`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG AND LTS LOHMANN THERAPIE-SYSTEME AG,
`Patent Owners
`
`___________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2014-005491
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,316,023
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNERS’ MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. SCHÖNEICH
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00265 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to p. 1 ¶ 1: The testimony cited by Patent Owners demonstrates
`
`neither that bond strength is theoretical nor “that a POSA would not have
`
`reasonably predicted that rivastigmine would undergo oxidative degradation”
`
`based on its structure as Patent Owners assert. (Paper 45 at 1.) Dr. Schöneich
`
`testified that the bond dissociation energies reported in Carey & Sundberg
`
`(“C&S”) (Ex. 1018) are “absolute values” and are “independent of the
`
`measurement.” (Ex. 1048 at 23:8-14, discussing ¶13 of Dr. Schöneich’s Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1032), which reproduces bond dissociation energy values from
`
`C&S (Ex. 1018 at 683).) As Dr. Schöneich testified, the bond dissociation energy
`
`(i.e., bond strength) for a particular bond in a molecule is an inherent property of
`
`the molecule based on its chemical structure. (Ex. 1026 at 58:13-21.) Because
`
`rivastigmine has three structural features immediately adjacent to a particular
`
`carbon-hydrogen (“C-H”) bond, a POSA would have immediately identified this
`
`bond as especially weak and particularly susceptible to oxidation. (Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 12,
`
`55; Ex. 1026 at 48:2-49:13, 73:17-76:22; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 14-15.)
`
`Response to p. 1 ¶ 2: The testimony cited by Patent Owners does not
`
`demonstrate “that a POSA would not have reasonably predicted that rivastigmine
`
`would undergo oxidative degradation” based on its structure as Patent Owners
`
`assert. (Paper 45 at 1.) Dr. Schöneich did not testify that C&S “provides only
`
`relative reactivities, not absolute reactivities of aromatic hydrocarbons” as Patent
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Owners assert. (Id., emphasis added.) It was Patent Owners’ questioning that
`
`related only to a single table in C&S that shows the relative reactivities of aromatic
`
`hydrocarbons. These relative reactivities are important to demonstrate that a C-H
`
`bond at a benzylic position, that is also a tertiary position (as in rivastigmine), is 67
`
`times more reactive to oxygen than a C-H bond in a benzylic position alone. (Ex.
`
`1032 ¶ 13, citing Ex. 1018 at 693.) Patent Owners further mischaracterize Dr.
`
`Schöneich’s testimony, because he also testified that C&S provides the absolute
`
`bond strengths of tertiary and benzylic C-H bonds in the table of bond dissociation
`
`energies and states that “Benzylic, allylic, and tertiary positions are especially
`
`susceptible to oxidation.” (Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 8, 10, 11, citing Ex. 1018 at 683, 693.)
`
`This testimony demonstrates that a POSA would have reasonably predicted that
`
`rivastigmine would undergo oxidative degradation based on its chemical structure
`
`because the POSA would have recognized that a particular C-H bond in
`
`rivastigmine is especially weak and therefore susceptible to oxidation.
`
`Response to p. 2 ¶ 1: The testimony cited by Patent Owners does not
`
`demonstrate that “a POSA would not have reasonably predicted from its structure
`
`that rivastigmine would undergo oxidative degradation . . . or require an
`
`antioxidant” as Patent Owners assert. (Paper 45 at 2.) Dr. Schöneich testified that
`
`a POSA would understand that “oxidation reactions usually occur significantly
`
`slower” in the dry state. (Ex. 1048 at 70:7-20, see also Ex. 1032 ¶ 48) Thus, a
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`POSA would have understood that an antioxidant may not be necessary even for an
`
`oxidation-sensitive drug when is it formulated as a dry dosage form. (Ex. 1048 at
`
`69:18-70:2, quoting Ex. 1032 ¶ 48.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 2 ¶ 2, p. 5 ¶ 1, p. 12 ¶ 1: Patent Owners’ assertions that Dr.
`
`Schöneich’s “structural theory is unproven” (Paper 45 at 2, 5-6) is not supported
`
`by the testimony cited by Patent Owners. Dr. Schöneich testified that a POSA
`
`would have immediately recognized that rivastigmine was particularly susceptible
`
`to oxidation due to the presence of three structural features2 immediately adjacent
`
`to a C-H bond that a POSA would understand to cause that bond to be especially
`
`weak and therefore readily oxidized. (Ex. 1026 at 48:2-49:13; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 12, 53-
`
`55; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 7-15) The support for Dr. Schöneich’s opinion is drawn from a
`
`standard textbook, Carey & Sundberg (Ex. 1018), which identifies these same
`
`structural features as causing adjacent C-H bonds to be “especially weak” and
`
`therefore prone to oxidation. (Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 7-15; Ex. 1026 at 58:3-68:15.)
`
`In addition, Dr. Schöneich provided nicotine as an example of a drug with
`
`
`2 Patent Owners mischaracterize Dr. Schöneich’s’ opinion by reciting only two of
`
`the three structural features identified by Dr. Schöneich that a POSA would have
`
`recognized as causing a particular C-H bond in rivastigmine to be especially weak
`
`and therefore particularly susceptible to oxidation. (Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 12, 55; Ex. 1026
`
`at 48:2-49:13, 73:17-76:22; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 14-15.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`the same three key structural features as rivastigmine that was known to undergo
`
`oxidation at the subject C-H bond and was known to oxidatively degrade in
`
`pharmaceutical formulations including transdermal patches. (Ex. 1026 at 84:17-
`
`89:20; Ex. 1027 at 452:1-5, 563:3-7; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 46, 56-59.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 2 ¶ 3: Patent Owners’ conclusion that “theoretical
`
`‘susceptibility’ to oxidative degradation does not correlate with the pharmaceutical
`
`reality” (Paper 45 at 2-3) is not supported by the cited testimony. It was not
`
`merely an “assertion” of Dr. Schöneich’s that the benzylic position is “especially
`
`susceptible to oxidation.” Rather, Dr. Schöneich’s testimony is supported by, and
`
`indeed quoted from, a standard chemistry textbook, Carey & Sundberg. (Ex. 1018
`
`at 693.) Dextromethorphan was reported to be only “moderately stable” and had
`
`been observed to oxidatively degrade. (Ex. 1020 at 308; Ex. 1032 at 61.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 3 ¶ 1 and p. 4 ¶ 1: Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr.
`
`Schöneich mischaracterized the teachings of Boccardi 1994 (Ex. 2050) and
`
`Boccardi 1989 (Ex. 1020). As Dr. Schöneich testified, Boccardi 1989 states that
`
`dextromethorphan is only “moderately stable” and investigated the degradation of
`
`dextromethorphan they had previously observed and assumed was due to the
`
`presence of trace amounts of iron in glassware. (Ex. 1048 at 113:13-114:17; see
`
`also Ex. 1032 ¶ 61; Ex. 1020 at 308.) Boccardi 1994 states that the product of
`
`oxidative degradation (i.e., 10-ketodextromethorphan), was found in trace amounts
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`during preformulation of an antitussive syrup. (Ex. 2050, Boccardi, at 433.) These
`
`teachings are consistent with Dr. Schöneich’s opinion that dextromethorphan
`
`(which has just one of the structural features—a benzylic C-H bond—found in
`
`rivastigmine) was known to undergo oxidative degradation.
`
`
`
`Response to p. 3 ¶ 2:
`
` Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr.
`
`Schöneich mischaracterized the teachings of Boccardi 1989. Dr. Schöneich
`
`disagreed with Dr. Klibanov’s characterization of Boccardi 1989, because
`
`Boccardi 1989 does not state that dextromethorphan will “only” degrade under the
`
`accelerated conditions described in the article as Dr. Klibanov contended. (Ex.
`
`1048 at 96:6-15 quoting Ex. 1032 ¶ 61) As Dr. Schöneich testified, Boccardi 1989
`
`used accelerated conditions to study oxidative degradation of dextromethorphan
`
`that they had previously observed and assumed was due to trace amounts of iron in
`
`glassware. (Ex. 1048 at 113:13-114:17; see also Ex. 1032 ¶ 61; Ex. 1020 at 308.)
`
`That iron ions (Fe(III)), a common initiator of oxidation, was required under the
`
`accelerated conditions for oxidation to occur does not mean that dextromethorphan
`
`oxidation only occurs under the accelerated conditions (which included conditions
`
`like irradiation). Boccardi 1989 clearly states that the accelerated conditions were
`
`used “[i]n an effort to define the role of trace metals in these reactions,” i.e., the
`
`previously observed degradation reactions. (Ex. 1020 at 308; Ex. 1032 ¶ 61.)
`
`Thus, Dr. Schöneich’s testimony is consistent with the teachings of Boccardi 1989.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to p. 4 ¶ 2 and p. 6 ¶ 1: Patent Owners mischaracterize Dr.
`
`Schöneich’s testimony. Dr. Schöneich cited literature demonstrating that nicotine
`
`(a real-world pharmaceutical compound), which has the same three key structural
`
`features as rivastigmine, was known to undergo oxidative degradation including in
`
`transdermal patch formulations. (Ex. 1048 at 50:17-51:2, Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 48-49, 56-
`
`58; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 56-59.)
`
`Patent Owners’ statement concerning the so-called “real-world” compounds
`
`is misleading. Dr. Schöneich and Patent Owners’ expert, Dr. Klibanov, both
`
`testified that a POSA would not draw any conclusions regarding the oxidative
`
`stability of a drug compound that is formulated in a commercial product without an
`
`antioxidant because the formulator could have taken steps other than adding an
`
`antioxidant to prevent oxidation. (Ex. 1032 ¶ 42-45; Ex. 1026 at 91:8-92:2; Ex.
`
`1027 at 551:9–552:16, 553:1-6.) Dr. Klibanov and Dr. Schöneich thus agreed that
`
`a POSA would not draw any conclusions regarding a compound’s susceptibility to
`
`oxidation from Dr. Klibanov’s so-called “real-world” examples. (Id.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 6 ¶ 2, p. 10 ¶ 2: The testimony cited by Patent Owners is
`
`consistent with Dr. Schöneich’s previous testimony that all of Dr. Klibanov’s
`
`“real-world” examples were formulated in a dry dosage form, as a salt, or both,
`
`which a POSA would understand to reduce oxidation. (Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 47-48, Ex.
`
`1026 at 91:8-92:2). Dr. Klibanov never contests that formulation of his “real-
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`world” compounds as salts (in liquid or solid form) would have been understood
`
`by a POSA to reduce oxidation.
`
`
`
`Response to p. 7 ¶ 1: Patent Owners’ assertions that “theoretical
`
`‘susceptibility’ to oxidative degradation does not correlate with pharmaceutical
`
`realities and that it is the structure of the molecule as a whole that determines
`
`stability” are not supported by the cited testimony. Dr. Schöneich explained that
`
`Dr. Klibanov’s so-called “real world” compounds were formulated as either a solid
`
`dosage form, as a salt, or both, which are measures that a POSA would understand
`
`to reduce oxidation so that an antioxidant may not be necessary. (Ex. 1048 at
`
`69:18-71:12, 72:8-16, 103:22-104:10, Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 47-48.)
`
`That the so-called “real-world” pharmaceutical compounds were formulated
`
`without an antioxidant does not demonstrate that these compounds are oxidatively
`
`stable or that the structure of the molecule as a whole determines stability as Patent
`
`Owners contend. Dr. Schöneich and Patent Owners’ expert, Dr. Klibanov, both
`
`testified that a POSA would not draw any conclusions regarding the oxidative
`
`stability of a drug compound that is formulated in a commercial product without an
`
`antioxidant because the formulator could have taken steps other than adding an
`
`antioxidant to prevent oxidation. (Ex. 1032 ¶ 42-45; Ex. 1026 at 91:8-92:2; Ex.
`
`1027 at 551:9–552:16, 553:1-6.) Dr. Klibanov and Dr. Schöneich thus agreed that
`
`a POSA would not draw any conclusions regarding a compound’s susceptibility to
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`oxidation from Dr. Klibanov’s so-called “real-world” examples. (Id.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 8 ¶¶ 1-2: Patent Owners incorrectly assert that “the absence
`
`of any indication of oxidative instability in the PDR . . . suggests that those
`
`compounds were not known to undergo oxidative degradation under
`
`pharmaceutically relevant conditions.” (Paper 45 at 8, 9.) Patent Owners’
`
`assertion conflicts with Dr. Schöneich’s testimony and with the testimony of Patent
`
`Owners’ expert, Dr. Klibanov. Dr. Klibanov and Dr. Schöneich agreed that a
`
`POSA would not draw any conclusions regarding a compound’s susceptibility to
`
`oxidation from Dr. Klibanov’s so-called “real-world” examples from the PDR.
`
`(Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 42-45; Ex. 1026 at 91:8-92:2; Ex. 1027 at 551:9–552:16, 553:1-6.)
`
`
`
`The excerpt of 21 CFR § 201.57 (Ex. 2060) does not contradict any of Dr.
`
`Schöneich’s opinions as Patent Owners assert (Paper 45 at 9). There is no expert
`
`testimony concerning the relevance of this document to either parties’ positions in
`
`this proceeding or the meaning of the text cited by Patent Owners. Patent Owners
`
`introduced the document for the first time during Dr. Schöneich’s deposition, and
`
`Dr. Schöneich’s only admission was that Patent Owners’ counsel read a sentence
`
`from the document correctly (Ex. 1048 at 58:19-63:16).
`
`
`
`Response to p. 9 ¶ 1: The cited testimony at Ex. 1048, 13:18-14:20 does
`
`not contradict Dr. Schöneich’s opinion that a POSA would have recognized that
`
`oxidation of rivastigmine is similar to the oxidation of olefins (alkenes). Dr.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Schöneich explained that rivastigmine “is a substituted alkene” and a “special form
`
`of an alkene.” (Ex. 1048 at 12:5-9 (emphasis added), 13:23-14:2.) Dr. Schöneich
`
`testified that a POSA would have recognized that the oxidation of rivastigmine
`
`(and that of nicotine) is similar to the well-known oxidation of alkenes (olefins)
`
`because like alkenes, rivastigmine (and nicotine) contains a C-H bond adjacent to a
`
`carbon-carbon double bond. (Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 31, 57-8, Ex. 1048 at 12:25-13:15.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 9 ¶ 2: Patent Owners mischaracterize Dr. Schöneich’s
`
`testimony. Dr. Schöneich stated that an unsubstituted olefin (alkene) cannot form
`
`an N-oxide. (Ex. 1048 at 15:12-15.) However, Dr. Schöneich testified that
`
`rivastigmine would be considered a substituted olefin (alkene). (Id., 10:24-12:24.)
`
`Patent Owners assertion that “it is now known that when rivastigmine
`
`oxidizes, it forms an N-oxide” is unsupported attorney argument that is not
`
`supported by any testimony in this proceeding. Patent Owners’ sole basis for this
`
`statement is a single-page excerpt of a Novartis document (Ex. 2059) produced for
`
`the first time at Dr. Schöneich’s deposition (see Ex. 1048 at 16:18-18:20). Patent
`
`Owners’ expert, Dr. Klibanov, does not address this document in his declaration.3
`
`An N-oxide degradation product further supports Dr. Schöneich’s opinions
`
`regarding the predictability of rivastigmine’s oxidation because an N-oxide is one
`
`of the rivastigmine degradation products shown in Appendix A to Dr. Schöneich’s
`
`3 Petitioners have requested that the Board exclude this document. (Paper 48.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1011 at A11; Ex. 1048 at 19:14-20:21). Dr. Schöneich predicted
`
`that oxidation at the subject carbon-hydrogen bond would result in the formation of
`
`the N-oxide. (Ex. 1011 ¶¶ A1, A3, A11.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 10 ¶ 1: Patent Owners incorrectly assert that testimony at
`
`Ex. 1048, 92:5-15 and 110:21-111:12 contradicts Dr. Schöneich’s prior testimony
`
`(Ex. 1026 at 96:10-18). Dr. Schöneich’s prior testimony is consistent with the
`
`testimony cited by Patent Owners. Dr. Schöneich previously testified that a POSA
`
`would have immediately recognized that rivastigmine, due to the presence of three
`
`adjacent functional groups, would be “particularly susceptible” and “prone to
`
`oxidation” because it contains an “especially weak,” and “readily-cleaved C-H
`
`bond.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1026 at 48:2-49:13; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 12, 55.)
`
`
`
`Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr. Schöneich stated in his previous
`
`testimony that a POSA would need to conduct testing to determine whether
`
`rivastigmine oxidatively degrades. In fact, Dr. Schöneich testified that although a
`
`POSA can determine if a compound like rivastigmine is prone to oxidative
`
`degradation by examination of its chemical structure, such degradation depends
`
`upon the environment (e.g., whether oxygen, initiators, or antioxidants are
`
`present). (Ex. 1026 at 94:21-95:6, 95:24-96:6, see also id. at 79:16-80:24.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 11 ¶¶ 1-2: Patent Owners mischaracterize Dr. Schöneich’s
`
`testimony. Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr. Schöneich testified that
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`formulation of a compound in a dry dosage form establishes that is susceptible to
`
`oxidation or that measures were taken to avoid oxidation. Dr. Schöneich testified
`
`that the so-called “real world examples” selected by Dr. Klibanov from the PDR
`
`were formulated as a dry dosage form, as a salt, or both. (Ex. 1032 ¶ 47.) Dr.
`
`Schöneich further testified that a POSA would know that oxidation is usually
`
`reduced in the dry state so that an antioxidant may not be necessary even for an
`
`oxidation-sensitive drug. (Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 47-48; Ex. 1026 at 79:16-80:14, 186:11-
`
`186:24; Ex. 1016 at 92). The quote from Ex. 2021 cited by Patent Owners is
`
`consistent with Dr. Schöneich’s testimony because it states that oxidation can
`
`occur in the solid state only “to some extent.” (Ex. 2021 at 80).
`
`
`
`Response to p. 12 ¶ 1: Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr.
`
`Schöneich’s testimony is unsupported. Regarding Dr. Klibanov’s so-called “real-
`
`world” compounds, Dr. Schöneich testified that they were formulated as either a
`
`solid dosage form, as a salt, or both, which are measures that a POSA would
`
`understand to reduce oxidation so that an antioxidant may not be necessary. (Ex.
`
`1048 at 69:18-71:12, 72:8-16, 103:22-104:10, Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 47-48.) Dr. Schöneich
`
`never testified that alternative measures (other than formulation in a dry dosage
`
`form or as a salt) were in fact taken. Rather, Dr. Schöneich and Patent Owners’
`
`expert, Dr. Klibanov, testified that a POSA would not draw any conclusions
`
`regarding the susceptibility to oxidation of a compound in a commercial
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`formulation without an antioxidant (i.e., the “real-world” compounds) because the
`
`formulator could take steps other than adding an antioxidant to prevent oxidation.
`
`(Ex. 1032 ¶ 42-45; Ex. 1026 at 91:8-92:2; Ex. 1027 at 551:9–552:16, 553:1-6.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 12 ¶ 2: Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr.
`
`Schöneich’s testimony is unsupported. Dr. Schöneich did not admit that “he did
`
`not cite any document” as Patent Owners contend. To the contrary, Dr. Schöneich
`
`testified that he cited to Dr. Klibanov’s Declaration describing the mechanism of
`
`carbamate hydrolysis by base catalysis. (Ex. 1048 at 102:9-103:2; see also Ex.
`
`1032 ¶ 29 citing ¶ 92 of Dr. Klibanov’s Declaration (Ex. 2012).) Dr. Schöneich’s
`
`statement that a POSA would have recognized that the presence of the basic
`
`tertiary amines in one molecule [of physostigmine] would facilitate hydrolysis of
`
`the carbamate group on other [physostigmine] molecules” was supported by Dr.
`
`Schöneich’s citation to Patent Owners’ expert declaration.
`
`
`
`Response to p. 12 ¶ 3: Patent Owners draw incorrect conclusions from Dr.
`
`Schöneich’s testimony where he stated that dosage form is significant. Dr.
`
`Schöneich testified that a POSA would understand that oxidation reactions can be
`
`reduced or prevented when a compound is formulated in a dry dosage form. (Ex.
`
`1032 ¶ 48.) Dr. Schöneich did not testify that a POSA would not be informed by
`
`oxidative degradation of rivastigmine in oral and injectable formulations. To the
`
`contrary, Dr. Schöneich testified that the susceptibility of a compound to oxidation
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`is an inherent property of the molecule based on its chemical structure and that
`
`inherent susceptibility is present in any formulation including transdermal
`
`formulations (Ex. 1032 ¶ 26; Ex. 1026 at 80:15-24.) Thus, a POSA would have
`
`considered disclosure of oxidative degradation in oral and injectable formulations
`
`to be relevant to transdermal formulations.
`
`
`
`Response to p. 13 ¶¶ 1-2: Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr.
`
`Schöneich mischaracterized Dr. Klibanov’s opinions. Dr. Schöneich testified that
`
`Dr. Klibanov applied functional group chemistry when Dr. Klibanov made general
`
`predictions regarding the susceptibility of monomethyl carbamates to hydrolysis
`
`and the resistance of dialkyl carbamates to hydrolysis. (Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 6, 27-28.)
`
`
`
`That these functional groups were studied experimentally since the 1930s
`
`and the known reactivity of monomethyl carbamates was based on past
`
`experimentation does not change the fact that Dr. Klibanov made general
`
`predictions about the stability of molecules based only on the presence of these
`
`functional groups (i.e., applied functional group chemistry). As Dr. Schöneich
`
`stated, the utility of functional group chemistry is that a particular functional group
`
`will have a known reactivity regardless of the structure of the rest of the molecule.
`
`(Ex. 1032 ¶ 24; Ex. 1038 at 167; Ex. 1047 at 46.) Thus, Dr. Schöneich correctly
`
`stated that Dr. Klibanov applied functional group chemistry when discussing the
`
`reactivity of carbamates in violation of his notion that the whole molecule (and not
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`the presence of functional groups) determines stability. (Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 27-28.)
`
`
`
`Response to p. 14 ¶ 1: Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr. Schöneich
`
`mischaracterized Dr. Klibanov’s opinions. Dr. Schöneich stated that the only
`
`support relied upon by Dr. Klibanov for his assertion that the “whole molecule”
`
`determines stability was a single sentence in the ’548 patent concerning the
`
`hydrolytic degradation of physostigmine. (Ex. 1032 ¶ 27.) That Dr. Klibanov also
`
`stated that “[t]he following numerous real-world examples further demonstrate that
`
`point” (Ex. 2012 ¶ 132) does not refute Dr. Schöneich’s statements because Dr.
`
`Klibanov provides no support or citation, nor does he explain how his “real-world”
`
`examples support the notion. (Ex. 2012 ¶ 132.) The only support that Dr.
`
`Klibanov provided in his prior testimony is his citation to the ’548 patent (Ex. 2012
`
`¶ 83 (footnote 16)). Thus, Dr. Schöneich did not mischaracterize Dr. Klibanov’s
`
`opinion when he stated that the ’548 patent was the only support cited by Dr.
`
`Klibanov for his whole molecule determines stability notion.
`
`
`
`Response to p. 15 ¶ 1: Patent Owners incorrectly assert that Dr. Schöneich
`
`mischaracterized Dr. Klibanov’s opinions when he stated that opinions in Dr.
`
`Klibanov’s Declaration are inconsistent with his prior testimony. Dr. Klibanov
`
`unequivocally testified that a POSA would not draw any conclusions regarding the
`
`susceptibility to oxidation of a compound formulated in a commercial formulation
`
`without an antioxidant (i.e., the “real-world” compounds) because the formulator
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`could take steps other than adding an antioxidant to prevent oxidation. (Ex. 1027
`
`at 551:9–552:16, 553:1-6.) As Dr. Schöneich explained, testimony in Dr.
`
`Klibanov’s Declaration contradicts this previous testimony. Specifically,
`
`regarding his “real-world” pharmaceutical compounds, Dr. Klibanov stated that
`
`“[i]n the absence of any teaching or suggestion to the contrary, a POSA would
`
`expect that the drugs in these formulations do not undergo oxidative degradation
`
`under pharmaceutically relevant conditions” (Ex. 2012, FN 15). That Dr. Klibanov
`
`also stated that he was not aware of literature reporting the oxidative degradation
`
`of these compounds does not change the fact that Dr. Klibanov’s statement in his
`
`declaration is inconsistent with his prior testimony.
`
`
`
`Response to p. 15 ¶ 2: Patent Owners incorrectly state that Dr. Schöneich
`
`mischaracterized Dr. Klibanov’s opinions regarding the structural features that a
`
`POSA would recognize as making rivastigmine susceptible to oxidation. By
`
`taking one sentence out of context, Patent Owners mischaracterize Dr. Schöneich’s
`
`testimony. The cited paragraph of Dr. Schöneich’s Reply Declaration states that
`
`several compounds relied on by Dr. Klibanov do not have the three structural
`
`features found in rivastigmine that a POSA would have recognized as causing
`
`rivastigmine to be susceptible to oxidative degradation and that Dr. Klibanov
`
`admitted that one or more of those structural features were missing from these
`
`compounds. (Ex. 1032 ¶ 50.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael K. Levy/
`Steven J. Lee (Reg. No. 31,272)
`Michael K. Levy (Reg. No. 40,699)
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`Fax: 212-425-5288
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Noven Pharmaceuticals,
`Inc.
`
`16
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
`
`
` certify pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e) that a copy of the foregoing
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Patent Owners’ Motion for Observations on Cross-
`
`Examination of Dr. Schöneich was served electronically on May 12, 2015 to
`
`counsel for Patent Owners at the following email address:
`
`/Michael K. Levy/
`Michael K. Levy (Reg. No. 40,699)
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`Fax: 212-425-5288
`Counsel for Petitioner Noven Pharmaceuticals,
`Inc.
`
`ExelonPatchIPR@fchs.com.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`