throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`NALOX-1 PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LIMITED, AND
`OPIANT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`_____________________
`
`CASE IPR2019-00688
`U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER NALOX-1 PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC’s
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE SECOND DEPOSITION OF
`PATENT OWNERS’ EXPERT DR. STUART ALLEN JONES
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688 – U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747
` Petitioner’s Motion for Observations of Second Deposition
`of Patent Owners’ Expert Dr. Stuart Allen Jones
`
`Pursuant to 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767-68, Petitioner Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals,
`
`LLC (“Petitioner”) submits this motion for observations regarding cross-
`
`examination of Patent Owners’ sur-reply declarant Dr. Stuart Allen Jones,
`
`following his deposition on May 1, 2020 (Nalox1251).
`
`Observation 1: Relevant to Patent Owners’ argument that, “Surfactants, like
`
`BZK [benzalkonium chloride], are particularly known
`
`to facilitate drug
`
`degradation.” Paper 49 at 4.
`
`Dr. Jones testified:
`
`Q. …[Tsuji (Exhibit 2309)] says, [t]he previous and present studies
`revealed a marked stability of penicillins in acid solutions with
`both cationic and nonionic micelles. Do you see that?
`A. Yes, I see those words on the page.
`Q. And then three lines down, starting “These stabilization,” it
`says, These stabilization effects are attributed to incorporation of
`the penicillin molecules into both types of micelles. Do you see
`that?
`A. Yes, I see those words on the page.
`Q. Tsuji states that using cationic and nonionic surfactant micelles
`stabilized penicillins, correct?
`. . . .
`A. So what Tsuji has shown here is that certain types of chemicals
`can be stabilized to a certain degree by ionic and nonionic
`micelles, but other chemicals are not stabilized. And what Tsuji
`says is this is dependent upon how much of the molecule is
`incorporated within the micelle. And those chemicals which are
`not incorporated within the micelle are not stabilized. And those
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688 – U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747
` Petitioner’s Motion for Observations of Second Deposition
`of Patent Owners’ Expert Dr. Stuart Allen Jones
`
`which are incorporated into the micelle to a high degree seem to
`show some stability in this particular study.
`Nalox1251 at 41:19–43:25 (emphases added).
`
`Dr. Jones also testified:
`
`Q. [Yoshioka (Exhibit 2301)] says . . . [t]he observation that
`hydrolysis
`of
`acetylcholine
`is
`alkaline
`decreased
`by
`dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride (DTAC) as shown in Figure
`114, has been explained by assuming that the drug molecule
`penetrates the micellar phase and is shielded from the attack of
`hydroxide ion. Do you see that?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And then two lines down, it says, Alkaline hydrolysis of
`benzocaine
`is
`inhibited by cetyltrimethylammonium chloride
`(CTAC). Do you see that?
`A. Yes.
`Nalox1251 at 49:15–50:3 (emphases added).
`
`The preceding testimony contradicts Patent Owners’ argument that,
`
`“Surfactants, like BZK, are particularly known to facilitate drug degradation,”
`
`(Paper 49 at 4), because it demonstrates the knowledge in the prior art that various
`
`cationic surfactants (including the quaternary ammonium compounds DTAC and
`
`CTAC) were shown to enhance drug stability. This testimony is also relevant
`
`because the proposed mechanism by which the surfactants are stated to enhance
`
`drug protection in the prior art—i.e., incorporation of the drug into the micellar
`
`phase—is the same mechanism proposed by Dr. Jones for BZK’s degradation of
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688 – U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747
` Petitioner’s Motion for Observations of Second Deposition
`of Patent Owners’ Expert Dr. Stuart Allen Jones
`
`naloxone (see Nalox1251 at 98:23–100:1), further undermining Dr. Jones’s
`
`opinion that BZK facilitated naloxone degradation.
`
`Observation 2. Relevant to Dr. Jones’s opinion that CTAB (which, Dr.
`
`Jones opined, has “similar properties” as BZK (see Exhibit 2300 at ¶ 16, n.2)) can
`
`enhance drug degradation.
`
`Dr. Jones testified:
`
`Q. You say, CTAB and BZK are both quaternary ammonium
`compounds that the POSA would have recognized as having
`similar properties. Do you see that?
`A. Yes, and I finish then, including with respect to their ability to
`act as surfactants and preservatives, yes.
`. . . .
` Q. …[Yoshioka (Exhibit 2301)] says, [a]s shown in Figure 116,
`acid degradation of propicillin in solutions was inhibited by
`polyoxyethylene 23 lauryl ether, a nonionic surfactant, and CTAB,
`a cationic surfactant. Do you see that?
`A. Yes.
`…
`Q. [Y]ou chose to only include references to CTAB degrading
`drugs, specifically cefaclor and indomethacin, but you chose not to
`include from the same exact reference in the same exact part of the
`reference that you're quoting from, disclosure that the same
`compound, CTAB, could inhibit degradation of a compound, didn't
`you?
`A. I stated in my declaration two quotes from this reference. The
`first was the effect of surfactants on degradation, in quotes, can be,
`in quotes, difficult to interpret. These two quotes give an overall
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688 – U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747
` Petitioner’s Motion for Observations of Second Deposition
`of Patent Owners’ Expert Dr. Stuart Allen Jones
`
`view of the reference. And the reference in a number of places
`provides examples of where surfactants can have an effect on
`degradation and how this can be difficult to interpret. I then go on
`to talk about cefaclor, an aminophenyl cephalosporin, and how the
`degradation was enhanced by CTAB, a well-known surfactant.
`And this was an appropriate example because this does not include
`within micelles, which,
`therefore,
`is appropriate from
`the
`description of BZK surfactant properties increasing naloxone
`degradation because it's not discussing the inclusion of naloxone in
`micelles, rather it’s discussing the inclusion of oxygen in micelles,
`and, therefore, including drugs which themselves go into micelles -
`- discussing drugs which themselves penetrate into micelles and
`are protected from degradation as a consequence to this discussion
`which is moving toward the effect of surfactants to solubilize
`oxygen and, therefore, the oxygen is within the micelles. And,
`therefore, these citations are appropriate within the wider section
`of BZK’s surfactant properties would
`increase naloxone
`degradation observed in Wyse.
`Nalox1251 at 44:19–25; 79:4–82:24 (emphases added) (Patent Owners’ objections
`
`omitted). This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Jones’s opinion that
`
`CTAB (which, Dr. Jones opined, has “similar properties” as BZK (see Exhibit
`
`2300 at ¶ 16, n.2)) can enhance drug degradation—since the same prior art
`
`reference cited by Dr. Jones shows that CTAB also can enhance drug stability.
`
`Observation 3. Relevant to Patent Owners’ argument that, “BZK’s
`
`surfactant properties could indirectly increase naloxone degradation … by
`
`solubilizing oxygen in lipophilic micelles….” Paper 49 at 4.
`
`Dr. Jones testified:
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688 – U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747
` Petitioner’s Motion for Observations of Second Deposition
`of Patent Owners’ Expert Dr. Stuart Allen Jones
`
`Q. Dr. Jones, did you look for references that disclose that BZK
`specifically can increase oxygen solubility?
`A. In forming my report, I did a literature search which involved
`both 34 known surfactants that are used in intranasal formulations,
`and specifically benzalkonium chloride, and I found clear
`references which showed that surfactants as a group, as a whole,
`irrespective of the head group, would increase oxygen solubility in
`aqueous formulations. And this – these are the references that I
`presented here. But I did do literature searches both for
`benzalkonium chloride and general surfactants.
`Q. But you didn’t include a reference that specifically discloses
`that BZK can increase oxygen solubility, correct?
`A. When I found the references cited in my proposal – in my
`declaration, my Supplemental Declaration, regarding oxygen
`solubility, and saw that the effect was general for the class of
`surfactants, I felt – didn’t feel the need to go on with my searches
`for benzalkonium chloride’s effect because the POSA would have
`known that the effect is across surfactants as a whole, and,
`therefore, it would have occurred with surfactants in general.
`Nalox1251 at 89:17–90:18. This testimony is relevant because it contradicts
`
`Patent Owners’ argument that, “BZK’s surfactant properties could indirectly
`
`increase naloxone degradation … by solubilizing oxygen in lipophilic micelles”
`
`(Paper 49 at 4), since Dr. Jones admitted that he did not locate any prior art
`
`reference disclosing that BZK had this property. Further, Dr. Jones’s testimony
`
`that the oxygen solubilizing effects are “across surfactants as a whole” (Nalox1251
`
`at 90:16), is relevant because it contradicts Patent Owners’ argument that,
`
`“Surfactants, like BZK, are particularly known to facilitate drug degradation,”
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688 – U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747
` Petitioner’s Motion for Observations of Second Deposition
`of Patent Owners’ Expert Dr. Stuart Allen Jones
`
`(Paper 49 at 4), since various surfactants (including the quaternary ammonium
`
`compounds DTAC and CTAC) were shown in the prior art to enhance drug
`
`stability (see Observation 1), despite Dr. Jones’s opinion that they have the same
`
`oxygen solubilizing effects as BZK.
`
`Date: May 8, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Yelee Y. Kim
`Yelee Y. Kim, Reg. No. 60,088
`ARENT FOX LLP
`1717 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`202.857.6000
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688 – U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747
` Certificate of Service
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “Petitioner Nalox-
`
`1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC’s Motion for Observations on the Second Deposition of
`
`Patent Owners’ Expert Dr. Stuart Allen Jones,” was served in its entirety on May
`
`8, 2020, upon the following parties via e-mail:
`
`Jessamyn S. Berniker (jberniker@wc.com)
`Ana C. Reyes (areyes@wc.com)
`David M. Krinsky (dkrinsky@wc.com)
`Anthony H. Sheh (asheh@wc.com)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 434-5000
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Adapt Pharma Operations Limited
`
`Jessica Tyrus Mackay (jmackay@greengriffith.com)
`Ann K. Kotze (akotze@greengriffith.com)
`GREEN, GRIFFITH & BORG-BREEN, LLP
`676 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3900
`Chicago, IL 60611
`(313) 883-8000
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`/s/ Yelee Y. Kim
`Yelee Y. Kim, Reg. No. 60,088
`ARENT FOX LLP
`1717 K Street, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 857-6000
`yelee.kim@arentfox.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`
`

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