throbber
Filed: April 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`POZEN INC. and HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC.,
`
`Patent Owners
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 to Ault et al.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2018-00894
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1167899
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................ 1
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)..................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3).................. 2
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................. 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 AND 42.104) ............. 3
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(A) AND 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .............. 4
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ............... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Argument ................................................................... 4
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 8
`
`The ’698 Patent and Its Prosecution ..................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`NSAID Gastropathy ................................................................... 8
`
`Specification of the ’698 Patent ................................................. 9
`
`The ’698 Patent Prosecution .................................................... 14
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.104(b)(3)) ............. 16
`
`1.
`
`“Target” Means “With The Goal of Obtaining” ...................... 16
`
`E.
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art .................................................... 19
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`PK/PD Overview ...................................................................... 19
`
`References Disclosing Combined Naproxen-
`Esomeprazole Formulations ..................................................... 21
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`’285 Patent ..................................................................... 21
`
`’907 Patent ..................................................................... 24
`
`Hochberg 2008 ............................................................... 25
`
`Goldstein 2008 ............................................................... 26
`
`Hassan-Alin 2005 .......................................................... 27
`
`3.
`
`References Disclosing the PK/PD of Immediate-Release
`PPIs .......................................................................................... 28
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Howden 2005 ................................................................. 28
`
`Zegerid® Label ............................................................... 28
`
`4.
`
`References Disclosing the Pharmacokinetics of Naproxen ..... 30
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`EC-Naprosyn® Label ...................................................... 31
`
`Khosravan 2006 ............................................................. 32
`
`Jung 1994 ....................................................................... 33
`
`Davies 1997 ................................................................... 34
`
`F.
`
`Ground 1: All Claims of the ’698 Patent Are Anticipated by the
`’285 Patent .......................................................................................... 34
`
`1.
`
`The Method of Claim 1 Is Anticipated by the ’285 Patent ...... 34
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The ’285 patent disclosed the drug formulation in
`claim 1 ............................................................................ 34
`
`The PK/PD elements in claim 1 are inherent in the
`formulation .................................................................... 36
`
`2.
`
`The dependent claims are anticipated by the ’285 patent ........ 40
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Dependent claim 2 is anticipated ................................... 40
`
`Dependent claims 3 and 4 are anticipated ..................... 41
`
`Dependent claims 5-7 are anticipated ............................ 41
`
`G. Ground 2: All Claims of the ’698 Patent Are Obvious Over the
`’285 Patent .......................................................................................... 43
`
`H. Ground 3: All Claims of the ’698 Patent Are Obvious Over the
`’285 patent in View of the EC-Naprosyn® Label and Howden
`2005 ....................................................................................................48
`
`1.
`
`The Method of Claim 1 Is Obvious Over the ’285 patent
`in View of the EC-Naprosyn® Label and Howden 2005 .......... 48
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The EC-Naprosyn® label disclosed the PK
`elements for naproxen .................................................... 50
`
`Howden 2005 disclosed the PK elements for
`esomeprazole ................................................................. 53
`
`Howden 2005 disclosed the PD element ....................... 58
`
`2.
`
`The dependent claims are obvious over the ’285 patent in
`view of the EC-Naprosyn® label and Howden 2005 ................ 59
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Dependent claim 2 is obvious ........................................ 59
`
`Dependent claims 3 and 4 are obvious .......................... 60
`
`Dependent claims 5-7 are obvious ................................. 60
`
`I.
`
`No Secondary Considerations Support Nonobviousness ................... 60
`
`1.
`
`There Are No Unexpected Results ........................................... 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The ’698 Patent Satisfied No Long-Felt But Unmet Need ...... 63
`
`There Was No Industry Skepticism ......................................... 63
`
`Copying by Generic Drug Makers Is Irrelevant ...................... 64
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 64
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc.,
`190 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
`713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 64
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................5, 37
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`752 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 63
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................................................... 16
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 37
`
`Ex parte DesOrmeaux,
`25 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ........................................... 22
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 16
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Litigation,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................15
`
`In re Huai-Hung Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 45
`
`King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....................................................................45, 46
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 48
`
`Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`862 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017)…………………………………………….46, 47
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...............................................................44, 45, 46
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 60
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................passim
`
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)……………………………………………...... 37
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .....................................................................7, 37
`
`Sun Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing, Inc.,
`872 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 22
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,.
`726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 23
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................................4 47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(2)...............................................................................................22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................4, 45, 47
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`MPEP § 2136.03 ...................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698, Method for Delivering a
`Pharmaceutical Composition to Patient in need thereof (filed
`Sept. 3, 2009) (issued Dec. 29, 2015) (“the ’698 patent”)
`Declaration of Meyer N. Solny, M.D. (“Solny Decl.”)
`Declaration of Richard Bergstrom, Ph.D. (“Bergstrom Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907, Pharmaceutical Compositions for
`the Coordinated Delivery of NSAIDS (filed May 31, 2002)
`(issued Aug. 9, 2005)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,557,285, Pharmaceutical Compositions for
`the Coordinated Delivery of NSAIDS (filed Aug. 23, 2011)
`(issued Oct. 15, 2013)
`Howden, Review Article: Immediate-Release Proton-Pump
`Inhibitor Therapy – Potential Advantages, 22 (Suppl. 3)
`ALIMENT. PHARMACOL. THER. 25 (2005)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,877,192, Method for the Treatment of
`Gastric Acid-Related Diseases and Production of Medication
`using (-) Enantiomer of Omeprazole (filed Apr. 11, 1997)
`(issued Mar. 2, 1999)
`Products on NDA 020067 (EC-Naprosyn), FDA.GOV,
`https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?
`event= overview.process&ApplNo=020067 (last visited
`Aug. 23, 2017)
`EC-Naprosyn prescribing information (Jan. 2007)
`Zegerid approval letter and prescribing information (2004)
`Goldstein et al., 116 A Single Tablet Multilayer Formulation
`of Enteric-Coated Naproxen Coupled with Non-Enteric
`Coated OMEPRAZOLE is Associated with a Significantly
`Reduced Incidence of Gastric Ulcers vs. Enteric-Coated
`Naproxen: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study,
`134(4) GASTROENTEROLOGY A19 (2008)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`Description
`Hochberg et al., A Novel, Single-Tablet Formulation that
`Delivers Immediate-Release Omeprazole Followed by Enteric-
`Coated (EC) Naproxen Significantly Reduces the Incidence of
`Gastric Ulcers Compared with EC Naproxen Alone: Results of
`a Prospective, Randomised, Double-Blind, 6-Month Study
`including Patients with OA and RA, EULAR (2008)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Amendment C and Response to Final Office Action (Jan. 30,
`2013)
`Wolfe et al., Acid Suppression: Optimizing Therapy for
`Gastroduodenal Ulcer Healing, Gastroesophageal Reflux
`Disease, and Stress-Related Erosive Syndrome, 118
`GASTROENTEROLOGY S9 (2000)
`Bell et al., Appropriate Acid Suppression for the Management
`of Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease, 51 (suppl. 1)
`DIGESTION 59 (1992)
`Hassan-Alin et al., Lack of Pharmacokinetic Interaction
`between Esomeprazole and the Nonsteroidal Anti-
`Inflammatory Drugs Naproxen and Rofecoxib in Healthy
`Subjects, 25(11) CLIN. DRUG INVEST. 731 (2006)
`Khosravan et al., Pharmacokinetic Interactions of
`Concomitant Administration of Febuxostat and NSAIDs, 46 J.
`CLIN. PHARMA. 855 (2006)
`Jung et al., Steady-State Pharmacokinetics of Enteric-Coated
`Naproxen Tablets Compared with Standard Naproxen Tablets,
`16(6) CLIN. THER. 923 (1994)
`Davies et al., Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Naproxen, 32(4)
`CLIN. PHARMACOKINET. 268 (1997)
`Naprosyn/EC-Naprosyn/Anaprox DS Prescribing Information
`(Mar. 2017)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Description
`Dan M. Roden, Principles of Clinical Pharmacology, in
`HARRISON’S PRINCIPLES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 13 (Dennis L.
`Kasper et al. eds., 16th ed. 2005)
`Malcolm Rowland & Thomas N. Tozer, CLINICAL
`PHARMACOKINETICS (3d ed. 1995)
`Clissold et al., Omeprazole A Preliminary Review of its
`Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic Properties, and
`Therapeutic Potential in Peptic Ulcer Disease and Zollinger-
`Ellison Syndrome, 32 DRUGS 15 (1986)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,411,070, Form of S-Omeprazole (filed Sept.
`25, 2003) (issued Aug. 12, 2008)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,714,504, Compositions (filed Jan. 23, 1995)
`(issued Feb. 3, 1998)
`Michael Mayersohn, Principles of Drug Absorption, in
`MODERN PHARMACEUTICS 21 (3d ed. 1996)
`Howden, Clinical Pharmacology of Omeprazole, 20(1) CLIN.
`PHARMACOKINET. 38 (1991)
`Lind et al., Esomeprazole Provides Improved Acid Control vs.
`Omeprazole in Patients with Symptoms of Gastro-Oesophageal
`Reflux Disease, 14 ALIMENT. PHARMACOL. THER. 861 (2000)
`Regårdh et al., Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism of
`Omeprazole in Animals and Man – An Overview, 20(suppl.
`108) SCAND. J. GASTROENTEROL 79 (1985)
`Vimovo prescribing information (Dec. 2014)
`Target, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY (4th
`ed. 2005)
`Target, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
`LANGUAGE (4th ed. 2006)
`Target, MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S CONCISE DICTIONARY (Large
`print ed. 2006)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`1044
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Office Action Summary (Jan. 5, 2012)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Office Action Summary (July 30, 2012)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Office Action Summary (June 16, 2014)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Office Action Summary (Mar. 26, 2015)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Amendment B in Response to January 5, 2012 Office
`Action (May 8, 2012)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Response to Non-Final Office Action Mailed June 16, 2014
`(Dec. 12, 2014)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Response to Final Office Action Mailed March 26, 2015 (Sept.
`25, 2015)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 Prosecution History Excerpt:
`Advisory Action (Oct. 9, 2015)
`Goldlust et al., Nighttime Dosing of Omeprazole Immediate-
`Release Oral Suspension Rapidly Decreases Nocturnal Gastric
`Acidity, 99(10) AM. J. GASTROENTEROLOGY S39 (2004)
`Declaration of David C. Metz, M.D. (“Metz Decl.”)
`Declaration of Michael Mayersohn, Ph.D. (“Mayersohn
`Decl.”)
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698 (“the ’698 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which is
`
`assigned to Pozen Inc. (“Pozen”) and Horizon Pharma USA, Inc. (“Horizon”)
`
`(collectively, “Patent Owners”), under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42
`
`and seeks a determination that all claims (1-7) of the ’698 patent be canceled as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`This Petition is filed in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a). Filed
`
`herewith is a power of attorney and exhibit list per § 42.10(b) and § 42.63(e).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103, the fee set forth in § 42.15(a) accompanies this
`
`Petition.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`Petitioner provides the following mandatory notices.
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real parties-in-interest for Petitioner are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc.
`
`and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The following litigations or instituted inter partes reviews related to the ’698
`
`patent are pending:
`
` Inter Partes Review IPR2017-01995 of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

` Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc., No. 15-3324 (D.N.J.);
`
` Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc., No. 16-4918 (D.N.J.);
`
` Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Inc., No. 16-9035 (D.N.J.);
`
` Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 15-3327 (D.N.J.);
`
` Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 16-4921 (D.N.J.);
`
`and
`
` Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 16-4920 (D.N.J.).
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Alan H. Pollack (Reg. No. 39,802)
`BUDD LARNER, P.C.
`150 John F. Kennedy Parkway
`Short Hills, New Jersey 07078
`Tel: (973) 379-4800
`apollack@buddlarner.com
`
`Back Up Counsel
`Dmitry V. Shelhoff (motion for Pro
`Hac Vice admission to be filed)
`Stuart D. Sender (Reg. No. 34,248)
`Louis H. Weinstein (Reg. No. 45,205)
`BUDD LARNER, P.C.
`150 John F. Kennedy Parkway
`Short Hills, New Jersey 07078
`Tel: (973) 379-4800
`dshelhoff@buddlarner.com
`ssender@buddlarner.com
`lweinstein@buddlarner.com
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Please direct all correspondence to lead counsel and back-up counsel at the
`
`contact information above. Petitioner consents to electronic service by e-mail at the
`
`following email addresses: apollack@buddlarner.com; dshelhoff@buddlarner.com;
`
`ssender@buddlarner.com; lweinstein@buddlarner.com
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 and 42.104)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’698 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’698 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review on the grounds identified herein. Though Petitioner
`
`filed the Petition more than one year after the date on which Petitioner was served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’698 patent, the Petition is timely
`
`because Petitioner has filed it no later than one month after the institution date of
`
`an inter partes review for which joinder is requested. The time period set forth in §
`
`42.101(b) does not apply because the Petition is accompanied by a request for
`
`joinder to Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Pozen Inc. and Horizon Pharma USA,
`
`Inc., Case No. IPR2017-00323 (“the Mylan IPR”), which was instituted on March
`
`8, 2018 (Paper 18)
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND STATEMENT OF THE
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims
`
`1-7 on the grounds set forth below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Claims 1-7 are unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 by U.S. Patent No. 8,557,285 (“the ’285 patent”).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-7 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over the ’285 patent.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-7 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over the ’285 patent in view of the EC-Naprosyn® label and Howden 2005.
`
`Petitioner’s full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is set forth
`
`below. In support of these grounds for unpatentability, Petitioner submits the expert
`
`declarations of Dr. Meyer N. Solny, M.D. (Ex. 1002 (“Solny Decl.”)) and Dr.
`
`Richard Bergstrom, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003 (“Bergstrom Decl.”)) and relies on the other
`
`Exhibits set forth in the concurrently filed Listing of Exhibits.
`
`V. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged
`
`in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This Petition clears that threshold. As explained
`
`below, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at
`
`least one of the challenged claims.
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Argument
`
`The claims of the ’698 patent are directed to a method of administering a drug
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`formulation with certain pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD)
`
`parameters. But, the drug formulation and method of administration were both
`
`known—Patent Owners had previously disclosed them in two prior art patents: U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,926,907 (Ex. 1004) and 8,557,285 (Ex. 1005). And there is nothing
`
`novel about the PK/PD elements either—they are the natural result of administering
`
`the known formulation according to the known method. To extend patent protection
`
`eight years beyond the ’907 patent’s expiration, the inventors of the ’698 patent
`
`simply ran a routine clinical trial using a known drug and known method to
`
`document an inherent property of the drug. They then claimed the expected and
`
`unsurprising results. “Newly discovered results of known processes directed to the
`
`same purpose are not patentable because such results are inherent.” Bristol-Myers
`
`Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
`
`’698 patent’s claims are unpatentable as anticipated by, or obvious over, the ’285
`
`patent.
`
`Specifically, the ’698 patent claims a method of treating arthritis by
`
`administering a combination tablet of naproxen 500mg (EC-Naprosyn®) and
`
`esomeprazole 20mg (Nexium®) twice daily. Naproxen relieves arthritis pain and
`
`inflammation, but long-term administration was known to cause gastric injury. To
`
`solve this problem, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)—esomeprazole for example—
`
`were prescribed to raise gastric pH, preventing naproxen-induced injury.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`As a result, skilled artisans designed tablets combining naproxen and PPIs.
`
`In 2001, the ’285 and ’907 patents disclosed and claimed the “PN formulation,” a
`
`specific tablet structure combining naproxen and esomeprazole. The PN
`
`formulation purportedly features “coordinated release,” whereby esomeprazole is
`
`immediately released and the naproxen releases only once the esomeprazole has
`
`raised gastric pH. Dr. John Plachetka, one of the four inventors of the ’698 patent,
`
`is the named inventor of the ’285 and ’907 patents.
`
`The ’698 patent claims the precise formulation and method of administration
`
`disclosed in Dr. Plachetka’s ’285 and ’907 patents seven years prior. The only other
`
`elements it recites are certain PK/PD values for naproxen and esomeprazole. But
`
`these PK/PD values result from administering the prior art PN formulation per the
`
`prior art method. The ’698 patent concedes this point, referring to the ’907 patent
`
`as a formulation that “can be effective in improving NSAID tolerability through
`
`dosages of esomeprazole and naproxen that produce the desired pharmacodynamic
`
`response and pharmacokinetic values.” Ex. 1001, 1:30-37.
`
`The law does not permit Patent Owners to extend their monopoly nearly a
`
`decade by simply claiming an inherent characteristic of their previously disclosed
`
`formulation and method of administration. Indeed, the ’698 patent is exactly why
`
`the inherency doctrine exists: “one of the principles underlying the doctrine of
`
`inherent anticipation is to ensure that the public remains free to make, use or sell
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`prior art compositions or processes, regardless of whether or not they understand
`
`their complete makeup or the underlying scientific principles which allow them to
`
`operate.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1345-46 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (quotation and alteration omitted).
`
`The Federal Circuit has previously held that “an obvious formulation cannot
`
`become nonobvious simply by administering it to a patient and claiming the
`
`resulting serum concentrations.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344,
`
`1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Yet, that is exactly what Patent Owners did here—they gave
`
`a known formulation to patients and claimed the resulting serum concentrations.
`
`“The initial blood serum concentration resulting from administering a PPI dosage
`
`is an inherent property of the formulation.” Id. All claims of the ’698 patent are
`
`anticipated by or obvious over at least the ’285 patent.
`
`Alternatively, all claims of the ’698 patent are obvious over the ’285 patent
`
`in view of the EC-Naprosyn® label (Ex. 1009) and Howden 2005 (Ex. 1006). Even
`
`if not inherent, a skilled artisan would have known to target the claimed PK/PD
`
`values because they were known to be produced by effective drugs already on the
`
`market: EC-Naprosyn® for naproxen and Zegerid® for esomeprazole. Skilled
`
`artisans would understand from the EC-Naprosyn® label and Howden 2005 that EC-
`
`Naprosyn® and Zegerid® produced PK/PD values at which delayed-release
`
`naproxen and immediate-release esomeprazole were effective. When developing
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`the claimed PN formulation, skilled artisans would target PK/PD values known to
`
`provide efficacy. As the ’698 patent’s claims require only that the prior art teach a
`
`skilled artisan to “target” the claimed PK/PD values, all claims are obvious over the
`
`’285 patent in view of the EC-Naprosyn® label and Howden 2005.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is presumed to be aware of all
`
`pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity. The field of art involves the knowledge of a medical doctor and
`
`that of a pharmacologist or pharmacokineticist with experience in dosage form
`
`design and evaluation. Thus, the hypothetical POSA is a collaboration between a
`
`pharmacologist or pharmacokineticist having a Ph.D. degree or equivalent training,
`
`or a M.S. degree with at least 2 years of some experience in dosage form design and
`
`in in vitro and in vivo evaluation of dosage form performance, and a medical doctor
`
`having at least 2 years of practical experience treating patients in the
`
`gastroenterology field. Ex. 1002 ¶¶23-24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶19-20.
`
`C.
`
`The ’698 Patent and Its Prosecution
`
`1.
`
`NSAID Gastropathy
`
`The ’698 patent relates to formulations and methods of treatment to prevent
`
`injury caused by chronic use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (“NSAIDs”).
`
`NSAIDs are a class of drugs used to treat pain and inflammation, including pain
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`and inflammation associated with arthritis. Ex. 1002 ¶25. The class includes, e.g.,
`
`aspirin, naproxen, ibuprofen, and diclofenac. Id. NSAIDs are among the most
`
`commonly prescribed medications in the world and have been in use for decades.
`
`Id. The NSAID naproxen was first approved by the FDA in 1976 under the trade
`
`name Naprosyn. Ex 1020, 1.
`
`NSAIDs can cause a variety of side effects over chronic administration. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶26. These NSAID-induced side effects are commonly called “NSAID-
`
`related injury” or “gastropathy.” Id. This injury, however, can be reduced by
`
`controlling acid in the stomach through concomitant administration of an acid
`
`inhibitor with the NSAID. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Specification of the ’698 Patent
`
`The ’698 patent claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`September 9, 2008. It relates to methods of administering to a patient delayed-
`
`release naproxen 500mg and immediate-release esomeprazole 20mg in a single
`
`tablet. Ex. 1001, 24:45-49; Ex. 1002 ¶¶29, 37-38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶40-44, 58-66. The
`
`specification calls this formulation as “PN400/E20.” Ex. 1001, 26:44-45; Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶34-36; Ex. 1003 ¶44. The ’698 patent recites in its claims certain PK/PD results
`
`for patients administered PN400/E20. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 35, Tbls. 6, 11; Ex.
`
`1003 ¶45. As explained in more detail infra, Section VI.E.1, when a patient intakes
`
`a drug, it has a particular effect, i.e., it reduces pain and/or increases stomach pH.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 ¶¶26-27. Scientists measure these effects by determining PK/PD values.
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶27. PK measures the body’s absorption of the drug; PD describes the
`
`drug’s effect on the body. Ex. 1003 ¶¶25-28.
`
`The ’698 patent describes certain PK parameters: “Cmax,” “Tmax,” and “area
`
`under the curve” or “AUC.” Id. ¶45. To a skilled artisan, Cmax is the maximum
`
`concentration the drug achieves in the patient’s blood plasma. Id. ¶31. Tmax refers
`
`to the time after administration at which the patient’s Cmax is reached. Id. Finally,
`
`“area under the curve” or AUC measures the total amount of drug delivered over a
`
`certain period after administration, for example after ten hours (AUC0-10) or after
`
`twenty-four hours (AUC0-24). Ex. 1003 ¶¶31, 38. Because there is natural intra- and
`
`inter-patient variation, pharmacokinetic parameters are generally recited as average
`
`(mean) values plus or minus a variation. Ex. 1003 ¶32.
`
`The background of the ’698 patent notes that NSAIDs were understood to
`
`induce gastrointestinal injury, such as ulcers, when used frequently. Ex. 1001, 1:19-
`
`24; Ex. 1002 ¶30; Ex. 1003 ¶46. Skilled artisans knew that stomach acid was “[a]
`
`major factor contributing to the development of gastrointestinal lesions.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:24-25; Ex. 1003 ¶46. The specification next refers to several strategies previously
`
`taken “to reduce the gastrointestinal risk associated with taking NSAIDs by
`
`administering agents that inhibit stomach acid secretion, such as, for example,
`
`proton pump inhibitors with the NSAID.” Ex. 1001, 1:27-30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶31-3

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