there's an asterisk.

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
And then at the bottom of the table, when it says what the asterisk means, it says it means that the activity was incomplete.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
at the high concentration of 250 micromoles.

[00:06:20] Speaker 00:
That means you did not have a... But then Dr. Romsberg's testimony filled in the gap and said that a person of skill in the art would have understood what was shown and would have understood that what they were doing is showing that it can be terminated.

[00:06:40] Speaker 00:
So are you just basically debating the factual findings?

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
No, we're not, Your Honor.

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
We believe there is no evidence that the allele is a terminator.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
Metzger is very clear.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
It says many times in the paper what terminators are.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
And it does not say that the allele is a terminator.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
It does not say that, Your Honor.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
And what Romesburg acknowledges the problem, he says, well, to make it better, to make it better, you could increase the reaction time, which is at odds with the Chen criteria, which is you have to have it rapid.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
And Romsberg also says you can increase the concentration.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
Well, the concentration that Metzger was using was already very high, 250 micromoles.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
Chen, which provided the guidelines, said 30 micromoles is what you were supposed to be using.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
And Romsberg in testimony has indicated that you have to have the conditions of Chen.

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
So we don't believe that Romsberg's remedy, and neither did Judge Worth in dissent, because

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
when Rumsberg was pointing to what could be done with the... But Dr. Gorsta simply said that he disagreed with the credibility finding, right?

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, he made a very important point.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
Respectfully, he made a very important point.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
He said that Rumsberg was saying, take a look at what was done in Metzger to raise the concentration.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
And those were Sanger sequencing.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
The methyl cap... Methyl and alio are different.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
Methyl is a one-carbon

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
compound, alleles of 3-carbon compounds.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
And when Metzger was raising the concentration for the Sanger sequencing compounds, there are only three terminators there, 1, 8, and 7.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
1 and 8 are for Sanger, 7 is the 2-nitrobenzoyl for SDS.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
And he points out that raising that concentration was for the Sanger sequencing compounds.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
No raising of the concentration for the SDS, because SDS requires

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
lower concentration.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
Sanger sequence, you can have higher concentration to increase the incorporation, because that's a different situation in Sanger sequencing.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
Also, the majority said that there was increasing some concentration of compounds, but those were uncapped compounds.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
So respectfully, Your Honor, we believe that there is no evidence, and it's in both our opening brief and our library,

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
that there isn't substantial evidence.

[00:09:19] Speaker 01:
In other words, the evidence that one looks at, based on the OSI case, that would justify or detract from the agency's decision.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
We believe that the majority of that, all the evidence, when one looks at all the evidence, it detracts from the majority's decision.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
Yes, yes, yes, Your Honor, plenty.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
If I may, what we have here is the Colombian inventors recognizing the need for a cap which would solve the problem of the prior art.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
Welsh, in 1999, said that we have to get new polymerases because we've been trying

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
These two nitrobenzels, they had a label, two nitrobenzels.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
And by the way, in column two of the patents, the Colombian vendors know about NoteWelsh.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
And just right before the filing, the Stempel published application a month before the filing said the inefficiency in SBS had been a plague.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
Everyone had been trying to achieve SBS.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
Chen pointed to 2-Nitrobenzoyl.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
Mester directed to 2-Nitrobenzoyl.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
Everyone else was following 2-Nitrobenzoyl.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
It was the wrong way to go.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
Remember, the title of our patents is the massive parallel method for decoding DNA and RNA.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
SDS is performed simultaneously on a large number of identical DNA templates.

[00:11:13] Speaker 04:
These are claims to compounds, and they have to be compared with other compounds.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
And you're emphasizing the importance of allele, which is itself in the prior art.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
We're not talking about mechanisms here.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
We're talking about compounds.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
And these compounds are, if we take a look at the compounds, the acclaimed language in the compounds, the cap is stable during a DNA polymerase reaction.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
So this compound is to be used in a DNA polymerase reaction.

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
And the analog is incorporated at the end of a growing strand of DNA

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
during a DNA polymerase reaction, your honor.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
So the compound, in order to satisfy those elements of the claim, has to be small.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
It cannot be a ketone.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
It cannot be a methoxy.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
It cannot be an ester.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
And nobody appreciated that until Columbia.

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
Prior to that, people were looking.

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
And in fact, Chen and Metzger and others were using not small caps.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
They were using methoxys.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
say where you think he comes.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
I'll speak again in my rebuttal, Your Honors.

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
We will save that for you, Mr. Garnet.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
Mr. Ruck, Mr. Rhinus.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, put your finger on it.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
The use of a allele seeker as a blocking group, also known as a protecting group or a terminating group, was established in the prior art.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
And the question that was asked of Columbia, whether this was a fact dispute or not, the answer was there was no evidence that Alliel is a Terminator.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
And that was emphasized as the central point and the central argument on its appeal.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
That is... Councilman, this is Judge Raina.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
Was termination actually established in the prior art, or was that a factor that was left incomplete?

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
Well, so you start with the Shen reference, is that A3430 and it states specifically Aller Ethers are described as a terminating group, that is a protecting group.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
And I don't think there's any real doubt about that.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
That was the main dispute down in front of the board and that was not appealed.

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
So... What are we supposed to do with the fact that

[00:14:02] Speaker 00:
You made the opposite argument with respect to what Chen shows during the re-exam.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
A predecessor in a different proceeding made the argument that Chen was prophetic.

[00:14:17] Speaker 02:
And I have two responses on that.

[00:14:19] Speaker 02:
One is there's no appeal of the estoppel.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
So it's just an evaluation of the evidence here and whether the evidence supports the board.

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
And it's a known compound.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
that alial ethers are a terminator as set forth on, you know, on page 24 of Chen.

[00:14:40] Speaker 02:
And beyond that, the Mezger reference reinforces the point.

[00:14:44] Speaker 02:
You know, going back to Judge Rayner and I think addressing your question, Judge O'Malley, the Mezger reference reinforces the point by stating that there is termination.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
Now, one subtlety here is that the parties are in agreement that termination

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
is the same thing as incorporation.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
If you get the blocking group incorporated, then you're terminating.

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
There's no debate about that.

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
That's on page 16 and 17 of their opening brief.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
That's their point, that if you have incomplete incorporation, you have incomplete termination.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
And that's their argument.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
And this, I think, really just nails it.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
Yet, with respect to Vester himself, when he describes what

[00:15:31] Speaker 02:
what blocking groups incorporate.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
He's specific, and this is on A3506.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
He says, the protecting groups containing ether linkages at the 3 prime position compounds 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 were incorporated by some of the polymerases.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
This is in the text of, forget the table, but this is in the text.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
So there's no caveat that it was partially incorporated or that only some of them incorporated and it wasn't actually complete.

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
Now, also in the... Mr. Reinus, what are we to make of B, C, and D, particularly B and C, functional limitations in the claim?

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
Don't those distinguish the structural

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
the otherwise structural definitions and perhaps lead to a conclusion that these are unexpected properties and the claims are non-obvious?

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
I think that the board's finding that each of the claim requirements are met is fully supported.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
And in terms of the function of it being a terminator,

[00:16:52] Speaker 02:
That is clearly satisfied, I think, both in Metzger and in Chen.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
But just to make that point about the functional aspect of it, not only does Metzger, in the text, this is on, again, 3506, state without caveat that it's incorporated by the polymerase.

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
Also, in the JUPAT in itself, in the JUPAT in itself,

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
Council saying the inventions described in Columns 2 and 3, that's the background of the invention, okay?

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
That's not the summary of the invention, which relates to binding to a solid support.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
But at Columns 3, at Lines 28 through 30, it states the allele was also shown to be incorporated in the growing strand in Metzger.

[00:17:48] Speaker 02:
So there was no statement that it was partially incorporated or that incorporation wasn't complete for all the different molecules.

[00:17:55] Speaker 02:
Both Metzger and the patent itself state without caveat that their incorporation is achieved.

[00:18:03] Speaker 02:
The only issue is the asterisk in the table, which says, oh, by the way, it wasn't complete.

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
And with that,

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
I think it's very important to realize, and this is a debate that the dissent had, which is completely a factual debate.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
And I think Judge O'Malley was right on it with stating that all judge work was registered a disagreement that he was not persuaded by one expert over another.

[00:18:29] Speaker 02:
He wasn't implying anything that there was a legal issue there.

[00:18:33] Speaker 02:
But with respect to completing the incorporation

[00:18:38] Speaker 02:
Increasing the concentration of the terminated nucleotides, the alleles, putting more of the allele groups in would obviously improve termination.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
And that is supported by... What's your response to your friend on the other side who argues that actually that increased concentration takes you so far away from the teachings of Chen

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
that you're otherwise not really practicing what Chen taught.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
Well, I'm delighted you raised that because both the board recognized and Chen states that A3426, Chen specifically states in very understandable language and they got a lot of this debate about very technical stuff and the panel was obviously very technically astute.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
You can read that in the opinion.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
But at 34206, this is page 20 of Chen, at line 20, it states, in addition to force the reaction, that is to get it to complete for every single molecule, not just most, especially with derivatized DNTPs, that's what we're talking about, derivatized nucleotides.

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
They're derivatized because they've got the blocking room.

[00:20:01] Speaker 02:
It may often be helpful to use substantial excess over Stokoe

[00:20:05] Speaker 02:
stoichiometry of the DNTPs.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
So Chen is saying, OK, if you want to drive the reaction to completion, put more of a concentration of the alleles in the mixture.

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
And first of all, that's just intuitive.

[00:20:21] Speaker 02:
I don't know why that would be surprising that if you put more in.

[00:20:24] Speaker 02:
And just to how fact bound this is, I thought,

[00:20:31] Speaker 02:
Professor Romsberg did a great job of explaining that in Metzger's single experiment.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
He included natural nucleotides in there.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
And so there was competition, and obviously the natural nucleotides are going to incorporate better.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
And that one of the skill in the art reviewing Mesker would understand that the presence of the natural nucleotides created more competition for the derivatized ones.

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
But in any event, increasing the concentration, he describes how you would know about that, that Mesker itself taught it.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
Ken taught it, as I just pointed the panel to, again, A3426.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
So Judge O'Malley, I understand the concern.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
But when Chen himself is saying, if you really want to drive the incorporation to completion for your termination, put substantial excess of the derivatized compounds in, that's just basic chemistry.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
And so you would have to work through all of Romsberg on that paragraph 65 through 67, and 75 through 76,

[00:21:46] Speaker 02:
and look at Mesker, and then there's the citation by the board to the different figures and teachings in Mesker about increasing concentration.

[00:21:56] Speaker 02:
I think the debate about, well, it might get to be too much that people at some point would think, well, we've saturated with too many of the derivatized nucleotides.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
First of all, I don't think that's supported in the record, but even if it was, that's exactly the type of in-depth factual dispute over detailed technical matter

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
where their three judges, you know, with technical expertise in this area and day-to-day expertise, looked at it closely, and that's the conclusion they came to.

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
I do not think that's a legal question, and I certainly don't think.

[00:22:30] Speaker 02:
Counsel's statement that there's no evidence that Al Hill is a terminator after being described at the blocking group in Chen, after Mesker proved that it would work, although he said, you know, ultimately there wasn't completion.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
Really, the insult, the injury of it, is that you patent doesn't ever acknowledge that Metzger said there was a problem with allele in the background of the invention.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
But with Metzger, though, I mean, having pointed to other options as apparently better options, why isn't this a case like OSI?

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
This isn't like OSI.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
OSI was a problem where there'd been thousands and thousands of compounds that had been tested, tested, tested, and there's just no resemblance.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
And not only that, starting where we began with Judge Lurie's astute comment that this is a known compound, Chen teaches using

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
the allele as a terminator.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
So it's known out there.

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
It's not like it was unknown and you had to put two references together to combine it.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
In OSI, it was taking this disparate teaching and that disparate teaching and say, OK, you put these two things together and create the compound.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
And the argument was, well, people would have done that when they were scanning through thousands and thousands of failures.

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
Mr. Reinus, when I look at these patents, they're a fairly recent vintage.

[00:23:57] Speaker 04:
in terms of issuance, but they go back to the year 2000.

[00:24:02] Speaker 04:
They have a difficult prosecution.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
It looks like 10 or 12 continuations.

[00:24:11] Speaker 04:
Do you know any of the history?

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
Yeah, I have some experience with the history.

[00:24:17] Speaker 02:
You know, this has been going on for almost 10 years.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
They've been, you know, after Illumina's groundbreaking DNA sequencing system came out in 2006, 2007, which doesn't use allele.

[00:24:29] Speaker 02:
It actually uses a different capping group, but they're trying to encompass it with this concept of small.

[00:24:38] Speaker 02:
After that came out, they've been trying to craft claims that they can get through.

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
And they had a set of claims that got invalidated.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
And this court, a different panel, but this court upheld that, those invalidations.

[00:24:52] Speaker 02:
And so it's been a cat and mouse chase with the classic type.

[00:24:55] Speaker 02:
And in fact, we're in district court now.

[00:24:58] Speaker 02:
And the PTAP has instituted on three more or four more patents of theirs that attempted to change the claims in view of the invalidations in this proceeding.

[00:25:10] Speaker 02:
So the history is ample.

[00:25:13] Speaker 02:
And it's an attempt to mine the background of the invention.

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
The patent, if the due patent said to it that Metzger had problems,

[00:25:22] Speaker 02:
And we've discovered that you can complete termination this way, and here's data about it.

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
That would be one thing.

[00:25:29] Speaker 02:
But when they have a statement in column three between line 25 and 30, unqualified that, oh, by the way, Metzger says you can incorporate allele as a statement of the prior art without

[00:25:43] Speaker 02:
but it may not work but you may have to you may have to you know increase concentration or reaction time or even though masker thought is being incorporated really does none of that so insofar as the complete the complaint about chen you know who's a noble laureate as being just prophetic that's what

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure what prophetic is necessarily a bad thing in the sense that Chen saw well, that that's prophetic.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
Their patent is prophetic.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
They don't have data.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
They didn't take the allele ethers and test them to see whether they could run them to conclusions that maybe Mesker oversaw something and that they could do completed determination.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
They just assume that it worked for the same reason that in the body of Nesker, it just says incorporation is achieved without saying, oh, and it's got a defect or it's a shortcoming or something like that.

[00:26:46] Speaker 02:
And then the only thing I'd say, and counsel didn't push this in his opening, which I guess I respect in that sense,

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
You know, much of the appeal briefing was this attempt to sort of argue secondary considerations when there was no effort to define a long felt need to prove up that that need was satisfied, which wasn't, you know, which wouldn't have been able to be proved up.

[00:27:11] Speaker 02:
I mean, a lot of the appeal in the appellate brief is, you know, this argument about secondary consideration, long felt need, and that was never argued whatsoever.

[00:27:22] Speaker 03:
Council, this is Judge Raina.

[00:27:26] Speaker 03:
Can you comment briefly on the supplemental authority that was submitted by Columbia and how we should consider that and view your arguments?

[00:27:38] Speaker 02:
To be honest with you, Judge Raina, I don't offhand know what you're referring to.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
Maybe I overlooked that, but... Okay.

[00:27:54] Speaker 02:
That's my time.

[00:27:56] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:27:57] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:27:58] Speaker 04:
Mr. Reinus-Hernane has three minutes of rebuttal time.

[00:28:03] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:05] Speaker 01:
With respect to the comment by Illumina's counsel that the patents, the Columbia patents, say nothing about the problems of MSCR, in column two, after discussing anger sequencing, people trying to make SBS,

[00:28:23] Speaker 01:
It cites Metzger.

[00:28:25] Speaker 01:
It cites Metzger.

[00:28:26] Speaker 01:
If we look at the 139 patent, column 2, line 30, Metzger cited as having been attempting SBS.

[00:28:33] Speaker 01:
And right after that, the very next sentence said that it was unsuccessful.

[00:28:37] Speaker 01:
And then in the paragraph below that, there's the talk about Welsh.

[00:28:41] Speaker 01:
And that was a problem.

[00:28:43] Speaker 01:
And the problem was it was too big.

[00:28:45] Speaker 01:
And the appreciation of solving the problem is then the bottom of column 2 to the top is column 3.

[00:28:53] Speaker 01:
Metzger taught the allele would not work.

[00:28:55] Speaker 01:
Columbia taught that it would.

[00:28:57] Speaker 01:
The 2-nitro benzo was taught by Metzger to work.

[00:29:02] Speaker 01:
Columbia taught that it wouldn't work.

[00:29:05] Speaker 00:
I don't see that in the patent them saying that Metzger says it doesn't work.

[00:29:13] Speaker 00:
I mean, I read that as reliance on Metzger.

[00:29:17] Speaker 01:
Excuse me.

[00:29:18] Speaker 01:
I'm focusing on column 2, Your Honor, Judge O'Malley.

[00:29:23] Speaker ?:
OK.

[00:29:23] Speaker 01:
Right after Mesker is cited, it says, thus far, no complete success of using such a system to unambiguously sequence DNA has been reported.

[00:29:34] Speaker 01:
The unambiguous sequencing, that's SDS.

[00:29:37] Speaker 01:
Mesker did not teach SDS.

[00:29:39] Speaker 01:
It did not have the sequencing.

[00:29:41] Speaker 01:
And everything that is now attributed to Mesker, because in column three, all the client has done there, let me just say,

[00:29:53] Speaker 01:
You have to have it small.

[00:29:54] Speaker 01:
It can't be ketone, ester, or methoxy.

[00:29:56] Speaker 01:
It says you can use a Leo.

[00:29:58] Speaker 01:
Metzger doesn't say why he had a problem.

[00:30:01] Speaker 01:
He said afterwards three times in 1998, in 2007, and 2011.

[00:30:05] Speaker 01:
He said that was a problem.

[00:30:07] Speaker 01:
A Leo was a problem.

[00:30:08] Speaker 01:
But he doesn't say in 1994 why it's a problem.

[00:30:12] Speaker 01:
Dr. Ju and his colleagues, they appreciated why.

[00:30:14] Speaker 01:
And we know the Leo case says appreciation, recognition of a problem can be invention.

[00:30:19] Speaker 01:
They discovered the solution to the problem.

[00:30:23] Speaker 04:
Well, the patent says no complete success.

[00:30:28] Speaker 04:
That doesn't say that it doesn't work.

[00:30:30] Speaker 04:
It says no complete success.

[00:30:33] Speaker 01:
Forgive me, Your Honor.

[00:30:33] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:30:34] Speaker 01:
But, Your Honor, it's a very detailed paper.

[00:30:38] Speaker 01:
And from the beginning to the end, it talks about terminators.

[00:30:43] Speaker 01:
We've cited the pages in our briefs.

[00:30:45] Speaker 01:
From the beginning to the end, it talks about terminators.

[00:30:48] Speaker 01:
The allele is not a terminator.

[00:30:50] Speaker 01:
There were three terminators.

[00:30:52] Speaker 01:
The methoxycaps compounds 1 and 8 for Sanger sequencing.

[00:30:56] Speaker 01:
The 2-nitrobenzoyl compounds 7 for SBS.

[00:31:00] Speaker 01:
Those are the only terminators.

[00:31:01] Speaker 01:
In the patent and suit, when we talk about terminators, we talk about them in... Well, finish your thought, please.

[00:31:16] Speaker 01:
We mentioned, if we look at appendix 328, 329, and 338,

[00:31:22] Speaker 01:
Our compounds are terminators.

[00:31:24] Speaker 01:
We don't say Metzger is a terminator.

[00:31:25] Speaker 01:
We say Metzger teaches you how to do what Metzger said.

[00:31:29] Speaker 01:
That's all it says.

[00:31:30] Speaker 01:
If you want to make an allele cap, you can look at Metzger.

[00:31:34] Speaker 01:
You can also look at something else.

[00:31:36] Speaker 01:
But it doesn't say that it's a terminator.

[00:31:38] Speaker 01:
Metzger didn't appreciate, he didn't have any idea what was wrong with it.

[00:31:43] Speaker 01:
Our Columbia inventors did appreciate it had to be small.

[00:31:46] Speaker 01:
It had to be not a ketone, not a methoxy, not a nester.

[00:31:49] Speaker 01:
No one else did that.

[00:31:50] Speaker 01:
They broke the bottleneck.

[00:31:51] Speaker 01:
And by the way, Your Honor, also in response to your question earlier, we also have a patent with method claims.

[00:31:57] Speaker 04:
I know what you're saying.

[00:31:58] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:31:59] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:32:00] Speaker 04:
We appreciate both arguments, and the case is submitted.