`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01776
`Patent No. 7,582,621
`
`PATENT OWNER’S IDENTIFICATION OF NEW
`ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IN PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DC: 6177693-6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s September 20, 2016 e-mail authorization, Anacor
`
`hereby provides a listing of new arguments and evidence in Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`I.
`
`Low MIC values and molecular weight in Austin alone provide a
`reasonable expectation of success.
`See Ex. 1044 ¶ 94, p. 62, l. 19–p. 63, l. 2 (“Therefore, based on the
`
`disclosure of Austin alone, which shows very low MIC values associated with a
`
`low molecular weight antifungal (tavaborole), a POSITA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of successfully treating onychomycosis.”); Reply, p. 15, ll.
`
`6–8 (“Tavaborole’s combination of low MIC values and low molecular weight
`
`makes
`
`it
`
`the first compound
`
`to choose from Austin for
`
`treatment of
`
`onychomycosis.”); Reply p. 18, ll. 2–4 (“A POSITA only needs to know the
`
`molecular weight and MIC values of a compound to have a reasonable expectation
`
`of success.”) (citing in part Ex. 1044 ¶ 94 (quoted above)); Reply p. 23, l. 4
`
`(“Regardless, Austin discloses the activity of tavaborole, not Freeman”); cf.
`
`Petition, Grounds 1–3, at iii; Petition p. 33, ll. 6–16; Petition p. 34, ll. 18–20;
`
`Petition p. 47, ll. 3–7; Ex. 1008 ¶ 98, p. 32, ll. 6–17; Ex. 1008 ¶ 100, p. 33, ll. 5–8;
`
`Ex. 1008 ¶ 127, p. 43, ll. 6–12; Ex. 1008 ¶ 132, p. 45, ll. 6–8.
`
`II. Activity against C. albicans was predictive of activity against
`dermatophytes, and provides a reasonable expectation of success.
`See Reply p. 2, ll. 13–14 (“Antifungal activity against C. albicans furnishes
`
`a reasonable expectation of success against dermatophytes.”); Reply p. 16, ll. 10–
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`
`12 (“It was known in the art before 2005 that antifungal compounds with
`
`fungicidal activity against C. albicans (a yeast) almost always had the same or
`
`better activity against dermatophytes.”) (citing Mertin, Ex. 1065, as the only prior
`
`art support in Section V); Ex. 1044 ¶ 89, p. 58, ll. 1–2 (“[I]f effectiveness against
`
`yeasts (e.g., C. albicans) is known, a POSITA would reasonably expect
`
`effectiveness against dermatophytes.”) (discussing Mertin); cf. Petition p. 40, l. 34–
`
`p. 41, l. 12 (citing only Brehove for Claim 6’s limitation of treating tinea
`
`unguium); Petition p. 37, ll. 8–18; Petition p. 54, ll. 13–26 (citing only Freeman for
`
`Claim 6’s limitation of treating tinea unguium); Petition p. 49, ll. 7–11; Ex. 1008 ¶
`
`98, p. 32, ll. 6–17; Ex. 1008 ¶ 130, p. 44, ll. 8–18.
`
`III. Nail penetration was predictable based on molecular weight alone,
`irrespective of structural similarities between the compounds.
`See Reply p. 18, ll. 8–9 (“Mertin established that the ability of a compound
`
`to penetrate the nail is directly proportional to its molecular weight.”); Reply p. 19,
`
`ll. 16–18 (“The lower the molecular weight of a compound, the greater the ability
`
`of the compound to penetrate the nail.”); Reply p. 19, ll. 5–9 (“Murdan …
`
`concluded ‘molecular size has an inverse relationship with penetration into the nail
`
`plate … .’”); cf. Petition p. 32, l. 18–p. 33, l. 1 (citing the “effective Brehove
`
`compounds” for “successfully penetrating the nail”); Ex. 1008 ¶ 95, p. 31, ll. 4–9;
`
`Petition p. 50, l. 3 (citing Freeman’s “compounds for treating and inhibiting
`
`onychomycosis”); Ex. 1008 ¶ 134, p. 46, ll. 4–8.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`
`IV. Topical administration avoids toxicity.
`See Reply p. 10, ll. 12–14 (“Consistent with the prior art, Petitioner’s experts
`
`concluded that boron toxicity would not be a concern in early 2005 when
`
`developing a topical formulation for delivery to the nail.”); Reply p. 10, ll. 7–9
`
`(“Dr. Reider failed to address the differences between oral or intravenous
`
`administration versus topical administration”); Ex. 1044 ¶ 46, p. 24, ll. 1–3 (“I do
`
`not believe that information regarding selective toxicity was necessary for the
`
`selection of tavaborole for use in the topical treatment of onychomycosis”); cf.
`
`Petition p. 34, ll. 1–4; Ex. 1008 ¶ 103, p. 34, l. 19–p. 35, l. 5; Ex. 1006 ¶ 44, p. 14,
`
`ll. 12–13.
`
`V.
`
`Structural differences between the compounds of Austin and Freeman
`would have led a POSA to expect different biological activities.
`See Ex. 1043 ¶ 24, p. 14, l. 12–p. 15, l. 4 (“In contrast [to phenylboronic acid
`
`from Freeman], the boron within the oxaboroles disclosed by Austin is confined
`
`within the 5-membered ring. … This decreases the ‘promiscuity’ of boron because
`
`the number of configurations boron can adopt is reduced by its location within the
`
`ring … .”); Reply p. 13, ll. 14–16 (“PO’s arguments also fail to address that
`
`boron’s location within the heterocycle of tavaborole reduces the ability of
`
`tavaborole to interact indiscriminately.”) (citing Ex. 1043 ¶¶ 24–25); cf. Petition p.
`
`48, l. 20–p. 49, l. 3; Ex. 1008 ¶ 127, p. 43, ll. 9–12.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`
`Date: September 27, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`fp,
`
`—
`
`tf)?
`
`Andrea G.Reister/
`Registration No. 36,253
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 662-6000
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 27th day of
`
`September 2016, the foregoing Patent Owner’s Identification of New Arguments
`
`and Evidence In Petitioner’s Reply was served by electronic mail, by agreement of
`
`the parties, on the following counsel of record for petitioner.
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake
`Kathleen E. Ott
`Peter A. Gergely
`Ryan James Fletcher
`Brent E. Routman
`Merchant & Gould PC
`KerydinIPR@merchantgould.com
`
`Date: September27, 2016
`
`(bude
`
`
`
`Andrea G. ReiSter, Esq.
`Reg. No.: 36,253
`
`