UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APOTEX CORP.
`APOTEX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Patent 8,629,111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ALLERGAN, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ‘111 PATENT ................................................ 7 
`A.  Dry Eye Disease is a Serious Disease ........................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`Palliative Treatments Only Alleviate the Symptoms of Dry Eye
`Disease ....................................................................................... 7
`
`C. Allergan’s Development of RESTASIS® ................................. 8
`
`
`III. THE ‘111 PATENT .................................................................................. 9 
`It was counterintuitive to combine 0.05% cyclosporin with a
`A.  
`vehicle containing 1.25% castor oil ......................................... 10
`
`
`
`1. Castor oil is cytotoxic and an irritant ....................................... 10
`
`2. Increasing the amount of castor oil in the emulsion would be
`expected to reduce the thermodynamic activity of the emulsion
` .................................................................................................. 12
`
`
`3. PK data predicted 0.05% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil would
`be less effective than 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil and
`0.1% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil ......................................... 13 
`
`
`B.  During prosecution the Examiner agreed that the performance
`of the claimed emulsion relative to the Ding ‘979 patent
`emulsions was unexpected ....................................................... 18
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 19 
`A.  An emulsion that is “therapeutically effective” must treat the
`underlying disease .................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The Ding ‘979 patent does not anticipate claims 1-27 ............ 23
`
`C. 
`
`Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-27 would not have been obvious
`over Ding ‘607/Ding ‘979 plus Sall ......................................... 28
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`
`1.        The inventors proceeded contrary to the teachings of the prior
`art and developed an emulsion that has surprising therapeutic
`efficacy against dry eye disease ............................................... 30
`
`
`2.        There was no reasonable expectation that increasing castor oil
`concentration would increase therapeutic efficacy .................. 34
`
`
`3. The differences between the claimed emulsion and the Ding
`‘979 emulsions are differences in kind, not degree ................. 37
`
`D. 
`
`Claims 11 and 16 would not have been obvious over Ding
`‘607/Ding ‘979 plus Sall plus Acheampong ............................ 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 39 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`EX. 2002
`EX. 2003
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`EX. 2001
`NDA 21-023 Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion 0.05%, Original
`NDA Filing, Vol. 1 (Feb. 24, 1999)
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,839,342
`Said et al., Investigative Opthamology & Visual Science, vol. 48,
`No. 11 (Nov. 2007):5000-5006
`Alba et al., Folia Ophthalmol. Jpn. 40:902-908 (1989)
`Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, definition of therapeutic
`Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, definition of therapeutic
`Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, definition of palliative
`
`EX. 2004
`EX. 2005
`EX. 2006
`EX. 2007
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`No. 2014-1275, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2015) ............................ passim
`
`Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc.,
`119 F.3d 953 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................. 38
`
`Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
`441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 24
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`No. 2014-1301, slip op. (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................ 22
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release
`Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 35
`
`Galderma Laboratories L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013), explained .......................................... 31, 39
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................... 24
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................... 22
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814, F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ........................................................ 24
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. ....................................................................................................... 22
`
`37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b) ............................................................ 43
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 8,629,111 (“the ‘111 patent”) covers Allergan’s
`
`RESTASIS® medication for treating a serious eye condition known as
`
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca (“KCS”), more commonly known as dry eye disease.
`
`Allergan has 4 other Orange Book-listed patents that cover RESTASIS® and its
`
`use, each of which is the subject of an IPR petition that Apotex filed.1
`
`RESTASIS® is the only prescription medication indicated for treating the
`
`underlying disease itself, as opposed to relieving symptoms of the disease. See
`
`EX. 1043 (RESTASIS® label), p. 1; EX. 1004 (Sall), p. 8 (“[T]here is currently no
`
`therapeutic treatment for dry eye disease. The only treatments available are
`
`palliative in nature and provide insufficient relief for many patients”).
`
`RESTASIS® is a therapeutic emulsion that contains 0.05% by weight cyclosporin
`
`A in a liquid vehicle that includes 1.25% by weight castor oil, polysorbate 80, and
`
`other excipients. EX. 1043, pp. 3-4; EX. 2001, p. 256. Cyclosporin is an
`
`immunosuppressant that, when delivered to the eye, suppresses the inflammatory
`
`processes underlying dry eye disease. EX. 1004 (Sall), pp. 1-2. The distinction
`
`between treating the disease itself—i.e., therapeutic treatment—versus merely
`
`relieving symptoms is key for purposes of this IPR proceeding.
`
`
`1 The other 4 patents are U.S. 8,633,162; U.S. 8,642,556; U.S. 8,648,048; and U.S.
`
`8,685,930.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`
`
`
`Although Apotex refers to the “therapeutic effect” of castor oil in the
`
`petition, see, e.g., Petition at p. 9, castor oil has no therapeutic effect because it
`
`does not treat the disease itself. Cyclosporin is the only therapeutic agent present
`
`in RESTASIS®. However, because cyclosporin has limited solubility in water, it
`
`is necessary to combine it with a lipophilic material, such as castor oil, in a vehicle
`
`to deliver it to the eye. See EX. 1003 (Ding ‘979), 1:40-53.
`
`Castor oil was known to irritate the sensitive tissues of the eye and the
`
`conventional teaching was to limit its use in ophthalmic formulations. See, e.g.,
`
`id., 3:43-48. Allergan’s prior art Ding ‘979 patent, however, disclosed that
`
`combining castor oil with an emulsifier and dispersing agent such as polysorbate
`
`80, along with other excipients, could reduce the irritation potential of an emulsion
`
`vehicle using castor oil. Id., 3:49-53. When cyclosporin was added to a vehicle
`
`formulated in this way, the resulting composition exhibited reasonably high
`
`thermodynamic activity, and avoided the cyclosporin crystallizing and
`
`precipitating out of the vehicle. Id., 1:25-28. But even in these emulsions, the
`
`castor oil remains a component in the vehicle used to deliver the therapeutic
`
`agent—the cyclosporin—to tissues of the eye.
`
` The claims of the ‘111 patent recite the specific combination of 0.05%
`
`cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil/polysorbate 80 found in RESTASIS®. This
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`particular combination is unique and has unexpected therapeutic effect against dry
`
`eye disease relative to emulsions containing 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor
`
`oil/polysorbate 80 and 0.1% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil/polysorbate 80. The
`
`latter two emulsions are disclosed in Allergan’s Ding ‘979 patent (EX. 1003, 4:30-
`
`45, Example 2, compositions D and E), over which the Examiner rejected the
`
`claims during the original prosecution of the ‘111 patent.
`
`The Ding ‘979 patent is the closest prior art to the ‘111 patent. During
`
`prosecution of the ‘111 patent, Allergan presented the results of pharmacokinetic
`
`(“PK”) experiments comparing the claimed emulsion to the two emulsions
`
`disclosed in the Ding ‘979 patent. EX. 1019, pp. 229-290 (Response to Office
`
`Action dated 10/17/13; Declaration of Dr. Rhett Schiffman, pp. 245-270, ¶¶ 9-20;
`
`Declaration of Dr. Mayssa Attar, pp. 271-290, ¶¶ 6-14). The PK experiments
`
`predicted that on the basis of bioavailability, the claimed emulsion would have
`
`been less effective than the two emulsions disclosed in the Ding ‘979 patent. Id.
`
`Surprisingly, however, the claimed emulsion was more effective than the
`
`0.05%/0.625%/1.00% emulsion and at least as effective as the 0.1%/1.25%/1.00%
`
`emulsion. Id.
`
`The claimed emulsion cut the amount of cyclosporin in half without loss of
`
`efficacy. This feature is particularly advantageous because cyclosporin has been
`
`known to cause serious liver and kidney damage. See EX. 2002, 3:59-66.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`Moreover, it was achieved by doubling the amount of castor oil relative to the
`
`composition in the Ding ‘979 patent that contained 0.05% cyclosporin, a choice
`
`that was counterintuitive given that castor oil was cytotoxic and known to irritate
`
`patients’ eyes. See, e.g., EX. 2003 (Said et al.), p. 1 (“Castor oil is the commonly
`
`used lipophilic vector but has been shown to be cytotoxic”); EX. 2004 (Alba et al.),
`
`p. 7 (describing “significant corneal edema” associated with castor oil when used
`
`as a vehicle for cyclosporin).
`
`The natural inclination of a person of skill in the art would have been to use
`
`the minimum amount of castor oil necessary to dissolve the cyclosporin. In the
`
`case of 0.05% cyclosporin, that amount would have been no greater than the
`
`0.625% amount of castor oil that the Ding ‘979 patent used and described as
`
`reducing the irritation associated with the cyclosporin while maintaining
`
`reasonably high thermodynamic activity. Using more castor oil would be expected
`
`to possibly increase irritation and reduce thermodynamic activity.
`
` The Examiner allowed the claims over the Ding ‘979 patent on the basis of
`
`these surprising results. EX. 1019, pp. 441-443. Apotex now asks the Board to re-
`
`visit the patentability of the ‘111 patent claims over the very same Ding ‘979
`
`patent.2 However, Apotex offers no credible evidence to rebut the surprising
`
`2 The petition actually alleges unpatentability based upon the Ding ‘607 patent
`
`incorporating the Ding ‘979 patent by reference. However, for the reasons
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`results on which the Examiner relied when she allowed the claims. In fact, one of
`
`Apotex’s own experts, Dr. Ta, agrees that the PK data Allergan presented to the
`
`Examiner predicts that both of the emulsions disclosed in the Ding ‘979 patent
`
`would have been more effective than the claimed emulsion. See EX. 1007 (Ta
`
`Decl’n), ¶¶ 56-57.
`
`Apotex wrongly argues that any improvement is due to the “therapeutic”
`
`effect of castor oil, and that increasing the amount of castor oil would have been
`
`beneficial by increasing the residence time of the emulsion on the surface of the
`
`eye. See EX. 1005 (Xia Decl’n), ¶¶ 192, 280, and 288; EX. 1007 (Ta Decl’n), ¶¶
`
`48, 55, and 57; Petition, pp. 38-40. Apotex further alleges that the Sall paper (EX.
`
`1004) would have motivated a person of ordinary skill to combine 0.05%
`
`cyclosporin with 1.25% castor oil. See EX. 1005 (Xia Decl’n), ¶¶ 193 and 275-
`
`278; EX. 1007 (Ta Decl’n), ¶¶ 36-38; Petition, pp. 50-52. But castor oil has no
`
`therapeutic effect on dry eye disease. Cyclosporin is responsible for the
`
`therapeutic effect and must be delivered from the lipophilic vehicle into the
`
`ophthalmic tissue. Increasing the residence time of the emulsion on the eye will
`
`not improve delivery if, based upon thermodynamic principles, the lipophilic
`
`cyclosporin remains dissolved in the lipophilic castor oil carrier. See EX. 1005
`
`discussed in this response, there is no meaningful difference between the proposed
`
`combination of Ding patents versus the Ding ‘979 patent alone.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`(Xia Decl’n), ¶ 195 (noting that because cyclosporin is lipophilic, it prefers to
`
`remain dissolved in the castor oil carrier).
`
`Sall concludes that emulsions containing both 0.05% and 0.1% cyclosporin
`
`were “safe and effective.” EX. 1004 (Sall), p. 1. However, Sall does not disclose
`
`the amount of castor oil, polysborbate 80, and other excipients in each
`
`“proprietary” vehicle. This omission, which Apotex ignores, is critical. The PK
`
`data that the Examiner considered during prosecution predicted that emulsions
`
`with 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil would be more effective than emulsions
`
`with 0.05% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil. Moreover, as noted above, castor oil
`
`was known to be cytotoxic and irritating. Both points are consistent with the Ding
`
`‘979 patent, where the only example of an emulsion with 0.05% cyclosporin
`
`included 0.625% castor oil. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill reading Sall
`
`logically would have used 0.05% cyclosporin with 0.625% castor oil—not 1.25%.
`
`The inventors’ decision to use 1.25% castor oil was counterintuitive and produced
`
`an emulsion that was surprisingly effective.
`
` Apotex’s petition merely recycles references and grounds raised during the
`
`original prosecution, but offers no credible new evidence that would compel a
`
`different conclusion. Apotex’s petition, therefore, fails to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one claim of the ’111 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly,
`
`Allergan requests that the Board deny the petition.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ‘111 PATENT
`
`A. Dry Eye Disease is a Serious Disease
`Dry eye disease, or KCS, is a serious ocular disease that afflicts millions of
`
`patients. Indeed, it is one of the most common patient complaints treated by
`
`ophthalmologists. It is estimated that it affects millions of people worldwide. EX.
`
`1004 (Sall), pp. 1-2; EX. 1023 (Stevenson), pp. 2-3. Dry eye disease is not simply
`
`occasionally feeling eye dryness; it is a serious condition that can substantially
`
`impact the quality of life in patients who have it. Patients who suffer from dry eye
`
`disease generally experience symptoms such as ocular discomfort, which can
`
`include a dry, gritty feeling in the eye and foreign body sensation; burning;
`
`irritation; photophobia; and blurred vision. Id. Severe dry eye disease can also
`
`lead to an inability to produce tears and an increased risk of ocular surface damage
`
`and ocular infection. Id.
`
`
`
`Palliative Treatments Only Alleviate the Symptoms of Dry Eye
`Disease
`
`B.
`
`
` Dry eye disease is the result of an underlying inflammatory process.
`
`Conventional medications for dry eye disease, though, do not affect these
`
`underlying processes, and thus do not treat dry eye. Rather, they merely provide
`
`palliative relief in the form of tear replacement or eye lubrication. EX. 1004 (Sall),
`
`pp. 1-2; EX. 1023 (Stevenson), pp. 2-3.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`Prior to the filing date of the ‘111 patent, a number of palliative treatments
`
`for dry eye were known. Examples included artificial tear formulations, punctal
`
`plugs, and topical steroids. EX. 1020, pp. 2-3. Emulsions comprising admixtures
`
`of polysorbate 80 and oils such as castor oil, corn oil, sunflower oil, and light
`
`mineral oil were also known to provide palliative relief. EX. 1002 (Ding ‘607),
`
`3:41-48. For example, the Ding ‘607 patent describes the ability of these
`
`emulsions, when applied to the surface of the eye, to form a film that remained in
`
`place and “retard[ed] water evaporation from the eye which alleviates dry eye
`
`symptoms.” Id., 3:66 to 4:3. As the Ding ‘607 patent notes, these treatments were
`
`palliative—they alleviated dry eye symptoms, but did not treat the disease itself.
`
`C. Allergan’s Development of RESTASIS®
`
`RESTASIS® is formulated as an emulsion of 0.05% by weight cyclosporin
`
`A, 1.25% by weight castor oil, and 1% polysorbate 80, along with other excipients.
`
`EX. 1043, pp. 3-4; EX. 2001, p. 256. RESTASIS® is different from any other
`
`drug prescribed for dry eye disease. Its active ingredient, cyclosporin A, is a drug
`
`with immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties. EX. 1004 (Sall), pp. 1-
`
`2. Unlike other dry eye medications—which relieve the symptoms of dry eye
`
`disease, but do not treat it—RESTASIS® actually affects the underlying processes
`
`that are thought to lead to dry eye disease. In other words, it treats the disease
`
`rather than just relieving the symptoms. See EX. 1043, p. 1.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`In late 2002, FDA approved RESTASIS®, the first prescription ophthalmic
`
`emulsion ever approved, “to increase tear production in patients whose tear
`
`production is presumed to be suppressed due to ocular inflammation associated
`
`with keratoconjunctivitis sicca.” EX. 1043, p. 1. RESTASIS® remains the only
`
`product approved by FDA that increases the eye’s production of natural tears, even
`
`12 years after its original approval and despite a substantial commercial incentive
`
`for developing dry eye treatments. See id.
`
`III. THE ‘111 PATENT
`
`The ‘111 patent is one of several patents covering Allergan’s RESTASIS®
`
`medication and its use to treat conditions such as dry eye disease. It contains 27
`
`claims, each directed towards an ophthalmic emulsion that includes 0.05% by
`
`weight cyclosporin A, 1.25% by weight castor oil, and polysorbate 80. Claim 1 is
`
`representative. It recites:
`
`1. A topical ophthalmic emulsion for treating an eye of a human
`comprising cyclosporin A in an amount of about 0.05% by weight,
`polysorbate 80, acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer, water,
`and castor oil in an amount of about 1.25% by weight,
`wherein cyclosporin A is the only peptide present in the topical
`ophthalmic emulsion.
`
`This is the formulation of RESTASIS®. Claims 20-27 recite that the
`
`ophthalmic emulsions be “therapeutically effective” in treating dry eye,
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca, or increasing tear production, which are the FDA-
`
`approved uses for RESTASIS®.
`
`A.
`
`It was counterintuitive to combine 0.05% cyclosporin with a
`vehicle containing 1.25% castor oil
`
`
`The claims reflect the inventors’ discovery that emulsions containing 0.05%
`
`cyclosporin A in a vehicle containing 1.25% castor oil, polysorbate 80, and co-
`
`polymers of acrylic acid were surprisingly effective, measured by standard
`
`ophthalmic criteria, for treating dry eye disease relative to emulsions containing
`
`twice as much cyclosporin or half as much castor oil described in the prior art Ding
`
`‘979 patent. These results were surprising for a number of reasons.
`
`1.
`
`Castor oil is cytotoxic and an irritant
`
`Prior to the filing date of the ‘111 patent, castor oil was known to be
`
`cytotoxic and an irritant. For example, one group of researchers wrote (EX. 2003
`
`(Said et al.), p. 1):
`
`Castor oil, which mainly contains ricinoleic acid (90% of total
`fatty acid content), is one of the lipophilic vehicles used in
`cyclosporine eye drops. However, it presents both a low-stability and
`an epithelial and conjunctival toxicity as well as systemic adverse
`effects such as purgative effects, hypersensitivity, nephrotoxicity, and
`neurotoxicity. Since castor oil is presumed to be responsible for
`cytoxic effects in the eye, its replacement by another lipophilic vector
`could result in better tolerance of the drops.
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`These researchers then investigated 4 other vegetable oils as replacements for
`
`castor oil. Id. Similarly, a different group noted that there was “significant corneal
`
`edema” associated with castor oil when used as a vehicle for cyclosporin, causing
`
`the group to discard it in favor of other lipophilic carriers. EX. 2004 (Alba et al.),
`
`p. 7. And Ding ‘979 states that “conventional teaching in the art is away from a
`
`formulation which utilizes a higher fatty acid glyceride, such as castor oil, and
`
`cyclosporine.” EX. 1003 ((Ding ‘979), 3:46-48.
`
`Because of the cytotoxic and other undesirable properties of castor oil, a
`
`person of ordinary skill looking for a lipophilic vehicle in which to dissolve the
`
`highly lipophilic cyclosporin either would have chosen a carrier other than castor
`
`oil or, if he chose castor oil, would have used the minimum amount necessary to
`
`dissolve cyclosporin. Given that the Ding ‘979 patent described emulsions
`
`containing 0.05% cyclosporin in a vehicle with 0.625% castor oil and polysorbate
`
`80, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that a concentration of
`
`0.625% was sufficient to dissolve cyclosporin and would not have selected a
`
`higher amount—certainly not 1.25% castor oil, which was twice as high.
`
`Apotex’s Dr. Xia agrees that castor oil was known to cause eye irritation and
`
`would direct a person of skill to use a lower amount rather than a higher amount of
`
`castor oil in the emulsion. Petition, p. 40; EX. 1005 (Xia Decl’n), ¶ 195.
`
`According to Dr. Xia, this explains what would have “directed a POSA towards the
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`1.25% emulsion over higher castor oils concentrations.” Id. But that simply begs
`
`the question: why wouldn’t it instead direct a person of skill toward the 0.625%
`
`emulsion over higher castor oil concentrations? Apotex and Dr. Xia never answer
`
`that question. The inventors’ decision to combine 0.05% cyclosporin with a
`
`vehicle containing 1.25% castor oil and polysorbate 80 was counterintuitive and
`
`not obvious.
`
`2.
`
`Increasing the amount of castor oil in the emulsion would be
`expected to reduce the thermodynamic activity of the emulsion
`
`
`A person of skill would know the basic thermodynamic principles governing
`
`
`
`diffusion and that increasing the amount of castor oil in the emulsion would reduce
`
`the diffusion of the cyclosporin out of the castor oil and into the tissues of the eye.
`
`The Ding ‘979 patent discussed using enough oil to maintain a stable composition
`
`that did not cause the cyclosporin to precipitate, but not too much to reduce the
`
`necessary thermodynamic activity necessary for the cyclosporin to diffuse out of
`
`the emulsion and into the eye. EX. 1003 (Ding ‘979), 2:46-57; 3:7-38; 5:18-25.
`
`The Ding ‘979 patent discloses emulsions containing 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625%
`
`castor oil and 0.10% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil. Id., Ex. 1 at 4:32-43. The Ding
`
`‘979 patent explains that when formulated in the way instructed, “the drug has
`
`reasonably high thermodynamic activity.” Id., 3:25-27.
`
`
`
`Apotex’s Dr. Xia agrees that basic thermodynamic principles govern the
`
`diffusion of cyclosporin out of the emulsion. Petition, p. 40; EX. 1005 (Xia
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`Decl’n, ¶ 195. Indeed, Dr. Xia acknowledges that increasing the amount of castor
`
`oil would reduce the amount of drug diffusing out of the emulsion and lead to
`
`poorer drug bioavailability. Id. Dr. Xia then argues that because of this
`
`thermodynamic issue, “a POSA would have reason to select 1.25% castor oil
`
`(instead of a higher amount) to stay within the preferred ratio of CsA to castor oil,
`
`while improving residence time on the eye.” Id. But again, Dr. Xia and Apotex do
`
`not explain why it would not cause a person of skill to use an emulsion with
`
`0.625% castor oil, which would have better thermodynamic properties and which
`
`the prior art Ding ‘979 patent discloses as having “reasonably high thermodynamic
`
`activity.” The inventors’ decision to combine 0.05% cyclosporin with a vehicle
`
`containing 1.25% castor oil and polysorbate 80 simply was counterintuitive and
`
`not obvious.
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`PK data predicted 0.05% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil would be
`less effective than 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil and 0.1%
`cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil
`
`
`Allergan performed PK studies on animal eyes that compared the PK
`
`properties of 3 different ophthalmic emulsions:
`
`(1) 0.05% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil/1.00% polysorbate 80,
`
`(2) 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil/1.00% polysorbate 80,and
`
`(3) 0.1% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil/1.00% polysorbate 80.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`The latter two emulsions are described in the Ding ‘979 patent. Dr. Mayssa
`
`Attar, in her declaration submitted during prosecution of the ‘111 patent, described
`
`these experiments. EX. 1019, pp. 272-73 (Decl’n of Dr. Mayssa Attar, ¶¶ 6-8). As
`
`Dr. Attar explained, in order to obtain cyclosporin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-
`
`apoptotic therapeutic effects, it must be delivered to ocular tissues such as the
`
`cornea, conjunctiva, and lacrimal gland. Id. (¶ 6)). The more cyclosporin that
`
`reaches these tissues, the more therapeutically effective the drug will be in treating
`
`dry eye. Id.
`
`PK studies involving animal eyes are used to evaluate the amount of drug
`
`absorbed in ocular tissues. Allergan performed PK studies comparing the extent to
`
`which the cyclosporin in the 3 above-described emulsions was absorbed in two
`
`ocular tissues: the cornea and the conjunctiva. Id. (¶ 7). As shown in the graph,
`
`reproduced below, and explained by Dr. Attar, the results show that in both the
`
`cornea and conjunctiva, the amount of cyclosporin delivered to the ocular tissue
`
`was greater in emulsions containing 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil and
`
`0.1% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil than in the claimed emulsion containing 0.05%
`
`cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil. Id.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`
`
`
`Based upon these results, according to Dr. Attar, a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have expected that both the 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil and 0.1%
`
`cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil emulsions would have been more therapeutically
`
`effective for treating dry eye disease than the claimed emulsion. Id., p. 273 (¶ 8).
`
`In other words, one would expect that increasing the amount of castor oil relative
`
`to the amount of cyclosporin would decrease bioavailability and thus therapeutic
`
`effectiveness. Apotex’s expert, Dr. Ta, agreed with Dr. Attar’s characterization of
`
`the PK data (EX. 1007, ¶ 55):
`
`[I]t would not be surprising that the formulation containing the
`higher amount of castor oil (1.25%) and the lowest amount of CsA
`(0.05%) showed lower bioavailability in [Exhibit B] because the
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`presence of a higher percentage of castor oil in the emulsion would
`affect emulsion particle size, stability and release rate of the lipophilic
`CsA into the tissue …. Finally, it would not be surprising that the
`emulsion containing 0.1% CsA and 1.25% had higher bioavailability
`when compared to the emulsion containing 0.05% CsA and 1.25%
`castor oil (even though they both contained 1.25% castor oil) because
`the 0.1% CsA emulsion would have contained twice as much CsA
`compared to the 0.05% CsA emulsion …. Thus, the data presented in
`[Exhibit B] are not surprising.
`
`
`Dr. Ta, Dr. Xia, and Dr. Attar, therefore, all agree that utilizing a higher amount of
`
`castor oil in the emulsion should lead to less diffusion into the ocular tissues and
`
`lower bioavailability.
`
`But the actual results, based upon standard ophthalmic measures of efficacy,
`
`tell a different story. During prosecution, Allergan presented the results of
`
`experiments comparing the claimed emulsion to the two emulsions disclosed in the
`
`Ding ‘979 patent, measured according to two key objective testing parameters for
`
`dry eye: Schirmer Tear Testing and decrease in Corneal Staining. Exhibit E,
`
`attached to the Declaration of Dr. Rhett Schiffman, shows the results of two studies
`
`comparing the performance of a 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil emulsion to
`
`that of a 0.05% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil emulsion. EX. 1019, pp. 249-50 and
`
`267-68 (Decl’n of Dr. Rhett Schiffman, ¶¶ 17-19 and Exhibit E). In both studies,
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`the 0.05% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil emulsion performed significantly better
`
`than the 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil emulsion—contrary to what the PK
`
`experiments predicted. See id.
`
`Allergan also presented results comparing the performance of a 0.1%
`
`cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil emulsion with the claimed 0.05% cyclosporin/1.25%
`
`castor oil emulsion with respect to 4 parameters: Corneal Staining, Schirmer Tear
`
`Testing, blurred vision, and decrease in the number of artificial tears (palliative
`
`treatment) used by patients. The results are shown in Exhibit D attached to the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Rhett Schiffman. EX. 1019, pp. 247-49 and 264-65 (Decl’n of
`
`Dr. Rhett Schiffman, ¶¶ 8 and 14-16 and Exhibit D). The claimed 0.05%
`
`cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil emulsion performed better than the 0.1%
`
`cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil emulsion with respect to Schirmer Tear Testing,
`
`blurred vision, and use of artificial tears, and was comparable with respect to
`
`Corneal Staining. Id. Again, these results were contrary to what the PK
`
`experiments predicted. See id.
`
` The test results depicted in Exhibit D correspond to Phase 3 clinical
`
`testing Allergan conducted, which is also described in the Sall paper (EX. 1004).
`
`The important distinction between the two is that Sall does not describe the
`
`composition of the vehicles, instead noting that their formulations were
`
`proprietary. Sall merely recites emulsions containing either 0.05% cyclosporin or
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01282
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0059IP1
`0.1% cyclosporin. Thus, a person of ordinary skill reading the Sall paper would
`
`not have known the materials in the vehicles and certainly not the castor oil content
`
`of the vehicles tested. Based upon the Ding ‘979 patent, which described
`
`emulsions containing 0.05% cyclosporin/0.625% castor oil/1.00 polysorbate 80
`
`and 0.1% cyclosporin/1.25% castor oil/1.00% polysorbate 80, it would have been
`
`entirely logical for a person of ordinary skill to conclude that Sall was testing those
`
`two emulsions, rather than the claimed emulsion.
`
`
`
`
`B. During prosecution the Examiner agreed that the performance of
`
`the claimed emulsion relative to the Ding ‘979 patent emulsions
`
`was unexpected
`
`The Examiner repeatedly rejected the ‘111 patent claims as obvious over the
`
`Ding ‘979 patent during prosecution. The Examiner agreed to withdraw the
`
`rejection and allow the claims on the basis of Allergan’s evidence of unexpected
`
`results. In her reasons for allowance, the Examiner stated (EX. 1019, p. 443)
`
`(emphasis added):
`
`Taking the results of th