Trials@uspto.gov
`Paper 12
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`Entered: December 9, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA AB,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 1 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute
`
`an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37 and 39–42
`
`(Paper 3, “Pet.”) of RE44,186 E (Ex. 1001, “the ’186 patent”). Astrazeneca
`
`AB (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We subsequently ordered Petitioner to respond to certain
`
`arguments raised in the preliminary response. Paper 10. Petitioner filed the
`
`authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Paper 11
`
`(“Reply”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering
`
`the Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply, we conclude that Petitioner
`
`has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’186 patent. Therefore,
`
`we deny an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’186 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’186 patent is at issue in numerous district
`
`court actions. Pet. 16; Papers 2, 5.
`
`B. The ’186 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’186 patent is directed to “cyclopropyl-fused pyrrolidine-based
`
`inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase IV” (“DP-IV”). Ex. 1001, 1:19–20. DP-
`
`IV is responsible for the metabolic cleavage of certain endogenous peptides
`
`including glucagon. Id. at 1:34–42. Glucagon is a peptide with multiple
`
`2
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 2 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`physiologic roles, including the stimulation of insulin secretion, the
`
`promotion of satiety, and the slowing of gastric emptying. Id. at 1:44–48.
`
`Glucagon is rapidly degraded in the body, primarily by DP-IV–mediated
`
`enzymatic cleavage. Id. at 1:55–64. Inhibitors of DP-IV in vivo may,
`
`therefore, increase endogenous levels of glucagon, and serve to ameliorate
`
`the diabetic condition. Id. at 1:64–67.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`For the purposes of this Decision, claim 25 is illustrative of the
`
`challenged claims and is drawn to the compound shown below, or a
`
`pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
`
`
`
`This compound is known as (1S,3S,5S)-2-[(2S)-2-amino-2-(3-hydroxy-1-
`
`adamantyl) acetyl]-2-azabicyclo[3.1.0]hexane-3-carbonitrile or saxagliptin.
`
`See Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 22–23; Ex. 1003 ¶ 15; Ex. 2047, 9.
`
`D. Prior Art Asserted by Petitioner
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`prior art as the basis of challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37 and
`
`39–42 of the ’186 patent. See Pet. 5–6.
`
`Ashworth et al., 2-Cyanopyrrolidides as Potent, Stable Inhibitors of
`Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV, 6(10) BIOORGANIC & MED. CHEM. LETT.
`1163 (1996). Ex. 1007 (“Ashworth I”).
`
`3
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 3 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`Villhauer, WO 98/19998, published May 14, 1998. Ex. 1008
`(“Villhauer”).
`
`Raag, et al., Crystal Structures of Cytochrome P-450cAM Complexed
`with Camphane, Thiocamphor, and Adamantane: Factors
`Controlling P-450 Substrate Hydroxylation, 30 BIOCHEM. 2647
`(1991). Ex. 1009 (“Raag”).
`
`Hanessian et al., The Synthesis of Enantiopure w-Methanoprolines
`and w-Methanopipecolic Acids by a Novel Cyclopropanation
`Reaction: The “Flattening” of Proline, 36(17) ANGEW. CHEM. INT.
`ED. ENGL. 1881 (1997). Ex. 1010 (“Hanessian”).
`
`Bachovchin et al., WO/99/38501, published Aug. 5, 1999. Ex. 1011
`(“Bachovchin”).
`
`Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Application Number: NDA
`20-357, Revised Package Insert, available by FOIA Jan. 8, 1998.
`Ex. 1012 (“Glucophage Label”).
`
`Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Application Number: NDA
`20-766, Package Insert, available by FOIA Aug. 9, 1999. Ex. 1013
`(“Xenical Label”).
`
`Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Application Number: NDA
`19-643/S-033, Package Insert, available by FOIA Sept. 15, 1994.
`Ex. 1014 (“Mevacor Label”).
`
` E. Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37 and 39–42 of
`
`the ’186 patent on the following grounds. Pet. 2–3, 38–58.
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
` Claims challenged
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 2, 4, 6–11, 25–28,
`32–35, 39, and 40
`
`12–16, 29, 30, 36, 37,
`41, and 42
`
` 103(a)
`
`12, 17, 18, and 22
`
` §
`
`Ashworth I, Villhauer, Raag and,
`Hanessian
`Ashworth I, Villhauer, Raag,
`Hanessian, Bachovchin, and
`Glucophage Label
`Ashworth I, Villhauer,
`Raag, Hanessian, Bachovchin and,
`Xenical Label
`
`4
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 4 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
` Claims challenged
`
` 103(a)
`
`12, 19, 20, and 21
`
`
`
` §
`
`Ashworth I, Villhauer,
`Raag, Hanessian, Bachovchin, and
`Mevacor Label
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner contends that each of the challenged claims encompasses
`
`the compound of claim 25, saxagliptin, its pharmaceutically acceptable
`
`salt[s], or the use of those compounds. Pet. 23. “Thus, if the saxagliptin
`
`compound (and its use to treat type II diabetes) is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103, then all of these claims are obvious.” Id. Accordingly, we focus on
`
`whether Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing that claim 25 is unpatentable.
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets a claim term in an
`
`unexpired patent according to its broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
`
`re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1278–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we assign claim
`
`terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in the context of the
`
`entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner contends that the claims use conventional terminology. Pet.
`
`18–19. Patent Owner does not contest the construction of any claim term.
`
`For the purposes of this Decision, none of the terms requires express
`
`construction.
`
`5
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 5 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`B. Patentability Analysis
`
`A determination of whether a new chemical compound would have
`
`been obvious over the prior art typically follows a two prong inquiry
`
`considering first, whether one of ordinary skill would have selected one or
`
`more lead compounds for further development and, second, whether the
`
`prior art would have supplied sufficient motivation to modify a lead
`
`compound to arrive at the compound claimed with a reasonable expectation
`
`of success. See Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd., v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280,
`
`1291–92 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Applying this analysis, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art1 would have selected Ashworth I compound 25 (“compound 25”)
`
`as a lead compound in the development of DP-IV inhibitors “because of its
`
`superior combination of potency and stability.” Reply 1 (citing Pet. 24–25).
`
`Compound 25 has the structure shown below:
`
`Compound 25 comprises a glycyl moiety having a primary amine (NH2), a
`
`cyclohexyl group on the β-carbon (2-position) of the glycyl moiety, and a
`
`
`
`1 At this stage of the proceeding, we accept Petitioner’s contention that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would typically “have an advanced degree
`(e.g., a Ph.D.) in pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical chemistry, medicinal
`chemistry or a related field and at least 2-3 years of practical experience in
`the design of drugs” or less education but considerably more professional
`experience. Pet. 12; see Prelim. Resp. 31.
`
`6
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 6 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`pyrrolidine ring having a cyano (nitrile) group, designated here as CN. Pet.
`
`7. The chemical structure of saxagliptin is shown below.
`
`
`
`Prelim. Resp. 23. The structure of saxagliptin differs from compound 25 in
`
`having 3-hydroxyl adamantyl in place of the cyclohexyl group and a
`
`cyclopropyl fusion of the pyrroline ring. Id.
`
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to modify compound 25 by 1) replacing the 6-carbon cyclohexyl
`
`group at the 2-position with a 10-carbon adamantyl moiety; 2) hydroxylating
`
`the adamantyl moiety at a specific position; and 3) adding a cyclopyropyl
`
`ring to the pyrrolidine portion of compound 25 in the 4S,5S configuration.
`
`Pet. 25–33.
`
`For the purpose of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s assertion that
`
`a personal of ordinary skill would have chosen compound 25 as a lead
`
`compound. Accepting that compound 25 is a lead compound, it nevertheless
`
`“remains necessary to identify some reason that would have led a chemist to
`
`modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie
`
`obviousness of a new claimed compound.” Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v.
`
`Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, we
`
`focus on whether the evidence of record supports Petitioner’s contention that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the 6-
`
`7
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 7 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`carbon cyclohexyl group at the 2-position of compound 25 with a 10-carbon
`
`adamantyl moiety.
`
`1. Stability
`
`Petitioner points to the stability of compound 25 as an important
`
`reason for selecting it as a lead compound. See, e.g., Pet. 25; Reply 3–4.
`
`For example, Petitioner argues that Ashworth I teaches the advantages of a
`
`large cycloalkyl moiety, such as the cyclohexyl group of compound 25, in
`
`promoting both stability (by preventing cyclization of the primary amine)
`
`and affinity (by biasing the molecule toward the trans configuration). Pet.
`
`25; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 111–121. Petitioner further argues, however, that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the
`
`cyclohexyl group of compound 25 with the even larger cycloalkyl adamantyl
`
`group taught by Villhauer to increase its stability and potency (affinity).2
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 113; Pet. 26. Petitioner does not, however, explain why one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have sought to further increase the stability of
`
`compound 25. In light of the evidence of record, we agree with Patent
`
`Owner that such motivation is lacking. Prelim. Resp. 44–47.
`
`
`2 The parties agree that Ki, a measure of in vitro binding affinity, is
`indicative of inhibitor “potency,” wherein a smaller Ki indicates greater
`potency. Reply 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 64; Prelim. Resp. 10 n.2. “Thus, an inhibitor
`with a Ki of 10-9 M is ten times more potent than one with a Ki of 10-8 M.”
`Prelim. Resp. 10 n.2. For the purpose of this opinion, therefore, we apply
`the convention of equating inhibitor “potency” with in vitro binding affinity,
`represented by Ki. See, e.g., Ashworth I, (Ex. 1007, 1163) (“The most
`potent DP-IV inhibitors reported to date are the boroproline analogues 1, (Ki
`=2nM) and 2, (Ki =3nM).”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 8 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
` According to Petitioner’s own assertions and evidence, the prior art
`
`characterized compound 25 as a stable compound. In particular, Ashworth I
`
`characterizes stable DP-IV inhibitors, compared to unstable inhibitors, as
`
`those having half-lives of 48 hours or more. For example, Ashworth I
`
`teaches that the free amino-terminus of DP-IV inhibitors renders them
`
`“inherently unstable at neutral pH due to intramolecular cyclisation.”
`
`Ex. 1007, 1163. Illustrating this instability, Ashworth I teaches that the most
`
`potent of these inhibitors to date are boroproline analogues with half-lives
`
`(t½) at neutral pH of only 30 and 90 minutes, respectively. Id.
`
`In contrast to the shorter half-lives of boroproline analogs, Ashworth I
`
`discloses “stable” inhibitors of DP-IV as having half-lives of 48 hours or
`
`greater. Id., Title, Abstract; see also id. at 1164 (“superior stability”);
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 62; Prelim. Resp. 32–33. In particular, Ashworth I states that
`
`“[a] number of dipeptide analogues, incorporating a 2-cyanopyrrolidide,
`
`were found to have Ki values of less than 5 nM versus human DP-IV and
`
`half-lives of >48h in aqueous solution (pH 7.4)” Ex. 1007, Abstract. These
`
`analogs, identified in Ashworth I, Table II, as having “excellent half-lives
`
`(t½) in aqueous solution (pH 7.4),” expressly include compound 25. Id. at
`
`1165, 1166, Table II.
`
`Ashworth I provides further disclosure that DP-IV inhibitors having
`
`half-lives of 48 hours or more are “stable.” For example, Ashworth I Table
`
`II reports the half-life of compound 24 as equal to 48 hours. See Ex. 1007,
`
`1166. A subsequent review of DP-IV inhibitors by other authors noted that
`
`this compound exhibited “excellent stability at pH = 7.4 (t½ = 48 h).”
`
`9
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 9 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`Ex. 2007,3 314–15, 325 (cited reference 40); see also Prelim. Resp. 33
`
`(confirming identity of compound 24 in Ex. 2007).
`
`Despite the “excellent” stability of Ashworth I’s compounds, the
`
`authors continued to optimize the pyrrolidine ring of their inhibitor series.
`
`Ex. 1007, 1165. Not surprisingly, the resulting publication, Ashworth II,4
`
`was not directed to increasing stability, but “to improv[ing] the potency of
`
`this class of inhibitors.” Ex. 2001, 2746. Indeed, Ashworth II identified as
`
`“stable” compounds having half-lives of from as little as 5 to 27 hours.
`
`Ex. 2001, Title, Abstract, 2748; see also id. at 2746 (“good stability”).
`
`Ashworth II, therefore, further suggests that compound 25 is stable in its
`
`original form. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish sufficient
`
`motivation for modifying compound 25 to increase its stability.
`
`Even were we to find some motivation to increase the stability of
`
`compound 25, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has identified a sufficient
`
`rationale, based on the cited art, for increasing stability by substituting a
`
`larger cycloalkane—in particular, adamantane—for the cyclohexyl group of
`
`compound 25. Petitioner argues that because Ashworth I teaches the
`
`stability benefits of a large lipophilic substituent at the 2-position, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would reasonably turn to an even larger lipophilic
`
`substituent like adamantyl. Pet. 27–28. But, as Patent Owner points out,
`
`Ashworth I compounds 24–27 exhibit comparable stabilities with half-lives
`
`
`
`3 Augustyns et al., The Unique Properties of Dipeptidyl·peptidase IV (DPP
`IV I CD26) and the Therapeutic Potential of DPP IV Inhibitors, 6 CURR.
`MED. CHEM. 311 (1999). Ex. 2007 (“Augustyns”).
`4 Ashworth et al., 4-Cyanopyrrolidides as Potent, Stable Inhibitors of
`Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV, 6(22) BIOORGANIC & MED. CHEM. LETT. 2745
`(1996). Ex. 2001 (“Ashworth II”).
`
`10
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 10 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`of at least 48 hours despite having substituents of varying size and
`
`composition in the 2-position. See Prelim. Resp. 45. Moreover, Table II
`
`shows no discernable difference between the stability of compound 25
`
`(having a 6-carbon cyclohexyl ring at the 2-position) as compared to
`
`compound 27 (having a 4-carbon tert-butyl group at the 2-position).
`
`Ex. 1007, 1166, Table II. In addition, Ashworth II suggests that, in a related
`
`series of nitrile compounds, those having cyclohexane or cyclopentane rings
`
`at the 2-position “display lower stability (lower t½) than the less bulky
`
`lipophilic group of isoleucine.” Prelim. Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2001, 2748,
`
`Table II (comparing compounds 13 and 14 with compound 3)).
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Villhauer fails to cure the lack of rationale for
`
`substituting adamantyl at the 2-position of compound 25. See Pet. 25–28,
`
`31. Villhauer, as Patent Owner points out, is directed to secondary amine
`
`compounds, and does not address the stability of the primary amine
`
`backbone of compound 25. Prelim. Resp. 4–5, 19, 46; see Pet. 25. Indeed,
`
`Villhauer does not mention stability as a reason to choose any particular
`
`moiety. And although Villhauer identifies adamantyl as a possible moiety in
`
`“[e]ven more preferred compounds,” adamantyl groups are conspicuously
`
`absent from the preferred examples of Villhauer—“Examples 1, 3, 5, 8, and
`
`12 [,which] are the preferred agents of the invention.” Ex. 1008, 5, 21; see
`
`Pet. 26.
`
`2. Potency
`
`Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to substitute a larger cycloalkane—in particular, adamantane—for
`
`the cyclohexyl group of compound 25 because such a substitution would
`
`increase the compound’s affinity to DP-IV. Specifically, Petitioner’s expert
`
`11
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 11 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`substitute the cyclohexyl group at the 2-position of compound 25 with the
`
`larger adamantyl group because Ashworth I “shows increased potency for
`
`compounds having larger substituents at the 2-position.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 113. In
`
`support of this opinion, Petitioner’s expert points to the comparative
`
`affinities of Ashworth I compounds 24 and 25. Id.
`
`Compound 24 has a 5-member cyclopentyl (Cpg) ring at the 2-
`
`position and a Ki of 1.1 ±0.2 nM. Ex. 1007, 1166, Table II. Compound 25
`
`has a larger, 6-member cyclohexyl ring (Chg) and a Ki of 1.4±0.5 nM. Id.
`
`In addressing Patent Owner’s argument that compound 24 is, in fact, more
`
`potent (i.e., has a lower Ki) than compound 25, Petitioner asserts that
`
`“because the potencies are presented as ranges, both compounds 24 and 25
`
`have the same lower Ki limit of 0.09 nM.” Reply 1–2 (citing Prelim. Resp.
`33) (emphasis added).5
`
`Under either interpretation, the record does not establish persuasively
`
`that an even larger cycloalkyl moiety, i.e., adamantyl, at the 2-position will
`
`increase potency. To the contrary, according to Petitioner’s argument that
`
`compounds 24 and 25 have the same lower Ki limit, increasing the size of
`
`the cycloalkyl ring at the 2-position has no effect on potency. Conversely,
`
`under Patent Owner’s interpretation, increasing the size of the cyclopentyl
`
`ring of compound 24 by a single carbon, leads to an increase in Ki, and
`
`hence, a reduction in affinity. See generally Prelim Resp. 33 (citing
`
`Ex. 2007, 314). Moreover, consistent with Patent Owner’s interpretation,
`
`
`
`5 We recognize that Petitioner’s argument is contrary to Augustyns, which
`characterizes compound 24, rather than compound 25, as “the most potent”
`of Ashworth I’s compounds. See Ex. 2007, 314–315; Prelim. Resp. 33.
`
`12
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 12 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`Ashworth II shows similar effects with a related series of compounds where
`
`a 5-carbon cyclopentyl ring at the 2-position of compound 13 (Ki = 0.5±0.10
`
`nM) provides a more potent DP-IV inhibitor than the larger cyclohexyl of
`
`compound 14 (Ki = 0.8±0.20 nM). Ex. 2001, 2748, Table II.
`
`Petitioner also appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to explore larger lipophilic substitutions such as
`
`adamantane at the 2-position in light of Ashworth I’s statement that “as can
`
`be seen in Table I, lipophilic amino acids gave more potent compounds.”
`
`Ex. 1007, 1165; Pet. 24–25; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 116. However, the data in
`
`Ashworth Table I itself shows that “the generalization that greater
`
`bulk/lipophilicity is better for potency does not invariably hold.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 44–45. For example, as noted by Patent Owner, “the amino acid
`
`valine is less lipophilic and contains less “beta-branching” (having one less
`
`CH3 group) than tertbutyl, yet the valine compound (Compound 9) is more
`
`potent than the tert-butyl compound (Compound 11).” Id. We further note
`
`that compound 5, having cyclohexylglycine at the 2-position, has a lower Ki
`
`than compound 17, which has a larger cyclohexylalanine moiety at that
`
`position. See Ex. 1007, 1164, Table I. Moreover, because the compounds
`
`identified in Ashworth Table I lack the cyano group of saxagliptin, we
`
`consider them less pertinent to Petitioner’s position than, for example,
`
`compounds 24 and 25, discussed above. In light of Ashworth I’s teaching
`
`that a 6-carbon cyclohexyl ring at the 2-position provides no better potency
`
`than a 5-carbon cyclopentyl ring in more closely related cyano compounds,
`
`we do not find this argument persuasive.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the evidence of record does not
`
`convince us that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
`
`13
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 13 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`increase either the stability or potency of compound 25 by substituting the
`
`10-carbon adamantyl ring for the less bulky 6-carbon cyclohexane ring.
`
`3. Additional Cited Art
`
`As set forth above, Petitioner’s asserted grounds further rely on the
`
`teachings of Raag, Hanessian, Bachovcin, Glucophage Label, Xenical Label,
`
`and Mevacor Label in asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`Petitioner’s contentions regarding the motivation for one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to replace the cyclohexyl group at the 2-position of compound 25
`
`with adamantyl, however, is the same with respect to each asserted ground.
`
`As explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments on this
`
`issue. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing any of the challenged
`
`claims would have been obvious based on any one of the asserted grounds.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the information presented in the Petition
`
`and accompanying evidence does not establish a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–
`
`22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 of the ’186 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 of the ’186 patent is denied.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 14 of 15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Steven Parmelee
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`
`Michael Rosato
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Charles Lipsey
`charles.lipsey@finnegan.com
`
`Eric Grondahl
`egrondahl@mccarter.com
`
`David Weingarten
`david.weingarten@finnegan.com
`
`
`15
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2080
`Par v Novartis, IPR 2016-00084
`Page 15 of 15