US 9717724

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number.

Summary — U.S. Patent No. 9,717,724 (US 9,717,724 B2)

Important scope note up front: I searched for this specific number and did not find any Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket, appeal, or opinion that specifically names U.S. Patent No. 9,717,724. The IPR/obviousness activity I did find (CSPC and Apotex petitions, IPR2025-01531) is directed at U.S. Patent No. 11,344,552, a different patent in the Ipsen liposomal-irinotecan estate — not at '724. So I cannot confirm any CAFC 2026 activity for '724, and I flag that as unknown rather than guessed.

Bibliographic data (from the patent text and Google Patents)

Lineage (per the patent's Cross-Reference section): this application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 14/406,776 (filed Dec. 10, 2014), which is a 371 of PCT/US2013/045495, which claims benefit of U.S. Provisional 61/659,211 (filed Jun. 13, 2012) and 61/784,382 (filed Mar. 14, 2013).

Abstract (verbatim)

"Provided are methods for treating pancreatic cancer in a patient by administering liposomal irinotecan (MM-398) alone or in combination with additional therapeutic agents. In one embodiment, the liposomal irinotecan (MM-398) is co-administered with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin."

Plain-language overview of the disclosed independent aspects

Caveat: I do not have the verbatim granted claim set of '724 in front of me. What follows is derived from the patent's Summary of the Invention as reproduced in the Google Patents record; treat the wording as the invention's claimed aspects rather than certified claim text.

The patent is a method-of-use / dosing-regimen patent for liposomal irinotecan (MM-398; also called nal-IRI), the active in ONIVYDE. It covers at least these independent aspects:

1. Liposomal-irinotecan monotherapy, 3-week cycle — treating pancreatic cancer by administering liposomal irinotecan in 3-week cycles at 120 mg/m² on day 1, except that a patient homozygous for the UGT1A1*28 allele receives 80 mg/m² on day 1 of cycle 1 (with escalation in 20 mg/m² increments up to 120 mg/m²).

2. Triple combination, 2-week cycle — co-administering effective amounts of liposomal irinotecan + 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + leucovorin in 2-week cycles, where:

• liposomal irinotecan is 80 mg/m² on day 1 (or 60 mg/m² on day 1 of cycle 1 for UGT1A1*28 homozygotes, escalable to 80 mg/m²);
• 5-FU is 2400 mg/m²; and
• leucovorin is 200 mg/m² (l-form/levoleucovorin) or 400 mg/m² (l+d racemic).
  Sequencing aspects: liposomal irinotecan before leucovorin, leucovorin before 5-FU; IV infusion times of 90 min (liposomal irinotecan), 30 min (leucovorin), and 46 h (5-FU).

1. Kit aspects — kits containing a dose of liposomal irinotecan (and/or doses of liposomal irinotecan, 5-FU, and leucovorin) plus instructions for using them per the described regimens, with the pancreatic cancer optionally specified as an exocrine pancreatic cancer (e.g., acinar cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, giant cell tumor, IPMN, mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, pancreatoblastoma, serous cystadenocarcinoma, solid/pseudopapillary tumors).

2. Formulation-for-use aspect — a formulation of liposomal irinotecan adapted for co-administration with 5-FU and leucovorin in the 2-week cycle regimen described above.

The specification frames the clinical basis as the NAPOLI-1 Phase 3 trial (MM-398 + 5-FU/LV vs. 5-FU/LV vs. MM-398 monotherapy) in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma progressing after gemcitabine-based therapy, and asserts therapeutic synergy and an increase in tumor vascularity as mechanistic rationales.

Litigation / post-grant context I could verify

• Google Patents' family-litigation data lists a U.S. case in the New Jersey District Court, case no. 3:24-cv-04991, associated with this family. Secondary sources describe Paragraph IV / Hatch-Waxman interest in ONIVYDE more generally.
• No CAFC 2026 docket naming '724 was found. The IPR activity surfaced (CSPC Pharmaceutical / Conjupro, and Apotex, IPR2025-01531) concerns U.S. 11,344,552, not '724 — do not conflate them.
• The EPO Board of Appeal decision T 240098 concerns the European counterpart arising from WO 2013/188586 (oppositions; the opposition division revoked the patent, with auxiliary requests on appeal). This is the same family lineage but a different jurisdiction and patent document; the outcome specifics should be confirmed before relying on it.

Uncertainty flags

• I have not verified the exact granted independent claim wording/numbering of US 9,717,724 from the USPTO full text; the claim overview above is reconstructed from the patent's Summary.
• I found no authoritative record of a 2026 CAFC appeal involving this patent number. If a docket exists, it did not surface in my searches.
• Current ownership between Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. and Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is reported inconsistently across sources; Google Patents lists both, with Ipsen as original assignee and Merrimack as a recorded assignee.

Sources: Google Patents US9717724B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9717724/en); DrugPatentWatch patent 9,717,724 (https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/p/patent/9717724); TheraRadar ONIVYDE patent landscape (https://theraradar.com/drugs/onivyde/patents/); EPO Boards of Appeal T 240098; PTAB/IPR filings on U.S. 11,344,552 (ptacts.uspto.gov, paragraphfour.com).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9717724.

Let me dig into the specific litigation referenced and the Unified Patents portal.

Let me verify additional cases and details on the '724 patent's involvement.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,717,724

Bottom line: Based on my searches, I found one litigation matter in which U.S. Patent No. 9,717,724 ("Methods for treating pancreatic cancer using combination therapies") is identified as a patent-in-suit. Google Patents' own "Family has litigation" field for US9717724 points to this same case. I did not find any other district court action, nor any PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceeding, naming the '724 patent; I flag the limits of that finding below.

---

Case 1 — Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al.

Why the '724 patent is at issue. The case arises from Conjupro/CSPC's submission of NDA No. 218923 under 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(2) for a proposed irinotecan liposome injection product — a follow-on/generic of Ipsen's Onivyde® (NDA No. 207793, approved October 22, 2015). Conjupro's notice letter certified under § 355(b)(2)(A)(iv) that the listed patents (including the '724 patent) are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed.

Patents asserted in the case. DrugPatentWatch's docket listing for 1:24-cv-04991 identifies the asserted patents as: 8,329,213; 9,339,497; 9,364,473; 9,452,162; 9,492,442; 9,717,724; 10,980,795; 11,369,597; and 12,364,691. The complaint analysis describes the '724 patent as "continuing the same patent family," claiming methods of treating pancreatic cancer with liposomal irinotecan, including specific administration protocols (e.g., intravenous infusion times for the combination-therapy components), with infringement predicated on the proposed product's labeling/administration instructions.

Procedural history and current posture:

• Apr. 15, 2024 — Ipsen complaint filed (Civil Action No. 24-4991), attaching Exhibits A–H.
• Aug. 23, 2024 — Ipsen filed related Civil Action No. 24-8723 against Conjupro/CSPC (this action added the later-issued '497 patent, and Conjupro's Answer asserted counterclaims). Service was waived.
• Oct. 18, 2024 — The court consolidated 24-4991 and 24-8723 for all purposes (discovery, case management, trial) and administratively terminated 24-8723; filings continue under 24-4991. Deadlines in the 24-4991 scheduling order control, with a discrete contentions schedule for U.S. Patent No. 12,059,497.
• Counterclaims — Conjupro/CSPC asserted declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity against the asserted patents (including the '724 patent), invoking the parties' justiciable controversy over NDA No. 218923.

Related litigation (same family/parties, different patent numbers — not the '724 patent): Ipsen later sued Conjupro/CSPC again in D.N.J. (e.g., Civil Action No. 25-cv-13647) asserting the subsequently issued family member U.S. Patent No. 12,364,691 ("Methods for Treating Pancreatic Cancer Using Combination Therapies," issued July 22, 2025). Because that is a different patent number, it is included only for context and should not be treated as '724 litigation.

---

Sources

• Google Patents, US9717724B2 ("Family has litigation" linking the New Jersey District Court case): https://patents.google.com/patent/US9717724/en ; Unified Patents litigation link: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20Jersey%20District%20Court/case/3%3A24-cv-04991
• CourtListener docket, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc., 3:24-cv-04991 (D.N.J.): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68437697/ipsen-biopharmaceuticals-inc-v-conjupro-biotherapeutics-inc/
• DrugPatentWatch docket listing (1:24-cv-04991), listing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,329,213; 9,339,497; 9,364,473; 9,452,162; 9,492,442; 9,717,724; 10,980,795; 11,369,597; 12,364,691: https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/p/litigation/casename/index.php?query=IPSEN+BIOPHARMACEUTICALS%2C+INC.+v.+CONJUPRO+BIOTHERAPEUTICS%2C+INC.%7C1%3A24-cv-04991
• PatSnap litigation summary quoting the Oct. 18, 2024 consolidation order (Civil Action Nos. 24-4991 and 24-8723): https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/ipsen-v-conjupro-cspc-camptothecin-patent-consolidation-patsnap/
• Complaint/counterclaim excerpts referencing the '724 patent and NDA No. 218923 (paragraphfour.com and PTAB-hosted counterclaim document): https://paragraphfour.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/njdc25cv13647C.pdf ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557313](/patent/1557313)/download-documents
• Ex Parte complaint analysis (description of '724 patent and accused Conjupro product): https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/njd/1:24-cv-04991/doc/analysis/1

---

Caveats / limitations

1. I found only one case asserting the '724 patent (as identified in my search results). It is possible additional Hatch-Waxman matters exist that were not surfaced; I was unable to run an exhaustive PACER/Unified Patents portal query within the available search steps.
2. The '724 patent is part of a family (Google Patents family 57601636) with numerous continuations (e.g., 11,369,597; 12,364,691). Ipsen has asserted other family members in additional D.N.J. actions. Those actions involve different patent numbers and are therefore not "litigation involving US 9,717,724."
3. No PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) challenging the '724 patent appeared in my searches; the PTAB/Unified Patents results returned were unrelated patents. I cannot rule out a pending petition.
4. No outcome (judgment, dismissal, or settlement) for 24-4991 was found; the most recent status indicator in my sources is that the consolidated action remains pending before Judge Bumb.
5. Per your instruction, all patent numbers and case numbers above are reproduced literally as found in the sources; I have not auto-corrected any identifier.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" default against live sources before concluding.

The first hit references a "``'724 patent''" with 86 claims and non-pharma art (Yamamoto/Mitsubishi/Lemelson) — I need to confirm whether that's this '724 or a different patent before treating it as on-point. Let me dig in.

Noise so far. Let me target the PTAB docket directly and pin down that mysterious "'724 patent" IPR, plus the litigation chain.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,717,724: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block reports that the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent searching found nothing that contradicts that — so there is no active/claims-invalidated/claims-sustained/settled/denied breakdown to report, and the defensive posture is the opposite of "hardened by IPR": the patent is completely untested at the PTAB, no claim has been canceled, and consequently no petitioner is carrying § 315(e)(2) estoppel — every prior-art ground remains fully available to a defendant in district court and could still be run in a first-instance IPR.

---

⚠️ False positive to exclude: the "'724 patent" IPRs you will find in search are a different patent

Search engines will surface several PTAB decisions referring to "the '724 patent." They are U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 (Magna Electronics, "Vehicular Multi-Camera Vision System") — a 1996-priority automotive camera patent with 86 claims — not U.S. 9,717,724:

• IPR2015-01410 and IPR2015-01414 (consolidated) — Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd. v. Magna Electronics, Inc., filed 2015-06-15, challenging claims 1–6, 10–19, 23, 25, 29–32, 41–43, 46–56, 58, 61, 62, 64–71, 73, 75–82, 84, 86 over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, and Lemelson (plus Wang, Aishin, Fuji, Otsuka, Paff, King). See the Valeo reply: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01410/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8643724/docs/05-23-2016-Petitioner/Reply-17-Petitioners_Reply_to_Patent_Owners_Response.pdf?download=true
• IPR2015-00253 (same patent) — petition at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00253/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8643724/11-07-2014-Petitioner/Petition-1-Petition_for_Inter_Partes_Review_US_Patent_8,643,724/
• Note the tell: those decisions recite a 1996 earliest priority date and 86 claims; 9,717,724 has a 2012-06-13 priority date and is a pancreatic-cancer treatment-of-use patent. Any brief or defense memo that drops "IPR2015-01410 → '724 patent claims canceled" into a chart for 9,717,724 is citing the wrong patent and is sanction-bait in its own right.

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal directed to U.S. 9,717,724. I could not locate any proceeding number to cite, and I will not invent one.

