`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 67
`Entered: June 17, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and MYLAN
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG and LTS LOHMANN THERAPIE-SYSTEME
`AG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`____________
`
`Held: June 2, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN,
`and CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June
`2, 2015, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL K. LEVY, ESQUIRE
`CHRIS J. COULSON, ESQUIRE
`Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004-1007
`
`BENJAMIN ANGER, ESQUIRE
`Knobbe Martens
`12790 El Camino Real
`San Diego, California 92130
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHARLOTTE JACOBSEN, ESQUIRE
`RAYMOND R. MANDRA, ESQUIRE
`NICHOLAS N. KALLAS, ESQUIRE
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10104-3800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE PRATS: Good afternoon, everyone. We are
`
`here for IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550. This is the final
`
`hearing for those cases. Welcome everyone and thank you for
`
`coming.
`
`These involve respectively, the 549 involves U.S. patent
`
`number 6,316,023 and the 550 involves patent number 6,335,031.
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`The parties are -- Petitioner is Noven Pharmaceuticals and Patent
`
`11
`
`Owner is Novartis and LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme.
`
`12
`
`I would like to point out that the 549 and 550
`
`13
`
`proceedings have been joined with IPR2015-00265 and 00268
`
`14
`
`respectively. The Petitioner in those proceedings is Mylan
`
`15
`
`Pharmaceuticals. Mylan will not be presenting argument today.
`
`16
`
`At this time I would like counsel for the parties to
`
`17
`
`introduce yourselves and your colleagues, beginning with
`
`18
`
`Petitioner, Noven.
`
`19
`
`MR. LEVY: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Mike
`
`20
`
`Levy from Kenyon & Kenyon on behalf of Petitioner, Noven.
`
`21
`
`MR. COULSON: I'm Chris Coulson also for Noven,
`
`22
`
`Your Honors.
`
`23
`
`MS. JACOBSEN: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`
`24
`
`Charlotte Jacobsen on behalf of Novartis and LTS. And with me
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`is Nicholas Kallas and Raymond Mandra from the firm
`
`Fitzpatrick Cella.
`
`MR. ANGER: Your Honors, I'm Ben Anger
`
`representing Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`MR. LEVY: And Your Honor, on behalf of Petitioners,
`
`Steve Lee is also counsel of record and joining us as well.
`
`JUDGE PRATS: Thank you. Welcome to the Board.
`
`Consistent with our hearing order, each party has 60 minutes to
`
`present their arguments. Petitioner you may reserve rebuttal time.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`As to procedure, I note that Patent Owner has made
`
`11
`
`objections to a number of Petitioner's demonstrative slides.
`
`12
`
`When we present a particular slide, we are not going to interrupt
`
`13
`
`the opposition and say, well, I object to that slide. We are just
`
`14
`
`going to continue through argument. Is that clear?
`
`15
`
`Let me go through and make sure I haven't missed
`
`16
`
`anything. Okay. Counsel for Petitioner, you may proceed.
`
`17
`
`Would you like to reserve any rebuttal time?
`
`18
`
`MR. LEVY: Yes, Your Honors, I would like to reserve
`
`19
`
`20 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`20
`
`Good afternoon, Your Honors, and may it please the
`
`21
`
`Court. Again, Mike Levy for Petitioner. The main question
`
`22
`
`posed to the Board is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`23
`
`or a POSA would have expected that rivastigmine was
`
`24
`
`susceptible to oxidation, whether the prior art suggested the
`
`25
`
`existence of the problem.
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`There's no real dispute, or there shouldn't be, that the
`
`solution to the problem, antioxidant use, is obvious. The
`
`expectation of oxidative degradation provides the motivation to
`
`take the otherwise unremarkable step of adding an antioxidant to
`
`pharmaceutical compositions.
`
`The Board is now aware of the Federal Circuit's recent
`
`decision upholding a District Court's finding that other defendants
`
`failed to prove obviousness by clear and convincing evidence
`
`based on the record in that proceeding for the patents here. To be
`
`10
`
`sure, there is substantially more evidence here and different
`
`11
`
`evidence than that previous case, and it is particularly evidence
`
`12
`
`addressing the central issue of whether a POSA would have
`
`13
`
`suspected rivastigmine's susceptible to oxidation.
`
`14
`
`Petitioner provided expert testimony evidence from two
`
`15
`
`distinguished individuals. Dr. Christian Schöneich is the chair of
`
`16
`
`the department of pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of
`
`17
`
`Kansas. The focus of his professional work, his research since
`
`18
`
`the early 1990s has been free radical chemistry which includes
`
`19
`
`the very types of oxidation issues presenting in this case. He is
`
`20
`
`the only declarant in this case whose expertise is oxidation in
`
`21
`
`pharmaceutical chemistry.
`
`22
`
`And the other, Dr. Agis Kydonieus, is the president of
`
`23
`
`Samos Pharmaceuticals, a company serving the pharmaceutical
`
`24
`
`industry in the field of drug delivery. Dr. Kydonieus has spent
`
`25
`
`his entire professional career outside of academia in industry and
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`has spent the last 35 years of his career on the development of
`
`transdermal delivery systems. He's the only expert in this case
`
`whose career focus has been transdermals.
`
`I'm on slide 2. As I said, the only real issue separating
`
`the parties is the motivation to combine rivastigmine with an
`
`antioxidant. That's the only real issue in this case because so
`
`much is not in dispute. The Enz reference is a proper starting
`
`point for the obviousness analysis. It's not disputed that all the
`
`elements of the challenged claims of both patents are found in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`prior art. The particular features of any dependent claim are not
`
`11
`
`argued for separate patentability purposes.
`
`12
`
`It would have been routine work for the person of
`
`13
`
`ordinary skill in the art to select an effective amount of an
`
`14
`
`appropriate antioxidant. That is, there's no dispute that it is the
`
`15
`
`routine work of the POSA to identify an appropriate compatible
`
`16
`
`antioxidant and its effective amount for a composition.
`
`17
`
`And finally and perhaps most importantly, evidence of
`
`18
`
`secondary considerations in support of nonobviousness has not
`
`19
`
`been presented by Patent Owners.
`
`20
`
`Slide 3 shows the grounds for the '023 IPR. The
`
`21
`
`references are essentially the same that we are employing in the
`
`22
`
`'031 IPR on slide 4. What's important to note is that because of
`
`23
`
`the same references and the same claimed subject matter, the
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner has conceded in both IPRs, that the specific
`
`25
`
`differences among the grounds and the challenged claims is not
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`material. That's in their response at page 20 in the '031 patent
`
`IPR.
`
`I'm on slide 5. The similarity of the subject matter as
`
`illustrated by comparing the claim 1, the two independent claims
`
`of the two respective patents. In claim 1, of course both are
`
`pharmaceutical composition. Claim 1 of the '031 patent on the
`
`left requires a therapeutically effective amount of active. It's
`
`more specifically required to be 1 to 40 weight percent in the '023
`
`patent. And in the '031 patent they use the modifying language
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`about 0.01 to about 0.5 percent for the amount of antioxidant. In
`
`11
`
`the '023 it's more specifically claimed and limited to 0.01 to 0.5,
`
`12
`
`the subject matters thus lending itself to the consolidation
`
`13
`
`hearing.
`
`14
`
`JUDGE PRATS: Counsel, should we consider claims 7
`
`15
`
`and 8 -- I think it's of the '031 patent that is the transdermal
`
`16
`
`formulation -- should we consider those differently?
`
`17
`
`MR. LEVY: No, they are certainly claims in the IPR
`
`18
`
`and should be addressed, as all of them should. The fact that a
`
`19
`
`transdermal is being introduced, that's really not a disputed
`
`20
`
`feature because those elements are also in the prior art. But those
`
`21
`
`claims do, of course, command the same attention. And on my
`
`22
`
`next slide, 6, you'll see that there's a method claim which is not
`
`23
`
`limited to a transdermal but simply also requires that rivastigmine
`
`24
`
`be combined with an antioxidant.
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The elements of the dependent claims cover in both
`
`patents specific antioxidants, narrowed antioxidant ranges and the
`
`elements of the transdermal system.
`
`JUDGE PRATS: The reason I raise that is I think it's on
`
`page 12 of your reply, you seem to argue that Enz isn't limited to
`
`a -- it's teaching about a transdermal. So when you show the
`
`more generic claim, I'm just trying to square that with what you
`
`are saying here. I mean, Enz does teach a transdermal and pretty
`
`much nothing else, right?
