`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`INO THERAPEUTICS, INC. d/b/a IKARIA, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MAURICE BEGHETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`
`8,282,966
`
`I, Dr. Maurice Beghetti, declare that:
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am the Head of the Paediatric Cardiology Unit and also am the
`
`Director of the Subspecialty Division at the University Hospital of Geneva, in
`
`Geneva, Switzerland. I hold several degrees from Genève, Université, Faculté de
`
`Médecine, including specialist degrees in paediatric cardiology. I have spent most
`
`of my professional career in Geneva, with a three-year fellowship at the Hospital
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada with one year devoted specifically to cardiac
`
`intensive care focusing on pulmonary hypertension research.
`
`2.
`
`I have treated patients with inhaled nitric oxide (“NO,” “inhaled NO,”
`
`or “iNO”) since at least the early 1990s, when it was first shown to be efficacious.
`
`I have both extensively studied the drug and researched its potential uses since the
`
`early 1990s. I regularly speak and lecture about treatment of pulmonary
`
`hypertension,1 including how to treat patients with inhaled NO or how to assess the
`
`condition of a patient’s pulmonary vasculature using inhaled NO.
`
`3.
`
`I have been and currently am a full professor at Genève, University,
`
`Faculty of Medicine, where I have taught the uses and contraindications for inhaled
`
`NO within my lectures for cardiologists, neonatologists, and intensive care
`
`specialists, as well as for nurses specialized in intensive care. I have taught these
`
`subjects at the University since 1996, first as a senior fellow, and then as an
`
`associate professor since 2001, and as a full professor since 2010.
`
`4.
`
`I have received several awards throughout my career, including two
`
`directly related to my research on inhaled NO. In 1996, I received a clinical
`
`research award at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, for my work entitled
`
`“A comparison of inhaled nitric oxide and mild metabolic alkalosis as acute
`
`1 Pulmonary hypertension is increased pressure in the pulmonary arteries—the
`
`arteries that carry blood from the heart to the lungs to pick up oxygen.
`
`2
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`therapy for control of pulmonary hypertension following open-heart surgery.” I
`
`additionally received an award in 2000 for my research entitled “Inhaled Iloprost
`
`versus inhaled nitric oxide in secondary pulmonary hypertension: the vasodilator
`
`capacity and cellular mechanisms.” This award was presented by the third World
`
`Congress on Pediatric Intensive Care, held in June of 2000.
`
`5.
`
`During the last 12 years, I have been extensively involved with
`
`numerous international, standard-setting organizations. I am a Member of the
`
`Executive Board of the Association for Paediatric PH (“pulmonary hypertension”),
`
`which has generated the TOPP Registry (for Tracking Outcomes and Practice in
`
`Paediatric PH). I am the Paediatric Member of the European Society of
`
`Cardiology (“ESC”) Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right
`
`Ventricular Function. I am also the Paediatric Member of the ESC Guidelines.
`
`The guidelines are endorsed by the European Respiratory Society (ERS), the
`
`European Association for Pediatric Cardiology (AEPC) (indeed, I represent AEPC
`
`in the guidelines) and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation
`
`(ISHLT). I was the Co-Chair of the Paediatric Task Force at the last World
`
`Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension in 2013, involving representatives from
`
`numerous countries, including the United States.
`
`6.
`
`I am a member of the editorial board of Cardiology in the Young and
`
`have authored numerous publications, book chapters and books on pulmonary
`
`3
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`hypertension. I am the editor of what is currently the only book on paediatric
`
`pulmonary hypertension.
`
`7. My research interests are focused on pulmonary hypertension and
`
`congenital heart defects in paediatric patients. I also work with colleagues and
`
`pharmaceutical companies to design pediatric pulmonary hypertension and
`
`persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (“PPHN”) studies with the
`
`European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) to develop alternative treatments for
`
`patients who do not respond to treatment with inhaled NO.
`
`8.
`
`As part of my involvement with international organizations, including
`
`the world symposia, and through consulting work where I have presented materials
`
`to the FDA as part of paediatric investigational programs for new compounds, I
`
`have been able to confirm that there are no material differences in the standards of
`
`care and clinical practice for treating patients with inhaled NO in the United States
`
`as compared to Europe. Additionally, as part of my work with the ESC guidelines,
`
`I regularly confer with practitioners in the United States, Europe, and other
`
`countries throughout the world.2
`
`2 Advisory boards involving experts in the US and Europe have been established
`
`to develop recommendations for the use of inhaled NO. See, e.g., Ex. 1010,
`
`Germann, et al., Inhaled Nitric Oxide Therapy in Adults: European Expert
`
`Recommendations, 31 Intensive Care Med., 1029-1041 at 1030 (2005)
`
`4
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is found in Exhibit 1003.
`
`10.
`
`I am not an employee of Praxair Distribution, Inc.; Praxair, Inc. or any
`
`affiliated company. Rather, I have been engaged in the present matter to provide
`
`my independent analysis of the issues raised in the above-mentioned inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966 (“the ʼ966 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). I have
`
`received no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly
`
`compensation of $500/hr. for time actually spent studying the matter, and I will not
`
`receive any added compensation based on the outcome of any proceeding related
`
`to the ʼ966 Patent.
`
`(“Germann”); see also Ex. 1008, Macrae, et al., Inhaled Nitric Oxide Therapy
`
`in Neonates and Children: Reaching a European Consensus, 30 Intensive Care
`
`Medicine, 372-380 (2004) (“Macrae”); see also Ex. 1017, Ivy et al., Pediatric
`
`Pulmonary Hypertension, J Am Coll Cardiol. 62(25_S) (2013) (“Ivy”). As
`
`shown by the papers resulting from these Boards, there is no major
`
`disagreement on the paediatric guidelines among practitioners with regard to
`
`the treatment approach to be used for administration of inhaled NO. There
`
`may, however, be some differences in treatment selection due to the access and
`
`reimbursement availability of different therapies in different regions of the
`
`world. However, once a particular treatment is chosen, the approach from that
`
`point on is primarily consistent worldwide.
`
`5
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`11. Based upon my extensive knowledge and years of experience in this
`
`field, I have an understanding of how inhaled NO was being used for medical
`
`treatment on or before June 30, 2009, as well as the risks and contraindications
`
`associated with its use. My analysis on this matter, as set forth below, is based on
`
`my personal experience and what was known, and in fact, considered to be
`
`standard, by one skilled in the art prior to June 30, 2009.
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ʼ966 Patent. (Ex. 1001).
`
`Additionally, I have reviewed the following documents: (1) Ex. 1004, Bernasconi,
`
`et al., Inhaled Nitric Oxide Applications in Paediatric Practice, 4 Images in
`
`Paediatric Cardiology, 4-29 (2002) (“Bernasconi”); (2) Ex. 1005, Davidson, et al.,
`
`Inhaled Nitric Oxide
`
`for
`
`the Early Treatment of Persistent Pulmonary
`
`Hypertension of the Term Newborn: A Randomized, Double-Masked, Placebo-
`
`Controlled, Dose-Response, Multicenter Study, 101 Pediatrics, 325-334 (1998)
`
`(“Davidson”); (3) Ex. 1006, Loh, et al., Cardiovascular Effects of Inhaled Nitric
`
`Oxide in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction, 90 Circulation, 2780-2785
`
`(1994) (“Loh”); (4) Ex. 1007, P. Goyal, et al., Efficacy of Nitroglycerin Inhalation
`
`in Reducing Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Children with Congenital Heart
`
`Disease, 97 British Journal of Anaesthesia, 208-214 (2006) (“Goyal”); (5) Ex.
`
`1008, Macrae, et al., Inhaled Nitric Oxide Therapy in Neonates and Children:
`
`Reaching a European Consensus, 30 Intensive Care Medicine, 372-380 (2004)
`
`6
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Macrae”); (6) Ex. 1009, Ichinose, et al., Inhaled Nitric Oxide: A Selective
`
`Pulmonary Vasodilator: Current Uses and Therapeutic Potential, 109 Circulation,
`
`3106-3111 (2004) (“Ichinose”); (7) Ex. 1010, Germann, et al., Inhaled Nitric
`
`Oxide Therapy in Adults: European Expert Recommendations, 31 Intensive Care
`
`Med, 1029-1041 at 1030 (2005) (“Germann”); (8) Ex. 1011, The Neonatal Inhaled
`
`Nitric Oxide Study Group, Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Full-Term and Nearly Full-
`
`Term Infants with Hypoxic Respiratory Failure, 336 The New England Journal of
`
`Medicine, 597-604 (1997) (“Neonatal Group”); and (9) Ex. 1014, Center for Drug
`
`Evaluation and Research, Application Number: NDA 20845, INOMAX, Final
`
`Printed
`
`Labeling,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/20845_inomax_prntlbl.pdf
`
`(August 9, 2000) (“INOMAX label”). I was already familiar with many of these
`
`references from having read them at the time they were first published, and I have
`
`also cited several of them in my own publications. I have also reviewed the
`
`documents cited elsewhere herein, as well as any documents cited in the
`
`declarations I have submitted or will submit in other inter partes review petitions
`
`arising out of my engagement in this matter.
`
`13. My opinions, explained below, are based on my education,
`
`experience, and background in the field discussed above as well as my review of
`
`the references cited above.
`
`7
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD
`
`HAVE HAD BEFORE THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE ʼ966 PATENT
`
`14. The ʼ966 patent is entitled “Methods of Reducing the Risk of
`
`Occurrence of Pulmonary Edema in Children in Need of Treatment with Inhaled
`
`Nitric Oxide.” The ʼ966 patent provides contraindications for treatment of
`
`children with inhaled NO. Specifically the ʼ966 patent provides a pre-screening
`
`protocol to determine whether a patient is at risk of an adverse event upon
`
`treatment with NO, such as pulmonary oedema.3 See ʼ966 patent at Abstract, 1:46-
`
`60. It essentially provides that if the patient demonstrates characteristics
`
`suggesting that he or she is at risk, then the patient should not be treated with NO.
`
`Id. The evaluation includes a determination that patients who have left ventricular
`
`dysfunction should be excluded from treatment. Id. Claim 1 is representative:
`
`A method of reducing the risk of occurrence of pulmonary edema
`associated with a medical treatment comprising inhalation of 20 ppm
`nitric oxide gas, said method comprising:
`
`(a) performing echocardiography to identify a child in need of 20 ppm
`inhaled nitric oxide treatment for pulmonary hypertension, wherein
`the child is not dependent on right-to-left shunting of blood;
`(b) determining that the child identified in (a) has a pulmonary
`capillary wedge pressure greater than or equal to 20 mm Hg and thus
`
`3 Pulmonary edema is a buildup of fluid in the lungs. “Oedema” is an alternative
`
`spelling for “edema.”
`
`8
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`has left ventricular dysfunction, so is at particular risk of pulmonary
`edema upon treatment with inhaled nitric oxide; and
`(c) excluding the child from inhaled nitric oxide treatment based on
`the determination that the child has left ventricular dysfunction and so
`is at particular risk of pulmonary edema upon treatment with inhaled
`nitric oxide.
`15.
`In practice, the determination that the patient has left ventricular
`
`dysfunction may be made by in a variety of ways, such as by measuring pulmonary
`
`capillary wedge pressure (“wedge pressure”) or through echocardiography.4 Id. I
`
`am an expert in these protocols and treatments, and was an expert in this area prior
`
`to the priority date of the ʼ966 patent on June 30, 2009. This expertise comes from
`
`the field of paediatric cardiology and pulmonary hypertension where the difference
`
`between pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension that includes normal wedge
`
`pressure and post-capillary pulmonary hypertension is a key discussion in this
`
`field. It is important in fact to differentiate these two entities as they react
`
`differently to therapies. This is well described in the pulmonary hypertension field
`
`and many years ago led to the classification of these two types of pulmonary
`
`hypertension in two different groups of pulmonary hypertension classification. See
`
`e.g., Ex. 1018, Simonneau, et al., Clinical Classification of Pulmonary
`
`Hypertension, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 43(12 Suppl S):5S-12S (2004) (“Simonneau
`
`
`4 Echocardiography is the use of ultrasound waves to investigate the actions of
`
`the heart.
`
`9
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`2004”); Ex. 1019, Simonneau, et al., Updated Clinical Classification of Pulmonary
`
`Hypertension, J Am. Coll. Cardiol. 54(1 Suppl):S43-54 (2009) (“Simonneau
`
`2009”); Ex. 1020, Simonneau, et al., Updated Clinical Classification of Pulmonary
`
`Hypertension, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 62 (25 Suppl):D34-41 (2013) (“Simonneau
`
`2013”). Although, the clinical classifications apply to pulmonary hypertension
`
`generally, the teachings are equally applicable to the context of pulmonary
`
`hypertension treated with inhaled NO and the effect of left heart disease.
`
`16. Pulmonary arterial hypertension is characterized by an increased
`
`pulmonary artery pressure and increased pulmonary vascular resistance. See Ex.
`
`1021, Chemla, et al., Haemodynamic Evaluation of Pulmonary Hypertension 20
`
`Eur Respir J. 1314-1331 at 1314 (2002) (“Chemla”). One cause of pulmonary
`
`hypertension is vasoconstriction. Id. at 1314. Before June 30, 2009, it was known
`
`to doctors in the field of paediatric cardiology that nitric oxide may be used as a
`
`vasodilator.5 See Germann at 1030, 1031. Inhaled nitric oxide is a selective
`
`pulmonary vasodilator, and, as such, relaxes pulmonary vessels, which decreases
`
`pulmonary vascular resistance, pulmonary arterial pressure, and right ventricular
`
`afterload. See Ex. 1022, Griffiths, et al,. Inhaled Nitric Oxide Therapy in Adults,
`
`353 New England Journal of Medicine 2683-2695 at 2685 (2005) (“Griffiths”).
`
`5 Vasodilation is the widening of blood vessel that results from relaxation of
`
`smooth muscle cells within the vessel walls.
`
`10
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`When nitric oxide is inhaled, it diffuses rapidly across the alveolar-capillary
`
`membrane and into the subjacent smooth muscle of pulmonary vessels to activate
`
`the soluble enzyme guanylate cyclase. See Ex. 1009 at 3106. This enzyme
`
`converts GTP to cGMP, and the increased intracellular concentrations of cGMP
`
`relax smooth muscle resulting in vasodilation. Id.
`
`17. Not all patients and not all conditions are responsive to treatment with
`
`inhaled NO. Pulmonary hypertension, specifically PPHN, is a condition that may
`
`be treated with inhaled NO. See, e.g. Ex. 1004 at 3. Twenty parts per million of
`
`inhaled NO is approved by the FDA to treat neonatal hypoxic respiratory failure6
`
`and has been approved since 2000. Ex. 1004 at 3; see also Ex. 1014, Center for
`
`Drug Evaluation and Research, Application Number: NDA 20845, INOMAX,
`
`6 Hypoxic respiratory failure and hypoxemic respiratory failure, conditions where
`
`the cells of the body do not have enough oxygen, may be caused by pulmonary
`
`hypertension. Therefore, treatment of pulmonary hypertension would also
`
`result in treatment of hypoxic respiratory failure caused by pulmonary
`
`hypertension. Hypoxic respiratory failure may lead to hypoxia (a condition
`
`characterized by low oxygen in all organs; where the tissue does not have
`
`enough oxygen). Treatment of hypoxia may be understood to include treatment
`
`of hypoxic respiratory failure, as the hypoxia is the condition that causes harm
`
`to the patient.
`
`11
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`Final
`
`Printed
`
`Labeling,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/20845_inomax_prntlbl.pdf
`
`(August 9, 2000) at 6 (“INOMAX label”). It is indeed the only pathology for which
`
`inhaled nitric oxide has been approved in the United States. Id. Inhaled NO can
`
`be used to treat both hypoxic and hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, such
`
`treatment is not suitable for all patients. Therefore, as is the case with many
`
`medications, doctors involved in the treatment of patients with inhaled NO will
`
`examine and evaluate patients before administering treatment. Such examinations
`
`are and have long been performed by doctors before administering any kind of
`
`treatment. These examinations were done for two main reasons: (1) to determine
`
`whether the treatment is likely to help the patient; and (2) to determine whether the
`
`patient is at particular risk of having a negative reaction. In the case of inhaled
`
`NO, one such well-known negative reaction is pulmonary oedema due to left
`
`ventricular dysfunction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at 8. Such examinations were
`
`commonly done prior to June 30, 2009. Id.
`
`18. Before June 30, 2009, it was known that systolic and diastolic left
`
`ventricular dysfunction, any obstruction to the pulmonary venous flow, or lesions
`
`that may increase pulmonary venous pressure (such as obstructed pulmonary
`
`12
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`venous return, mitral stenosis7 or insufficiency, etc.) increase the risk of a patient
`
`suffering a serious adverse event upon treatment with inhaled NO. See, e.g. Ex.
`
`1004 at 8 (“However, in patients with elevated left atrial pressure due to left
`
`ventricular dysfunction, a decrease in pulmonary vascular resistance (induced by
`
`inhaled NO) will lead to an increase in pulmonary venous return and hence to an
`
`increase in left atrial and left ventricular filling pressures . . . This effect may lead
`
`to . . . left heart failure and pulmonary oedema”).
`
`19. As part of the general medical practice before June 30, 2009, doctors
`
`implemented a clinical diagnostic procedure to assess patient conditions, treatment
`
`options, and potential risks from any potential treatment. First, doctors would
`
`assess the condition of the patient to see if the patient had a condition likely to be
`
`helped by inhaled NO, such as pulmonary hypertension. Second, doctors would
`
`assess whether inhaled NO would likely trigger adverse events in the patient. This
`
`process was performed for all patients. As is clear from the studies which include
`
`numerous patients, one skilled in the art would have understood that a process for
`
`selecting a patient to be treated, or a method of treatment, could be applied to one
`
`
`7 Mitral stenosis is a condition where the mitral valve, which separates the upper
`
`and lower chambers on the left side of the heart, does not open fully, restricting
`
`blood flow.
`
`13
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`patient, or to a plurality of patients. See generally Exs. 1004, 1005, 1006, and
`
`1009 (all disclosing studies treating multiple patients with inhaled NO).
`
`20. Doctors who were considering prescribing inhaled NO prior to June
`
`30, 2009, like today, would not do so for patients at risk of adverse events or
`
`serious adverse events. For example, in 2005, an Advisory Board was established
`
`under the auspices of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and
`
`European Association of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiologists to analyze the usage of
`
`inhaled NO. The Advisory Board was composed of experts with proven scientific
`
`or clinical expertise relevant to the clinical use of inhaled NO, including paediatric
`
`specialists, to prepare recommendations for NO use. See Ex. 1010 at 1030. The
`
`Advisory Board concluded in its written recommendations in 2005 that while
`
`inhaled NO is approved for use in neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure,8
`
`before administration it should be determined whether the patients had left heart
`
`dysfunction or other heart conditions that increase post capillary pressures. Once
`
`identified, these patients should not be treated with inhaled NO unless the heart
`
`condition is first addressed. See Ex. 1010 at 1030, 1033.
`
`21.
`
`In accordance with the recommendations, which conformed to
`
`industry practice even before the publications by the Advisory Board, the
`
`8 The Advisory Board also recognized that inhaled NO has significant off-label
`
`use. See Ex. 1010 at 1030.
`
`14
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`diagnostic process for administering inhaled NO included assessing the patient
`
`condition and determining if there were any contraindications for use of inhaled
`
`NO, including, specifically, left ventricular dysfunction. The assessment included
`
`performing echocardiography before administering inhaled NO. See, e.g.,
`
`Neonatal Group at Abstract; see also Ex. 1030, Henrichsen, et al., Inhaled Nitric
`
`Oxide can Cause Severe Systemic Hypotension, 129 The Journal of Pediatrics, 183,
`
`col. 1, par. 2 (1996) (“Henrichsen”) (disclosing echocardiography prior to
`
`treatment to examine the structure of the heart, diagnose left ventricular function,
`
`and identify patients dependent on right-to-left shunting of blood); Ex. 1016,
`
`Hoehn, Therapy of Pulmonary Hypertension
`
`in Neonates and
`
`Infants,
`
`Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2007 114:318-326 at 322. (“Hoehn”). It was a
`
`well-known clinical practice or before June 30, 2009,
`
`to suggest an
`
`echocardiogram before administering inhaled NO. Indeed, before June 30, 2009,
`
`my team followed this practice before starting nitric oxide, and the intensive care
`
`or neonatology specialists consistently confirmed that it was done before treatment.
`
`We even often assessed the efficacy by echocardiography through the evaluation of
`
`pulmonary pressure, right ventricular anatomy and function as well as shunt
`
`direction through the ductus arteriosus and the foramen ovale.
`
`22. Additionally, wedge pressure over 20 mm Hg is a physiological
`
`indicator of conditions that increases risk for patients if they were to receive
`
`15
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`treatment with inhaled NO, including left heart dysfunction.9 As was known in the
`
`art prior to June 30, 2009, wedge pressure can be measured by inserting a
`
`pulmonary catheter with an inflated balloon into a small pulmonary arterial branch
`
`(e.g., a Swan-Ganz catheter). See, e.g., Ex. 1023, Royster, et al., Differences in
`
`Pulmonary Artery Wedge Pressures Obtained by Balloon Inflation Versus
`
`Impaction Techniques, 61 Anesthesiology, 339 – 341 (1984) (“Royster”); see also,
`
`Goyal at p. 209, col. 1, lines 16-20 (showing measurement of wedge pressure in
`
`infants and other children); Ex. 1015, Klabunde, Pulmonary Capillary Wedge
`
`Pressure, Cardiovascular Physiology Concepts, 4/11/2007 available at
`
`http://www.cvphysiology.com/Heart%20Failure/HF008.htm (“Klabunde”). A rise
`
`in wedge pressure upon treatment with inhaled NO suggests left ventricular
`
`9 Wedge pressure is referred to in the literature as pulmonary capillary wedge
`
`pressure (“PCWP”), pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (“PAWP”), or merely
`
`“wedge.” See, e.g., Ex. 1025, M. Hoeper, et al., Definitions and Diagnosis of
`
`Pulmonary Hypertension 62:25 J. of the American College of Cardiology D44
`
`(2013) (“Hoeper”) (noting that pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary
`
`arterial wedge pressure, wedge pressure, and wedge are all used to refer to the
`
`same concept and also noting that “wedge” and “wedge pressure” are
`
`commonly used in daily clinical practice, even in non-English speaking
`
`countries).
`
`16
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`dysfunction. See, e.g. Ex. 1024, Ignarro, L.J., ed. Nitric Oxide Biology and
`
`Pathobiology, Academic Press, at 940–941 (2000) (“Ignarro”). One skilled in the
`
`art would have known prior to June 30, 2009, that older children and adults could
`
`have wedge pressure measured with a catheter. While not typically performed in
`
`neonates, one skilled in the art would have known to measure wedge pressure with
`
`a catheter in emergency situations.
`
`23. Before June 30, 2009, it was well-known that wedge pressure could
`
`also be determined through extrapolation based on information gained through
`
`echocardiography. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, Pozzoli, et al., Non-Invasive Estimation of
`
`Left Ventricular Filling Pressures by Doppler Echocardiography, 3 Eur J
`
`Echocardiogr., 3:75-79 (2002) (“Pozzoli”). Wedge pressure may be extrapolated
`
`by the physician in his/her mind from echocardiographic information to identify
`
`whether left heart dysfunction exists and, concomitantly, that physiologically a
`
`wedge pressure exists over a certain value. A paediatric cardiologist with skill and
`
`extensive experience with echocardiography would be able to extrapolate wedge
`
`pressure with accuracy to be of use in making a diagnosis or determining whether
`
`the patient in question has a condition such as left ventricular dysfunction that
`
`would re
`
`quire assessment of the risks of treatment and likely contraindicate
`
`treatment with inhaled NO. Even with such skill, a precisely accurate numerical
`
`value will not be reached, only an estimate.
`
`17
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`24. As part of regular clinical practice before June 30, 2009, patients not
`
`at risk of adverse events such as pulmonary oedema were treated with inhaled NO,
`
`and patients that revealed risk factors during echocardiography, measurement of
`
`wedge pressure, blood gas level, or other clinical assessment were not treated,
`
`assuming the risk of harm to the patient outweighed the potential benefits of
`
`treatment. If the diagnostic results were unclear, or if a potential benefit was
`
`expected, as part of the diagnostic process, one skilled in the art would have known
`
`to administer inhaled NO as a test to see how a patient would react to the drug and
`
`to determine whether a patient had left ventricular dysfunction. Such a patient
`
`would have been carefully evaluated
`
`through
`
`regular and
`
`repeated
`
`echocardiography and clinical evaluation while the test inhaled NO was
`
`administered. If the patient responded in such a way as to suggest that he or she
`
`had left ventricular dysfunction, full treatment with inhaled NO would not have
`
`been prescribed, and the test treatment would have been stopped. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1024 at 940-941. All physicians have a basic understanding of negative side
`
`effects, and one skilled in the art would have known not to administer inhaled NO
`
`if it would cause harm to the patient that outweighed the benefits of treatment.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1026, Kaldijian, L., et al., A Clinician’s Approach to Clinical Ethical
`
`Reasoning, J Gen Intern Med. 20(3): 306–311 at 309 (Mar. 2005) (“Kaldijian”)
`
`(discussing the duty of nonmaleficence, to avoid causing harm to a patient); see
`
`18
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`also Ex. 1027, Jonsen, A. et al., Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical
`
`Decisions in Clinical Medicine 4th ed. (1998) (“Jonsen”) (discussing the
`
`Hippocratic Oath and the requirement to do no harm).
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ʼ966 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`
`
`Legal Principles Applicable to Claim Construction
`
`25.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis, the terms and phrases
`
`appearing in a patent claim should be interpreted according to their “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I further understand that the words of the claims
`
`should be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`patent specification. I also understand that the words of the claims should be
`
`interpreted as they would have been interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention was made (not today). For my analysis, I was
`
`instructed to use the priority date of the ʼ966 patent, June 30, 2009, as the point in
`
`time for claim interpretation purposes. In my opinion, all the terms in the ’966
`
`patent should be understood to have their plain and ordinary meaning as would
`
`have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`19
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`Level of Skill In The Art
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art to be a paediatric
`
`cardiologist with experience prescribing inhaled NO before June 30, 2009. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. A person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`treatment of patients with inhaled NO would have had knowledge of the scientific
`
`literature concerning administration of inhaled NO, including contraindications and
`
`risks as of June 30, 2009. Such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`knowledge of the scientific literature related to pulmonary hypertension and
`
`hypoxic respiratory failure. The person of ordinary skill in the art would also have
`
`extensive knowledge and experience with echocardiography. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have known how to research the scientific literature regarding
`
`the use of inhaled NO. Typically, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be an
`
`experienced pediatric cardiologist.
`
`27. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with
`
`all of the technical concepts set forth in this declaration.
`
`20
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Maurice Beghetti Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Obviousness
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to one of skill in the art at the time the invention was made, taking into
`
`account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any so
`
`called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt
`
`need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial success attributable to the claimed
`
`invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of
`
`the claimed invention by others.
`
`29. For purposes of my analysis above, unless otherwise stated, I have
`
`applied a date of June 30, 2009, as the date of invention, in my obviousness
`
`analyses,