---

What is on file: litigation, not PTAB trials

• Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. / Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Conjuro Therapeutics, Inc. (D. Del.) — Conjuro's counterclaims state that on 2024-04-15 the counterclaim-defendants sued alleging infringement of the '213, '497, '473, '162, '442, '724, '795 and '597 patents, following Conjuro's notice letter regarding its NDA No. 218923 (irinotecan liposome) sent at the latest 2024-03-07. The counterclaim text is reproduced in a PTAB petition file (PTABTS petition ID 1557313): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557313/download-documents?artifactId=I2bC7HkAc9TKaFUINHWd_1YXZcjJIynyIOLu7Nt0ctOlk2J3c5SwMIk. That docket is a district-court validity fight, not an AIA trial.
• New Jersey District Court case No. 3:24-cv-04991, flagged in the patent-family litigation data sourced from Unified Patents: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20Jersey%20District%20Court/case/3%3A24-cv-04991. The metadata I have does not state the parties or the patents asserted, so I will not characterize it further.
• Commercial context (for the "why hasn't anyone filed?" question): 9,717,724 is Orange Book–listed against ONIVYDE with use code U-2091 and an anticipated expiry of 2033-06-12 (confirmed in the full text: "2033-06-12 Anticipated expiration"); it sits in a 14-patent Orange Book estate (family 57601636).

---

Strategic summary

Claims status. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted against 9,717,724, no claim is canceled and no claim has been adjudicated unpatentable by the Board. Nothing is "sustained" in the estoppel-generating sense either — there is no FWD holding any claim patentable. The entire claim set (the Orange Book listing shows at minimum independent methods claims 1 and 11 with dependent claims 2–10 and 12 et seq.) must be treated as UNTESTED at the PTAB. Practically: do not assume from the absence of IPRs that the claims are strong; the absence correlates just as well with the fact that the Hatch-Waxman challengers chose the district-court DJ/ANDA route (Conjuro) rather than the IPR route.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, from any proceeding, on this patent. That cuts in two directions:

• For a defendant, all art and all § 102/§ 103/§ 112 theories are open in litigation, and a first IPR is still available in principle.
• For the patent owner, there is no PO-favorable FWD to point to as a validity safe harbor, and no Board claim constructions locked in.
• Watch the § 315(b) clock. The '724 patent was pulled into the Conjuro action by complaint filed 2024-04-15. Once a petitioner (or a real party in interest or privy) is served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent, § 315(b) bars an IPR petition more than one year after service. Assuming service on or shortly after that date, that one-year window closed around April–May 2025 for Conjuro and any co-defendants served in that case. Newly-added defendants or parties not served in that action may still have a live window — confirm service dates before dismissing the IPR option.

Pattern signals. (1) No serial petitioner — there is no repeat filer on this patent because there is no filer at all. (2) The patent owner appears to be enforcing in court, not defending at the Board (I found no PTAB appeal activity tied to this patent). (3) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) IPR on this patent; Unified's data appears in the chain only as the litigation reporting source for the New Jersey case, which is not the same thing as Unified filing an IPR. (4) Do not extrapolate from sibling Ipsen/Merrimack patents — PTAB activity against a family member (the '473 patent surfaces in the Conjuro counterclaim listing) does not create estoppel or art-of-record effects for 9,717,724.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Treat this as a zero-proceeding patent. There is no FWD to link to, no canceled claim to quote, and no disposition to rely on. Any internal validity memo asserting otherwise is likely citing U.S. 8,643,724 (Valeo v. Magna, IPR2015-01410/01414/00253) — delete it from the chart.
2. Check the § 315(b) date for your specific client. If your client was served with a complaint asserting 9,717,724 before roughly 2025-09-28, the IPR door is closed and the fight is a district-court invalidity fight. If your client has never been served, you still have the full one-year window — and this is a patent with no art-of-record estoppel and no prior PTAB claim construction, which makes a first-filed IPR an unusually clean option.
3. Because ODP may lag recent filings, re-run the check against PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the PTAB Decisions page for any petition filed after the most recent ingest. If a petition has been filed against 9,717,724 within the last few months, verify the current stage: institution decision due within 6 months of the petition's filing, and the statutory FWD deadline is 12 months from institution (§ 316(a)(11)), with an oral hearing typically set 1–3 months before the FWD date.
4. Mine the district-court record instead of the Board record. Conjuro's Answer/Counterclaims and Notice Letter (referenced in the PTAB petition file above) lay out a full invalidity theory against the '724 patent; under § 315(e) there is no reason that theory can't also be run at the Board by an eligible party, subject only to the § 315(b) bar and § 325(d) discretion.

Confidence note: I am highly confident in the null result for 9,717,724 — the absence of any proceeding number in either the ODP block or in targeted searching is a strong negative. I am less certain that no petition has been filed in the last reporting interval, since the ODP ingest can lag; item 3 above is the verification step I could not complete.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,717,724 through the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-reference sources.

Let me dig for the specific reel/frame records and the litigation context.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 9,717,724 B2

Methodological caveat (read first)

I was unable to retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center records directly in this session — neither reel/frame numbers, execution dates, nor the correspondents of record could be pulled from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov or any mirror. The chain below is therefore reconstructed from Google Patents' legal-events timeline, which is itself derived from the assignment database but does not expose reel/frame or correspondent fields.

Do not treat the reel/frame and correspondent fields in the template below as verified. I have marked them as not retrievable rather than guessing. The conveyance types and recorded dates are supported by the Google Patents legal-events entries quoted below; the parties are supported by those entries plus SEC filings describing the same transaction.

---

Inventors

Basis for employer attribution: the inventors named in the Google Patents "Assigned to MERRIMACK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC." event of 2017‑04‑17 (assignors: NIYIKIZA, CLET; MOYO, VICTOR; DHINDSA, Navreet; FITZGERALD, JONATHAN BASIL; KIM, JAEYEON; LAIVINS, Peter; BAYEVER, ELIEL) assigned to Merrimack, and the program lineage runs through Merrimack's October 2009 acquisition of Hermes BioSciences, Inc. (the originator of MM‑398 / liposomal irinotecan, per Merrimack's 10‑K). Several of these names correspond to Merrimack clinical/executive personnel of that era. I could not independently confirm individual employment titles — treat the right-hand column as high-probability, not certified.

Unusual pattern? — Not the classic "inventors depart within 12 months of filing" pattern, but there is a notable late-recordation pattern instead:

• The application was filed 2016‑08‑19, but the inventors' assignment of rights to Merrimack was not recorded until 2017‑04‑17 — roughly 8 months after filing and nearly 5 years after the 2012‑06‑13 priority date.
• That recording landed ~2 weeks after the April 3, 2017 closing of the Merrimack→Ipsen asset sale and ~2 weeks before the Merrimack→Ipsen assignment recorded 2017‑05‑01. This is the signature of a confirmatory/nunc pro tunc assignment executed to perfect the chain of title so the buyer could close — not of inventor flight.
• The actual workforce rupture at Merrimack came later and is unrelated to inventor departures: Merrimack cut headcount from >400 to ~80 in 2017 and terminated all employees by July 12, 2019, thereafter operating through external consultants. That is a post-sale corporate wind-down of a seller shell, not an inventor-exodus signal about this patent.

---

Original assignee

Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Cambridge, Massachusetts; NASDAQ: MACK) — the operating pharma that filed and prosecuted the application, developed MM‑398, ran the NAPOLI‑1 Phase 3 trial, and did ship a product embodying the claims: ONIVYDE® (irinotecan liposome injection), FDA‑approved 2015‑10‑22 under NDA 207793, with '724 listed in the Orange Book against that NDA (use code U‑2091).

⚠️ Contradiction flag (carried forward and sharpened): Google Patents lists "Original Assignee: Ipsen Biopharm Ltd" and "Current Assignee: Ipsen Biopharm Ltd / Merrimack Pharmaceuticals Inc." This is internally inconsistent with the documented history and with the CIP lineage in the patent's own Cross‑Reference to Related Applications (Ser. No. 14/406,776 → PCT/US2013/045495 → provisionals 61/659,211 and 61/784,382, all Merrimack‑era filings). The contemporaneous record — applicant at filing plus the 2017‑04‑17 inventors'→Merrimack assignment — indicates Merrimack was the original assignee, with Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. the current assignee following the 2017 asset sale. The Google "Original Assignee" field appears to be a normalization artifact; I flag it rather than rely on it.

Current status of the original assignee: Merrimack is not dissolved and not in bankruptcy — it is an effectively shelled-out public company with no employees since July 2019, holding only contingent milestone rights (up to $450.0M) from the Ipsen sale and certain Elevation Oncology milestones. It no longer owns '724.

---

Assignment timeline

Chronological. Reel/frame and correspondent were not retrievable (see caveat).

• Recorded 2017-04-17 — Reel not retrievable/Frame not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment (assignment of inventors' interest) — per Google Patents "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"
  • Assignor: The seven named inventors (Bayever, Dhindsa, Fitzgerald, Laivins, Moyo, Niyikiza, Kim)
  • Assignee: Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Confirmatory/nunc pro tunc perfection of chain of title, recorded in the window between the January 7, 2017 asset-sale agreement and the April 3, 2017 closing — i.e., housekeeping to deliver clean title to the buyer.

• Recorded 2017-05-01 — Reel not retrievable/Frame not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Assignment — per Google Patents "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST"
  • Assignor: Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Assignee: Ipsen Biopharm Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Acquisition — implementation of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement dated January 7, 2017 (Merrimack → Ipsen S.A.), value up to $1.025B + up to $33M retained Shire milestones; closed April 3, 2017. This is an operating-company-to-operating-company commercial asset sale, not a transfer to an IP-holding vehicle.

• Recorded 2017-05-17 — Reel not retrievable/Frame not retrievable

  • Conveyance: Change of Address of Assignee (not a substantive title transfer)
  • Assignor of record on the form: Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Assignee: Ipsen Biopharm Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: Administrative/change of name-or-address only — correcting Ipsen's recorded address; no change in beneficial ownership.

No other, later assignments appear in the record I could access. In particular, there is no post-2017 transfer to any NPE or IP-holding LLC, and no recorded security interest, release, or merger affecting this patent.

Note on apparent "priority" events: Google Patents separately lists priority/continuation filings (US 15/341,619 in 2016; US 15/664,930 in 2017; US 16/012,372 in 2018; US 17/824,421 in 2022; US 18/613,633 in 2024; US 19/234,798 in 2025). These are family continuation filings, not ownership transfers and are excluded from the chain above.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9717724
    2012 : Priority application filed by Merrimack
    2016 : Application filed by Merrimack
    2017 : Inventors assign rights to Merrimack
         : Merrimack assigns patent to Ipsen
         : Ipsen records assignee address change
         : Patent issued
    2024 : New Jersey suit filed involving family

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain runs inventors → Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. → Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. via two recorded assignments in April–May 2017 (inventors' interest to Merrimack, recorded 2017‑04‑17; Merrimack to Ipsen, recorded 2017‑05‑01) plus a 2017‑05‑17 change-of-address-of-assignee — all flowing from the January 7, 2017 Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement that closed April 3, 2017. Ipsen is a product company — the NDA 207793 holder for ONIVYDE (irinotecan liposome injection), the exact product the claims cover, with '724 listed in the Orange Book (use code U‑2091) — and the family is the subject of a New Jersey District Court action (3:24‑cv‑04991) on Google Patents' family-litigation feed. No shell LLC, no NPE assignee, and no litigation-timed transfer appears anywhere in the record.

Two items to close out the record manually:

1. Confirm the reel/frame and correspondent of record for each of the three 2017 events (the correspondent is the key untested field).
2. Confirm the parties and asserted patents in New Jersey case 3:24‑cv‑04991, and verify whether '724 specifically (rather than a sibling like U.S. 11,344,552) is asserted.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search by patent number 9717724).

---

Sources: Google Patents US9717724B2 legal events (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9717724/en); Merrimack Pharmaceuticals 10‑K (2016 FY) and 10‑Q (2017 Q1/Q3, 2022 Q1, 2023 Q3) via SEC EDGAR / getfilings.com / capedge.com; Merrimack Schedule 14A proxy (Ipsen Asset Sale); Ipsen press release, "Ipsen Completes Acquisition of ONIVYDE® … from Merrimack Pharmaceuticals" (April 2017); TheraRadar ONIVYDE patent landscape (Orange Book mapping, family 57601636, expiry 2033‑06‑12); PharmaCompass NDA 207793 listing (use code U‑2091).

Uncertainty flags: reel/frame numbers, execution dates, and correspondents of record were not obtainable in this session and are explicitly marked "not retrievable" rather than estimated. Google Patents' "Original Assignee: Ipsen Biopharm Ltd" conflicts with the documented filing history and is flagged as a probable data artifact. The 2024 New Jersey docket is reported at the family level; I have not verified its parties or that '724 is among the asserted patents.

I'll search for the patent and its citations across USPTO and related databases.

I need to retrieve the actual citation list. Let me search more specifically.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,717,724 B2

Bottom line up front

I was unable to retrieve the verbatim "References Cited" (Form 892 / 37 CFR 1.97) citation list for US 9,717,724 B2 from the sources available to me. Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, PharmaCompass, and TheraRadar all confirm the patent and its bibliographic data, but none of my retrievals returned the enumerated U.S. patent documents, foreign patent documents, or non-patent literature that the examiner/joint inventors actually cited during prosecution of application 15/241,128.

Because you asked me to look at each patent citation for '724, and because a refusal to answer would be less useful than a candid scope statement, I am telling you plainly: I cannot list those citations as verified facts without fabricating them. Under the operating rules I will not do that. What follows is (a) what I can ground in retrieved sources, (b) the reference material that is verifiable from the '724 record itself, and (c) a clearly separate set of candidate references drawn from the field — flagged as unverified recollections that must be checked against the actual face of the patent.

---

1. What the search actually returned for "9717724"

Note: Google Patents' "Prior art keywords" field (irinotecan, patients, dose, leucovorin, patient) is a machine-generated keyword tag, not a list of cited references. Do not mistake it for citations.

---

2. References that ARE verifiable from within the '724 record

These are cited by the patent itself (in its Cross-Reference and its definitions/description), so they are grounded in the authoritative text you supplied:

Key provenance point: the patent's Cross-Reference states the '724 application "is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/406,776 ... which in turn is a 371 of international application number PCT/US2013/045495." This matters for § 102 because a CIP's claims are only entitled to the earlier parent's priority to the extent the subject matter is supported in the parent. New matter first disclosed in the 2016 CIP filing (e.g., the NAPOLI-1 clinical data, the PK tables, dose-escalation figures) would be judged against the 2016 effective filing date, while matter carried over from the 2012/2013 disclosures gets the 2012-06-13 priority date. That bifurcation is often the fulcrum of § 102/§ 103 attacks on this family.

---

3. Candidate prior art for § 102 analysis (UNVERIFIED — flag as recollection only)

Caveat: the following are references I associate with this field from training data. I did NOT retrieve them as citations from the '724 face, and I have NOT verified that any of them appears in the '724 citation list. Treat all dates/statuses as needing confirmation against the primary documents before use.

Given the '724 priority date of 2012-06-13, § 102(a)/§ 102(b) art includes anything publicly available before that date (or before the 2016 CIP date for new-matter claims).

Patent documents (candidate):

• WO 2005/107712 A2 / U.S. counterpart (Drummond et al.) — liposomal irinotecan ("nanoliposomal irinotecan") using intraliposomal sucrose octasulfate stabilization. This is the foundational composition-of-matter lineage for MM-398. Note: '724 already cites WO 2005/107712 for formulation support — whether it was also raised as § 102 art is a separate question I could not verify.
• US 8,147,867 B2 (alleged "Liposomes useful for drug delivery," Hermes/Merrimack lineage) — candidate composition art; unverified whether cited.
• US/EP publications of the same Ipsen/Merrimack family (e.g., US 2011/0251246-type filings, US 2013/0078296-type filings) — candidate, unverified.

Non-patent literature (candidate):

• Drummond DC et al., "Development of a highly active nanoliposomal irinotecan using a novel intraliposomal stabilization strategy," Cancer Res. 2006;66(6):3271–7 — foundational nal-IRI paper; unverified.
• Conroy T et al., "FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer," N Engl J Med 2011;364:1817–25 — the FOLFIRINOX standard; unverified, but note the '724 Background itself discusses FOLFIRI/FOLFIRINOX.
• Von Hoff DD et al., nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, NEJM 2013 — post-dates the 2012 priority date; § 102-relevant only to new-matter claims if any, and likely § 103 rather than § 102.
• Irinotecan/UGT1A1*28 pharmacogenomics literature (e.g., FDA Camptosar® label; Innocenti/Ratain genotype-dose studies) — candidate for the genotype-based dosing limitations; unverified.

I am not asserting any of these is an anticipatory reference; I am identifying the reference classes that a § 102 analysis of '724 must confront.

---

4. How the § 102 analysis must map to the claims (framework)

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element of a claim as arranged. '724 is a method-of-treatment / dosing-regimen patent, so each independent claim is a combination of:

1. Active agent — liposomal irinotecan (irinotecan sucrose octasulfate salt liposome injection; MM-398 / nal-IRI).
2. Indication — pancreatic cancer (optionally exocrine subtypes; metastatic adenocarcinoma post-gemcitabine).
3. Dose — 120 mg/m² q3w (monotherapy aspect) or 80 mg/m² q2w (combination aspect).
4. UGT1A1*28 genotype-dependent exception — reduced starting dose (80 mg/m² or 60 mg/m²) and escalation rules (+20 mg/m² to a 120 mg/m² or 80 mg/m² cap).
5. Co-agents (combination aspect) — 5-FU 2400 mg/m² and leucovorin 200 mg/m² (l) / 400 mg/m² (l+d).
6. Sequencing/timing — nal-IRI → LV → 5-FU; 90-min / 30-min / 46-h infusions.

For § 102 anticipation, the single-reference requirement is demanding here: a composition reference (e.g., WO 2005/107712) discloses the agent but not the pancreatic-cancer dose/genotype regimen; a clinical reference (e.g., the NAPOLI-1 data, if published) discloses the regimen but post-dates the priority date for the 2012 claims. The most plausible § 102 candidates would therefore be the applicants' own earlier-filed/first-published family disclosures (WO 2013/188586) which — if they disclose the same regimen — are family members rather than third-party art, and cannot be § 102 prior art against their own claims.

Under § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(e): U.S. applications/patents "by another" that were effectively filed before '724's effective filing date are prior art as to patentably distinct claims. The immediate family members (14/406,776; the 2013 provisional-to-PCT lineage; and the co-pending continuations listed on Google Patents — US 2015/0375004 A1 from Ser. No. 15/241,128's siblings, US 15/341,619 → US 2017/0049768 A1, US 15/664,930 → US 2018/0008591 A1, etc.) require a common-ownership / § 102(b)(2)(C) analysis. Many are same-family, same-assignee, so they are likely excepted — but the CIP's new matter (NAPOLI-1 data first added in 2016) can open a § 102(e) window against claims relying on it.

---

5. What I recommend you obtain to complete this task properly

To deliver a citation-by-citation § 102 table (which is what you actually asked for), the following primary documents are needed — none of which my searches surfaced the citation lists for:

1. USPTO PatentCenter for application 15/241,128 — the full "References Cited" (PTO-892) and the examiner's Notice of Allowance / reasons for allowance, listing every patent and NPL reference of record. (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov)
2. The granted patent PDF (US 9,717,724 B2) front page, column (56) — the printed citation list, which differs slightly from Google Patents' HTML tags.
3. The ISR/WO for PCT/US2013/045495 (= WO 2013/188586 A1) — the international search report's documents considered relevant, which often foreshadows what the U.S. examiner later cites.
4. Global Dossier / Espacenet for the family to see the EPO T 240098 opposition and the auxiliary-request prior art, which reveals the art the family had to overcome in Europe.

---

6. Uncertainty flags (must-read before relying on anything above)

• ❌ I did not obtain the § 56 citation list for US 9,717,724. Any enumeration of "each patent citation" would be invented; I have declined to invent it.
• ⚠️ The claim mapping in § 4 is reconstructed from the patent's Summary, not the granted claims. I have not verified the exact granted independent-claim wording or numbering of '724. As flagged in the prior section, the claim overview is derived from the patent's Summary of the Invention as reproduced in the Google Patents record.
• ⚠️ The "candidate" references in § 3 are unverified recollection. Do not cite them as "references cited in '724."
• ⚠️ Two different patents must not be conflated: the IPR activity surfaced in the earlier section (CSPC, Apotex, IPR2025-01531) concerns U.S. 11,344,552, a different patent in the Ipsen estate — not '724.
• ✅ Grounded facts: bibliographic data, family, expiry, NDA/use code, and the internal documentary references in § 2 are supported by the sources cited in the table and by the patent text itself.

Sources: Google Patents US9717724B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9717724/en); FreePatentsOnline family publication (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2023/0088999.html); PharmaCompass (https://www.pharmacompass.com/patent-expiry-expiration/irinotecan-hydrochloride); TheraRadar (https://theraradar.com/drugs/onivyde/patents/).

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,717,724 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analysis date: 2026-04-26
Patent: "Methods for treating pancreatic cancer using combination therapies" (US 9,717,724 B2; appl. 15/241,128; issued 2017-08-01; priority 2012-06-13)
Basis: the prior sections of this analysis + the authoritative full patent text supplied above

---

0. Threshold limitations you must hold in mind before reading § 103 conclusions

Two gating facts from the earlier sections directly constrain what I can assert:

1. I do not have the verbatim granted claim set of '724 in front of me. The earlier sections reconstructed the claimed aspects from the patent's Summary of the Invention and from the shape of the disclosure. That is adequate to frame the obviousness analysis, but it is not adequate to render a claim-by-claim § 103 verdict. Every "claim element" below is therefore keyed to a claim aspect, not to certified claim language, and must be re-verified against the granted claims and their dependencies/means-plus-function scope.
2. I do not have the PTO-892 / "References Cited" list (see Prior Art section). I will not invent citations. Accordingly, the references I use below are either (a) admissions and internal citations appearing in the '724 text itself (fully grounded), or (b) candidate references that I explicitly flag as unverified recollections requiring confirmation against the primary documents.

Nothing in this section should be quoted as if it were a verified Office action or an FWD. It is a litigation-style invalidity framework and a recommendation of the strongest § 103 grounds to develop.

---

1. Legal framework applied

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): combinations of known elements are obvious where the improvement is a "predictable variation"; "obvious to try" is a valid route when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions and a reasonable expectation of success.
• In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955): where general conditions are disclosed, discovering optimum/workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive.
• In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003): overlapping or adjacent ranges.
• Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc in relevant part): a method-of-treatment claim reciting a dosing regimen is not saved from obviousness merely by reciting the dosing interval/dose where the art discloses a range and optimization is routine. This is the single most on-point Federal Circuit authority for a regimen patent like '724.
• In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011): dose/rate-of-release optimization; a cautionary counterweight — a claim tied to a specific regimen that produces an unexpected result can survive. Kao is the patent owner's best template for the combination claims.
• In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009): "obvious to try" requires predictability; unpredictability of the result matters.
• In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566 (CCPA 1975): applicant-admissions in the specification are usable as prior art. This is important below because the '724 Background admits the existence of the FOLFIRI, FOLFIRINOX, and FOLFOX regimens for pancreatic cancer.

---

2. Claim-aspect decomposition (grounded in the '724 text)

Using the patent's own Summary/Description (quoting its terminology), the independent aspects are:

Critical date bifurcation (CIP). '724 is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 14/406,776 → PCT/US2013/045495 → provisionals 61/659,211 (2012-06-13) and 61/784,382 (2013-03-14). Any claim aspect whose support rests on new matter first added in the 2016 CIP (e.g., the NAPOLI-1 tables and figures) is not entitled to the 2012-06-13 date and must be measured against a 2016-08-19 effective filing date (or the 2014-12-10 parent filing date for matter carried into 14/406,776). This is the pivot of the whole § 103 picture: it is the date question, not the chemistry, that decides whether the NAPOLI-1 regimen itself is prior art.

---

3. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A POSITA here would be a medical oncologist or a pharmaceutical scientist with an M.D. or Ph.D. and several years of experience in the clinical development of topoisomerase-I inhibitors and fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for gastrointestinal/pancreatic cancers, working as part of a team that includes a clinical pharmacologist. This is the "team of artisans" formulation, appropriate because the claims marry a formulation (liposome) to a clinical regimen (dose/schedule/genotype).

That PHOSITA knows, as of the relevant date: irinotecan's pharmacology and its SN-38 metabolite; the UGT1A1*28 genotype-toxicity relationship; the FOLFIRI/FOLFOX/FOLFIRINOX backbones; and the published PK of liposome-encapsulated irinotecan.

---

4. Prior-art landscape

4(a) References grounded in the '724 text itself (verified — usable)

This last admission is the most dangerous single sentence in the patent for § 103 purposes. The applicant concedes that MM-398's tox/efficacy pharmacogenomics track conventional irinotecan. That converts the entire UGT1A1*28 limitation into a predictable application of a known genotype-dosing rule to a new formulation.

4(b) Candidate references (UNVERIFIED — flag before use)

These are references I associate with the field from training data. I did NOT retrieve them as cites-of-record on '724, and I have not confirmed their dates/existence in this session. Confirm each on the primary source before putting it in a brief.

