throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 45
`Entered: July 19, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`and MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`UCB PHARMA GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-005101
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KRISTINA M. KALAN, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Finding Claims 1–5 and 21–24 Not Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`Dismissing as Moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`Granting Joint Motion to Seal and Entering Default Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`1 Petitioners Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited from IPR2016-01596,
`Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited from IPR2016-01636, and Amerigen
`Pharmaceuticals Limited from IPR2016-01665 have been joined as
`Petitioners to this proceeding.
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a Final Written Decision in an inter partes review challenging
`the patentability of claims 1–5 and 21–24 (collectively, “the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,858,650 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’650 patent”). We
`have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons that follow, we
`determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the
`evidence, that claims 1–5 and 21–24 are unpatentable.
`A. Procedural History
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Laboratories Limited
`(“Mylan”) filed a Corrected Petition (Paper 5, “Pet.”) requesting an inter
`partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311.2 On July 20, 2016, we instituted
`trial to determine (1) whether claims 1–5 and 21–24 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Postlind,3 “Bundgaard
`
`
`2 In support of the Corrected Petition, Petitioner filed the declaration of its
`technical expert, Steven E. Patterson, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003), and the declaration
`of DeForest McDuff, Ph.D. (Ex. 1033) with respect to lack of commercial
`success.
`3 Postlind et al., Tolterodine, A New Muscarinic Receptor Antagonist, is
`Metabolized by Cytochromes P450 2D6 and 3A in Human Liver
`Microsomes, 26(4) DRUG METABOLISM & DISPOSITION 289–293 (1998)
`(Ex. 1010).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`publications,”4,5,6 Detrol Label,7 and Berge;8 and (2) whether claims 1–5 and
`21–24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
`Brynne,9 Bundgaard publications, and Johansson.10 Paper 12 (“Institution
`Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`After the Institution Decision, Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
`(“Alembic”), Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Torrent”), and Amerigen
`Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Amerigen”) were each joined as petitioners to the
`proceeding. See Case IPR2016-01596, Paper 8; Case IPR2016-01636, Paper
`10; Case IPR2016-01665, Paper 8. Accordingly, we refer to Mylan,
`Alembic, Torrent, and Amerigen collectively as “Petitioner.”
`During trial, UCB Pharma GmbH (“Patent Owner”) filed a Response
`(Paper 20, “Resp.”),11 and Petitioner filed a Corrected Reply (Paper 28,
`“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude, which is fully briefed.
`
`
`4 In the Institution Decision, we interpreted Petitioner’s reference to
`“Bundgaard publications” as referring to Exhibits 1012 and 1020. Inst. Dec.
`5 n.3. We discuss those Exhibits individually in our analysis herein, and
`also reference the Bundgaard publications collectively.
`5 Bundgaard, Design of Prodrugs, Elsevier (1985) (Ex. 1012, “Bundgaard”).
`6 WO 92/08459, published May 29, 1992 (Ex. 1020, “Bundgaard PCT”).
`7 Detrol™ (tolterodine tartrate tablets) prescribing information (1998)
`(Ex. 1009).
`8 Berge et al., Pharmaceutical Salts, 66(1) J. PHARM. SCI. 1–19 (1977)
`(Ex. 1013).
`9 Brynne et al., Influence of CYP2D6 polymorphism on the pharmacokinetics
`and pharmacodynamics of tolterodine, 63(5) CLIN. PHARMACOL. &
`THERAPEUTICS 529–539 (1998) (Ex. 1011).
`10 WO 94/11337, published May 26, 1994 (Ex. 1005).
`11 With the Response, Patent Owner filed the declarations of Hans Maag,
`Sc.D. (Ex. 2021), William R. Roush, Ph.D. (Ex. 2022), Scott A.
`MacDiarmid, M.D., FRCPSC (Ex. 2023), Leonard J. Chyall, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 2024), and Claus O. Meese, Ph.D. (Ex. 2025).
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`Paper 37 (Motion); Paper 39 (Response); Paper 40 (Reply). The parties also
`filed a Joint Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Protective Order. Paper 34.
`The record further includes a transcript of the final oral hearing conducted
`on April 5, 2017. Paper 43 (“Tr.”).
`B. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner asserts that
`[Patent Owner] and Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”), the exclusive
`licensee of the ‘650 patent, have sued Mylan Pharmaceuticals
`Inc. for infringement of the ‘650 patent in the following actions:
`Pfizer, Inc. and UCB Pharma GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
`Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00079-GMS (D. Del.) and Pfizer Inc. and UCB
`Pharma GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 1:15-
`cv-00013-IMK (N.D.W.Va.).
`Paper 7, 2; see Pet. 1–2 (noting that Pfizer is the NDA filer).
`The ’650 patent also is asserted in Pfizer, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No.
`1:13-cv-01110-GMS (D. Del.),12 and was asserted in the now-dismissed
`action, Pfizer, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., No. 1:15-cv-01067-
`GMS (D. Del.). Paper 7, 2.
`In addition to the case before us, we instituted an inter partes review
`in the following matters involving patents generally directed to
`3,3-diphenylpropylamine compounds: Case IPR2016-00512 (U.S. Patent
`No. 7,384,980 B2) (“the ’980 patent”); Case IPR2016-00514 (U.S. Patent
`
`
`12 Patent Owner provides, as Exhibit 2001, the District Court’s
`Memorandum finding that the defendants in that proceeding “failed to
`present a prima facie case that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are
`invalid as obvious.” Ex. 2001, 19. The district court reached that
`determination on a different record and applied different standards, but the
`arguments and references applied overlap with those before us. See
`Ex. 2001. Accordingly, although we are not bound by those findings, we
`find the district court’s analysis informative.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`No. 7,855,230 B2); Case IPR2016-00516 (U.S. Patent No. 8,338,478 B2),
`and Case IPR2016-00517 (U.S. Patent No. 7,985,772 B2).
`Patent Owner updated its mandatory notices on February 16, 2017, to
`reflect that Case No. 1:15-cv-00079-GMS concluded with a general verdict
`in favor of Plaintiffs, and that Patent Owner and Pfizer filed suit against
`Torrent and Torrent Pharma Incorporated for infringement of the ’650
`patent, as well as the patents challenged in Case IPR2016-00512, Case
`IPR2016-00514, Case IPR2016-00516, and Case IPR2016-00517. Paper 33,
`2. That action is captioned Pfizer, Inc. v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., No. 1:17-cv-
`00112-GMS (D. Del.). Id.
`
`C. The ’650 Patent
`The ’650 patent, titled “Stable Salts of Novel Derivatives of
`3,3-diphenylpropylamines,” issued on February 22, 2005. Ex. 1001.
`The ’650 patent generally is directed to “highly pure, crystalline stable
`compounds of novel derivatives of 3,3-diphenylpropylamines in the form of
`their salts, a method for the[ir] manufacture[,] and highly pure, stable
`intermediate products.” Id. at Abstract, 1:10–14.
`The specification discloses that the compounds “are valuable
`prodrug[s] for the treatment of urinary incontinence and other spasmodic
`complaints” that “overcome the disadvantage[s] of the active substances
`available to date.” Id. at 1:17–20. Those disadvantages include “inadequate
`absorption of the active substance by biological membranes or the
`unfavoura[b]le metabolism of [the active substance].” Id. at 1:20–22.
`According to the specification, the compounds also “have improved
`pharmacokinetic characteristics compared with Oxybutynin and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`Tolterodin[e],” two muscarinic receptor antagonists used to treat patients
`with overactive bladder. Id. at 1:23–25; Ex. 1009, 2; Ex. 1014, 528.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent and recites:
`1. Compounds of general formula I
`
`
`in which R denotes C1–C6-alkyl, C3–C10-cycloalkyl,
`substituted or unsubstituted phenyl and X− is the acid
`residue of a physiologically compatible inorganic or
`organic acid.
`Id. at 23:15–32.
`
`Claims 2 and 3 narrow claim 1 by specifying that X− is an acid ester
`chosen from an enumerated list of acids, including hydrochloric acid and
`fumaric acid, and requiring that the compounds have specific chirality (i.e.,
`the (R) enantiomer), respectively. Id. at 23:33–65. Claims 4 and 5 depend
`from claim 3 and, therefore, inherit the chirality limitation of claim 3. Like
`claim 2, claim 4 specifies that X− is an acid ester chosen from an enumerated
`list of acids, including hydrochloric acid and fumaric acid. Id. at 23:66–
`24:13. Claim 5 further narrows the compounds to the fumarate or
`hydrochloride salts. Id. at 24:14–19. Claims 21–23 recite methods of
`treating urinary incontinence disorder using the compounds of claims 1, 3,
`and 5, respectively. Id. at 30:30–41. Claim 24 recites the method of any one
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`of claims 21–23 and limits the urinary incontinence disorder to urge
`incontinence. Id. at 30:42–43.
`The compositions of claims 1–5 encompass fesoterodine fumarate
`(R-(+)-2-(3-(diisopropylamino-1-phenylpropyl)-4-hydroxymethyl-
`phenylisobutyrate ester hydrogen fumarate)) distributed by Pfizer Labs
`under the brand Toviaz. See Pet. 5; Ex. 1024, 8, 19.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`challenged claims, and that burden 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 the facts supporting its
`challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Below, we explain why Petitioner has not met its
`burden with respect to the challenged claims.
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`We begin our analysis by addressing the level of ordinary skill in the
`art. For the purpose of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s undisputed
`contention that:
` [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have a Ph.D. in
`chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, or a related
`field, and at least one year of industrial exposure to drug
`discovery, drug design, and synthesis. In lieu of an advanced
`degree, the individual may have additional years of industry
`experience, including, for example, in drug discovery, drug
`synthesis, and structure-activity work.
`Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 23); see Resp. 6.
`Based on our review of the ’650 patent, the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’650 patent and cited prior art, we adopt
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the
`appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima
`v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`B. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claim terms in an unexpired patent according to
`the 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). Under that standard, and absent any
`special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`Petitioner submits that the “claims in the ʼ650 patent are presumed to
`take on their ordinary and customary meaning based on the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the claim language.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner
`“does not dispute Petitioner’s position that no claim terms require
`construction, which the Board also accepted for purposes of institution.”
`Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 6; Inst. Dec. 7). In our Institution Decision, we
`determined that “no claim term requires express construction.” Inst. Dec. 7.
`After reviewing the entire record developed during trial, we affirm our
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`determination from the Institution Decision that no claim term requires
`express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute.
`C. Legal Standards
`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 to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. 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 ordinary 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). A decision on
`the ground of obviousness must include “articulated reasoning with some
`rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The obviousness analysis
`“should be made explicit” and it “can be important to identify a reason that
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR,
`550 U.S. at 418. We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in
`accordance with the above-stated principles.
`D. Overview of Asserted References
`We begin our discussion with a brief summary of the asserted
`references.13
`
`
`13 Unless otherwise noted, we refer to the original page numbers in each
`reference, and not the page numbers Petitioner has added to the document.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`
`Postlind (Ex. 1010)
`1.
`Postlind investigates the metabolism of tolterodine in human liver
`microsomes having varying P450 cytochrome activities. Ex. 1010, Abstract.
`Postlind illustrates the results of these studies in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates that “[m]etabolites are formed via two pathways:
`oxidation of the 5-methyl group to a 5-hydroxymethyl derivative (5-HM)
`[i.e., 5-HMT]” by cytochrome P450 2D6 (“CYP2D6” or “2D6”) “and
`dealkylation of the nitrogen” by cytochrome P450 CYP3A4 (“CYP3A4”).
`Id. at 289; see also id. at 292 (concluding that the dealkylation reaction “is
`predominantly catalyzed by CYP3A4 in human liver microsomes.”)14
`
`
`14 Petitioner’s technical expert, Dr. Patterson, emphasizes that 5-HMT is also
`N-dealkylated by CYP3A4. Ex. 1003 ¶ 111; see id. ¶¶ 45–47 (citing Brynne
`et al., Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tolterodine in man: a
`new drug for the treatment of urinary bladder overactivity, 35(7) INT’L J.
`CLIN. PHARMACOL. THERAP. 287–295 (1997) (Ex. 1007, “Brynne 1997”));
`Ex. 1007, 291 Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`
`Postlind notes that “[c]linical studies have demonstrated that
`individuals with reduced CYP2D6-mediated metabolism represent a high-
`risk group in the population with a propensity to develop adverse drug
`effects” and a “number of drugs [have been] identified as being affected by
`CYP2D6 polymorphism. . . .” Id. at 292. Accordingly, “[t]he possibility of
`clinical drug interaction at the enzyme level [] exists, especially if
`tolterodine is administered at the same time as a compound that is
`preferentially metabolized by CYP2D6 or to individuals associated with the
`CYP2D6 poor metabolizer phenotype.” Id.
`Postlind further notes that CYP3A enzymes (e.g., CYP3A4) also have
`been associated with adverse drug interactions; “[h]owever, the large
`amount of CYP3A in the liver and the fact that tolterodine is predominantly
`eliminated via oxidation by CYP2D6 makes it less likely that clinically
`significant drug-drug interactions would occur with CYP3A substrates in
`individuals with the CYP2D6 extensive metabolizer phenotype.” Id.
`2.
`Brynne (Ex. 1011)
`Brynne investigates the effect of CYP2D6 heterogeneity on the
`pharmacokinetics of tolterodine, as well as potential differences in selected
`pharmacodynamic properties (heart rate, visual accommodation, and
`salivation) of tolterodine as compared to 5-HMT. See Ex. 1011, Abstract.
`Brynne’s study involved “[s]ixteen male subjects (eight extensive
`metabolizers and eight poor metabolizers) [who] received 4 mg tolterodine
`by mouth twice a day for 8 days followed by a single intravenous infusion of
`1.8 mg tolterodine for 30 minutes after a washout period.” Id.
`With respect to the muscarinic side effect dry mouth, Brynne reports
`that “[a] distinct drug effect was [] obtained for four of eight extensive
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`metabolizers and most of the poor metabolizers after oral administration.
`For extensive metabolizers, the effect was equally pronounced after
`intravenous compared with oral administration, whereas salivation was less
`affected among poor metabolizers after the infusion.” Id. at 535. In
`considering the relation between the severity of dry mouth and unbound
`serum levels of the two compounds, Brynne reports that “[t]here was a weak
`correlation between tolterodine concentration and effect on salivation.
`A stronger correlation was seen with [5-HMT] and effect.” Id. at 536.
`Nevertheless, “[o]nly minor differences in pharmacodynamic effects after
`tolterodine dosage were observed between the groups. Tolterodine caused a
`similar decrease in salivation in both panels. The decrease occurred when
`the concentration of unbound tolterodine and 5-hydroxymethyl metabolite
`among extensive metabolizers was comparable with that of tolterodine
`among poor metabolizers.” Id., Abstract. Brynne suggests that “the
`similarity in salivary effects between the two phenotypic groups” may be
`explained by the 10-fold greater serum protein binding of tolterodine as
`compared to 5-HMT. Id. at 535–536.
`Brynne also notes a shift in the effect curve with respect to visual
`accommodation with five of the poor metabolizers reporting abnormal visual
`accommodation. Id. at 536, 538. The authors posit that “the most likely
`explanation is the physicochemical differences between tolterodine and
`[5-HMT]. Tolterodine is tenfold more lipophilic than [5-HMT], and
`consequently tolterodine penetrates membranes more rapidly.” Id. at 538.
`Brynne concludes that:
`Despite the influence of CYP2D6 polymorphism on the
`pharmacokinetics of tolterodine, this does not appear to be of
`great pharmacodynamic importance. This is because either high
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`
`concentrations of the parent compound are mainly responsible
`for
`the effect among poor metabolizers or substantial
`concentrations of the active metabolite [5-HMT] are responsible
`for the effect among extensive metabolizers.
`Id.; see id. at Abstract.
`
`Detrol Label (Ex. 1009)
`3.
`Detrol Label discusses the structural formula, pharmacokinetics, and
`pharmacology of tolterodine, provided as tolterodine tartrate “for the
`treatment of patients with an overactive bladder with symptoms of urinary
`frequency, urgency, or urge incontinence.” Ex. 1009, 5.15 The reference
`states that:
`Tolterodine is extensively metabolized by the liver following
`oral dosing. The primary metabolic route involves the oxidation
`of the 5-methyl group and is mediated by the cytochrome P450
`2D6 and leads to the formation of a pharmacologically active
`5-hydroxymethyl metabolite [i.e., 5-HMT]. Further metabolism
`leads to formation of the 5-carboxylic acid and N-dealkylated
`5-carboxylic acid metabolites, which account for 51% ± 14% and
`29% ± 6.3% of the metabolites recovered in the urine,
`respectively.
`Id. at 2. Detrol Label notes that about 7% of the population lack cytochrome
`P450 2D6 activity and are designated “poor metabolizers” as compared to
`the general population (“extensive metabolizers”). Id. Pharmacologic
`studies reveal that tolterodine is metabolized at a slower rate in poor
`metabolizers resulting in “significantly higher serum concentrations of
`tolterodine and negligible concentrations of [5-HMT].” Id. But “[b]ecause
`of differences in the protein-binding characteristics of tolterodine and
`[5-HMT], the sum of unbound serum concentrations of tolterodine and
`
`
`15 Because the Detrol Label does not include any page numbers, we refer to
`the page numbers Petitioner added to the document.
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`[5-HMT] is similar in [both populations].” Id. Moreover, “[s]ince
`tolterodine and [5-HMT] have similar antimuscarinic effects, the net activity
`of DETROL Tablets is expected to be similar in extensive and poor
`metabolizers.” Id.
`In addressing potential drug-drug interactions related to 2D6
`heterogeneity, Detrol Label states that “[t]olterodine is not expected to
`influence the pharmacokinetics of drugs that are metabolized by cytochrome
`P450 2D6.” Id. at 3. The reference further discloses that fluoxetine is a
`potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 2D6 activity and has been shown to
`significantly inhibit the metabolism of tolterodine to 5-HMT such that the
`pharmacokinetics of the drug in extensive metabolizers resembles that of
`poor metabolizers. Id. The reference, nevertheless, states that “[n]o dose
`adjustment is required when DETROL and fluoxetine are coadministered.”
`Id. Although Detrol Label does not suggest altering tolterodine dosages for
`2D6 poor metabolizers, because a substantial portion of the drug is
`N-dealkylated by cytochrome P450 3A4, it recommends dose reduction for
`patients taking drugs that inhibit 3A4. Id. at 2, 5, 7.
`4.
`Bundgaard (Ex. 1012)
`Bundgaard describes prodrug design for drug delivery. Ex. 1012, v.
`According to Bundgaard, “[a] prodrug is a pharmacologically inactive
`derivative of a parent drug molecule that requires spontaneous or enzymatic
`transformation within the body in order to release the active drug, and that
`has improved delivery properties over the parent drug molecule.” Id.
`Bundgaard explains that prodrugs bridge the gap between drug action and
`efficient delivery to a desired target site:
`A molecule with optimal structural configuration and
`physicochemical properties for eliciting the desired therapeutic
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`
`response at its target site does not necessarily possess the best
`molecular form and properties for its delivery to its point of
`ultimate action. Usually, only a minor fraction of doses
`administered reaches the target area and, since most agents
`interact with non-target sites as well, an inefficient delivery may
`result in undesirable side effects. This fact of differences in
`transport and in situ effect characteristics for many drug
`molecules is the basic reason why bioreversible chemical
`derivatization of drugs, i.e., prodrug formation, is a means by
`which a substantial improvement in the overall efficacy of drugs
`can often be achieved.
`
`Id.
`
`Bundgaard teaches that esters are popularly used in the design of
`prodrugs because the body contains numerous, widely distributed esterases
`that can cleave such prodrugs to their active forms. Id. at 3–4. With respect
`to parent drugs containing a hydroxyl moiety, exemplary prodrugs have
`employed, for example, carboxylate, carbonate, phosphate, diacetyl, amino
`acid, ditoluyl, dipivaloyl, aromatic, and hemisuccinate esters. See id. at 3,
`Table 2.
`Bundgaard further teaches that “[e]ster formation has long been
`recognized as an effective means of increasing the aqueous solubility of
`drugs containing a hydroxyl group, with the aim of developing prodrug
`preparations suitable for parenteral administration.” Id. at 7. This approach
`makes it “feasible to obtain derivatives with almost any desirable
`hydrophilicity or lipophilicity as well as in vivo lability.” Id. at 4. “The
`most commonly used esters for increasing aqueous solubility of alcoholic
`drugs are hemisuccinates, phosphates, dialkylaminoacetates and amino acid
`esters.” Id. at 8.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`
`Bundgaard PCT (Ex. 1020)
`5.
`Bundgaard PCT describes ester and diester prodrug derivatives of
`morphine for transdermal delivery. Ex. 1020, 1–5, 7–8, 10, 15. In contrast
`to morphine, “the morphine esters [were] more lipophilic than the parent
`drug in terms of octanol-aqueous buffer partition coefficients” and “the 3-
`hexanoyl, 3,6-dihexanoyl and other 3,6-dipropionyl morphine esters readily
`penetrated human skin.” Id. at 9–10.
`6.
`Berge (Ex. 1013)
`In a review of pharmaceutical formulation salts, Berge states that:
`The chemical, biological, physical, and economic characteristics
`of medicinal agents can be manipulated and, hence, often
`optimized by conversion to a salt form. Choosing the appropriate
`salt, however, can be a very difficult task, since each salt imparts
`unique properties to the parent compound.
`Salt-forming agents are often chosen empirically. Of the many
`salts
`synthesized,
`the preferred
`form
`is
`selected by
`pharmaceutical chemists primarily on a practical basis: cost of
`raw materials, ease of crystallization, and percent yield. Other
`basic considerations include stability, hygroscopicity, and
`flowability of the resulting bulk drug. Unfortunately, there is no
`reliable way of predicting the influence of a particular salt
`species on the behavior of the parent compound. Furthermore,
`even after many salts of the same basic agent have been prepared,
`no efficient screening techniques exist to facilitate selection of
`the salt most likely to exhibit the desired pharmacokinetic,
`solubility and formulation profiles.
`Ex. 1013, 1. Berge Table I is a list of FDA-approved, commercially
`marketed salts, along with an indication of how frequently those salts were
`used in the pharmaceutics industry as of 1974. Id. at 2. Table I indicates
`that fumarate salts were used 0.25% of the time. Id.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`
`Johansson (Ex. 1005)
`7.
`Johansson discloses compounds of the general formula I reproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, 1:18–2:4. General formula I represents a class of
`3,3-diphenylpropylamines. Id. at Abstract. In formula I, “R1 signifies
`hydrogen or methyl, R2 and R3 independently signify hydrogen, methyl,
`methoxy, hydroxy, carbamoyl, sulphamoyl or halogen, and X represents a
`tertiary amino group.” Id. at 1:27–30. Johansson further discloses that
`preferred tertiary amino groups of formula I include the group reproduced
`below:
`
`
`Id. at 2:26–3:5. Johansson teaches that such compounds “can form salts
`with physiologically acceptable acids . . . . Examples of such acid addition
`salts include the hydrochloride, hydrobromide, hydrogen fumarate, and the
`like.” Id. at 2:5–10. According to Dr. Patterson, Johansson’s general
`formula encompasses 5-HMT (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 133–136), which Patent Owner
`does not contest (see Resp. 60 (referencing “Johansson’s disclosure of
`potential salts of 5-HMT”)).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`
`E. Analysis of Alleged Obviousness over Postlind, Bundgaard
`Publications, Detrol Label, and Berge (Ground I)
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Postlind, Bundgaard,
`Bundgaard PCT, Detrol Label, and Berge would have rendered the subject
`matter of claims 1–5 and 21–24 obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art. See Pet. 3, 21–43. In particular, Petitioner argues that it would have
`been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to (1) identify 5-HMT as a
`lead compound for drug development; (2) recognize that 5-HMT could have
`adverse effects due to its metabolism and poor oral bioavailability due to its
`lipophilicity profile; (3) address such concerns regarding adverse effects and
`poor oral bioavailability by esterifying 5-HMT to create a prodrug having
`increased lipophilicity and, subsequently, optimizing the ester moiety to
`arrive at a compound having a short-chain mono-ester derivative at only the
`5-hydroxyl position; and (4) select an acid-addition salt that provides the
`desired product stability. Id. at 21–38. Further, with regard to claims 3–5,
`22, and 23,16 which require compounds having a specific chirality, Petitioner
`argues that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led to the (R)
`enantiomer of fesoterodine. Id. at 37, 38, 41, 42. Petitioner also argues that
`it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to treat a
`patient suffering from urinary incontinence generally (claims 21–23), and
`urge incontinence specifically (claim 24), with the compounds of claims 1,
`3, and/or 5, as recited in claims 21–24. Id. at 38–43.
`A determination of whether a new chemical compound would have
`been obvious over the prior art typically follows a two prong inquiry
`
`
`16 Claim 24 alternatively depends from any one of claims 21–23 and,
`therefore, does not require a specific chirality.
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`considering first, whether one of ordinary skill would have selected one or
`more lead compounds for further development and, second, whether the
`prior art would have supplied sufficient motivation to modify a lead
`compound to arrive at the compound claimed with a reasonable expectation
`of success. See Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd., v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280,
`1291–92 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Based on our review of the arguments and evidence of record, we
`determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the
`evidence, that the combination of Postlind, Bundgaard, Bundgaard PCT,
`Detrol Label, and Berge would have rendered obvious the subject matter of
`claims 1–5 and 21–24.
`1.
`Identification of 5-HMT as a Lead Compound
`In the first step of our analysis, we determine “whether a chemist of
`ordinary skill would have selected the asserted prior art compounds as lead
`compounds, or starting points, for further development efforts.” Id. at 1291.
`A lead compound comprises “a natural choice for further development
`efforts,” Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1008
`(Fed. Cir. 2009), i.e., a prior art compound “that would be most promising to
`modify in order to improve upon its . . . activity and obtain a compound with
`better activity,” Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492
`F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “In determining whether a chemist would
`have selected a prior art compound as a lead, the analysis is guided by
`evidence of the compound’s pertinent properties.” Otsuka Pharm., 678 F.3d
`at 1292; see also Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 1359
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that even “post-KSR, a prima facie case of
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00510
`Patent 6,858,650 B1
`
`obviousness for a chemical compound still, in general, begins with the
`reasoned identification of a lead compound”).
`Petitioner begins with the proposition that, in light of Postlind and the
`pharmacodynamic information in the Detrol Label, one of ordinary skill in
`the art would recognize that tolterodine was metabolized to an active
`metabolite, 5-HMT, having beneficial properties as compared to the parent
`compound. Pet. 22–24; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–43, 95–102. Petitioner argues
`that because the references disclose that tolterodine is metabolized to
`5-HMT by cytochrome CYP2D6, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`elected to begin w

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