throbber
Filed: November 13, 2014
`
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`Joseph M. Reisman
`Jay R. Deshmukh
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`Ph.: (949) 760-0404
`E-mail: BoxMylan2@knobbe.com
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG AND LTS LOHMANN THERAPIE-SYSTEME AG,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 6,335,031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,335,031
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ vi
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................... 3 
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3 
`
`II. 
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 4 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`III. 
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................................................. 4 
`
`IV.  THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .............. 4 
`
`V. 
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ............... 5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 6 
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................ 7 
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art ..................................................... 11 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Rivastigmine Was Being Developed for the Treatment of
`Alzheimer’s Disease ................................................................ 11 
`
`Rosin Taught the Use of Antioxidants in Compositions
`Comprising RA7 (Racemic Rivastigmine) ............................. 12 
`Elmalem Taught Adding Antioxidants to a Compositions
`Comprising RA7 to Prevent Oxidation .................................. 13 
`Enz Taught Transdermal Rivastigmine Compositions ........... 14 
`
`Ebert Taught a Transdermal Drug Delivery System For
`Liquid, Oxidizable Drugs ........................................................ 15 
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`6. 
`
`Sasaki Taught Using the Antioxidant Tocopherol to Promote
`Storage Stability of the Active Ingredient in Transdermal
`Compositions ........................................................................... 17 
`
`7. 
`
`The Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients Detailed
`Common Antioxidants Used in Approved Pharmaceutical
`Compositions ........................................................................... 18 
`D.  Ground 1: Claim 15 is Unpatentable as Anticipated by Elmalem ..... 19 
`
`E. 
`
`The Challenged Claims are Unpatentable as Obvious Over the Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 23 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`There was Motivation to Select Rivastigmine and Modify
`Existing Rivastigmine Treatments .......................................... 23 
`
`Ground 2: Claims 16 and 18 are Unpatentable as Obvious
`Over Elmalem and the Handbook ........................................... 25 
`(1)  No Secondary Considerations Support Non- Obviousness
`
`28 
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 7, 15, and 18 are Obvious Over Enz
`and the Handbook, Optionally in View of Rosin and/or
`Elmalem and/or Ebert .............................................................. 31 
`
`Ground 4: Dependent Claims 3 and 16 are Unpatentable as
`Obvious Over Enz and the Handbook and/or Rosin and/or
`Ebert ........................................................................................ 42 
`
`5. 
`
`Ground 5: The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable As
`Obvious over Enz and Sasaki .................................................. 44 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 52 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 30
`
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 38
`
`In re Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 30
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 31
`
`MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty & Closures, Inc.,
`731 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 29, 30
`
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................passim
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ...................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,335,031, issued January 1, 2002
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`UK Patent Application GB 2,203,040 A, to Enz, published
`October 12, 1988 (“Enz”)
`
`Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, A. Wade and P. J.
`Weller (eds.) 1994, 2nd Edition, The Pharmaceutical Press
`London (the “Handbook”)
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 59-184121
`to Sasaki et al., published October 19, 1984
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Patent
`Application Publication No. JP 59-184121 to Sasaki et al.
`(“Sasaki”)
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 95/024172 to Ebert et al,
`published September 14, 1995 (“Ebert”)
`
`Carey & Sundberg, ADVANCED ORGANIC CHEMISTRY,
`2nd ed. Part A: Structure and Mechanism, Plenum Press, New
`York, 1984, pp. 652
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`U.S. Patent 4,948,807 (“Rosin”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Elmalem et al. 1991, Neuropharmacology 30: 1059-1064
`(“Elmalem”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Declaration of Agis Kydonieus, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Declaration of Christian Schöneich, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`“Safety/Tolerability Trial of SDZ ENA 713 in Patients with
`Probable Alzheimer’s Disease,” John J. Sramek et al., Life
`Sciences, Vol. 58, No. 15, pp. 1201-1207 (1996) (“Sramek”)
`
`Exhibit List, Page v
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Description
`
`“New acetylcholinesterase inhibitor shows promise in largest
`Alzheimer’s trial to date,” Formulary, Vol. 32, Dec. 1997
`(“Formulary Article”)
`
`ICH Topic Q 1 A, Stability Testing Guidelines: Stability Testing
`of New Drug Substances and Products (CPMP/ICH/380/95)
`
`Connors, Amidon, & Stella, Oxidation and Photolysis in Chemical
`Stability of Pharmaceuticals – A Handbook for Pharmacists (2nd
`Edition), John Wiley & Sons, NY (1986), pp. 82-114
`
`Howard C. Ansel, Introduction to Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms,
`4th Edition, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia (1985), pp. 83-116
`
`Ho-Leung Fung, Chapter 7 – Chemical Kinetics and Drug Stability
`in MODERN PHARMACEUTICS (G.S. Banker and C.T. Rhodes,
`eds.), Marcel Dekker, NY (1978), pp. 227-62
`
`Miguel-Hidalgo, J., 2000, Current Opinion in CPNS Investigations
`Drugs, 2000 2(4):438-453
`
`Boccardi G. et al. Photochemical Iron(III)-Mediated Autoxidation
`of Dextromethorphan. Chemical & Pharmaceutical Bulletin. Vol.
