throbber
For the Petitioner
`Lead counsel: Robert W. Hahl, Reg. No. 33,893
`Backup counsel: Robert Mihail, Reg. No. 66,021
`Backup counsel: John K. Pike, Reg. No. 41,253
`Neifeld IP Law, PC
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`Coalition For Affordable Drugs V LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`Biogen MA Inc.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case Unassigned
`Patent 8,399,514
`Title: TREATMENT FOR MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
`____________
`  
`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN E. LINBERG Ph. D.
`
`
`  
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`U.S. Patent Trial & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-14
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN E. LINBERG PH.D.
`
`I, Steven E. Linberg Ph.D., hereby declare, affirm and state the following:
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Introduction
`1. I have been retained by Neifeld IP Law, PC for this inter partes review
`
`proceeding. I understand that this Declaration is being submitted along with a
`
`Petition for inter partes review of US Patent No. 8,399,514 (“the ‘514 patent”). I
`
`opine only with respect to certain issues that are discussed in this declaration.
`
`II. RESOURCES CONSULTED
`2. I have reviewed the ‘514 patent (Exhibit 1001) including claims 1-20. I
`
`
`
`have also reviewed the Wakke reference (Exhibit 1002) Kappos 2006 reference
`
`(Exhibit 1003), the ICH Guideline E4 (Exhibit 1004), the Werdenberg reference
`
`(Exhibit 1016), the ClinicalTrials NCT00168701 reference (Exhibit 1022), the
`
`Begleiter reference (Exhibit 1027), the Joshi reference (Ex. 1030) and the Joshi
`
`2002 reference (Ex. 1036). I have reviewed other documentation supporting and
`
`relevant to this declaration as cited below.
`
`III. BACKGROUND, QUALFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`3. I received a Ph.D. in Physiology from Pennsylvania State University in
`
`
`
`1978. I worked for over 35 years in academic clinical research and commercial
`
`drug and biologics development, with particular attention to the overall strategy of
`
`drug development programs, to individual clinical trial design, execution, and
`
`reporting, and to regulatory interactions with the FDA. Over the course of that time
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`I participated in the design, conduct, reporting or oversight of more than 100
`
`clinical trials. I have held senior positions in companies which were developing
`
`drugs, developing biologics, and at contract research organizations. I am the
`
`principal editor of, and a contributing author in the text Expediting Drug and
`
`Biologics Development, now in its 3rd edition. I developed and taught graduate-
`
`level courses in Drug and Biologics Development, Clinical Trial Design, and
`
`Clinical Trial Operations for the Johns Hopkins University; and An Overview of
`
`Clinical Research, for the University of Maryland.
`
`
`
`4. From 1978 to 1984, I was a Clinical Physiology Research Associate for
`
`the Shock Trauma – Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems
`
`at the University of Maryland. From 1980 to 1984 I was an Assistant Professor of
`
`Pathology, Graduate Faculty at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
`
`From 1985 to 1986 I was a Project Leader and Clinical Research Scientist in the
`
`Medical Division of Burroughs Wellcome Co. and from 1986 to 1992 I was an
`
`Associate Director of Clinical Research at Boehringer Mannheim Pharmaceuticals.
`
`In 1992 I was the Director of Clinical Research at Univax Biologics, Inc.. From
`
`1992 to 1995 I was a consultant at, and owner of, Linberg Research, Inc.. From
`
`1995 to 1996 I was the Vice President of Clinical Development at Collaborative
`
`Clinical Research, Inc.. From 1996 to 2001 I was the Vice President of Clinical
`
`Development at Cato Research Limited, and from 2001 to 2002 I was promoted to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Managing Director and Senior Vice President of Drug Development at the same
`
`company. From 2002 to 2009 I was the Managing Director of Chiesi
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and from 2009 to 2010 I was also Vice President and
`
`Treasurer at the same company. From 2011 to 2012 I was the founding President
`
`and CEO of Airway Therapeutics, LLC and continue as a Member of Airway
`
`Therapeutics, LLC. From 2013 to present I have been a consultant to the
`
`pharmaceutical industry, and formed S.E. Linberg Consulting, LLC in 2015 to
`
`further that effort.
`
`
`
`5. I have published numerous academic papers and have served in various
`
`advisory, board and leadership positions for research centers, universities and a
`
`charitable foundation. My CV is submitted in this proceeding as Exhibit 1017.
`
`
`
`6. I am being compensated for my time at my standard hourly rate for this
`
`proceeding. My compensation is in no way contingent upon my performance or the
`
`outcome of this case.
`
`IV.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`7. I have been informed by counsel to regard a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`art as being a hypothetical person who is presumed to know all of the relevant art
`
`at the time of the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) type of problems encountered in
`
`the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity with which
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5) educational
`
`level of active workers in the field. I have been informed by counsel that it is from
`
`the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art that legal issues, such as claim
`
`construction and obviousness, are determined.
`
`
`
`8. In my opinion and based on my reading of the ‘514 patent, the field of the
`
`‘514 patent is: treating a disease with an orally administered drug.
`
`
`
`9. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ‘514 patent would most likely have held an advanced degree, such
`
`as a Ph.D. in one of the life sciences, an M.D., a D.O., or a Pharm.D. Additionally,
`
`POSITA would have had some experience with clinical trial designs for dose
`
`selection.
`
`
`
`10. The ‘514 patent was filed on February 13, 2012. For the purposes of this
`
`Declaration, I have been asked to assume that the challenged claims may be
`
`entitled to the priority date of U.S. provisional application 60/888,921, filed Feb. 8,
`
`2007. I have been advised by counsel that because no inventor of the provisional
`
`application was named, the ‘514 patent may not be entitled to the benefit of that
`
`2007 date. At this time I have not investigated or formed any opinions about the
`
`contents of provisional application 60/888,921.
`
`
`
`11. My opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘514
`
`patent is based on my review of the patent and relevant file history, as well as my
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`knowledge of the level of skill of individuals in this field. In forming my opinions,
`
`I have also considered the nature of problems that the ‘514 patent was intended to
`
`solve, and the education level of active professionals in the field.
`
`
`
`12. According to the description above, I possess at least the ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and did so at the time when the inventions in the ‘514 patent were made. I
`
`am familiar with the knowledge, experience, and creativity of such a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ‘514 patent during the relevant time period.
`
`V. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`
`13. I am not a lawyer and do not purport to offer legal opinions. In forming
`
`my opinions, however, I have been asked to apply certain standards regarding
`
`patentability that were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`
`
`
`14. I understand that for purposes of this IPR the terms in the claims of the
`
`‘514 patent are to be construed according to their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification of the ‘514 patent, as those terms would
`
`have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the priority date of
`
`the ‘514 patent.
`
`A. Anticipation
`15. I have been informed that a patent claim is “anticipated” when a single
`
`
`
`patent or printed publication describes all of the elements of a claim, either
`
`expressly or by inherent disclosure. In this context I have been informed by
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`counsel to assume that inherency means “necessarily,” so that a prior art reference
`
`which does not expressly disclose a claim element (or “claim limitation”) may still
`
`inherently disclose that element if the missing description is necessarily present in
`
`the disclosure. I have been informed that for this to be true, the disclosure must be
`
`such that the natural result flowing from the operation of a system or method
`
`described in a reference necessarily results in the performance of the claim
`
`limitation(s). Standards for “anticipation” as I understand them are reproduced
`
`below: (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country (United
`
`States), or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
`
`country, before the invention thereof by the application for patent, (b) the invention
`
`was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`
`public use or on sale in this country, more than a year prior to the date of the
`
`application for patent in the United States, and (c) the invention was described in a
`
`patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States
`
`before the invention by the applicant for patent.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`
`
`16. It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable for obviousness if two
`
`or more prior art references in combination disclose, expressly or inherently, every
`
`claim element so as to render the subject matter, as a whole, obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In determining whether a claim would have been obvious
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`at the time it was made, the following factors should be considered: (a) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (b) the differences between the prior art and the claims
`
`at issue; (c) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (d) whatever “secondary
`
`considerations” may be present, which I have been informed generally take the
`
`form of evidence showing that the invention displays a significant and unexpected
`
`property. I also understand that if all elements in a claim were known in the prior
`
`art, and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by
`
`known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination
`
`yielded no more than the expected results, then such a claim would have been
`
`obvious.
`
`VI. Brief overview of the ‘514 Patent
`
` 17. In my opinion, the ‘514 patent teaches that dimethyl fumarate (DMF)
`
`and monomethyl fumarate (MMF) have essentially the same biological activity,
`
`“FIG. 1 demonstrates that DMF and MMF are activators of Nrf2 at concentrations
`
`within clinical exposure range (cells in culture).” Ex. 1001, col. 4:65-67. “FIG. 3
`
`shows evidence of Nrf2 activation by DMF and MMF in vivo. FIG. 4 shows
`
`evidence of Nrf2 activation by DMF and MMF in vivo.” Ex. 1001, col. 5:2-5. I
`
`find nothing in the ‘514 patent which defines or explains that the therapeutic
`
`properties of MMF are different from the therapeutic properties of DMF.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`18. In my opinion, FIG 1 of the ‘514 patent shows, the expression level of
`
`NQO1 is elevated at all concentrations of DMF tested, which expression level is
`
`proportional to DMF concentration. The specification of the ‘514 patent also states
`
`that “[t]he results shown in FIG. 1, demonstrate that DMF and MMF are potent
`
`activators of Nrf2 at concentrations within clinical exposure range.” Ex. 1001, col.
`
`2:12-14. The ‘514 specification teaches that Nrf2 controls the expression level of
`
`NQO1 at doses described in the Examples. The ‘514 patent states that “genes
`
`under the control of Nrf2 include…For example, expression levels of endogenous
`
`or exogenously introduced NQO1 may be determined as described in the
`
`Examples.” Ex. 1001, col. 14:38-44.
`
`19. In my opinion, the ‘514 patent teaches that the effective amounts of
`
`DMF and MMF are the same:
`
`For DMF or MMF, an effective amount can range from 1 mg/kg to 50
`mg/kg (e.g., from 2.5 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg or from 2.5 mg/kg to 15
`mg/kg). Effective doses will also vary, as recognized by those skilled
`in the art, dependent on route of administration, excipient usage, and
`the possibility of co-usage with other therapeutic treatments including
`use of other therapeutic agents. For example, an effective dose of
`DMF or MMR [sic: MMF] to be administered to a subject orally can
`be from about 0.1 g to 1 g per day, 200 mg to about 800 mg per day
`(e.g., from about 240 mg to about 720 mg per day; or from about 480
`mg to about 720 mg per day; or about 720 mg per day). For example,
`the 720 mg per day may be administered in separate administrations
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`of 2, 3, 4, or 6 equal doses. The dosage may be determined by a
`physician and adjusted, as necessary, to suit observed effects of the
`treatment. Ex. 1001, col. 18:52-67.
`20. In my opinion, Example 3 of the ‘514 patent tested the same dose
`
`
`
`per body weight (15 mg/kg), twice a day, for both DMF and MMF: “Each
`
`treatment group consisted of 8 animals: vehicle alone as a negative control, 5
`
`mg/kg body weight DMF twice a day, 15 mg/kg body weight DMF twice a
`
`day, 15 mg/kg body weight MMF twice a day.” Ex. 1001, col. 21:6-10.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. “Excipients”
`21. In my opinion, the ‘514 patent defines the term “excipient” or
`
`
`
`“excipients:” “As used herein, the phrase ‘pharmaceutically acceptable excipient’
`
`refers to any and all solvents, dispersion media, coatings, antibacterial and
`
`antifungal agents, isotonic and absorption delaying agents, and the like, that are
`
`compatible with pharmaceutical administration.” Ex. 1001, col. 19:6-10. In my
`
`opinion, the term “excipients” means “any and all solvents, dispersion media,
`
`coatings, antibacterial and antifungal agents, isotonic and absorption delaying
`
`agents, and the like, that are compatible with pharmaceutical administration.”
`
`B.
` “Consisting essentially of”
`22. I have been advised by counsel that for purposes of this declaration to
`
`
`
`assume that the term “comprising” means “including.” Except for claim 20, which
`
`uses the phrase “comprising,” all other claims in the ‘514 patent recite
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`compositions “consisting essentially of…[active ingredient(s)]…” such as (claim
`
`1: “consisting essentially of a therapeutically effective amount of dimethyl
`
`fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, or a combination thereof”) and (claim 7:
`
`“consists essentially of monomethyl fumarate”) and (claim 6: “consists essentially
`
`of dimethyl fumarate”) and (claim 11: “consisting essentially of orally
`
`administering to the subject about 480 mg per day of dimethyl fumarate,
`
`monomethyl fumarate, or a combination thereof”) and (claim 15: “pharmaceutical
`
`composition consisting essentially of (a) a therapeutically effective amount of
`
`dimethyl fumarate and (b) one or more pharmaceutically acceptable excipients”). I
`
`have been advised by counsel to assume for purposes of this declaration that a
`
`claim reciting a thing “consisting essentially of” specified ingredients limits the
`
`scope of the claim to the specified ingredients plus those ingredients which do not
`
`materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of that thing.
`
`C. “Therapeutically effective amount”
`22.1 The ‘514 patent defines “therapeutically effective amount” as “that
`
`
`
`amount of a compound which results in at least one of prevention or delay of onset
`
`or amelioration of symptoms of a neurological disorder in a subject or an
`
`attainment of a desired biological outcome, such as reduced neurodegeneration
`
`(e.g., demyelination, axonal loss, and neuronal death) or reduced inflammation of
`
`the cells of the CNS.” Ex. 1001, col. 5:53-39. In my opinion, the term
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`“therapeutically effective amount” means “that amount of a compound which
`
`results in at least one of prevention or delay of onset or amelioration of symptoms
`
`of a neurological disorder in a subject or an attainment of a desired biological
`
`outcome, such as reduced neurodegeneration (e.g., demyelination, axonal loss, and
`
`neuronal death) or reduced inflammation of the cells of the CNS.”
`
`VIII.
`
`Overview of Prior Art Reviewed by Me
`
`23. I have reviewed all documents discussed in this declaration. Results of at
`
`least one Phase II clinical trial of DMF were published in 2006 (Kappos 2006).
`
`Kappos 2006 states that “BG00012 significantly reduces brain lesion activity, in a
`
`dose dependent manner, as measured by MRI in patients with RRMS over 24
`
`weeks of treatment.” Ex.1003, page 27, col. 2:52-54. In my opinion, the active
`
`ingredient of BG-12 or BG00012 is dimethyl fumarate. Ex. 1022, page 1 and Ex.
`
`1002, title.
`
`23.1 I have reviewed the document Joshi et al., (Ex. 1030). I see that Joshi
`
`et al., discloses “DIMETHYL FUMARATE FOR THE TREATMENT OF
`
`MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS” (Ex. 1030, Title), and recites in claim 1 a method of
`
`treating multiple sclerosis by administering an effective amount of DMF. The
`
`production examples include enteric-coated microtablets containing 120 mg DMF
`
`(Examples 1 and 2), microtablets in capsules containing 50 mg of DMF (Example
`
`3), and enteric coated capsules containing 110 mg DMF (Example 4). Micro-tablet
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`enteric coating is used to reduce gastrointestinal irritation. Ex. 1030, col. 5:29-33.
`
`The dialkyl fumarates of Joshi et al., “are not the active ingredient per se, but a so-
`
`called prodrug, which must be converted into the active ingredient in the body.”
`
`Ex. 1030, col. 5:53-58. The active agent is identified as methyl hydrogen fumarate
`
`(i.e., MMF), a metabolite of DMF. Ex. 1030, col. 3:32-34.
`
`24. In my opinion, it would have been a routine task of drug development
`
`and approval to determine the appropriate dose of DMF (or MMF) though dose-
`
`ranging studies, including determination of the minimum effective dose. This task
`
`was standard practice in drug development when the ‘514 patent was filed, as
`
`shown by the joint U.S., European and Japanese government guidance document
`
`ICH Guideline E4.
`
`25. I have also reviewed the document Wakkee (Ex. 1002). I see that Wakkee
`
`disclosed in Nov. 2007 that BG00012 contains DMF: “Drug evaluation: BG-12, an
`
`immunomodulatory dimethylfumarate.” In my opinion the “BG-12” product
`
`discussed in Wakkee contains DMF as the sole API.
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE CHALLENGES
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 20 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Kappos 2006 (Ex. 1003), ClinicalTrials
`NCT00168701 (Ex. 1022), Joshi (Ex. 1030), and ICH Guideline E4 (Ex.
`1004)
`Claim 1: A method of treating a subject in need of treatment for multiple
`sclerosis comprising orally administering to the subject in need thereof a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`pharmaceutical composition consisting essentially of (a) a therapeutically
`effective amount of dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, or a
`combination thereof, and (b) one or more pharmaceutically acceptable
`excipients, wherein the therapeutically effective amount of dimethyl fumarate,
`monomethyl fumarate, or a combination thereof is about 480 mg per day.
`
`26. I see the first element of claim 1 requires, “[a] method of treating a
`
`
`
`subject in need of treatment for multiple sclerosis comprising orally
`
`administering to the subject in need thereof a pharmaceutical composition.”
`
`Kappos 2006 discloses results from “[a] randomized, double-blind, placebo-
`
`controlled clinical trial of BG00012 in patients with RRMS”. Ex. 1003, page 27,
`
`col. 2:26–27. Further, Kappos 2006 teaches “[p]atients received BG00012 capsules
`
`… by mouth…” Id. ClinicalTrials NCT00168701 is directed to a “Double-Blind,
`
`Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Ranging Study to Determine the Effacacy [sic] and
`
`Safety of BG00012 in Subjects with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis” and
`
`that “all investigational drug (BG00012 or placebo) will be given orally” Ex. 1022
`
`pages 1–2 . Joshi also teaches “[a] method of treating multiple sclerosis…with an
`
`amount of a pharmaceutical preparation effective for treating said multiple
`
`sclerosis, wherein the only active ingredient…is dimethyl fumarate.” Ex. 1030,
`
`claim 1, col. 8:14–19 (emphasis added). Joshi also further teaches “the
`
`pharmaceutical preparation is formulated for oral administration” (Ex. 1030 claim
`
`10 8:41-42)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`27. I see the second element of claim 1 requires, “(a) a therapeutically
`
`effective amount of dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, or a
`
`combination thereof.” Kappos 2006 discloses BG00012 as therapeutically
`
`effective stating “BG00012 significantly reduced brain lesion activity, in a dose-
`
`dependent manner… in patients with RMMS” Ex. 1003, page 27, col. 2:52-54.
`
`Kappos 2006 does not disclose BG00012 as DMF.
`
`28. ClinicalTrials NCT00168701 discloses that “DMF, [is] the active
`
`ingredient in BG00012.” Ex. 1022, page 1. In my opinion, the active ingredient of
`
`BG-12 or BG00012 is dimethyl fumarate. Ex. 1022, page 1 and Ex. 1002, title.
`
`29. Joshi also teaches “[a] method of treating multiple sclerosis … with an
`
`amount of a pharmaceutical preparation effective for treating said multiple
`
`sclerosis, wherein the only active ingredient…is dimethyl fumarate.” Ex. 1030,
`
`claim 1, col. 8:14–19 (emphasis added).
`
`30. I see the third element of claim 1 requires, “b) one or more
`
`pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.” Joshi discloses “[t]he dialkyl
`
`fumarates used according to the invention may be used alone or as a mixture of
`
`several compounds, optionally in combination with the customary carriers and
`
`excipients” (Ex. 1030, col. 4:39–42) and describes a pharmaceutical preparation
`
`containing DMF in Example 1 that is “an excipient mixture with the following
`
`composition is prepared…” (Ex. 1030, col. 6:8–28).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`31. I see the fourth element of claim 1 requires, “wherein the
`
`therapeutically effective amount of dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate,
`
`or a combination thereof is about 480 mg per day.” Kappos 2006 discloses
`
`“[p]atients were assigned to four treatment groups and received BG00012 capsules
`
`120 mg by mouth (PO) once daily (120 mg/day), 120mg three times daily (360
`
`mg/day), 240 mg three times daily (720 mg/day), or placebo for 24 weeks.” (Ex.
`
`1003, page 27, col. 2:32–35) and that an effective amount of dimethyl fumarate
`
`was found as “BG00012 (720 mg/day) significantly reduced the mean number of
`
`new Gd+lesions (the primary end point) compared with placebo” (Ex. 1003, page
`
`27, col. 2:49–51). ClinicalTrials NCT00168701 also teaches a dose-ranging study
`
`in which patients were randomized to receive BG00012, 120 mg PO once daily
`
`(120 mg/day), 120 mg PO three times daily (360 mg/day), 240mg PO three times
`
`daily (720 mg/day), or placebo (Ex. 1022, page 2), teaching that “DMF, [is] the
`
`active ingredient in BG00012” (Ex. 1022, page 1) and acknowledges that if DMF
`
`is not well tolerated by patients, lower doses can alleviate the problem: “Dose
`
`reduction will be allowed for subjects who are unable to tolerate investigational
`
`drug.” Ex. 1022, 2:24–25. A dose reduction of one capsule in the high dose group
`
`(going from three times 240 mg to two times 240 mg) would have resulted in a
`
`dose of 480 mg/day in 2 equal doses.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`32. In my opinion, the ICH Guideline E4 would have instructed a POSITA
`
`as follows: “Assessment of dose-response should be an integral component of drug
`
`development with studies designed to assess dose-response an inherent part of
`
`establishing the safety and effectiveness of the drug. If development of dose-
`
`response information is built into the development process it can usually be
`
`accomplished with no loss of time and minimal extra effort compared to
`
`development plans that ignore dose-response.” Ex. 1004, 7:27–32. ICH Guideline
`
`E4 also would have instructed that: “It is all too common to discover, at the end of
`
`a parallel dose-response study, that all doses were too high (on the plateau of the
`
`dose-response curve), or that doses did not go high enough.” Ex. 1004, 10:39–41.
`
`In my opinion, the ICH Guideline E4 instructed a POSITA to perform dosing
`
`studies as a standard procedure in drug development in order to “allow study of the
`
`proper dose range” in phase III. Kappos 2006 did not disclose doses between 360
`
`mg/day and 720 mg/day. However, in my opinion, Kappos 2006 does disclose that
`
`single dosage forms were readily available in 120 mg units (“120 mg by mouth
`
`once daily”), making dose ranges of 480 mg daily and 600 mg daily readily
`
`apparent intervals for further testing. Further, ClinicalTrials NCT00168701
`
`indicates that side effects such as gastrointestinal distress were known and were
`
`enough of a concern, that dosing could be reduced “for subjects who are unable to
`
`tolerate investigational drug” (Ex. 1022, page 2). Joshi also discloses unwanted
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`side effects from the administration of the drug (“By administration of the dialkyl
`
`fumarates in the form of micro-tablets, which is preferred, gastrointestinal
`
`irritations and side effects, which are reduced already when conventional tablets
`
`are administered but is still observed, may be further reduced vis-a-vis fumaric
`
`acid derivatives and salts.” Ex. 1030, col. 5:29–33.) Because side effects are
`
`always a concern in drug development, as they were for DMF, and because doses
`
`in multiples of 120 mg were readily available, a POSITA, in my opinion, would
`
`have been motivated to develop a method of treating a subject in need of treatment
`
`for multiple sclerosis by administering dimethyl fumarate at about 480 mg per day
`
`(as well as 600 mg per day) in order to identify an appropriate dose of DMF that
`
`minimized side effects. It would have been apparent to a POSITA that the teaching
`
`of Kappos 2006 in view of at least ClinicalTrials NCT00168701, Joshi, and ICH
`
`Guideline E4 would have enabled just such a development of a method such as
`
`described at alternative dosing levels with a reasonable expectation of success
`
`because the intervals were readily available for a standard process of drug
`
`development.
`
`33. Furthermore, in my opinion, a POSITA would have had reason to
`
`modify the clinical trial design of Kappos 2006 in view of the ICH Guideline E4
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success, as part of a group of dosing studies,
`
`because the purpose of the ICH Guideline E4 was to provide instructions to help
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`identify “an appropriate starting dose, the best way to adjust dosage to the needs of
`
`a particular patient, and a dose beyond which increases would be unlikely to
`
`provide added benefit or would produce unacceptable side effects.” Ex. 1004, 5:7–
`
`10.
`
`34. In sum, a POSITA, in my opinion, would have been motivated to
`
`conduct routine experiments at a range of doses, including 480 mg/day, by orally
`
`administering that dose of a pharmaceutical to subjects in need of treatment for
`
`MS.
`
`Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the pharmaceutical composition is
`administered in the form of a tablet, a suspension, or a capsule.
`
`35. Counsel explained to me that claim 2 depends on claim 1 and
`
`
`
`incorporates all its limitations. I see that claim 2 further requires, “the
`
`pharmaceutical composition is administered in the form of a tablet, a
`
`suspension, or a capsule.” Kappos 2006 discloses the composition is
`
`administered as capsules: “patients were assigned to four treatment groups and
`
`received BG00012 capsules 120 mg by mouth” Ex. 1003, page 27, col. 2:32–33.
`
`Joshi also teaches “the active ingredients are used for preparing oral preparations
`
`in the form of tablets, micro-tablets, pellets or granulates, optionally in capsules or
`
`sachets.” Ex. 1030, col. 4:31–33. Thus, in my opinion, a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to administer DMF orally as a tablet or capsule.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the therapeutically effective amount
`is administered in separate administrations of 2, 3, 4, or 6 equal doses.
`
`
`36. Counsel explained to me that claim 3 depends on claim 1 and
`
`incorporates all its limitations. I see that claim 3 further requires, “the
`
`therapeutically effective amount is administered in separate administrations
`
`of 2, 3, 4, or 6 equal doses.” Kappos 2006 discloses the therapeutically effective
`
`amount is administered in separate administrations of 3 equal doses as: “Patients
`
`were assigned to four treatment groups and received BG00012 capsules … 120 mg
`
`three times daily (360 mg/day), 240 mg three times daily (720 mg/day)” (Ex. 1003,
`
`page 27, col. 2:32–35). In my opinion, ClinicalTrials NCT00168701 also teaches a
`
`dose-ranging study in which patients were randomized to receive BG00012...120
`
`mg PO three times daily (360 mg/day), 240mg PO three times daily (720 mg/day).
`
`Ex. 1022, pages 1–2. ClinicalTrials NCT00168701 discloses at least one dose or
`
`three equal doses.
`
`37. The ICH Guideline E4 (Ex. 1004) teaches that “[t]he choice of the size
`
`of an individual dose is often intertwined with the frequency of dosing. In general,
`
`when the dose interval is long compared to the half-life of the drug, attention
`
`should be directed to the pharmacodynamic basis for the chosen dosing interval.
`
`For example, there might be a comparison of the long dose-interval regimen with
`
`the same dose in a more divided regimen, looking, where this is feasible, for
`
`persistence of desired effect throughout the dose-interval and for adverse effects
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`associated with blood level peaks.” Ex. 1004, 7:9–15. In my opinion, attempting to
`
`find the optimal individual dose, dosing frequency and total daily dose are a
`
`normal part of drug development. Administering therapeutically effective amounts
`
`of DMF to a subject, in a number of equal doses throughout the day, would
`
`necessarily smooth out peak blood levels of the biologically active metabolite,
`
`MMF. Furthermore, DMF is known to be metabolically converted to MMF rapidly
`
`by hydrolysis in the intestinal tissue. Ex. 1016, page 2, col. 1:6 – col. 2:1–12. In
`
`my opinion, dividing the daily dose into smaller equal doses taken separately,
`
`throughout the day, would have reasonably been expected to reduce gastric
`
`distress, because smaller doses expose the G. I. tract to less DMF at one time.
`
`Routine dosing experiments would have shown whether administration of 480 mg
`
`DMF in 2, 3, 4 or 6 equal doses are therapeutically effective. Further, a POSITA,
`
`in my opinion, would have been motivated to use multiples of 120 mg or 240 mg
`
`to perform dosing studies, since Kappos 2006 and ClinicalTrials NCT00168701
`
`used both 120 mg and 240 mg dosage strengths. I would like to note that claim 3
`
`recites every dosing interval from 2 equal doses to 6 equal doses, indicating there
`
`is no critical dosing interval. Thus, a POSITA, in my opinion, would have been
`
`motivated to administer the therapeutically effective amount of DMF in separate
`
`administrations of 2 or 4 equal doses.
`
`Claim 4: The method of claim 3, wherein the therapeutically effective amount
`is administered in separate administrations of 2 equal doses.
`21
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`38. Counsel explained to me that claim 4 depends on claim 3 and
`
`incorporates all its limitations. I see that claim 4 further requires, “the
`
`therapeutically effective amount is administered in separate administrations
`
`of 2 equal doses.” In my opinion, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`administer 480 mg/day in 2 equal doses based on the ready availability of 240 mg
`
`DMF delivered as BG00012 in Kappos 2006 as shown in claim 3 above. ICH
`
`Guideline E4 would have motivated a POSITA to administer the effective amount
`
`in two equal doses because the alternative of taking it three or four times per day
`
`would be expected to decrease patient compliance. ClinicalTrials NCT00168701
`
`states, “Dose reduction will be allowed for subjects who are unable to tolerate
`
`investigational drug.” Ex. 1022, 2:24–25. In my opinion, a dose reduction of one
`
`capsule in the high dose group (going from three times 240 mg to two times 240
`
`mg) would have resulted in a dose of 480 mg/day in 2 equal doses.
`
`Claim 5: The method of claim 3, wherein the therapeutically effective amount
`
`is administered in separate administrations of 3 equal doses.
`
`
`
`39. Counsel explained to me that claim 5 depends on claim 3 and
`
`incorporates all its limitations. I see that claim 5 further requires, “the
`
`therapeutically effec

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket