`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC. AND NOxBOX LIMITED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MALLINCKRODT HOSPITAL PRODUCTS IP LTD., AND INO
`THERAPEUTICS, INC. d/b/a IKARIA, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. EDWARD LAWSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,431,163
`
`1
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`I, Dr. Edward Lawson, declare that:
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
` I am a Professor Emeritus in Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University.
`
`I have a Bachelor’s Degree from Harvard University and a Medical Degree from
`
`Northwestern University Medical School. I interned in Pediatrics and did a
`
`neonatology fellowship at Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Boston Hospital for
`
`Women and Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, MA. I was a Research Fellow in
`
`pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
`
`2.
`
`I have practiced neonatology since 1978. During my practice, I held
`
`various leadership and research positions. I have been active in managing
`
`premature, full-term and older infants with hypoxic respiratory failure of many
`
`different etiologies. I have extensive clinical experience with the utilization of
`
`nitric oxide therapy for relief of persistent pulmonary hypertension, BPD and other
`
`disorders.
`
`3.
`
`I was the Chair of the American Lung Association/American Thoracic
`
`Society Research Committee. I am also an active member of many NIH study
`
`sections where grants related to neonatal pulmonary research have been decided.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently the Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Perinatology (the
`
`Official Journal of the Section on Neonatal Perinatal Medicine of the American
`
`2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`Academy of Pediatrics). I also have experience as an editor for the Fetal and
`
`Neonatal section of the Journal of Pediatrics.
`
`5.
`
`I joined the Johns Hopkins faculty in 1999. At Johns Hopkins I have
`
`served as the Director of the Sutland/Pakula Family Newborn Critical Care Center,
`
`in the Division of Neonatal and Perinatal Medicine. I also served as the Vice Chair
`
`of the Department of Pediatrics at Hopkins Children’s Center.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1003.
`
`I am not an employee of Praxair Distribution, Inc.; Praxair, Inc.,
`
`NOxBOX Limited or any affiliated company. Rather, I have been engaged in the
`
`present matter to provide my independent analysis of the issues raised in the
`
`above-mentioned inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163 (“the ‘163
`
`Patent”) Ex. 1001. I have received no compensation for this declaration beyond
`
`my normal hourly compensation of $425 for time actually spent studying the
`
`matter, and I will not receive any added compensation based on the outcome of any
`
`proceeding relating to the ‘163 Patent.
`
`8.
`
`Based upon my extensive knowledge and years of experience in this
`
`field, I have an understanding of how inhaled NO was being used for medical
`
`treatment on or before June 30, 2009, as well as the risks and contraindications
`
`associated with its use. My analysis on this matter, as set forth below, is based on
`
`3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`my personal experience and what was known, and in fact, considered to be
`
`standard by one skilled in the art prior to June 30, 2009.
`
`9.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘163 Patent. (Ex. 1001).
`
`Additionally, I have reviewed the following documents: (1) Ex. 1006, A.
`
`Greenough & A. D. Miller, Neonatal Respiratory Disorders 149, 183–87, 392 (2nd
`
`ed. 2003) (“Greenough”); (2) Ex. 1007, Jaypee, Pediatric & Neonatal Mechanical
`
`Ventilation 148–58 (Praveen Khilnani ed., 1st ed. 2006) (“Jaypee”); and (3) Ex.
`
`1008, A. Widlitz et al, Pulmonary arterial hypertension in children, European
`
`Respiratory Journal, (January 2003) (“Widlitz”). I was already familiar with the
`
`concepts and physiology of iNO and its uses. I have also reviewed the documents
`
`cited elsewhere herein, as well as any documents cited in the declarations I have
`
`submitted or will submit in other inter partes review petitions arising out of my
`
`engagement in this matter. I have also reviewed the prosecution file history for the
`
`‘163 Patent, as well as the other patents on which I have opined in this
`
`engagement, particularly the declarations submitted during prosecution. Based on
`
`the references and my experience and background, I do not agree that INOT22
`
`study provides evidence that the claims are patentable; nor do I agree that the claim
`
`elements were not known. Specifically, as discussed below, the allegedly
`
`unknown aspects of the INOT22 study were clearly disclosed by, for example,
`
`Greenough and Jaypee prior to June 30, 2009.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`10. My opinions, explained below, are based on my education,
`
`experience, and background in the field discussed above as well as my review of
`
`the references cited above.
`
`BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE OF ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`BEFORE THE ‘163 PATENT
`
`11. The ‘163 Patent is entitled “Methods of Reducing the Risk of
`
`Occurrence of Pulmonary Edema Associated with Inhaled Nitric Oxide.” The ‘163
`
`Patent provides contraindications for treatment of neonates with inhaled NO.
`
`Specifically the ‘163 Patent provides a pre-screening protocol to determine
`
`whether a patient is at risk of an adverse event upon treatment with NO, such as
`
`pulmonary edema.1 See Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 1:47-60. It essentially provides that
`
`if the patient demonstrates characteristics suggesting that he or she is at risk of
`
`harm, then the patient should not be treated with NO. Id. The evaluation includes
`
`a determination that patients who have left ventricular dysfunction should be
`
`excluded from treatment. Id. Claim 1 is representative:
`
`A method of reducing the risk of occurrence of pulmonary edema associated
`with a medical treatment comprising inhalation of 20 ppm nitric oxide gas,
`said method comprising:
`
`(a) performing echocardiography to identify a term or near-term neonate
`patient in need of 20 ppm inhaled nitric oxide treatment for hypoxic
`
`
`1 Pulmonary edema is a buildup of fluid in the lungs.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`respiratory failure, wherein the patient is not dependent on right-to-left
`shunting of blood;
`
`(b) determining that the patient identified in (a) has left ventricular
`dysfunction consistent with a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure greater
`than or equal to 20 mm Hg, so is at particular risk of pulmonary edema upon
`treatment with inhaled nitric oxide; and
`
`(c) excluding the patient from inhaled nitric oxide treatment, based on the
`determination that the patient has left ventricular dysfunction and so is at
`particular risk of pulmonary edema upon treatment with inhaled nitric oxide.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`In order to determine if a patient has a left ventricular dysfunction, a
`
`practitioner may measure the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (“wedge
`
`pressure”) or perform an echocardiograph.2 Id. I am familiar with these protocols
`
`and treatments, and was an expert in this area prior to the priority date of the ‘163
`
`Patent on June 30, 2009. This expertise comes from the field of pediatric
`
`cardiology and pulmonary hypertension where the differentiation between pre-
`
`capillary pulmonary hypertension that includes normal wedge pressure and post-
`
`capillary pulmonary hypertension is a key distinction in this field. In fact, unless
`
`the patient has a left heart obstruction or dysfunction which is causing pulmonary
`
`venous hypertension, the wedge pressure is normal. Given that these two types of
`
`pulmonary hypertension classifications react differently to therapeutic modalities,
`
`
`2 Echocardiography is the use of ultrasound waves to investigate the actions of
`
`the heart.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`it becomes exceedingly important to decipher between the two classifications.
`
`This is well established in the pulmonary hypertension field, and lead to the
`
`separation and distinct diagnostic classification of these two types of pulmonary
`
`hypertension many years ago. See e.g., Ex. 1008, Widlitz, et al., Pulmonary
`
`arterial hypertension in children, 21 Eur.Respir. J. 155-176 at 156-57 (2003)
`
`(“Widlitz”); Ex. 1007, Jaypee at 156. Although the clinical classifications apply to
`
`pulmonary hypertension generally, the teachings are equally applicable to the
`
`context of pulmonary hypertension treated with inhaled NO and the effect of left
`
`ventricular heart disease.
`
`13. Pulmonary arterial hypertension is characterized by an increased
`
`pulmonary artery pressure and increased pulmonary vascular resistance. See, e.g.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:20-25. Nitric oxide is a selective pulmonary vasodilator that
`
`increases the partial pressure of arterial oxygen by dilating pulmonary vessels in
`
`ventilated areas of the lung, and directing blood flow away from areas with low
`
`ventilation/perfusion ratios toward regions with normal ratios. Ex. 1001 at 3:33-
`
`39. Before June 30, 2009, it was known to those of skill in the art that nitric oxide
`
`may be used as a vasodilator.3 See, e.g. Ex. 1007, Jaypee at 148. Nitric oxide is a
`
`gaseous chemical compound used to treat patients with severe breathing problems.
`
`3 Vasodilation is the widening of blood vessel that results from relaxation of
`
`smooth muscle cells within the vessel walls.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`Nitric oxide is particularly useful in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension, as
`
`inhaled nitric oxide can lead to selective pulmonary vasodilation, therefore
`
`reducing pulmonary vascular resistance, decreasing pulmonary arterial pressure,
`
`and easing right ventricular afterload. Ex. 1008, Widlitz at 156-57, 161. Once
`
`inhaled, the nitric oxide diffuses across alveolar membranes to closely adjacent
`
`vessels. This activates guanylate cyclase in pulmonary smooth muscle cells, which
`
`in turn increases intracellular cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) production
`
`in the cells. The increased cGMP causes pulmonary smooth muscles to relax
`
`resulting in pulmonary arteriole dilation. Ex. 1008, Widlitz at 169-170.
`
`14. While not all patients and not all conditions are responsive to
`
`treatment with inhaled NO, pulmonary hypertension, specifically persistent
`
`pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), is a condition that may be treated
`
`with inhaled NO. See, e.g. Ex. 1007, Jaypee at 149-150. Twenty parts per million
`
`of inhaled NO is approved by the FDA to treat neonatal hypoxic respiratory
`
`failure4 and has been approved since 2000. Id.; see also Ex. 1010, Center for Drug
`
`4 Hypoxic respiratory failure and hypoxemic respiratory failure, conditions where
`
`the cells of the body do not have enough oxygen, may be caused by pulmonary
`
`hypertension. Therefore, treatment of pulmonary hypertension would also
`
`result in treatment of hypoxic respiratory failure caused by pulmonary
`
`hypertension. Hypoxic respiratory failure may lead to hypoxia (a condition
`
`8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`Evaluation and Research, Application Number: NDA 20845, INOmax, Final
`
`Printed
`
`Labeling,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/20845_inomax_prntlbl.pdf
`
`(August 9, 2000) at 6 (“INOmax label”). It is indeed the only pathology for which
`
`inhaled nitric oxide has been approved in the United States.5 Id. While inhaled NO
`
`certainly has its therapeutic benefits, experienced practitioners are also aware of a
`
`few undesirable side effects and potential complications in certain patients. One
`
`such well-known negative reaction is NO in patients with left ventricular
`
`dysfunction. In these particular patients, inhaled NO can reduce pulmonary
`
`vascular resistance, decreasing the afterload to the right heart, and ultimately
`
`characterized by low oxygen in all organs; where the tissue does not have
`
`enough oxygen). Treatment of hypoxia may be understood to include treatment
`
`of hypoxic respiratory failure, as the hypoxia is the condition that causes harm
`
`to the patient.
`
`5 INOmax, in conjunction with ventilatory support and other appropriate agents,
`
`is indicated for the treatment of term and near-term (>34 weeks) neonates with
`
`hypoxic respiratory failure associated with clinical or echocardiographic
`
`evidence of pulmonary hypertension, where it improves oxygenation and
`
`reduces the need for extracorporeal oxygenation. Ex. 1010 at 4; see also Ex.
`
`1001 at 3:34-52.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`improving right heart output resulting in increased pulmonary venous return to the
`
`left ventricle. In a poorly functioning left ventricle, this increased blood return may
`
`not be entirely pumped forward resulting in increased pulmonary venous pressure
`
`and pulmonary edema. Thus, practitioners thoroughly evaluate their patients prior
`
`to treatment, and exclude patients from NO therapy upon determination of left
`
`ventricular dysfunction See, e.g., Ex. 1011, Pilbeam, Mechanical Ventilation,
`
`Special Techniques in Mechanical Ventilation, § 4: Nitric Oxide, (4th ed. 2006)
`
`(“Pilbeam”) at 4-6. Such examinations were commonly done prior to June 30,
`
`2009. Id.
`
`15. Before June 30, 2009, it was known that, in addition to systolic and
`
`diastolic left ventricular dysfunction, any obstruction to the pulmonary venous
`
`flow, or lesions that may increase pulmonary venous pressure (such as obstructed
`
`pulmonary venous return, mitral stenosis6 or insufficiency, etc.) increase the risk of
`
`a patient suffering a serious adverse event upon treatment with inhaled NO. See,
`
`e.g. Ex. 1007, Jaypee at 151-54. Furthermore, it was also known that NO may not
`
`be beneficial in patients with a high degree of structural pulmonary abnormalities,
`
`such as hypoplasia, as they interfere with the action of the gas.
`
`6 Mitral stenosis is a condition where the mitral valve, which separates the upper
`
`and lower chambers on the left side of the heart, does not open fully, restricting
`
`blood flow.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`16. As part of the general medical practice before June 30, 2009, doctors
`
`implemented a clinical diagnostic procedure to assess patient conditions, treatment
`
`options, and potential risks from any potential treatment. First, doctors would
`
`assess the condition of the patient to see if the patient had a condition likely to be
`
`helped by inhaled NO, such as pulmonary hypertension. Second, doctors would
`
`assess whether inhaled NO would likely trigger adverse events in the patient. This
`
`process was performed for all patients. As is clear from the studies which include
`
`numerous patients, one skilled in the art would have understood that a process for
`
`selecting a patient to be treated, or a method of treatment, could be applied to one
`
`patient, or to a plurality of patients. See generally Ex. 1006, Greenough, Ex. 1007
`
`Jaypee (disclosing studies
`
`treating multiple patients with
`
`inhaled NO).
`
`Additionally, the INOmax label discloses that clinical trials identified a plurality of
`
`patients to be treated with 20 ppm iNO. Ex. 1010 at 2-3.
`
`17. Doctors who were considering prescribing inhaled NO prior to June
`
`30, 2009, like today, would not do so for patients at risk of adverse events or
`
`serious adverse events. Serious adverse events may include conditions such as
`
`those described in Jaypee, including pulmonary edema, significant bleeding,
`
`worsening of oxygenation and methemoglobinemia. Ex. 1007 at 156.
`
`18.
`
`It was a well-known clinical practice on or before June 30, 2009, to
`
`suggest an echocardiogram before administering inhaled NO.
`
` Ex. 1006,
`
`11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`Greenough at 379-380. Indeed, before June 30, 2009, my team followed this
`
`practice before starting nitric oxide, and the intensive care or neonatology
`
`specialists consistently confirmed that it was done before treatment. We even
`
`often assessed the efficacy by echocardiography through the evaluation of
`
`pulmonary pressure, right ventricular anatomy and function as well as shunt7
`
`direction through the ductus arteriosus and the foramen ovale.
`
`19. Additionally, wedge pressure over 20 mm Hg is a physiological
`
`indicator of conditions that increases risk for patients if they were to receive
`
`treatment with inhaled NO, including left heart dysfunction.8 As was known in the
`
`7 A cardiovascular shunt is a diversion of the blood flow through an anomalous
`
`opening from the left side of the heart to the right side (from the systemic to the
`
`pulmonary circulation), or from the right side to the left side (from the
`
`pulmonary to the systemic circulation).
`
`8 Wedge pressure is referred to in the literature as pulmonary capillary wedge
`
`pressure (“PCWP”), pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (“PAWP”), or merely
`
`“wedge.” See, e.g., Ex. 1012, M. Hoeper, et al., Definitions and Diagnosis of
`
`Pulmonary Hypertension 62:25 J. of the American College of Cardiology D44
`
`(2013) (“Hoeper”) (noting that pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary
`
`arterial wedge pressure, wedge pressure, and wedge are all used to refer to the
`
`same concept and also noting that “wedge” and “wedge pressure” are
`
`12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`art prior to June 30, 2009, wedge pressure can be measured by inserting a
`
`pulmonary catheter with an inflated balloon into a small pulmonary arterial branch
`
`(e.g., a Swan-Ganz catheter). See, e.g., Ex. 1013, Royster, et al., Differences in
`
`Pulmonary Artery Wedge Pressures Obtained by Balloon Inflation Versus
`
`Impaction Techniques, 61 Anesthesiology, 339 – 341 (1984) (“Royster”); see also,
`
`Ex. 1014, Goyal et al., Efficacy of nitroglycerin inhalation in reducing pulmonary
`
`arterial hypertension in children with congenital heart disease, British Journal of
`
`Anaesthesia, 97(2): 208-14 (2006) (“Goyal”) at 209, col. 1, lines 16-20 (showing
`
`measurement of wedge pressure in infants and other children). A rise in wedge
`
`pressure upon treatment with inhaled NO suggests left ventricular dysfunction.
`
`One skilled in the art would have known prior to June 30, 2009, that older children
`
`and adults could have wedge pressure measured with a catheter. While not
`
`typically performed in neonates, one skilled in the art would have known to
`
`measure wedge pressure with a catheter in emergency situations.
`
`20. Before June 30, 2009, it was well-known that wedge pressure could
`
`also be determined through extrapolation based on information gained through
`
`echocardiography. See, e.g., Ex. 1015, Pozzoli, et al., Non-Invasive Estimation of
`
`Left Ventricular Filling Pressures by Doppler Echocardiography, 3 Eur J
`
`commonly used in daily clinical practice, even in non-English speaking
`
`countries).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`Echocardiogr., 3:75-79 (2002) (“Pozzoli”). Wedge pressure may be extrapolated
`
`by the physician in his/her mind from echocardiographic information to identify
`
`whether left heart dysfunction exists and, concomitantly, that physiologically a
`
`wedge pressure exists over a certain value. A pediatric cardiologist with skill and
`
`extensive experience with echocardiography would be able to extrapolate wedge
`
`pressure with accuracy to be of use in making a diagnosis or determining whether
`
`the patient in question has a condition such as left ventricular dysfunction that
`
`would require assessment of the risks of treatment and likely contraindicate
`
`treatment with inhaled NO. Even with such skill, a precisely accurate numerical
`
`value will not be reached, only an estimate.
`
`21. As part of regular clinical practice before June 30, 2009, patients not
`
`at risk of adverse events such as pulmonary edema were treated with inhaled NO,
`
`and patients that revealed risk factors during echocardiography, measurement of
`
`wedge pressure, blood gas level, or other clinical assessment were not treated,
`
`assuming the risk of harm to the patient outweighed the potential benefits of
`
`treatment. If the diagnostic results were unclear, or if a potential benefit was
`
`expected, as part of the diagnostic process, one skilled in the art would have known
`
`to administer inhaled NO as a test to see how a patient would react to the drug and
`
`to determine whether a patient had left ventricular dysfunction. Such a patient
`
`would have been carefully evaluated
`
`through
`
`regular and
`
`repeated
`
`14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`echocardiography and clinical evaluation while the test inhaled NO was
`
`administered. If the patient responded in such a way as to suggest that he or she
`
`had left ventricular dysfunction, full treatment with inhaled NO would not have
`
`been prescribed, and the test treatment would have been stopped. All physicians
`
`have a basic understanding of negative side effects, and one skilled in the art would
`
`have known not to administer inhaled NO if it would cause harm to the patient that
`
`outweighed the benefits of treatment.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`22.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis, the terms and phrases
`
`appearing in a patent claim should be interpreted according to their “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I further understand that the words of the claims
`
`should be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`patent specification. I also understand that the words of the claims should be
`
`interpreted as they would have been interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention was made (not today). I understand that the Board
`
`previously construed the claim phrase “term or near-term neonate” to mean “an
`
`infant aged 1 month or younger born between around 37 and 40 weeks gestation or
`
`greater than around 34 weeks gestation.” For the other claim terms in the ‘163
`
`Patent, I applied the plain and ordinary meaning of all the other terms used in the
`
`15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`claims of the ‘163 Patent as those terms would have been known to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. For my analysis, I was instructed to use June 30, 2009, as the point
`
`in time for claim interpretation purposes.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be a
`
`neonatologist or pediatric cardiologist with experience treating neonatal heart and
`
`lung disease and have experience prescribing inhaled NO before June 30, 2009. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. A person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`treatment of patients with inhaled NO would have had knowledge of the scientific
`
`literature concerning administration of inhaled NO, including contraindications and
`
`risks as of June 30, 2009. Such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`knowledge of the scientific literature related to pulmonary hypertension and
`
`hypoxic respiratory failure. The person of ordinary skill in the art would also have
`
`extensive knowledge and experience with echocardiography. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have known how to research the scientific literature regarding
`
`the use of inhaled NO. Typically, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be an
`
`experienced neonatologist, pediatric cardiologist, pediatric pulmonologist or
`
`pediatric intensivist.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`24. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with
`
`all of the technical concepts set forth in this declaration.
`
`GREENOUGH IN VIEW OF JAYPEE
`
`25. Greenough is a textbook on neonatal respiratory disorders, including
`
`indications and contraindications for iNO treatment and an entire chapter
`
`dedication to the treatment of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 183-187, 373-386. Greenough discloses that echocardiography is
`
`essential for diagnosing and treating patients with conditions that may be benefited
`
`by iNO. Ex. 1006 at 186, 379-380, 389. Greenough further discloses that
`
`indications for iNO treatment include infants with hypoxic respiratory failure and
`
`that a dosage of 20 ppm iNO is appropriate to treat infants with pulmonary
`
`hypertension. Ex. 1006 at 184, 187, 381, Appendix 3. Greenough also discloses
`
`that an elevated wedge pressure increases the risk for a pulmonary edema. Ex.
`
`1006 at 392. Additionally, Greenough discloses that LVD can increase the risk of
`
`pulmonary edema in patients treated with iNO and therefore, LVD is an “absolute
`
`contraindication” for treatment with iNO. Ex. 1006 at 187, 392. Additionally, the
`
`INOmax label discloses that echocardiography may be used to confirm that the
`
`patient is a good candidate for iNO therapy, as well as to exclude patients with
`
`conditions that may contraindicate the use of iNO as appropriate. Ex. 1010 at 4, 6.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`26.
`
`Jaypee is a textbook on pediatric neonatal mechanical ventilation that
`
`reviews pediatric conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and PPHN. Ex.
`
`1007. Jaypee discloses using echocardiography to determine signs of pulmonary
`
`hypertension. Ex. 1007 at 43. Jaypee further includes an entire chapter on iNO,
`
`which discloses a recommended dose of 20 ppm iNO to treat pulmonary
`
`hypertension. Ex. 1007 at 148, 150. Additionally, Jaypee teaches that patients
`
`with LVD or elevated capillary wedge pressure are at risk of having an adverse
`
`effect to iNO treatment that may lead to pulmonary edema. Ex. 1007 at 156.
`
`Additionally, the INOmax label discloses the FDA recommended dose for iNO
`
`treatment is 20 ppm, which can be used to treat both hypoxic respiratory failure
`
`and pulmonary hypertension in neonates. Ex. 1010 at 3, 4, 6.
`
`27. Based on the teachings of Greenough and Jaypee, in order to
`
`determine whether a patient in need of iNO treatment should have been excluded
`
`from iNO treatment as of June 30, 2009, it would have been necessary to first
`
`determine whether the patient had a condition that would benefit from iNO
`
`treatment, and if so, further determine whether the patient had any other
`
`physiological indicators that would contraindicate treatment with iNO. Before
`
`June 30, 2009, as part of the diagnostic process routinely conducted by a
`
`neonatologist or pediatric cardiologist, the doctor would have gathered information
`
`to determine whether the patient was in a physiological state that could be
`
`18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`improved with iNO treatment and further, that the patient did not have any
`
`physiological indicators that would require the patient to be excluded from iNO
`
`treatment.
`
`28. Greenough discloses
`
`that echocardiography
`
`is “essential” and
`
`“critical” for identifying and treating neonates with conditions, such as pulmonary
`
`hypertension, that may benefit from treatment with iNO. See Ex. 1006 at 379-380
`
`(“The echocardiogram plays an essential diagnostic role” and “In addition to
`
`demonstrating the presence of PPHN physiology, the echocardiogram is critical for
`
`the evaluation of left ventricular dysfunction and diagnosis of anatomical heart
`
`disease.”). Greenough also discloses that pulmonary hypertension in neonates may
`
`be treated with 20 ppm iNO. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 381 (“Inhaled nitric oxide
`
`(iNO) therapy at low doses (5-20 ppm) improves oxygenation…in patients with
`
`diverse causes of PPHN.”); id. at 184 (“NO at 10 and 20 ppm also caused a rapid
`
`improvement in oxygenation in nine newborn infants with PPHN . . . .”).
`
`29. As discussed below, Greenough
`
`teaches
`
`that
`
`left ventricular
`
`dysfunction is an “absolute contraindication” to treatment with iNO. Ex. 1006 at
`
`187. This contraindication is not specific to RTL-dependent LVD (right to left
`
`dependent left ventricular dysfunction), but to all forms of LVD. In fact,
`
`Greenough separately lists “right ventricle dependent circulation” and “duct-
`
`dependent circulation” as separate contraindications for treatment with iNO,
`
`19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`suggesting that the LVD contraindication must apply to non-RTL-dependent LVD.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 187. These conditions indicate dependency on right-to-left shunting of
`
`blood, i.e., RTL-dependent LVD. If the LVD contraindication only applied to
`
`RTL-dependent LVD, then listing LVD as its own contraindication would be
`
`redundant and unnecessary. Thus, Greenough teaches that the neonate in the
`
`claims who may be excluded from treatment with iNO is not dependent on right-
`
`to-left shunting of blood.
`
`30. Greenough teaches “[i]nfants at or near term should be considered for
`
`iNO if they have hypoxic respiratory failure, usually an OI greater than 25.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 187. Further, Greenough discloses treating patients with iNO therapy at 20
`
`ppm improves oxygenation, including in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 187, 381 (“Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) therapy at low doses (5-20ppm)
`
`improves oxygenation and decreases the need for ECMO therapy in patients with
`
`diverse causes of PPHN.”).
`
`31. Greenough discloses measuring blood gases as another diagnostic tool
`
`to assess infants with respiratory problems, especially blood oxygen levels. See
`
`Ex. 1006 at 224 (“The monitoring of oxygenation is fundamental to the assessment
`
`of infants with respiratory problems. The gold standard is the partial pressure of
`
`oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2).”). As stated in Greenough, OI, or oxygenation
`
`index is calculated by measuring MAP x (FiO2 x 100)/PaO2. Id. at 495. As PaO2 is
`
`20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Edward Lawson Regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,431,163
`
`the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood, a person of skill in the art would
`
`have understood to measure blood oxygen levels in neonates to calculate the OI
`
`and determine if the patient is hypoxic or already has hypoxic respiratory failure,
`
`when to use iNO treatment, and when to start or consider ECMO.9 Id.
`
`32. Greenough also discloses using blood oxygen levels to identify
`
`hypoxemia. Ex. 1006 at 373 (“PPHN is characterized by hypoxemia…‘differential
`
`cyanosis’ is often present, which is defined by a difference in PaO2 between right
`
`radial artery versus descending aorta values greater or equal to 10 mmHg (1.33
`
`kPa), or an O2 saturation gradient greater than 5 percent.”). Jaypee discloses that
`
`patients with pulmonary hypertension may also be hypoxemic. Ex. 1007 at 149. It
`
`is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Greenough and
`
`Jaypee would know to measure a patient’s blood oxygen level if the patient is
`
`suspected to have a respiratory problem. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would know from the PaO2 measurement whether or not the patient is hypoxic
`
`(or lacking oxygen).