`
`
`Paper No. ____
`Date Filed: May 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`
`INO Therapeutics LLC
`
`By:
`
`Dominick A. Conde
`dconde@fchs.com
`(212) 218-2100
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INO Therapeutics LLC
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`________________
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE BY
`PATENT OWNERS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`The Development of the ’284 Patent .................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Initial INOT22 Protocol Was Carefully
`Constructed and Reviewed, and Did Not Contain
`the Claimed Exclusion Criteria ................................................... 6
`
`Unanticipated Serious Adverse Events Initially
`Occurred During the INOT22 Study .......................................... 9
`
`Based on the Unexpected Serious Adverse Events
`Early in the Trial, the INOT22 Protocol Was
`Amended and the Rate of SAEs Was Significantly
`Reduced ..................................................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`The ’284 Prosecution History ............................................................. 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The PTO Considered Many References ................................... 11
`
`Praxair Relies on the Same Statements Ikaria
`Overcame During Prosecution .................................................. 13
`
`C.
`
`The ’284 Patent Claims ....................................................................... 19
`
`III.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL ............................................................... 20
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 20
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................... 22
`
`VI. A SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
`MOTIVATED TO EXCLUDE NEONATES HAVING LVD
`AND NOT DEPENDENT ON RIGHT-TO-LEFT SHUNTING
`OR REASONABLY EXPECT THOSE NEONATES WOULD
`HAVE EXPERIENCED SAES ..................................................................... 26
`
`A.
`
`There was no motivation to implement the claimed
`exclusion based on studies with adults because left
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ventricular dysfunction in neonates is much different than
`in adults ............................................................................................... 28
`
`B.
`
`A skilled artisan would not have reasonably expected that
`the claimed excluded neonates would have SAEs as
`initially occurred in the INOT22 Study .............................................. 31
`
`VII. GROUND 1: THE BOARD SHOULD NOT INSTITUTE
`REVIEW BASED ON ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER
`BERNASCONI IN COMBINATION WITH INOMAX® LABEL,
`LOH AND GOYAL ........................................................................................ 34
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Praxiar fails to show that Bernasconi, the INOmax®
`label, Loh or Goyal include the claimed exclusion criteria ................ 35
`
`Praxair’s Assertions that warnings in the art are
`applicable to the claimed exclusion criteria are
`unsupported ......................................................................................... 43
`
`Praxair fails to raise any new arguments or supplement
`the record to address issues overcome during prosecution ................. 46
`
`Praxair fails to show that elements in dependent claims 5,
`11, 20 and 28 are present in the prior art ............................................. 49
`
`VIII. GROUND 2: THE BOARD SHOULD NOT INSTITUTE
`REVIEW BASED ON ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER
`BERNASCONI IN COMBINATION WITH INOMAX® LABEL,
`LOH, GOYAL AND MACRAE ...................................................................... 50
`
`IX. GROUND 3: THE BOARD SHOULD NOT INSTITUTE
`REVIEW BASED ON ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER
`ICHINOSE IN COMBINATION WITH NEONATAL GROUP,
`MACRAE, LOH, GOYAL AND GERMANN ................................................. 52
`
`X.
`
`PRAXAIR FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS TO COUNTER THE
`OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF UNEXPECTED RESULTS ......................... 54
`
`XI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 56
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Apple, Inc. v. ITC, 725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................54
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................................44
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .....................................................................21
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................... 23, 55
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC,
`No. 14-1301, slip. op. (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................. 20, 21
`
`In re Dembiczak,
`175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................24
`
`Insite Vision Inc., et al. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`2014-1065 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................45
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)................................................................................ 23, 55
`
`Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 23, 33
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .....................................................................21
`
`Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .....................................................................44
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................... 22, 23, 34, 50, 52
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...............................................................................................2, 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................................46
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ..................................................................................................48
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................... 24, 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ...........................................................................................2, 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 .......................................................................................................58
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) .................................................................................................44
`
` P.T.A.B.
`
`Int’l Securities Exchange, LLC v. Chicago Board Options Exchanges,
`Inc., IPR2014-00099, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) ..................... 24, 40
`
`Integrated Global Concepts, Inc., v. Advanced Messaging Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01027, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014) ............................. 25, 56
`
`Merial v. Virbac,
`IPR No. 2014-01279, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2015) ...... 4, 25, 46, 48, 56
`
`Mylan v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
`IPR No. 2014-00888, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014) ..........................4, 25
`
`Mylan Pharma. Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
`IPR No. 2014-00885, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014) ..............................44
`
`Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC,
`IPR No. 2014-00384, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2014) ................... 3, 24, 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Description
`
`’284 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`’966 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966
`
`’163 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`’741 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,795,741
`
`’112 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,846,112
`
`’041 Application U.S. Patent Application No. 12/821,041
`
`Adatia
`
`Adatia et al, “Inhaled nitric oxide and hemodynamic
`
`evaluation of patients with pulmonary hypertension before
`
`transplantation,” 25:1656-64, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 1995
`
`[Exh. 2003]
`
`Balaguru
`
`Balaguru et al., “Management of Heart Failure in Children,”
`
`30:5-30, Curr. Probl. Pediatr., 2000 [Exh. 2010]
`
`Beghetti (1997)
`
`Beghetti et al., “Inhaled nitric oxide can cause severe systemic
`
`hypotension,” 130:844, J. Pediatr., 1997 [Exh. 2004]
`
`Berger
`
`Berger et al., “Clinical features of paediatric pulmonary
`
`hypertension: a registry study,” 379:537-46, Lancet, 2012
`
`[Exh. 2011]
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Description
`
`Bernasconi
`
`Bernasconi et al., “Inhaled nitric oxide applications in
`
`paediatric practice”, 4: 4-29, Images Paediatr. Cardiol., 2002
`
`[Exh. 1004]
`
`Davidson
`
`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: 325-334, Pediatrics, 1998
`
`[Exh. 1005]
`
`Germann
`
`Germann et al., “Inhaled nitric oxide therapy in adults:
`
`European expert recommendations,” 31:1029-41, Intensive
`
`Care Med., 2005 [Exh. 1010]
`
`Gidding
`
`Gidding, “The Importance of Randomized Controlled Trials in
`
`Pediatric Cardiology,” 298:1214-1216, JAMA. 2007
`
`[Exh. 2009]
`
`Goyal
`
`Goyal et al., “Efficacy of nitroglycerin inhalation in reducing
`
`pulmonary arterial hypertension in children with congenital
`
`heart disease, 97:208-14, Br. J. Anaesth., 2006 [Exh. 1007]
`
`Henrichsen
`
`Henrichsen et al., “Inhaled nitric oxide can cause Severe
`
`systemic hypotension, 129:183, J. Pediatr., 1996 [Exh. 1030]
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Description
`
`Ichinose
`
`Ichinose et al., “Inhaled nitric oxide: a selective pulmonary
`
`vasodilator: current uses and therapeutic potential,” 109: 3106-
`
`3111, Circulation, 2004 [Exh. 1009]
`
`INOmax® label
`
`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) [Exh. 1014]
`
`Ivy
`
`Ivy et al., “Pediatric Pulmonary Hypertension,” 62(25
`
`Suppl):D117-26, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 2013 [Exh. 1017]
`
`Lipshultz
`
`Lipshultz, “Ventricular dysfunction clinical research in infants,
`
`children and adolescents,” 12:1-28, Prog. Pediatr. Cardiol.,
`
`2000 [Exh. 2006]
`
`Loh
`
`Loh, et al., “Cardiovascular effects of inhaled nitric oxide in
`
`patients with left ventricular dysfunction,” 90: 2780-2785,
`
`Circulation, 1994 [Exh. 1006]
`
`Macrae
`
`Macrae, et al., “Inhaled nitric oxide therapy in neonates and
`
`children: reaching a European consensus, 30: 372-380,
`
`Intensive Care Med., 2004 [Exh. 1008]
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Description
`
`Neonatal Group
`
`The Neonatal Inhaled Nitric Oxide Study Group, “Inhaled
`
`nitric oxide in full-term and nearly full-term infants with
`
`hypoxic respiratory failure,” 336: 597-604, N. Engl. J. Med.,
`
`1997 [Exh. 1011]
`
`Rimensberger
`
`Rimensberger et al., “Inhaled nitric oxide versus aerosolized
`
`iloprost in secondary pulmonary hypertension in children with
`
`congenital heart disease: vasodilator capacity and cellular
`
`mechanisms”, 103: 544-48, Circulation, 2001 [Exh. 2012]
`
`Rosales
`
`Rosales et al., “Adverse hemodynamic effects observed with
`
`inhaled nitric oxide after surgical repair of total anomalous
`
`pulmonary venous return,” 20:224-26, Pediatr. Cardiol., 1999
`
`[Exh. 2005]
`
`Stedman’s 2006
`
`Stedman’s Medical Dictionary at a Glance, 28th Ed, Lippincott
`
`Williams & Wilkins ©2006, pg. 359, 967-68, 1288
`
`[Exh. 2007]
`
`Webster 1995
`
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin
`
`Company, ©1995, pg. 194 [Exh. 2008]
`
`Webster (2002) Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
`
`Language Unabridged 388 (2002) [Exh. 1031]
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Description
`
`AE
`
`Adverse event
`
`Amended
`
`INOT22 Protocol after amendment of exclusion criteria
`
`INOT22 Protocol
`
`[Exh 2002]
`
`EPD
`
`FDA
`
`IEC
`
`iNO
`
`Earliest priority date
`
`U.S. Food & Drug Administration
`
`Independent Ethics Committee
`
`Inhaled nitric oxide
`
`INOT22 Study
`
`A clinical trial, titled “Comparison of Supplemental Oxygen
`
`and Nitric Oxide for Inhalation Plus Oxygen in the Evaluation
`
`of the Reactivity of the Pulmonary Vasculature During Acute
`
`Pulmonary Vasodilator Testing”
`
`INOT22 Protocol Protocol for INOT22 Study
`
`INOT22 Steering
`
`A committee composed of “internationally recognized experts”
`
`Committee
`
`in pediatric heart and lung disease who designed the INOT22
`
`IRB
`
`LVD
`
`NO
`
`Study
`
`Institutional review board
`
`Left ventricular dysfunction
`
`Nitric oxide
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Description
`
`O2
`
`Oxygen
`
`Original INOT22
`
`INOT22 Protocol prior to amendment of exclusion criteria
`
`Protocol
`
`[Exh. 2001]
`
`PCWP
`
`POSA
`
`SAE
`
`Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure
`
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Serious adverse event
`
`TAPVR
`
`Total anomalous pulmonary venous return
`
`Ikaria
`
`Praxair
`
`INO Therapeutics LLC, Patent Owner
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc., Petitioner
`
`Exh. ___
`
`This refers to the indicated exhibit
`
`___:___
`
`This refers to the indicated column or page and lines of the
`
`patent or patent publication
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`INO Therapeutics LLC (“Ikaria”) respectfully submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition of Praxair Distribution, Inc. (“Praxair”)
`
`seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284 (“the ’284
`
`patent”).1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Praxair seeks to institute an IPR on the basis of obviousness of all
`
`claims of the ’284 patent, which cover methods of safely administering
`
`inhaled nitric oxide (“iNO”) to neonates with life threatening heart
`
`conditions by excluding all neonates with left ventricular dysfunction
`
`
`
`1 Praxair has filed four other IPR petitions challenging Ikaria’s related
`
`patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,282,966 (“the ’966 patent”), which is
`
`the subject of IPR2015-00522; U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163 (“the ’163
`
`patent”), which is the subject of IPR2015-00525; U.S. Patent No. 8,795,741
`
`(“the ’741 patent”), which is the subject of IPR2015-00526; and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,846,112 (“the ’112 patent”), which is the subject of IPR2015-00529.
`
`The ’284, ’966, ’163, ’741, and ’112 patents issued from continuation or
`
`divisional applications claiming priority to U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/494,598. Each was examined by the same examiner.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`(“LVD”) from iNO treatment. To institute an IPR, Praxair must show a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on invalidity. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (IPR
`
`may not be instituted absent “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Praxair’s petition does not
`
`establish even prima facie obviousness, much less a likelihood of success.
`
`Praxair’s petition wholly ignores the evidence submitted during
`
`prosecution demonstrating that those of extraordinary skill in the art were
`
`unaware that all neonates with LVD should be excluded from iNO therapy,
`
`as required by the claims of the ’284 patent. As shown below, the claimed
`
`invention was discovered in the course of a clinical trial, titled “Comparison
`
`of Supplemental Oxygen and Nitric Oxide for Inhalation Plus Oxygen in the
`
`Evaluation of the Reactivity of the Pulmonary Vasculature During Acute
`
`Pulmonary Vasodilator Testing” (“INOT22 Study”). The protocol for that
`
`clinical trial (“INOT22 Protocol”) was developed and designed not by
`
`ordinary artisans, but by experts in the field. Additionally, the INOT22
`
`Protocol was reviewed by dozens of persons responsible for its safe conduct.
`
`When it was commenced, an alarming portion of the subjects surprisingly
`
`developed serious adverse events (“SAE”), including death, which caused a
`
`cessation of the trial. Based on an analysis of the subjects who had these
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`SAEs, it was theorized that a reason some of them suffered SAEs was
`
`because they had LVD. The trial was reinitiated with LVD subjects
`
`excluded, and the rate of SAEs was greatly reduced. All of that evidence
`
`was before the Examiner.
`
`Nowhere does Praxair discuss or address how the dozens of persons
`
`involved with designing the trial – including leaders in the field – could have
`
`designed the trial without excluding those subjects with LVD if it was so
`
`obvious that they were at such serious risk. Indeed, a member of the
`
`Steering Committee of the INOT22 Study stated during prosecution that if it
`
`was so obvious to exclude those subjects, e.g., “babies,” then he would have
`
`had to act “intentionally” to subject them to the serious harm they incurred
`
`in the study – something he “most certainly” did not do and would not have
`
`done. (Exh. 1053 at 596, ¶ 8).
`
`Praxair’s Petition also fails as a matter of proof. First, the Board has
`
`denied petitions where the petitioner fails to identify prior art disclosing a
`
`claim limitation. Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC, IPR No. 2014-
`
`00384, Paper 10 at 14 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2014). Here, Praxair fails to cite to
`
`any prior art stating that all “neonates” having LVD should be “excluded”
`
`from iNO therapy as recited in the ’284 claims. Instead, Praxair primarily
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`relies on studies showing that adults with LVD should be excluded. But as
`
`the Examiner stated, iNO studies on adults with LVD “cannot be generally
`
`extrapolated” to neonates with LVD. And as the prior art repeatedly states,
`
`“children should not be considered small adults.” (See, e.g., Exh. 2006
`
`(Lipshultz) at 2).
`
`Second, the Board has denied petitions where the petitioner fails to
`
`support its assertions or relies on conclusory expert testimony. Mylan v.
`
`Gilead Sciences, Inc., IPR No. 2014-00888, Paper 15 at 11-12 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Dec. 9, 2014). Here, Praxair’s petition fails to support its assertions, and
`
`relies only on a conclusory expert opinion as to the key exclusion claim
`
`element. Neither Praxair nor its medical expert cite to any prior art literature
`
`stating or data showing that all children or neonates with LVD should have
`
`been excluded from iNO therapy.
`
`Third, the Board has denied instituting IPRs where the petitioner does
`
`not address arguments made during prosecution or fails to provide
`
`arguments beyond those rejected during prosecution. Merial v. Virbac, IPR
`
`No. 2014-01279, Paper 13 at 8-9 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2015). Here, Praxair
`
`relies on the same cautionary statements relied on by the Examiner during
`
`prosecution, which Ikaria successfully rebutted by submitting declarations
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`explaining such cautions were irrelevant because, for example, they applied
`
`to adults, not children or neonates. Praxair’s petition, however, does not
`
`even mention Ikaria’s evidence, let alone attempt to refute it. And, its expert
`
`admits that he did not even review the ’284 file history. As the Board has
`
`ruled, Praxair should have addressed all of the evidence provided during
`
`prosecution, and its failure to do so is not only a glaring hole in its proofs,
`
`but also prejudicial to Ikaria.
`
`Rather, Praxair’s petition is based on pure hindsight. This is
`
`demonstrated by the fact that Praxair’s medical expert wrote prior art articles
`
`regarding the use of iNO therapy in children or neonates, and not once did
`
`he state that all children or neonates with LVD should be excluded from iNO
`
`therapy.
`
`Finally, objective evidence, including the undisputed fact that experts
`
`in the field failed to recognize that neonates or children with LVD would
`
`suffer serious adverse events from the use of iNO therapy, shows that the
`
`claims are not obvious. Those real-world facts, when considered as
`
`required, eliminate any question that the claimed invention would not have
`
`been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Development of the ’284 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284, entitled “Methods of Reducing the Risk of
`
`Occurrence of Pulmonary Edema in Term or Near-Term Neonates in Need
`
`of Treatment with Inhaled Nitric Oxide,” is directed to methods of reducing
`
`the risk of an adverse event (“AE”) or an SAE associated with treating
`
`neonates with iNO. (Exh. 1001, col. 1:63-2:37). The invention was the
`
`result of a discovery that occurred during the INOT22 Study, which
`
`involved the administration of INOmax® (Ikaria’s inhaled nitric oxide
`
`product) to children.2 (Exh. 1001, col. 9:37-14:5).
`
`1.
`
`The Initial INOT22 Protocol Was Carefully
`Constructed and Reviewed, and Did Not Contain the
`Claimed Exclusion Criteria
`
`The INOT22 Study was designed by a committee composed of
`
`“internationally recognized experts” in pediatric heart and lung disease (“the
`
`
`2 INOmax® is an inhaled NO treatment that, among other things, improves
`
`oxygenation, reduces the need for extracorporeal oxygenation and is
`
`indicated for use with ventilatory support. (Exh. 1001, col. 3:39-42).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`INOT22 Steering Committee”), and Ikaria, the study sponsor.3 (Exh. 1053
`
`at 891, ¶ 8). It was a randomized, multi-center study with approximately 18
`
`clinical study sites. (Exh. 1053 at 891, ¶ 6). The study compared the utility
`
`and side effects of oxygen (O2), iNO and a combination of iNO and O2 for
`
`determining pulmonary reactivity. (Id. at 891, ¶ 5). The Original INOT22
`
`Protocol (“Original INOT22 Protocol”) did not exclude subjects with pre-
`
`existing left ventricular dysfunction (“LVD”) who were not dependent on
`
`right-to-left shunting of blood. (Exh. 1001, col. 9:49-54; Exh. 1053 at 892-
`
`893, ¶10; Exh. 2001 (Original INOT22 Protocol) at 21).
`
`
`
`3 The INOT22 Steering Committee included David L. Wessel, M.D.,
`
`Professor of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine and of Pediatrics at
`
`the George Washington University (Exh. 1053 at 594-95, ¶¶ 1-4; 598-636);
`
`Robyn J. Barst, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics and Medicine,
`
`Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York; and
`
`Duncan J. Macrae, M.D., Director, Children’s Services, Consultant in
`
`Pediatric Critical Care at the Royal Brompton Hospital, London, U.K. (Exh.
`
`1053 at 644-45, ¶¶ 7-8; Exh. 2001 (Original INOT22 Protocol) at 14).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`Prior to commencing the study, the Original INOT22 Protocol was
`
`reviewed and approved by independent boards for each study site, as well as
`
`U.S. and European regulatory agencies. In particular, the Institutional
`
`Review Board (“IRB”) and/or Independent Ethics Committee (“IEC”) at
`
`each of the approximately 18 participating study institutions reviewed the
`
`Original INOT22 Protocol. (Exh. 1053 at 905-06, ¶ 9). Those committees
`
`include practicing physicians and other knowledgeable individuals whose
`
`role is “the protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects.”
`
`(Id. at 906, ¶ 10). Additionally, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
`
`(“FDA”) and four European National Health Authorities (United Kingdom,
`
`France, Netherlands and Spain), the European equivalents to the FDA, had
`
`the opportunity to review the Original INOT22 Protocol prior to study
`
`initiation. (Id. at 905-06, ¶ 9). And, Ikaria regularly requested input and
`
`scientific guidance on clinical trials from its own Scientific Advisory Board.
`
`(Id.). In sum, more than a “hundred individuals experienced in, and
`
`responsible for, the review of clinical trial protocols for patient safety,”
`
`evaluated the Original INOT22 Protocol prior to its commencement. (Id. at
`
`907, ¶ 12).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`Yet, at no time did: (i) any member of the INOT22 Steering
`
`Committee, (ii) any member of an IRB or IEC, (iii) any individual
`
`investigator, (iv) any representative of the FDA or the four European
`
`National Health Authorities, or (v) any member of Ikaria’s own Scientific
`
`Advisory Board ever appreciate, recognize or suggest excluding subjects
`
`with LVD from the Original INOT22 Protocol due to an increased risk of
`
`adverse events within such pediatric patients. (Id.).
