throbber
Paper No. __
`Filed: May 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
`INC., and MYLAN INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., and
`BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA HOLDINGS CORP.
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431
`
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background of related litigations
`
`InnoPharma’s failed prima facie case of obviousness
`
`Senju’s compelling objective evidence of patentability
`
`II.
`
`Statement of relief requested
`
`III. Claim construction
`
`IV. Level of skill in the art
`
`V.
`
`The petition should be denied for failing to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that any of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The inventive ophthalmic preparations of the ’431 patent
`
`The combination of Ogawa and Sallmann, in either direction,
`does not render any claim of the ’431 patent obvious
`
`InnoPharma has established no reason, other than hindsight, to
`focus on Ogawa and bromfenac preparations
`
`D. Ogawa in view of Sallmann: a combination the person of
`ordinary skill in the art would not have made
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ogawa and the problem it sought to solve
`
`Sallmann’s singular purpose does not align with Ogawa’s
`
`It would not have been obvious to modify Ogawa’s
`Example 6 in view of Sallmann’s Example 2
`
`InnoPharma’s arguments of motivation and expectation
`of success ring hollow in view of the demonstratively
`strong evidence counseling against the proposed
`combination of Ogawa in view of Sallmann
`
`i
`
`2
`
`2
`
`4
`
`9
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`16
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`20
`
`23
`
`24
`
`28
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`
`E.
`
`Sallmann in view of Ogawa: a hindsight-laden combination that
`would not have been made prior to invention
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The proposed combination destroys the essential purpose
`of Sallmann, ignores the blaze marks in the art, and runs
`afoul of the ’431 patent’s claim language
`
`InnoPharma’s arguments to modify Sallmann’s Example
`2 in view of Ogawa’s Example 6 are legally insufficient,
`internally inconsistent, and belied by the very art it relies
`on
`
`F.
`
`Fu does not remedy the deficiencies in InnoPharma’s
`combination of Ogawa and Sallmann
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A POSA would not have looked to Fu
`
`InnoPharma’s attempted connection between Fu and
`tyloxapol is untenable
`
`InnoPharma has failed to demonstrate unpatentability of
`claims 6, 15-17, and 20-22, requiring a tyloxapol
`concentration of about 0.02 w/v %
`
`VI. Senju’s compelling objective evidence of patentability enhances an
`already strong case of no prima facie obviousness, which InnoPharma
`fails to adequately rebut
`
`A.
`
`InnoPharma fails to offer evidence refuting unexpected results
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’431 patent compares against the closest prior art for
`purposes of showing unexpected results
`
`Polysorbate 80’s expected ability to stabilize
`
`Tyloxapol’s unexpectedly superior stabilizing effect
`
`B.
`
`Additional compelling objective evidence of patentability
`
`VII. Conclusion
`
`
`
`ii
`
`33
`
`33
`
`37
`
`42
`
`42
`
`43
`
`47
`
`49
`
`50
`
`50
`
`51
`
`53
`
`56
`
`58
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 36
`
`Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................passim
`
`Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
`295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 49, 58
`
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 37
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................................................................ 8, 33
`
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 27
`
`In re Huai-Hung Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (2011) .......................................................................................... 55
`
`Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 853 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 18, 35, 43
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 13, 58
`
`Janssen Pharm. NV v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.,
`456 F. Supp. 2d 644 (D.N.J. 2006), aff’d per curiam, 223 Fed.
`Appx. 999 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................. 57
`
`Kao Corp. v. Unilever U.S., Inc.,
`441 F.3d 963 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 49
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 15, 17, 20, 39
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`
`In re Kubin,
`561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 19, 28
`
`Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 32, 33
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc.,
`No. 2014-1799, 2015 WL 2403308 (Fed. Cir. May 21. 2015)
`(unpublished) ............................................................................................ 7, 19, 25
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 28, 49
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`No. 10-528-GMS, 2014 WL 5388100 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2014) ...................passim
`
`RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc.,
`730 F.2d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................................................................... 13, 58
`
`In re Soni,
`54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 5
`
`Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp.,
`845 F.2d 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 57
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 15, 18, 19
`
`In re Wesslau,
`353 F.2d 238 (C.C.P.A. 1965) ...................................................................... 32, 34
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ........................................................................................................ 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................... 2, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`
`Other Authorities
`Accord Healthcare, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`IPR2013-00356 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2013) (Paper 13) ................................................ 4
`
`Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC,
`IPR2014-00115 (PTAB Apr. 20, 2015) (Paper 94) .................................. 7, 23, 25
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00276 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2014) (Paper 43) ............................................ 17
`
`BSP Software v. Motio, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00307, 2013 WL 8563944 (PTAB 2013)............................................ 18
`
`Intellectual Ventures Mgmt. LLC v. Xilinx Inc.,
`IPR2012-00020 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2014) (Paper 34). ........................................... 36
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00530 (PTAB Sep. 29, 2014) (Paper 8) .............................................. 36
`
`Texas Instruments v. VantagePointTech., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01105 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2015) (Paper 8) ................................................. 36
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`The petition filed by Petitioners (collectively “InnoPharma”) attacking the
`
`patentability of USP 8,129,431 (“the ’431 patent”) is fundamentally flawed.
`
`Tainted by improper hindsight, it proffers legally inadequate motivation to
`
`combine the cited references of USP 4,910,225 to Ogawa et al. (EX1004), USP
`
`5,891,913 to Sallmann et al. (EX1009), and AU-B-22042/88 (EX1011) to Fu et al.
`
`In fact, in any combination, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“a POSA”) at the time of invention to manipulate this art as
`
`InnoPharma proposes today. Modifying Ogawa, which InnoPharma admits to be
`
`the closest prior art, in view of Sallmann would not have solved the problem
`
`presented in Ogawa. And modifying Sallmann in view of Ogawa would have
`
`defied common sense—an innate attribute of a POSA—for doing so would have
`
`destroyed the entire essence of Sallmann and would have been expected to only
`
`exacerbate the problem presented in Ogawa. The inclusion of Fu does not remedy
`
`the deficiencies plaguing the Ogawa/Sallmann proposed combinations.
`
`InnoPharma also has failed to prove the existence of all elements of the ’431
`
`patent claims in the cited art. In addition, the present record demonstrates
`
`significant objective indicia of patentability, which InnoPharma ineffectively
`
`assails or simply ignores, and which further enhance an already strong case of
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`nonobviousness. The Board accordingly should deny this petition under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`A. Background of related litigations
`The ’431 patent covers and is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for
`
`Prolensa®, an ophthalmic bromfenac (0.07%) solution1 whose commercial and
`
`medicinal success is the impetus for InnoPharma’s filing of an Abbreviated New
`
`Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking FDA approval to sell generic copies of
`
`Prolensa® before the Orange Book-listed patents covering it expire. (EX2006;
`
`EX2007; EX2008.) On September 19, 2014, InnoPharma notified Senju that it
`
`filed an ANDA with Paragraph IV certifications challenging the ’431 and ’290
`
`
`1 Other patents listed in the Orange Book as covering Prolensa® include U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,669,290 (“the ’290 patent”) (EX2002), U.S. Patent No. 8,754,131 (“the ’131
`
`patent”) (EX2003), U.S. Patent No. 8,871,813 (“the ’813 patent”) (EX2004), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,927,606 (“the ’606 patent”) (EX2005). Senju Pharmaceutical
`
`Co., Ltd. owns the ’431 patent, the ’290 patent, the ’131 patent, the ’813 patent,
`
`and the ’606 patent, which it licenses to Bausch & Lomb Pharma Holdings Corp, a
`
`subsidiary of Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`patents.2 (EX2006.) Senju subsequently sued InnoPharma on November 3, 2014,
`
`for infringing the ’431 patent, the ’290 patent, the ’131 patent, and the ’813 patent,
`
`which cover Prolensa®. (EX2009.) It later sued InnoPharma for infringing the ’606
`
`patent, which also covers Prolensa®. (EX2010.) InnoPharma’s Paragraph IV letter
`
`did not advance any non-infringement positions, thus confirming InnoPharma’s
`
`intention to copy Prolensa®. (EX2006; EX2007; EX2008.)
`
`The parties have proceeded for over six months in the U.S. District Court of
`
`the District of New Jersey toward a final resolution of this case. In addition,
`
`litigation is ongoing against three other generic companies, also seeking to sell
`
`generic copies of Prolensa® and capitalize on its commercial success. The Court
`
`consolidated all actions for discovery purposes (EX2011) and set a trial date for all
`
`cases for March 7, 2016. (EX2012.) Thus, a Final Written Decision from the
`
`Board would not be expected until after the anticipated district court decision.
`
`The timing of InnoPharma’s petition confirms its intent to use the IPR as a
`
`“tool for harassment,” not as an inexpensive alternative to litigation. As the Board
`
`has previously recognized, the legislative history of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`admonishes that Congress did not intend IPR proceedings to be used as “tools for
`
`2 InnoPharma later notified Senju that InnoPharma had amended its Paragraph IV
`
`certification to include the ’131 patent and the ’606 patent. (EX2007; EX2008)
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`litigation and administrative attacks.” Accord
`
`harassment” by “repeated
`
`Healthcare, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., IPR2013-00356, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 1,
`
`2013) (Paper 13) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011)). InnoPharma,
`
`moreover, chose to challenge only two of the five Prolensa® patents asserted
`
`against it in the district court, effectively either 1) confirming InnoPharma’s
`
`intention to hedge the outcome of the district court case and subsequently partake
`
`in protracted, piecemeal litigation before the Board—clearly not a cost effective
`
`alternative, or 2) suggesting that InnoPharma does not believe in the strength of its
`
`obviousness arguments.
`
`InnoPharma’s failed prima facie case of obviousness
`
`B.
`On the latter point, InnoPharma has proposed two grounds of unpatentability
`
`based on Ogawa, Sallmann, and Fu: First, relating to claims 1-5, 7-14, and 18-19,
`
`InnoPharma proposes Ogawa in view of Sallmann, and then Sallmann in view of
`
`Ogawa. Second, for claims 6, 15-17, and 20-22, InnoPharma further relies on
`
`Ogawa, Sallmann, and Fu. InnoPharma’s central theme is one of “swapping,” that
`
`is, swapping tyloxapol in Sallmann’s Example 2 for polysorbate 80 in Ogawa’s
`
`Example 6, or alternatively, swapping bromfenac in Ogawa’s Example 6 for
`
`diclofenac in Sallmann’s Example 2. (Petition at 6-7.) InnoPharma, however,
`
`ignores that this is chemistry, well-recognized as an unpredictable art “where
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`minor changes in a product or process may yield substantially different results.” In
`
`re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It is not at all simple as InnoPharma
`
`portrays, and certainly not so with ophthalmic formulation chemistry, at issue in
`
`this case.
`
`Indeed, components in ophthalmic formulations, whether active or inactive,
`
`can interact and affect one another in unpredictable ways, impacting the
`
`formulation’s efficacy, risk profile (e.g., irritation, redness of the eyes, etc.) and
`
`stability, including chemical and physical stability as well as preservative efficacy.
`
`These formulations represent dynamic systems with many “moving parts.”
`
`Addressing a problem arising with one aspect of the formulation can give rise to
`
`multiple other problems, often leading to “start overs,” failures, frustration, and
`
`further experimentation, none of which yields obvious solutions.
`
`Because
`
`the ’431 patent’s formulations,
`
`including
`
`the commercial
`
`embodiment Prolensa®, treat ocular inflammation post-surgery, they require FDA
`
`approval. One does not just simply “swap” one component for another and receive
`
`FDA approval to market the “swapped” product. If that were true, there would be a
`
`new FDA approved ophthalmic formulation almost every day. The reality, of
`
`course, is that it takes years of trial and error, testing and experimentation, and
`
`thousands of person hours before a new ophthalmic product is ready for use and
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`commercialization. InnoPharma has innovated nothing, however, and instead has
`
`simply copied the FDA-approved Prolensa® formulation. InnoPharma now seeks to
`
`evade liability for its willfully infringing actions by creating ex-post facto
`
`“swapping” theories of unpatentability in an attempt to invalidate the patents
`
`covering these valuable assets.
`
`InnoPharma’s overly simplistic view of the technology at issue in the ’431
`
`patent, a view shared by its expert Dr. Paul A. Laskar, dooms its objectivity in
`
`considering the art as it would have been considered by a POSA before January 21,
`
`2003, the patent’s earliest effective filing date. Such a view ultimately betrays
`
`InnoPharma’s analysis as no more than a hindsight reconstruction, driven by
`
`litigation-induced distortion of the underlying facts.
`
`Ogawa taught the use of sodium sulfite, a well-known antioxidant (EX2014
`
`at 3:51-55), to chemically stabilize bromfenac from degradation. (EX1004 at
`
`Experimental Example 6.) A POSA would have readily understood, therefore, that
`
`oxidation caused bromfenac’s degradation. (EX1021 at 5.) Sallmann is directed to
`
`formulations of the potassium salt of diclofenac, an NSAID known to be poorly
`
`soluble in water. (EX1022 at 12 (diclofenac is “poorly soluble in water.”).) The
`
`essence of the Sallmann patent, indeed its entire purpose for existing, is the use of
`
`diclofenac potassium in ocular formulations. The patent was presumably awarded
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`by showing that diclofenac potassium had surprisingly better ocular penetration
`
`than previous diclofenac sodium formulations. (EX1009 at 1:48-59.) Sallmann
`
`formulates diclofenac potassium with a number of additional inactive components,
`
`including solubilizers to solubilize the poorly-water soluble diclofenac. Tyloxapol
`
`is listed as one of a number of solubilizers. (EX1009 at 4:52-67.) Fu is directed to
`
`ophthalmic formulations of ketorolac and benzalkonium chloride (“BAC”) with
`
`octoxynols, particularly Octoxynol 40. (EX1011 at e.g., 4, 5, 6 and 21.) Fu does
`
`not disclose or ever allude to bromfenac or tyloxapol.
`
`Just from this initial assessment, InnoPharma’s position quickly unravels to
`
`reveal the improper ex-post facto analysis at its core. A POSA would not have
`
`sought to address the oxidation of bromfenac with a solubilizer, for it would not
`
`have been expected to have any effect on the oxidation process. A proposed
`
`solution that does not address a problem disclosed in the art is not an obvious
`
`solution. See Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1375
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015); Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. 2014-1799,
`
`2015 WL 2403308, at *7 (Fed. Cir. May 21. 2015) (unpublished); Apotex Inc. v.
`
`Wyeth LLC, IPR2014-00115, slip op. at 18 (PTAB Apr. 20, 2015) (Paper 94). To a
`
`POSA, solubilizers typically solubilize poorly-soluble drugs, like diclofenac.
`
`(EX1022 at 12.) Because bromfenac was known to readily dissolve in water
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`(EX1007 at 6), there simply would not have been any reason, other than hindsight,
`
`to use a solubilizer such as tyloxapol with bromfenac, nor any expectation that it
`
`would prevent bromfenac’s oxidative degradation.
`
`Similarly, a POSA would not have been motivated to swap Sallmann’s
`
`diclofenac potassium for Ogawa’s bromfenac. Doing so would eviscerate the entire
`
`purpose of the Sallmann patent and its reason for being, i.e., the use of diclofenac
`
`potassium. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that
`
`modification of a reference is not obvious if it would render the reference
`
`inoperable for its intended purpose). Moreover, bromfenac’s oxidative degradation
`
`would have been expected to persist after dropping bromfenac into Sallmann’s
`
`formulations, for Sallmann’s Example 2 does not include any components, not
`
`already in Ogawa, that would have prevented bromfenac’s oxidation. Only a
`
`person devoid of common sense, or a person using hindsight to work backwards
`
`from the solution in the ’431 patent, would have attempted such a combination.
`
`In addition, InnoPharma’s proposed combination is riddled with failures of
`
`proof regarding various elements of the ’431 patent claims. All claims of the ’431
`
`patent recite the transition term “consisting essentially of,” excluding unrecited
`
`elements that would materially affect the basic and novel properties of the claimed
`
`stable aqueous preparations, including other active ingredients besides bromfenac.
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`To be true to the essence of Sallmann, if combined with Ogawa, a POSA would
`
`have had a formulation with two active ingredients. This could lead to drug–drug
`
`interactions affecting the properties of the claimed formulations. InnoPharma,
`
`whose burden it is to prove otherwise, has not done so.
`
`InnoPharma relies on Fu only for those claims reciting a particular amount
`
`of tyloxapol (0.02 w/v%). Fu adds nothing to cure the defects of Ogawa and
`
`Sallmann. It mentions neither bromfenac nor tyloxapol. Fu is directed to
`
`physically—not chemically—stabilizing a structurally different NSAID and
`
`discloses a structurally different surfactant. There would have been no basis from
`
`Fu to predict what amount of tyloxapol would have worked to chemical stabilize
`
`bromfenac from oxidative degradation.
`
`Senju’s compelling objective evidence of patentability
`C.
`Notwithstanding InnoPharma’s contrived and weak prima facie arguments,
`
`Senju proffers compelling objective indicia of patentability, which InnoPharma has
`
`failed to counter. The art of record provides no guidance regarding how
`
`polysorbate 80 will perform relative to tyloxapol with respect to chemical stability.
`
`To the extent that solubilizing ability would have been an indicator of chemical
`
`stability for bromfenac, which it would not have been because bromfenac dissolves
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`readily in water (EX1007 at 6), the art of record establishes that polysorbate 80
`
`should outperform tyloxapol. (EX1012 at Table 1; EX1022 at 7.)
`
`Using the same stress test disclosed in Ogawa (four weeks at 60° C.), Senju
`
`has demonstrated in the ’431 patent vastly superior and completely unexpected
`
`stability results for tyloxapol over polysorbate 80 at the harsh pH of 7.0. (EX1001
`
`at Table 1.) This low pH challenges the formulations because it enhances
`
`bromfenac’s degradation (EX1004 at Experimental Example 4, Table 8) and
`
`effectively delineates the relative stabilization capability of the tested compounds.
`
`The comparative test reported in Table 1 of the ’431 patent, moreover, constitutes a
`
`scientifically proper head-to-head comparison varying only one component—
`
`polysorbate 80 versus tyloxapol—to further enhance the clarity of the relative
`
`ability of the surfactants to stabilize bromfenac from chemical degradation under
`
`the highly stressed conditions of 60° C. for four weeks.
`
`The results in Table 1 show that, when compared with polysorbate 80 at
`
`0.15 g, which is the amount of polysorbate 80 used in Ogawa, tyloxapol was 44%3
`
`3 The percent increase in stability is calculated throughout as the difference in
`
`remaining rate of bromfenac for the tyloxapol and polysorbate 80-containing
`
`formulations, over the remaining rate of bromfenac for the polysorbate 80-
`
`containing formulation, multiplied by 100.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`better at stabilizing bromfenac from degradation. (EX1004 at Table 1, Comparison
`
`Example 1 and A-02.) And in a completely unexpected and counterintuitive
`
`manner, when the amount of tyloxapol was lowered to 0.02%, about 1/8 the
`
`amount of polysorbate 80 taught in Ogawa, tyloxapol was 75% better at stabilizing
`
`bromfenac degradation. (Id. at Table 1, A-03.) This is a truly remarkable and
`
`surprising result considering the harsh pH conditions and the significantly reduced
`
`amount of tyloxapol versus polysorbate 80. By any metric, no one would have
`
`expected this huge disparity in chemical stability results for tyloxapol.
`
`At a higher pH > 8, one far less conducive to degrading bromfenac (see
`
`EX1004 at Experimental Example 4, Table 8), formulations of tyloxapol achieved
`
`stabilization results comparable to those of polysorbate 80 in Ogawa’s Example 6,4
`
`but notably did so using amounts of tyloxapol of about 1/3, 1/5, and 1/8 the amount
`
`of polysorbate 80. (EX1001 at Table 2; EX1004 at Example 6.) Additionally, these
`
`results were achieved without using the antioxidant sodium sulfite, touted by
`
`Ogawa as instrumental in achieving “remarkably enhanced” stability results.
`
`4 Ogawa’s Example 6 reports 100.9% remaining bromfenac. Because matter cannot
`
`be created, the reported value likely reflects measurement error or the presence of
`
`water not removed before the measurement was made. A POSA would expect the
`
`actual percentage to be somewhere in the 90s.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`(EX1004 at Experimental Example 6, 8:46-9:4.) To achieve this level of stability
`
`without sodium sulfite is entirely unexpected in view of Ogawa.
`
`Tyloxapol’s unexpected stabilization benefits translated into real world
`
`benefits in producing Prolensa® with a comfortable pH of 7.8, close to that of
`
`natural tears, that led to improved ocular penetration, a lowering of the amount of
`
`bromfenac to 0.07% from 0.09%, and ultimately less drug contacting surgically
`
`compromised ocular tissue without a reduction in efficacy. (EX2030; EX2026;
`
`EX2027.) With these new benefits, Prolensa® garnered significant acclaim in the
`
`medical community (EX2015), drawing in doctors and patients alike, despite the
`
`availability of
`
`lower-priced generic, non-prior art commercial bromfenac
`
`formulations. (EX2028.)
`
`Seeking to capitalize on Prolensa’s®
`
` commercial success, generic companies
`
`began submitting ANDAs to market generic copies of Prolensa®, driven by sales of
`
`Prolensa® they projected would exceed $100 million annually. (EX2022 at 4.)
`
`Even they, however, have recognized the strength and inventiveness of the
`
`Prolensa® patents. Apotex, a giant in the generic drug industry that actively sells
`
`ophthalmic products, initially challenged the ’431 patent in district court.
`
`(EX2023; EX2019.) Apotex recently, however, licensed the patent and took a
`
`consent judgment and injunction specifically acknowledging the ’431 patent’s
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`validity. (EX2024.) See Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v.
`
`Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Pasteur's licensing activities
`
`provide ‘probative and cogent evidence’ of non-obviousness of the claims at
`
`issue.”); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1448 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1984) (holding the commercial acquiescence of competitors, evidenced by
`
`RCA's licensing of the invention, is relevant to non-obviousness).
`
`Given InnoPharma’s failure to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
`
`as well as its failure to rebut significant secondary evidence of patentability,
`
`InnoPharma’s mere “swapping” obviousness allegation fails to meet the minimum
`
`institution threshold of a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one
`
`challenged claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board should therefore deny
`
`InnoPharma’s petition in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of relief requested
`
`Senju respectfully requests that InnoPharma’s petition be denied for at least
`
`the following reasons: (i) it fails to provide legally proper motivation to combine
`
`Ogawa and Sallmann, in either direction; (ii) it fails to prove the existence of each
`
`element of each challenged claim from Ogawa and Sallmann, and Fu does not
`
`remedy these deficiencies; and (iii) it fails to rebut the compelling objective indicia
`
`of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`
`III. Claim construction
`Although agreeing with the Board’s determination in related IPR2014-01041
`
`that no claim term needs construction, InnoPharma addresses the claim term
`
`“consisting essentially of” by defining what it believes are the basic and novel
`
`characteristics of the claimed subject matter, taken from a passage in the
`
`specification. (Petition at 15-16; Metrics, Inc. v. Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd., IPR2014-
`
`01043 (Paper No. 19 at 10).)
`
`Senju agrees with the Board that the terms do not need express construction
`
`at this stage. Senju disagrees with InnoPharma’s proposed definition of the basic
`
`and novel properties of the claimed subject matter, for it ignores the prosecution
`
`history, which further informs one regarding the meaning of this claim term.
`
`The prosecution history makes clear that “consisting essentially of” excludes
`
`at least additional active ingredients. The Applicant argued (EX2031 at 13) and the
`
`Examiner accepted (EX2033 at 7) that an additional active ingredient, a IB/ID
`
`agonist, in the Gamache reference was excluded from the claimed preparations.
`
`(EX2031.) That the Examiner—also considered a POSA—similarly understood the
`
`amendment introducing “consisting essentially of” to exclude other active
`
`ingredients is confirmed by the presence of another reference considered during
`
`prosecution, USP 6,395,746 to Cagle et al. (EX2032.) Cagle discloses, like
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`Gamache, the inclusion of other active ingredients, but instead of an agonist, it
`
`taught an antibiotic. Yet after the amendment, the Examiner did not reject the
`
`claims in view of Cagle. The Board accordingly should reject InnoPharma’s
`
`proposed construction, for it fails to consider the reason for the term as reflected in
`
`the prosecution history.
`
`IV. Level of skill in the art
`InnoPharma states that a POSA “thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art, and is a person of ordinary creativity,” relying on the Supreme Court’s decision
`
`in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). (Petition at 16-17.) But the
`
`law also makes clear that a POSA “interprets the prior art using common sense and
`
`appropriate perspective.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402).
`
`InnoPharma and its expert Dr. Laskar further state that the education and
`
`experience level of the skilled person can vary, from someone with a bachelor’s
`
`degree with 5–10 years of work experience to someone with a Ph.D. with fewer
`
`years of experience. (Petition at 17; EX1003 at ¶ 18.) Senju disagrees with this
`
`definition as overly inflated for “ordinary skill,” as required by the statute. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. A person with just “ordinary skill” would more likely have a
`
`bachelor’s degree with 3–5 years of work experience.
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,129,431
`
`V. The petition should be denied for failing to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that any of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`A. The inventive ophthalmic preparations of the ’431 patent
`Prolensa® is approved for the treatment of postoperative inflammation and
`
`reduction of ocular pain in patients who have undergone cataract surgery.
`
`(EX2013.) Prolensa® received FDA approval in April 2013, and immediately
`
`garnered acclaim in the medical community based on highly favorable clinical
`
`study data demonstrating “the benefits of the new formulation.” (EX2015.) The
`
`patents that cover Prolensa® claim formulations of bromfenac for ophthalmic
`
`administration and methods of treatment using these formulations. The ’431 patent
`
`was filed on January 16, 2004, and claims priority benefit of the January 21, 2003,
`
`filing date of JP 2003-012427 under 35 U.S.C. §119. (EX1001; EX2002.)
`
`The ’431 patent claims are directed, generally speaking, to aqueous
`
`ophthalmic preparations consi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket