throbber
Paper No. 50
`Date Filed: July 24, 2017
`
`Filed On Behalf Of:
`
`Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited and
`Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`Scott K. Reed
`sreed@fchs.com
`212-218-2100
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LUYE PHARMA GROUP LTD., LUYE PHARMA (USA) LTD., SHANDONG
`LUYE PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and NANJING LUYE
`PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LTD and ALKERMES CONTROLLED
`THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01096
`U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF PATRICK DELUCA, PH.D.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`The Viscosity Limitation is Not Inherent in Johnson or Gustafsson
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 121, line 22 to page 124, line 5, Dr. DeLuca testified
`
`that “it’s possible” for a POSA to use a medium or high viscosity grade CMC in an
`
`injection vehicle. This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertions that the Johnson and
`
`Gustafsson vehicles would comprise only low viscosity CMC. (Reply at 11-13,
`
`18-19; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 54, 57-60, 65, 86-87.) This is relevant because it confirms
`
`that Petitioners should have accounted for all viscosity grades of CMCs to prove
`
`inherency.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 135, line 4 to page 137, line 4; see also Exh. 2073, Dr.
`
`DeLuca confirmed that “viscosity [of a CMC solution] doesn’t change between
`
`food grade, pharma grade and industrial grade.” This is relevant to Petitioners’
`
`assertion that Patent Owners’ testing is flawed because it did not use
`
`pharmaceutical grade CMC. (Reply at 8, 10-13, 18-19; Exh. 1024 at 41-45, 57-58,
`
`86.) This is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ testing criticism and
`
`establishes that use of a non-pharmaceutical grade CMC does not impact viscosity.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 133, line 19 to page 135, line 3, see also Exhs. 2031,
`
`2073, Dr. DeLuca confirmed that “in looking for an appropriate vehicle for drug
`
`delivery,” he has used high and low viscosity, food grade CMCs. This is relevant
`
`to Petitioners’ assertions that the Johnson and Gustafsson vehicles would comprise
`
`only low viscosity, pharmaceutical grade CMC. (Reply at 8, 10-13, 18-19; Exh.
`
`1
`
`

`

`1024 at ¶¶ 41-45, 54, 57-60, 65, 86-87.) This is relevant because it confirms that
`
`Petitioners should have accounted for all viscosity grades CMC to prove inherency
`
`and it contradicts Petitioners’ testing criticism.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 167, lines 21-25; see also id. at 158:4-167:20, 167:25-
`
`170:9; Exhs. 2074-2077, Dr. DeLuca confirmed that “Blanose 7UL® and 7EL®
`
`were commercially available as of the time of the invention.” This is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ assertion that Patent Owners’ testing is flawed because it did not use
`
`commercially available CMC. (Reply at 8-11, 13-14, 18; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 31-36,
`
`40-41, 43-45, 65, 86-87.) This is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ testing
`
`criticism and establishes that the tested CMCs were commercially available at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 176, lines 18-25; see also id. at 170:14-176:17; Exhs.
`
`2039, 2078-2079, Dr. DeLuca confirmed the “use of an ultra low viscosity [non-
`
`pharmaceutical] grade CMC for a pharmaceutical application.” This is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ assertions that Patent Owners’ testing is flawed because it did not use
`
`low viscosity pharmaceutical grade CMC. (Reply at 10-13, 18; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶
`
`41-45, 57-58, 86-87.) This is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ testing
`
`criticism and establishes that comparable CMCs to those tested are used in
`
`pharmaceutical applications.
`
`2
`
`