4(c) What is NOT prior art against these claims

• WO 2013/188586 A1 and the family members are the applicant's own family; they cannot be § 102 prior art against '724 (common ownership; same inventive entity lineage).
• U.S. 8,643,724 (Magna Electronics) and IPR2015-01410/01414/00253 are the false-positive "'724 patent" flagged in the PTAB section. They are irrelevant to 9,717,724. Exclude them.
• U.S. 11,344,552 (CSPC/Apotex IPRs) is a different patent. Exclude it from any '724 chart.

---

5. § 103 grounds

Ground A — Monotherapy q3w (nal-IRI 120 mg/m² every 3 weeks; 80 mg/m² in UGT1A1*28 homozygotes)

Combination: WO 2005/107712 (± Drummond 2006) in view of the nal-IRI Phase I dose-escalation disclosure, further in view of the Camptosar® label.

Why PHOSITA would combine:

1. WO 2005/107712/Drummond 2006 give the composition (liposomal irinotecan, TEA-SOS loading) and its improved PK/therapeutic index — a POSITA would want to use it.
2. A Phase I dose-escalation study of an investigational cytotoxin in advanced solid tumors is the routine, mandatory path to a Phase II dose. Identifying the MTD/RP2D (here 120 mg/m² q3w) from three tested levels (60/120/180 mg/m²) is the paradigm case of In re Aller "optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
3. The q3w interval is not inventive: irinotecan is dosed q3w as standard; and the liposome's longer terminal half-life (the patent itself states nal-IRI t½ ≈ 26.8 h vs ~10.4 h for free irinotecan, and says nal-IRI total-irinotecan exposure is "46 times greater" AUC — FIG. 19) would reinforce rather than deter the q3w schedule.
4. The UGT1A1*28 limitation falls to the applicant's own admission that irinotecan and MM-398 pharmacogenomics "can be considered similar," plus the Camptosar label's existing genotype-based reduced-dose recommendation. Applying a known genotype rule to a bio-similar-acting formulation is a predictable variation (KSR) and an obvious to try step with a reasonable expectation of success.

Anticipated § 103 vulnerability of Aspect A: HIGH. Aspect A is the weakest claim; see the secondary-considerations problem in §6 — there is no product-approval nexus for monotherapy.

---

Ground B — Triple combination q2w (nal-IRI 80 mg/m² + 5-FU 2400 mg/m² + LV 400 mg/m² (l+d), 90 min/30 min/46 h)

This is the commercially important aspect (the ONIVYDE label regimen) and the one the patentee will defend hardest.

Primary combination: (1) the applicant's admitted FOLFIRI/FOLFIRINOX prior art (Background admission; optionally corroborated by Conroy 2011 for the pancreatic-cancer efficacy of irinotecan-based multi-drug therapy) + (2) WO 2005/107712 / Drummond 2006 for the liposomal irinotecan + (3) the Camptosar/irinotecan PK knowledge + (4) routine dose-finding.

Motivation to combine (articulated, per KSR "articulated reasoning"):

1. Backbone is pre-existing. The 5-FU/LV portion of the claim — LV 400 mg/m² (l+d racemic) followed by 5-FU 2400 mg/m² over 46 h — is the standard FOLFIRI/FOLFOX 5-FU/LV backbone. It is not a design choice attributable to the applicant; the applicant admits FOLFIRI ("folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan") was already used to treat pancreatic cancer.
2. Known substitution of a better formulation for a known agent. Drummond 2006/WO 2005/107712 teach nal-IRI as a more favorable delivery form of irinotecan — higher and prolonged tumor exposure via the EPR/"depot" effect the '724 specification itself describes, and lower free-drug C_max (thereby reducing the classic irinotecan toxicities). A POSITA optimizing FOLFIRI in a post-gemcitabine mPDAC population would have reason to substitute the liposomal irinotecan for free irinotecan — the substitution is a "predictable variation" of a known regimen using a known, better-delivering form of the same active.
3. Dose adjustment is routine PK arithmetic. The applicant's own text supplies the conversion: 80 mg/m² (salt) = 70 mg/m² free base (ratio 0.87 from the MWs 677.19 / 586.68). Reducing the irinotecan-equivalent dose from FOLFIRI's ~180 mg/m² free irinotecan to ~70 mg/m² free base nal-IRI is exactly the dose-selection-by-PK exercise that Merck v. Teva and In re Aller hold routine — and the liposome's sustained release/EPR depot provides the reason to expect maintained (indeed enhanced) efficacy at a lower nominal dose.
4. q2w interval is the interval of the underlying FOLFIRI/FOLFOX regimen; retaining it is not inventive.

Key evidentiary pivot — the date question (§ 5.2 below). If the claims are not entitled to the 2012-06-13 date for the specific 80 mg/m² q2w regimen, then NAPOLI-1 itself (Wang-Gillam, Lancet 2016) is available and Ground B becomes very strong — the regimen is literally disclosed. The patentee's defense therefore collapses to (i) entitlement to the 2012/2013 priority date for these claims, and/or (ii) secondary considerations.

Anticipated § 103 vulnerability of Aspect B: MODERATE–HIGH, and date-dependent.

---

Ground C — UGT1A1*28 genotype limitation and the 20 mg/m² escalation

Combination: Camptosar® label + irinotecan/UGT1A1*28 pharmacogenomics literature + the '724 applicant's own admission of pharmacogenomic equivalence.

Why obvious:

• Genotype-directed starting-dose reduction for UGT1A1*28 homozygotes was regulatory practice for irinotecan well before 2012. Applying the same rule to nal-IRI follows directly from the applicant's admission that irinotecan and MM-398 share the predictive polymorphism.
• The escalation feature ("if the patient does not experience any drug related toxicity … the dose may be increased in increments of 20 mg/m², up to a maximum of 120 mg/m²") is textbook dose-titration-to-tolerability — the most routine oncology practice there is. KSR's "predictable variations"; Merck v. Teva.
• Anticipated § 103 vulnerability: HIGH. This is likely the easiest limitation for a challenger to knock out, and its easy obviousness taints every independent aspect that carries it (A and B) unless the claim's patentability rests on a different element.

---

Ground D — Sequencing and infusion times (nal-IRI → LV → 5-FU; 90/30/46 min)

Why obvious: The sequencing is the ordinary clinical-pharmacy order for the FOLFIRI/FOLFOX backbone (irinotecan, then leucovorin, then 5-FU), and the '724 specification does not attribute any unexpected result to the ordering. Infusion times are pharmacokinetic convenience choices constrained by the agents' known half-lives and infusion-site tolerability. Under In re Aller/KSR, these are routine optimizations. Vulnerability: HIGH. Note, however, that the patent owner will argue the sequencing is co-extensive with the approved label — see § 6 (nexus helps them here, but only if the element itself is non-obvious, which is doubtful).

---

Ground E — Kits

Why obvious: The kit claim recites a dose of nal-IRI (± 5-FU, LV) plus instructions. Where the underlying method is obvious, a kit containing the corresponding agents with instructions is obvious — the kit adds no independent technical contribution. (Note the patent's own overt typo: "administering to the patient, and affective amount of liposomal irinotecan" — a drafting artifact, not a substantive limitation.) Vulnerability: HIGH, derivative of Ground A/B.

---

Ground F — Formulation-for-use aspect

Same analysis as Ground B. A "formulation … for co-administration" claim is the Swiss-type / purpose-limited corollary of the method claim; if the method is obvious, the formulation-for-use aspect is obvious for the same reasons. Vulnerability: tracks Ground B.

---

Ground G — Tumor-vascularity method

Combination: WO 2005/107712 / Drummond 2006 (nal-IRI + EPR/sustained release) + the general oncology literature on EPR, anti-angiogenic priming, and tumor perfusion.

Why obvious: The specification's own disclosure says nal-IRI reduces CAIX (hypoxia) and increases microvessel density (CD31) and Hoechst perfusion (Examples 3–4). The mechanistic link between EPR-driven liposomal accumulation and improved tumor perfusion was known for macromolecular/nanoparticle therapeutics. A POSITA would expect a long-circulating liposome to exploit EPR and, secondarily, to alter tumor vascularity/hypoxia. "Concomitantly administering an effective amount of a chemotherapy agent other than irinotecan" is the ordinary combination-therapy step. Vulnerability: MODERATE–HIGH.

---

5.2 The date question — how to frame it at institution or claim construction

Grace-period wrinkle to brief carefully: If NAPOLI-1 (published ~Jan–Feb 2016) were the inventors' own disclosure within one year before the 2016-08-19 filing, § 102(b)(1)(A) could remove it as prior art — provided no intervening third-party disclosure occurred. This is a § 102 exception argument, not a § 103 one, and the challenger must address it head-on. Do not assume either way without the prosecution record (and confirm the exact NAPOLI-1 first-publication date).

---

6. Secondary considerations — the patentee's real defense

For a regimen patent, secondary considerations are where the case is won or lost. The record (from the '724 text) gives a strong story for the combination aspect and a weak/absent story for the monotherapy aspect:

Net: The patentee has a defensible non-obviousness position on the q2w triple combination (Aspect B) if (and only if) it can (i) hold the 2012/2013 priority date for those claims, and (ii) tie the NAPOLI-1 survival benefit to the claimed regimen with nexus. It has a poor position on the monotherapy aspect (A) and on the genotype/escalation, sequencing, kit, formulation-for-use, and vascularity aspects (C–G).

---

7. Bottom-line § 103 verdict and recommended development

1. The best § 103 grounds are against the non-combination aspects. Ground A (monotherapy q3w), Ground C (UGT1A1*28 dosing/escalation), Ground D (sequencing/infusion times), Ground E (kits), and Ground G (vascularity) are all vulnerable to KSR + In re Aller + Merck v. Teva reasoning, with the applicant's own admissions and (unverified) Drummond 2006/WO 2005/107712 supplying the composition teaching.
2. The combination aspect (B) is the hard one, and it turns on the effective filing date. If the CIP's 2016-08-19 date controls for the 80 mg/m² q2w regimen, NAPOLI-1 (2016) is prior art and Ground B is strong. If the 2012/2013 date controls, Ground B must be run as a substitution-of-a-better-formulation argument (KSR predictable variation), which is respectably strong but contestable on the "unexpected survival benefit + nexus" secondary-consideration defense.
3. Do not cite the wrong '724 or the wrong IPR. Exclude U.S. 8,643,724 (Magna) and IPR2015-01410/01414/00253, and exclude U.S. 11,344,552 (CSPC/Apotex, IPR2025-01531). Neither is 9,717,724.
4. Procedural note. There is no PTAB proceeding on '724 and therefore no § 315(e)(2) estoppel — but the § 315(b) one-year clock for a party served in the D.N.J. Ipsen v. Conjupro/CSPC action (complaint filed 2024-04-15) likely closed around April–May 2025. Any newly-served party still has a live window; verify service dates before relying on IPR availability.

---

8. Uncertainty flags (read before use)

• ❌ I do not have the granted claim set of '724. Claims 1–11+ scope and dependencies are reconstructed from the Summary; the actual independent-claim wording and number of claims must be confirmed. The "at minimum, independent methods claims 1 and 11 with dependents" statement from the Strategic Summary is hearsay-level and needs verification against the printed patent.
• ❌ I do not have the PTO-892 citation list. All references in § 4(b) are unverified candidates, expressly labelled; § 4(a) references are grounded in the patent text.
• ❌ Publication dates for the nal-IRI Phase I (PEP0201) disclosure and for Drummond 2006 mass-market availability are unverified. The date of the Phase I disclosure is case-determinative for Ground A.
• ❌ The exact NAPOLI-1 first-publication date and whether § 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period applies are unverified. Confirm before asserting NAPOLI-1 as art.
• ✅ Grounded: the internal '724 references (WO 2005/107712; Corbett 1982), the applicant admissions quoted in § 4(a), the PK figures the patent states (46× AUC; 13.4× C_max; t½ 26.8 h vs 10.4 h; 0.87 salt→free-base conversion), and the FIG. 21B statement of no monotherapy OS advantage — all taken from the authoritative full text supplied.
• ⚠️ Verify against the primary documents before filing: USPTO PatentCenter for appl. 15/241,128 (PTO-892 + Notice of Allowance reasons); the printed patent front page col. (56); the ISR/WO for PCT/US2013/045495; and the EPO opposition file for the counterpart (T 240098).

Sources for grounded elements: Google Patents US9717724B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9717724/en) and the full patent text supplied above; DrugPatentWatch patent 9,717,724 (https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/p/patent/9717724); TheraRadar ONIVYDE patent landscape (https://theraradar.com/drugs/onivyde/patents/).