`37, 308–310 (1989)
`
`Bateman, L., Olefin Oxidation, Quarterly Review (1954) Vol. 8,
`pp. 147–167
`
`Linnell, R.H., The Oxidation of Nicotine. I. Kinetics of the Liquid
`Phase Reaction Near Room Temperature. Tobacco Science, Vol.
`4, pp. 89–90 (1960)
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Resume/Curriculum Vitae of Agis Kydonieus, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit List, Page vi
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Resume/Curriculum Vitae of Christian Schöneich, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,602,176, issued Feb. 11, 1997
`
`Exhibit List, Page vii
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Mylan”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-3, 7, 15, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,335,031 to Asmussen
`
`et al.,
`
`titled “TTS containing an antioxidant” (“the ’031 patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`Concurrently filed herewith is a Power of Attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`The Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account 11-1410 for the fee set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a), and is authorized to charge any additional fees to the same account.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Mylan Inc., Mylan Technologies Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. are
`
`the real parties-in-interest for Petitioner.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The ’031 patent is being asserted in the following patent infringement
`
`lawsuits: Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Mylan Inc. et al., 1:14-cv-00777 (D. Del.);
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Mylan Inc. et al., 1:14-cv-00106 (N.D. W.Va.);
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Noven Pharm. Inc., 1:13-cv-00527 (D. Del.);
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Noven Pharm. Inc., 1:14-cv-00111 (D. Del.);
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Par Pharm. Inc. et al., 1:11-cv-01077 (D. Del.);
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Watson Labs. Inc. et al., 1:11-cv-01112 (D. Del.);
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-00052 (D.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-00370
`
`(D. Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Actavis, Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-00371 (D.
`
`Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Par Pharm. Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-01467 (D.
`
`Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Zydus Noveltech Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-
`
`05405 (D. N.J.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Zydus Noveltech Inc. et al., No.
`
`1:14-cv-01104 (D. Del.); Par Pharm. Inc. et al. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al.,
`
`1:14-cv-00843 (D. Del.); Watson Labs Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp et al., 14-1799
`
`(C.A.F.C.); Novartis Pharm. Corp et al. v. Par Pharm. Inc. et al, 15-1061
`
`(C.A.F.C.); Novartis Pharm. Corp et al. v. Par Pharm. Inc. et al, 15-1062
`
`(C.A.F.C.); Par Pharm. Inc. v. Novartis Pharm Corp. et al., 15-1120 (C.A.F.C.); and
`
`Par Pharm. Inc. v. Novartis Pharm Corp. et al., 15-1121 (C.A.F.C.).
`
`The ’031 patent is also the subject of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-00550,
`
`filed by Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on April 2, 2014 (“the Noven IPR”) and
`
`instituted on three of five proposed grounds of invalidity on October 14, 2014.
`
`Mylan has submitted herewith a Motion for Joinder, requesting that upon
`
`institution of this Petition, the present IPR be joined with the Noven IPR pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) as to the three instituted grounds.
`
`The ’031 patent is the parent to U.S. Application 09/747,519, now U.S.