`

`In Exh. 2081 at page 208, lines 11-14; see also Exh. 2038, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that Ashland classifies its “CMC 7UL® and 7EL® as low viscosity
`
`grade CMC.” This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that Patent Owners’ testing
`
`was flawed because it did not use low viscosity CMCs. (Reply at 8, 10-13, 18-19;
`
`Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 54, 57-60, 65, 86-87.) This is relevant because it contradicts
`
`Petitioners’ testing criticism and establishes that 7UL and 7EL CMCs are
`
`considered low viscosity CMCs.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 166, lines 3-6; see also Exh. 2075, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that a third party “refers to Blanose 7ULC® as a low viscosity grade
`
`CMC.” This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that Patent Owners’ testing was
`
`flawed because it did not use low viscosity CMCs. (Reply at 8, 10-13, 18-19; Exh.
`
`1024 at ¶¶ 54, 57-60, 65, 86-87.) This is relevant because it contradicts
`
`Petitioners’ testing criticism and establishes that 7UL CMC is considered low
`
`viscosity CMC.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 48, line 18 to page 49, line 16, Dr. DeLuca confirmed
`
`that Gustafsson does not “state the source of the CMC,” “say anything about
`
`pharmaceutical grade CMC,” “say anything about whether it’s a low viscosity
`
`CMC,” and “say anything about the commercial availability of the CMC.” This is
`
`relevant to Petitioners’ assertions that Gustafsson’s vehicle would inherently have
`
`a viscosity within the claimed range and that Patent Owners’ testing is flawed
`
`3
`
`

`

`because it did not use a particular subcategory of CMCs. (Reply at 8-11, 13-14,
`
`18-19; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 31-36, 40-45, 86-89.) This is relevant because it confirms
`
`the generic nature of Gustafsson’s disclosure and it undermines Petitioners’ claim
`
`that a POSA would only use a particular subcategory.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 104, lines 4 to 16; see also id. at 76:5-8, 117:13-125:5,
`
`Dr. DeLuca confirmed that Johnson Example 7 does not state low viscosity CMC
`
`and that Johnson “didn’t specify the supplier” of CMC. This is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ assertions that Johnson’s vehicle would inherently have a viscosity
`
`within the claimed range and that Patent Owners’ testing is flawed because it did
`
`not use a particular subcategory of CMCs. (Reply at 10-14, 16-17; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶
`
`31-36, 40-45, 56-60.) This is relevant because it confirms the generic nature of
`
`Johnson’s disclosure and it undermines Petitioners’ claim that a POSA would only
`
`use a particular subcategory of CMC.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 196, line 25 to page 197, line 8; see also id. at 184:17-
`
`185:8, Dr. DeLuca confirmed that whether the CMC is added “before or after the
`
`sodium chloride” could impact viscosity. This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertions
`
`that the Johnson and Gustafsson vehicles would inherently have viscosities within
`
`the claimed range. (Reply at 8-14, 16-19; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 31-36, 40-45, 56-60, 86-
`
`89.) This is relevant because it confirms that order of addition of ingredients can
`
`4
`
`

`

`impact viscosity and supports that Petitioners should have accounted for this factor
`
`in proving inherency.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 58, line 15 to page 59, line 11, Dr. DeLuca confirmed
`
`that a POSA “could use a different amount or type of CMC” in an injection vehicle
`
`depending on test model. This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that a POSA
`
`would understand the same CMC is used in all Johnson’s vehicles. (Reply at 11-
`
`12; Exh. 1024 at ¶ 54.) This is relevant because it undermines Petitioners’
`
`assertion and confirms that the amount and type of CMC used can change based on
`
`the particular model being studied.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 102, line 22 to page 103, line 13, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that “CMC that comes from two different suppliers can have different
`
`characteristics” including “different viscosity ranges.” This is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ assertions that the Johnson and Gustafsson vehicles would inherently
`
`have viscosities within the claimed range. (Reply at 8-14, 16-19; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶
`
`31-36, 40-45, 56-60, 86-89.) This is relevant because it confirms that the supplier
`
`of CMC can impact viscosity and supports that Petitioners should have accounted
`
`for this in proving inherency.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 235, line 13 to page 236, line 25, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that polysorbates can “have hydrophobic interactions with water” and
`
`“form hydrogen bonds in water;” and CMC can also “have hydrophobic interaction
`
`5
`
`

