throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper: 82
` Entered: July 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN INC.,
`LUPIN LTD., and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., and
`BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-009031
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
`GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01871 has been joined with this proceeding. Specifically, in an
`Institution Decision dated January 25, 2016, we joined Lupin Ltd. and Lupin
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as parties to this proceeding. Paper 37.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`This is a Final Written Decision in an inter partes review challenging
`the patentability of claims 1–22 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,129,431 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’431 patent”). We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. § 6(c). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner fails
`to show by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–22 are unpatentable.
`We also address the parties’ Motions to Exclude.
`
`A. Procedural History
`The Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) for inter partes review was filed
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311. We instituted trial on two grounds of
`unpatentability stated in the Petition:
`(1) Whether the subject matter of claims 1–5, 7–14, and 18–19 would
`have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined disclosures
`of Ogawa2 and Sallmann3; and
`(2) Whether the subject matter of claims 6, 15–17, and 20–22 would
`have been obvious over Ogawa, Sallmann, and Fu4. Paper 15 (“Dec.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 32, “Resp.”) and Petitioner
`filed a Reply (Paper 49, “Reply”). 5 The parties’ fully briefed Motions to
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 4,910,225, issued Mar. 20, 1990 (Ex. 1004, “Ogawa”).
`
` 3
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,107,343, issued Aug. 22, 2000 (Ex. 1009, “Sallmann”).
`
` 4
`
` Austrl. Patent Application No. AU-B-22042/88, issued Mar. 16, 1989
`(Ex. 1011, “Fu”).
`
` 5
`
` To the extent that we rely on information in papers and exhibits for which
`confidentiality is claimed, we determine that the general nature of the
`discussions of such information herein does not require that this Decision be
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`Exclude also are pending. Papers 56, 59 (Motions to Exclude); Papers 64,
`66 (Oppositions to Motions to Exclude); Papers 69, 70 (Replies to Motions
`to Exclude). The record includes a transcript of a consolidated final oral
`hearing conducted on April 19, 2016, in this proceeding and related
`proceeding IPR2015-00902 (“IPR 902”). Paper 75 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner identifies eight district court actions involving the ’431
`patent, including two that involve Petitioner as a defendant. Pet. 11–12; see
`Senju Pharmaceutical Co. v. Lupin, Ltd., No. 1:14-CV-00667-MAS-LHG
`(D.N.J. filed Jan. 31, 2014); Senju Pharmaceutical Co. v. InnoPharma
`Licensing, Inc., C.A. No. 1:14-CV-06893-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. filed Nov. 3,
`2014). Concurrently herewith, we issue a final written decision in IPR 902,
`which involves the same parties and is directed to U.S. Patent No. 8,669,290
`(“the ’290 patent”). The ’290 patent claims priority to the ’431 patent.
`
`C. The ’431 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’431 patent is titled “Aqueous Liquid Preparation Containing 2-
`Amino-3-(4-Bromobenzoyl) Phenylacetic Acid.” Ex. 1001, Title. The
`claimed invention relates to an aqueous liquid preparation consisting
`essentially of two components: (1) bromfenac (or its salts and hydrates);
`
`
`treated as confidential. The parties are reminded that confidential
`information that is subject to a protective order ordinarily becomes public 45
`days after final judgment in a trial. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,761 (Aug. 14, 2012). Further, there is an expectation
`that information will be made public where the existence of the information
`is identified in a final written decision. Id. We provided the parties advance
`notice “that information subject to a protective order will become public if
`identified in a final written decision in this proceeding.” Paper 77, 4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`and (2) tyloxapol. Id. at 11:66–12:10 (independent claim 1). Bromfenac is a
`non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (“NSAID”). Id. at 1:24–40.
`Tyloxapol is added to the claimed formulation “to stabilize an aqueous
`liquid preparation of” the bromfenac component “and inhibit decrease in
`preservative effect of” quaternary ammonium compounds in the formulation.
`Id. at 2:4–11. The preparation is useful for ophthalmic administration, for
`example, in an eye drop to treat blepharitis, conjunctivitis, scleritis, or
`postoperative inflammation. Id., Abstract, 12:5–6. Claim 1 specifies that a
`quaternary ammonium compound, specifically, benzalkonium chloride
`(“BAC”), may be included in the liquid preparation. Id. at 12:8–9.
`An object of the invention is to provide an aqueous liquid preparation
`of bromfenac that “is stable within a pH range giving no irritation to eyes”
`when preserved with a quaternary ammonium compound, such as
`benzalkonium chloride (“BAC”). Id. at 2:15–22. The inventors claim to
`have discovered that the addition of an alkyl aryl polyether alcohol type
`polymer, such as tyloxapol, provides the sought-after stability, giving no
`irritation to the eyes. Id. at 2:35–49. Specifically, tyloxapol both inhibits
`the change or degradation of bromfenac “over time” and also inhibits
`“deterioration in the preservative effect” when a preservative is included in
`the formulation. Id. The inventors describe tyloxapol as “a non-ionic
`surfactant.” Id. at 4:37–39.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter.
`1. An aqueous liquid preparation consisting essentially of the
`following two components, wherein the first component is 2-
`amino-3-(4-bromobenzoyl)phenylaceticacid or a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`
`pharmacologically acceptable salt thereof or a hydrate thereof,
`wherein the hydrate is at least one selected from a 1/2 hydrate,
`1 hydrate, and 3/2 hydrate and the second component is
`tyloxapol, wherein said liquid preparation is formulated for
`ophthalmic administration, and wherein when a quaternary
`ammonium compound is included in said liquid reparation, the
`quaternary ammonium compound is benzalkonium chloride.
`
`Ex. 1001, 11:66–12:10.
`
`
`
`E. Declaration Testimony
`The Petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Paul A.
`Laskar. Ex. 1003.
`The Response is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Robert O.
`Williams, III (Ex. 2082), the Declaration of Mr. Shirou Sawa
`(Ex. 2098); the Declaration of Dr. Stephen G. Davies (Ex. 2105), the
`Declaration of Dr. William B. Trattler (Ex. 2116), and the Declaration
`of Mr. John C. Jarosz (Ex. 2130).
`The Reply is supported by the Reply Declaration of Dr. Paul A.
`Laskar (Ex. 1104) and the Declaration of Mr. Ivan T. Hofmann
`(Ex. 1150).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016) (upholding the use of the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim
`terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition
`must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The construction that stays true to the claim
`language, and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s description, is likely
`the correct interpretation. Id. at 1250.
`Petitioner addresses the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”
`as applied in claims 1–22. Pet. 15–16. Patent Owner proposes no specific
`claim construction for any claim term. Resp. 6. No claim term requires
`express construction for the purposes of this decision.  See Vivid Techs., Inc.
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those
`terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion in proving unpatentability of
`the challenged claims, and that burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish facts supporting
`its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37
`C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. KSR
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved
`based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective
`evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). As explained below, taking
`account of those factors, including Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary
`considerations, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish the
`unpatentability of claims 1–22 by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. The Applied Prior Art
`We instituted trial on two grounds of unpatentability stated in the
`Petition; whether the subject matter of claims 1–5, 7–14, 18, and 19 would
`have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Ogawa and Sallmann,
`and whether the subject matter of claims 6, 15–17, and 20–22 would have
`been obvious over the combined disclosures of Ogawa, Sallmann, and Fu.
`In this case, the prior art itself is representative of the level of ordinary skill
`in the art.  See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`(“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not
`give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate
`level and a need for testimony is not shown.’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods.,
`Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
`
`1. Ogawa (Ex. 1004)
`Ogawa is directed to an aqueous, stable, ophthalmic preparation for
`topical administration in the treatment of inflammatory conditions of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`eye, such as uveitis. Ex. 1004, Abstract, 1:60–2:3. Ogawa’s Example 6
`discloses a stable aqueous liquid preparation, formulated for ophthalmic
`administration, which comprises bromfenac, as the sole pharmaceutical
`active ingredient, and polysorbate 80. Id. at 10:5–18, 49–57 (for stable
`aqueous liquid preparation), 10:5–9 (for bromfenac, as sole pharmaceutical
`active ingredient, and polysorbate 80), 14:45–50 (Table 11, reporting 100%
`stability for the Example 6 preparation). The ophthalmic preparation of
`Ogawa’s Example 6 also includes BAC, a component that may be included
`in the formulation of claim 1. Ex. 1004, 10:13; Ex. 1001, 12:6–9. Ogawa
`does not disclose or suggest a function for the polysorbate 80 in the
`bromfenac formulation of Example 6. We find that Ogawa’s Example 6
`meets every limitation of claim 1, but for the recited use of tyloxapol in the
`formulation. Ex. 1001, 12:4–5; see Pet. 21–22 (claim chart for claim 1).
`
`2. Sallmann (Ex. 1009)
`Sallmann discloses tyloxapol as a solubilizer in an ophthalmic
`preparation of a specific NSAID—diclofenac potassium salt. Ex. 1009,
`4:52–56. Sallmann’s Example 2 discloses an aqueous ophthalmic
`preparation that includes diclofenac potassium salt and tyloxapol. Id. at 8:1–
`15. The remaining ingredients of Sallmann’s Example 2 would not have
`been expected to adversely affect the stability or preservative efficacy of the
`preparation. Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. Like Ogawa’s Example 6, Sallmann’s
`Example 2 formulation includes BAC. Ex. 1009, 8:1–10. The entire thrust
`of Sallmann’s disclosure, however, is uniquely directed to formulations of
`diclofenac potassium salt. Ex. 1009, 1:35–3:26 (focusing exclusively on
`diclofenac potassium salt, which Sallmann describes as “[s]urprisingly” and
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`“especially suitable” for treating inflammatory ocular processes (id. at 1:48–
`51)); Ex. 2082 ¶ 126. Sallmann does not discuss a formulation of any
`NSAID other than diclofenac potassium salt. See generally Ex. 1009.
`The ’431 patent discloses that tyloxapol effectively stabilizes an
`aqueous formulation of bromfenac when included in a range from about 0.01
`and 0.5 w/v %. Ex. 1001, 5:36–47. Sallmann’s Example 2 formulation of
`diclofenac potassium salt includes tyloxapol in a concentration of 0.1 w/v %,
`which falls within the range described in the ’431 patent as useful for
`stabilizing a bromfenac formulation. Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1009, 8:10, 4:65–
`67; Ex. 1003 ¶ 71). Sallmann describes tyloxapol as a “solubilizer[]” for
`diclofenac potassium salt, but does not suggest using tyloxapol to solubilize
`any other NSAID or assign a stabilizing function to tyloxapol. Ex. 1009,
`4:52–53. Sallmann identifies a different component as the stabilizer in the
`formulation of diclofenac potassium salt. Id. at 5:59–6:17, 8:1–15.
`
`3. Fu (Ex. 1011)
`Fu discloses an ophthalmic preparation comprising a NSAID, BAC,
`and an ethoxylated octylphenol, such as Octoxynol 9 or Octoxynol 40.
`Ex. 1011, 18:5–28, Examples 2, Example 5. Petitioner asserts that tyloxapol
`is an ethoxylated octylphenol non-ionic surfactant. Ex. 1003 ¶ 33 (citing
`Ex. 1024, 1:1:1–2:1:2). Petitioner also asserts that Fu “expressly discloses a
`non-ionic surfactant concentration of 0.02 w/v %.” Pet. 44–45 (citing
`Ex. 1011, 18:5–28, Example 2, Example 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75, 93). Petitioner
`applies Fu in a ground of unpatentability raised against certain dependent
`claims, which limit the concentration of tyloxapol in the formulation. Pet. 1
`(asserting Fu in the ground raised as to claims 6, 15–17, and 20–22).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`
`With respect to those dependent claims, Petitioner asserts that Fu
`would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa’s
`Example 6 formulation of bromfenac to include tyloxapol in a concentration
`that meets the claimed concentrations. Pet. 45. Specifically, Petitioner
`directs us to Fu’s disclosure of a class of compounds that allegedly would
`have been understood to stabilize formulations containing both an NSAID
`and BAC—and to stabilize such formulations better than polysorbate 80. Id.
`Claims 1 and 18, the only independent challenged claims, both require
`an aqueous ophthalmic formulation of bromfenac and tyloxapol. Ex. 1001,
`11:64–12:9, 13:16–14:9. The Petition asserts only the combined disclosures
`of Ogawa and Sallmann to show the obviousness of a formulation of
`bromfenac and tyloxapol—Fu is not applied in the ground of unpatentability
`asserted against claim 1 or 18. Pet. 1, 20–26. Petitioner raises Fu, however,
`as a background reference bearing on the understanding of an ordinary
`artisan at the time of the invention of those claims. See id. at 23–24
`(bridging paragraph) (including Fu in a list of background references that
`allegedly show that the prior art describes “ophthalmic formulations of
`acidic NSAIDs containing a non-ionic surfactant like tyloxapol”) (citing
`Ex. 1011, 12:1–11). Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Fu, among other
`background references, would have caused an ordinary artisan to form “a
`reasonable expectation of success in substituting tyloxapol for
`polysorbate 80, because the prior art included multiple examples of stable
`aqueous preparations containing NSAIDs (similar to bromfenac) formulated
`with BAC and tyloxapol (and other closely related non-ionic surfactants).”
`Id. at 25 (citing, among other background references, Ex. 1011, 18:5–28). In
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`our analysis below, we consider Fu as a background reference bearing on
`claims 1 and 18, to the extent that it is raised and discussed in the Petition
`regarding the ordinary artisan’s understanding of the combined disclosures
`of the two applied references, namely, Ogawa and Sallmann. Pet. 23–25.
`
`4. Background References Cited in the Petition
`Petitioner directs us to background references to show the knowledge
`
`and understanding of an ordinary artisan at the time of the invention. For
`example, we are directed to Desai6 for a disclosure of “a formulation that
`included bromfenac and tyloxapol, and BAC, in addition to other
`ingredients.” Pet. 17. Desai does not teach a specific formulation
`containing both bromfenac and tyloxapol, but rather, includes lists of
`ingredients generally suitable for use in ophthalmic formulations. Ex. 1005,
`3:12–45. Desai discloses bromfenac and diclofenac in a list of suitable
`ophthalmic agents and tyloxapol and polysorbates in a list of suitable
`surfactants. Id. Petitioner also directs us to Yasueda,7 which relates to the
`degradation pathway of a non-NSAID active ingredient (pranlukast).
`Ex. 1012, 1:16–24; Pet. 33.
`
`
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,603,929, issued Feb. 18, 1997 (Ex. 1005, “Desai”).
`
` 7
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,274,609 B1, issued Aug. 14, 2001 (Ex. 1012,
`“Yasueda”).
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Claim 1: Replacing Polysorbate 80 in Ogawa’s Example 6
`a. Prior Art Evidence of Obviousness
`Claim 1 requires an aqueous liquid preparation consisting essentially
`of bromfenac (or a pharmacologically acceptable salt or hydrate thereof) and
`tyloxapol. In addition, BAC may be included in the formulation of claim 1.
`Ex. 1001, 11:64, 12:9. Ogawa’s Example 6 meets every limitation of
`claim 1, but for the addition of tyloxapol. Ex. 1001, 12:4–5; see Pet. 21–22
`(claim chart for claim 1). Petitioner directs us to Sallmann for a teaching
`“that tyloxapol (another non-ionic surfactant) was the preferred surfactant
`for use in aqueous ophthalmic preparations of diclofenac (another acidic
`NSAID).” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1009, 4:62). Petitioner asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have known that substituting polysorbate 80
`with tyloxapol would successfully, and predictably, result in a stable
`ophthalmic formulation of bromfenac because tyloxapol and polysorbate 80
`had previously been used interchangeably as surfactants in ophthalmic
`formulations.” Id. (citing Ex. 1021, 13:8–10; Ex. 1022, 4:24–31; Ex. 1003
`¶ 38). Petitioner further directs us to a disclosure in Desai that includes
`“poloxamers such as Pluronics; polysorbates such as Tweens; tyloxapol;
`sarcosinates such as Hamposyl; and polyethoxylated castor oils such as
`Cremophor.” Ex. 1005, 3:38–41; Pet. 17.
`In our Institution Decision, we determined that the Petition provides
`information sufficient to show that an ordinary artisan would have
`recognized that “tyloxapol and polysorbate 80 had previously been used
`interchangeably as surfactants in ophthalmic formulations.” Dec. 12
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`(quoting Pet. 24); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38, 50 (Dr. Laskar’s testimony that, at the
`time of the invention, “tyloxapol was a widely-used surfactant in aqueous
`liquid preparations comprising anti-inflammatory agents, and was used
`interchangeably with polysorbate 80”). We also determined that such
`known interchangeability, absent persuasive objective evidence to the
`contrary, was enough to support the proposed substitution, even in the
`absence of an express suggestion to do so. Dec. 12 (citing In re Mayne, 104
`F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA
`1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967)).
`We put Patent Owner on notice that, “absent evidence to the contrary,
`it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to replace
`one non-ionic surfactant (polysorbate 80) with another non-ionic surfactant
`(tyloxapol) in Ogawa’s Example 6, because both were known to be useful as
`surfactants in ophthalmic preparations.” Dec. 12 (citing KSR Int’l, 550 U.S.
`at 417 (“If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable
`variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its
`patentability.”)). In that regard, we take account of objective considerations
`of non-obviousness raised by Patent Owner in the Response, before reaching
`an ultimate conclusion on whether the subject matter of the challenged
`claims would have been obvious at the time of the invention.
`b. Evidence of Secondary Considerations
`Our reviewing court recently rejected the proposition “that objective
`considerations of non-obviousness can never overcome a strong prima facie
`case of obviousness.” WBIP, LLC, v. Kohler Co., Nos. 2015-1038, 2015-
`1044, 2016 WL 3902668, at *5 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2016). Factual inquiries
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`for an obviousness determination include secondary considerations based on
`objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.
`The totality of the evidence submitted may show that the challenged claims
`would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
`Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Secondary
`considerations may include long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others,
`unexpected results, commercial success, copying, licensing, and industry
`praise. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling,
`Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`2012). “[E]vidence rising out of the so-called ‘secondary considerations’
`must always when present be considered en route to a determination of
`obviousness.” Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed.
`Cir. 1983).
`
`(1) Unexpected Results
`Patent Owner directs us to evidence that the inventors of the ’431
`patent discovered that tyloxapol provides a surprising stabilizing effect that
`inhibits bromfenac degradation in aqueous solution. Resp. 45–60.
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues that a unique aspect of the claimed
`invention “is at least the use of tyloxapol with bromfenac.” Pet. 46 (citing
`Ex. 2082 ¶ 151). According to Patent Owner, a second “unique aspect” of
`the invention “is the use of 0.01 to 0.05 w/v% tyloxapol with bromfenac.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, claims 6, 15–17, 20–22; Ex. 2082 ¶ 151). Patent Owner
`identifies evidence asserted to compare the claimed invention to the closest
`prior art “admitted by Dr. Laskar [Petitioner’s witness] to be Ogawa because
`it discloses ‘examples of ophthalmic formulations containing bromfenac,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`BAC, and the non-ionic surfactant polysorbate 80.’” Id. (citing Pet. 51;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 95; Ex. 2082 ¶ 154).
`Petitioner counter argues that Patent Owner’s evidence of unexpected
`results “should be afforded no weight” because it focuses on Ogawa’s
`Example 4 formulation instead of Ogawa’s Example 6 formulation.
`Reply 20. That argument is unpersuasive for several reasons. First,
`Petitioner’s own witness explicitly refers to Ogawa’s Example 4 formulation
`in a discussion of “the closest prior art.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 94 (citing Ex. 1004,
`8:3–14 (Ogawa’s Example 4)). Second, as explained below, Patent Owner
`shows persuasively that the claimed formulation achieved surprising results
`compared to both Ogawa’s Example 4 and Example 6 formulations.
`Resp. 48–46.
`Ogawa’s Example 4 formulation contains bromfenac, BAC, and
`polysorbate 80. Ex. 1004, 8:3–14. Patent Owner directs us to evidence that
`bromfenac’s chemical stability—that is, the ability to resist degradation—is
`“44% better” when tyloxapol is used in place of polysorbate 80 in Ogawa’s
`Example 4. Ex. 2082 ¶ 164; see id. at ¶ 163 (chart tabulating experimental
`results); Resp. 49. Patent Owner, moreover, establishes a further unexpected
`result—that by replacing polysorbate 80 with tyloxapol, and decreasing the
`amount of the non-ionic surfactant from about 0.15 g to about 0.02 g, the
`inventors increased significantly the stability of the bromfenac formulation.
`Ex. 2082 ¶ 163–171 (Dr. Williams, explaining the test results showing that
`when tyloxapol is added to an aqueous formulation of bromfenac and BAC
`in an amount of 0.02 g, the tyloxapol stabilizes bromfenac better than when
`tyloxapol is added in the greater amounts of 0.05 g, 0.1 g, or 0.15 g—and
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`that all of the tyloxapol formulations stabilize bromfenac better than a
`comparable formulation containing polysorbate 80 at 0.17 g), ¶ 165
`(explaining that those results would have been unexpected by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art). Specifically, when the amount of tyloxapol added
`to the formulation is lowered to 0.02 g, or about one-eighth the amount of
`polysorbate 80 (0.17 g), tyloxapol is about 75% better at stabilizing
`bromfenac against degradation. Resp. 41; Ex. 2082 ¶ 164. We are
`persuaded by Dr. Williams’ testimony that those results would have been
`“entirely unexpected” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. Ex. 2082 ¶¶ 160, 164–165.
`Ogawa’s Example 6 formulation, by contrast, includes not only
`polysorbate 80 but also two additional components—polyvinyl pyrrolidone
`and sodium sulfite—which, according to Ogawa, “remarkably enhance[]”
`bromfenac stability. Ex. 1004, 3:50–51; see id. at 8:47–51; 10:12–18
`(further discussing the remarkable enhancement of bromfenac stability
`accomplished by those two additional components). Patent Owner shows
`persuasively that tyloxapol stabilizes bromfenac as effectively as Ogawa’s
`Example 6 formulation even when the tyloxapol formulation lacks polyvinyl
`pyrrolidone and sodium sulfite. Ex. 2082 ¶¶ 167–171; Ex. 2098, Sections
`III.B and C. We find credible Dr. Williams’ testimony that those “results
`are highly unexpected” and “materially contribute to the art as a whole in
`potentially eliminating sodium sulfite from being administered to a patient’s
`surgically compromised eye.” Ex. 2082 ¶¶ 165, 170.
`Petitioner disagrees and contends that Patent Owner’s evidence of
`unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`Reply 20. On that point, however, we find that Patent Owner’s evidence is
`sufficient to establish a trend demonstrating a surprising stabilizing effect of
`tyloxapol that is not suggested by the prior art. Ex. 2082 ¶ 163 (comparative
`chart, showing unexpected result that tyloxapol at amount of 0.02 g
`stabilizes bromfenac better than tyloxapol at 0.05 g, 0.1 g, and 0.15 g—and
`that all of the tyloxapol formulations unexpectedly stabilize bromfenac
`better than a comparable formulation containing polysorbate 80 at 0.17 g).
`Further, we are persuaded by Dr. Williams’ testimony that the comparative
`data shows a superior stabilizing effect of tyloxapol across “disparate pH
`ranges, which are representative of the useable pH range” and “effectively
`demonstrate tyloxapol’s unexpectedly superior stabilizing effect
`commensurate with the scope of the claims.” Id. at ¶ 172.
`
`(2) Commercial Success
`Patent Owner comes forward with additional evidence that “[t]he
`unexpected stabilization benefits of tyloxapol translated into unexpected
`medical benefits in the commercial product Prolensa.” Resp. 53. On that
`point, Patent Owner directs us to specific information pertaining to the
`composition of Prolensa, indicating that the commercial product falls within
`the scope of claims 1–4, 6–10, and 18–20. Id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 2082
`¶¶ 152, 178). Petitioner admits that “[t]he subject matter of many of the
`challenged claims of the ’431 patent is commercially embodied by
`Prolensa.” Pet. 9. At the final oral hearing, Petitioner confirmed that
`Prolensa falls within the scope of the ’431 patent claims. Tr. 27:15–19. In
`the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we presume that the
`commercial success of Prolensa is attributable to the claimed invention of
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`the ’431 patent. See PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns
`RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 746–47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (evidence showing that a
`commercial product embodies the claimed invention gives rise to a
`presumption that the commercial success of that product is due to the
`claimed invention, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary).
`Patent Owner identifies evidence that tyloxapol’s stabilizing effect
`permitted the formulation of Prolensa at a pH lower than other commercially
`available bromfenac formulations, representing “a substantial reduction on a
`logarithmic scale” that was “beneficially closer to the pH of natural tears.”
`Resp. 56 (citing Ex. 2030, 1; Ex. 2026, 5; Ex. 2027, 4; Ex. 2082 ¶ 178).
`According to Patent Owner, the stabilizing effect of tyloxapol further
`permitted the use of substantially less surfactant in Prolensa than in other
`commercial products. Id.; Ex. 2082 ¶ 178. Patent Owner directs us to
`evidence that “[b]oth the reduction in pH and lower amount of surfactant
`eliminated the burning and stinging upon administration present with all
`approved NSAID ophthalmic eye drops besides Prolensa.” Resp. 56 (citing
`Ex. 2082 ¶ 179; Ex. 2116 ¶ 41). Patent Owner further identifies evidence
`that other commercially available eye drops “are limited by their burning
`and stinging side effects.” Id. (citing Ex. 2116 ¶ 36; Ex. 2057, 6; Ex. 2060,
`7–8; Ex. 2111, 1, col. 2; Ex. 2026, 5–6; Ex. 2027, 6).
`Petitioner disagrees, directing us to evidence that the prescribing
`information for Prolensa states that adverse reactions “are limited to the
`‘most commonly reported adverse reactions,’” which, according to
`Petitioner, indicates “that less common adverse reactions were not
`included.” Reply 21–22 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 2013, 3). To the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`extent that Petitioner suggests that Prolensa may cause burning and stinging,
`but that it remains unreported as a “less common adverse reaction[]” (id.),
`we find that suggestion to be speculative and unsupported by the evidence to
`which we are directed. Ex. 2013, 3.
`Petitioner also argues that certain other asserted benefits of Prolensa
`are not shown to be commensurate in scope with the challenged claims
`because Patent Owner fails to come forward with evidence showing that
`“other embodiments” would “exhibit similar benefits.” Reply 22–23.
`Petitioner, however, admits that Prolensa embodies “many of the challenged
`claims.” Pet. 9. Under the circumstances, Petitioner must overcome a
`presumption that the benefits of Prolensa flow from the claimed invention.
`PPC Broadband, Inc., 815 F.3d at 746–47. Petitioner has not established
`persuasively that a lack of evidence regarding the benefits of “other claimed
`embodiments” detracts from the force of the evidence showing the benefits
`of Prolensa. Reply 22.
`Patent Owner comes forward with persuasive evidence that Prolensa
`is the only approved NSAID-containing eye d

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