throbber
Inter Partes Review of USP 5,665,772
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`Issued: Sept. 9, 1997
`Application No.: 08/416,673
`U.S. Filing Date: April 7, 1995
`
`For: O-Alkylated Rapamycin Derivatives and Their Use, Particularly As
`Immunosuppressants
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED VIA PRPS
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM L. JORGENSEN PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,665,772
`
`
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 001
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction And Qualifications ...................................................................... 1
`
` My Relevant Experience With Rapamycin And Other II.
`
`
`Immunosuppressants In The Early-1990s ....................................................... 3
`
`
`
` Understanding Of The Governing Law ........................................................... 4 III.
`
`Invalidity by Obviousness ..................................................................... 4
`A.
`B. Materials Relied on in Forming My Opinion ........................................ 6
`
`IV.
`
` Overview Of The ’772 Patent .......................................................................... 6
`
`A. Disclosure of the ’772 Patent ................................................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`
`
`Prosecution History ....................................................................................... 14
`
`VI.
`
` Level Of Skill In The Art .............................................................................. 15
`
`
`
` Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 17 VII.
`
`
`
` Summary Of Opinions ................................................................................... 17 VIII.
`
`IX.
`
` TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE PRIOR ART ....... 25
`
`A.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Background and State of the Prior Art ................................................ 26
`1.
`Rapamycin And Its Immunosuppressant Activity Were
`Extremely Well-Known to Those of Ordinary Skill in the
`Art ............................................................................................. 26
`Rapamycin’s Poor Solubility Was Extremely Well-
`Known to Those of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................... 27
`Routine Molecular Modifications To Improve Solubility
`Were Well-Known to Those of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........ 28
`Those of Ordinary Skill in the Art Made Routine
`Modifications to Rapamycin ..................................................... 34
`The Discovery and Disclosure of the Rapamycin/FKBP-
`12 Binding Structure Taught Those of Ordinary Skill in
`the Art the Optimum Position and Types of Substitutions
`to Make to Rapamycin .............................................................. 40
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`i
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 002
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`6.
`
`Standard Assays to Test Immunosuppressive Activities
`and Properties of Rapamycin Derivatives Were Well-
`Known to Those of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................... 56
`Prior Art Relevant to Obviousness Grounds 3 and 4 .......................... 57
`1.
`Computer Based Modeling Allowed for Rapid Screening
`of Possible Modifications ......................................................... 57
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3 & 8-10 Of The ’772 Patent Would Have Been Obvious To
`A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................................................... 59
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 10 of the ’772 Patent Would Have
`Been Obvious In View of Morris, Lemke, Yalkowsky, and Van
`Duyne and Rossmann .......................................................................... 60
`1.
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have
`Selected Rapamycin as a Lead Compound ............................... 60
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Been
`Motivated to Modify Rapamycin to Improve Its
`Solubility As Taught in the Prior Art ........................................ 63
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Been
`Motivated to Select C40 of Rapamycin for Modification
`to Avoid Disrupting Its Activity ............................................... 64
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have
`Modified Rapamycin to Add Short, Flexible Side Chains
`with Solubilizing Substituents at C40 ....................................... 67
`Ground 2: Claims 8 and 9 of the ’772 Patent Would Have Been
`Obvious In View of Morris, Lemke, Yalkowsky, and Van
`Duyne and Rossmann, in further view of Hughes .............................. 75
`1.
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Reasonably
`Expect that Small Solubilizing Modifications to
`Rapamycin at C40 Would Retain Immunosuppressive
`Activity ...................................................................................... 76
`Ground 3: Claims 1-3 and 10 of the ’772 Patent Would Have
`Been Obvious Over Routine Use of Computer-Aided Drug
`Design Software In View of Morris, Van Duyne, Lemke, and
`Yalkowsky ........................................................................................... 78
`D. Ground 4: Claims 8 and 9 Would Have Been Obvious to a
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art in October 1992 .......................... 86
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 003
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`1.
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Reasonably
`Expect that Solubilizing Modifications to Rapamycin at
`C40 Would Retain Immunosuppressive Activity ..................... 87
`
`XI.
`
` Secondary Considerations Fail To Overcome The Strong Evidence Of
`Obviousness ................................................................................................... 89
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 004
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`I, William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D. resident of Deep River, Connecticut, hereby
`
`declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”) to provide
`
`my opinions concerning certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the ’772 Patent”) in support of Par’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’772
`
`Patent. I have not previously been employed or retained by Par in any capacity.
`
`2.
`
`From 1967 to 1970, I attended Princeton University, where I received
`
`an A.B. in Chemistry. I then attended Harvard University from 1970 to 1975,
`
`where I received a Ph.D. in Chemical Physics. My Ph.D. supervisor was Prof. E. J.
`
`Corey, a well-known synthetic organic chemist and Nobel Laureate.
`
`3.
`
`From 1975 to 1979, I served as an Assistant Professor in the
`
`Department of Chemistry at Purdue University. While at Purdue, I was promoted
`
`to Associate Professor in 1979 and Professor in 1982. From 1984 to 1987, I served
`
`as the Head of the Organic Chemistry Division at Purdue.
`
`4.
`
`In 1990, I joined the Department of Chemistry at Yale University as
`
`the Whitehead Professor of Chemistry. In 2009, I became the Sterling Professor of
`
`Chemistry, the position I hold today. I additionally served as the Director of the
`
`Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering at Yale from 2009 to 2012.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 005
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`5.
`
`I have received numerous awards and honors in the course of my
`
`career, including being elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in
`
`2007 and the National Academy of Sciences in 2011, and receiving an award for
`
`Computers in Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research from the American
`
`Chemical Society in 1998 and the 2015 Tetrahedron Prize for Creativity in Organic
`
`Chemistry.
`
`6.
`
`I have served as an editor for numerous journals, including the Journal
`
`of Chemical Theory and Computation (2005-present), the Journal of Chemical
`
`Information and Modeling (2005-2013), the Encyclopedia of Computational
`
`Chemistry (2001-2005), and the Journal of Computational Chemistry (2002-2003).
`
`7.
`
`I have presented over 600 invited lectures and published more than
`
`400 articles in peer-reviewed journals. I am additionally a named inventor on 7
`
`United States patents and patent applications.
`
`8.
`
`I have extensive expertise in computational chemistry and molecular
`
`design and have been working actively in that field since the 1970s. My research
`
`interests include organic, medicinal, and computational chemistry including
`
`simulations of organic and enzymatic reactions, computer-aided drug design, and
`
`synthesis and development of
`
`therapeutic agents
`
`targeting
`
`infectious,
`
`inflammatory, and hyperproliferative diseases (e.g., cancers).
`
`
`
`2
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 006
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`9. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1004. My work in this
`
`matter is being billed at my standard consulting rate of $600 per hour. My
`
`compensation is not in any way contingent upon the outcome of any inter partes
`
`review. I have no financial or personal interest in the outcome of this proceeding
`
`or any related litigation.
`
` MY RELEVANT EXPERIENCE WITH RAPAMYCIN AND OTHER
`II.
`IMMUNOSUPPRESSANTS IN THE EARLY-1990S
`10.
`
`I am very familiar with rapamycin, including its structure and
`
`activities. In 1991, I published a paper describing molecular modeling performed
`
`to simulate the conformational characteristics of the immunosuppressant FK506, a
`
`compound that binds to the same receptor (known as FKBP) as rapamycin. (Ex.
`
`1016, Julianto Pranata & William L. Jorgensen, Computational Studies on FK506:
`
`Conformational Search and Molecular Dynamics Simulation in Water, 113 J. AM.
`
`CHEMICAL SOC’Y 9483 (1991).) That same year, I published a comment in the
`
`journal Science discussing, among other things, the binding of rapamycin and
`
`FK506 to FKBP. (Ex. 1017, William L. Jorgensen, Rusting of the Lock and Key
`
`Model for Protein-Ligand Binding, 254 SCI. 954 (1991).)
`
`11.
`
`In the early 1990s, my co-workers and I were working on FKBP,
`
`which resulted in several publications on the mechanism of the enzymatic activity
`
`of FKBP and on the binding of inhibitors to FKBP. (Ex. 1018, Modesto Orozco et
`
`
`
`3
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 007
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`al., Mechanism for the Rotamase Activity of FK506 Binding Protein from
`
`Molecular Dynamics Simulations, 32 BIOCHEMISTRY 12864 (1993); Ex. 1019,
`
`Michelle L. Lamb & William L. Jorgensen, Investigations of Neurotrophic
`
`Inhibitors of FK506 Binding Protein via Monte Carlo Simulations, 41 J. MED.
`
`CHEMISTRY 3928 (1998); Ex. 1020, Michelle L. Lamb et al., Estimation of Binding
`
`Affinities of FKBP12 Inhibitors Using a Linear Response Method, 7 BIOORGANIC
`
`& MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY 851 (1999).)
`
` UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNING LAW
`III.
`A.
`Invalidity by Obviousness
`12.
`
`I am informed by counsel for Par that obviousness is analyzed from
`
`the perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention. I am also informed by counsel for Par that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have been aware of all the pertinent prior art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed by counsel for Par that 35 U.S.C. § 103 governs the
`
`determination of obviousness. According to 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained . . . if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before
`
`
`
`4
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 008
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.
`
`14.
`
`I am also informed by counsel for Par that the first three factors to be
`
`considered in an obviousness inquiry are: (1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art. I am further information by counsel that in the
`
`context of evaluating the obviousness of a chemical compound one must analyze
`
`the selection of a lead compound, the motivation to modify the lead compound,
`
`and whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of obtaining a compound with the desired properties.
`
`15.
`
`I am also informed by counsel for Par that when there is some
`
`recognized reason to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue
`
`the known options within his or her technical grasp. If such an approach leads to
`
`the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary
`
`skill and common sense. In such a circumstance, when a patent simply arranges
`
`old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform
`
`and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the
`
`combination is obvious.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 009
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`16.
`
`I am also informed by counsel for Par that certain factors, sometimes
`
`known as “secondary considerations,” must be considered, if present, when in an
`
`obviousness determination. These secondary considerations include: (i) long-felt
`
`need, (ii) unexpected results, (iii) skepticism of the invention, (iv) teaching away
`
`from the invention, (v) commercial success, (vi) praise by others for the invention,
`
`and (vii) copying by other companies.
`
`17.
`
`I am also informed by counsel for Par that the earliest patent
`
`application leading to the ’772 Patent was filed on October 9, 1992. I have
`
`therefore analyzed obviousness as of that day or somewhat before, understanding
`
`that as time passes, the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art will
`
`increase.
`
`B. Materials Relied on in Forming My Opinion
`In forming my opinion, I have relied on the ’772 Patent’s claims,
`18.
`
`disclosure, and file history, on the prior art exhibits to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’772 Patent, any other materials cited in this declaration, and my
`
`own experience, expertise, and knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in the relevant timeframe.
`
`IV.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ’772 PATENT
`A. Disclosure of the ’772 Patent
`
`
`
`6
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 010
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`19. The ’772 Patent (Ex. 1001), describes and claims certain derivatives
`
`of the compound rapamycin, compositions including those derivatives, and their
`
`use as immunosuppressants. Rapamycin, which is shown in the figure below, was
`
`long known to those of ordinary skill in the art prior to October 1992.
`
`HO
`
`40
`
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`28
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`N
`
`O
`
`10
`
`O
`OH
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`
`
`According to the ’772 Patent, the claimed rapamycin derivatives improve on
`
`rapamycin’s properties. (Ex. 1001, ’772 Patent at 1:33-36.)
`
`20. The figure shown above identifies three carbon atoms at rapamycin’s
`
`“10,” “28,” and “40” positions. Those of ordinary skill in the art routinely number
`
`the carbon atoms in illustrations of molecules for ease of identification and refer to
`
`the carbon atoms by their position number—i.e., those three carbons would be
`
`referred to as “C10,” “C28,” and “C40.” Attached to C10, C28, and C40 are
`
`hydroxyl groups (also known as alcohol groups), made up of an oxygen atom
`
`bound to a hydrogen atom and represented in the figure shown above as “-OH.”
`
`
`
`7
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 011
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`21. As was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art by October
`
`1992, the ’772 Patent acknowledges that rapamycin was known to be “insoluble,”
`
`making it difficult to use in pharmaceutical compositions. (Id. at 1:36-40.)
`
`22. Although the ’772 Patent discloses many rapamycin derivatives, it
`
`only claims rapamycin derivatives that are substituted at the C40 position on the
`
`rapamycin molecule. (Id. at 1:45-2:19.)
`
`23. The ’772 Patent contains 10 claims. I have been asked by counsel for
`
`Par to offer my opinions regarding claims 1-3, and 10, which are directed to
`
`compounds, and claims 8 and 9, which are directed to methods of using those
`
`compounds.
`
`24. Claim 1 of the ’772 Patent claims a compound of the formula1:
`
`
`
`
`1 I note that the structural formula shown in claim 1 of the ’772 Patent depicts a
`
`bond between C3 and C35. I understand from counsel for Par that Novartis has
`
`filed a Request for Certificate of Correction with the Patent Office, and that the
`
`Patent Office has not yet issued a response. I have been asked by counsel for Par
`
`to offer my opinions as if the bond depicted between C3 and C35 did not exist, and
`
`rather a methyl group was bound to the C35 position, consistent with Novartis’s
`
`Request for Certificate of Correction.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 012
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`R1O
`
`40
`
`O
`
`N
`
`O
`
`10
`
`O
`OH
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`28
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`O
`
`
`wherein R1 is hydroxyl(C1-6)alkyl or hydroxyl(C1-3)alkoxy(C1-3)alkyl.
`25. The figure shown above identifies three carbon atoms: at the “10,”
`
`
`
`“28,” and “40” positions following the standard numbering scheme used for
`
`rapamycin above. As with rapamycin, hydroxyl groups (represented as “-OH”) are
`
`attached to C10 and C28.
`
`26. The “R1” attached to the C40 (shown in red in the figure above) is a
`
`standard nomenclature used by those of ordinary skill in the art to represent a
`
`number of possible different substitutions at that position.
`
`27. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that claim 1
`
`thus covers rapamycin derivatives with alkyloxy groups substituted at the C40
`
`position.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 013
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`28. Alkyl groups are obtained by removing a hydrogen atom from an
`
`alkane. Alkanes are saturated hydrocarbons with the general formula CnH2n+2. For
`
`example, removing a hydrogen atom from ethane molecule yields an ethyl group,
`
`which can then bond to a larger molecule.
`
`29. A hydroxy(C1-6)alkyl substituent, as claimed in claim 1, is a saturated
`
`hydrocarbon with a hydrogen atom removed, containing between one and six
`
`carbon atoms and a hydroxyl group. For example, claim 1 includes rapamycin
`
`substituted at the C40 position with a 2-hydroxyethyl group to yield the compound
`
`40-O-(2-hydroxyethyl)-rapamycin, shown below.
`
`40-O-(2-hydroxyethyl)-rapamycin
`
`40
`
`O O
`
`HO
`
`O
`
`O
`
`28
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`N
`
`O
`
`10
`
`O
`OH
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`
`
`30. Alkoxy substituents are alkyl groups bonded to an oxygen atom, e.g.,
`
`ethoxy, which can be drawn as CH3CH2O-.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 014
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`31. A hydroxy(C1-3)alkoxy(C1-3)alkyl substituent, as claimed in claim 1, is
`
`a hydroxyl group bound to an alkoxy group containing between one and three
`
`carbon atoms which is further bound to an alkyl group containing between one and
`
`three carbon atoms. For example, claim 1 also includes rapamycin substituted at
`
`the C40 position with a 2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl group (shown in red in the
`
`figure below) to yield the compound 40-O-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl]-rapamycin,
`
`shown below.
`
`40-O-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl]-rapamycin
`
`40
`
`O O
`
`HO
`
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`28
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`O
`
`N
`
`O
`
`10
`
`O
`OH
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`
`
`32. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites a compound according to
`
`claim 1 in which R1 is hydroxy(C1-3)alkyl or hydroxy(C1-3)alkoxy(C1-3)alkyl, shown
`
`respectively in the figures below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 015
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`HO
`
`(CH2)1-3
`
`40
`
`O O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`28
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`N
`
`O
`
`10
`
`O
`OH
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`
`
`40
`
`O O
`
`(CH2)1-3
`
`HO
`
`O
`(CH2)1-3
`
`O
`
`O
`
`28
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`N
`
`O
`
`10
`
`O
`OH
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`
`
`33. The compounds covered by claim 2 are a subset of the compounds
`
`claimed in claim 1, where the alkyl group must contain between one and three
`
`carbon atoms.
`
`34. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites a compound according to
`
`claim 1 in which R1 is hydroxy(C1-3)alkyl.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 016
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`35. The compounds covered by claim 3 are a subset of the compounds
`
`claimed in claim 1, where the rapamycin derivative must contain a hydroxyalkyl
`
`group at C40 containing between one and three carbon atoms.
`
`36. Claim 8 recites a method of inducing an immunosuppressant effect in
`
`a subject in need of immunosuppression, which comprises administering to said
`
`subject an immunosuppressant effective amount of a compound according to claim
`
`1.
`
`37. Claim 9 recites a method of preventing allograft rejection in a subject
`
`in need of such treatment, which comprises administering to said subject a
`
`compound according to claim 1 in an amount effective to prevent allograft
`
`rejection.
`
`38. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and, as corrected by the Certificate of
`
`Correction attached to the ’772 Patent, recites the compound according to claim 1
`
`which is 40-O-(2-hydroxyethyl)-rapamycin, the compound shown below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 017
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`40-O-(2-hydroxyethyl)-rapamycin
`
`40
`
`O O
`
`HO
`
`O
`
`O
`
`28
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`O
`
`N
`
`O
`
`10
`
`O
`OH
`O
`
`O
`
`O
`
`
`39. Given the definitions of R1 in claims 2 and 3, the compound identified
`
`in claim 10 also falls within the scope of the compounds included in claims 2 and
`
`3.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`40.
`
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’772 Patent. (Ex.
`
`1002.)
`
`41. All pending claims in the application for the ’772 Patent were initially
`
`rejected during prosecution on the basis of obviousness over Goulet et al., U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,258,389, which disclosed rapamycin analogues that either broadly
`
`
`
`14
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 018
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`included the claimed compounds or compounds with structural similarity to the
`
`claimed compounds. 2
`
`42. Applicants responded by arguing that the only compound disclosed in
`
`Goulet was very different than the claimed compounds, and one would have to
`
`pick and choose from Goulet’s broad disclosures to arrive at the claimed
`
`compounds. Applicants also included a declaration showing the activity of three of
`
`the claimed compounds against the Goulet compound. Finally, Applicants claimed
`
`priority to a British Application, which predated the date of the Goulet
`
`Application.
`
`43. The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on December 16, 1996,
`
`and the ’772 Patent issued on September 9, 1997.
`
`VI.
`
` LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`44. The purported inventions of the ’772 Patent reflect an understanding
`
`of several fundamental principles of drug design, including knowledge of the prior
`
`
`2 As often occurs with large molecules, different chemists utilized different
`
`numbering schemes for the carbon atoms in rapamycin and rapamycin derivatives
`
`in the 1980s and 1990s. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized such variation in numbering conventions and have been able to identify
`
`the atoms on rapamycin that were modified.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 019
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`art compounds and their activities and binding domains.
`
`45. Based on those factors, in my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in October 1992 would have had, at a minimum:
`
`a.
`
`a Ph.D. in organic chemistry or medicinal chemistry or physical
`chemistry, or a related field; or
`
`b.
`
`a masters or bachelor’s degree in chemistry or a related field
`and at least three years’ experience in drug discovery and
`design.
`46. This description is approximate, and a higher level of education or
`
`skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa. In addition, in October
`
`1992, those of ordinary skill in the art had access to technicians with experience in
`
`computer-aided drug design, crystallography, as well as in testing a compound’s
`
`activity in standard chemical and biological assays.
`
`47.
`
`I believe that I would qualify as a person of at least ordinary skill in
`
`the art in October 1992, and that I have a sufficient level of knowledge, experience,
`
`and education to provide an opinion in the field of the ’772 Patent at that time.
`
`48. Furthermore, in my role as a Professor and head of my own research
`
`group, I manage approximately twenty individuals at a given time and, around
`
`October 1992, worked with and supervised individuals who were persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as defined above. My job responsibilities include
`
`managing these individuals, assigning tasks and deadlines to them based on their
`
`
`
`16
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 020
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`capabilities, and reviewing their work product. I also remain an active practitioner
`
`of computer-aided drug design and developer of
`
`facilitating software.
`
`Accordingly, I am well acquainted with the actual performance of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as defined above in October 1992, and can approach
`
`technical issues from the perspective of such a person.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`VII.
`I understand from counsel for Par that the claim terms of the ’772
`49.
`
`Patent are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning based on the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. I have interpreted the
`
`’772 Patent claims in this way and do not believe that any special meanings apply
`
`to the claim terms of the ’772 Patent.
`
`50.
`
`I understand from the Certificate of Correction submitted by Novartis
`
`that Novartis maintains that the structure drawn in claim 1 does not have a bond
`
`between C3 and C35, but rather that there is a methyl group on C35. I have been
`
`asked by counsel for Par to assume that this structure is the broadest reasonable
`
`construction for the claim.
`
` SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`VIII.
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art in October 1992
`51.
`
`would have found the subject matter of claims 1-3 & 8-10 of the ’772 Patent
`
`obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 021
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`52.
`
`In short, by October 1992, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have selected rapamycin as a lead compound, knowing of its relatively poor
`
`solubility. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`modify rapamycin to improve its solubility without disrupting its biological
`
`activity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified rapamycin’s
`
`C40 hydroxyl group because the structure showing rapamycin’s binding to one of
`
`its biological targets, FKBP-12, showed that the C40 hydroxyl was the best
`
`position for modification. Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`systematically attached solubilizing groups at the C40 and would have made
`
`rapamycin derivatives within the scope of the claims of the ’772 Patent. And
`
`having made these rapamycin derivatives, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have reasonably expected them to retain their immunosuppressant activities
`
`and administered them as immunosuppressants. For these reasons, it is my opinion
`
`that the claims of the ’772 Patent are obvious in view of the prior art. I expand on
`
`this further below.
`
`53. First, by October 1992, those of ordinary skill in the art were well
`
`aware of rapamycin, and had been for years. Since its discovery in a soil sample
`
`from Easter Island (also known as Rapa Nui, for which rapamycin was named),
`
`rapamycin and its properties had been extensively studied and highly publicized by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art. Among rapamycin’s best known, most studied,
`
`
`
`18
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 022
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`and most promising properties was its potent immunosuppressive activity—i.e., its
`
`potential to prevent organ transplant and allograft rejection. (Ex. 1005, Randall
`
`Ellis Morris, Rapamycins:
`
` Antifungal, Antitumor, Antiproliferative, and
`
`Immunosuppressive Macrolides, 6 TRANSPLANTATION REVIEWS 39, 39-42, 52-64
`
`(1992) (“Morris”).) Scientists and drug companies were intrigued by the
`
`possibilities rapamycin might offer as a potent drug and identified it as a lead
`
`compound for study and analysis. (See § IX.A.1, below.)
`
`54. Second, by October 1992, it was widely reported in the literature that
`
`rapamycin’s utility as a pharmaceutical was limited by its poor solubility. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1005, Morris at 46.) Indeed, this limitation of rapamycin is expressly
`
`acknowledged in the ’772 Patent. (Ex. 1001, ’772 Patent at 1:36-40.) Solubility is
`
`crucial for a pharmaceutical because it is directly linked to bioavailability.
`
`Rapamycin’s relative inability to dissolve therefore limited its ability to enter the
`
`bloodstream and eventually reach the tissue where it would have its intended
`
`immunosuppressive effect. (See § IX.A.2, below.)
`
`55. Well before October 1992, those of ordinary skill in the art understood
`
`that a compound’s solubility could be improved by making routine modifications
`
`to the compound’s molecular structure. Indeed, by 1992, improving solubility was
`
`a common purpose for making modifications to existing molecules. Thus, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look and combine the
`
`
`
`19
`
`Par Pharm., Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`Page 023
`
`

`
`Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of
`Par Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`prior art teachings about rapamycin, including its relatively poor solubility, with
`
`the prior art teachings regarding solubility-enhancing substituents. (See § IX.A.3,
`
`below.)
`
`56. Such publications
`
`listing
`
`the solubilizing effects of various
`
`substituents were available by October 1992, including the following references.
`
`(Ex. 1007, Samuel H. Yalkowsky, Estimation of Entropies of Fusion of Organic
`
`Compounds, 18 INDUS. & ENG’G CHEMISTRY FUNDAMENTALS 108 (1979)
`
`(“Yalkowsky”); Ex. 1021, Thomas W. Bell, Construction of a Soluble Heptacyclic
`
`Terpyridine, 51 J. ORGANIC CHEMISTRY 764, 764 (1986) (“Bell”); Ex. 1008,
`
`Thomas L.

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