`Patent No. 8,729,094
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. and
`DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC.
`Requestors
`
`v.
`
`HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. and ROCHE PALO ALTO LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,729,094
`Issue Date: May 20, 2014
`Title: LIQUID PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS OF PALONOSETRON
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`(Exhibit 1040)
`
`DECLARATION OF PATRICK P. DELUCA, Ph.D.
`
`4122591_ 1.docx
`
`Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., et al.
`V.
`Helsinn Healthcare S.A., et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,729,094
`Reddy Exhibit 1040
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-
`Patent No. 8,729,094
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`I, PATRICK P. DELUCA, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I am a US citizen and a resident of the state of Kentucky.
`
`I am a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Pharmaceutical
`
`Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky. I received a B.S. and M.S.
`
`in Pharmacy from Temple University in 1957 and 1960, respectively. I received
`
`my Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from Temple University in 1963.
`
`3.
`
`During my career of over 50 years, my research and teaching interests
`
`in pharmaceutical science and technology have been in various areas, including
`
`parenteral and intravenous pharmaceutical formulations and drug product stability.
`
`I have published over 225 research articles and authored or co-authored chapters in
`
`several textbooks in the field, including a textbook on formulating small volume
`
`parenteral drugs, such as the setrons. (Exh. 1 042.)
`
`4.
`
`I have received numerous awards and honors for my research and
`
`teaching achievements. I am a founding member and Fellow of the American
`
`Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists ("AAPS") and served as its President
`
`between 2008 and 2009. I was the first Editor-in-Chief of the international journal
`
`Pharmaceutical Development and Technology between 1995 and 1999, the first
`
`4122591_ 1.docx
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`Editor-in-Chief of the AAPS online journal PharmSciTech between 2000 and
`
`2007, and also served on the editorial boards of several other scientific journals in
`
`the broad field of pharmaceutical sciences with special focus on pharmaceutical
`
`technology and drug product development.
`
`5.
`
`In addition to my research and teaching, I have consulted over the
`
`years for both brand and generic pharmaceutical companies on matters related to
`
`pharmaceutical formulation and development. Additional details of my education,
`
`experience, and credentials are set forth in my curriculum vitae. (Exh. 1041.)
`
`6.
`
`I was retained by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's
`
`Laboratories, Inc. to serve as an expert m the litigation between Helsinn
`
`Healthcare S.A. and Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.,
`
`Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., identified to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in
`
`the Notice of Related Matters in the Petition that this declaration supports.
`
`7.
`
`I have separately been retained by Lerner, David, Littenberg,
`
`Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP ("counsel") to provide my opinions in the fields of
`
`pharmaceutical formulation and stability for purposes of this IPR. I have read and
`
`understood U.S. Patent No. 8,729,094 ("the '094 Patent") (Exh. 1001) as well as
`
`all other references discussed in this declaration. I am being compensated for my
`
`2
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`time m an amount consistent with my customary consulting fee and my
`
`compensation is not contingent on my opinion or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`8.
`I understand from counsel that patents such as the '094 Patent are
`
`neither addressed to experts nor to laymen; rather they are addressed to persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time invention was made, which I have been
`
`told by counsel to assume is January 29, 2003. I also understand from counsel that
`
`factors relevant to the level of skill in the art include, without limitation: the
`
`educational level of the inventor, the types of problems encountered in the relevant
`
`area, prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active
`
`workers in the field
`
`9.
`
`As noted previously, I was retained as an expert in connection with
`
`other patents related to the '094 Patent. I did not, however, testify at Trial. I am not
`
`an expert in patent law but, from my recollection, none of those patents involves
`
`methods of treating CINV per se. That must be contrasted with claims 22-30 of the
`
`'094 Patent, which appear on their face to relate to methods of treating CINV,
`
`albeit by administering the types of formulation that are the focus of the
`
`above-identified litigations.
`
`3
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`10. Because of my involvement in the aforementioned litigations, I know
`
`that Petitioner has taken the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`"POSA") as to the patents at issue in those cases, would be a formulation scientist,
`
`typically with a Ph.D. in pharmaceutics or a related field, and would have a couple
`
`of years' experience in developing IV formulations and bench experience. I also
`
`understand that Petitioner argued that formulation scientists would draw on the
`
`pharmaceutical science literature, general textbooks, research articles and abstracts,
`
`and other sources of information, including from clinicians and pharmacologists,
`
`and other scientists in the field.
`
`11.
`
`I would certainly agree that this definition is still broadly applicable
`
`here; and as regards the aspects of the claimed invention that relate to drug
`
`formulation, I consider myself to be a person of greater than ordinary skill.
`
`However, the claimed invention in the '094 Patent is, in my view, primarily
`
`directed to a method of medical treatment; and as such, I believe medical doctors
`
`and other medical professionals having experience specifically treating cancer and
`
`addressing the side effects of the use of highly emetogenic chemotherapies would
`
`be of at least equal import. Such doctors or clinicians would have a high level of
`
`formal education and several years of practical experience. In particular, they
`
`should have experience in clinical study, and an interpretation of data from medical
`
`4
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`studies as would be applied to treating patients. Whether these medical and
`
`claimed professionals would consult with formulators or the reverse, is of lesser
`
`importance to me, as all of their collectible knowledge and experience are
`
`implicated by the '094 Patent. I understand from counsel that a POSA may be a
`
`composite of different types of individuals, with each individual having a
`
`somewhat different background from the others. When it comes to the claims of
`
`the ' 094 Patent, in my opinion, a POSA would most appropriately be a composite
`
`of the types of individuals I have just noted.
`
`II. DRUG FORMULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
`12. By January 29, 2003, the general procedures for preparing parenteral
`
`formulations were well known, well understood, and well documented in general
`
`texts on the subject. Indeed, the formulations art had a good deal of experience in
`
`formulating parenteral and injectable drugs, including the setrons.
`
`13. Traditionally, optimization experimentation m pharmaceutical
`
`development was conducted by a "one factor at a time" approach. Compared to
`
`this traditional approach, modern experimental design (also referred to as "design
`
`of experiments" or "DOE") allows evaluation and optimization of multiple factors
`
`with a minimum number of experiments. (See, e.g., Exh. 1014, at 309-13.)
`
`5
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`14.
`
`Since its initial application in the pharmaceutical field in the 1950s,
`
`experimental design has become a routine and powerful tool at all stages of
`
`pharmaceutical development, including preformulation and formulation screening
`
`and optimization. (Exh. 1014, at 309-13.) Easy-to-use experimental design
`
`computer software became commercially available m 1990s, enabling
`
`pharmaceutical scientists with relatively little statistical training to readily conduct
`
`design of experiments in pharmaceutical development. (!d.) In my opinion, this is
`
`exactly what was done in accordance with the '094 Patent based on its own
`
`characterization of the work reflected in Examples 1-3. This process is now highly
`
`standard and routine.
`
`Preformulation Studies
`A.
`15. As every POSA knows, as part of the process of formulation
`
`development, a preformulation study is conducted to determine the basic
`
`physiochemical properties of a drug substance prior to
`
`the formulation
`
`development of a particular dosage form. (See generally Exh. 1050, at 115-16.)
`
`Knowledge of the properties of the active and/or general knowledge about
`
`compounds in the same class, and specific knowledge about compounds of similar
`
`structures (e.g., setrons, amines, etc.), is often valuable for solving formulation
`
`and/or stability problems.
`
`6
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`16.
`
`For a parenteral drug formulation, a preformulation study typically
`
`includes the study of the chemical stability of the drug substance both in solution
`
`and in the solid state. (See, e.g., id. at 115-16, 140-43.) "Taking into account early
`
`pharmacological and biopharmaceutical data, preformulation studies yield key
`
`information necessary to guide the formulator and analyst toward the development
`
`of an elegant, stable dosage form with good bioavailability." (Exh. 1050, at 115.)
`
`The preformulation study for a solution formulation often includes the study of the
`
`effects of pH, light, temperature, oxygen, metal ions and chelating agents on
`
`solution stability. (!d. at 115, 140-43.) The preformulation study also often includes
`
`the identification of degradation products and potential degradation mechanism(s)
`
`of the active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API"). (Jd. at 115.)
`
`B.
`17.
`
`Formulation Development Phase
`In the formulation development phase, formulations with varymg
`
`compositions are prepared and evaluated for the selection of an optimal
`
`composition. At this stage, each component of a typical intravenous solution, e.g.,
`
`solvents, pH buffers, tonicifying agents and stabilizing agents, are optimized
`
`through experiments. The information gained from the preformulation studies,
`
`including the consideration of the literature, on the drug substance is used in this
`
`process. (See, e.g., Exh. 1050, at 142.)
`
`7
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`18.
`
`For example, compositions with varying pHs surrounding the pH of
`
`maximum stability (usually identified in the preformulation study) are screened for
`
`the selection of the optimal pH, which may require consideration of other factors,
`
`as well as to identify the appropriate pH buffer for the formulation, if any.
`
`Moreover, when degradation and stability issues have been observed during
`
`preformulation, formulations with and without various stabilizing agents are
`
`compared in order to identify the effective stabilizing agent(s). Although different
`
`tonicifying agents are generally not expected to cause significant differences in
`
`stability, formulations with various tonicifying agents are often compared to see if
`
`there is any advantage. The amount and concentration of each excipient is also
`
`determined. All of these analyses are completely routine and have been employed
`
`for decades. They are used in the development of virtually every drug product.
`
`C.
`19.
`
`Formulation Work Based On The Relevant Prior Art
`In view of the formulation standard operating procedures just
`
`outlined, when a formulator (typically working as a group) was instructed to make
`
`a parenteral palonosetron product, it would have consulted whatever information
`
`was available from pre-formulation and from the available literature. The
`
`formulation group would have known that IV formulations were known from
`
`sources like Berger, U.S. Patent No. 5,202,303, which specifically disclosed IV
`
`8
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`formulations and provided concentration ranges, possible doses, and excipients.
`
`(Exh. 1010 col.3 11.16-24, col.12 11.11-54, col.29 11.1-12.) They would also have
`
`dosing information from the published Phase II studies and would know that a
`
`successful IV formulation was indeed possible from the press releases of Patent
`
`Owner, which noted that Phase III studies were soon to be completed on the IV
`
`treatment of CINV, and that a new drug application would be filed imminently.
`
`They would know of the normal components of IV formulations including
`
`solvents, buffers, tonicity agents, stabilizers and the like. They would know that a
`
`relatively narrow range of pHs, volumes, and concentrations was typical for
`
`parenteral formulations. And they would have known of the existence of other
`
`commercial setrons indicated for the same use, as well as their formulation.
`
`Commercially Available Setrons
`1.
`20. As noted above, one thing a POSA would always do when starting a
`
`formulation project would be to see what had worked in the past. Not surprisingly,
`
`a POSA would therefore look to formulation work already successfully done via
`
`commercial products. One essential source for such infonnation is the Physicians '
`
`Desk Reference ("PDR").
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed the 2001 PDR, and it contains entries for three
`
`setrons. Ondansetron was a commercially available setron sold under the trade
`
`9
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`name ZOF~ as an injectable aqueous solution of its hydrochloride salt in
`
`a 2mg/ml solution and a 32mg/50ml "premixed" solution. (Exh. 1015, at 1503.)
`
`Each 1 ml solution in a single-dose vial contained 2mg ondansetron as the
`
`hydrochloride dihydrate, 9.0mg sodium chloride (NaCl), 0.5mg citric acid
`
`monohydrate and 0.25mg sodium citrate dihydrate, buffered at pH 3.3 to 4.0.
`
`(Exh. 101 5, at 1503.) Each lml solution in a 20-ml multi-dose vial contained 2mg
`
`ondansetron as the hydrochloride dihydrate, 8.3mg sodium chloride, 0.5mg citric
`
`acid monohydrate and 0.25mg sodium citrate dihydrate, buffered at pH 3.3 to 4.0,
`
`and 1.2mg methylparaben and 0.15mg propylparaben as preservatives. (Jd.) Each
`
`5ml "premixed" solution contained 32mg ondansetron as the hydrochloride
`
`dihydrate, 2500mg dextrose, 26mg citric acid and 11 .5mg of sodium citrate,
`
`buffered at pH 3.0-4.0. (!d.)
`
`22. Granisetron was another commercially available setron found in the
`
`2001 PDR, which was sold under the trade name KYTRIL ®_ Granisetron is an
`
`injectable aqueous solution of its hydrochloride salt in a 1mg/ml solution in
`
`single-dose and multi-dose vials. (Exh. 1016, at 3104-05.) Each 1ml of the
`
`single-dose solution contained 1.12mg granisetron hydrochloride and 9 .Omg
`
`sodium chloride in an aqueous solution of pH 4.7 to 7.3. (!d. at 3105.) Each 1ml of
`
`the multi-dose solution contained 1.12mg granisetron hydrochloride, 9mg sodium
`
`10
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`chloride, 2mg citric acid and 1 Omg benzyl alcohol as a preservative, in an aqueous
`
`solution of pH 4.0 to 6.0. (!d.) The recommended dose was 1 OJ..Lg/kg, administered
`
`via IV within 30 minutes before chemotherapy was initiated. (See id. at 3106.) The
`
`dose was administered either undiluted over 30 seconds or diluted and infused over
`
`five minutes. (See id. at 3106.)
`
`23. Dolasetron is another setron found in the 2001 PDR and was
`
`commercially available under the trade name ANZEMET® as an injectable
`
`aqueous solution of its mesylate salt. (Exh. 1017, at 680.) Each 1ml of the solution
`
`contained 20mg dolasetron mesylate and 38.2mg mannitol with an acetate buffer
`
`for a resulting solution of pH 3.2 to 3.8. (!d.) The recommended IV dose was
`
`1.8mg/kg as a single dose, approximately 30 minutes before chemotherapy. (!d.
`
`at 683.) For most patients, however, an alternative fixed dose of lOOmg could be
`
`administered over 30 seconds. (!d.)
`
`24. Each IV formulation is relatively simple and of low volume, and most
`
`contain buffers and tonicity agents that are considered among the most common.
`
`They are all sterile, suitable for single unit doses, and the pH for all of them can be
`
`mildly acidic. Not surprisingly, all of this is true of the formulations used
`
`according to claims 22-30 of the '094 Patent as well.
`
`11
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`Palonosetron Formulation Information
`2.
`25. The prior art also disclosed the use of IV solutions of palonosetron for
`
`treatment of nausea and vomiting. For example, three press releases by Helsinn
`
`disclosed the use of a single-dose intravenous formulation of palonosetron to treat
`
`CINV in patients in clinical trials (Exhs. 1033-1035; Frame Decl. ~ 61.) Further, an
`
`article published by Tang disclosed the use of an IV solution of palonosetron to
`
`treat PONY in patients in a Phase 11 clinical study (Ex h. 10 19; Frame Decl.
`
`~~ 48-55.) In particular, Tang disclosed that each dose of the medication used was
`
`an isotonic sodium chloride solution of palonosetron administered intravenously.
`
`(Exh. 1019, at 463.)
`
`26. Berger disclosed a wide range of possible doses that could be used,
`
`including a range of l.Ong/kg per day to l.Omg/kg per day based on body weight.
`
`A preferred range specified is lOng/kg/day to 0.1/mg/kg/day. For a 70kg human,
`
`the dose range would be between from 70ng/day to 70mg/day, preferably
`
`700ng/day to 7.0mg/day. (See Exh. 1010 col. 12 11.11-18.) Converted to the units
`
`claimed, this preferred range is 0.0007mg/day to 7.0mg/day. The patent notes,
`
`however, that "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art of treating such diseases will be
`
`able, without undue experimentation and in reliance upon personal knowledge and
`
`the disclosure of this application, to ascertain a therapeutically effective amount of
`
`12
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`a compound of Formula I for a given disease." (!d. col.1211.19-24.) Pharmaceutical
`
`compositions are also discussed, which can be given by, inter alia, oral and
`
`parenteral routes. (See id. col.12 11.25-35.) These formulations could include
`
`excipients, including sugars, water, and salt, to name but a few. (See Exh. 1010
`
`col.12 11.42-54.)
`
`27. Berger includes an example, Example 13, providing illustrative oral
`
`and
`
`intravenous formulations. The IV formulation
`
`includes 10-100mg of
`
`palonosetron, 1.05mg of citric acid monohydrate, 0.18mg sodium hydroxide,
`
`dextrose monohydrate "q.s. to make isotonic" and water for injection to bring the
`
`volume up to l.Oml. No dose is actually described; however, a concentration range
`
`of 10-1 OOmg/ml is specified. Interestingly, while Example 13 describes the
`
`compound as including citric acid and sodium hydroxide, and these form a buffer
`
`system, Berger does not identify this use of citric acid as a buffer. The term
`
`"buffer" is used in Berger, but never used in connection with citric acid or
`
`Example 13. (See id. col.29 1.34 (Tris buffer), col.29 11.38-39 (homogenizing
`
`buffer), col.29 1.41 (assay buffer), col.29 11.42-43 (Tris-Krebs assay buffer).)
`
`Obviously, Berger knew of buffers and specified buffers when it intended to do so.
`
`28. These known commercial formulations and the prior art as a whole
`
`serve to assist a POSA in formulating a commercial product.
`
`13
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case TPR2015-__ _
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`III. PATENT OWNER MERELY USED ROUTINE
`EXPERIMENTATION TO DEVELOP ITS FORMULATION
`29. Upon review of the '094 Patent, it is plain that the inventors followed
`
`the traditional steps used by every POSA in the formulations field, and through
`
`routine experimentation -
`
`the normal experimentation carried out by every
`
`formulation scientist on every product - developed a palonosetron formulation
`
`optimized for stability. Indeed, the '094 Patent's unusually explicit description of
`
`the routine nature of its own formulation work memorialized in Examples 1-3
`
`proves that very point.
`
`30. Moreover, the methods and excipients used by Patent Owner suggest
`
`that it was not particularly difficult to extend the shelf life of formulations such as
`
`those disclosed in Berger. (Exh. 1010.) This was exemplified in Example 2 of the
`
`'094 Patent, which states
`
`that
`
`the
`
`inventors performed "[a]
`
`formulation
`
`optimization study ... using [an] experimental design software." (Exh.1 001 col. 7
`
`11.34-35.) Concentration ranges for palonosetron hydrochloride, citrate buffer, and
`
`EDT A were tested. "The level of EDT A and citrate buffer were selected based on
`
`the optimal formulation ... The results of this study indicated that palonosetron
`
`concentration was also a critical factor in chemical stability . ... " (/d. col.7
`
`11.39-46 (emphasis added).)
`
`14
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`31. A POSA would not have expected this formulation and optimization
`
`study to have been a challenge. Indeed, all that Patent Owner did to come up with
`
`its formulation was adjust a few common variables. And since dose would have
`
`been selected based primarily on efficacy considerations, and volume on known
`
`market conditions (i.e. , 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5ml), there were only a few adjustments
`
`necessary.
`
`32. Every intravenous solution drug product contains an appropriate unit
`
`amount of the active drug substance (also referred to as the "active pharmaceutical
`
`ingredient" or "API''). In addition to the active drug substance, an intravenous
`
`solution drug product contains a "carrier" or "vehicle," which typically is a sterile
`
`aqueous carrier (i.e., sterile water as the solvent of the solution). (Exh. 1050,
`
`at 174, 175, 190.) An intravenous drug product also often contains inactive
`
`ingredients (excipients) for various purposes, e.g., to facilitate administration or to
`
`maintain the quality of the drug product. (See, e.g., id. at 173-74.) Typical inactive
`
`components
`
`include: (1) pH buffers; (2) tonicifying agents; and (3) when
`
`necessary, one or more stabilizing agents, such as antioxidants, chelating agents
`
`and/or preservatives. The selection of the specific excipients and determining their
`
`appropriate amounts is a primary task of formulation development.
`
`15
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`A.
`33.
`
`Sterile Solution
`Sterility is manifest to IV solutions and is considered part of the
`
`defmition of a parenteral: "A parenteral can be defmed as a sterile drug, solution,
`
`or suspension that is packaged in a manner suitable for administration by
`
`hypodermic injection, either in the form prepared or following the addition of a
`
`suitable solvent or suspending agent." (Exh. 1050, at 173.) That the claims of the
`
`'094 Patent require a sterile product is thus of no significance, as sterility is
`
`required for all parenteral solutions.
`
`Tonicifying Agent
`B.
`34. A tonicity or tonicifying agent is used to make the solution "isotonic"
`
`so as to minimize pain upon injection (!d. at 207-08.) Therefore, a POSA would
`
`certainly have used a tonicifying agent to make the solution of palonosetron to
`
`make it isotonic. "Isotonic" means physiological such as having the same osmotic
`
`pressure as blood. Some of the most common tonicity agents include: sodium
`
`chloride (NaCl, table salt), dextrose (sugar) and mannitol (sugar). When the active
`
`ingredient is a chloride salt, sodium chloride may be a less desirable tonicifying
`
`agent because of the potential adverse "common ion" effect caused by the chloride
`
`present in both the active ingredient and the sodium chloride. This generally
`
`leaves the sugars. The label for dolasetron specifically disclosed the use of
`
`16
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`mannitol as a tonicifying agent in its commercial IV solution. (Exh. 1017, at 680.)
`
`So there was precedent for this selection.
`
`35.
`
`In Example 3 of the '094 Patent, tonicifying agents were tested;
`
`however, only two of the most well-known were considered: sodium chloride and
`
`mannitol. (Exh. 1001.) "The palonosetron hydrochloride formulation including
`
`mannitol showed superior stability. The optimum level of mannitol required for an
`
`isotonic solution was found to be 4.15%." (!d. col.711.55-57.)
`
`36. Thus, the particular selection of mannitol as the tonicifying agent in
`
`the '094 Patent would not have been inventive, since it would have been based on
`
`nothing more than a standard screening study involving only the most commonly
`
`used tonicifying agents. Moreover, the recited range of "about 1 O.Omg/ml to about
`
`80mg/ml" in claim 30 of the '094 Patent would have been obvious based on the
`
`prior art, because a POSA would have used a tonkifying agent in an amount to
`
`make an aqueous solution of palonosetron isotonic. The appropriate amount would
`
`have been determined through nothing more than routine experimentation.
`
`C. Volume
`37. The selection of an appropriate volume for delivery of the drug is
`
`another consideration for a POSA. (See, e.g., Exh. 1050, at 174.) For parenteral
`
`solutions, this often involves minimizing volume. A POSA would seek to
`
`17
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`formulate using a relatively small volume, whether the drug is to be administered
`
`as a small volume or diluted prior to injection, such as being added to an IV bag.
`
`Consistent with this general understanding, I am not surprised to hear that the
`
`Patent Owner's expert confirmed at trial that up to a 5ml or so volume would be
`
`demanded by the market. (Exh. 1032.) Moreover, no one would make or sell a vial
`
`of 1.27ml or 3 .62ml of a product unless there was some specific reason to do so. It
`
`would be formulated in whole integers of 1 to 5mls. Thus, there were only a few
`
`actual choices for the volume to be utilized in the formulation. Claim 22 recites a
`
`volume of 5ml.
`
`D. Concentration
`38. The selection of an appropriate concentration for the active compound
`
`IS another formulation step to be considered by the POSA. Concentration is
`
`nothing more than the amount of the drug dissolved in the selected volume. In
`
`view of the volume selection discussed above (i.e. , 1 to 5ml), it follows that once
`
`the effective dose of the active ingredient (setron) is determined, the resulting
`
`concentration of the setron is largely determined as a matter of course. For
`
`example, if the effective dose is 0.07mg, and it is formulated in a total volume of
`
`l ml, the resulting concentration will be 0.07mg/ml. Similarly, if 5mls of solution
`
`were used for the same dose, the resulting concentration will be 0.0 14mg/ml. And
`
`18
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`again, as a practical matter, unless there was an unusual need to do otherwise, there
`
`would be only five possible volume values to select from (i.e., lml, 2ml, 3ml, 4ml,
`
`or 5ml).
`
`39. And within this field of generally limited choices, a POSA would
`
`have preferred a low concentration of palonosetron based on clinical and
`
`formulation considerations suggested in the prior art. In general, a lower
`
`concentration would be expected to be more stable, though there are exceptions.
`
`Here, as Dr. Frame discusses in his declaration, a POSA would have selected a
`
`dose of palonosetron between about 0.07-0.7mg. (Exh. 1023 ~ 62.) Since the
`
`volume of each dose would be an integer between 1 and 5ml, such would dictate
`
`the relatively small range of possible concentrations of from between about
`
`0.014mg/ml (0.7mg/5ml) to 0.7mg/ml (0.7mg/lml). (Jd. ~ 36.) The claimed
`
`concentration is 0.05mg/ml. In fact, the palonosetron dose would likely range from
`
`3f.Lg/kg [0.2lmg] to lOf.Lg/kg [0.70mg]. This dose range would result in a
`
`corresponding concentration range of from about 0.04mg/ml to about 0.70mg/ml.
`
`(!d. ~~ 62, 36.)
`
`40.
`
`Similar concentration ranges were suggested by the pnor art's
`
`formulations. Tang taught the use of low concentration palonosetron IV solutions,
`
`including solutions with concentrations close to the claimed 0.05mg/ml. As
`
`19
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`discussed
`
`by Dr. Frame, Tang
`
`taught
`
`concentration
`
`ranges
`
`from
`
`0.0005-0.14mg/ml. (Exh. 1023 ~55.) This range encompasses the claimed range.
`
`Plainly, the 0.05mg/ml range claimed in the '094 Patent is included within this
`
`range. Moreover, both of these ranges overlap with the range dictated by
`
`formulating with the successful dose in the demanded commercial volumes.
`
`E.
`pH Buffer
`41. A pH buffer will often be included to control and maintain an
`
`appropriate solution pH. (Exh. 1050, at 193-95.) The pH buffer is an important
`
`component of an intravenous solution drug product because solution pH plays a
`
`key role in the physiological acceptability, solubility and stability of a drug
`
`substance in solution. (See, e.g. , id. at 193-95.)
`
`42. One of the initial experiments that is carried out as part of the
`
`preformulation study is the generation of a pH-stability profile over a wide range
`
`of pH values (e.g. , between pH 2 to 12). (Exh. 1050, at 142.) Aqueous buffers are
`
`used to produce solutions at various pH values, and the solution stability is
`
`measured at different pHs, temperatures and other conditions. (!d. at 142-43.)
`
`Usually the pH range that yields maximum stability can readily be identified based
`
`on the results of these studies and the identified pH range would be recommended
`
`for formulation development. (!d. at 142.)
`
`20
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`43. The generally acceptable pH range for a small volume intravenous
`
`solution is 3.0 to 10.5, while parenterals administered by other routes are generally
`
`adjusted to a pH between 4 and 9. (Exh. 1050, at 195.) Nonetheless, the pH of
`
`optimal stability is determined experimentally for each drug product. This is a step
`
`done in designing every parenteral formulation.
`
`44.
`
`pH buffers have corresponding pH ranges, and for a particular drug
`
`product, the pH buffer is chosen according to the target pH. (See, e.g., Exh. 1050,
`
`at 193-95.) For example, citrate buffer, which is among the most commonly used
`
`pH buffers, is typically used at concentrations of 1-5% to maintain the pH of a
`
`solution between 2.5 and 6. (!d. at 194.)
`
`45. Consistent with these general principles, the '094 Patent states in its
`
`background that the prior art IV formulations disclosed in Berger (Exh. 1 010
`
`Ex.13) had a pH of 3.7 and used a citrate buffer. That, of course, could have been
`
`determined by merely making and testing that formulation. It was therefore already
`
`known to formulate palonosetron in acidic conditions using a citrate buffer,
`
`suggesting to a POSA a pH range of between about 3.7 and 7.4. This would also
`
`suggest to a POSA the possibility of stability issues for palonosetron formulations.
`
`46. Moreover, the fact that the prior art commercial setrons were known
`
`to be formulated in mildly acidic conditions using these "most commonly
`
`21
`
`Exh. 1040
`
`
`
`Case IPR20 15-- - -
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Attorney Docket No. REDDY 7.1R-012
`
`encountered" buffers, namely, citrate