UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2016-01023 and IPR2016-01103
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2016-01059
`
`
`
`ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2016-01102
`
`Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR
`ALEXANDER M. KLIBANOV
`
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2016-01023 and IPR2016-01103
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2016-01059
`
`
`
`ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2016-01102
`
`Patent No. 5,665,772
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR
`ALEXANDER M. KLIBANOV
`
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`I, Alexander M. Klibanov, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I submit this expert declaration in response to certain arguments made
`
`in the following four petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) and two expert
`
`declarations cited in those petitions:
`
`a. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`Of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772 (IPR2016-01023, Paper 4) (requesting
`
`IPR of claims 1-3 and 8-10) (“Breckenridge Pet. I”).
`
`b. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`Of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772 (IPR2016-01103, Paper 1) (requesting
`
`IPR of claim 7) (“Breckenridge Pet. II”).
`
`c. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s Petition For Inter Partes Review Of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,665,772 (IPR2016-01059, Paper 1) (requesting IPR of
`
`claim 7) (“Par Pet.”).
`
`d. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.’s Petition For Inter Partes Review Of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,665,772 (IPR2016-01102, Paper 2) (requesting IPR of
`
`claims 1-3, 7-10) (“Roxane Pet.”).
`
`e. Declaration of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D., in Support of Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772, submitted in IPR
`
`Nos. 2016-01059 (Ex. 1003), 2016-01102 (Ex. 1003), and 2016-
`
`01103 (Ex. 1003), and also submitted, but not relied upon, in
`
`1
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01023 (Ex. 1003) (“Jorgensen Decl.”).
`
`f. Declaration of Steven W. Baldwin, Ph.D., in Support of Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,665,772, submitted in IPR
`
`No. 2016-01023 (Ex. 1030) (“Baldwin Decl.”).
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`I am a Novartis Endowed Chair Professor of Chemistry and
`
`Bioengineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“M.I.T.”), where I
`
`have been teaching and conducting research for over 37 years.1 In 2012-2013, I
`
`held the Roger and Georges Firmenich Endowed Chair Professorship in Chemistry
`
`and Bioengineering, and in 2007-2012, the same chaired professorship as I
`
`currently hold. Prior to that, I was a Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of
`
`Bioengineering at M.I.T., positions I held from 1988 and 2000, respectively. From
`
`1979 to 1988, I was an Assistant Professor, then Associate Professor, and
`
`thereafter a Full Professor of Applied Biochemistry in the Department of Applied
`
`Biological Sciences (formerly the Department of Nutrition and Food Science) at
`
`M.I.T.
`
`
`1 Novartis has no say in who receives this chair or my compensation at M.I.T., and
`
`my title at M.I.T. in no way affects the content of this declaration or my opinions
`
`in this matter.
`
`2
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I obtained my M.S. in Chemistry from Moscow University in Russia
`
`in 1971 and Ph.D. in Chemical Enzymology from the same University in 1974.
`
`Thereafter, I was a Research Chemist at Moscow University’s Department of
`
`Chemistry for three years. From 1977 to 1979, following my immigration to the
`
`United States, I was a Post-Doctoral Associate at the Department of Chemistry,
`
`University of California in San Diego.
`
`4.
`
`Over the last 40+ years as a practicing chemist, I have extensively
`
`researched, published, taught, and lectured in many areas of chemistry, including
`
`biological, medicinal, physical, bioorganic, formulation, and polymer.
`
`5.
`
`During my research career, I have earned numerous prestigious
`
`professional awards and honors. For example, I was elected to the U.S. National
`
`Academy of Sciences (considered among the highest honors that can be given to an
`
`American scientist) and also to the U.S. National Academy of Engineering
`
`(considered among the highest honors that can be given to an American engineer).
`
`I am also a Founding Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological
`
`Engineering and a Corresponding Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
`
`(Scotland’s National Academy of Science and Letters). In addition, I have
`
`received the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award (for achievements in organic
`
`chemistry), the Marvin J. Johnson Award (for achievements in biochemical
`
`technology), the Ipatieff Prize (for achievements in physical chemistry, particularly
`
`3
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`in catalysis), and the Leo Friend Award, all from the American Chemical Society,
`
`as well as the International Enzyme Engineering Prize.
`
`6.
`
`I have published over 310 scientific papers in various areas of
`
`chemistry and am also a named inventor of 21 issued United States patents and of
`
`many pending and foreign ones. I have given some 370 invited lectures (including
`
`a number of named lectures) at professional conferences, universities, and
`
`corporations all over the world, numerous of them dealing with formulation,
`
`solubility, stability, delivery, and biological evaluation of pharmaceutically active
`
`compounds.
`
`7.
`
`In addition to research and teaching at M.I.T., I have consulted widely
`
`for pharmaceutical, medical device, chemical, and biotechnology companies,
`
`including both innovator and generic pharmaceutical companies. I have also
`
`founded six pharmaceutical companies and have been on the scientific advisory
`
`boards and/or boards of directors of those companies and of many others. A
`
`number of these consulting, advisory, and directorship activities have dealt
`
`specifically with the formulation, solubility, stability, delivery, administration, and
`
`biological evaluation of pharmaceutically active compounds, as well as their
`
`discovery and development.
`
`8. My curriculum vitae, which lists my professional experience and
`
`academic qualifications in greater detail, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2402.
`
`4
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`9.
`
`The time I spend working on this matter is being compensated at my
`
`current customary consulting rate of $950 per hour. This compensation does not
`
`monetarily benefit me personally but instead is credited directly to M.I.T. in order
`
`to financially support graduate students, postdoctoral associates, and scholarly
`
`activities. This compensation does not depend on, and is not affected by, the
`
`content of this expert declaration.
`
`II.
`
`Petitioners’ Obviousness Case Concerning The ’772 Patent Claims Is
`Based On The Erroneous Allegation That One Claimed Compound,
`Everolimus, Is Obvious
`
`10. Petitioners challenge claims 1-3 and 7-10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,665,772 (“the ’772 Patent”). To understand why their challenge should not be
`
`allowed to succeed, let us analyze Petitioners’ argument concerning the
`
`obviousness of the chemical compound everolimus, which is specifically taught by
`
`compound claim 10 and generically taught by compound claims 1-3 of the ’772
`
`Patent. Pharmaceutical-composition claim 7, as well as method-of-use claims 8
`
`and 9, of the ’772 Patent also encompass the chemical compound everolimus
`
`because of their dependency from claim 1. Thus, Petitioners must prove that
`
`everolimus itself would have been obvious before they can even begin to argue that
`
`a pharmaceutical composition containing, or a method of using, it would have been
`
`obvious. A brief summary of Petitioners’ case is provided below.
`
`11. Petitioners allege that one of ordinary skill in the art as of October 9,
`
`5
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`1992, would have selected rapamycin (chemical structure depicted below, left) as a
`
`lead compound and also would have been motivated to increase its water solubility
`
`(i.e., solubility in water).2 Petitioners further contend that a person of ordinary
`
`skill3 would have then relied on the combined teachings of four references, namely
`
`Van Duyne, Rossmann, Yalkowsky, and Lemke, to arrive at the compound
`
`everolimus (chemical structure also depicted below, right).4
`
`
`2 Breckenridge Pet. I at 6, 14-15, 24-25, 38, 40-41; Breckenridge Pet. II at 9, 19-20,
`
`40-41, 43-44; Par Pet. at 11, 19-20, 27-29, 39-40, 42-43; Roxane Pet. at 4, 7-8, 17-
`
`18, 26-28, 41, 43-45.
`
`3 For purposes of this declaration only, I accept the definitions of a person of
`
`ordinary skill as of October 9, 1992, provided by Petitioners and their declarants.
`
`See Jorgensen Decl. ¶¶ 45-46; Baldwin Decl. ¶¶ 44-46; Breckenridge Pet. I at 13-
`
`14; Breckenridge Pet. II at 19; Par Pet. at 19; Roxane Pet. at 16-17.
`
`4 Breckenridge Pet. I at 10, 39, 48, 50; Breckenridge Pet. II at 13-14, 42, 54; Par
`
`Pet. at 2, 12, 41, 53; Roxane Pet. at 13, 43, 51-52, 55-57.
`
`6
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`In particular, Petitioners allege that a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have selected rapamycin’s C40 position as a site for chemical modification (based
`
`on the combined teachings of Van Duyne and Rossmann) and, moreover,
`
`specifically would have sought to replace rapamycin’s hydroxyl (HO-) group at
`
`C40 with a “flexible” substituent (based on the teachings of Yalkowsky) having an
`
`alcohol, amine, or carboxylic acid functional group (based on the teachings of
`
`Lemke).5 One of the three possible C40 substituents that Petitioners say a skilled
`
`artisan would have investigated is the 2-hydroxyethyl ether (also denoted as 2-
`
`
`5 Breckenridge Pet. I at 3-4, 17-22, 25-33, 41-48; Breckenridge Pet. II at 7, 22-27,
`
`29-37, 44-51; Par Pet. at 9-10, 22-27, 29-36, 43-49; Roxane Pet. at 5, 20-25, 28-35,
`
`45-51.
`
`7
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`hydroxyethoxy, HOCH2CH2O-).6 The rapamycin derivative with this substituent
`
`at the C40 position is commonly known as everolimus, and it is covered by claim 1
`
`of the ’772 Patent, from which claims 2-3 and 7-10 all depend.7
`
`III. A Summary Of This Declaration
`
`13. This expert declaration concerns one prior-art reference, namely
`
`Yalkowsky. Petitioners and their experts rely on Yalkowsky to support their key
`
`argument that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to chemically
`
`modify rapamycin to improve its water solubility by specifically replacing its C40
`
`hydroxyl group with a “flexible” substituent to arrive at everolimus. Petitioners
`
`and their experts also rely on Yalkowsky to support their argument that one of
`
`ordinary skill would have reasonably expected everolimus to exhibit an improved
`
`water solubility compared to rapamycin. This declaration explains my opinion that
`
`there can be no factual dispute that Yalkowsky is not applicable to rapamycin’s
`
`solubility in water at least because Yalkowsky is expressly limited to ideal
`
`solubility, whereas the water solubility of rapamycin is not ideal.
`
`
`6 Breckenridge Pet. I at 32-33, 45-48; Breckenridge Pet. II at 36-37, 48-51; Par Pet.
`
`at 35-36, 47-49; Roxane Pet. at 34-35, 48-51.
`
`7 Breckenridge Pet. I at 1-2, 11-13; Breckenridge Pet. II at 4-6, 16-18; Par Pet. at 7-
`
`8, 13-15; Roxane Pet. at 2-4, 15-16.
`
`8
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`IV. No Factual Dispute Exists That Yalkowsky Concerns Ideal Solubility;
`Because Water Is Not An Ideal Solvent For Rapamycin, Yalkowsky Is
`Not Applicable To Rapamycin’s Solubility In Water
`
`14. As even its Abstract makes clear, Yalkowsky is directed specifically
`
`to the “ideal solubility” of “rigid molecules” and their “long chain derivatives”
`
`(emphasis added). (Ex. 1007 at 108.)
`
`15. Below I discuss the concept of “ideal solubility,” explain why water is
`
`not an ideal solvent for rapamycin, and, consequently, why Yalkowsky is not
`
`applicable to the water solubility of rapamycin.
`
`16.
`
`In contrast to this discussion, neither the Petitioners nor Drs.
`
`Jorgensen and Baldwin even discuss what ideal solubility is, much less address
`
`whether water is an ideal solvent for rapamycin. The reason for that conspicuous
`
`omission, in my opinion, is quite simple: water is not at all an ideal solvent for
`
`rapamycin. If it were, rapamycin would not be considered to have “poor
`
`solubility” in water as both Drs. Jorgensen and Baldwin have opined.8
`
`17. Yalkowsky’s discussion of internal entropy of fusion (ΔSf) expressly
`
`relates specifically to ideal solubility. (See, e.g., Ex. 1007 at 111 (“The ideal
`
`solubility of many crystalline compounds can be estimated from the melting point
`
`
`8 Jorgensen Decl. ¶¶ 75-76, 138-140; see also Baldwin Decl. ¶¶ 78-79, 142-144;
`
`Breckenridge Pet. I at 15, 24-25, 40-41; Breckenridge Pet. II at 20, 28-29, 43-44;
`
`Par Pet. at 20, 27-29, 42-43; Roxane Pet. at 18, 26-28, 43-45.
`
`9
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`and entropy of fusion as given by eq[uations] 5 and 6 . . . which provide a very
`
`simple means of obtaining a reasonable estimate of ideal solubility . . . .”
`
`(emphasis added)); see also Ex. 1007 at 108 (providing background information on
`
`means for calculating ideal solubility).) Yalkowsky does not ever mention water
`
`solubility. Nor does Yalkowsky state that its teachings about ideal solubility,
`
`including the formula that Drs. Jorgensen and Baldwin focus on (equation 6 on
`
`page 111), applies to the water solubility of compounds like rapamycin.
`
`18. To understand why Yalkowsky’s discussion and conclusions about
`
`ideal solubility are inapplicable to rapamycin’s water solubility, it is important to
`
`consider the concepts of solubility in general and ideal solubility in particular, as
`
`they would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill. Solubility is the
`
`property of one substance (e.g., a solid) called a solute to dissolve in another
`
`substance (e.g., a liquid) called a solvent to form a homogenous mixture called a
`
`solution. (Ex. 24039 at 957-958.) Ideal solubility concerns specifically the
`
`solubility of a given solute in an ideal solvent for that solute to form an ideal
`
`solution. For example, the 1981 Condensed Chemical Dictionary defines an ideal
`
`solution as “[a] solution which exhibits no change of internal energy on mixing and
`
`complete uniformity of cohesive forces.” (emphasis added). (Ex. 2403 at 556.) In
`
`other words, the attractive forces between the solvent molecules are equivalent to
`
`9 The Condensed Chemical Dictionary (10th ed., 1981).
`
`10
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`those between the solute molecules. As noted by Hildebrand, “[i]t has long been
`
`known that differences in the degree of polarity between two molecular species
`
`tend to produce, in their solutions, deviations from the ideal solution laws.” (Ex.
`
`240410 at 285.) Since there is a vast and indisputable difference “in the degree of
`
`polarity” between rapamycin (which is only slightly polar) and water (which is
`
`highly polar), it follows that a solution of rapamycin in water cannot be ideal or
`
`even close to it; hence Yalkowsky’s teachings do not apply.
`
`19. A classical principle of solubility of chemical compounds is “like
`
`dissolves like.” When two substances (such as a solute and a solvent) have nearly
`
`identical physicochemical properties (in particular polarity and hydrophobicity),
`
`then both the solubility of the solute in that solvent and the resultant solution are
`
`nearly ideal. Conversely, the more dissimilar the solute and the solvent molecules
`
`are in terms of their physicochemical properties, the more profoundly both the
`
`solubility and the solution deviate from ideal. And a person of ordinary skill, even
`
`by just comparing the chemical structures of rapamycin (see above) and water
`
`(H2O or H-OH) would have immediately recognized that their respective polarities
`
`and hydrophobicities are vastly dissimilar.
`
`10 J.H. Hildebrand and J.M. Carter, The Influence On The Ideal Solution Laws Of
`
`The Distribution Of Polarity Within The Molecule, Proceedings of the National
`
`Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 16:285-288 (1930).
`
`11
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`20. According to Drs. Jorgensen and Baldwin, rapamycin has “poor
`
`solubility in water” and is “a large molecule with relatively few hydrophilic
`
`moieties and with large hydrophobic [i.e., “water-hating”] regions.” (Jorgensen
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 75, 139; Baldwin Decl. ¶¶ 78,143.) Water, in stark contrast, is
`
`hydrophilic (i.e., “water-loving”) rather than hydrophobic, just the opposite of
`
`rapamycin.
`
`21. Because Yalkowsky’s ideal solubility relates to the solubility of
`
`solutes in “like” solvents, such as hydrophobic and nonpolar solutes in
`
`hydrophobic and nonpolar organic solvents (e.g., hydrocarbons in other
`
`hydrocarbons), or, alternatively, such hydrophilic and polar solutes as table sugar
`
`or salt in such hydrophilic and polar solvents as water, Yalkowsky is not
`
`applicable to the non-ideal solubility of unlike solutes and solvents, much less such
`
`strikingly dissimilar ones as the predominantly non-polar compound rapamycin
`
`with its “large hydrophobic regions” and the ultimate polar and hydrophilic solvent
`
`water.
`
`22.
`
`In fact, none of the papers Drs. Jorgensen and Baldwin cite as
`
`examples employing the use of flexible side chains to improve solubility (see
`
`Jorgensen Decl. ¶ 78; Baldwin Decl. ¶ 81) concerns water solubility. Rather, only
`
`hydrophobic solutes in organic solvents are discussed: Bell studied the properties
`
`of hydrophobic heptacyclic terpyridines “in many organic solvents” (Ex. 1021 at
`
`12
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`765); Ballauff examined the solubility of such hydrophobic rigid-rod polymers as
`
`poly(γ-benzyl glutamate) in organic solvents (such as chloroform and DMF) (Ex.
`
`1022 at 1372-1373 (noting the extreme sensitivity of the [polymer/DMF] system
`
`“toward small amounts of water”)); and Stern addressed the solubility of certain
`
`hydrophobic rigid-rod aromatic polyesters in such hydrophobic organic solvents or
`
`mixtures thereof as dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethane, phenol, toluene, and
`
`chloroform (Ex. 1023 at 2098). As a result, one of ordinary skill would not rely on
`
`any of these references for the same reasons (s)he would not rely on Yalkowsky.
`
`23. Water is undeniably not an ideal solvent for rapamycin (tellingly, Drs.
`
`Jorgensen and Baldwin do not claim that it is; they just ignore the term “ideal”
`
`modifying the term “solubility” throughout Yalkowsky). As explained above,
`
`ideal solutions exist only when the physicochemical properties of the solute and
`
`solvent are very similar. The fact that rapamycin, according to Drs. Jorgensen and
`
`Baldwin, exhibits “poor solubility in water” and has “large hydrophobic regions”
`
`(Jorgensen Decl. ¶¶ 75, 139; Baldwin Decl. ¶¶ 78, 143) evidences that a
`
`rapamycin-in-water solution is not ideal. Accordingly, Yalkowsky’s teachings
`
`about ideal solubility are not applicable to the solubility of rapamycin in water.
`
`For at least this reason, I believe that Petitioners’ challenge to the claims of the
`
`’772 Patent fails.
`
`
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`13
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`NOVARTIS EXHIBIT 2401
`Breckenridge v. Novartis, IPR 2016-01103
`Page 15 of 15
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