`
`10
`
`MR. LEVY: It does disclose the compositions can be
`
`11
`
`made for rivastigmine. The emphasis is on transdermals, but
`
`12
`
`there is broader disclosure outside of transdermals for the
`
`13
`
`delivery of that drug.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE PRATS: Thank you.
`
`MR. LEVY: I'm on slide 7. The experts agree on what
`
`16
`
`constitutes a person of ordinary skill except in one point that I
`
`17
`
`wanted to emphasize. Petitioners’ experts testified that a POSA
`
`18
`
`would make reasoned predictions about the strength of particular
`
`19
`
`chemical bonds in a drug molecule and the susceptibility of the
`
`20
`
`molecule to degradation, including oxidative degradation. I think
`
`21
`
`that's a difference between the two parties.
`
`22
`
`Slide 8, turning to the central issue of whether a POSA
`
`23
`
`would have expected that rivastigmine was susceptible to
`
`24
`
`oxidative degradation. The reason that there is a reasonable
`
`25
`
`expectation of oxidative degradation is based on the chemical
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`structure of rivastigmine itself. And it's also based on the
`
`similarity of rivastigmine's structure to other prior art compound,
`
`nicotine, which was known to be susceptible to oxidation. I want
`
`to walk through that with my time. But most importantly, the
`
`POSA's appreciation of rivastigmine's structural issues that give
`
`rise to the concern about oxidation inform the POSA's
`
`understanding of the prior art in the case, Elmalem, Rosin,
`
`Sasaki, Ebert and Enz.
`
`I'm on slide 9. Now, the POSA, of course, would have
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`had reasonable expectation for rivastigmine's issue. And the prior
`
`11
`
`art is the basis for this. There is no speculation involved. It's not
`
`12
`
`theoretical. There is no hindsight here. The prior art instructs the
`
`13
`
`artisan to examine the structure of a molecule during
`
`14
`
`pre-formulation and make predictive assessments. We'll see that
`
`15
`
`art in a moment. The artisan is instructed to apply functional
`
`16
`
`group chemistry to anticipate potential modes of degradation. In
`
`17
`
`fact, Patent Owner's expert himself, Dr. Klibanov, did a very
`
`18
`
`elegant application of functional group chemistry in his own
`
`19
`
`declaration when he addressed the stability of carbamates. That's
`
`20
`
`Exhibit 1032 at paragraphs 27 to 29.
`
`21
`
`The third point is worth noting here. The mechanistic
`
`22
`
`pathways of a reaction are different from the threshold question
`
`23
`
`of susceptibility to oxidative degradation. We are talking about
`
`24
`
`that threshold question, susceptibility to oxidative degradation.
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`Patent Owners have attempted to create an issue where none
`
`should exist.
`
`The parties agree that deciphering the reaction
`
`mechanism of an organic compound's degradation is complex. It
`
`involves intermediates, many of which may not exist long enough
`
`to even be isolated or measured. But the question here differs
`
`from deciphering an entire mechanistic pathway. The question
`
`here is simply, is the molecule ab initio, from the start,
`
`susceptible to oxidation? We've answered that the question for
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`rivastigmine is yes.
`
`11
`
`I'm on to slide 10. Here is an example of the prior art
`
`12
`
`instructing the POSA. The initial investigation begins through
`
`13
`
`knowledge of the drug's chemical structure which allows the
`
`14
`
`pre-formulation scientist to anticipate the possible degradation
`
`15
`
`reactions. There's no hindsight use of Dr. Schöneich's testimony
`
`16
`
`here. The prior art says, please, look at the structure and make
`
`17
`
`rational determinations about degradation modes.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE PRATS: Counsel, wouldn't anybody test any
`
`19
`
`drug to make sure it's not susceptible to oxidation?
`
`20
`
`MR. LEVY: Regulatory authorities may indeed require
`
`21
`
`that testing be done for all possible modes of degradation. That's
`
`22
`
`absolutely something we talked about in our petition, that there
`
`23
`
`are FDA guidelines in place. It's also common sense to see if
`
`24
`
`your drug is degrading to see if there's any toxic issues involved
`
`25
`
`as well. That is part of the pre-formulation process. Here,
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`though, we are saying not just testing, but looking at the structure
`
`to make assessments before testing is even done.
`
`JUDGE PRATS: How do you answer Patent Owner's
`
`argument that if any testing is required, therefore, it's not
`
`obvious?
`
`MR. LEVY: Well, the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`has an expectation that oxidation can and will occur. It's
`
`formulation-dependent. It doesn't happen under every
`
`circumstance because different formulations may prohibit it or
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`mitigate it in some way. There could be antioxidants present that
`
`11
`
`were not known. There could be other reaction conditions not
`
`12
`
`favoring it. But once you have you have that expectation, that is
`
`13
`
`part of -- that's an intrinsic property of the compound. It travels
`
`14
`
`with the compound wherever it goes. In different formulations
`
`15
`
`you certainly would want to test to see if it happens and to the
`
`16
`
`extent, if any.
`
`17
`
`Slide 11. Here is another instruction from the prior art,
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 2014. The prior art taught the possible modes of
`
`19
`
`degradation that are likely to happen were identifiable by
`
`20
`
`applying functional group chemistry.
`
`21
`
`On slide 12, another example of the prior art from
`
`22
`
`Exhibit 1047. A study of functional groups is especially
`
`23
`
`profitable because the reactions of a functional group tend to be
`
`24
`
`about the same regardless of the nature of the rest of the
`
`25
`
`molecule.
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I'm on slide 14. Here is the rivastigmine molecule. It's
`
`shown with three-dimensional chemistry on the carbon on the
`
`right-hand side. That's the carbon of interest in our case.
`
`On slide 15, we've assigned colors to different
`
`functional groups for the purposes of our discussion. Our focus is
`
`on the red carbon-hydrogen bond.
`
`In slide 16, I want to talk about what these various
`
`functional groups are and then discuss the principles that are at
`
`work here. On slide 16, the different functional groups are
`
`10
`
`identified. There's the red carbon-hydrogen that is our focus.
`
`11
`
`That red carbon is immediately adjacent to three groups at the
`
`12
`
`same time. One group shown in blue is an aromatic system. In
`
`13
`
`this case, a benzene ring. It's an aromatic ring. It's immediately
`
`14
`
`adjacent to an aromatic ring.
`
`15
`
`At the same time, the red carbon is immediately
`
`16
`
`adjacent a tertiary amine shown in green and at the same time, the
`
`17
`
`red carbon is immediately adjacent an additional carbon moiety
`
`18
`
`shown in purple. The fact that the red carbon is immediately
`
`19
`
`adjacent three other nonhydrogen entities at the same time
`
`20
`
`renders the red carbon a tertiary carbon. And that's an important
`
`21
`
`concept that I want to focus on in a little bit.
`
`22
`
`Dr. Schöneich, on behalf of Petitioners, testified that
`
`23
`
`these three groups are all immediately adjacent to the red carbon
`
`24
`
`and make the red carbon-hydrogen bond very weak.
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE PAULRAJ: I want to ask you about your
`
`reliance on Dr. Schöneich's testimony on this point, and I'll let
`
`you continue your point after this question. It seems to me that
`
`you are relying heavily on Dr. Schöneich's testimony to explain
`
`the chemistry and the susceptibility of rivastigmine to
`
`degradation based on these functional groups in the molecule.
`
`But Section 311(b) of our statute says that inter partes review is
`
`based on prior art and printed publications. How can we rely on
`
`expert testimony on this point when the challenge is based on the
`
`10
`
`teachings in the prior art and teachings specifically in patent
`
`11
`
`publications?
`
`12
`
`MR. LEVY: Because as we've shown, and it's on my
`
`13
`
`next few slides, all of the principles that Dr. Schöneich relies
`
`14
`
`upon are shown in the prior art organic chemistry textbooks. The
`
`15
`
`notion of carbon stabilization, bond association, all these
`
`16
`
`concepts that allow one to conclude that this molecule is
`
`17
`
`susceptible to oxidation are all in the prior art. We have
`
`18
`
`documented that in our papers with prior art textbooks and other
`
`19
`
`literature.
`
`20
`
`JUDGE PRATS: But the link between nicotine and
`
`21
`
`rivastigmine, that's not really shown in the art. It seems to me it's
`
`22
`
`Dr. Schöneich that's making that link, correct? Is there evidence,
`
`23
`
`direct evidence linking those two compounds except for that
`
`24
`
`testimony?
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`MR. LEVY: Nicotine is shown in the Ebert reference
`
`in a transdermal to require an antioxidant because of its oxidation
`
`issue.
`
`Dr. Schöneich has indeed testified that nicotine, a prior
`
`art compound, would be the type of compound one of skill in the
`
`art would look at because of its similar structure. We have not
`
`cited a reference, that is correct, that shows rivastigmine and
`
`nicotine together side by side.
`
`JUDGE PRATS: Thank you.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. LEVY: The principles on slide 17 are --
`
`11
`
`underlying the analysis is that oxidation involves breaking a
`
`12
`
`covalent chemical bond resulting in the formation of a radical.
`
`13
`
`Radicals are molecules with an unpaired electron that are formed
`
`14
`
`by breaking a chemical bond. Now, some chemical bonds are
`
`15
`
`weaker than others, depending on the structural context in the
`
`16
`
`molecule. We refer to it as the electronic neighborhood of that
`
`17
`
`particular atom. And thus, those bonds are more prone to
`
`18
`
`oxidation. Now, a drug molecule containing a chemical bond is
`
`19
`
`prone to oxidation and can lead to degradation of the drug.
`
`20
`
`On slide 18 I have one of the first principles I wanted to
`
`21
`
`illustrate. This is the notion of increasing the number of moieties
`
`22
`
`on the carbon to make it a tertiary radical, increasing its stability.
`
`23
`
`As you move left to right, the carbon, as it gains more
`
`24
`
`nonhydrogen entities becomes more stable. That allows the bond
`
`25
`
`to become weaker and the hydrogen that would be attached at that
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`carbon would be easier to break. And this is shown in the prior
`
`art. This is Exhibit 1007 from our papers.
`
`The first four entries in that table are disclosing bond
`
`association energies which is a measure of bond strength. The
`
`higher the number, the stronger the bond. The first four entries
`
`show the progression that was on slide 18. As you increase the
`
`number of carbons attached to that central carbon, the
`
`carbon-hydrogen bond becomes weaker. The bond association
`
`energy goes down.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`But a more important thing is illustrated in the seventh
`
`11
`
`entry that I have highlighted. When a phenyl group shown by the
`
`12
`
`pH, which is a benzyl group, the phenyl group attached to that
`
`13
`
`carbon has an even greater stabilizing effect, lowering the bond
`
`14
`
`association energy of that carbon even more. And that's
`
`15
`
`something we see in rivastigmine.
`
`16
`
`So here is the prior art teaching these basic principles
`
`17
`
`that the other prior art instructs you to consider when assessing a
`
`18
`
`molecule's stability.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE FRANKLIN: Exhibit 1007 is Kissel. And that
`
`20
`
`is relied upon for ground 4. So are you speaking in terms of
`
`21
`
`claim 8?
`
`22
`
`MR. LEVY: No. I'm trying to site to Carey &
`
`23
`
`Sundberg there. There may be a typographical error. I'm come
`
`24
`
`back to that, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Slide 20 shows this influence of the benzene system, the
`
`aromatic ring. The benzylic carbon, this central carbon here, is
`
`immediately adjacent the aromatic system that has the weakening
`
`effect on the carbon-hydrogen bonds. A benzylic carbon, by pure
`
`definition, would be a carbon attached to a benzene ring. But
`
`Dr. Schöneich has explained that benzylic can refer to an
`
`aromatic system more broadly that is at least benzene-like, has
`
`the same aromatic properties.
`
`On slide 21 we see why this aromatic system has such a
`
`10
`
`stabilizing effect. When an electron becomes delocalized, it can
`
`11
`
`be shifted around the ring because of the aromatic system and the
`
`12
`
`electron passed around like a hot potato. That has a stabilizing
`
`13
`
`effect and explains the contribution of the aromatic system.
`
`14
`
`Slide 22 refers to an additional property, an additive
`
`15
`
`property that these immediately adjacent groups have. This table
`
`16
`
`from the prior art on slide 22 shows the relative reactivities of
`
`17
`
`some aromatic systems to oxygen. Again, this is from Carey &
`
`18
`
`Sundberg and we have cited it as Exhibit 1007.
`
`19
`
`Your Honor, in the different IPRs, 1007 took on a
`
`20
`
`different identity. In the '023 IPR, 1007 was Kissel. But in the
`
`21
`
`'031, which we have been using our controlling citation, 1007 is
`
`22
`
`Carey & Sundberg.
`
`23
`
`My point here in this table is that when the phenyl
`
`24
`
`group or the aromatic system is attached to three carbons at the
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`same time, it has the most reactivity towards oxygen. That's the
`
`entry in the upper left-hand corner receiving the number 1.
`
`The weakest system is when a benzene system or an
`
`aromatic system is attached to a methyl group. That was the last
`
`entry on the previous table I showed from slide 19. So slide 22
`
`shows an ever increasing additive effect of these immediately
`
`adjacent moieties favoring the stability of the central red carbon
`
`which makes the carbon hydrogen bond that much weaker.
`
`Slide 23, again, shows the rivastigmine molecule.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`We've now learned about the influence of the aromatic ring and
`
`11
`
`the tertiary nature of the red carbon. Dr. Schöneich has also
`
`12
`
`testified that the tertiary amine that is immediately adjacent the
`
`13
`
`red carbon has additional, yet additional influence on stabilizing
`
`14
`
`that red carbon so it can become a radical and the
`
`15
`
`carbon-hydrogen bond easily broken.
`
`16
`
`On slide 24, again, the prior art ties this up nicely. The
`
`17
`
`prior art teaches that benzylic, allylic and tertiary positions are
`
`18
`
`especially susceptible to oxidation. Benzylic and tertiary
`
`19
`
`positions are both present on the rivastigmine molecule. This is
`
`20
`
`in the prior art, again, the Carey & Sundberg text.
`
`21
`
`Now, very important here is that the Patent Owners
`
`22
`
`have not disputed that rivastigmine's red carbon-hydrogen bond is
`
`23
`
`very weak based on the principles that we have discussed here.
`
`24
`
`The technical conclusion is unchallenged and I would like to
`
`25
`
`know that the material that I have presented on slides 10
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`through 24 was not of record or of evidence in that Watson
`
`Federal Circuit case.
`
`On slide 25, this is the nicotine molecule. And we have
`
`said that the person of ordinary skill in the art would not just draw
`
`conclusions alone from looking at the molecule. They would find
`
`that that conclusion could be reinforced by similar molecules in
`
`the prior art. Nicotine was known to be susceptible to oxidation.
`
`Slide 26, here on this slide nicotine has been assigned --
`
`the moieties, the functional groups in nicotine have been assigned
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the same color coding that we use for rivastigmine for purposes
`
`11
`
`of comparison. The important thing to note here is that the red
`
`12
`
`central carbon is attached to an aromatic system. It's called a
`
`13
`
`pyridine ring. It's not a benzene ring. It's got a nitrogen atom in
`
`14
`
`it. That's a pyridine ring. Dr. Schöneich has testified that the
`
`15
`
`pyridine ring provides the same stabilizing influence as a benzene
`
`16
`
`ring would. Therefore, these two compounds can be closely
`
`17
`
`compared. The red carbon is also attached immediately adjacent
`
`18
`
`to a tertiary amine in green and another carbon moiety in purple.
`
`19
`
`That same carbon, that red carbon in nicotine is a tertiary
`
`20
`
`immediately adjacent a tertiary amine and an aromatic system.
`
`21
`
`In slide 27 we show the side-by-side comparison more
`
`22
`
`clearly. This slide confirms that one of skill in the art, knowing
`
`23
`
`that nicotine is susceptible to oxidation, having already drawn the
`
`24
`
`conclusion about rivastigmine, this reinforces that conclusion.
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE PAULRAJ: Wasn't -- if nicotine was known to
`
`be subject to oxidative degradation, we also have testimony in
`
`evidence saying that prior art nicotine transdermal patches did not
`
`include an antioxidant. Is that -- how do you resolve that issue?
`
`MR. LEVY: In the prior art, I believe there are nicotine
`
`patches with antioxidant, that's the Ebert reference, and there are
`
`marketed products containing nicotine patches that adopt a
`
`different system for mitigating oxidation. Nicotine also has the
`
`problem of photodegradation. So special packaging is often
`
`10
`
`employed to eliminate light and at the same time oxygen. So
`
`11
`
`sometimes in commercial products they choose a different
`
`12
`
`method and don't need an antioxidant as long as they are still
`
`13
`
`addressing oxidative degradation in some way.
`
`14
`
`On slide 28, I want to sum up the points that we have
`
`15
`
`addressed. The prior art instructed the artisan to make
`
`16
`
`assessments about a molecule's chemical and physical properties
`
`17
`
`during pre-formulation. The prior art taught that structural
`
`18
`
`features of affect bond strength and in turn, susceptibility to
`
`19
`
`oxidation. This reasonable expectation is confirmed by a
`
`20
`
`structurally similar compound, in this case nicotine, in the prior
`
`21
`
`art. And Dr. Schöneich concluded that the person of ordinary
`
`22
`
`skill would have predicted rivastigmine's susceptibility to
`
`23
`
`oxidative degradation based on the molecule's chemical structure.
`
`24
`
`I would like to now turn to the prior art that is the basis
`
`25
`
`for the IPRs. This Enz reference on slide 30, there's no dispute
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`that the Enz reference discloses everything in claim 1 of the two
`
`respective patents except the antioxidant. It discloses the
`
`structure of rivastigmine from which a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have known of rivastigmine's susceptibility to oxidation.
`
`It discloses a therapeutically effective amount of rivastigmine and
`
`it discloses an unfinished formulation containing rivastigmine in
`
`a polymer for transdermal delivery.
`
`The next important piece of prior art is the Handbook of
`
`Pharmaceutical Excipients. I'm on slide 32. The Handbook
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`discloses the variety and conventionality of antioxidants as a
`
`11
`
`pharmaceutical excipient. It also confirms that the person of
`
`12
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have been discouraged from
`
`13
`
`using an antioxidant. There are so many identified in the
`
`14
`
`Handbook, they are a common excipient. There is not a credible
`
`15
`
`story to be told that someone of skill in the art would be
`
`16
`
`discouraged from using such a conventional excipient.
`
`17
`
`And the Handbook confirms that antioxidants are
`
`18
`
`actually being used and safe. Many of the -- all of the
`
`19
`
`antioxidants claimed in the '031 and '023 patents are set forth in
`
`20
`
`the Handbook and they are identified as safe or GRAS listed,
`
`21
`
`generally regarded as safe.
`
`22
`
`The next important reference is Rosin. I'm on slide 34.
`
`23
`
`Now, Rosin discloses a series of compounds that have been
`
`24
`
`engineered to have greater in vivo activity than the prior art
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550
`Patents 6,316,023 B1 and 6,335,031 B1
`
`compound, namely a compound called physostigmine that you've
`
`read a lot about.
`
`Rosin discloses what is called an RA series. They
`
`assign numbers to these new novel compounds. One of them was
`
`RA7 that's shown in red. That is racemic rivastigmine. The
`
`rivastigmine molecule is part of RA7. It's the racemate. And
`
`there is experimental data for a number of the compounds
`
`disclosed. And in fact, preferences are called out in the patent for
`
`the most successful biologically active compounds that were
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`measured. RA7 is among them. In fact, that patent only claims
`
`11
`
`three species disclosed in the whole patent, and RA7 is one of
`
`12
`
`them.
`
`13
`
`It's also noted in Rosin that preferred antioxidants for
`
`14
`
`use with the compounds of the present invention include sodium
`
`15
`
`metabisulfite and ascorbic acid. Not just any antioxidants. They
`
`16
`
`specifically call out preferred antioxidants to be used with the
`
`17
`
`compounds of the invention.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE PAULRAJ: Why should we read Rosin
`
`19
`
`differently than how the Federal Circuit and the District Court
`
`20
`
`read? You quoted one sentence here for antioxidants but the
`
`21
`
`immediately prior sentence that the Federal Circuit focused on
`
`22
`
`said that antioxidants can be incorporated as required. And of
`
`23
`
`course, the reading in the Fed Circuit was that we don't know if
`
`24
`
`it's required. So we don't know if we want to use antiox