Paper 1
`Filed: February 19, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`NALOX-1 PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADAPT PHARMA LTD,
`OPIANT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owners
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00693
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,561,177
`AS OBVIOUS OVER DAVIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  IPR REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................ 2 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 2 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............................ 3 
`1. 
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ................................................................. 3 
`2. 
`Statement of Non-Redundancy .................................................................. 4 
`3.  Relief Requested ........................................................................................ 6 
`C.  Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................. 7 
`1.  Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................. 7 
`2.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................... 7 
`Identification of Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`3. 
`
`8 
`4. 
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .................................... 9 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 9 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’177 PATENT ........................................................... 11 
`A.  Summary of the Specification ..................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`Summary of the Claims ............................................................................... 12 
`C. 
`Summary of the Relevant Portions of the File History ............................... 12 
`D.  The ’177 Patent Lacks Priority to the Filing Date of the ’379 Provisional 14 
`V.  BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY ............................ 16 
`A.  A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Develop Improved Intranasal
`Naloxone Formulations to Combat the Opioid Epidemic. ................................... 16 
`B.  A POSA Would Have Had the Know-How to Readily Develop an Improved
`Intranasal Naloxone Formulation. ........................................................................ 19 
`The volume of the nasal cavity naturally limits the volume of a naloxone
`1. 
`nasal spray to about 100 µL per spray. ............................................................. 19 
`2.  A POSA would have been motivated to use a 4–6 mg naloxone dose to
`achieve desirable naloxone exposure levels. .................................................... 20 
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`3.  A POSA would have had adequate know-how and ability to select
`commonplace excipients to make a stable, well-tolerated intranasal naloxone
`formulation. ....................................................................................................... 21 
`4.  A POSA would have been motivated to load an intranasal naloxone
`formulation into an easy-to-use single-dose, pre-primed nasal sprayer. .......... 24 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................... 25 
`A. 
`“pre-primed” ................................................................................................ 25 
`B. 
`“patient” ....................................................................................................... 26 
`C. 
`“wherein no more than about [x]% of the droplets have a diameter less than
`10 μm,” “wherein the median droplet size is between about [x] μm and about [y]
`μm,” and “wherein approximately 90% of droplets have a diameter less than about
`100 μm.” ............................................................................................................... 26 
`“wherein the patient experiences a geometric mean naloxone Cmax” and
`D. 
`“wherein the patient experiences a plasma naloxone concentration such that the
`geometric mean of area under a plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC0-
`∞)” 27 
`E. 
`“bioavailable” .............................................................................................. 28 
`VII.  SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 28 
`A.  Davies (PCT Patent Publication WO 00/62757) ......................................... 28 
`B.  Additional References ................................................................................. 29 
`C. 
`Public Accessibility of the April 12, 2012 FDA Materials ......................... 30 
`D.  Zomig Review (Nalox1024) was Publicly Accessible ............................... 32 
`VIII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....................... 32 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1–2 are obvious over Davies (Nalox1009) and HPE
`(Nalox1012). ......................................................................................................... 32 
`1.  Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 32 
`2.  Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 35 
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 3–5 are obvious over Davies (Nalox1009), HPE
`(Nalox1012), Bahal (Nalox1014), and Kushwaha (Nalox1013).......................... 35 
`1.  Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 35 
`2.  Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 39 
