`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT WILLIAM GRISTWOOD, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF YEDA’S PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`II. Qualifications .................................................................................................. 1
`III. Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 4
`IV. Pharmacology Background ........................................................................... 4
`V. The Pharmacokinetic Data in the SBOA Were Not Empowered to
`Predict Therapeutic Activity in Humans ............................................................... 7
`A. The Skilled Pharmacologist Would Not Have Considered
`Pharmacokinetic Data Useful for Predicting the Therapeutic Effects of
`Glatiramer Acetate ............................................................................................... 7
`B. The Skilled Pharmacologist Would Have Understood that the
`Pharmacokinetic Data Reported in the SBOA for Monkeys Do Not
`Accurately Reflect the Pharmacokinetics of Glatiramer Acetate .................. 13
`1.
` The Reported Monkey Pharmacokinetic Data Reflect Iodine
`Radioactivity, Not GA Concentration ........................................................... 15
`2.
` The Reported Monkey Pharmacokinetic Data are Internally
`Inconsistent ....................................................................................................... 22
`VI. The SBOA Discloses That Increased Dosages of Glatiramer Acetate
`Would Lead to Increased Side Effects and Also could Affect Its
`Pharmacokinetics ................................................................................................... 27
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I, Robert William Gristwood, have personal knowledge of the facts set
`
`forth in this Declaration and am competent to testify to the same.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd.
`
`(“Respondent”) in this proceeding regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,399,413 (“the ’413
`
`patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I hereby offer this Declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`to Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’413 patent regarding the skilled
`
`pharmacologist’s understanding and interpretation of the pharmacokinetic data
`
`included in the Summary Basis for Approval for Copaxone® 20 mg (1996)
`
`(“SBOA”) (Ex. 1007) as of August 20, 2009.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I am a pharmacologist with nearly forty years of experience in the
`
`pharmaceutical industry.
`
`5.
`
`As set forth in more detail in my current CV (Ex. 2130), I received a
`
`B.Sc. from North East London Polytechnic in 1976 and a Ph.D. in pharmacology
`
`through a Smith Kline collaboration with University of Oxford in 1982.
`
`Throughout my career, I have worked at a number of companies in the
`
`pharmaceutical industry.
`
`1
`
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`6. While obtaining my B.Sc., I worked as a pharmacologist within the
`
`medicinal Biology Department of Pfizer UK from 1974-1975.
`
`7.
`
`Between 1976 and 1996 I worked within and/or had responsibility for
`
`the pharmacology departments of Smith Kline & French (“SK&F”) (now part of
`
`GlaxoSmithKline), Laboratorios Almirall, and Chiroscience Limited. At SK&F, I
`
`was an Associate Director of Pharmacology. At Almirall, I was Director of
`
`Biological Science. At Chiroscience, I was Head of Biology (R&D).
`
`8.
`
`In May 1996, I established Stevenage Biosciences Ltd. (now
`
`Cambridge BioConsultants Ltd.), of which I am Director and Principal Consultant.
`
`Cambridge BioConsultants provides biological consultancy services to
`
`pharmaceutical companies.
`
`9.
`
`In January 1998, I co-founded Arachnova Limited, a company that
`
`specialised in identifying new therapeutic uses for existing drugs as well as
`
`providing consultancy services to the pharmaceutical industry. I was Research and
`
`Development Director for this company until 2007.
`
`10.
`
`In September 2000, I co-founded Arachnova Therapeutics Ltd., which
`
`was a venture capital backed pharmaceutical company that specialised in the
`
`development and commercialization of projects largely identified by Arachnova
`
`Ltd.
`
`
`
`2
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In January 2007, I co-founded Acacia Pharma Ltd., now known as
`
`Acacia Pharma PLC, a venture capital backed pharmaceutical company focused on
`
`hospital based supportive care, particularly cancer supportive care. I am currently
`
`Chief Scientific Officer of this company.
`
`12.
`
`I have written many scientific papers and presented many lectures in
`
`the field of pharmacology. I am also a member, or have been a member, of a
`
`number of scientific organizations, including the British Pharmacological Society,
`
`Society of Medicines Research, and the Biochemical Society. I have been an
`
`editor of several pharmacological journals, including the British Journal of
`
`Pharmacology (1992 – 1997), the Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology (1987 –
`
`1995), Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs (1992 – 2006), and Current
`
`Opinion in Anti-Inflammatory and Immunomodulatory Investigational Drugs
`
`(1997 – 2000).
`
`13.
`
`Throughout my career, I have conducted pharmacological studies and
`
`research using human and animal models in support of the development of many
`
`drugs and dosing regimens. Many of these studies involved characterizing and
`
`analyzing the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of a drug in
`
`humans and/or animals.
`
`14.
`
`I consider myself an expert in the field of pharmacology.
`
`
`
`3
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $400 per hour
`
`for my time on this matter. My compensation does not depend in any way on the
`
`outcome of these proceedings.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`16.
`I have been asked to provide my opinions concerning what the skilled
`
`pharmacologist would have understood from the pharmacokinetic data reported in
`
`the SBOA as of August 20, 2009.
`
`17.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied upon my knowledge and
`
`experience, the references identified in Attachment A, and any other references
`
`identified herein.
`
`IV. PHARMACOLOGY BACKGROUND
`18. Designing an effective dosing regimen generally requires an
`
`understanding of how a drug interacts with the human body.1 The traditional
`
`method has been to perform pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD)
`
`modeling, a technique that establishes a relationship between the administered drug
`
`dose, the concentration in an accessible body fluid, and the effect caused by that
`
`
`1
`B. Meibohm and H. Derendorf, Basic concepts of
`
`pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modelling.35(10) INT’L J
`
`CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY THERAPEUTICS, 401-413 (1997) (Ex. 2038) at
`
`2.
`
`
`
`4
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`concentration.2 Broadly speaking, pharmacokinetics describe how the body reacts
`
`to a drug in terms of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion.3
`
`Pharmacodynamics describe how a drug affects the body by linking drug
`
`concentration to drug efficacy.4
`
`19.
`
`In the simplest examples of drug effect, there is a direct relationship
`
`between the concentration of drug in the measured fluid, e.g., plasma, and the
`
`pharmacologic effect. When the concentration is plotted versus effect, one can see
`
`that there is a concentration below which no effect is observed and a concentration
`
`above which no greater effect is achieved. In between these concentrations, the
`
`effect usually increases with increasing concentration, as shown in the figure
`
`below.
`
`
`2
`Id.
`
`Id. at 3
`
`Id.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20. While a well-characterized PK/PD model can guide predictions of the
`
`likely outcome of a particular dose or dosing frequency regimen, to be of any
`
`predictive value, the measured concentration must of course be related to its
`
`pharmacodynamic effect, and the model must accurately reflect this relationship.
`
`Accordingly, it is generally understood that “pharmacokinetic information can only
`
`be used to make predictions about drug effects if the concentration effect
`
`relationship has thoroughly been defined under the circumstances in question.”5
`
`
`5
`Id. at 13.
`
`
`
`6
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`V. THE PHARMACOKINETIC DATA IN THE SBOA WERE NOT
`EMPOWERED TO PREDICT THERAPEUTIC ACTIVITY IN
`HUMANS
`21.
`
`I understand that Mylan’s expert, Dr. Peroutka, has asserted that the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have relied upon pharmacokinetic data
`
`reported for monkeys in the SBOA in developing a dosing regimen for human
`
`administration of GA.6 Specifically, Dr. Peroutka contends that the POSA would
`
`have concluded from the SBOA that GA has an 80 hour half-life in humans, and
`
`would have relied upon this 80 hour half-life to predict whether a particular GA
`
`dosage regimen would be successful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple
`
`sclerosis (“RRMS”).7 I disagree with these assertions.
`
`A. The Skilled Pharmacologist Would Not Have Considered
`Pharmacokinetic Data Useful for Predicting the Therapeutic
`Effects of Glatiramer Acetate
`22. As discussed above, pharmacokinetic data can generally be used to
`
`predict therapeutic efficacy of a drug. However, it is self-evident that reliance on
`
`
`6
`IPR2015-00643, Corrected Declaration Of Stephen J. Peroutka, M.D., Ph.D.
`
`dated 3/3/15 (IPR2015-00643, Ex. 1003) at ¶ 120; IPR2015-00644, Corrected
`
`Declaration Of Stephen J. Peroutka, M.D., Ph.D. dated 3/3/15 (IPR2015-00644,
`
`Ex. 1003) at ¶ 127.
