`
`_________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________________
`
`
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016: Unassigned
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NANDITA DAS, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. My name is Nandita Das. I have been retained by counsel for
`
`Petitioner Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”). I understand that Teva
`
`petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832 (the “’832 patent”),
`
`which is owned by RB Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“Patent Owner”). I further
`
`understand that Teva requests that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) cancel certain claims of the ’832 patent as unpatentable. I submit this
`
`expert declaration, which addresses and supports Teva’s petition.
`
`II.
`
`Personal Background and Expert Qualifications
`
`a. Education, Experience and Prior Testimony
`
`2.
`
`Currently, I am an Associate Professor of Pharmaceutics at Butler
`
`University with over 15 years of experience teaching pharmaceutical sciences. I
`
`have been on the faculty at Butler University since 2004 with a full-time campus-
`
`based tenure-track faculty position since 2005. I was granted tenure and promoted
`
`to Associate Professor in Spring 2012. Prior to my time at Butler University, I was
`
`an Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutics at Idaho State University, previous to
`
`which I taught as an Adjunct Professor at Nova Southeastern University while
`
`working full time as a licensed pharmacist in the state of Florida. A copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae and list of publications is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I received a B.Pharm. in Pharmacy from Banaras Hindu University in
`
`India in 1988, achieving first rank among my classmates.
`
`4.
`
`I received an M.Pharm. in Pharmaceutics from Banaras Hindu
`
`University in 1990. My research focused on controlled release dosage forms.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from the University of
`
`Pittsburgh in 1995. My research focused on the kinetics of solid-state
`
`microcalorimetry.
`
`6.
`
`From 1993-1995, I completed my doctoral research work as a
`
`graduate scholar with SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, studying
`
`microcalorimetry under the mentorship of Dr. Theodore D. Sokoloski, Ph.D.
`
`7.
`
`From 1995-1998, I worked as a commercial pharmacist, managing a
`
`community pharmacy.
`
`8. My business address is College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences,
`
`Butler University, 4600 Sunset Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46208-3485.
`
`9.
`
`Among the numerous research grants I have received, from August
`
`2002 through July 2006, I conducted a study on the use of mucoadhesive
`
`buprenorphine in opioid addiction therapy for the National Institute of Health’s
`
`National Institute on Drug Abuse.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`In 2004, I published an article on the development of mucoadhesive
`
`dosage forms of buprenorphine for sublingual delivery in Drug Delivery – The
`
`Journal of Delivery and Targeting of Therapeutic Agents, Volume 11 (2004).
`
`11.
`
`I have also researched, as part of my work during my time at Idaho
`
`State University, mucoadhesive properties of polymers used in sublingual drug
`
`delivery.
`
`12.
`
`I also co-authored a paper regarding drugs used in the treatment of
`
`addiction for the Indian Journal of Pharmacy Practice, Volume 5, Issue 4 (2012).
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 70 articles, abstracts, papers and
`
`book chapters and am a named inventor on one domestic patent. I have also
`
`appeared at six conferences on a topic areas of present interest, including
`
`mucoadhesive sublingual delivery systems for buprenorphine.
`
`14.
`
`I am a member of various professional societies, including the
`
`American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists and the American Association
`
`of Colleges of Pharmacy. I am also a peer reviewer for five scientific and medical
`
`journals.
`
`b. Bases for Opinion and Materials Considered
`
`15. Exhibit 10026 includes a list of the materials I considered, in addition
`
`to my experience, education, and training, in providing the opinions contained
`
`
`
`
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`c. Scope of Work
`
`16.
`
`I have been retained by Teva as a technical expert in this matter to
`
`provide various opinions regarding the ’832 patent. I receive $400 per hour for my
`
`services and $500 per hour for deposition testimony. No part of my compensation
`
`is dependent upon my opinions given or the outcome of this case. I do not have any
`
`other current or past affiliation as an expert witness or consultant with Teva. I do
`
`not have any current or past affiliation with RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, or any of
`
`the named inventors on the ’832 patent.
