`Filed: August 3, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`LUPIN, LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01097
`Patent 8,754,131 B2
`
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2
`
`2
`
`4
`
`10
`
`13
`
`14
`
`14
`
`14
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`18
`
`20
`
`24
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background of related litigations
`
`Lupin’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 claims of the ’131 patent
`
`The combinations of Ogawa in view of Fu and Ogawa in view
`of Sallmann do not render any claim of the ’131 patent obvious
`
`Lupin has established no reason, other than hindsight, to focus
`on Ogawa and bromfenac preparations
`
`D. Ogawa in view of Fu: a combination that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would not have made
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ogawa and the problem it sought to solve
`
`It would not have been obvious to modify Ogawa’s
`Example 6 in view of Fu’s Example 5
`
`Because neither Ogawa nor Fu disclose tyloxapol, their
`combination fails to satisfy all elements of the claims
`
`Lupin’s arguments of motivation and expectation of
`success ring hollow in view of the demonstratively strong
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`
`evidence counseling against the proposed combination of
`Ogawa in view of Fu
`
`E.
`
`Sallmann in view of Ogawa: a hindsight-laden combination that
`would not have been made prior to invention
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The proposed combination destroys the essential purpose
`of Sallmann, ignores the blaze marks in the art, and runs
`afoul of the ’131 patent’s claim language
`
`Lupin’s alternative modification of Ogawa Example 6 in
`view of Sallmann similarly fails
`
`Lupin’s arguments to modify Sallmann in view of
`Ogawa, in any direction, are legally insufficient,
`internally inconsistent, and belied by the very art Lupin
`relies on
`
`VI. Senju’s compelling objective evidence of patentability enhances an
`already strong case of no prima facie obviousness, which Lupin fails
`to adequately rebut
`
`A.
`
`Lupin fails to offer evidence refuting unexpected results
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’131 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. Separate patentability of individual claims
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Lupin has failed to demonstrate unpatentability of claims 1 and
`4
`
`Lupin has failed to demonstrate unpatentability of claims 7, 10,
`and 12 and also claims 19 and 22
`
`ii
`
`28
`
`34
`
`35
`
`38
`
`40
`
`43
`
`44
`
`44
`
`45
`
`47
`
`50
`
`53
`
`53
`
`54
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`
`Lupin has failed to demonstrate unpatentability of claims 27
`and 28
`
`Lupin has failed to demonstrate unpatentability of claim 12 and
`claim 18
`
`56
`
`57
`
`60
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`VIII. Conclusion
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Application of Merchant, 575 F.2d 865 (C.C.P.A. 1978) ........................................ 49
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .......................................................... 38, 47, 56, 58
`
`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) .................................................................... 43, 53
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 24
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................................................................. 9, 36, 58
`
`In re Huai-Hung Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (2011) .......................................................................................... 50
`
`Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 853 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 16, 25, 37
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 13, 52
`
`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) ................................................................................. 52
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 15, 18
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`
`Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 32, 34
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Watson Labs., Inc.,
`No. 2014-1799, 2015 WL 2403308 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2015)
`(unpublished) ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`No. 10-528-GMS, 2014 WL 5388100
`(D. Del. Oct. 22, 2014) ..................................................................... 16, 25, 30, 37
`
`In re Shetty,
`566 F.2d 81 (C.C.P.A. 1977) .............................................................................. 55
`
`In re Soni,
`54 F.3d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 4
`
`Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp.,
`845 F.2d 981 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 52
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................ 16, 53, 55, 56
`
`In re Wesslau,
`353 F.2d 238 (C.C.P.A. 1965) ................................................................ 34, 37, 59
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................... 1, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`Accord Healthcare, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`IPR2013-00356 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2013) (Paper 13) ................................................ 3
`
`Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC,
`IPR2014-00115 (PTAB Apr. 20, 2015) (Paper 94) ............................ 7, 22, 23, 30
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00276 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2014) (Paper 43) ............................................ 15
`
`BSP Software v. Motio Inc.,
`IPR2013-00307, 2013 WL 8563944 (PTAB 2013)............................................ 15
`
`Sandoz, Inc. v. EKR Therapeutics, LLC,
`IPR2015-00005 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2015) (Paper 20) ...................................... 55, 57
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`The petition filed by Petitioners (collectively “Lupin”) attacking the
`
`patentability of USP 8,754,131 (“the ’131 patent”) should be denied under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a), as it is fundamentally flawed. Tainted by improper hindsight, it
`
`proffers legally inadequate motivation to combine USP 4,910,225 to Ogawa et al.
`
`(EX1010), EP 0306 984 to Fu et al. (EX1014), and USP 5,891,913 to Sallmann et
`
`al. (EX1021). In fact, in any combination, it would not have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of invention to manipulate
`
`this art as Lupin proposes today.
`
`Ogawa, which Lupin admits to be the closest prior art, would not have been
`
`combined with Fu. They are incompatible as such, solving different problems
`
`using different approaches. Lupin also has failed to prove the existence of all
`
`elements of the ’131 patent claims in Ogawa and Fu. The proposed combination of
`
`Ogawa and Sallmann similarly fails. A POSA would not have modified Ogawa by
`
`Sallmann because it 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.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`In addition, the present record demonstrates significant objective indicia of
`
`patentability, which Lupin ineffectively assails or simply ignores, and which
`
`further enhance an already strong case of nonobviousness. Denial of the Petition is
`
`warranted.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`A. Background of related litigations
`The ’131 patent covers and is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for
`
`Prolensa®, an ophthalmic bromfenac (0.07%) solution whose commercial and
`
`medicinal success is the impetus for Lupin’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug
`
`Application (“ANDA”) seeking FDA approval to sell generic copies of Prolensa®
`
`before the patents covering it expire. (EX2002; EX2003; EX2004; EX2005;
`
`EX2006.) On July 3, 2014, Lupin notified Senju that it filed an ANDA with a
`
`Paragraph IV certification challenging
`
`the ’131 patent. (EX2004.) Senju
`
`subsequently sued Lupin on August 15, 2014, for infringing the ’131 patent, which
`
`covers Prolensa®.1 (EX2009.) Lupin’s Paragraph IV letter did not advance any
`
`
`1 Other patents listed in the Orange Book as covering Prolensa® include U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,129,431 (“the ’431 patent”) (EX2001), U.S. Patent No. 8,669,290 (“the ’290
`
`patent”) (EX1001), U.S. Patent No. 8,871,813 (“the ’813 patent”) (EX1003), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,927,606 (“the ’606 patent”) (EX1004). Lupin also certified under
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`non-infringement positions as to many of the claims of the ’131 patent, thus
`
`confirming Lupin’s intention to copy Prolensa®. (EX2004.)
`
`The parties have proceeded for over a year and a half in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the District of New Jersey toward a final resolution of the matter. In
`
`addition, litigation has expanded to five other generic companies, also seeking to
`
`sell generic copies of Prolensa® and capitalize on its commercial success, and is
`
`currently ongoing against three generics, including Lupin. The Court consolidated
`
`the 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 Lupin’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 harassment”
`
`by “repeated litigation and administrative attacks.” Accord Healthcare, Inc. v. Eli
`
`Lilly & Co., IPR2013-00356, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2013) (Paper 13) (citing
`
`Paragraph IV against the ’431, ’290, ’813, and ’606 patents (EX2002; EX2003;
`
`EX2005; EX2006), and Senju later sued Lupin on these patents. (EX2007;
`
`EX2008; EX2010.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 at 48 (2011)). Lupin, moreover, chose to challenge only four
`
`of the five Prolensa® patents asserted against it in the district court, effectively
`
`either 1) confirming Lupin’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 Lupin does not
`
`believe in the strength of its obviousness arguments.
`
`Lupin’s failed prima facie case of obviousness
`
`B.
`On the latter point, Lupin has proposed two grounds of unpatentability based
`
`on Ogawa, Fu, and Sallmann: First, Ogawa in view of Fu, and then Sallmann in
`
`view of Ogawa. Lupin’s central theme is one of substituting ethoxylated
`
`octylphenols in Fu, which does not even disclose tyloxapol, for polysorbate 80 in
`
`Ogawa’s Example 6, or alternatively, substituting bromfenac in Ogawa’s Example
`
`6 for diclofenac in Sallmann’s Example 2. (Petition at 11-12.) Lupin, however,
`
`ignores that this is chemistry, well-recognized as an unpredictable art “where
`
`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 Lupin 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`formulation’s efficacy, risk profile, 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 unexpectedly give rise to multiple other problems, often
`
`leading to “start overs,” failures, frustration, and further experimentation, none of
`
`which yields obvious solutions. In fact, Lupin’s own expert, Dr. Jayne Lawrence,
`
`recognizes the unpredictability of such systems and that simply changing one
`
`parameter (e.g., temperature) does not yield predictable results: “[W]ithout further
`
`testing, it is not possible to predict whether the data related to the elevated
`
`temperature will have any relevance to the lower temperature.” (EX1005 at ¶ 302.)
`
`Because the ’131 patent’s formulations, including Prolensa®, treat ocular
`
`inflammation post-surgery, they require FDA approval. One does not just simply
`
`substitute one component for another and receive FDA approval to market the
`
`substituted product. If that were true, there would be a new FDA approved
`
`ophthalmic formulation almost every day. The reality, of course, is that these
`
`ophthalmic systems are unpredictable, as Dr. Lawrence acknowledges (id.), and it
`
`takes years of trial and error, testing and experimentation, and thousands of person
`
`hours to develop new products suitable for ophthalmic use. Lupin has innovated
`
`nothing, however, and instead has simply copied the FDA-approved Prolensa®
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`formulation. Lupin now seeks to evade liability for its willfully infringing actions
`
`by creating post hoc, simplistic substitution theories of unpatentability in an
`
`attempt to invalidate the patents covering these valuable assets.
`
`Lupin’s overly simplistic view of the technology at issue in the ’131 patent
`
`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 Lupin’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 (EX2013
`
`at 3:51-55), to chemically stabilize bromfenac from degradation evidenced by red
`
`insoluble particles. (EX1010 at Exp. Ex. 6.) A POSA would have readily
`
`understood, therefore, that oxidation caused bromfenac’s degradation. (EX2036 at
`
`5.) Fu, by contrast, taught the use of a solubilizer (an ethoxylated octylphenol,
`
`particularly Octoxynol 40 (see, e.g., EX1014 at 3:10-12; 5:25-27; Ex. 5)) to
`
`physically stabilize a solution of ketorolac (a structurally dissimilar NSAID from
`
`bromfenac) and benzalkonium chloride (BAC) against complexation. (Id. at 1:10-
`
`20; 3:10-12; Ex. 5.) The physical instability is manifested by the turbidity or
`
`cloudiness of the formulation. Fu indicates that it is Octoxynol 40’s ability to
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`solubilize the complex that clarifies the formulation and physically stabilizes it.
`
`(Id. at 9:34-36.)
`
`Ogawa and Fu would not have been combined as Lupin proposes. Lupin
`
`confuses chemical stability with physical stability, blending them together as if
`
`they were one and the same. But they constitute different problems eliciting
`
`different solutions. Lupin has postulated an obviousness position premised on
`
`Ogawa, which it admits is the closest prior art and which addresses the oxidative
`
`chemical degradation of bromfenac using an antioxidant. Arguing that Fu broadly
`
`teaches stabilizing aqueous NSAID formulations that contain BAC (Petition at 17-
`
`18), Lupin inappropriately seeks to address bromfenac’s chemical stability with
`
`Fu, which instead addresses the physical stability of an entirely different NSAID
`
`using a solubilizer. A POSA would not have sought to address the oxidation of
`
`bromfenac with a nonionic surfactant effectively taught as a solubilizer, for it
`
`would not have been expected to impede the oxidation process. And solubilizing
`
`the oxidized degradants would have done no good, for they are no longer
`
`bromfenac and would be inactive. A proposed solution that does not address the
`
`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); Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00115, slip op. at 18 (PTAB Apr. 20, 2015) (Paper 94).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`Moreover, even if combined, Ogawa and Fu to do not teach all of the
`
`elements of the claimed formulations and cannot legally establish obviousness.
`
`Neither Ogawa nor Fu discloses or ever alludes to tyloxapol. The ethoxylated
`
`octylphenols broadly referred to by Fu constitute an enormous class of compounds,
`
`from which tyloxapol would not be envisaged or suggested. Lupin traces a path to
`
`tyloxapol through Octoxynol 9, sparingly mentioned in Fu, contending that
`
`tyloxapol is an oligomer of Octoxynol 9. That is wrong. In fact, their repeating
`
`units are different, and when the compounds are viewed in their entirety, their
`
`extreme structural dissimilarity becomes readily apparent.
`
`Lupin’s proposed combination of Ogawa in view of Sallmann similarly fails.
`
`Sallmann is directed to formulations of the potassium salt of diclofenac, an NSAID
`
`known to be poorly soluble in water. (EX2035 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 by showing that diclofenac potassium had surprisingly better
`
`ocular penetration than previous diclofenac sodium formulations. (EX1011 at 1:48-
`
`59.) Sallmann formulates diclofenac potassium with a number of additional
`
`excipients, including solubilizers to solubilize the poorly-water soluble diclofenac.
`
`Tyloxapol is listed as one of a number of solubilizers. (EX1011 at 4:52-67.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`As with Fu, a POSA would not have addressed the oxidation of bromfenac
`
`with a solubilizer like tyloxapol. See Cadence, 780 F.3d at 1375. It would not have
`
`been expected to inhibit oxidation. Nor would solubilizing the oxidized degradants
`
`help, for they are not bromfenac. To a POSA, solubilizers typically solubilize
`
`poorly-soluble drugs, like diclofenac. (EX2035 at 12.) Because bromfenac was
`
`known to readily dissolve in water (EX1053 at 6), there simply would not have
`
`been any reason, other than hindsight, to use tyloxapol with bromfenac.
`
`Similarly, a POSA would not have been motivated to substitute 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.
`
`Lastly, all claims of the ’131 patent require that bromfenac be the sole
`
`pharmaceutical active ingredient. Some claims also recite the transition term
`
`“consists essentially of.” To be true to the essence of Sallmann, if combined with
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`Ogawa, a POSA would have had a formulation with two active ingredients. Not
`
`only would that violate the “sole pharmaceutical active ingredient” requirement of
`
`the ’131 patent claims, it could also lead to drug–drug interactions affecting the
`
`properties of the claimed formulations. Lupin, whose burden it is to prove
`
`otherwise, has not done so.
`
`Senju’s compelling objective evidence of patentability
`
`C.
`Senju proffers compelling objective indicia of patentability, which Lupin 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 Lupin has not substantiated, the art of record
`
`establishes that polysorbate 80 should outperform tyloxapol. (EX1022 at Table 1;
`
`EX2035 at 7:34-37.)
`
`Bromfenac becomes vulnerable to degradation at a pH of about 8 and
`
`precipitously degrades as the pH approaches 7.0, passing through the pH of natural
`
`tears at 7.4. (EX1010 at Exp. Ex. 4, Table 8.) Using the same stress test disclosed
`
`in Ogawa (four weeks at 60° C.), Senju has demonstrated in the ’131 patent vastly
`
`superior and completely unexpected chemical stability results for tyloxapol over
`
`polysorbate 80 at the harsh pH of 7.0. (EX1002 at Table 1.) Because of
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`bromfenac’s enhanced degradation at pH 7.0, this test severely challenges the
`
`formulations and effectively delineates the relative stabilization capability of the
`
`tested compounds. The comparative test reported in Table 1 of the ’131 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%
`
`better at stabilizing bromfenac from degradation. (EX1010 at Table 1, Comparison
`
`Ex. 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 less conducive to degrading bromfenac (see EX1010
`
`at Experimental Example 4, Table 8), formulations of tyloxapol achieved
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`stabilization results comparable to those of polysorbate 80 in Ogawa’s Example 6,
`
`but notably did so using amounts of tyloxapol of about 1/3, 1/5, and 1/8 the amount
`
`of polysorbate 80. (EX1002 at Table 2; EX1010 at Ex. 6.) Additionally, these
`
`results were achieved without using the antioxidant sodium sulfite, touted by
`
`Ogawa as instrumental in achieving “remarkably enhanced” stability results.
`
`(EX1010 at Exp. Ex. 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. (EX2033; EX1008;
`
`EX1009.) With these new benefits, Prolensa® garnered significant acclaim in the
`
`medical community (EX2014), drawing in doctors and patients alike, despite the
`
`availability of
`
`lower-priced generic, non-prior art commercial bromfenac
`
`formulations. (EX2031.)
`
`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. (See Lupin’s
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`projections in EX2026 at 4.) Even they, however, have recognized the strength and
`
`inventiveness of the Prolensa® patents. Apotex, Paddock, and Metrics, all generic
`
`drug manufacturers selling or seeking to sell ophthalmic products, initially
`
`challenged the ’131 patent in district court. Yet they all licensed the patent and
`
`took consent judgments and injunctions specifically acknowledging the ’131
`
`patent’s validity. (EX2027; EX2028; EX2029.) 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.”).
`
`Given Lupin’s failure to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, as well
`
`as its failure to rebut significant objective evidence of patentability, Lupin has
`
`failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged
`
`claim. The Board should deny Lupin’s petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`II.
`
`Statement of relief requested
`
`Senju respectfully requests that Lupin’s petition be denied at least because:
`
`(i) it fails to provide legally proper motivation to combine Ogawa with Fu or
`
`Sallmann with Ogawa; (ii) it fails to prove the existence of each element of each
`
`challenged claim from Ogawa, Fu, and Sallmann; and (iii) it fails to rebut the
`
`compelling objective indicia of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`
`III. Claim construction
`Lupin does not propose any particular claim constructions. (Petition at 5-6.)
`
`Senju agrees that the claims do not need express construction at this stage in light
`
`of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history of the ’131 patent.
`
`IV. Level of skill in the art
`Lupin states that a POSA would generally be “a pharmaceutical scientist
`
`involved in the research and development of pharmaceuticals, and would have a
`
`Ph.D. and several years of experience in the field. The amount of post-graduate
`
`level experience would depend upon the level of formal education and particular
`
`experience in the field.” (Petition at 6-7; EX1005 at ¶ 21.) 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. (See, e.g., EX2037, a
`
`declaration of a petitioner’s expert from related IPR2014-01043, offered in a
`
`litigation on a patent similarly involving ophthalmic formulations.)
`
`V. The petition should be denied for failing to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that any of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`A. The claims of the ’131 patent
`The ’131 patent was filed on January 28, 2014, and claims priority benefit of
`
`the January 21, 2003, filing date of JP 2003-012427 under 35 U.S.C. §119.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`(EX1002.) The ’131 patent has three independent claims (claims 1, 7, and 13) and
`
`27 dependent claims.
`
`The dependent claims do not stand or fall with the independent claims but
`
`rather constitute separate claims assessed for patentability on their own merits.
`
`Senju will first address the impropriety of Lupin’s obviousness arguments,
`
`applicable to all claims, followed by a discussion in Section VII infra on the
`
`separate patentability of various individual claims.
`
`B.
`
`The combinations of Ogawa in view of Fu and Ogawa in view of
`Sallmann do not render any claim of the ’131 patent obvious
`
`Lupin’s positions on obviousness are legally deficient. “[A] patent
`
`composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
`
`each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata
`
`Health, Inc., IPR2013-00276, slip op. at 7 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2014) (Paper 43). More
`
`is needed. A sufficient rationale to substantiate a motivation to combine the art in
`
`the manner proposed is required. See BSP Software v. Motio Inc., IPR2013-00307,
`
`2013 WL 8563944, at *9 (PTAB 2013) (the “reason to combine the teachings . . .
`
`appears to be that both references are concerned with version control . . . which,
`
`without more, is an insufficient rationale to combine . . . .”). Lupin has not met this
`
`requirement.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent No. 8,754,131
`
`Indeed, a POSA interprets the prior art using common sense and an
`
`appropriate perspective. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011). The proper perspective considers both the problem the prior art
`
`sought to solve and other blaze marks, such as data, to direct and guide how a
`
`POSA would have viewed the teachings. See Cadence, 780 F.3d at 1375 (relying
`
`on the problem in the art to be solved in discerning how a POSA would have
`
`viewed the proposed combination of prior art teachings); Insite Vision Inc. v.
`
`Sandoz, Inc., 783 F.3d 853, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (indicating how data in the art, or
`
`the lack thereof, impacts a POSA’s trek through the art and selection of teachings);
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., No. 10-528-GMS, 2014 WL 5388100, at *9 (D.
`
`Del. Oct. 22, 2014) (POSA would not have found optimization argument obvious
`
`without some data to support it). “To render an invention obvio