Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14
`
`Pagel of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No 513-CV-1927 LHK PSG
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL
`MAYERSOHN PH.D IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date
`Time
`Couifroom
`Judge
`
`June 12 2014
`130 p.m
`84th Floor
`Hon Lucy
`
`Koh
`
`Case No 513-C V-2416 LHK PSG
`
`Case No 513-CV-2420 LHK PSG
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICALS INC AND
`HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`
`Plamtiffs
`
`TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD
`TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH
`AMERICA INC TAKEDA
`PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA INC
`AND TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS
`U.S.A INC
`
`Defendants
`TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD.
`TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A.
`INC AND TAKEDA
`PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA INC
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`IMPAX LABORATORIES INC.
`
`Defendant
`_______________________________________
`TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD.
`TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A
`INC. AND TAKEDA
`PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA INC
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`TWI PHARMACEUTICALS INC
`
`Defendant
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`is
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`XHIBIT
`
`JUI1262015
`
`Daniefle Grant
`
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14
`
`Page2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Pages
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`BACKGROUND
`OPINIONS AND BASES THEREFORE
`
`II
`
`ifi
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`in the Art
`
`Construction of Disputed Claim Terms of the 158 Patent
`
`regardless of whether the patient is imder fasted or fed conditions
`claim
`enteric coating releases the proton pump inhibitor from the solid
`pH of about 5.0 to about 5.5
`about 6.2 to about 6.8
`particle at
`claiml
`
`enteric coating has
`
`pH of about 5.5 or about 6.75 claims
`
`and
`
`wherein the changes in phannacolcinetics.
`under fasting or fed
`conditions does not prodnce statistically significant changes in
`intragastric PH claim
`
`10
`
`12
`
`15
`
`17
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document8B-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14
`
`Page3 of 21
`
`Michael Mayersohn Ph.D declare as follows
`
`submit this declaration in support of the claim construction brief submitted by
`
`defendants Impax Laboratories Inc Par Pharmaceutical
`
`Inc Handa Pharmaceuticals LLC and T\Vi
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc collectively Defendants
`
`In particular
`
`submit this declaration to provide relevant background information
`
`regarding the technology at issue in U.S Patent No 8173158 the 158 patent and to set forth my
`
`opinions regarding the meaning of the disputed claim terms from the perspective of person of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art at the relevant time
`
`QIh%JAFICATIONS
`
`The following is
`
`brief summary of my qualifications My qualifications are more
`
`fully set forth in my curriculum vitae attached as Exhibit
`
`was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Science in Phannacy in 1966 from Columbia
`
`University College of Phannaceutical
`
`Sciences and Ph.D in Pharmaceutics
`
`from the School of
`
`Pharmacy State University of New York at Buffalo in 1971
`
`was licensed by the State of New York to practice phannacy in 1967 and practiced
`
`pharmacy in Buffalo New York from that time until 1971
`
`Following receipt of my doctoral degree
`
`became an Assistant Professor in the Faculty
`
`of Pharmacy at
`
`the University of Toronto in Canada and became an Associate Professor there in 1975
`
`have been
`
`faculty member of the College of Pharmacy at the University of Arizona
`
`in Tucson since 1976 starting as an Associate Professor
`
`have been
`
`full Professor since 1983
`
`copy of the 158 patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv--01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`F11ed04124114
`
`Page4 of 21
`
`have been member of the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Phannacology and
`
`Toxicolo2y the Center for Toxicology and the Southwest Environmental Health Sciences Center all
`
`of which are at the University of Arizona
`
`My research interests include the general area of pharmaceutical sciences with
`
`specialty in pharmaceutics biopharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics
`
`including
`
`the examination of
`
`the relationship between the physical and chemical characteristics of
`
`drug and its dosage form and
`
`the fate and perfonnance of that drug in the body and
`
`the development of rigorous mathematical
`
`models to quantitate the kinetic processes of drug absorption distribution excretion metabolism and
`
`clmical or pham1acologlcal response
`
`10
`
`have maintained an active research program which has been fbnded by national state
`
`and private agencies- This program has involved numerous research projects and the supervision of
`
`many graduate students post-doctoral
`
`fellows and technicians
`
`11
`
`have conducted research studies in vitro to characterize the physical and chemical
`
`properties of drugs and drug dosage forms including dissolution rates stability and binding to other
`
`compounds These studies have included an examination of the properties of variety of drug dosage
`
`forms including innnediate and non-innnediate release oral formulations
`
`12
`
`have also conducted in vitro and in vivo studies to characterize the plasma protein
`
`binding of drugs and their metabolic properties in the presence of varying enzymatic preparations
`
`13
`
`have conducted in sit and whole animal studies in mice rats dogs and pigs to
`
`characterize the pharmacokinetics and phannacodynamics of drugs and their metabolites
`
`14
`
`have conducted clinical studies in human subjects to evaluate the phaunacokinetics of
`
`selected drugs and their metabolites
`
`In all of the above studies
`
`developed selective sensitive and
`
`reliable quantitative analytical methods
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiledO4/24/14
`
`PageS of 21
`
`15
`
`In addition have performed theoretical or in silico experiments using simulation
`
`and other mathematical/computer
`
`techniques in order to answer specific questions concerning the
`
`disposition or interaction of drugs
`
`16
`
`am member of several professional societies and organizations including the
`
`American Association of Phannaceutical Scientists the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology
`
`and Therapeutics and the American Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
`
`17
`
`have reviewed and continue to review publications for several peer-reviewed journals
`
`including the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmaceutical Research
`
`18
`
`have been member of ninnerous national and state grant review agencies National
`
`Institutes of Health Veterans Administration etc for which
`
`reviewed research grant applications
`
`19
`
`have published over 160 original research publications 18 book chapters and
`
`symposia and 15 professional/educational pubhcations
`
`have given more than 65 invited
`
`presentations and contributed to over 160 submitted presentations
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`20
`
`During the years 1995-1998
`
`16
`
`18
`
`was member of the Food and Drug Administration
`17 FDA Advisory Connnittee for Phannaceutical
`Committee This Connnittee advises the FDA in setting standards for bioavailability bioequivalence
`
`Sciences fonnerly the Generic Drug Advisory
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`2S
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`and in resolving mailers of scientific interest to the agency
`
`21
`
`served one five-year
`
`term as member of the Dissolution and Bioavailability Expert
`
`Conmiittee of the United States Pharmacopoeia
`
`and
`
`subsequent
`
`five-year term as Vice Chair of the
`
`same Conmiittee whose name was changed to the Biopharmaceutics Expert Committee This
`
`Committee sets standards for dissolution testing and for drugs that are incorporated into individual
`
`monographs
`
`22
`
`am also the Course Director and Instructor of Principles of Pharmacokinetics and
`
`Toxicokinetics for the Industrial Scientist which is sponsored by the University of Arizona and given
`
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14
`
`Page6 of 21
`
`to pharmaceutical scientists This course has been successfluly offered since 1994 and has em-oiled
`
`well over 600 scientists
`
`ani also Course Director of similar on-site courses offered to the
`
`pharmaceutical
`
`industry and which have enrolled well over 1000 scientists
`
`23
`
`lam being compensated for my work in this case at my standard rate of $800 per hour
`
`My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this matter
`
`II
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`24
`
`The 158 patent generally relates to methods of treating heartburn acid reflux or
`
`gastroesophageal
`
`reflux disease by administering
`
`pharmaceutical composition containing small
`
`organic molecules called proton pump inhibitors PPIs In particular the 158 patent relates to
`
`the use of pharmaceutical composition comprising
`
`specific PPI called dexlansoprazole
`
`PPIs help
`
`to treat these conditions by shntting down proton pumps in the stomach that produce acid thereby
`
`reducmg the amount of acid in the stomach
`
`25
`
`PPIs usually are administered orally in the form of
`
`tablet or
`
`capsule containing
`
`granules that encapsulate the PPI Because PPIs are chemically imstable in the acidic environment of
`
`the stomach they must be protected from stomach acid Drug manufacturers accomplish this by
`
`combining the PPI with various stabilizers and coatings resulting in drug formulation that has an
`
`outer layer referred to as the enteric coat that protects the PPI from stomach acid
`
`The enteric
`
`coat allows the drug to pass through the stomach intact ending up in the small intestine where the PPI
`
`can be released and absorbed by the body
`
`26
`
`The reason the enteric-coated drug formulation can pass through the stomach and
`
`protect
`
`the PPI from acid-degradation is because the enteric coat is sensitive to the pH of its
`
`environment This pH-sensitivity allows the enteric coat to remain intact or undissolved in the highly
`
`________________________
`typical representation of such
`
`declaration
`
`layered formulation is shown in paragraph 53 of the Sinko
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`F11ed04124114
`
`Page7 of 21
`
`acidic environment of the stomach bitt permits the coating to dissolve in the less acidic enviromnent
`
`of the small intestine thereby allowing the encapsulated PPI
`
`to be released from the drug formnlation
`
`in the small intestine where it can then be absorbed
`
`27
`
`Varions PPIs are currently available on the market with number available in both
`
`branded and generic formulations The first PPI that became conimercially available omeprazole was
`
`sold imder the brand name Prilosec and has been on the market since 1989 Other PPIs such as
`
`lansoprazole which is sold under the brand name Prevacid and esomeprazole
`
`single enantiomeric
`
`form of the raceinic drug omeprazole sold imder the brand name Nexium subsequently became
`
`available Prevacid generically knovn as lansoprazole is sold by Takeda and lost its patent
`
`protection in 2009 Dexilant
`
`the drug at issue in this case is
`
`variant i.e.
`
`single enantiomer of
`
`lansoprazole and another member of the closely related PPI family of drugs Dexilant became
`
`commercially available in 2009 the same year Takeda lost its patent protection on its Prevacid drug
`
`product
`
`28
`
`The pharmaceutical composition disclosed in the 158 patent
`
`is made up of two types of
`
`enteric-coated particles comprising the PPI dexlansoprazole 158 Pat Claim
`
`The first particle
`
`has an enteric coating that must release the PPI at
`
`pH of about 5.0 to about 5.5 Id The second
`
`particle has an enteric coating that must release the PPI at pH of about 6.2 to about 6.8 Id
`
`Moreover the formulation must be therapeutically effective whether the dosage form is administered
`
`to
`
`patient who is on an empty stomach that
`
`is imder fasting conditions or has eaten at various
`
`times that
`
`is under fed conditions Id
`
`29
`
`The 158 patent discloses three strengths of the phannaceutical composition 30 mg 60
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25 mg and 90 mg in Example
`26
`
`and the use of one of those strengths the 90 mg in Example
`
`While
`
`to describe the compositions for each of these pharmaceutical
`
`fonnulations
`
`Tables
`
`and
`
`piuport
`
`27
`
`28
`
`they do not in fact provide any specific example of particular
`
`formulations Rather Table
`
`lists
`
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiledO4/24/14
`
`Page8 of 21
`
`range of percentages of polymers that may be used in the enteric coatings of the granules and Table
`
`lists ranges of the various excipients without even naming what the actual excipients should be For
`dose in granule LL can
`
`example Table
`
`states that
`
`the proportion of TAK-390
`
`be 15%_500o and in granule
`
`can be between 500 o-85% of the total dose Similarly Table
`
`lists
`
`ranges for the ingredients in
`
`composition for Granules-LL and Table
`
`lists ranges for the
`
`ingredients in composition for Granules-H The ranges for these ingredients are quite broad and
`
`the actual
`
`ingredient
`
`is not identified specifically but only by fimction For example the amotmt of
`
`diluent can be behveen 5.0 and 30.0 percent and no specific diluent
`
`is listed Thus Example
`
`discloses various ranges for the types of ingredients used in the formulations resulting in numerous
`
`possible compositions for each formulation such that
`
`the exact composition of the fonnulation used in
`
`Example
`
`cannot be ascertained from the information provided
`
`30
`
`The 158 patent
`
`includes an example Example
`
`that discloses clinical studies
`
`performed on patients using the 90 mg strength of the pharmaceutical composition that includes these
`
`two types of enteric-coated particles comprising dexlansoprazole 158 Pat at 2336-2717 In
`
`particular the pharmaceutical composition was administered to healthy adult subjects under fasting
`
`conditions after an overnitht fast as well as under three fed conditions
`
`minutes before dosing 30
`
`minutes before dosing and 30 minutes after dosing 158 Pat at 241-6 Table
`
`Both the plasma
`
`concentrations
`
`of dexlausoprazole as
`
`fimction of time as well as the pHs of the stomach fluids of the
`
`subjects were recorded fri
`
`at 2411-45 Tables 5-7 Based on these collected data various
`
`pharmacolcinetics and pharmacodynamics parameters were then calculated and mathematically
`
`analyzed to determine the effect of food and the timing of food on the therapeutic
`
`effectiveness of the
`
`phannaceutical
`
`31
`
`fonnulation Id
`Pharmacokinetics sometimes abbreviated as PK is
`
`pharmaceutical science that
`
`deals with the detennination of absorption distribution metabolism and excretion of drugs
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`1$
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Page 8 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`F11ed04/24/14
`
`Page9 of 21
`
`achninistered to the body It
`
`is often described as examining the effect of the body on the drug This
`
`is in contrast
`
`to phannacology which is
`
`qualitative examination of the effect of the drug on the
`
`more quantitative imderstanding of the relationship between phannacokinetics and
`
`body
`pharmacology is referred to as phannacodynamics sometimes abbreviated as PD in which one
`
`examines the time-course of the effect of the drug on the body i.e the phannacological or clinical
`
`response by quantitatively studying the time-course of the response and its relationship with the
`
`plasma concentration-time profile
`
`32
`
`These two areas of study PK and PD are inextricably coimected The
`
`phannacodynamic properties of drug are often studied in combination with its pharmacokinetic
`
`properties to develop so-called pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic PlC/PD models of the drug in
`
`individuals and populations of patients The pharmacokinetic and phannacodynamic events overlap
`
`The driving force for the pharmacodynamic events following drug dosing is generally the
`
`concentration of drug in the blood or plasma or the i-ate at which those concentrations
`
`change It
`
`is
`
`for this reason that there is interest in being able to describe the plasma concentration-tine profile of
`
`drug following its administration to
`
`patient
`
`33
`
`Following the administration of drug for example after oral ingestion frequent blood
`
`samples are obtained for
`
`time sufficient
`
`to characterize the entire plasma concentration-time profile
`
`The blood samples or
`
`fluid derived from blood e.g plasma or serum are treated aud subjected to an
`
`analytical procedure from which one can obtain
`
`quantitative vahie for the concentration of the drug
`
`andlor metabolites of that drug in the blood fluid The resulting concentration-time profiles are then
`
`analyzed either using
`
`computer-based method to obtain mathematical model that best describes the
`
`data or by model-independent method In either approach estimates of the values of the
`
`phannacokinetic parameters of interest are obtained
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Page 9 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14
`
`PagelO of 21
`
`34
`
`stylized single-dose plasma concentration-time profile resulting from oral dosing is
`
`depicted below As shown in the figure the maximum concentration
`
`achieved is at the peak of
`
`the curve and the time corresponding to that maximum is referred to as Tmn Also shown in the figure
`
`is the total area mider the curve AUC which is related to the extent of absorption or total exposure to
`
`the drug The latter value is measure related to the amount of drug that gets absorbed into the
`
`patients blood
`
`Cmax
`
`AUC
`
`Tmax
`
`Time
`
`35
`
`The pharmacokinetic parameters
`
`and AUC are reported in Example
`
`of the
`
`158 patent
`
`for the fasted state as well as for the three fed states noted above 158 Pat at 2411-28
`
`2462-2512 and Tables
`
`and
`
`These parameters are then analyzed and compared to determine
`
`whether there are statistically significant differences between these parameters in the fasted and
`
`various fed states KId In addition the 158 patent discloses the calculation of tsvo phannacodynamic
`
`parameters to determine the effect of food mean intragastric pH and
`
`time pH4 over 24 hours
`
`post dose Id at 2434-38 2513-27 and Table
`
`The mean intragastric pH parameter refers to
`
`the statistical mean determined from the pH measurement data The
`
`time parameter refers to the
`
`percentage of time that
`
`the pH of the stomach fluid is eater than pH
`
`over
`
`period of 24 hours after
`
`the patient is dosed
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`Page 10 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14 Pagell of 21
`
`III
`
`OPINIONS AND BASES THEREFORE
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`in the Art
`
`36
`
`For purposes of my analysis have considered how the tenns of the 158 patent would
`
`have been understood from the viewpoint of person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art
`
`In my opinion the art
`
`relevant to the claimed subject mailer is pharmaceutical drug development and analysis in particular
`
`clinical pharmacokinetics and clinical phannacodynamics
`
`person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would
`
`have had
`
`high level of education and skill
`
`including an M.D Ph.D or Pharm.D in
`
`phannaceutical sciences medicine or
`
`related field and two years of work experience in the
`
`10
`
`appropriate field or alternatively Bachelors or Masters Degree and
`
`commensurately greater
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2i
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`number of years of experience in the appropriate field
`
`37
`
`have been asked by counsel
`
`to read the claim tenns from the perspective of
`
`person
`
`of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in October 2007 which mderstand is the date on which the earliest
`
`application that
`
`led to the 158 patent was filed As of October 2007 and at all
`
`times since would
`
`have qualified as
`
`person of at least ordinary skill
`
`in the art
`
`Construction of Disputed Claim Terms of the 158 Patent
`
`38
`
`understand that Takeda has asserted claims 1-8 of the 158 patent against
`
`the
`
`Defendants
`
`in this case Claims
`
`and
`
`are representative and read as follows
`
`method of treating heartburn acid refiux or gastroesophageal
`the method
`patient in need of treatment thereof
`refiux disease in
`comprising the steps of
`obtaining
`pharmaceutical composition
`comprising dexlansoprazole from group of pharmaceutical
`compositions comprising proton pump inhibitors and
`administering
`patient suffering from heartburn acid refiux or gastroesophageal
`to
`the patient is under fasted or fed
`reflux regardless of whether
`therapeutically effective amoimt of the pharmaceutical
`conditions
`composition obtained in step
`wherein the pharmaceutical composition
`first solid particle wherein said first solid particle
`comprises
`comprises dexlansoprazole and
`first enteric coating wherein the first
`enteric coating releases the proton pump inhibitor from the solid
`pH of about 5.0 to about 5.5 and ii
`second solid
`particle at
`particle wherein said second solid particle comprises dexlansoprazole
`second enteric coating wherem the second enteric coating
`and
`pH of
`releases the proton pump inhibitor from the solid particle at
`about 6.2 to about 6.8 wherein the first solid particle comprises from
`
`
`Page 11 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14
`
`Pagel2 of 21
`
`S0o to about 50 by weight of the phannaceutical composition
`about
`and the second solid particle comprises from about 50% to about 85% by
`weight of the pharmaceutical composition
`
`The method of claim wherein the first enteric coating has
`about 5.5
`
`pH of
`
`The method of claim wherein the second enteric coating has
`of about 6.75
`
`pH
`
`The method of claim wherein the changes in pharmacokinetics
`after administration to the patient of
`single dose of
`therapeutically
`effective amomt of the pharmaceutical composition comprising
`dexlansoprazole under fasting or fed conditions does not produce
`statistically significant changes in intragastric pH
`
`158 patent
`
`Claims 1-4 disputed phrases bolded
`
`regardless of whether
`
`the patient is under fasted or fed conditions claim
`
`Defendants Construction
`
`Regardless of whether the patient is dosed
`after an overnight fast within minutes
`before meal within 30 minutes before
`meal or within 30 minutes after meal
`
`Takedas Construction
`regard to food
`
`\\Tithout
`
`39
`
`understand that Defendants originally proposed
`
`construction that defined fasted or
`
`fed conditions with respect
`
`to whether and when
`
`patient has eaten meal whereas the same
`
`therapeutic
`
`effect
`
`is achieved whether the patient has eaten meal will eat meal or is on an empty
`
`stomach In my opinion Defendants original proposed defmition was consistent with the
`
`specification of the 158 patent which includes experimental results for several
`
`fasted and fed
`
`conditions which vary depending on whether and when the patient has consumed
`
`high-fat breakfast
`
`158 Pat at 2336-2717 Specifically the 158 patent
`
`includes results for testing conducted on
`
`patients dosed under fasting conditions dosed 30 mm after the start of high-fat breakfast dosed
`
`mm before
`
`high-fat breakfast and dosed 30 mm before
`
`high-fat breakfast
`
`Id at Table
`
`Defendants original proposed defmition covered these various fasted and fed conditions and further
`
`required that the administration of the phannaceutical dosage form under
`
`these conditions should
`
`result in the same therapeutic effect
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`10
`
`
`Page 12 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FitedO4/24/14
`
`Pagel3 of 21
`
`40
`
`also nnderstand that in an effort to construe claim terms appearing in different claims
`
`in the same way Defendants have generally agreed to adopt Takedas proposed construction for
`
`fasting or fed conditions in connection with its construction of that term in claim of the 158
`
`patent While Takeda has proposed to define fasted or fed conditions in claim to mean without
`
`regard to food Takeda has defined
`
`nearly identical
`
`term fasting or fed conditions
`
`entirely
`
`differently in claim
`
`Compare Takeda Br at 14 wit/i Takeda Br at 23 Specifically in connection
`
`with claim Takeda defmes fasting conditions to mean dosing after an overnight fast and fed
`
`conditions to mean dosing within 30 minutes before or after meal id at 23 with the latter
`
`covering two of the three fed conditions disclosed in the 158 specification
`
`KId at 24 Bitt the only
`
`difference between the fast/fed terms appearing in claims
`
`and
`
`is the replacement of fasted with
`
`fasting in claim There is no reason why they shonld be different
`
`the 158 patent
`
`treats these
`
`terms as identical and persons of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood them to be identical
`
`as well 158 Pat at Fig
`
`Fig 2.41-4 2463-2565 Accordingly the construction for fasted or
`
`fed conditions in claim should be the same as that for fasting or fed conditions in claim
`
`41
`
`also understand that Defendants have slightly modified Takeda
`
`construction for
`
`fasting or fed conditions to recite each of the three fed conditions disclosed in the 158
`
`specification rather than lumping them together as in Takeda
`
`proposal Separately reciting each
`
`condition is appropriate in the context of claim
`
`because the plain meaning of claim requires
`
`therapeutically effective amount of the PPI to be administered irrespective of whether the patient has
`
`been dosed imder any of the fasted or fed conditions Exhibit
`
`defmes regardless as without
`
`tegaid to inespective of In other words the regardless term in claim requires
`
`therapeutic
`
`effect
`
`to be achieved no matter which state the patient
`
`is in 30 minutes after eating minutes before
`
`eating or 30 minutes before eating 158 Pat at Table
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`
`
`Page 13 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14
`
`Pagel4 of 21
`
`42
`
`Consistent with this requirement Defendants proposed defmition separately identifies
`
`the fasted state the fed state after the start of meal and the two fed states before the stall of meal
`
`to indicate that the therapeutic
`
`results must be achieved no matter which of these states the patient is in
`
`when dosed with the drug This construction is consistent with the specification which defmes
`
`fasted to mean after an ovemiaht
`
`fast 158 Pat at 23 63-244 and further defmes three fed
`
`conditions
`
`patient is dosed within 30 minutes after meal within minutes before meal or within
`
`30 minutes before meal 158 Pat at Table
`
`This construction is also consistent with the patents
`
`statements distinguishing the invention from previously-available PPIs which according to the patent
`
`should be taken shortly before eating meal 158 Pat at 24-15 966-1034
`
`enteric coating releases the proton pump inhibitor from the solid particle
`pH of about 5.0 to about 5.5 or about 6.2 to about 6.8 claim
`at
`
`Defendants Construction
`
`Enteric coating releases all of the proton
`pH
`pump inhibitor from the solid particle at
`pH of no more than
`of
`less than 4.95 to
`5.55f less than 6.15 to
`pH of no more
`than 6.85
`
`Takedas Construction
`The target pH for dissolution of the enteric
`coating is approximately 5.0 to
`
`approximately 5.5 or approximately 6.2 to
`approximately 6.8
`
`43
`
`Defendants proposed construction has two parts
`
`the enteric coating must release
`
`all of the proton inhibitor and
`
`the pH at which the release takes place must be about 5.0 to about
`
`5.5 or about 6.2 to about 6.8 where about is defmed to mean 0.05 pH units Once this defmition
`
`of about is applied to the pH levels recited in the claims the pH ranges become no less than 4.95 to
`
`no more than 5.55 and no less than 6.15 to no more than 6.85 In my opinion Defendants
`
`proposed construction is consistent with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12
`
`
`Page 14 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiledO4/24/14
`
`Pagel5 of 21
`
`enteric coating releases the proton pump inhibitor at3
`
`pH of
`
`44
`
`Defendants proposed construction requires that
`
`the enteric coating surrounding the PPI
`
`actually releases its PPI at or above
`
`particular pH This construction is consistent with the intrinsic
`
`evidence in particular the claim language which requires release of the PPI enteric coating releases
`
`the proton pump inhibitor
`
`at
`
`pH of
`
`158 Pat at Claim
`
`Defendants construction is also
`
`consistent with the specification wherein the first enteric coating releases the active agent
`
`from the
`
`solid particle at
`
`pH of about 5.0 to about 5.5 and wherein the second enteric coating releases the
`
`active agent
`
`from the solid particle at
`
`pH of about 6.2 to about 6.8
`
`second enteric coating
`
`surrounds the core and releases the active agent from the solid particle at
`
`pH of about 6.2 to about
`
`6.8 158 Pat at 236-45 1224-36 emphases added
`
`45
`
`In contrast Takeda
`
`proposed construction reads the release requirement entirely out
`
`of the claims while at the same time reading into the claims
`
`new requirement target pH for
`
`dissolution Instead of requiring as the claim recites that the PPI be released from the enteric
`
`coating at or above
`
`particular pH Takedas construction only looks to see what the enteric coat
`
`is
`
`made of
`
`If the enteric coat is made of material
`
`that
`
`is designed to dissolve at
`
`pH that corresponds
`
`to the claimed threshold pHs then under Takeda
`
`construction the formulation falls within the scope
`
`of the claims But enteric coats do not necessarily dissolve at the exact
`
`target pH at which they are
`
`supposed to dissolve Rather as discussed in detail
`
`in Dr Sinkos declaration the release of PPIs is
`
`affected by many more factors in addition to the pH such as thickness and uniformity of the enteric
`
`coating the nature of other excipients in the enteric coat and the testing conditions Thus Takeda
`
`proposed construction entirely eliminates the release requirement
`
`from the claims
`
`_________________________
`agree that the entirety of release need not occur at
`particular pH Defendants proposed
`particular pH which as Takedas expert Dr
`release at or above
`construction was intended to cover
`Sinko also agrees is the correct phraseology Sinko Decl 11 50 108 119 Thus the phrase at
`pH of
`pH of as used in Defendants proposed construction should be read to mean at or above
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13
`
`
`Page 15 of 21
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2013
`Lupin v. Pozen
`IPR2015-01774
`
`

`
`Case513-cv-01927-LHK
`
`Document88-1
`
`FiIedO4/24/14
`
`Pagel6 of 21
`
`46
`
`Defendants construction also requires the release of all of the PPJ contained within the
`
`enteric coating after the claimed threshold pH is reached as modified by the word about Thus
`
`imder Defendants proposed construction the PPI must not begin to release below the recited threshold
`
`pHs Accordingly for the first pH term the release must begin at
`
`pH of no less than about SM and
`
`continue until completed and for the second pH term the release must begin at
`
`pH of no less than
`
`about 6.2 and continue until completed
`
`47
`
`Without such
`
`requirement
`
`the bottom-end pH values recited in the claims become
`
`meaningless As discussed above the release of PPIs is affected by many more factors in addition to
`
`the pH such as thickness and uniformity of the enteric coating the nature of other excipients in the
`
`enteric coat and the testing conditions Thus unless the claimed pH-dependent
`
`release is limited to
`
`require that the release begin only after the claimed threshold pH is reached release at anvpH would
`
`fall within the scope of the claims if
`
`the other conditions are carefully manipulated For example the
`
`test conditions may be set in such way that release occurs substantially below the claimed threshold
`
`pH rendering the pH limitation meaningless
`
`48
`
`Moreover whether release below the target pH is covered by the claims is not
`
`relevant here as the pH values in the claims are not the target pHs as discussed above The claims
`
`merely require that the drug begin releasing once
`
`particular pH value is reached Because the claims
`
`are not directed to the target pH it
`
`is not necessary to futher require that the claims cover
`
`release
`
`below the target pH To the extent any release below the recited pH ranges is covered by the claims it
`
`is that which is included in the expansion of the rang