`
`
`III.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`17. As explained in detail in Section VIII, it is my opinion that all of the
`
`challenged claims (1-7, 9-12) of the ’832 patent1 would have been obvious in light
`
`of the LabTec reference, the Oksche reference, the 2002 Suboxone® Label, and
`
`other prior art, which would have collectively taught and motivated a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to make and use the same compositions and methods that
`
`are claimed in the ’832 patent.
`
`
`
`
`1 It is my understanding that claims 15-19 have been found invalid in IPR2014-
`
`00325.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`Priority Date of the ’832 Patent
`
`18.
`
`I am informed and understand that prior art is evaluated based on the
`
`priority date attributed to the patent under review. Further, I understand that Patent
`
`Owner claims the ’832 patent is entitled to priority date of August 7, 2009. I
`
`understand that patents and printed publications published prior to August 7, 2009
`
`are available as prior art to the ’832 in this proceeding.
`
`V.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a preponderance of evidence must be presented to
`
`render a patent claim invalid in this proceeding.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that the standard for obviousness is set out in 35
`
`U.S.C. §103(a), the relevant version of which is quoted below:
`
`“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that in order for a patent claim to be considered
`
`obvious, at the time the invention was made, each and every limitation of the claim
`
`must be present within the prior art, or within the prior art in combination with the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`general knowledge held by a person of ordinary skills in the art, and that such a
`
`person would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these
`
`teachings to achieve the claimed invention. I also understand that the reason to
`
`select and combine features, the predictability of the results of doing so, and a
`
`reasonable expectation of success of doing so may be found in the teachings of the
`
`prior art themselves, in the nature of any need or problem in the field that was
`
`addressed by the patent, in the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time, as well as in common sense or the level of creativity exhibited by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. There need not be an express or explicit
`
`suggestion to combine references. I understand the combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`
`
`than yield predictable results.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the obviousness of a claim is ultimately a legal
`
`conclusion based on underlying factual inquiries. I understand that the following
`
`factors are relevant to whether a claim is obvious: 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 art, and whatever objective evidence may be present.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a claim may be obvious where it is the result of
`
`combining familiar elements according to known methods to achieve predictable
`
`results. The claim is obvious where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art and would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations of non-obviousness must
`
`be considered because such factors are probative of obviousness. These factors
`
`include unexpected results, commercial success, long felt but unresolved need,
`
`teaching away, and failure of others.
`
`25.
`
`I have relied upon this understanding of the applicable legal standards
`
`in reaching my opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`VI.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`26.
`
`It is my opinion that in the context of the ’832 patent, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would include a person who possesses a Master’s or Ph.D.
`
`in pharmaceutical sciences, formulation chemistry, or a related filed, plus a number
`
`of years of relevant experience in developing drug formulations.
`
`VII.
`
`The ’832 Patent
`
`A.
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ’832 Patent
`
`27. The challenged claims of the ’832 patent are directed to a composition
`
`(claims 1-7), and a method of treating narcotic dependence of a user (claims 9-12).
`
`More particularly, the challenged claims recite:
`
`1.
`
`A film dosage composition comprising:
`a.
`A polymeric carrier matrix;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`A therapeutically effective amount of
`b.
`buprenorphine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt
`thereof;
`c.
`A therapeutically effective amount of naloxone or
`a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and
`d.
`A buffer in an amount to provide a local pH for
`said composition of a value sufficient to optimize
`absorption of said buprenorphine, wherein said local pH
`is from about 3 to about 3.5 in the presence of saliva.
`
`The composition of claim 1, wherein said film dosage
`2.
`composition provides a bioequivalent absorption of
`buprenorphine to that of a tablet having an equivalent amount
`of buprenorphine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
`
`The composition of claim 1, wherein said polymeric
`3.
`carrier matrix comprises at least one polymer in an amount of at
`least 25% by weight of said composition.
`
`The composition of claim 1, wherein said buffer is
`4.
`present in an amount of from about 2:1 to about 1:5 by weight
`of buffer to buprenorphine.
`
`The composition of claim 1, wherein said polymeric
`5.
`carrier matrix comprises at least one self-supporting film
`forming polymer.
`
`The film dosage composition of claim 1, wherein said
`6.
`buprenorphine is present in an amount of from about 2 mg to
`about 16 mg per dosage.
`
`The film dosage composition of claim 1, wherein said
`7.
`buffer comprises sodium citrate, citric acid, and combinations
`thereof.
`
`A method of treating narcotic dependence of a user,
`9.
`comprising the steps of:
`
`
`a.
`
`providing a composition comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`a polymeric carrier matrix;
`i.
`a therapeutically effective amount of
`ii.
`buprenorphine or a pharmaceutically acceptable
`salt thereof;
`iii.
`a therapeutically effective amount of
`naloxone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt
`thereof; and
`iv. A buffer in an amount to provide a local pH of
`about 3 to about 3.5 for said composition of a
`value sufficient to optimize absorption of said
`buprenorphine and also sufficient to inhibit
`absorption of said naloxone; and
`administering said composition to the oral cavity
`b.
`of a user.
`
`10. The composition of claim 9, wherein said method
`provides a bioequivalent absorption of buprenorphine to that of
`a tablet having an equivalent amount of buprenorphine or a
`pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
`
`11. The method of claim 9, wherein said film dosage
`composition is administered to the user through buccal
`administration, sublingual administration, and combinations
`thereof.
`
`12. The method of claim 9, wherein said film dosage
`composition remains in the oral cavity of the user for a period
`of at least 1 minute.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’832 Patent
`
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’832 patent. The
`
`B.
`
`28.
`
`application leading to the ’832 patent (U.S. Patent Application No. 12/537,571)
`
`was filed on August 7, 2009 and lists Garry L. Myers, Samuel D. Hilbert, Bill J.
`
`Boone, B. Arlie Bogue, Pradeep Sanghvi, and Madhusudan Hariharan as inventors.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`I also understand that the ’832 patent was assigned to RB Pharmaceuticals Limited.
`
`(’832 patent, Ex. 1001.) As filed, the ’571 application included 31 claims. (U.S.
`
`Patent App. No. 12/537,571, Ex. 1002 at 33-36 ( the “’571 application”).) Claims
`
`1, 11, 15, 17, 24, 26, and 27 were independent claims. (Id. at 33-36.) None of these
`
`independent claims recited any pH ranges. (Id. at 33-36.)
`
`29. On August 31, 2011, the Examiner issued a non-final Office Action
`
`rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10, 15, 17, and 20-24 as anticipated by the Oksche, et al.,
`
`reference (US2010/0087470). (8/31/11 Office Action (’571 Application), Ex. 1002
`
`at 2.) The Examiner pointed to certain embodiments in the Oksche reference that
`
`disclosed all of the elements of the rejected claims. (Id. at 2-3.)
`
`30.
`
`In addition, the Examiner rejected claims 1-31 as obvious, noting that
`
`it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify the teachings of
`
`Oksche to identify the optimal pH range “in an effort to identify formulations that
`
`would provide optimal absorption of both agonist and antagonist.” (Id. at 5.)
`
`Oksche disclosed “buprenorphine/naloxone formulations [that] may comprise the
`
`citric acid as a pH modifier.” (Id. at 4.) And the Examiner explained that because
`
`the general conditions of the claimed invention were known in the prior art,
`
`identification of the optimal pH range “appears to be a matter of routine
`
`experimentation.” (Id. at 5.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`31. The Examiner concluded that it was inconsequential that Oksche did
`
`“not teach formulations [of] buprenorphine and naloxone, where the buffer is
`
`present in an amount sufficient to inhibit the absorption of naloxone.” (Id. at 4.)
`
`The Examiner also stated that it did not matter that Oksche did not “teach the
`
`specific range of pH recited in the instant claims.” (Id. at 4.)
`
`32. On February 29, 2012, Applicants responded to the Office Action and
`
`amended the claims “to recite a particular local pH value and/or to recite that the
`
`buffer optimizes absorption of buprenorphine while also inhibiting absorption of
`
`the naloxone.” (2/29/12 Amendment and Response (’571 Application), Ex. 1002 at
`
`7.) In particular, claim 1 was amended to include a “local pH” of “from about 2 to
`
`about 3.5 in the presence of saliva.” (Id. at 2.) Claim 17 (which issued as
`
`independent claim 9) was also amended to include a “local pH” of “about 2 to
`
`about 3.5.” (Id. at 4.)
`
`33.
`
`In addition to amending the claims, Applicants described the
`
`invention and acknowledged that the simultaneous delivery of buprenorphine and
`
`naloxone was not novel; it had been previously known in the form of the
`
`Suboxone® tablet. (Id. at 7.) The alleged invention was intended to provide a
`
`maximum blood concentration (Cmax) that is 80 to 125% of the level provided by a
`
`Suboxone® tablet at the same dosage levels of buprenorphine and naloxone. (Id. at
`
`
`
`7.) In order to achieve this desired result, Applicants “discovered that the film
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`product should include a buffer that provides a specific buffer capacity to the
`
`film.” (Id. at 7.)
`
`34. Notably, Applicants did not inform the Examiner that the claimed film
`
`used the identical buffer (citric acid and sodium citrate) as had been used in
`
`Suboxone® tablets.
`
`35. Applicants told the Examiner that “it was particularly surprising to
`
`find that both [buprenorphine and naloxone] may be included in one film by
`
`providing a buffer having a pH of from about 2 to about 3.5.” (Id. at 8.) Applicants
`
`cited the “Partition Theory” as the reason for their surprise. (Id. at 7.)
`
`36. The “Partition Theory” holds that when a drug is capable of being
`
`ionized, only the non-ionized form of molecules can be readily absorbed through
`
`mucous membranes and into the bloodstream. (Ex. 1024, Shore, et al, The Gastric
`
`Secretion of Drugs: a pH Partition Hypothesis, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 119: 361-
`
`9 (1957).)
`
`37. Applicants also implicitly relied on the well-known fact that these
`
`drugs are more ionized at pH values farther from the drug’s pKa, and less ionized
`
`at pH values nearer to the drug’s pKa. (2/29/12 Amendment and Response (’571
`
`Application), Ex. 1002 at 7-8.) The pKa is the pH value at which there are
`
`equivalent concentrations of ionized and non-ionized species. The pKa of naloxone
`
`
`
`is 7.94. (The European Medicines Agency Initial Marketing-Authorisation
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`Document, Scientific Discussion, Oct. 19, 2006 for Suboxone® sublingual tablets,
`
`Ex, 1011 at 3 (“EMEA”).) The pKa of buprenorphine is 8.42. (Ex. 1001 at 11:46-
`
`47.)
`
`38.
`
`In view of these facts, Applicants asserted that lowering the local pH
`
`of the environment containing buprenorphine and naloxone would be predicted to
`
`decrease absorption of both compounds. (2/29/12 Amendment and Response (’571
`
`Application), Ex. 1002 at 8.) Instead, however, Applicants observed that when the
`
`film included a buffer to control the pH at a range of from 2 to about 3.5,
`
`buprenorphine absorption was “optimized,” while at the same time, naloxone
`
`absorption was “inhibited.” (Id. at 8) Applicants then amended the claims “to
`
`reflect the essence of the invention.” (Id. at 8.)
`
`39. With respect to the anticipation rejections, Applicants argued that
`
`Oksche did not anticipate the claims because Oksche fails to disclose the limitation
`
`of a buffer capacity suitable to optimize the absorption of buprenorphine. (Id. at 9.)
`
`To support their argument, Applicants explained that the “present application is
`
`based upon the discovery that the delivery and absorption of buprenorphine can be
`
`optimized to a desired level through administration via a film if the pH is balanced
`
`
`
`appropriately.” (Id. at 9.)
`
`40. To overcome the obviousness rejections, Applicants focused on the
`
`Examiner’s statement that the selection of an appropriate pH range would have
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`been a matter of routine experimentation. (Id. at 10.) Notably, Applicants argued
`
`that “[t]hose skilled in the art would have simply relied upon pH partition theory
`
`and selected a buffering capacity that follows this theory - for example, a pH
`
`commensurate with the pKa of the active.” (Id. at 9.) Further, Applicants argued
`
`that “the buffer capacity suitable to optimize the absorption of buprenorphine and,
`
`at the same time, to inhibit the absorption of naloxone, is not predictable.” (Id. at
`
`10 (emphasis in original).) Applicants argued that “Oksche merely states that
`
`buffers can be used, but includes nothing further.” (Id. at 11.) According to
`
`Applicants, the “general disclosure of a buffer is not sufficient to render obvious
`
`claims that require a particular buffer capacity to optimize the absorption of
`
`buprenorphine and inhibit the absorption of naloxone.” (Id. at 11.)
`
`41. Further distinguishing Oksche, Applicants stated that “there is no
`
`reason to believe, based on the teachings of Oksche, that pH would even play any
`
`role in the effectiveness of the composition.” (Id. at 11.) Applicants again
`
`reiterated their argument that the alleged invention differs from what would have
`
`been expected based on Partition Theory: “For example, the buffer capacity for a
`
`product including both the buprenorphine and naloxone would be one that
`
`minimizes the absorption of the naloxone but optimizes the absorption of the
`
`buprenorphine - a concept not disclosed nor considered by Oksche.” (Id. at 12.)
`
`Applicants explained how they “discovered that at a pH of about 2-3.5, the relative
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`absorptions [of buprenorphine and naloxone] can be controlled effectively.” (Id. at
`
`12.)
`
`42. On May 2, 2012, the Patent Office issued a Final Office Action.
`
`(5/2/12 Final Office Action (’571 Application), Ex. 1002 at 1.) In particular, the
`
`Examiner rejected claims 1-10, 13-14, 16-23, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`first paragraph, for failure to comply with the written description requirement. (Id.
`
`at 2.) According to the Examiner, the claims that had been amended to recite “a
`
`local pH...to optimize absorption of buprenorphine, wherein said local pH is from
`
`about 2 to about 3.5 in the presence of saliva” lacked corresponding support in the
`
`specification. (Id. at 2-3.)
`
`43. The Examiner also withdrew the rejections based on anticipation, but
`
`maintained that claims 1 and 3-31 were obvious in view of Oksche. (Id. at 3.) After
`
`considering Applicants’ arguments, the Examiner concluded that Oksche’s
`
`disclosure of the Suboxone® tablet “provides an optimized absorption of
`
`buprenorphine.” (Id. at 5.) Therefore, “it would have been obvious to the ordinary
`
`skilled artisan, at the time of the instant invention, to modify their teachings so as
`
`to identify the optimal range of pH/dosage in an effort to identify formulations that
`
`would provide optimal absorption of both agonist and antagonist.” (Id. at 6.)
`
`44.
`
`In October 2012, Applicants submitted a response to the Final Office
`
`
`
`Action. (10/22/12 Amendment and Response After Final Rejection (’571
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`Application, Ex. 1002.) Applicants pointed to portions of the specification that
`
`allegedly supported the amended claims. (Id. at 7.) In response to the obviousness
`
`rejections, Applicants argued that nothing in Oksche would direct a person of
`
`ordinary skill to use the claimed pH range. (Id. at 8.) In particular, Applicants
`
`argued that “the presently claimed [pH] range demonstrates unexpected and
`
`significant improvements, particularly when compared to that of the prior art and
`
`when compared to what one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
`
`believe (i.e., through partition theory, as explained in the application as filed at
`
`paragraph [0100]).” (Id. at 8.)
`
`45. On November 6, 2012, the Examiner issued an Advisory Action
`
`withdrawing the written description rejections but maintaining the obviousness
`
`rejections. (11/6/12 Advisory Action (’571 Application), Ex. 1002 at 2.) First, the
`
`Examiner reiterated the argument that Oksche discloses the Suboxone® tablet,
`
`which provides an “optimized” absorption of buprenorphine. (Id. at 3.) Second, the
`
`
`
`Examiner noted that Example 8 from the specification—on which the Applicants
`
`relied to show “unexpected” results—only “tested products at a pH of from 3.0-
`
`3.5.” (Id. at 3 (emphasis in original)) This was “not sufficient to provide evidence
`
`of unexpected or significant benefits associated with the full scope of the claimed
`
`invention, which recites a ‘local pH of about 2 to about 3.5 in the presence of
`
`saliva.’” (Id. at 3-4 (emphasis in original).) Accordingly, the Examiner determined
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`that “Applicant’s showing is not commensurate in scope with the claimed
`
`invention.” (Id. at 4.)
`
`46. On November 15, 2012, Applicants filed a Notice of Appeal.
`
`(11/15/12 Notice of Appeal (’571 Application), Ex. 1002.) Then, on April 30,
`
`2013, Applicants filed a Request for Continued Examination, and amended the
`
`pending claims to “recite a local pH range of about 3 to about 3.5 to provide a
`
`scope that is fully and expressly supported by the experimental results.” (4/30/13
`
`Amendment and Response with Request for Continued Examination (’571
`
`Application), Ex. 1002 at 6.) Again, Applicants argued that they had “surprisingly
`
`identified that the optimized absorption of buprenorphine and the optimized
`
`limited absorption of naloxone do not follow traditional or expected absorption
`
`profiles. Both compounds are conjugate organic acids with pKa’s at approximately
`
`8, and yet as the pH of the film for delivering the agents decreases, one compound
`
`undergoes a optimum adsorption, but the other compound surprisingly trends the
`
`opposite direction and is inhibited at the same lower pH levels. This divergence
`
`allows the Applicant to produce a film which delivers buprenorphine to the
`
`bloodstream and passes the naloxone to the gut where it is ineffective, thus
`
`providing a treatment regimen for buprenorphine.” (Id., Ex. 1002 at 6-7.)
`
`Applicants argued that “Oksche is completely silent regarding adjusting pH to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`optimize the adsorption of buprenorphine and minimize the adsorption of
`
`naloxone.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis in original).)
`
`47. On May 24, 2013, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability.
`
`(5/24/13 Notice of Allowability (’571 Application), Ex. 1002.) The Examiner cited
`
`the results of an interview as the basis on which the claims were allowed. (Id.) At
`
`the May 20, 2013 interview, the Examiner “agreed that the prior art does not teach
`
`the claimed local pH” based on Applicants’ explanation that “the prior art is silent
`
`regarding the use of a buffer to provide a local pH which would achieve optimized
`
`absorption of buprenorphine and naloxone.” (5/20/13 Examiner-Initiated Interview
`
`Summary (’571 Application), Ex. 1002.)
`
`VII. Background and Tutorial
`
`A. Buprenorphine and Naloxone
`
`48. Buprenorphine is a semi-synthetic compound that can be used to treat
`
`certain medical conditions, including opioid dependence and chronic pain. More
`
`particularly, buprenorphine is a mixed opioid receptor agonist and antagonist.
`
`Because it is a partial agonist, at low doses buprenorphine produces enough agonist
`
`effect to provide users with the sought-after euphoria while minimizing withdrawal
`
`
`
`effects.
`
`49. Drugs can be administered by several different routes to achieve a
`
`therapeutic effect. But in the end, the ultimate goal is for the drug to be absorbed
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`into the bloodstream. So, for instance, a drug can be swallowed and absorbed into
`
`the blood in the intestine (called “peroral” administration). Or, in another instance,
`
`a drug can be absorbed through the mucous membranes of the mouth (called “oral”
`
`
`
`administration).
`
`50. Buprenorphine is extensively metabolized in both the gastrointestinal
`
`(“GI”) tract and the liver, where it is subjected to extensive first-pass effects.
`
`(Cassidy, et al., Controlled buccal delivery of buprenorphine, J. of Controlled
`
`Release, 25:21-29 (1993), Ex. 1012 at 21 (“Cassidy”).) Accordingly, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would understand that buprenorphine has limited bioavailability
`
`when administered perorally (by swallowing). (Id. at 21.) The preferred routes of
`
`administration for buprenorphine are intravenous, intramuscular and sublingual.
`
`(Id. at 21.) In addition, other transmucosal routes in addition to sublingual
`
`administration, such as buccal administration, may be utilized to administer
`
`buprenorphine. (Id.) Each of these routes bypasses GI metabolism, thereby
`
`minimizing first-pass effects.
`
`51. First discovered in 1966 by Reckitt & Colman in the U.K,
`
`buprenorphine has been used since 1978 as an analgesic, in the treatment of both
`
`acute and chronic pain. (Campbell, et al., The history of the development of
`
`buprenorphine as an addiction therapeutic, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sc. (Issue: Addiction
`
`Reviews), 1248:124-139 (2012), Ex. 1016 at 131 (“Campbell”).)
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Initially, buprenorphine was administered via intravenous or
`
`intramuscular injections. In the early 1980s, sublingual administration of
`
`buprenorphine was reported to be effective to treat pain. (Bullingham, et al.,
`
`Sublingual buprenorphine used postoperatively: clinical observations and
`
`preliminary pharmacokinetic analysis, Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 12:117-22 (1981),
`
`Ex. 1017 at 121 (“Bullingham”). Since that time, sublingual administration has
`
`become the preferred non-injectable route for buprenorphine. (U.S. Patent App.
`
`No. US 2010/0087470, Ex. 1018 at [0015].) The sublingual uptake of
`
`buprenorphine is rapid, with near complete uptake occurring within 2 to 4 minutes
`
`when it is administered as a solution. (Chiang, et al., Pharmacokinetics of the
`
`combination tablet of buprenorphine and naloxone, Drug and Alcohol Dependence,
`
`70:S39-S47 (2003), Ex. 1015 at S40 (“Chiang”).
`
`53.
`
`In 2002, two forms of sublingual buprenorphine were approved in the
`
`U.S. for the treatment of opioid dependence: Subutex®, which contained only
`
`buprenorphine, and Suboxone®, which combined buprenorphine with naloxone.
`
`54. Naloxone is a well-known opioid antagonist and lacks any agonist
`
`properties. (EMEA, Ex. 1011 at 1.) Naloxone can reverse or prevent the effects of
`
`
`
`opioid agonists, such as buprenorphine.
`
`55.
`
`In 1984, Reckitt & Colman filed a patent application directed to a
`
`method of treating pain. In this method, a composition containing a therapeutically
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`effective dose of buprenorphine, together with an amount of naloxone sufficient to
`
`prevent the composition from being misused by opioid-dependent subjects, is
`
`administered to patients. (U.S. Patent No. 4,582,835, Ex. 1019 at Abstract; 2:34-38
`
`(the “’835 patent”). The patent disclosed sublingual and parenteral administration
`
`of the composition. (Id. at Abstract; 1:13-15.)
`
`B.
`
`Suboxone® Sublingual Tablet
`
`56. Reckitt Benckiser developed a sublingual tablet containing
`
`buprenorphine and naloxone, which was approved by the FDA on October 8, 2002.
`
`(Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Approval Package for App. No. 22-
`
`410/S006/S007 (approval date 8/10/12), Ex. 1020 (“Film Approval Package”).)
`
`This tablet sold under the trade name Suboxone® and was indicated for the
`
`maintenance treatment of opioid dependence. (Suboxone®2002 Label from NDA
`
`20-732/NDA 20-733, Ex. 1008 at 26 (“Suboxone® 2002 Label”).)
`
`57. Naloxone was included in the formulation “to stop people from
`
`injecting (‘shooting-up’) SUBOXONE tablets.” (Suboxone® 2002 Label, Ex. 1008
`
`at 26.) The Label explained that “[b]ecause it contains naloxone, SUBOXONE is
`
`highly likely to produce marked and intense withdrawal symptoms if misused
`
`parenterally by individuals dependent on opioid agonists such as heroin, morphine,
`
`or methadone.” (Id. at 15.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA EXHIBIT 1003
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`58.
`
`It was well-understood by those skilled in the art that the
`
`buprenorphine component of the Suboxone® sublingual tablet