`
`7
`
`IPR2015-00643, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 120; 131-34; IPR2015-00644, Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 127; 148-41.
`
`
`
`7
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`pharmacokinetic data for this purpose necessarily presupposes that drug plasma
`
`concentration is related to efficacy, as may be the case with a typical small
`
`molecule drug. The skilled pharmacologist would have recognized that this
`
`assumption does not hold with respect to GA, and therefore would have considered
`
`the SBOA’s pharmacokinetic data unsuitable for predicting the effectiveness of a
`
`GA dosing regimen.
`
`23.
`
`The SBOA itself discloses that Teva told the FDA that GA “exerts its
`
`effects locally at the s.c. injection site, and therefore its systemic distribution is
`
`irrelevant.”8 The SBOA reviewer agreed that GA’s plasma concentrations were
`
`unrelated to its efficacy, stating that “the appropriate bioavailability is constituted
`
`by the intact drug that reaches the immune system through the lymph nodes that
`
`drain the area of the local s.c. injection site,” and therefore “the PK of the parent
`
`drugs and degradation products are not very important from the perspective of
`
`efficacy.”9
`
`24. Accordingly, the SBOA reviewer expressly distinguished GA from
`
`typical drugs for which pharmacokinetics could be useful for predicting efficacy.
`
`The SBOA reviewer acknowledged that “[h]uman PK data are normally used to
`
`estimate systemic exposure to a drug. For many drugs, this systemic exposure data
`
`8
`Ex. 1007 at 249.
`
`9
`
`Id. at 152, 243.
`
`
`
`8
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`is, in turn, used for comparison to animal toxicology study data in the rational
`
`choice of a clinical dosing range that will hopefully maintain drug efficacy while
`
`avoiding toxicity. These human systemic exposure data can also be used to adjust
`
`the human dose when necessary.”10 However, the reviewer found this typical
`
`approach inapplicable to GA on the grounds that “the appropriate bioavailability
`
`with respect to drug efficacy is not systemic exposure, but rather is drug exposure
`
`at the local lymph nodes that drain the s.c. injection site. Therefore, I would agree
`
`with the Sponsor that, in terms of drug efficacy, human PK data would most likely
`
`be of limited usefulness.”11
`
`25.
`
`That pharmacokinetics continued to be considered irrelevant to GA’s
`
`efficacy through August 20, 2009, is confirmed by published literature in the field.
`
`For example, Varkony reported that “systemic distribution of [GA] is irrelevant to
`
`effects following s.c. administration and systemic concentrations of GA or its
`
`metabolites are not indicative of drug activity or exposure to the immune
`
`system.”12
`
`10
`Id. at 251-52.
`
`11
`
`Id. at 252
`
`12 H. Varkony, et al., The Glatiramoid Class Of Immunomodulator Drugs,
`
`10(4) EXPERT OPINION PHARMACOTHERAPY, 656-68 (2009) (Ex. 2046) at
`
`5.
`
`
`
`9
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`In fact, as of August 20, 2009, as of August 20, 2009, GA had never
`
`even been detected in plasma following administration of the approved, 20 mg
`
`dose.13 While Dr. Peroutka asserts that some references suggest that GA is
`
`systemically bioavailable, this assertion is incorrect.14
`
`27. Dr. Peroutka contends that the product label for Copaxone states that
`
`GA “is believed to enter the systemic circulation intact.”15 This is untrue. With
`
`respect to systemic circulation, the Copaxone® label merely leaves open the
`
`possibility that some GA, or GA degradant, may reach systemic circulation:
`
`“[s]ome fraction of the injected material, either intact or partially hydrolyzed, is
`
`presumed to enter the lymphatic circulation, enabling it to reach regional lymph
`
`nodes, and some may enter the systemic circulation intact.”16
`
`28. Dr. Peroutka also contends that the formation of systemic antibodies
`
`to GA in GA-treated patients supports the hypothesis that GA is systemically
`
`13 O. Neuhaus, et al., Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the
`
`interferon-betas, glatiramer acetate, and mitoxantrone in multiple sclerosis, 259
`
`(1-2) J NEUROLOGICAL SCI., 27-37 (2007) (Ex. 2012) at 3.
`
`14
`
`IPR2015-00643, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 125-28; IPR2015-00644, Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 132-35.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00643, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 125; IPR2015-00644, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 132.
`
`Copaxone® U.S. Product Label (2001) (Ex. 1047) at 1 (emphasis added).
`
`10
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`available in the blood after subcutaneous injection.17 This is also incorrect. It is
`
`well-known that injected drugs can lead to the generation of systemic antibodies
`
`without involvement of the systemic circulation.18 Similarly, in an example of
`
`transcutaneous immunization, adjuvants activate Langerhans cells in the skin,
`
`which migrate to the draining lymph to orchestrate robust immune
`
`responses.19 Indeed, transcutaneous immunization has been utilized to generate
`
`antibodies to a toxin that would otherwise cause toxic effects if the compound
`
`itself were to enter systemic circulation.20
`
`17
`IPR2015-00643, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 125; IPR2015-00644, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 132.
`
`18
`
`PH Lambert and PE Laurent, Intradermal vaccine delivery: will new
`
`delivery systems transform vaccine administration? 26(26) VACCINE, 3197-208
`
`(2008) (Ex. 2039).
`
`19 GM Glenn, et al., Transcutaneous immunization and immunostimulant
`
`strategies, 23(4) IMMUNOLOGY AND ALLERGY CLINICS OF N. AM., 787-
`
`813 (2003) (Ex. 2040) at 6-7; CD Partidos, et al., Immunity under the skin:
`
`potential application for topical delivery of vaccines, 21(7-8) VACCINE, 776-80
`
`(2003) (Ex. 2041) at 1-2.
`
`20
`
`C Ghose, et al., Transcutaneous immunization with Clostridium difficile
`
`toxoid A induces systemic and mucosal immune responses and toxin A-neutralizing
`
`antibodies in mice, 75(6) INFECTION AND IMMUNITY, 2326-32 (2007) (Ex.
`
`
`
`11
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`29. Dr. Peroutka also appears to interpret statements by Lobel21 and
`
`Simpson22 that GA is “bioavailable” to mean that it is “systemically
`
`bioavailable.”23 Again, this is wrong. The term “bioavailable,” used by both Lobel
`
`and Simpson to describe GA, can be used to refer either to “the fractional extent to
`
`which a dose of drug reaches its site of action or a biological fluid from which the
`
`drug has access to its site of action,” depending upon its context.24 Immediately
`
`prior to characterizing GA as “bioavailable,” Lobel indicates that GA is either low
`
`2042); GM Glenn, et al., Transcutaneous immunization with cholera toxin protects
`
`mice against lethal mucosal toxin challenge, 161(7) J. IMMUNOLOGY, 3211-4
`
`(1998) (Ex. 2043).
`
`21
`
`E. Lobel, et al., Copolymer-1, 21(2) DRUGS OF THE FUTURE, 131-134
`
`(1996) (Ex. 1022).
`
`22 D. Simpson, et al., Glatiramer acetate: a review of its use in relapsing-
`
`remitting multiple sclerosis, 16(12) CNS DRUGS, 825-50 (2002) (Ex. 1029).
`
`23
`
`IPR2015-00643, Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 125, 127-28; IPR2015-00644, Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶ 132, 134-35.
`
`24
`
`Benet et al., Pharmacokinetics: The Dynamics of Drug Absorption,
`
`Distribution, and Elimination, in THE PHARMACOLOGICAL BASIS OF
`
`THERAPEUTICS, 3 (Alfred Goodman Gilman ed. 1996) (Ex. 1021) at 12-13
`
`(emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`12
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`or not detectable in serum.25 Simpson similarly precedes its characterization of
`
`GA as “bioavailable” by explaining that GA is not required to be present in the
`
`serum to exert its action.26 Given this context, Lobel’s and Simpson’s use of the
`
`term “bioavailable” are clearly intended to indicate that GA is available at its site
`
`of action, not that it is present in plasma.
`
`30.
`
`Based upon the disclosure of the SBOA itself, as well as
`
`contemporaneous literature, the skilled pharmacologist would have understood that
`
`GA’s concentration in systemic circulation was entirely irrelevant to its efficacy,
`
`and would therefore have had no basis to rely upon pharmacokinetic data to predict
`
`GA’s efficacy or design a dosing regimen.
`
`B.
`
`The Skilled Pharmacologist Would Have Understood that the
`Pharmacokinetic Data Reported in the SBOA for Monkeys Do
`Not Accurately Reflect the Pharmacokinetics of Glatiramer
`Acetate
`
`31.
`
`The pharmacokinetic data relied upon by Dr. Peroutka to support an
`
`80 hour half-life for GA are found at page 197 of the SBOA.27 The experiment
`
`involved administering iodine-labelled GA subcutaneously to eight cynomolgus
`
`monkeys, and taking blood samples at various times between predose and 72
`
`
`25
`Ex. 1022 at 3.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`Ex. 1029 at 10.
`
`IPR2015-00643, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 129; IPR2015-00644, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 136.
`
`13
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`hours.28 For each sample, total radioactivity and TCA-precipitable radioactivity
`
`were measured. Pharmacokinetic parameters associated with total plasma
`
`reactivity and TCA-precipitable radioactivity were derived and reported in Tables
`
`7.1 and 7.2. These tables are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`Ex. 1007 at 193-97.
`
`
`
`14
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The Reported Monkey Pharmacokinetic Data Reflect
`Iodine Radioactivity, Not GA Concentration
`
`32.
`
`Iodine-125 is a radioisotope of iodine which can be easily detected
`
`due to its emission of gamma radiation.29 Iodine radiolabelling of proteins or
`
`peptides generally involves attaching an iodine-125 atom to the aromatic ring of a
`
`tyrosine residue.30 This technique is commonly used to study the fate of proteins
`
`and other complex molecules that may otherwise be difficult to detect in the
`
`relevant environment.31 Once iodinated, the molecule itself may be readily
`
`detected, even when present in only small amounts, by measuring the radioactivity
`
`emitted by the iodine-125 atom.32
`
`33. While iodine radiolabelling can be a useful technique for measuring
`
`low concentrations of complex molecules, it suffers from some well-known
`
`drawbacks. First and foremost, the introduction of an iodine-125 atom into a
`
`molecule can cause dramatic changes to the molecule’s chemical and biological
`
`
`29
`Randall, et al., Approaches to the Analysis of Peptides, in PEPTIDE AND
`
`PROTEIN DRUG DELIVERY (V. Lee, ed.) (1991) (Ex. 2103) at 22.
`
`Id.
`
`Id. at 20-22.
`
`Id. at 21.
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`
`
`15
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`properties, e.g., how it interacts with enzymes and receptors in the body.33
`
`Because of these differences, the iodine-labelled molecule often exhibit different
`
`pharmacokinetic behavior than the natural molecule.34
`
`34. Another drawback associated with iodine radiolabelling is that the
`
`quantified species is not actually the iodinated molecule, but rather the
`
`radioactivity emitted by the iodine itself.35 This distinction is of particular concern
`
`where either degradation of the molecule or deiodination is expected. In such
`
`instances, the measured radioactivity may no longer reflect the concentration of the
`
`iodinated parent molecule, but rather the total concentration of the iodinated parent
`
`molecule plus any iodinated degradation products, including iodine-125 labeled
`
`
`33
`Ex. 2103 at 22; H. Schmeisser, et al., Radioiodination of human interferon-
`
`alpha2 interferes with binding of C-terminal specific antibodies. 238 J.
`
`IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS, 81-5 (2000) (Ex. 2050) at 1; YM Efimova, et
`
`al., Changes in the secondary structure of proteins labeled with 125I: CD
`
`spectroscopy and enzymatic activity studies, 264(1) J. OF RADIOANALYTICAL
`
`AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY, 91-96 (2005) (Ex. 2051) at 1.
`
`34
`
`35
`
`
`
`Ex. 2050 at 1; Ex. 2051 at 1; Ex. 2103 at 22.
`
`Ex. 2103 at 21.
`
`16
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`amino acids, and free iodide.36 Accordingly, the skilled pharmacologist
`
`understood that “studies on the kinetics, metabolism and elimination of proteins or
`
`peptides which employ an 125I-label should be interpreted cautiously.”37
`
`35.
`
`Some techniques exist to minimize the extent of this overestimation.
`
`For example, it is known that proteins and large peptides generally precipitate from
`
`trichloroacetic acid (“TCA”).38 By adding TCA to a sample containing the
`
`radiolabelled molecule of interest and collecting the precipitate, smaller
`
`degradation products may be removed. While an improvement, this technique still
`
`relies upon measuring total radioactivity in the sample (albeit, a sample that has
`
`had smaller molecules removed), and therefore is likewise unable to distinguish
`
`between the radiolabelled parent molecule, larger degradation products that retain
`
`the iodine label, and the iodine label attached to other large molecules.39
`
`36
`Ex. 2103 at 21; Wroblewski VJ. Mechanism of deiodination of 125I-human
`
`growth hormone in vivo. Relevance to the study of protein disposition. Biochem
`
`Pharmacol. 1991 Jul 25;42(4):889-97 (Ex. 2079) at 1, 8.
`
`37
`
`38
`
`Ex. 2079 at 5.
`
`Zellner M, Winkler W, Hayden H, Quantitative validation of different
`
`protein precipitation methods in proteome analysis of blood platelets,
`
`Electrophoresis, 26, 2481–2489 (2005) (Ex. 2092) at 1, 8.
`
`39
`
`Ex. 2103 at 21.
`
`
`
`17
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`36. As it relates to the monkey pharmacokinetic data reported in the
`
`SBOA, it is important to note that the monkeys were injected not with GA, but
`
`rather with iodine-125 radiolabelled GA.40 For the reasons explained above, the
`
`skilled pharmacologist would have understood that the introduction of an iodine
`
`radiolabel into GA could greatly influence its pharmacokinetic properties. This
`
`issue was in fact identified by the SBOA reviewer as a “problem” associated with
`
`the methodology, who stated that “125I-labelling is known to change the PK
`
`properties of a peptide.”41 The skilled pharmacologist would have therefore
`
`understood that the pharmacokinetic results reported in the SBOA were not
`
`necessarily reflective of the pharmacokinetics of GA, and would therefore have
`
`had no reason to expect GA to possess these same pharmacokinetic parameters.
`
`37.
`
`The skilled pharmacologist would have further understood that these
`
`data were not even reflective of the pharmacokinetics of iodinated GA.
`
`38.
`
`Table 7.1 reports pharmacokinetic data derived from the measurement
`
`of total plasma radioactivity.42 As explained above, total radioactivity measures
`
`the concentration of all present iodinated species. While the injected molecule is
`
`purported to be iodine-125 radiolabelled GA, it was known that GA was subject to
`
`40
`Ex. 1007 at 197.
`
`Id. at 149.
`
`Id. at 197.
`
`41
`
`42
`
`
`
`18
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`rapid degradation upon subcutaneous injection.43 It was further known that
`
`iodinated molecules were subject to enzymatic deiodination in vivo, whereby the
`
`iodine atom would be removed by deiodinases, resulting in free iodide.44 The free
`
`iodide ion could then be incorporated into naturally-occurring proteins, for
`
`example, thyroglobulin and albumin.45 Thus, the skilled pharmacologist would
`
`have understood that the total radioactivity present in the plasma reflected a
`
`combination of intact iodinated GA and iodinated degradation products, including
`
`any degradant that retained the iodine label, free iodide, and free iodide that had
`
`been reincorporated into other proteins. This understanding is confirmed by the
`
`reviewer’s comments in the SBOA.46
`
`39.
`
`Pharmacokinetic parameters calculated from these plasma
`
`radioactivity measurements would therefore not reflect the pharmacokinetics of
`
`iodinated GA, but rather would reflect a combination of the pharmacokinetic
`
`
`43
`Ex. 2012 at 3.
`
`44
`
`45
`
`Ex. 2079 at 8.
`
`J. Vijlder, Primary congenital hypothyroidism: defects in iodine pathway.
`
`EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY, 149, 247-256 (2003) (Ex.
`
`2102) at 2, 5.
`
`46
`
`Ex. 1007 at 149, 152.
`
`
`
`19
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`parameters of all of these species. The skilled pharmacologist would therefore not
`
`have expected GA to possess the pharmacokinetic properties reported in Table 7.1.
`
`40.
`
`Table 7.2 reports pharmacokinetic data derived from the measurement
`
`of TCA-precipitable radioactivity.47 Like the previous table, these data were
`
`derived by measuring radioactivity of monkey plasma samples following
`
`subcutaneous administration of iodinated GA.48 The difference between the data in
`
`the two tables is that the radioactivity measurements underlying Table 7.2 were of
`
`the TCA-precipitable portion of the plasma.49 As explained above, the process of
`
`TCA precipitation would have removed some of the iodinated impurities, e.g.,
`
`small degradation products, thus reducing the measured radioactivity. However,
`
`the skilled pharmacologist would have understood that the radioactivity measured
`
`for the TCA-precipitable fraction still did not reflect iodinated GA, but rather a
`
`combination of intact iodinated GA and larger iodinated degradation products, as
`
`well as free iodide that had been reincorporated into other plasma proteins.50 The
`
`skilled pharmacologist would have therefore recognized that the pharmacokinetic
`
`parameters derived from these measurements, including the half-life, were not
`
`47
`Id. at 197.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id. at 152, 198.
`
`48
`
`49
`
`50
`
`
`
`20
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`reflective of iodinated GA, but rather a combination of the pharmacokinetic
`
`parameters of all of these species.
`
`41.
`
`Because the pharmacokinetic data reported for the monkey studies in
`
`the SBOA are derived from measurements of radioactivity, the skilled
`
`pharmacologist would have understood, as the SBOA reviewer did, that these data
`
`do not reflect the pharmacokinetic properties of GA, but rather of a complex
`
`combination of iodinated species.51 This is true for both total plasma radioactivity
`
`and TCA-precipitable radioactivity. Indeed, with respect to human PK data, the
`
`reviewer concluded that “the Sponsor actually has little or no idea what the plasma
`
`drug concentration would be in humans with subcutaneous administration of
`
`[GA].”52
`
`42.
`
`The skilled pharmacologist would therefore not have expected the
`
`half-life reported in Table 7.2 to reflect the half-life of GA, and would have had no
`
`reason to rely upon these data to predict whether a dosage regimen for the
`
`subcutaneous administration of GA to humans would have been successful for
`
`treating RRMS.
`
`
`51
`Id. at 198.
`
`52
`
`Id. at 280-81.
`
`
`
`21
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Reported Monkey Pharmacokinetic Data are Internally
`Inconsistent
`
`43.
`
`The skilled pharmacologist also would not have expected the TCA-
`
`precipitable half-life data reported for the monkey in the SBOA to reflect the half-
`
`life of GA for the additional reason that the data itself would have been considered
`
`inadequate for predicting pharmacokinetic behavior.
`
`44. A fundamental rule in deriving a half-life of a chemical species in
`
`plasma is that the plasma samples from which the half-life is derived should cover
`
`a time period of at least three half-lives.53 It was well known by August 20, 2009,
`
`that using a shorter sampling period could lead to a “very misleading” half-life
`
`estimate.54 Dr. Peroutka concludes that the SBOA monkey data reports a half-life
`
`of 80 hours.55 However, plasma samples were only taken from the monkeys
`
`through 72 hours.56 The skilled pharmacologist would not have considered an 80
`
`hour half-life derived from only 72 hours of data to be reliable, and therefore
`
`
`53
`PL Toutain PL and Bousquet-Mélou A., Plasma terminal half-life, 27(6) J.
`
`VETERINARY PHARMACOLOGICAL THERAPY, 427-39 (2004) (Ex. 2052) at
`
`12.
`
`54
`
`55
`
`56
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`IPR2015-00643, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 131; IPR2015-00644, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 138.
`
`Ex. 1007 at 197.
`
`22
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2134
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`would not have expected GA to have a half-life of 80 hours based on the SBOA
`
`data. I understand that Dr. Peroutka testified at his deposition that samples must be
`
`taken over at least one half-life in order to accurately estimate half-life.57 Even
`
`under this less stringent criteria, the skilled pharmacologist would consider the
`
`monkey pharmacokinetic data reported in the SBOA insufficient for estimating
`
`half-life.
`
`45.
`
`The skilled pharmacologist also would have recognized that the
`
`monkey pharmacokinetic data reported in the SBOA was internally inconsistent.
`
`This inconsistency would have caused the skilled pharmacologist to further
`
`question the reliability of the reported pharmacokinetic data.
`
`46.
`
`Tables 7.1 and 7.2 report pharmacokinetic data for total plasma
`
`radioactivity and TCA-precipitable radioactivity respectively. Among these are
`
`Cmax (the maximum concentration), Tmax (the time of