`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`J KYLE BASS and ERICH SPANGENBERG,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2016-00254
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,476,010 B2
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY WITNESS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (316:23-317:25), Dr. Feinberg admitted that that as of 2003 (or
`
`the time of the ’010 invention), “it was a well-accepted principle that sterile drugs
`
`should be manufactured using aseptic processing only when terminal sterilization
`
`is not feasible.” Dr. Feinberg further admitted that U.S. regulatory guidance (Ex.
`
`2060) also states that it was “a well-accepted principle that sterile drugs should be
`
`manufactured using aseptic processing only when terminal sterilization is not
`
`feasible.” Dr. Feinberg also admitted that “it’s feasible to use autoclave with the
`
`invention of the ’010 patent” and that “you don’t have to use a different
`
`sterilization process.” (Ex. 2064 at 286:3-15.) Dr. Feinberg further admitted that
`
`Diprivan is “actually manufactured with heat sterilization” and that he “is not
`
`aware of any other manufacturer that does propofol manufacturing that uses other
`
`sterilization processes.” (Ex. 2064 at 285:6-20.) This testimony is relevant
`
`because it shows that terminal sterilization is the only appropriate method of
`
`sterilizing the claimed formulations, contradicting Petitioners’ argument that a
`
`POSA could use aseptic manufacture or sterile filtration with silicone oil-treated
`
`stoppers as an alternative to terminal sterilization by autoclave in the
`
`manufacturing process for formulations claimed in the ’010 patent (see Petitioners’
`
`Reply at 21-23). This testimony also contradicts Dr. Feinberg’s opinion that
`
`although references such as “Mannermaa, the ’919 patent and Lehr would have
`
`discouraged a POSA from using autoclave, they would not have discouraged a
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`POSA from the claimed invention using other sterilization techniques.” (Ex. 1044
`
`at ¶ 24.)
`
`2.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (344:8-15), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “filter sterilization is
`
`not suitable for Diprivan,” as taught in prior art Ex. 2052. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ argument that a POSA would consider
`
`sterile filtration as an alternative to terminal sterilization by autoclave (see
`
`Petitioners’ Reply at 21-23).
`
`3.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (307:22-308:9), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “European
`
`regulatory guidance [(Ex. 2061)] says that packaging material that is incompatible
`
`with heat sterilization cannot itself be the sole reason for adopting aseptic
`
`processing,” and that “European regulatory guidance directs the manufacturers to
`
`choose the best sterilization method for the formulation and select the packaging
`
`accordingly.” This testimony is relevant because it shows that the prior art taught
`
`that incompatibility between the patented propofol formulations and an autoclaved
`
`silicone oil treated rubber stopper is not a sufficient reason to adopt aseptic
`
`processing, contradicting Petitioners’ argument that a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to use aseptic manufacture or sterile filtration instead of terminal
`
`sterilization by autoclave in the manufacturing process for the claimed
`
`formulations. This testimony also contradicts Dr. Feinberg’s testimony that
`
`although references such as “Mannermaa, the ’919 patent and Lehr would have
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`discouraged a POSA from using autoclave, they would not have discouraged a
`
`POSA from the claimed invention using other sterilization techniques.” (Ex. 1044
`
`at ¶ 24.)
`
`4.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (288:22-289:2; 290:10-16), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “the
`
`European Pharmacopoeia [(Ex. 2059)] recommends selecting a container to allow
`
`the optimum sterilization method” and that “the European Pharmacopoeia
`
`recommends terminal sterilization whenever possible.” This testimony is relevant
`
`because it shows that the prior art taught that drug product containers should be
`
`selected to allow terminal sterilization since it is the preferred sterilization method,
`
`contradicting Petitioners’ argument that a POSA would consider using aseptic
`
`manufacture or sterile filtration with the claimed invention after concluding that a
`
`silicone oil treated closure is incompatible with terminal sterilization.
`
`5.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (299:19-300: 21), Dr. Feinberg admitted that that European
`
`regulatory guidance (Ex. 2060) states that “the use of alternate packaging materials
`
`should be thoroughly investigated before any decision to use non-terminal
`
`sterilization process is made” and that “terminal sterilization of the final container
`
`should be used whenever possible.” This testimony is relevant because it shows
`
`that the prior art taught that drug product containers should be selected to allow
`
`terminal sterilization since it is the preferred sterilization method, contradicting
`
`Petitioners’ argument that a POSA would consider using aseptic manufacture or
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`sterile filtration after concluding that a silicone oil treated closure is incompatible
`
`with terminal sterilization.
`
`6.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (278:22-279:15), Dr. Feinberg admitted that Ex. 1047
`
`discloses that “a closure for an injectable product has to fulfill the following the
`
`requirements” including that “it must be capable of sterilization at least once or
`
`twice by autoclaving.” This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that the
`
`prior art taught that compatibility with terminal sterilization is considered a
`
`requirement for a closure for an injectable product, contradicting Petitioners’
`
`argument that a POSA would consider using a closure that would require aseptic
`
`manufacture or sterile filtration with the claimed formulations.
`
`7.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (233:4-8), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “the advantages of
`
`manufacturing efficiency are essentially economic as distinct from, for example,
`
`the efficacy of the drug and medical use.” This testimony is relevant because it
`
`indicates that commercial efficiency is the principal motivation for Petitioners’
`
`proposed combinations of prior art.
`
`8.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (308:10-24), Dr. Feinberg admitted that European regulatory
`
`guidance (Ex. 2061) “is saying commercial reasons like manufacturing efficiency
`
`[] should not be used as justification for using a sterilization method other than
`
`terminal sterilization.” This testimony is relevant because it indicates that the prior
`
`art taught that commercial efficiency is not a sufficient basis to change the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`sterilization method from terminal sterilization, contradicting Petitioners’ argument
`
`that a POSA would consider using aseptic manufacture or sterile filtration with the
`
`claimed formulations.
`
`9.
`
`In Ex. 2064 (309:10-310:6), Dr. Feinberg admitted he did not have an
`
`opinion regarding whether a POSA following European regulatory guidelines
`
`would “adopt aseptic manufacturing techniques, including filtration sterilization,
`
`so that they could use a siliconized rubber stopper instead of an unsiliconized
`
`rubber stopper that was compatible with autoclaving.” This testimony is relevant
`
`because it contradicts Petitioners’ argument that a POSA would consider using
`
`aseptic manufacture or sterile filtration with the claimed formulations.
`
`10. In Ex. 2064 (347:23-348:7), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “assuming that a
`
`manufacturer has access to both terminal sterilization and aseptic manufacturing
`
`facilities,” he did not “have any reason to dispute that it would be less expensive to
`
`manufacture Diprivan with terminal sterilization.” Dr. Feinberg also admitted that
`
`“generally speaking, it’s less expensive to manufacture drugs using terminal
`
`sterilization than aseptic manufacturing techniques.” (Ex. 2064 at 344:20-345:3.)
`
`This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ argument that
`
`economic considerations would motivate a POSA to use the proposed combination
`
`with the more expensive sterilization methods suggested by Petitioners.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`11. In Ex. 2064 (348:8-15), Dr. Feinberg admitted that he “didn’t consider
`
`whether aseptic manufacturing would be more or less expensive than terminal
`
`sterilization” as part of his opinions in this proceeding. This testimony is relevant
`
`because it indicates that Petitioners failed to compare the purported economic
`
`benefits associated with silicone oil treated stoppers to the economic costs
`
`associated with the sterilization methods proposed by Petitioners.
`
`12. In Ex. 2064 (281:6-19), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “with a terminally
`
`sterilized product, it can be non-aseptic [during manufacture] and then you sterilize
`
`it at the very end” but that “with aseptic manufacture, you have to sterilize each
`
`part separately, and then, once each piece is sterilized, you have to keep the whole
`
`process in an aseptic environment until it is sealed and ready to go.” (Id. at 281:6-
`
`19.) This testimony is relevant because it illustrates the significant additional
`
`expenses associated with aseptic manufacturing.
`
`13. In Ex. 2064 (334:6-335:11), Dr. Feinberg testified that a manufacturer
`
`seeking to use aseptic manufacturing must validate a sterilization procedure as
`
`generally described in Ex. 2063. More specifically, “if a manufacturer wants to
`
`use aseptic manufacturing, including with drug filtration, they need to have a
`
`designated area large enough to manufacture the drug in which the air quality is
`
`highly monitored, the surfaces are highly monitored, and the air pressure is highly
`
`monitored to assure that no microbes -- or attempt to minimize the possibility of
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`contamination.” (Id. at 335:12-24.) This testimony is relevant because it
`
`illustrates the significant additional expenses associated with aseptic
`
`manufacturing.
`
`14. In Ex. 2064 (335:25-336:12), Dr. Feinberg admitted that a manufacturer
`
`would “need to classify the level of air quality in each section depending upon
`
`where it is in the process because you'll have a robing room that's separate from the
`
`floor where the people are supposed to be from the actual manufacturing area, and
`
`each of the barriers in each of the entrances and exits between those different
`
`sections all need to be specified and monitored to some degree.” This testimony is
`
`relevant because it illustrates the significant additional expenses associated with
`
`aseptic manufacturing.
`
`15. In Ex. 2064 (336:13-21), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “the materials that are
`
`actually used in the manufacturing process need [] to go in, be sterilized, and then
`
`move from step to step to step in the manufacturing process from when they're
`
`created to when they're combined, to when it's filled into the container, to when the
`
`container is sealed, to when it gets out.” And he also admitted that “each of those
`
`movements of material from one part of the sterile environment to another all
`
`needs to be monitored to make sure that none of these mechanical processes
`
`introduce contamination” and that “there's extra monitoring at the beginning when
`
`things go into the environment and maybe somewhat less but also significantly
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`when they come out to make sure that going in and out of the clean environment
`
`doesn't introduce contamination.” (Id. at 336:22-337:13.) This testimony is
`
`relevant because it illustrates the significant additional expenses associated with
`
`aseptic manufacturing.
`
`16. In Ex. 2064 (337:14-338:3), Dr. Feinberg admitted that manufacturers
`
`must perform testing with media fills, “a process of putting media where bacteria
`
`could grow, moving it through the manufacturing process, and then testing it
`
`afterwards to see if bacteria actually contaminated it.” This testimony is relevant
`
`because it illustrates the significant additional expenses associated with aseptic
`
`manufacturing.
`
`17. In Ex. 2064 (256:6-19), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “for the unsiliconized
`
`stoppers after heat sterilization [Mannermaa (Ex. 2041)] reports 5,000 particles per
`
`stopper of 5 microns or greater.” “And for the siliconized stoppers after heat
`
`sterilization Mannermaa reports 12,000 to 45,000 particles between 5 and 32
`
`microns per stopper.” This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr.
`
`Feinberg’s testimony that Dr. Davis overstated the number of particles reported by
`
`Mannermaa by not dividing the measured number of particulates by 20. (Ex. 1044
`
`at ¶ 16.)
`
`18. In Ex. 2064 (258:11-259:10), Dr. Feinberg admitted that the ’504 patent’s
`
`(Ex. 2040) disclosure that stoppers that “were treated with silicone had in excess of
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`10,000 particles per stopper” is consistent with “Mannermaa’s report that its
`
`analysis of silicone-treated stoppers produced 12,000 to 45,000 particles of 5
`
`microns or larger.” This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Feinberg’s
`
`testimony that a “POSA would have been skeptical of the results in the ’504 patent
`
`because they differ significantly from the results of particulate measurements that
`
`are disclosed in other references.” (Ex. 1044 at ¶ 19.)
`
`19. In Ex. 2064 (255:12-17), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “if you’re measuring
`
`particles per milliliter per stopper and you want to find out the number of particles
`
`per stopper, you have to multiply by the number of milliliters.” This testimony is
`
`relevant because it contradicts Dr. Feinberg’s testimony that a POSA would have
`
`understood Sudo to disclose only 34 particles per stopper, below the
`
`pharmacopeial limit of 3000 particles. (Ex. 1044 at ¶ 15.)
`
`20. In Ex. 2064 (271:18-23), Dr. Feinberg admitted that Petitioners’ Ex. 1045
`
`states that “the problems with interaction of a parenteral product and the rubber
`
`closure are well documented in the literature.” In Ex. 2064 (318:6-9), Dr. Feinberg
`
`also admitted that U.S. regulatory guidance (Ex. 2062) states that “a potential
`
`source of contamination is the siliconization of rubber stoppers.” This testimony is
`
`relevant because it supports Prof. Davis’s opinion that problems associated with
`
`siliconization of container closures were well known and documented before the
`
`invention of the ’010 patent.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`21. In Ex. 2064 (259:17-263:4), Dr. Feinberg admitted that although a rough
`
`surface will have a larger surface area than a smooth surface (259:17-260:8), he
`
`did not “discuss roughness” in his original or supplemental declaration (261:3-9)
`
`and does not have an opinion regarding whether “the inside of a syringe barrel [is]
`
`smoother, rougher or [has] the same roughness as the exposed face of a rubber
`
`stopper” (262:16-23). This testimony is relevant because it undermines the
`
`reliability of Dr. Feinberg’s opinion that the surface area of the syringe barrels of
`
`Lomax and Capes is much greater than the surface area of one end of the stopper
`
`claimed in the ’010 patent. (Ex. 1044 at ¶ 27.)
`
`22. In Ex. 2064 (235:8-241:16), Dr. Feinberg admitted that the Smith reference
`
`(Ex. 1004) describes “alternate ways of lubricating rubber stoppers to gain
`
`manufacturing advantages that are not based on silicone oil,” including “the
`
`internal addition of paraffin wax” (236:12-16), “the internal addition of
`
`polyethylene” (236:17-20), “the internal application of other compounds” (236:21-
`
`237:3), “surface chlorination” (237:16-19) for which “there are multiple techniques
`
`for applying” (238:8-11), “the addition of an olefinic film or coating” (238:12-18),
`
`“with a fluorocarbon polymer” (238:19-22) or “through chemical modification”
`
`(240:6-10). Dr. Feinberg further admitted that the ’504 patent (Ex. 2040) disclosed
`
`using “polyparaxylylene as a method of lubricating rubber stoppers.” (Ex. 2064 at
`
`241:13-16.) This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Feinberg’s
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony and Petitioners’ argument that there were only a small, finite, number of
`
`solutions to the purported machinability problems.
`
`23. In Ex. 2064 (244:15-245:22), Dr. Feinberg admitted that a POSA could
`
`also use “metal closures” (244:15-18), “a polyethylene closure” (244:19-22), “a
`
`polypropylene closure” (244:23-245:2), or “a nylon, polyurethane,
`
`polyvinylchloride, poly acrylate, polycarbonate, or the like as alternatives to rubber
`
`stoppers” (245:3-7) as described in the specification of the ’010 patent (Ex. 1001 at
`
`cols. 10-11). This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Feinberg’s
`
`testimony and Petitioners’ argument that there were only a small, finite, number of
`
`solutions to the purported machinability problems.
`
`24. In Ex. 2064 (263:20-264:15), Dr. Feinberg admitted that the 10/167,122
`
`patent application associated with the ’030 publication (Ex. 2043) was filed prior
`
`to 2003 with a provisional application filed Jun. 20, 2001. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ argument that Patent Owner improperly
`
`relied on Ex. 2043.
`
`25. In Ex. 2064 (270:22-271:4), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “Ex. 2049 shows
`
`that Wyeth, as an example of industry, eliminated silicone oil lubricant to prevent
`
`silicone particle contamination in the same time frame prior to the ’010 invention.”
`
`This testimony is relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s argument that Wyeth
`
`was an example of industry movement away from siliconization (see Patent
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner’s Response at 39) and contradicts Petitioners’ argument that Patent Owner
`
`improperly relied on Ex. 2049.
`
`26. In Ex. 2064 (268:4-13), Dr. Feinberg admitted that “clinical evidence prior
`
`to 2003 indicates that intravenous treatments with lower level of particulate
`
`contamination are associated with the reduction of the incidence of adverse events”
`
`as described in Ex. 2049 at 2 (citing Mannermaa, Ex. 2041 and Lehr, Ex. 2053).
`
`This testimony is relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s contention that
`
`particulate contamination was known to be associated with adverse events prior to
`
`the patented invention and contradicts Petitioners’ argument that Patent Owner
`
`improperly relied on Ex. 2049.
`
`
`
`Date: January 11, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Eleanor M. Yost/
`Eleanor M. Yost
`Registration No. 58,013
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`901 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`P: 202.346.4000
`F: 202.346.4444
`eyost@goodwinlaw.com
`Attorneys For Patent Owner
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY WITNESS was served electronically via e-mail on
`
`
`
`
`
`/Eleanor M. Yost/
`Eleanor M. Yost
`
`January 11, 2017 on the following:
`
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Christopher Casieri
`McNeely, Hare & War LLP
`chris@miplaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners J Kyle Bass
`and Erich Spangenberg
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`January 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`2