`
`Patent 6,316,023 (“the ’023 patent”). The ’023 patent is also asserted in each of
`
`the above-listed lawsuits. The ’023 patent is also the subject of a petition for Inter
`
`2
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`Partes Review, IPR2014-00549, filed on April 2, 2014 by Noven Pharmaceuticals
`
`Inc. Concurrent with this petition, Mylan is also filing a petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’023 patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph M. Reisman
`(Reg. No. 43,878)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON &
`BEAR, LLP
` 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
` Irvine, CA 92614
` Ph.: (949) 760-0404
` Fax: (949) 760-9502
` E-mail: BoxMylan2@knobbe.com
`D.
`Service Information
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Jay R. Deshmukh
`(Reg. No. 34,507)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON &
`BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Ph.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: BoxMylan2@knobbe.com
`
`Please direct all correspondence to lead counsel at the contact information
`
`above.
`
`Petitioner
`
`consents
`
`to
`
`service
`
`by
`
`electronic mail
`
`at
`
`BoxMylan2@knobbe.com.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’031
`
`patent is available for IPR and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 7, 15,
`
`16, and 18 of the ’031 patent on one or more of the grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102 and 103 set forth herein. Petitioner’s detailed statement of the reasons for the
`
`relief requested is set forth below in the section titled “Statement of Reasons for
`
`Relief Requested.” In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c), copies of the exhibits
`
`are filed herewith. In addition, this Petition is accompanied by the declarations of
`
`Agis Kydonieus, Ph.D. (Ex. 1010) and Christian Schöneich, Ph.D. (Ex. 1011).
`
`IV. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This Petition meets this threshold. As
`
`explained below, for each of the grounds of unpatentability proposed below, there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The challenged claims of the ’031 patent are generally directed to pharmaceutical
`
`compositions, including transdermal devices, comprising rivastigmine and a specified
`
`amount of antioxidant.
`
`Prior to the ’031 patent, the compound rivastigmine was patented. The use of
`
`rivastigmine to treat Alzheimer’s disease was patented. Compositions containing
`
`rivastigmine, including transdermal devices, were also patented. The sole alleged
`
`advance claimed in the ’031 patent is adding an antioxidant to compositions containing
`
`rivastigmine. The ’031 patent asserts that the inventors were the first to recognize that
`
`rivastigmine was subject to oxidative degradation and that compositions containing
`
`rivastigmine required an antioxidant. (Ex. 1001 at 1:22-24; 4:8-10.) But as will be
`
`discussed, that was not so.
`
`Compositions containing an antioxidant and a racemic mixture that includes
`
`rivastigmine were described in the prior art, as were methods of combining rivastigmine
`
`with antioxidant per some of the challenged claims, demonstrating that it was known
`
`that rivastigmine was susceptible to oxidative degradation. Further, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have recognized, based on the chemical structure of rivastigmine, that it
`
`was susceptible to oxidative degradation. The person of ordinary skill would have
`
`reasonably expected that this oxidative degradation could be addressed with antioxidants,
`
`and would have been motived to use conventional amounts of antioxidants taught in the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`prior art, which overlap with the claimed range. Accordingly, the person of ordinary
`
`skill would have been motivated to combine rivastigmine with the claimed amount of
`
`antioxidant in a pharmaceutical composition, and thus the claimed subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The subject matter of the ʼ031 patent draws from several disciplines, and as
`
`such, the patent is directed to a collaborative team of individuals in which each
`
`person would have been able to draw upon the experiences and knowledge of the
`
`others. In particular, the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have been a chemist, chemical engineer, polymer chemist or
`
`pharmaceutical chemist working to develop pharmaceutical formulations, including
`
`transdermal drug delivery systems. The person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`familiar with testing that accompanies the development of any pharmaceutical
`
`formulation, including testing for efficacy and stability. The person of ordinary
`
`skill would have been familiar with excipients
`
`typically employed
`
`in
`
`pharmaceutical formulations, including transdermal devices. The person of
`
`ordinary skill would have had knowledge of organic chemistry, or would have
`
`collaborated with a person having knowledge of organic chemistry, and would have
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`been able to predict the physical properties of a compound based on its chemical
`
`structure. (Ex. 1010 ¶ 9.)
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Claim 1 of the ’031 patent reads:
`
`1.
`
`A pharmaceutical composition comprising
`
`(a)
`
`a therapeutically effective amount of (S)-N-ethyl-3-
`
`{(1-dimethylamino) ethyl}-N-methyl-phenyl carbamate in free
`
`base or acid addition salt form (Compound A),
`
`(b)
`
`about 0.01 to about 0.5 percent by weight of an
`
`antioxidant, based on the weight of the composition, and
`
`(c)
`
`a diluent or carrier.
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds that the amount of Compound A in
`
`the pharmaceutical composition is between 1 and 40% by weight. Claim 3 depends
`
`from claim 1 and identifies specific antioxidants. Claim 7 depends from claim 1
`
`and is directed to a transdermal device, wherein the pharmaceutical composition is
`
`supported by a substrate.
`
`Independent claim 15 is directed to a method of stabilizing Compound A
`
`comprising forming a composition by combining Compound A with an amount of
`
`antioxidant effective to stabilize Compound A from degradation. Claim 16
`
`depends on claim 15 and identifies specific antioxidants. Claim 18 depends on
`
`7
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`
`claim 15 and specifies that the antioxidant is present in an amount of from about
`
`0.01–0.5% by weight based on the weight of the composition.
`
`The terms in the challenged claims are presumed to take on their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claim language in view of the specification. Under this standard, the Patentee has
`
`not acted as its own lexicographer for any of the claim terms, nor has it attributed
`
`any special meaning to the any of the claim terms.
`
`For example, when the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied, the
`
`term “pharmaceutical composition” means a composition suitable
`
`for
`
`pharmaceutical use, e.g., for administration to a patient. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at col.
`
`3, line 60–col. 4, line 4; col. 4, lines 35–54.) The composition may be designed for
`
`administration to a subject in any acceptable way, e.g., orally, parenterally (e.g. by
`
`injection), or topically (including via transdermal administration). It would be
`
`inappropriate to limit claim 1 to transdermally-administered compositions because
`
`nothing in the claim language or specification requires such a construction, and
`
`further, such a construction would render claims 1 and 7 identical in scope.
`
`The term “antioxidant” means a compound that reduces or prevents the
`
`oxidative decomposition of other compounds. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at col. 4, lines
`
`20–30; Ex. 1010 ¶ 15.) In the context of the challenged claims, which are directed
`
`8
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`to compositions comprising rivastigmine, the antioxidant reduces the amount of
`
`oxidative decomposition of rivastigmine relative to a composition which does not
`
`contain said compound. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at col. 1, lines 29–33.)
`
`The term “diluent or carrier” means inactive ingredient(s) of the
`
`pharmaceutical composition that aid(s) in the administration of the drug. (See, e.g.,
`
`id. at col. 1, line 44 – col. 2, line 9.)
`
`The term “transdermal device” means medical device for systemic drug
`
`administration through skin. (See, e.g., id. at col. 5, lines 31–37 and col. 6, lines
`
`59–62.)
`
`The term “substrate” means a backing layer providing structural support for
`
`the pharmaceutical composition. (See, e.g., id. at col. 5, lines 55–59.)
`
`The term “adhesive layer” means layer of adhesive.
`
`The term “stabilizing” means reducing degradation. (See, e.g., id. at col. 4,
`
`lines 5–30.)
`
`The term “amount of antioxidant effective to stabilize Compound A from
`
`degradation” means an amount of antioxidant that reduces the oxidative
`
`degradation of Compound A. (See, e.g., id. at col. 1, lines 29-33.)
`
`For clarity,
`
`the
`
`term “(S)-N-ethyl-3-{(1-dimethylamino) ethyl}-N-
`
`methylphenyl carbamate” refers to rivastigmine, which has the following
`
`chemical structure:
`
`9
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`
`
`Rivastigmine is the S-enantiomer of a racemic compound known as RA7. (Ex.
`
`1010 ¶ 15; Ex. 1002 at 3.) As a racemate, RA7 is comprised of an equal mixture of
`
`rivastigmine and its enantiomer ent-rivastigmine, or (R)-rivastigmine:
`
`
`
`(Id.)
`
`In addition, each of
`
`the challenged claims contains
`
`the
`
`transition
`
`“comprising.” Accordingly, while the claims require the presence of rivastigmine,
`
`they do not exclude other components from the claimed composition, including
`
`ent-rivastigmine. The challenged claims do not recite a degree of optical purity,
`
`nor does the specification suggest that the claims be limited to a single isomer. As
`
`such, the claims embrace compositions containing both rivastigmine and its
`
`enantiomer, including compositions containing racemic RA7.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`Petitioner’s positions regarding the scope of the claims should not be
`
`construed as an assertion regarding the appropriate claim scope in other
`
`adjudicative forums, where a different claim interpretation standard may apply.
`
`C.
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Rivastigmine Was Being Developed for the Treatment of
`Alzheimer’s Disease
`
`At the time of the alleged invention, the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`would have been aware of the compound rivastigmine (also known as ENA 713),
`
`and that it was being developed as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. (See, e.g.,
`
`“Safety/Tolerability Trial of SDZ ENA 713 in Patients with Probable Alzheimer’s
`
`Disease,” John J. Sramek et al., Life Sciences, Vol. 58, No. 15, pp. 1201-1207,
`
`1996 (“Sramek,” Ex. 1012 at 1); “New acetylcholinesterase inhibitor shows
`
`promise in largest Alzheimer’s trial to date,” Formulary, Vol. 32, Dec. 1997 (the
`
`“Formulary Article,” Ex. 1013 at 3); see also Ex. 1010 ¶26.) Both Sramek and the
`
`Formulary Article are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and were not of record
`
`during the ’031 patent prosecution.
`
`Rivastigmine was reportedly well-tolerated, with the majority of patients
`
`experiencing only mild-to-moderate adverse events. (Ex. 1012 at 6; Ex. 1013 at 3.)
`
`Rivastigmine was characterized as an improvement over tacrine, a first-generation
`
`acetylcholinesterase inhibitor used to treat Alzheimer’s disease. (Ex. 1012 at 1-2.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`2.
`
`Rosin Taught the Use of Antioxidants in Compositions
`Comprising RA7 (Racemic Rivastigmine)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 4,948,807 (“Rosin,” Ex. 1008), titled “Phenyl Carbamates,”
`
`issued on August 14, 1990 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Rosin discloses a genus of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, with one of the
`
`seven preferred species being RA7.1 (Ex. 1008 at, e.g., 5:44-45, 14:17-19, 10:9-27;
`
`see also Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 28-29.) Rosin teaches that these compounds are superior to
`
`physostigmine, a known acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, because they have, e.g.,
`
`greater in vivo activity, slower metabolic degradation, higher lipid solubility, and
`
`more efficient absorption. (Id. at 11:28-35.)
`
`Rosin teaches that the compounds may be administered by conventional
`
`methods, and that when they are administered orally or parenterally (e.g., by
`
`injection), they may be combined with conventional excipients such as carriers,
`
`binders, preservatives, and stabilizers. (Id. at 7:15-26.) Rosin also teaches that
`
`“[b]uffers, preservatives, antioxidants and the like can be incorporated as required,”
`
`and identifies sodium metabisulphite and ascorbic acid as “preferred antioxidants.”
`
`(Id. at 7:45-53.)
`
`
`1
`As noted above, RA7 is a racemic mixture that includes rivastigmine. (Ex.
`
`1010 ¶ 15.)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`3.
`
`Elmalem Taught Adding Antioxidants to a Compositions
`Comprising RA7 to Prevent Oxidation
`
`
`
`Elmalem is an article titled “Antagonism of Morphine-Induced Respiratory
`
`Depression by Novel Anticholinesterase Agents,” by Ester Elmalem and others,
`
`published in 1991 in Neuropharmacology 30:1059-1064 (“Elmalem,” Ex. 1009).
`
`Elmalem is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and was not of record during the
`
`’031 patent prosecution.
`
`Elmalem describes experiments designed to compare three drugs, RA6, RA7,
`
`and RA15, to physostigmine with respect to the drugs’ ability to counteract
`
`morphine-induced respiratory depression in rabbits. (Ex. 1009 at 1; see also Ex.
`
`1010 ¶¶ 30-31.) The authors prepared aqueous solutions of physostigmine, RA6,
`
`RA7, and RA15 with sodium metabisulphite. (Ex. 1009 at 2.) Elmalem explicitly
`
`states that the sodium metabisulphite was added to prevent oxidation of the drug:
`
`“All drugs were made up freshly in sterile saline, which included an equal weight
`
`of sodium metabisulphite, to prevent oxidation.” (Id.) (emphasis added).2
`
`
`
`
`2
`To avoid the clear teaching in Elmalem that the function of the antioxidants
`
`in the drug solutions was to “prevent oxidation,” the Patentees may argue that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that physostigmine (one
`
`of the other tested drugs) required an antioxidant, and therefore an antioxidant had
`
`to be added to all other test compositions, including the saline placebo, as a control.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`
`4.
`
`Enz Taught Transdermal Rivastigmine Compositions
`
`
`
`Enz is U.K. Patent 2,203,040 to Albert Enz, titled “Phenyl carbamate,”
`
`published on October 12, 1988 (“Enz,” Ex. 1002). Enz is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`Enz teaches that the (-) enantiomer of the racemic compound RA7 is useful
`
`to treat cognitive diseases including Alzheimer’s disease. (Ex. 1002 at 10; see also
`
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 32.) Enz also teaches that the (-) enantiomer is superior to both the
`
`racemic mixture and the (+) enantiomer. (Ex. 1002 at 6.) Enz teaches that the (-)
`
`enantiomer can be obtained by converting the racemic RA7 into the diastereomeric
`
`tartrate salts, followed by selective crystallization of the (-) enantiomer. (Id. at 3,
`
`11.)
`
`Enz teaches that rivastigmine, either as the free base or acid addition salt,
`
`may be advantageously administered transdermally. (Id. at 4-9.) Enz teaches that
`
`the pharmacokinetic profile from transdermal administration is superior to that of
`
`either oral or subcutaneous administration. (Id. at 15-16.)
`
`Enz discloses an exemplary composition of rivastigmine suitable for
`
`transdermal administration.
`
`(Id. at 20, Example 2.) Rivastigmine tartrate
`
`
`This argument is contrary to Elmalem’s clear statement that the antioxidant was
`
`added to the drugs to prevent oxidation. (Ex. 1009 at 2.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`(“Compound A”) is combined with Eudragit E 100 (a hydrophilic polymer),
`
`Durotack 280-2416 (an acrylic adhesive), and Brij 97 (a plasticizer) in a volatile
`
`organic solvent. (Id.) The viscous composition is spread on a polyester foil and
`
`the solvent is allowed to evaporate at room temperature. (Id.)
`
`5.
`
`Ebert Taught a Transdermal Drug Delivery System For
`Liquid, Oxidizable Drugs
`
`PCT Publication WO 95/24172, entitled “Drug-containing adhesive
`
`
`
`composite transdermal delivery device,” lists Charles D. Ebert and others as
`
`inventors, and published on September 14, 1995 (“Ebert,” Ex. 1006). It is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and was not of record during the ’031 patent prosecution.
`
`Ebert is directed to a transdermal drug delivery device for nicotine and other
`
`drugs. (Ex. 1006 at 3; see also Ex. 1010 ¶ 36.)3 Ebert teaches that conventional
`
`methods of preparing transdermal devices containing drugs such as nicotine are
`
`problematic for a variety of reasons. For example, Ebert teaches that because
`
`nicotine is volatile, it can evaporate if a drying step is employed, leading to reduced
`
`and uneven concentrations of the drug throughout the composition. (Id. at 5.)
`
`To solve this problem, Ebert describes the preparation of a transdermal
`
`3
`As discussed below (pages 35 to 38), nicotine, which is susceptible to
`
`oxidation, is a good model for the susceptibility of rivastigmine to oxidation. See
`
`also Dr. Schöneich’s declaration, Ex. 1011, at paragraphs 56 to 57.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Mylan v. Novartis
`IPR Petition - U.S. Pat. 6,335,031
`
`device that avoids the use of drying. (Id. at 7.) The drug, in gel form, is extruded
`
`onto one or two adhesive layers, one of which has an impermeable backi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket