throbber
Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`--------------------------
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`--------------------------
`
`ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`--------------------------
`
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`--------------------------
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF FREDERICK PETER GUENGERICH, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`June 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`Page
`TASK AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ................................................... 4
`I.
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND QUALIFICATIONS ....................... 5
`II.
`A. Education ......................................................................................................... 6
`B. Academic Experience ...................................................................................... 6
`III. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................... 8
`IV. CYP2D6 ........................................................................................................ 11
`V.
`THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT THAT ILOPERIDONE IS NOT
`PRIMARILY OR SIGNIFICANTLY METABOLIZED BY
`CYP2D6 IN VIVO ........................................................................................ 15
`ILOPERIDONE THERAPY IS ASSOCIATED WITH QT
`PROLONGATION, BUT VERY LITTLE ELSE WAS
`KNOWN IN THE PRIOR ART ................................................................. 27
`VII. THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT THAT METHODS TO
`REDUCE THE RISK OF QT PROLONGATION WERE
`UNPREDICTABLE ..................................................................................... 28
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT THAT DRUG INTERACTIONS
`UNPREDICTABLY AFFECTED EXPOSURE TO THE
`DRUG AND ANY METABOLITES AS WELL AS SIDE
`EFFECTS AND THUS THE APPROPRIATE
`ILOPERIDONE DOSE WHEN COADMINISTERED WITH
`FLUOXETINE WAS UNPREDICTABLE ............................................... 30
`IX. THE ’432 PATENT INVENTION ............................................................. 45
`A. Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetic Studies ........................................... 46
`B. Clinical Study CILO522 0104 ....................................................................... 51
`C. Vanda’s Analysis that Led to the Invention .................................................. 63
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 68
`X.
`A. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 69
`XI. CLAIM 1 OF THE ’432 PATENT WAS NOT OBVIOUS AND
`THERE IS NOT A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT
`WAS OBVIOUS ........................................................................................... 70
`A. The References Relied Upon ......................................................................... 73
`1. The Mutlib Reference ...............................................................................73
`2. The Brøsen Reference and the Abilify (aripiprazole) Label ....................74
`3. The Mealy Reference ...............................................................................77
`4. FDA Guidance 1999 .................................................................................79
`B. It Was Unpredictable Whether CYP2D6 Drug Interactions Would
`Be Meaningful for Iloperidone Therapy ........................................................ 80
`C. It Was Unpredictable Whether Any Dosage Modification Will
`Reduce the Risk of Any Given Side Effects for CYP2D6 Poor
`Metabolizers, Including the Risk of QT Prolongation .................................. 81
`D. It Was Unpredictable What Dosage Modification Would Be
`Appropriate in Order to Reduce the Risk of QT Prolongation and
`Maintain the Efficacy to Treat Schizophrenia ............................................... 88
`
`
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`TASK AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
`
`
`
`I.
`
`LLP, counsel for Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Vanda”), to provide my expert
`
`testimony in this case.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to respond to the factual allegations set forth in
`
`Roxane’s petition for inter partes review of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`(“the ’432 Patent”), including the opinions set forth in the declaration of Roxane’s
`
`expert, Dr. David Fogelson (Exhibit 1003).
`
`3.
`
`I disagree with Roxane and Dr. Fogelson that claim 1 of the’432
`
`Patent is obvious. Roxane and Dr. Fogelson’s opinions focus on only isolated
`
`portions of the prior art and leave out the prior art evidence that teaches away from
`
`the invention claimed in the ’432 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`Roxane and Dr. Fogelson’s opinions are premised on statements in the
`
`prior art that iloperidone is metabolized by an enzyme, CYP2D6, in vitro. Roxane
`
`and Dr. Fogelson, however, ignore the prior art teachings that CYP2D6
`
`metabolism is not significant for iloperidone’s metabolism in vivo. Based on the
`
`prior art as a whole, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`of the ’432 Patent would not have been motivated to study the effect of CYP2D6
`
`inhibition on any side effects, including iloperidone-induced QT prolongation, as
`
`iloperidone was not understood to be significantly metabolized by CYP2D6 in vivo
`
`by skilled artisans in 2004.
`
`5. Moreover, Roxane and Dr. Fogelson overlooked the teachings of the
`
`prior art that, as recognized by the Patent Office during its original examination of
`
`the ’432 Patent, make clear that the necessary dosage adjustments to minimize the
`
`risk of side effects were unpredictable. Based on the entirety of the prior art, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation that
`
`administering 12 mg/day of iloperidone to patients being treated with fluoxetine
`
`and administering 24 mg/day of iloperidone to patients who are not treated with
`
`fluoxetine would reduce the risk of QT prolongation.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I am the Tadashi Inagami Professor of Biochemistry at Vanderbilt
`
`University School of Medicine (Nashville, Tennessee). I was appointed Assistant
`
`Professor of Biochemistry in 1975, and was promoted to Associate Professor in
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`1980 and to Professor in 1983. I served as Director of the Center in Molecular
`
`Toxicology from 1980 to 2011.
`
`A. Education
`
`7.
`
`I received a B.S. (Agricultural Science) from the University of
`
`Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, with University Honors (Bronze Tablet) in 1970. In
`
`1973 I received a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Vanderbilt University. I trained as a
`
`research fellow at the University of Michigan Medical School (Biological
`
`Chemistry) from 1973–1975.
`
`B. Academic Experience
`
`8.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae and a list of publications as
`
`Exhibit 2002. On the basis of my education and the experience described above
`
`and in my curriculum vitae, I believe I am qualified to give the opinions set out
`
`herein.
`
`9.
`
`I have considerable experience in the field of the biochemistry and
`
`pharmacology of drug metabolism. My laboratory first purified what are now
`
`known as human CYP 1A2, 2A6, 2C8, 2C9, 2D6, and 3A4 enzymes from human
`
`liver cells. See, e.g., L.M. Distlerath, et al., Purification and Characterization of
`
`the Human Liver Cytochromes P-450 Involved in Debrisoquine 4-Hydroxylation
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`and Phenacetin O-Deethylation, Two Prototypes for Genetic Polymorphism in
`
`Oxidative Drug Metabolism, J. Biol. Chem. 260, 9057–9067 (1985) (Exhibit 2005
`
`at 1–11); T. Shimada, et al., Human Liver Microsomal Cytochrome P-450
`
`Mephenytoin 4-Hydroxylase, a Prototype of Genetic Polymorphism in Oxidative
`
`Drug Metabolism. Purification and Characterization of Two Similar Forms
`
`Involved in the Reaction, J. Biol. Chem. 261, 909–921 (1986) (Exhibit 2006 at 1–
`
`13); F. P. Guengerich, et al., Characterization of Rat and Human Liver
`
`Microsomal Cytochrome P-450 Forms Involved in Nifedipine Oxidation, a
`
`Prototype for Genetic Polymorphism in Oxidative Drug Metabolism, J. Biol.
`
`Chem. 261, 5051–5060 (1986) (Exhibit 2007 at 1–10). My work in this area has
`
`been highlighted in Human Cytochrome P450s: The Work of Frederick Peter
`
`Guengerich, J. Biol. Chem. 287, 15798–15800 (2012) (Exhibit 2008 at 1–3).
`
`10.
`
`I have received a number of awards, many for the pioneering work
`
`with human cytochrome P450 enzymes and their roles in the metabolism of drugs
`
`and toxicants, including the John Jacob Abel Award (1984) and Bernard B. Brodie
`
`Award in Drug Metabolism (1992) from the American Society for Pharmacology
`
`and Experimental Therapeutics; the Achievement Award (1982) and Merit Award
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`(2013) from the Society of Toxicology; the North American Scientific
`
`Achievement Award (2003) and R.T. Williams Distinguished Scientific
`
`Achievement Award (2010) from the International Society for the Study of
`
`Xenobiotics; the President’s Distinguished Service Award from the American
`
`College of Toxicology (2004); the Founders’ Award from the Division of
`
`Chemical Toxicology, American Chemical Society (2011); the AACR Award for
`
`Outstanding Achievement in Chemistry in Cancer Research from the American
`
`Association for Cancer Research (2009); and the William C. Rose Award from the
`
`American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2005).
`
`11.
`
`I was the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)’s 3rd Most-cited
`
`Author in Pharmacology & Toxicology, 1993–2003. See http://www.in-
`
`cites.com/scientists/pha-10-aug2003.html.
`
`12.
`
`I was ranked by Drug Metabolism Research as first in world based on
`
`total citation score (2006–2014). See http://www.cytochrome.net.
`
`III. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`13.
`
`I understand that patents must be read, and the art evaluated, from the
`
`perspective of a “person of ordinary skill” in the relevant art at the time the
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 8
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`invention was made. I understand this to be a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`creativity, imparted with knowledge of all of the relevant publicly available art,
`
`and the education and skills ordinarily associated with carrying out research in that
`
`particular field.
`
`14. The ’432 Patent is directed to a method of decreasing the risk of QT
`
`prolongation associated with the treatment of schizophrenia using iloperidone,
`
`wherein the dosage is modified based whether the patient is also administered
`
`fluoxetine, a CYP2D6 inhibitor. Thus, I believe a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have a graduate degree or equivalent laboratory experience in medicine,
`
`pharmacy, pharmacology, or a related field such as biochemistry, with experience
`
`with drug metabolism and/or drug-drug interactions and at least some experience
`
`with preclinical and/or clinical drug development. In addition, I believe a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art could be a person or persons who have experience
`
`treating individuals with schizophrenia and who are qualified to prescribe
`
`psychotropic medications, including iloperidone. I believe this definition includes,
`
`among others, physicians with an M.D. or D.O. degree, including psychiatrists,
`
`psychologists with a Ph.D. or Psy.D. who are authorized to prescribe psychotropic
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 9
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`medication, and registered nurses or physician’s assistants with prescription-
`
`writing privileges.
`
`15. Roxane and Dr. Fogelson provide a different definition, namely that
`
`the skilled artisan should have experience in the field of psychiatry or clinical
`
`pharmacology, including pharmacogenomics, and that the skilled artisan should
`
`have familiarity with adjusting drug dosages based on a patient’s drug metabolism
`
`or drug regimen.
`
`16. First, I disagree that an ordinary artisan needs experience in the field
`
`of psychiatry or clinical pharmacology, including pharmacogenomics. The
`
`invention claimed in the ’432 Patent deals with the recognition that the risk of a
`
`particular side effect, QT prolongation, associated with iloperidone therapy is
`
`higher for patients that have impaired metabolism via CYP2D6. Ordinary artisans
`
`do not need experience in psychiatry or pharmacogenomics to recognize the nature
`
`of the problem or to understand the relevant prior art. Rather, ordinary artisans
`
`should have experience with drug metabolism and/or drug-drug interactions and at
`
`least some experience with preclinical and/or clinical drug development.
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 10
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`17. Second, I disagree that a person of skill in the art needs any
`
`
`
`experience with adjusting drug dosages based on a patient’s drug regimen. Rather,
`
`Roxane and Dr. Fogelson’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`presupposes that the person of ordinary skill would know that the solution to the
`
`problem of drug-induced QT prolongation is dosage adjustment.
`
`18. Regardless of which definition is used, I am a person of at least
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, my opinion regarding the validity of the ’432
`
`Patent does not change based on either definition of the person of ordinary skill.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed that the relevant time frame for understanding the ’432
`
`Patent is September 2004.
`
`IV. CYP2D6
`
`20. By 2004, it was known that drugs and other environmental chemicals
`
`that enter the body are modified by a vast array of enzymes.
`
`21. The biochemical transformations performed by these enzymes can
`
`alter the compound to render it beneficial, harmful, ineffective, or some
`
`combination thereof. The processes by which biochemical reactions alter drugs
`
`within the body are collectively called drug metabolism or drug biotransformation.
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 11
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`22. Generally speaking, drug biotransformation can alter drugs in four
`
`
`
`important ways:
`
`• An active drug may be converted to an inactive metabolite.
`
`• An active drug may be converted to an active or toxic
`
`metabolite.
`
`• An inactive prodrug may be converted to an active drug.
`
`• A drug with some therapeutic activity may be converted to a
`
`more active drug.
`
`The way in which a given drug is altered by drug biotransformation is not limited
`
`to one of these paths. Combinations of the above are possible, as is the case for
`
`iloperidone, which is discussed in more detail later in this declaration. Nor are
`
`these paths exclusively one-way.
`
`23.
`
`In the body, these transformations happen in various ways, including
`
`through reactions catalyzed by enzymes. For example, oxidation reactions involve
`
`membrane-associated enzymes expressed in the endoplasmic reticulum of liver
`
`cells and, to a lesser extent, of cells in other tissues. The enzymes that catalyze
`
`these reactions are typically oxidases; the majority of these enzymes are heme
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 12
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`protein mono-oxygenases of the cytochrome P450 class (often referred to generally
`
`as P450s). Cytochrome P450 (sometimes abbreviated CYP) enzymes are also
`
`known as microsomal mixed-function oxidases. They are involved in the
`
`metabolism of approximately 75% of all drugs used today (or, more appropriately,
`
`75% of drugs that are cleared by metabolism).
`
`24. The cytochrome P450 enzymes first attracted interest because of their
`
`potential relevance to the metabolism of drugs, steroids, and carcinogens. There
`
`are 57 human P450s. One of the P450s involved in drug metabolism is CYP2D6.
`
`My laboratory was the first to purify human CYP2D6 from human liver. J. Biol.
`
`Chem. 287, 15798–15800 (2012) (Exhibit 2008 at 1–3).
`
`25. There is considerable variation in the efficiency of the CYP2D6
`
`enzyme between individuals—certain individuals will eliminate CYP2D6-substrate
`
`drugs quickly (ultrarapid metabolizers) while others will do so slowly (poor
`
`metabolizers). In addition, certain external factors, such as administration of a
`
`CYP2D6 inhibitor like fluoxetine, can inhibit CYP2D6 function.
`
`26. An individual’s CYP2D6 function, or phenotype, may influence the
`
`person’s response to different doses of drugs that CYP2D6 metabolizes. The
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 13
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`person’s response, however, does not depend only on the person’s CYP2D6
`
`function, but also on the extent to which the drug is processed by CYP2D6,
`
`whether other metabolic pathways will compensate for poor metabolism via
`
`CYP2D6, whether the processing of the drug by CYP2D6 results in a chemical that
`
`has an effect that is similar, stronger, or weaker than the original drug, or no effect
`
`at all, etc.
`
`27.
`
`In September 2004, most pharmaceutical companies avoided
`
`development of a drug that was deemed to be metabolized primarily by a highly
`
`polymorphic enzyme such as CYP2D6, because such polymorphisms may lead to
`
`wide inter-individual variability in drug response. Indeed, some companies
`
`dropped promising candidates simply because they were being metabolized, even
`
`just in part, by polymorphic cytochrome P450 enzymes such as CYP2D6. F.P.
`
`Guengerich et al., “Diversity in the oxidation of substrates by cytochrome P450
`
`2D6: lack of an obligatory role of aspartate 301-substrate electrostatic bonding,”
`
`Biochemistry, 41(36):11025–11034 (2002) (Exhibit 2009 at 3–12).
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 14
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART TAUGHT THAT ILOPERIDONE IS NOT
`PRIMARILY OR SIGNIFICANTLY METABOLIZED BY CYP2D6 IN
`VIVO
`
`28. There is broad variability in the pharmacokinetic profiles of the
`
`antipsychotic drugs on the market. This is based, at least in part, on the different
`
`metabolic pathways and enzymes involved in their metabolism.
`
`29. By 2004, some but not all aspects of iloperidone metabolism were
`
`known or theorized, with much left to be discovered. Iloperidone metabolism is
`
`complex and unpredictable. Indeed, looking at just possible metabolism by the
`
`P450 family, iloperidone has at least 19 different sites that could be oxidized by a
`
`P450 enzyme as a first step in the overall metabolic pathway.
`
`30.
`
`In 1995, Mutlib and Strupczewski published a paper describing some
`
`of the metabolites of iloperidone based on the analysis of human plasma and urine,
`
`as well as in vivo and in vitro studies using rats and dogs. A.E. Mutlib et al.,
`
`“Application of hyphenated LC/NMR and LC/MS techniques in rapid identification
`
`of in vitro and in vivo metabolites of iloperidone,” Drug Metabolism and
`
`Disposition 23(9): 951–964 (1995) (Exhibit 2010 at 1–14) (“Mutlib &
`
`Strupczewski”).
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 15
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`31. Below is a figure of the metabolic pathways that Mutlib and
`
`
`
`Strupczewski proposed:
`
`
`
`Figure 1: Proposed metabolic pathways for iloperidone. Exhibit 2010 at 2,
`
`Figure 1.
`
`32. Mutlib and Strupczewski did not find any CYP2D6 metabolites in
`
`vivo. Rather, in human plasma, Mutlib and Strupczewski found the CYP3A4
`
`metabolite, P89 (referred to as Metabolite E in the paper), and the reduced
`
`metabolite, P88, (referred to Metabolite F in the paper), with P88 being the major
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 16
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`metabolite. Similarly, in human urine, P88 was the major metabolite detected,
`
`with only trace amounts of iloperidone and P89 detected. Thus, Mutlib and
`
`Strupczewski did not determine that CYP2D6 metabolism was important in
`
`humans in vivo and did not detect any CYP2D6 metabolites in their assays.1
`
`33.
`
`In 1998, Mutlib published another paper based on further analysis of
`
`the metabolic pathways for iloperidone. A.E. Mutlib & J.T. Klein, “Application of
`
`Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry in Accelerating the Identification of
`
`Human Liver Cytochrome P450 Isoforms Involved in the Metabolism of
`
`Iloperidone,” J. Pharmacol. & Experimental Ther. 286(3): 1285–1293 (1998)
`
`(Exhibit 1006 at 6–14) (“Mutlib”). This is the paper cited by Roxane and Dr.
`
`Fogelson.
`
`34. Using human liver microsomes (essentially ground up liver cells that
`
`have been partially fractionated), Multib determined that the major iloperidone
`
`metabolite in vitro is P94, based on CYP2D6 metabolism, followed by P88 via
`
`
`1 Mutlib and Strupczewski also noted that that there are significant differences in
`
`the metabolism of iloperidone by humans and the two other animal species they
`
`tested, rats and dogs.
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 17
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`carbonyl reduction and then P89 via CYP3A4. Roxane and Dr. Fogelson rely on
`
`this evidence to argue that iloperidone is significantly metabolized by CYP2D6.
`
`See Petition at 24–25, 30–32; Fogelson Declaration ¶¶ 92–93, 109–112.
`
`35. That, however, is not the entire story. Although Mutlib did find a
`
`significant amount of CYP2D6 metabolite in vitro, Mutlib found only trace
`
`amounts, if any, of P94 in vivo, based on analysis of both human plasma and urine.
`
`Mutilb at 1286 (Exhibit 1006 at 7).
`
`36. Unable to find meaningful amounts of the CYP2D6 metabolite, P94,
`
`in the body, Mutlib postulated that P94 was further metabolized to form
`
`“Compound 5” (now known as P36.3). Below is a figure from the Mutlib paper
`
`that describes his proposed metabolic pathways for iloperidone.
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 18
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`Figure 2: Mutlib (Exhibit 1006 at 7), Figure 1. Mutlib determined that
`
`
`
`iloperidone’s CYP3A4 metabolite is P89 (Compound 2) and that the
`
`reduced metabolite is P88 (Compound 3). Murtlib hypothesized that
`
`iloperidone is metabolized by CYP2D6 to P36.3 (Compound 5) in
`
`vivo via P94 (Compound 4). Id. We now know that is wrong. It was
`
`later determined that P36.3 (Compound 5) is not a major iloperidone
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 19
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`metabolite and is not the ultimate CYP2D6 metabolite; it is now
`
`hypothesized that P95 is the CYP2D6 metabolite. See NDA No. 22-
`
`192, Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review(s) (Exhibit
`
`2012).
`
`37.
`
`“Compound 5,” or P36.3, however, is not a major metabolite of
`
`iloperidone. Exhibit 2012 (NDA No. 22-192, Clinical Pharmacology and
`
`Biopharmaceutics Review(s)) at 16. Roxane concedes as much in its proposed
`
`label for generic iloperidone. Exhibit 2008. Indeed, after the publication of Mutlib
`
`(Exhibit 1006), no further work on “Compound 5” was reported.
`
`38. That the ultimate metabolite that Mutlib identifies, P36.3 (Compound
`
`5), is not the actual metabolite that results from CYP2D6 metabolism, see Exhibit
`
`2012 (NDA No. 22-192, Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review(s))
`
`at 16, highlights the complexity of the various metabolic pathways for iloperidone
`
`and the difficulties scientists faced trying to characterize them.
`
`39. Although Roxane and Dr. Fogelsen focus on Mutlib’s statement that
`
`“CYP2D6 is primarily responsible for the production of the major in vitro human
`
`microsomal metabolite 4 [i,e., P94],” Mutlib at 1292 (Exhibit 1006 at 13), and that
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 20
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`P94, the hydroxylation of iloperidone, was “the major metabolite produced in
`
`vitro,” Mutlib at 1285–1286 (Exhibit 1006 at 6–7), Roxane and Dr. Fogelsen
`
`ignore Mutlib’s statements that P94 “was present in very small quantities in human
`
`plasma and urine,” Mutlib at 1286 (Exhibit 1006 at 7), and that P88, formed
`
`through carbonyl reduction, and not CYP2D6 “was the major drug related
`
`component in plasma (in addition to iloperidone) and urine samples” —not P94,
`
`Mutlib at 1286, 1291 (Exhibit 1006 at 7, 12). One of skill in the art would have
`
`understood that the clinical significance of Mutlib’s in vivo data would trump the
`
`in vitro data. See, e.g., FDA Guidance 1997 (Exhibit 1015).
`
`40. Thus, one of skill in the art would have understood Mutlib to teach
`
`that CYP2D6 was not a major or significant metabolic pathway for iloperidone
`
`metabolism in vivo. This understanding was confirmed by several review articles
`
`that Roxane and Dr. Fogelson do not mention, including two published in 2004: J.
`
`Kirchheiner et al., “Pharmacogenetics of antidepressants and antipsychotics: the
`
`contribution of allelic variations to the phenotype of drug response,” Molecular
`
`Psychiatry 9: 442–473 (2004) (Exhibit 2013 at 1–32) (“Kirchheiner 2004”); M.A.
`
`Raggi, et al., “Atypical Antipsychotics: Pharmacokinetics, Therapeutic Drug
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 21
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`Monitoring and Pharmacological Interactions,” Current Medicinal Chemistry
`
`11(3):279–296 (2004) (Exhibit 1021 at 6–23) (“Raggi 2004”); see also Silvio
`
`Caccia, “New antipsychotic agents for schizophrenia: Pharmacokinetics and
`
`metabolism update,” Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs 3(7): 1073–1080
`
`(2002) (Exhibit 2015 at 1–8) (“Caccia”).
`
`41. Specifically, Kirchheiner 2004 is a review article that categorizes
`
`iloperidone as being metabolized by CYP1A2, CYP2B6, or CYP3A4, and does not
`
`categorize iloperidone as being metabolized by CYP2D6. Exhibit 2013 at 4, Table
`
`1. Similarly, Raggi 2004 is a review article that discloses several atypical
`
`antipsychotics being developed at the time, including iloperidone, Exhibit 1021 at
`
`18–19, and teaches that certain atypical antipsychotics are substrates of CYP2D6,
`
`id. at 8, Table 1. Raggi 2004, however, does not categorize iloperidone as a drug
`
`that is metabolized by CYP2D6. Id. at 8. In Caccia, it was reported that the main
`
`pathway for iloperidone metabolism is through cytosolic reduction, while
`
`metabolites produced by the CYP1A2, CYP2D6, and CYP3A enzymes are the
`
`results of minor pathways. Exhibit 2015 at 2, Table 1.
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 22
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`42. To the extent Roxane and Dr. Fogelson seem to argue that Obach,
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/01442202—which was not cited as
`
`part of their obviousness combination—confirms their understanding that CYP2D6
`
`is a major metabolic pathway for iloperidone, Petition at 25; Fogelson Declaration
`
`¶ 92, Obach does not go that far. Specifically, Obach states as follows:
`
`Examples of other drugs for which the major clearance mechanism in
`
`humans is CYP2D6 mediated oxidative biotransformation are the
`
`following: mequitazine (J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 284, 437442
`
`(1998)); tamsulosin (Xenobiotica, 28, 909–22 (1998)); oxybutynin
`
`(Pharmacogen., 8, 449–51 (1998)); ritonavir (Clin. PK, 35, 275–291
`
`(1998)); iloperidone (J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 286, 1285–93
`
`(1998)); ibogaine (Drug Metab. Dispos., 26, 764–8 (1998));
`
`delavirdine (Drug Metab. Dispos., 26, 631–9 (1998)); tolteridine
`
`(Clin. Pharmcol. Ther., 63 529–39 (1998)); promethazine
`
`
`2 Obach was cited by the Patent Examiner during the examination of the ’432
`
`Patent at the Patent Office against Vanda, and Vanda successfully argued that
`
`Obach does not make claim 1 of the ’432 Patent obvious.
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 23
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`(Rinshoyakon, 29, 231–38 (1998)); pimozide, J. Pharmacol. Exp.
`
`Ther., 285, 428–37 (1998)); epinastine (Res. Comm. Md. Path.
`
`Pharmacol., 98, 273–92 (1997)); tramodol (Eur. J. Clin. Pharm., 53,
`
`235–239 (1997)); procainamide (Pharmacogenetics, 7, 381–90
`
`(1997)); methamphetamine (Drug Metab. Dispos., 25,1059–64
`
`(1997)); tamoxifen (Cancer Res., 57, 3402–06 (1997)); nicergoline
`
`(Br. J. Pharm., 42, 707–11 (1996)); and fluoxetine (Clin. Pharmcol.
`
`Ther., 60, 512–21 (1996)). All of the foregoing references are
`
`incorporated herein by references in their entireties.
`
`Exhibit 1012 at 4, [0028] (emphasis added). The article cited for iloperidone
`
`is Mutlib. Thus, Obach merely relies on Mutlib to support its disclosure of
`
`iloperidone and does not do any independent analysis to determine whether
`
`CYP2D6 is a major clearance mechanism for iloperidone. Moreover, as
`
`discussed above, Mutlib does not disclose, and review of the prior art as a
`
`whole shows that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood, that
`
`CYP2D6 is relevant to the in vivo metabolism of iloperidone. Indeed, that is
`
`the case for many of the drugs listed by Obach. For example, oxybutynin is
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 24
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`marketed as DITROPAN; the Ditropan label notes that Ditropan is
`
`metabolized by the P450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4. The Ditropan
`
`label does not state that CYP2D6 is a major clearance mechanism.
`
`Similarly, ritonavir is marketed as NORVIR; the Norvir label states that it is
`
`not significantly metabolized by any liver enzymes (including CYP2D6) in
`
`the body.3 Thus, Obach does not reliably disclose drugs that are primarily or
`
`significantly metabolized by CYP2D6 in vivo.
`
`43. Contrary to Roxane’s and Dr. Fogelson’s remarks, Petition at 25;
`
`Fogelson Declaration ¶ 93, I did not see any evidence that Vanda “acknowledged”
`
`that Obach teaches that the major clearance mechanism for iloperidone is
`
`CYP2D6. Rather, Vanda, at most, acknowledged that Obach asserts and the
`
`Examiner believed that Obach teaches that CYP2D6 is relevant to iloperidone
`
`
`3 Somewhat akin to what was thought to be the case with iloperidone, the Norvir
`
`label states that the in vitro data shows that CYP3A4 plays a major role and
`
`CYP2D6 can contribute to the formation of one of ritonavir’s metabolites;
`
`however, the in vivo data demonstrates that ritonavir is not significantly
`
`metabolized by CYP2D6.
`
`
`Vanda Pharm. Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 25
`
`

`
`Guengerich Declaration
`Case IPR2016-00690
`Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent No. 9,138,432
`
`
`
`metabolism: “With respect to iloperidone, Obach purports to teach only that
`
`iloperidone is a drug for which the major clearance mechanism is CYP2D6
`
`mediated oxidative biotransformation.” Oct. 14, 2014 Response to Office Action
`
`(Exhibit 1002 at 242) at 13. That is all.
`
`44. Roxane and Dr. Fogelson also wrongly assert that the “Background of
`
`the ’432 Patent admits that ‘[a] large number of dr

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