`

`with water” and “form hydrogen bonds with water” and “the addition of
`
`polysorbate in the aqueous solution with CMC can impact CMC directly or
`
`indirectly . . . through these interactions.” This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertions
`
`that polysorbates would have a minimal impact on viscosity and that the Johnson
`
`vehicle would inherently have a viscosity within the claimed range. (Reply at 16-
`
`17; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 67-68.) This is relevant because it confirms that polysorbates
`
`can impact viscosity and supports that Petitioners should have accounted for this in
`
`relying on the Tracy Declaration to prove inherency.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 238, line 21 to 239, line 12, Dr. DeLuca confirmed that
`
`he “didn’t dispute” Dr. Berkland’s testimony “that the method of dissolution or
`
`mixing could impact viscosity” including “using different mixing methods and
`
`speeds.” This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertions that the Johnson and Gustafsson
`
`vehicles would inherently have viscosities within the claimed range. (Reply at 14-
`
`15; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 67-68.) This is relevant because it confirms that the method of
`
`dissolution and mixing can impact viscosity and supports that Petitioners should
`
`have accounted for this in proving inherency.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 150, line 14 to page 152, line 13, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that he believed a viscosity would be inherent if it fell within a 10
`
`percent margin of error of the manufacturer’s specification. This is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ assertions that the Johnson and Gustafsson vehicles would inherently
`
`6
`
`

`

`have viscosities within the claimed range. (Reply at 8-14, 16-19; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶
`
`31-36, 40-45, 56-60, 86-89.) This is relevant because it establishes the standard
`
`Dr. DeLuca applied in his inherency analysis.
`
`II.
`
`The Microparticle Limitation is Not Satisfied by Gustafsson
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 233, line 16 to page 235, line 12, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that the polymer of the microparticles of the ’061 patent must “serve[]
`
`as a matrix or binder” and that “the active agent has to be dispersed or dissolved
`
`within the polymer.” This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertions that the
`
`microparticle limitation is satisfied by any microparticle including by Gustafsson’s
`
`PLGA coating. (Reply at 6-8, 19-26; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 25-30, 90-97, 100, 104.)
`
`This is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ assertions and establishes that
`
`the microparticle limitation requires that the polymeric binder function as a matrix
`
`or binder of the active agent and the active agent be dispersed or dissolved in the
`
`polymeric binder.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 221, lines 3 to page 222, line 12, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that the active agents in Gustafsson “were not dispersed in the PLGA”
`
`and that the PLGA coating of the Gustafsson microparticles is “theoretically free”
`
`of any active. This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that the microparticle
`
`limitation is satisfied by Gustafsson’s PLGA coating. (Reply at 6-8 19-26; Exh.
`
`1024 at ¶¶ 25-30, 90-97, 100, 104.) This is relevant because it contradicts
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ assertion and establishes the active is not dispersed or dissolved in the
`
`PLGA coating of Gustafsson’s microparticles.
`
`III. A POSA Would Not Have Combined the Cited Art
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 211, line 23 to page 212, line 21, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that he “did not see any reason why” a POSA would replace the BSA
`
`active in Gustafsson’s microparticles with Ramstack’s risperidone. This is relevant
`
`to Petitioners’ assertion that the combination of Gustafsson’s microparticles and
`
`Ramstack’s risperidone renders claism 20-21 obvious. (Reply at 23-26; Exh. 1024
`
`at ¶¶ 103-112.) This is relevant because it confirms there is no reason to combine.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 218, line 16 to page 219, line 20, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed he did not identify any problems with Ramstack’s injection vehicle or
`
`microparticles. This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that a POSA would
`
`combine components of Ramstack with Gustafsson’s injection vehicle. (Reply at
`
`23-26; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 99-112.) This is relevant because it contradicts any
`
`motivation to replace or modify Ramstack’s microspheres or vehicle.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 227, line 22 to page 228, line 19, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that Gustafsson does not identify that its injection vehicle improves on
`
`any other injection vehicle. This is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’
`
`assertion that a POSA would be motivated to combine components of Ramstack
`
`with Gustafsson’s injection vehicle. (Reply at 23-26; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 99-112.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`In Exh. 2081 at page 229, lines 18-22, Dr. DeLuca confirmed that the
`
`injection vehicle of Ramstack, like the vehicle of Gustafsson, used CMC as a
`
`suspension aid. This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that a POSA would
`
`combine components of Ramstack with Gustafsson’s injection vehicle. (Reply at
`
`23-26; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 99-112.) This is relevant because it contradicts any
`
`motivation to make such a combination.
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 214, line 20 to page 215, line 20, Dr. DeLuca
`
`confirmed that Ramstack teaches dissolving the risperidone and PLGA in organic
`
`solvents in making Ramstack’s microparticles. This testimony is relevant because
`
`it contradicts Petitioners’ assertion that Ramstack and Gustafsson would be
`
`combined. (Reply at 26; Ex. 1024 at ¶¶ 101, 105.).
`
`In Exh. at page 221, lines 11-19, Dr. DeLuca testified Gustafsson is focused
`
`on avoiding the problem caused by dispersing an active and PLGA in an organic
`
`solvent. This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ assertion that
`
`Ramstack and Gustafsson would be combined. (Reply at 26; Ex. 1024 at ¶¶ 101,
`
`105.)
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 40, line 24 to page 41, line 20; see also id. at 33:24-
`
`37:3, Dr. DeLuca testified that “[i]t’s not necessary to really worry about
`
`[density]” when developing an injectable formulation of microparticles. This is
`
`relevant to Petitioners’ assertions that a POSA would increase density to stabilize
`
`9
`
`

`

`the formulation or to reduce sedimentation. (Reply at 17; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 73-76.)
`
`This is relevant because it contradicts the asserted motivations to combine the
`
`teachings of Kino and Johnson to arrive at claims 4, 5, 10 and 11.
`
`IV. A POSA Would Not Alter Viscosity based on Suspendability
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 11, line 11 to page 12, line 2, Dr. DeLuca testified that,
`
`in formulating an injectable suspension, a POSA “is going to be really concerned
`
`about syringeability/injectability.” This is relevant because it contradicts
`
`Petitioners’ assertion that suspendability would motivate a POSA to increase
`
`viscosity. (Reply at 4-6, 15, 17, 23, 27; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 14-24, 39, 71, 78-79, 116.)
`
`In Exh. 2081 at page 155, line 13 to page 156, line 3; see also id. at 22:24-
`
`23:5, Dr. DeLuca confirmed that “Kino didn’t have any suspendability issues using
`
`an injection vehicle with a viscosity of 1 cp” for its PLGA-based microspheres.
`
`This is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that suspendability would motivate a
`
`POSA to increase viscosity. (Reply at 4-6, 15, 17, 23, 27; Exh. 1024 at ¶¶ 14-24,
`
`39, 71, 78-79, 116.) This is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ assertion
`
`that a POSA would increase viscosity.
`
`10
`
`

`

`July 24, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Scott Reed/
`Scott K. Reed (Reg. No. 32,433)
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owners
`
`11
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNERS’ MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PATRICK DELUCA,
`
`PH.D. was served on July 24, 2017 by causing it to be sent by email to counsel for
`
`Petitioners, who have consented to electronic service, at the following email
`
`addresses:
`
`wmentlik.ipr@lernerdavid.com
`
`pkochanski@lernerdavid.com
`
`tvanbuskirk@lernerdavid.com
`
`nvaleyko@lernerdavid.com
`
`July 24, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Scott Reed/
`Scott K. Reed (Reg. No. 32,433)
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owners
`
`12
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket