Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
` Entered: September 12, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INNOPHARMA
`LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC, INNOPHARMA
`INC., INNOPHARMA LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and
`MYLAN INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-011001
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`________________
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
`GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 IPR2016-00091 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
` Entered: September 12, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INNOPHARMA
`LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC, INNOPHARMA
`INC., INNOPHARMA LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and
`MYLAN INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-011001
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`________________
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
`GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 IPR2016-00091 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”)
`filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–30 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,927,606 B1 (Ex. 1004, “the ’606 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition”
`or “Pet.”). Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`On October 27, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims
`1–30 of the ’606 patent. Paper 9 (“Dec. Inst.”). Patent Owner filed a Patent
`Owner Response to the Petition. Paper 23 (Board Only), Paper 24 (Parties
`and Board Only), Paper 25 (Public), (collectively, “PO Resp.”).
`On February 25, 2016, we instituted an inter partes review in
`IPR2016-00091 and granted the motion for joinder with IPR2015-01100,
`adding InnoPharma Licensing, Inc., InnoPharma Licensing LLC,
`InnoPharma Inc., InnoPharma LLC, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, and Mylan Inc.
`to the Lupin petitioner (collectively “Petitioners”). Paper 22. Petitioners
`filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response. Paper 35 (Public), Paper 37
`(Parties and Board Only), (collectively, “Reply”).
`Both parties filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 44 (“Pet.
`Mot.”) and Paper 46 (“PO Mot.”). Each party filed an Opposition to the
`other party’s Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 49 (“PO Opp.”); Paper 51
`(“Pet. Opp.”). Each party filed also a Reply to the other party’s Opposition
`to the Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 55 (“Pet. Reply Opp.”); Paper 56
`(“PO Reply Opp.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observation Regarding Cross
`Examination of Reply Witnesses, Paper 47, and Petitioners filed a Response
`to that motion, Paper 52.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`
`On June 9, 2016, the parties presented arguments at an oral hearing.
`The hearing transcript has been entered in the record. Paper 63 (“Tr.”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). In this Final
`Written Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S. C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.73, Petitioners have not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 1–30 of the ’606 patent are unpatentable.
`Petitioners’ Motion to Exclude Evidence is dismissed as moot. Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied-in-part and
`dismissed-in-part as moot.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioners and Patent Owner identify a number of related district
`court proceedings involving the ’606 patent, including one that involves both
`parties in this proceeding: Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et al. v. Lupin,
`Ltd. et al., C.A. No. 1:15-cv-00335-JBS-KMW (D.N.J). Pet. 2–3; Paper 5,
`2–3.
`
`The parties identify also inter partes proceedings involving two
`patents to which the ’606 patent claims priority. Pet. 3; Paper 5, 3. An inter
`partes review of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,669,290 B2 was instituted in
`Metrics, Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., IPR2014-01043 (trial
`terminated after settlement, IPR2014-01043, Paper 39) and in InnoPharma
`Licensing Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., IPR2015-00902 (claims 1–
`30 of the ’290 patent were held not to have been shown to be unpatentable in
`a Final Written Decision, IPR2015-00902, Paper 90). An inter partes
`review of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,129,431 was instituted in Metrics, Inc.
`v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., IPR2014-01041 (trial terminated after
`settlement, IPR2014-01041, Paper 39) and in InnoPharma Licensing Inc. v.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., IPR2015-00903 (claims 1–22 of the ’431
`patent were held not to have been shown to be unpatentable in a Final
`Written Decision, IPR2015-00903, Paper 83).
`Additionally, an inter partes review was instituted for claims of U.S.
`Patent 8,754,131 (IPR2015-01097), U.S. Patent 8,669,290
`(IPR2015-01099), and Final Written Decisions have been entered
`determining that the challenged claims of those patents have not been shown
`to be unpatentable. Also, an inter partes review was instituted for claims 1–
`27 of U.S. Patent 8,871,813 (IPR2015-01105) and a Final Written Decision
`in that case is entered concurrently herewith determining that the challenged
`claims have not been shown to be unpatentable.
`The ’606 Patent (Ex. 1004)
`B.
`The ’606 patent relates to methods for treating an inflammatory
`disease of an eye by administering to the eye a stable aqueous liquid
`ophthalmic preparation comprising: (a) 2-amino-3-(4-bromobenzoyl)
`phenylacetic acid, or a pharmacologically acceptable salt or a hydrate
`thereof, also known by its generic name, “bromfenac”; and (b) tyloxapol.
`Ex. 1004, 1:7–31, 2:26–28.
`The Specification explains that, prior to the invention, bromfenac was
`known as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent (“NSAID”) effective
`against inflammatory diseases of the anterior and posterior segments of the
`eye, such as blepharitis, conjunctivitis, scleritis, and postoperative
`inflammation. Id. at 1:33–38. According to the Specification, the inventors
`of the ’606 patent found that by adding an alkyl aryl polyether alcohol type
`polymer, such as tyloxapol, which is an non-ionic surfactant, to an aqueous
`liquid preparation of bromfenac, the preparation “becomes stable within a
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`pH range giving no irritation to eyes, and change of the [bromfenac] . . . over
`time can be inhibited, and furthermore, when the aqueous solution contains a
`preservative, deterioration in the preservative effect of said preservative can
`be inhibited for a long period of time.” Id. at 2:26–38, 4:21–22.
`
`Experimental Example 1 of the ’606 patent compares the stability of
`bromfenac-containing ophthalmic solutions comprising 0.15 w/v%
`tyloxapol, 0.02 w/v% tyloxapol, 0.15 w/v% polysorbate 80, or 0.15 w/v%
`polyoxyl 40 stearate. See id. at 6:46–7:22. The stability of each preparation
`was tested under conditions of pH 7.0 at 60° C for 4 weeks. Id. at 7:12–14.
`The results of the comparison are shown in Table 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 6:55–7:9, Table 1. As seen in Table 1, the bromfenac activity
`remaining in each of the tyloxapol-containing preparations (73.8% for the
`0.15 w/v% tyloxapol-containing preparation and 89.6% for the 0.02 w/v%
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`tyloxapol-containing preparation) was greater than the remaining activity in
`either the polysorbate 80-containing preparation (51.3%) or the polyoxyl 40
`stearate-containing preparation (63.7%). Id.
`Illustrative Claims
`C.
`Claims 1, 9, and 11 of the ’606 patent are illustrative and reproduced
`below:
`1. A method for treating an inflammatory disease of an eye,
`the method comprising administering to said eye a stable
`aqueous liquid preparation that comprises: (a) a first component;
`and (b) a second component; wherein the first component is 2-
`amino-3-(4-bromobenzoyl)phenylacetic
`acid
`or
`a
`pharmacologically acceptable salt thereof or a hydrate thereof;
`wherein the hydrate is at least one selected from a 1/2 hydrate, 1
`hydrate, and 3/2 hydrate; the first component is the sole
`pharmaceutical active ingredient contained in the preparation;
`the second component is tyloxapol and is present in said liquid
`preparation in an amount sufficient to stabilize said first
`component; wherein said stable liquid preparation is formulated
`for ophthalmic administration; and wherein said
`liquid
`preparation is administered to said eye at a dose and a frequency
`effective to treat said inflammatory disease.
`
`The method according to claim 1; wherein the stable
`9.
`aqueous liquid preparation consists essentially of:
`(a) 2-amino-3-(4-bromobenzoyl)phenylacetic acid sodium salt,
`[(b) tyloxapol, (c) boric acid,] (d) sodium tetraborate, (e) EDTA
`sodium salt,
`(f) benzalkonium chloride,
`(g) polyvinyl-
`pyrrolidone, and (h) sodium sulfite, wherein said liquid
`preparation is formulated for ophthalmic administration, wherein
`the
`concentration
`of
`the
`2-amino-3-(4-bromobenzoyl)
`phenylacetic acid sodium salt is from about 0.02 w/v % to about
`0.1 w/v %.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`
`11. A method for treating an inflammatory disease of an eye,
`the method comprising administering to said eye a stable
`aqueous liquid preparation that comprises: (a) a first component;
`and (b) a second component; wherein the first component is 2-
`amino-3-(4-bromobenzoyl)phenylacetic
`acid
`or
`a
`pharmacologically acceptable salt thereof or a hydrate thereof;
`wherein the hydrate is at least one selected from a 1/2 hydrate, 1
`hydrate, and 3/2 hydrate; the first component is the sole
`pharmaceutical active ingredient contained in the preparation;
`the second component is tyloxapol; wherein said stable liquid
`preparation is formulated for ophthalmic administration; wherein
`the stable aqueous liquid preparation is characterized in that
`greater than 90% of the original amount of the first component
`remains in the preparation after storage at about 60° C. for 4
`weeks; and wherein said liquid preparation is administered to
`said eye at a dose and a frequency effective to treat said
`inflammatory disease.
`
`Ex. 1004, 11:17–31, 55–63; 11:66–12:15.
`The Cited References
`D.
`Petitioners rely upon the following prior art references:
`
`Ogawa
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ogawa et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,910,225,
`issued Mar. 20, 1990.
`
`Fu et al., EP 0 306 984 A1, published Mar.
`15, 1989.
`
`Sallman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,891,913,
`issued Apr. 6, 1999.
`
`
`Petitioners rely also upon the declarations of M. Jayne Lawrence,
`Ph.D. (Exs. 1005, 1094), and Ivan T. Hofmann, CPA/CFF, CLP (Exs. 1097,
`1122).
`Patent Owner relies upon the declarations of Robert O. Williams, III,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 2082), Shirou Sawa (Ex. 2098), Stephen G. Davies, D. Phil. (Ex.
`
`Fu
`
`Sallmann
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`2105), William B. Trattler, M.D. (Ex. 2116), Adam C. Myers, Ph.D. (Ex.
`2126), Daryl S. Paulson, Ph.D., M.B.A. (Ex. 2128), and John C. Jarosz (Ex.
`2130).
`
`The Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
`E.
`We instituted an inter partes review as to claims 1–30 of the ’606
`patent on the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sallmann and
`Ogawa.
`
`
`
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
`unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016)
`(affirming applicability of broadest reasonable construction standard to inter
`partes review proceedings). Under that standard, and absent any special
`definitions, we generally give 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 re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioners do not propose any specific claim construction for any
`claim term. See Pet. 5; Reply 25. Patent Owner proposes constructions for
`the terms “stable” and “amount sufficient to stabilize” as used in the claims
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`of the ’606 patent. PO Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner argues that we should
`assign, as the broadest reasonable interpretations of those terms, the same
`constructions adopted in related litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for
`the District of New Jersey. Id. (citing Ex. 2065 (Markman Opinion); also
`citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`2015)). Petitioners reply that Patent Owner provides no justification for
`adopting the district court’s claim construction of those terms. Reply 25.
`We agree with Petitioners. Only those claim terms that are in
`controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Patent Owner has not identified any controversy as to
`the scope of the claim terms for which it seeks construction. Nor does
`Patent Owner explain specifically why adopting the district court’s
`construction of the identified terms is necessary to resolve an issue in this
`proceeding. Accordingly, we decline to adopt the district court’s claim
`construction. Rather, because the parties identify no controversy as to the
`scope of any claim terms, we conclude that, for the purposes of this decision,
`no claim term requires express construction.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a
`primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v.
`VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966) and Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.,
`950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`Petitioners assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`generally be a pharmaceutical scientist involved in the research and
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`development of pharmaceuticals, and would have a Ph.D. and several years
`of experience in the field.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner asserts, more broadly, that
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in
`a field such as chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry or a related discipline
`with 3–5 years of work experience. PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2082 ¶¶ 47–48
`(Williams Decl.)).
`Based on the record as a whole, we find that Patent Owner’s
`description more appropriately encompasses the broad education that the
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art may possess. Thus, we adopt that
`description. We note, however, that neither party asserts specifically that the
`ultimate conclusion of obviousness turns on adoption of a particular level of
`ordinary skill.
`C. Analysis of Independent Claims 1, 11, and 19
`Petitioners assert that independent claims 1, 11, and 19 of the ’606
`patent would have been obvious over the combination of Sallmann and
`Ogawa. Pet. 36–43, 55–59; Reply 1–25. Patent Owner disagrees. PO Resp.
`8–60.
`
`When evaluating claims for obviousness, we consider and determine
`the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art
`and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18).
`1.
`Sallmann
`Sallmann is directed, in part, to administering ophthalmic
`
`compositions to treat inflammatory conditions of the eye. Ex. 1021, 1:7–10.
`Sallmann’s composition comprises diclofenac potassium, an NSAID, as the
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`only active ingredient. Id. at 1:7–8, 29–31. The composition comprises also
`a solubilizer, wherein tyloxapol is disclosed as one of the preferred
`solubilizers. Id. at 4:64. Sallmann teaches that the concentration of the
`solubilizer may be from 0.1 to 5000 times the concentration of the active
`ingredient. Id. at 5:1–2.
`
`2. Ogawa
`Ogawa is directed to administering stable aqueous ophthalmic
`
`compositions for treating inflammatory eye disease topically. Ex. 1010,
`1:15–17. In Example 6, Ogawa discloses a formulation comprising sodium
`salt of bromfenac monohydrate, an NSAID, as the only active ingredient, in
`an amount of 0.1 g/ 100 ml, i.e., 0.1 w/v%, and polysorbate 80 in an amount
`of 0.15 g/100 ml, i.e., 0.15 w/v%. Id. at 10:5–18. The composition
`comprises also a water-soluble polymer, i.e., polyvinyl pyrrolidone, and a
`sulfite, both of which Ogawa credits for the “remarkably enhanced” stability
`of its compositions. Id. at 3:48–52, 10:5–18.
`3. Combined Teachings of the Cited References
`Petitioners present two different arguments to support their assertion
`that independent claims 1, 11, and 19 would have been obvious over the
`combined teachings of Sallmann and Ogawa. Petitioners contend, in an
`initial obviousness rationale, that Sallmann discloses administering to an eye
`stable aqueous ophthalmic solutions which include the acidic NSAID
`diclofenac, in combination with tyloxapol. Pet. 38–40. According to
`Petitioners, the “only difference between the formulation described by
`[Sallmann] and the formulation in the claims of the ‘606 patent is the choice
`of NSAID (diclofenac vs. bromfenac).” Id. at 39.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`
`Petitioners rely also upon Example 6 of Ogawa as disclosing an
`aqueous ophthalmic solution containing bromfenac, as well as the non-ionic
`surfactant polysorbate 80. Id. Petitioners contend that “Example 6 of
`[Ogawa] includes each of the elements of independent claims 1, 11, and 19
`except for the inclusion of tyloxapol.” Id. at 40. According to Petitioners,
`an ordinary artisan would have considered it obvious to substitute Ogawa’s
`bromfenac for the diclofenac used in Sallmann’s Example 2, thereby
`arriving at a formulation having all of the ingredients required by the claims
`of the ’606 patent. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 559 (Lawrence Decl.)).
`Based on the record as a whole, we disagree with Petitioners. As
`Patent Owner correctly asserts (PO Resp. 30–32) Sallmann specifically
`focuses on diclofenac potassium formulations. See Ex. 1021, 1:60–65. For
`example, Sallmann states: “[T]he present invention relates to an ophthalmic
`composition for treating inflammatory ocular conditions, for treating
`glaucoma or for treating ear inflammatory and/or painful conditions (otitis),
`which composition comprises a therapeutically effective amount of
`diclofenac potassium and a carrier.” Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at
`1:48–54 (background section explaining the significantly superior ocular
`penetration of diclofenac potassium as compared to diclofenac sodium).
`Indeed, other than comparative examples advanced to show the superiority
`of diclofenac potassium over diclofenac sodium, Sallmann does not
`exemplify or discuss using another active ingredient for its composition. See
`id. at 7:56–14:23 (Examples 1–19).
`Given Sallmann’s specific focus on preparing diclofenac potassium
`formulations, Petitioners do not persuade us that an ordinary artisan having
`read Sallmann would have considered it obvious to substitute bromfenac for
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`the diclofenac potassium in Sallmann’s formulations. Accordingly,
`Petitioners do not persuade us that, based on this rationale, a preponderance
`of the evidence supports a conclusion that claims 1, 11, and 19 of the ’606
`patent, or their dependent claims, would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Alternatively, Petitioners assert that it would have been obvious to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogawa’s formulation by
`substituting the tyloxapol used in Sallmann’s formulations for the
`polysorbate 80 used in Ogawa’s Example 6, thereby arriving at methods of
`administering to an eye a stable aqueous preparation, as recited by claims 1,
`11, and 19 of the ’606 patent. Pet. 37. Petitioners asserts that, at the time of
`the invention, it was known in the art that polysorbate 80 could be
`substituted for tyloxapol in ophthalmic formulations. Id. In support of this
`assertion, Petitioners relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Lawrence. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 559). According to Dr. Lawrence, at the time of the
`invention, it was known that “polysorbate 80 and tyloxapol could be used
`interchangeably” and that “substituting tyloxapol for polysorbate 80 in
`ophthalmic formulations had been shown to improve the stability of acidic
`group-containing drugs.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 559 (citing Ex. 1022, 6:57–7:45)
`(“Yasueda”).2
`
`Moreover, Petitioners assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood from Sallmann that tyloxapol was a suitable additive
`in a formulation comprising a carboxyl group-containing NSAID, i.e.,
`diclofenac or bromfenac. Pet. 40. As exemplary support, Dr. Lawrence
`
`2 Yasueda et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,274,609 B1, issued Aug. 14, 2001
`(“Yasueda”).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`describes a known bromfenac ophthalmic formulation that includes
`tyloxapol as a suitable surfactant. Ex. 1005 ¶ 559 (citing Ex. 1012, 3:13–45)
`(“Desai”).3 According to Dr. Lawrence, a skilled artisan would have
`understood that diclofenac and bromfenac have similar properties and are
`subject to similar formulation issues, such that the two compounds “could be
`successfully formulated in the same way.” Id.
`Having considered the arguments and evidence advanced by
`Petitioners and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a reason to
`substitute Sallmann’s tyloxapol for the polysorbate 80 used in Ogawa’s
`formulations. Each of claims 1, 11, and 19 requires administering to an eye
`a stable aqueous liquid preparation that comprises two components: (a)
`bromfenac, its salts, or hydrates, as the sole pharmaceutically active
`ingredient, and (2) tyloxapol. Ex. 1004.
`We find that Ogawa discloses methods of treating ophthalmic
`inflammation comprising administering to an eye an ophthalmic solution
`containing the sodium salt of bromfenac monohydrate as the sole
`pharmaceutically active ingredient, meeting the “first component” of the
`preparation recited by claims 1, 11, and 19. Ex. 1010, 1:60–2:3, Example 6.
`We find also that Ogawa discloses that the solution described in
`Example 6 contains 0.15 w/v% polysorbate 80 (0.15 g/100ml). Id.
`According to Ogawa, after four weeks at 60° C, the solution described in
`Example 6 maintained 100.9 % of its original bromfenac activity. Id. at
`10:49–51, 14:45–48 (Table 11). Accordingly, the solution of Ogawa’s
`
`
`3 Desai et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,603,929, issued Feb. 18, 1997 (“Desai”).
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`Example 6 meets the stability requirements of independent claims 1 and 19,
`as well as claim 11’s additional stability requirement of greater than 90%
`bromfenac activity present after four weeks at 60° C.
`Thus, as Petitioners contend, Example 6 of Ogawa differs from
`claims 1, 11, and 19 only in that Ogawa’s solution contains polysorbate 80
`instead of tyloxapol. As Petitioners assert, however, Example 2 of Sallmann
`describes using 0.1 mg/ml tyloxapol, i.e., 0.1 w/v%, in an aqueous eye drop
`formulation that also contains an acidic group-containing NSAID diclofenac
`potassium. Ex. 1021, 8:1–13.
`Petitioners rely upon the declaration testimony of Dr. Lawrence to
`support its contention that an ordinary artisan would have considered
`Sallmann’s tyloxapol and Ogawa’s polysorbate 80 to be interchangeably
`useful in aqueous ophthalmic solutions. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 559).
`Given her qualifications, experience, and explanation, we credit her
`testimony on this issue. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3–15. Dr. Lawrence’s testimony in
`this regard, moreover, is supported by the Yasueda and Desai references
`cited in Dr. Lawrence’s Declaration. Ex. 1005 ¶ 559 (citing Exs. 1012 and
`1022).
`In particular, Yasueda describes the use of both tyloxapol and
`polysorbate 80 as solubilizing surfactants in ophthalmic solutions containing
`the anti-allergic drug pranlukast. Ex. 1022, 4:61–65; see also id. at 1:16–24
`(pranlukast used to treat allergic diseases in ophthalmology). In the
`experiment cited by Petitioners and Dr. Lawrence, Yasueda discloses that
`aqueous tyloxapol-containing formulations showed more than 98% residual
`drug activity after 2 weeks at 60° C, and that solutions containing
`polysorbate 80 had more than 95% remaining drug activity, with no
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`deposition of insoluble material in solutions using either surfactant. Id. at
`7:34–44.
`Desai describes stabilizing aqueous acidic NSAID-containing
`ophthalmic solutions with the combination of a polymeric quaternary
`ammonium compound and boric acid. Ex. 1012, 2:18–30. As Petitioners
`and Dr. Lawrence note, Desai discloses that the NSAID in its compositions
`may be diclofenac or bromfenac, and that polysorbates and/or tyloxapol may
`be used as surfactants in the ophthalmic solutions. Id. at 3:12–38.
`Given these prior art teachings, Petitioners persuade us that an
`ordinary artisan would have recognized that tyloxapol and polysorbate 80
`were interchangeably useful as non-ionic surfactants in acidic NSAID-
`containing ophthalmic aqueous solutions, and, therefore, absent persuasive
`objective evidence to the contrary, that is enough to support the proposed
`substitution, even in the absence of an express suggestion to do so. In re
`Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301
`(CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967)).
`As to the stability requirements in claims 1, 11, and 19, the ’606
`patent discloses that the tyloxapol range effective to stabilize a bromfenac-
`containing solution is between about 0.01 and 0.5 w/v %. Ex. 1004, 5:19–
`25. Both the tyloxapol concentration described in Sallmann (0.1 w/v %) and
`the polysorbate 80 concentration described in Ogawa (0.15 w/v %), fall
`within the stabilizing range set out in the ’606 patent.
`Therefore, in addition to having a reason to substitute the tyloxapol
`recited in claims 1, 11, and 19 of the ’606 patent for the polysorbate 80 in
`Ogawa’s Example 6, an ordinary artisan also had a reason to include the
`tyloxapol at a concentration encompassed by each of those claims.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments do not convince us otherwise.
`Patent Owner contends that a number of NSAID ophthalmic
`compositions other than Ogawa’s bromfenac compositions would have been
`viewed as suitable for modification, and would have been preferred over the
`bromfenac compositions. PO Resp. 8–10 (citing Ex. 2082 ¶¶ 68–77
`(Williams Decl.)). Patent Owner contends, moreover, that because of the
`benzalkonium chloride (“BAC”) in Ogawa’s formulations, an ordinary
`artisan would have been led away from Ogawa’s compositions to non-BAC-
`containing compositions. PO Resp. 10–13 (citing Allergan v. Sandoz, 796
`F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ex. 2082 ¶¶ 74–78, 80, 82, 87 (Williams
`Decl.)).
`As our reviewing court has explained, however, when evaluating
`claims for obviousness, “a finding that the prior art as a whole suggests the
`desirability of a particular combination need not be supported by a finding
`that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed by the patent
`applicant is the preferred, or most desirable, combination.” In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Given Ogawa’s undisputed
`disclosure that its compositions are useful for ophthalmic administration,
`that an ordinary artisan might not have viewed Ogawa as describing the
`most art-preferred NSAID-containing ophthalmic formulations does not
`convince us that an ordinary artisan would have considered Ogawa’s
`compositions unsuitable for the disclosed use or unsuitable for further
`modification, such as the substitution of known interchangeably useful
`ophthalmically acceptable non-ionic surfactants.
`We acknowledge that Ogawa does not disclose expressly why it
`included polysorbate 80 in its compositions. PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2082
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`¶ 125). Ogawa, nonetheless, includes polysorbate 80, a well known non-
`ionic surfactant, in every one of the exemplified bromfenac-containing
`compositions that is described as an ophthalmic solution, including
`Example 6. See Ex. 1010, 9:5–10:68 (Examples 1, 2, 4, and 5–9).
`Accordingly, although Ogawa does not expressly state its reason for
`including polysorbate 80 in its compositions, we agree with Petitioners that
`an ordinary artisan would have recognized from Ogawa that its compositions
`included a non-ionic surfactant in bromfenac-containing ophthalmic
`solutions, and that such non-ionic surfactant had well known ophthalmically
`acceptable equivalents. That Ogawa’s reason for including a non-ionic
`surfactant in its bromfenac-containing solutions may have differed from the
`stabilization effect discovered by the inventors of the ’606 patent, discussed
`above, does not demonstrate a deficiency in Petitioners’ contention that,
`based on the cited prior art, an ordinary artisan would have recognized
`Sallmann’s tyloxapol as an ophthalmically acceptable non-ionic surfactant
`that would be an interchangeably useful equivalent to the polysorbate 80 in
`Ogawa’s compositions.4
`Patent Owner contends that, given the complex and sensitive nature of
`preparing ophthalmic solutions, and given the significant differences in
`structure between tyloxapol and polysorbate 80, which are among numerous
`other non-ionic surfactants that were available for use, an ordinary artisan
`would not have viewed tyloxapol and polysorbate 80 as interchangeably
`
`4 In our following analysis of secondary considerations of nonobviousness,
`we consider whether the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that
`tyloxapol performs as a true equivalent yielding the same result as
`polysorbate 80 in Ogawa’s formulation, or instead yields an unexpected
`result.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`substitutable equivalents and, therefore, would not have been motivated to
`substitute one for the other. PO Resp. 18–36.
`Even acknowledging the complexities of ophthalmic solution
`formulation, however, because Sallmann and Ogawa, as discussed above,
`describe the use of tyloxapol and polysorbate 80 in similar acidic NSAID-
`containing ophthalmic solutions, Petitioners persuade us that an ordinary
`artisan would have recognized that both were non-ionic surfactants that
`would be useful in acidic NSAID-containing ophthalmic formulations. As
`also discussed above, Yasueda describes the use of both tyloxapol and
`polysorbate 80 as solubilizing surfactants in separate ophthalmic solutions
`containing an anti-allergy drug, thereby suggesting that both surfactants
`would be interchangeably useful in the same ophthalmic formulation and
`that no significant adverse effects would be expected when substituting one
`for the other. Thus, that many non-ionic surfactants may have existed in the
`prior art does not convince us that an ordinary artisan would have failed to
`recognize, based on the cited prior art, that tyloxapol specifically would have
`been useful in the particular type of formulation described in Ogawa’s
`Example 6.
`In sum, for the reasons discussed, having considered the prior art,
`evidence, and arguments advanced by Petitioners in light of Patent Owner’s
`arguments and evidence regarding the cited references’ teachings, we find
`that an ordinary artisan had a reason to substitute Sallmann’s tyloxapol,
`recited in claims 1, 11, and 19 of the ’606 patent, for the polysorbate 80 in
`Ogawa’s Example 6, and to include the tyloxapol at a concentration
`encompassed by each of those claims.
`We next analyze and weigh the secondary considerations of
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01100
`Patent 8,927,606 B1
`
`nonobviousness
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