`
`2.
`
`Unanticipated Serious Adverse Events Initially
`Occurred During the INOT22 Study
`
`After initiation of the first 24 subjects in the INOT22 Study, there
`
`were five SAEs, which was a rate much higher than the INOT22 Steering
`
`Committee and Ikaria expected. (Id. at 894, ¶ 13). The SAEs were all
`
`cardiovascular events, and included pulmonary edema, cardiac arrest and
`
`hypotension (low blood pressure). (Id.). One baby who developed
`
`pulmonary edema died. (Exh. 1001 at col. 12:62-63).
`
`Analysis revealed some of the “patients suffering [SAEs] had severe
`
`[LVD], largely due to viral cardiomyopathy, and exhibited during their
`
`right-sided cardiac catheterizations an increased pulmonary capillary wedge
`
`pressure (“PCWP”) of greater than 20 mm Hg, indicative of elevated
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`pressures in upper chamber of the left side of the heart (the left atrium).”
`
`(Exh. 1053 at 947, ¶ 21). After these unexpected SAEs occurred, the study
`
`protocol was amended to exclude patients who had pre-existing LVD, i.e.,
`
`those having a PCWP greater than 20 mm Hg. (Id. at 894-95, ¶ 14; Exh.
`
`2002 (Amended INOT22 Protocol) at 20).
`
`3.
`
`Based on the Unexpected Serious Adverse Events
`Early in the Trial, the INOT22 Protocol Was
`Amended and the Rate of SAEs Was Significantly
`Reduced
`
`Following the change in protocol, “the rate of SAEs (including SAEs
`
`associated with heart failure) was significantly reduced.” (Exh. 1053 at 895,
`
`¶ 15). Whereas five SAEs were reported in the first 24 subjects before the
`
`amended exclusion criteria, only two SAEs were reported in the last 80
`
`subjects after the amendment. (Id.). “As a result of the INOT22 study, it
`
`was recognized that a second population of neonates existed . . . that had an
`
`increased risk of adverse events when inhaled NO was administered,
`
`namely: pediatric patients with left ventricular dysfunction . . .” (Id. at 918,
`
`¶ 11).
`
`Given the significance of the difference in the pre- and post-protocol-
`
`amendment SAE frequencies, on February 25, 2009, Ikaria submitted to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`FDA a change to the INOmax® label, which included a warning that the use
`
`of iNO in patients with pre-existing LVD could cause SAEs, such as
`
`pulmonary edema. The FDA agreed and approved the labeling supplement
`
`on August 28, 2009. (Id. at 895, ¶¶ 16-17).
`
`B.
`
`The ’284 Prosecution History
`
`Based on this surprising discovery, on June 30, 2009, Ikaria filed U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 12/494,598, which issued as the ’284 patent from
`
`continuation Application No. 12/821,041 (“the ’041 Application”). (Exh.
`
`1001, col. 1:10-16).
`
`1.
`
`The PTO Considered Many References
`
`The claims of the ’284 patent were extensively reviewed. The
`
`Examiner specifically addressed 20 references, and considered over 150
`
`references, prior to allowance of the claims. (Exh. 1053 at 337-344, 489-
`
`501, 730-738, 842-859, 970-971). To the extent that Praxair cites different
`
`references, they fail to add any new information to that considered by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`Among the references considered by the Examiner, the following are
`
`also relied on explicitly by Praxair in its petition:
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`• Exh. 1006 (“Loh”);
`
`• Exh. 1008 (“Macrae”);
`
`• Exh. 1030 (“Henrichsen”);
`
`• Exh. 1009 (“Ichinose”);
`
`• Exh. 1014 (“INOmax® label”);
`
`• Exh. 1005 (“Davidson”); and
`
`• Exh. 1011 (“Neonatal Group”).
`
`(See e.g., Exh. 1053 at 318, 325, 338, 341-42, 361, 477, 717, 725, 767, 807-
`
`08, 818, 833, 848, 970).
`
`Praxair also relies on Bernasconi (Exh. 1004) in its petition.
`
`Although the Examiner did not explicitly consider Bernasconi, ten of the
`
`thirteen references cited in Bernasconi’s LVD section relied on by Praxair
`
`were considered by the Examiner (id. at 8, references 103-115): Exh. 1006
`
`(“Loh”), Exh. 2003 (“Adatia”); Kieler-Jensen et al., J. Heart Lung
`
`Transplant., 13:366-75, 1994 (“Kieler-Jensen”); Semigran et al., J Am Coll
`
`Cardiol., 24:982-88, 1994 (“Semigran”); Hayward et al., J. Cardiovasc.
`
`Pharmacol., 27:80-85, 1996 (“Hayward (1996)”); Exh. 2004 (“Beghetti
`
`(1997)”); Exh. 2005 (“Rosales”); Argenziano et al., J. Thorac. Cardiovasc.
`
`Surg., 115:700-08, 1998 (“Argenziano”); Hayward et al., J. Am. Coll.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`Cardiol., 30:49-56, 1997 (“Hayward (1997)”); and Hayward et al., J.
`
`Cardiovasc. Pharmacol., 34:749-54, 1999 (“Hayward (1999)”). (See, e.g.,
`
`Exh. 1052 at 317, 325, 339, 341, 343, 716, 725, 815, 833, 843, 970). And
`
`references cited in these references were also considered by the Examiner,
`
`including, for instance, Bocchi et al., Am. J. Cardiol., 1994, 74, 70-4
`
`(“Bocchi”), cited in Adatia. (Id. at 725, 818, 970).4 Thus, Bernasconi is
`
`merely cumulative of prior art considered by the Examiner.
`
`2.
`
`Praxair Relies on the Same Statements Ikaria
`Overcame During Prosecution
`
`The Examiner considered the same cautionary statements regarding
`
`use of iNO that are now relied on by Praxair. (See, e.g., Petition at 14
`
`(“Bernasconi discloses that iNO treatment may lead to pulmonary edema in
`
`patients with LVD. Ex. 1004 at 8; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35-36.”)). For example, the
`
`
`4
`The three references cited in the LVD section of Bernasconi that were
`
`not cited during prosecution of the ’284 patent add nothing to Praxair’s
`
`assertions. As discussed below (infra at 36), these references were directed
`
`to adults or animal models.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`Examiner stated: that Atz and Wessel, Semin. Perinatol., 21:441-5, 1997
`
`(“Atz”) teaches that “[c]aution should be exercised when administering NO
`
`to patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and pulmonary
`
`hypertension,” (2) that Beghetti (1997) says “[i]nhaled nitric oxide should be
`
`administered with caution to babies with LV dysfunction,” and (3) that
`
`Ichinose teaches “inhalation of NO can increase left ventricle filling pressure
`
`in patients with severe left ventricle dysfunction and that it is important to be
`
`aware of the possibility that inhaled NO can produce pulmonary vasodilation
`
`and may overwhelm a failing left ventricle thereby producing pulmonary
`
`edema.” (Exh. 1053 at 318, 716-17). From these references (like Praxair
`
`does here), the Examiner initially concluded that “the ordinary artisan would
`
`. . . exclude any patient with any form of LVD from iNO therapy to avoid
`
`the risk of adverse and serious adverse events.” (Id. at 479-80).
`
`In response, Ikaria submitted declarations from Dr. James S.
`
`Baldassarre, Vice President of Clinical Research at Ikaria, Inc., Dr. David L.
`
`Wessel, and Dr. Douglas A. Greene, Executive Vice President and Chief
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00524
`U.S. Patent No. 8,293,284
`
`Scientific Officer at Ikaria, Inc., to successfully overcome the Examiner’s
`
`assertions.5 (Id. at 546-662, 890-961).
`
`a.
`
`References Relating to (1) Adult Studies or (2)
`Studies in Neonates Dependent on Right-to-Left
`Shunting Are Not Relevant to the Invention
`
`The Examiner’s rejections were based on warnings regarding either:
`
`(1) the results of adult studies (e.g., Atz, Loh, and Bocchi), or (2) studies in
`
`neonates dependent on right-to-left shunting (e.g., At
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