`3.  Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 40 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`C.  Ground 3: Claims 6–8 are obvious over Davies (Nalox1009), HPE
`(Nalox1012), Bahal (Nalox1014), Kushwaha (Nalox1013), and Djupesland
`(Nalox1010). ......................................................................................................... 42 
`1.  Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 43 
`2.  Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 43 
`3.  Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 44 
`D.  Ground 4: Claim 9 is obvious over Davies (Nalox1009), HPE (Nalox1012),
`Bahal (Nalox1014), Kushwaha (Nalox1013), and Wyse (Nalox1007). .............. 44 
`E.  Ground 5: Claims 10–11 are obvious over Davies (Nalox1009), HPE
`(Nalox1012) and Wyse (Nalox1007). .................................................................. 46 
`F.  Ground 6: Claims 12–15 and 21 are obvious over Davies (Nalox1009), HPE
`(Nalox1012), Djupesland (Nalox1010), and the ’291 patent (Nalox1015). ........ 48 
`1.  Claim 12 ................................................................................................... 48 
`2.  Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 50 
`3.  Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 50 
`4.  Claim 15 ................................................................................................... 50 
`5.  Claim 21 ................................................................................................... 51 
`G.  Ground 7: Claims 16–20, 22–23, and 29 are obvious over Davies
`(Nalox1009), HPE (Nalox1012), Djupesland (Nalox1010), the ’291 patent
`(Nalox1015), and Wyse (Nalox1007). ................................................................. 52 
`1.  Claim 16 ................................................................................................... 52 
`2.  Claim 17 ................................................................................................... 53 
`3.  Claim 18 ................................................................................................... 54 
`4.  Claim 19 ................................................................................................... 55 
`5.  Claim 20 ................................................................................................... 55 
`6.  Claim 22 ................................................................................................... 56 
`7.  Claim 23 ................................................................................................... 57 
`8.  Claim 29 ................................................................................................... 57 
`H.  Ground 8: Claims 24–27 are obvious over Davies (Nalox1009), HPE
`(Nalox1012), Djupesland
`(Nalox1010), Bahal
`(Nalox1014), Kushwaha
`(Nalox1013), the ’291 patent (Nalox1015), and Wyse (Nalox1007). .................. 58 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`I.  Ground 9: Claim 28 is obvious over Davies (Nalox1009), HPE (Nalox1012),
`Djupesland (Nalox1010), the ’291 patent (Nalox1015), and Wyse (Nalox1007),
`and optionally Wang (Nalox1008) and Pharmacologist POSA knowledge, or
`Wermeling 2013 (Nalox1016). ............................................................................. 59 
`J.  Ground 10: Claim 30 is obvious over Davies (Nalox1009), HPE (Nalox1012),
`Djupesland (Nalox1010), the ’291 patent (Nalox1015), Wyse (Nalox1007), and
`Zomig Review (Nalox1024). ................................................................................ 60 
`IX.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 62 
`A.  No teaching away ........................................................................................ 62 
`B.  No commercial success ............................................................................... 65 
`C.  No long-felt but unmet need or failure of others ......................................... 66 
`D.  No unexpected superior results ................................................................... 67 
`X.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 68 
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Nalox1004
`
`Nalox1005
`
`Nalox1006
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`Nalox1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177 (the ’177 patent)
`Nalox1002 Expert Declaration of Maureen Donovan
`Nalox1003 Expert Declaration of Günther Hochhaus
`Excerpt of File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177, Aug. 22, 2016
`Office Action, Non-Final Rejection (Aug. 22, 2016 Non-Final
`Rejection)
`Excerpt of File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177, Oct. 21, 2016
`Amendment and Response to Office Action (Oct. 21, 2016
`Response to Office Action)
`Excerpt of File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177, Dec. 21, 2016
`Office Action, Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (Notice of
`Allowance)
`Nalox1007 U.S. Patent No. 9,192,570 (Wyse)
`Nalox1008 Chinese Patent No. 1,575,795 (Wang)
`Nalox1009 PCT International App. Pub. No. WO00/62757 (Davies)
`Djupesland, P., Nasal Drug Delivery Device: Characteristics and
`Performance in a Clinical Perspective - A Review, 3 Drug Deliv. &
`Transl. Res. 42–62 (2013) (Djupesland)
`Grassin-Delyle, S. et al., Intranasal Drug Delivery: An Efficient and
`Non-invasive Route for Systemic Administration, Focus on Opioids,
`134 Pharm. & Ther. 366–79 (2012) (Grassin-Delyle)
`Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, 56–60, 64–66, 78–81,
`220–22, 242–44, 270-72, 441–45, 517–22, 596–98 (Rowe, R. et al.
`eds., 6th ed. 2009) (HPE)
`Nalox1013 Kushwaha, S. et al., Advances in Nasal Trans-Mucosal Drug
`Delivery, (1)7 J. Applied Pharm. Sci. 21–28 (2011) (Kushwaha)
`Nalox1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,866,154 (Bahal)
`Nalox1015 U.S. Patent No. 8,198,291 (the ’291 patent)
`
`Nalox1010
`
`Nalox1011
`
`Nalox1012
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Description
`
`Nalox1016
`
`Nalox1018
`
`Nalox1019
`
`Wermeling, D., A Response to the Opioid Overdose Epidemic:
`Naloxone Nasal Spray, 3 Drug Deliv. & Transl. Res. 63–74 (2013)
`(Wermeling 2013)
`Nalox1017 Alabama Department of Public Health, Alabama EMS Patient Care
`Protocols (7th ed., Oct. 2013) (Alabama EMS Protocols)
`Aptar Pharma, Press Release, Aptar Pharma Provides Unit-Dose
`Nasal Spray Technology for Treatment of Opioid Overdose (Apr.
`20, 2016) (Aptar Press Release)
`Ashton, H. et al., Best Evidence Topic Report Intranasal Naloxone
`in Suspected Opioid Overdose, 23(3) Emerg. Med. J. 221–23 (2006)
`(Ashton)
`Nalox1020 Barton, E. et al., Intranasal Administration of Naloxone by
`Paramedics, 6 Prehosp. Em. Care 54–58 (Barton 2002)
`Barton, E. et al., Efficacy of Intranasal Naloxone as a Needleless
`Alternative for Treatment of Opioid Overdose in the Prehospital
`Setting, 29(3) J. Emerg. Med. 265–71 (2005) (Barton 2005)
`Nalox1022 Bitter, C. et al., Nasal Drug Delivery in Humans, 40 Curr. Probl.
`Dermatol. 20–35 (2011) (Bitter)
`Nalox1023 Boyer, E., Management of Opioid Analgesic Overdose, 367(2) N.
`Engl. J. Med. 146–55 (2012) (Boyer)
`Nalox1024 CDC, NDA No. 21-450 Clinical Pharmacology & Biopharmaceutics
`Review (2002) (Zomig Review)
`Nalox1025 Excerpt of Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Patient Care
`Protocols (Mar. 13, 2015) (Kentucky Patient Care Protocols)
`Costantino, H. et al., Intranasal Delivery: Physiochemical and
`Therapeutic Aspects, 337 Int’l. J. of Pharm. 1–24 (2007)
`(Constantino)
`Dowling, J. et al., Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous,
`Intramuscular, and Intranasal Naloxone in Human Volunteers,
`30(4) Ther. Drug. Monit. 490–96 (2008) (Dowling)
`FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Guidance for
`Industry, Nasal Spray and Inhalation Solution, Suspension, and
`Spray Drug Products – Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls
`Documentation (2002) (2002 FDA Guidance)
`
`Nalox1021
`
`Nalox1026
`
`Nalox1027
`
`Nalox1028
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Description
`
`Nalox1029
`
`Nalox1030
`
`Nalox1031
`
`Nalox1034
`
`FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Guidance for
`Industry, Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies for Nasal
`Aerosols and Nasal Sprays for Local Action (2003) (2003 FDA
`Guidance)
`Freise, K. et al., Naloxone Reversal of an Overdose of a Novel, Long-
`Acting Transdermal Fentanyl Solution in Laboratory Beagles, 35(2)
`J. Vet. Pharmacol. Therap. 45–51 (2012) (Freise)
`Glende, O., Development of non-injectable naloxone for pre-
`hospital reversal of opioid overdose: A Norwegian project and a
`review of international status (May 2016) (unpublished M.A. thesis,
`Norwegian University of Science and Technology) (on file with
`Norwegian University of Science and Technology) (Glende)
`Nalox1032 Hertz, S., Naloxone for Outpatient Use: Data Required to Support
`an NDA, PowerPoint Presentation (Hertz Presentation)
`Nalox1033
`Intentionally left blank
`Kelly, A-M. et al., Randomised Trial of Intranasal Versus
`Intramuscular Naloxone in Prehospital Treatment for Suspected
`Opioid Overdose, 182(1) Med. J. Austl. 24–27 (2005) (Kelly)
`Nalox1035 Kerr, D. et al., Intranasal Naloxone for the Treatment of Suspected
`Heroin Overdose, 103 Addiction 379–86 (2008) (Kerr 2008)
`Kerr, D. et al., Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the
`Effectiveness & Safety of Intranasal & Intramuscular Naloxone for
`the Treatment of Suspected Heroin Overdose, 104 Addiction 2067–
`74 (2009) (Kerr 2009)
`Kleiman-Wexler, R. et al., Pharmacokinetics of Naloxone-An
`Insight into the Locus of Effect on Stress-Ulceration, 251(2) J.
`Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 435–38 (1989) (Kleiman-Wexler)
`Marple, B. et al., Safety Review of Benzalkonium Chloride Used as
`a Preservative in Intranasal Solutions: An Overview of Conflicting
`Data and Opinions, 130 Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 131–41
`(2004) (Marple)
`Nalox1039 Merck Index, Isotonic Solutions, MISC-47–69 (Windholz, M. et al.
`eds., 10th ed. 1983) (Merck Index)
`Merlin, M. et al., Intranasal Naloxone Delivery is an Alternative to
`Intravenous Naloxone for Opioid Overdoses, 28 Am. J. Emerg. Med.
`296–303 (2010) (Merlin)
`
`Nalox1036
`
`Nalox1037
`
`Nalox1038
`
`Nalox1040
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Description
`
`Nalox1041
`
`Nalox1042
`
`Nalox1044
`
`Middleton, L. et al., The Pharmacodynamic & Pharmacokinetic
`Profile
`of
`Intranasal
`Crushed
`Buprenorphine
`&
`in Opioid Abusers, 106(8)
`Buprenorphine/Naloxone Tablets
`Addiction 1460–73 (2011) (Middleton)
`Monitto, C. et al., The Optimal Dose of Prophylactic Intravenous
`Naloxone in Ameliorating Opioid-Induced Side Effects in Children
`Receiving Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Morphine for
`Moderate to Severe Pain: A Dose Finding Study, 113(4) Anesthesia
`& Analgesia 834–42 (2011) (Monitto)
`Nalox1043 Pharmacodynamic Agents, in Foye’s Principles of Medicinal
`Chemistry, 670 (Lemke, T. et al. eds., 6th ed. 2008) (Lemke)
`Physicians’ Desk Reference, NARCAN [Naloxone Hydrochloride
`Injection, USP], IMITREX Nasal Spray [Sumatriptan], 1300–02,
`1546–50 (57th ed., 2003) (PDR 2003)
`Nalox1045 Physicians’ Desk Reference, ZOMIG Nasal Spray [Zolmitriptan],
`768–78 (64th ed., 2010) (PDR 2010)
`Robertson, T. et al., Intranasal Versus Intravenous Naloxone for
`Prehospital Narcotic Overdose, Abstract, 12(5)(1) Acad. Emerg.
`Med. 166–67 (2005) (Robertson 2005)
`Robertson, T. et al., Intranasal Naloxone is a Viable Alternative to
`Intravenous Naloxone for Prehospital Narcotic Overdose, 13
`Prehosp. Emerg. Care 512–15 (2009) (Robertson 2009)
`Role of Naloxone in Opioid Overdose Fatality Prevention; Public
`Workshop; Request for Comments, 76 Fed. Reg. 71,348 (Nov. 17,
`2011) (Role of Naloxone Fed. Reg. Notice)
`Nalox1049 Role of Naloxone in Opioid Overdose Fatality Prevention FDA
`Meeting Transcript (Apr. 12, 2012) (2012 FDA Meeting)
`Rosanske, T., Morphine, in Chemical Stability of Pharmaceuticals:
`A Handbook for Pharmacists, 604–11 (Connors, K. et al. eds., 2d ed.
`1986) (Rosanske)
`Sabzghabaee, A. et al., Naloxone Therapy in Opioid Overdose
`Patients: Intranasal or Intravenous? A Randomized Clinical Trial,
`10(2) Arch. Med. Sci. 309–14 (2014) (Sabzghabaee)
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Nalox1046
`
`Nalox1047
`
`Nalox1048
`
`Nalox1050
`
`Nalox1051
`
`Nalox1052
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Description
`
`Nalox1053
`
`Nalox1059
`
`Nalox1060
`
`Trows, S. et al., Analytical Challenges and Regulatory Requirements
`for Nasal Drug Products in Europe and the U.S., 6 Pharm. 195–219
`(2014) (Trows)
`Nalox1054 United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary (USP 36-NF
`31) Vol 1., 54–55, 930–33 (2013) (USP)
`Nalox1055 U.S. Patent Appl. No. 61/918,802 (the ’802 Appl.)
`Nalox1056 U.S. Patent No. 5,307,953 (’953 patent)
`Nalox1057 U.S. Patent No. 5,813,570 (’570 patent)
`Nalox1058 U.S. Provisional Patent Appl. No. 61/953,379 (the ’379 provisional)
`Wermeling, D., Opioid Harm Reduction Strategies: Focus on
`Expanded Access to Intranasal Naloxone, 30(7) Pharmacotherapy
`627–31 (2010) (Wermeling 2010)
`Loimer, N. et al, Nasal Administration of Naloxone is as Effective as
`the Intravenous Route in Opiate Addicts, 29(6) Int’l J. of Addictions
`819–27 (1994) (Loimer)
`Doe-Simkins, M. et al., Saved by the Nose: Bystander-Administered
`Intranasal Naloxone Hydrochloride for Opioid Overdose, 99(5) Am.
`J. Pub. Health 788–91 (2009)
`McDermott, C. & Collins, N., Prehospital Medication
`Administration: A Randomised Study Comparing Intranasal and
`Intravenous Routes, Em. Med. Int’l. 1–5 (2012)
`Nalox1063
`Intentionally left blank.
`Nalox1064 Authenticating Affidavit of Christopher Butler (“Butler Affidavit”)
`Nalox1065 Authenticating Affidavits of Rachel J. Watters
`Nalox1066 Authenticating Affidavit of Pamela Lipscomb
`
`Nalox1061
`
`Nalox1062
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter
`
`partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1–30 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,561,177 (“the ’177 patent”), purportedly owned by Adapt Pharma Limited and
`
`Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Patent Owners”). For the reasons addressed below,
`
`the Challenged Claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`The ‘177 patent is listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with
`
`Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (a.k.a. “The Orange Book”) as covering
`
`intranasal naloxone sold under the Narcan® name. Naloxone rapidly reverses opioid
`
`overdose -- it is an opioid antagonist and acts to restore normal respiration to a person
`
`whose breathing is impaired from opioid overdose. Naloxone has been available
`
`since 1971 as an injection, and its intranasal administration has been known in the
`
`community since at least 1994 as a safe and effective opiate overdose treatment.
`
`Loimer (Nalox1060) at 819. Narcan® is currently the only FDA-approved single-
`
`use nasal spray indicated for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid
`
`overdose. Because of the Patent Owners’ listing of patents in The Orange Book,
`
`there are currently no generic versions of intranasal Narcan® on the market. Patent
`
`Owners’ disingenuous use and abuse of the patent system here is contrary to the
`
`Constitution’s requirement to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`wrongfully monopolizing access to life-saving medicine until 2035, based on
`
`generations-old science and the most obvious applications in this art.
`
`The United States is in the throes of an opioid epidemic. According to the
`
`Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on average, 130 Americans die each
`
`day from an opioid overdose, and in 2017, the number of overdose deaths involving
`
`opioids was six times higher than in 1999. There is a critical and urgent need in
`
`America for intranasal naloxone products intended for community use and which
`
`can be deployed in life-threatening circumstances -- often by people who are not
`
`medically trained. America cannot afford to wait another day for affordable, safe
`
`and effective intranasal naloxone. The ’177 patent is a barrier wrongfully and
`
`shamefully preventing broader accessibility to this critically needed naloxone
`
`medication. Removal of the ’177 patent (and its relatives) as a barrier will save
`
`American lives by facilitating rapid and expanded access to life-saving naloxone.
`
`II.
`
`IPR REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies the ’177 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the claims on the grounds
`
`identified herein.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner requests the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) invalidate the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’177 patent for the reasons identified below.
`
`1.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–30 of the ’177 patent and requests each claim
`
`be cancelled based on the following grounds, as supported by the Declarations of
`
`Dr. Maureen Donovan (Nalox1002) and Dr. Günther Hochhaus (Nalox1003):
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Claims
`1–2
`3–5
`6–8
`9
`10–11
`12–15, 21
`16–20,
`22–23, 29
`24–27
`
`28
`
`30
`
`References
`
`Basis
`§103 Davies and HPE
`§103 Davies, HPE, Bahal, and Kushwaha
`§103 Davies, HPE, Bahal, Kushwaha,
`Djupesland
`§103 Davies, HPE, Bahal, Kushwaha, and Wyse
`§103 Davies, HPE and Wyse
`§103 Davies, HPE, Djupesland, and the ’291 patent
`
`and
`
`§103 Davies, Djupesland, the ’291 patent, and Wyse
`
`§103
`
`§103 Davies, HPE, Djupesland, Bahal, Kushwaha,
`the ’291 patent, and Wyse
`Davies, HPE, Djupesland, the ’291 patent, and
`Wyse, optionally Wang and Pharmacologist
`POSA knowledge, or Wermeling 2013
`§103 Davies, HPE, Djupesland, the ’291 patent,
`Wyse, and Zomig Review
`
`Petitioner requests the Board cancel the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under these Grounds.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`Statement of Non-Redundancy
`
`2.
`
`This is Petitioner’s first challenge relating to the ’177 patent before the Board.
`
`Petitioner submits the grounds provided in this Petition are not redundant nor
`
`duplicative of the grounds previously presented to the Office during the examination
`
`of the ’177 patent.
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits new evidence and arguments provided here are
`
`not “the same or substantially the same” previously considered by the Office. When
`
`evaluating whether previously presented prior art or arguments are “the same or
`
`substantially the same,” the Board examines several non-exclusive factors to guide
`
`its decision under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). The non-exclusive factors, also referred to as
`
`the “Becton Dickinson factors” are:
`
`(a) the similarities and material differences between the
`asserted art and the prior art involved during examination;
`(b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior
`art evaluated during examination;
`(c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated
`during examination, including whether the prior art was
`the basis for rejection;
`(d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made
`during examination and the manner in which Petitioner
`relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the
`prior art;
`(e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the
`Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art;
`and
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`(f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts
`presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the
`prior art or arguments.
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at
`
`17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017).
`
`Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (c), which analyze the cumulative or
`
`overlapping nature of the proceedings, support institution here. While primary
`
`reference Wyse (in combination with a secondary reference, Djupesland1) was cited
`
`by the Examiner in a rejection of certain claims during the prosecution of the ’177
`
`patent, HPE was not a reference of record.2 Thus, the Petition’s combination of
`
`Wyse and HPE, which together, or in combination with certain additional references,
`
`renders obvious the challenged claims, was never evaluated during examination.
`
`This Petition thus presents non-cumulative grounds and arguments not presented
`
`during prosecution.
`
`Remaining Becton Dickinson factors (d), (e), and (f) also strongly support
`
`institution. Those factors analyze whether the Petitioner has sufficiently made a case
`
`for reconsidering the prior art. Where the Petition “sufficiently shows that the
`
`Examiner’s decision not to reject the claims” was “based on an erroneous finding by
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The Djupesland reference cited during prosecution is the same reference included
`in Grounds 3 and 6-10 of this Petition.
`2 HPE is not cumulative to any reference cited during the prosecution of the ’177
`patent.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`the Examiner,” particularly regarding the prior art’s disclosure, institution is
`
`warranted. See Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. v. Christy, Inc., IPR2015-00468, Paper
`
`13 at 13 (PTAB June 24, 2015). Further, where the Petition is supported by evidence
`
`that was not available in prosecution that further elucidates what a POSA would
`
`have understood from a reference’s disclosure, Becton-Dickinson factors (d)–(f)
`
`support institution. See Parsons XTreme Golf v. Taylor Made Golf Co., PGR2018-
`
`00074, Paper No. 7 at 43 (PTAB, Jan. 24, 2019). Here, the Examiner erred in finding
`
`Wyse teaches away from the use of one of the claimed ingredients, benzalkonium
`
`chloride (BAC). See Notice of Allowance, (Nalox1006) at 8). As Petitioner shows
`
`in this Petition, and as supported by the Declarations of Dr. Donovan and Dr.
`
`Hochhaus, HPE would have motivated a POSA to use BAC, and a POSA would not
`
`have considered Wyse to teach away from its use in the claimed naloxone solution.
`
`Thus, this Petition presents new evidence and testimony not previously available to
`
`the Examiner during prosecution. In view of the above, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests the Board decline to use its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d).
`
`3.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests the Board cancel the Challenged Claims as being
`
`unpatentable under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`C. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`1.
`Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Nalox-1
`
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, BCIM Partners III, LP, BCIM General Partner III, LP,
`
`Burford Capital Ireland DAC, BCIM PIII Holdings, LLC, Burford Capital
`
`Investment Management LLC, Burford Capital Holdings (UK) Limited, and Burford
`
`Capital Limited are the real parties in interest (collectively, “RPI”). Nalox-1
`
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is 100% owned by
`
`BCIM Partners III, LP, a Delaware limited partnership. BCIM General Partner III,
`
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the general partner of BCIM Partners
`
`III, LP, and Burford Capital Investment Management LLC is the investment
`
`manager to BCIM Partners III, LP. No other person has authority to direct or control
`
`(i) the timing of, filing of, content of, or any decisions or other activities relating to
`
`this Petition or (ii) any timing, future filings, content of, or any decisions or other
`
`activities relating to the future proceedings related to this Petition. All of the costs
`
`associated with this Petition are expected to be borne by Nalox-1 Pharmaceuticals,
`
`LLC, BCIM Partners III, LP, BCIM General Partner III, LP, Burford Capital
`
`Investment Management LLC and Burford Capital Holdings (UK) Limited.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner identifies the following judicial or administrative matters that
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding. Patent Owners have
`
`asserted the ’177 patent in the following United States District Court civil actions:
`
`2-18-cv-15287 (D.N.J.), 2-16-cv-07721 (D.N.J.) (consolidated). Petitioner is not a
`
`party to these actions. Petitioner is concurrently filing inter partes review petitions
`
`on related U.S. Patent Nos. 9,211,253; 9,468,747; 9,629,965; and 9,775,838, which
`
`are listed in the FDA’s Orange Book as covering Narcan® nasal spray (naloxone).
`
`3.
`
`Identification of Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Dr. Yelee Y. Kim (Reg. No. 60,088)
`Telephone: 202.857.6147
`Fax: 202.857.6395
`Yelee.Kim@arentfox.com
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Janine A. Carlan (Reg. No. 42,387)
`Telephone: 202.715.8506
`Fax: 202.857.6395
`Janine.Carlan@arentfox.com
`
`Richard Berman (Reg. No. 39,107)
`Telephone: 202.857.6232
`Fax: 202.857.6395
`Richard.Berman@arentfox.com
`
`Bradford Frese (Reg. No. 69,772)
`Telephone: 202.857.6496
`Fax: 202.857.6395
`Bradford.Frese@arentfox.com
`
`Christopher Yaen (Reg. No. 66,563)
`Telephone: 202.350.3760
`Fax: 202.857.6395
`Christopher.Yaen@arentfox.com
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00693
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,177
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`4.
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to above-identified counsel at:
`
`ARENT FOX LLP
`1717 K Street NW
`Washington D.C. 20006
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`As it relates to