`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD. AND DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MONOSOL RX, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF METIN ÇELIK, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,603,514
`
`“UNIFORM FILMS FOR RAPID DISSOLVE DOSAGE FORM
`INCORPORATING TASTE-MASKING COMPOSITIONS”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-XXXXX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL001
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Page
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`
`A. Education and Work Experience ............................................................ 3
`
`B. Professional Affiliations, Activities, and Awards .................................. 4
`
`C. Publications and Educational Involvement ............................................ 5
`
`D. Prior Testimonies ................................................................................... 6
`
`III. SCOPE OF THE WORK AND COMPENSATION ...................................... 6
`
`A. Bases for Opinion and Materials Considered......................................... 7
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 13
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 15
`
`VII. THE ‘514 PATENT ....................................................................................... 15
`
`A. Priority Date of the ‘514 Patent............................................................ 15
`
`B. The Challenged Claims of the ‘514 Patent .......................................... 16
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND AND TUTORIAL ............................................................ 21
`
`A. Polymers ............................................................................................... 21
`
`B. Particles ................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL002
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`(Continued)
`
`C. Role of Viscosity .................................................................................. 25
`
`D. Drying of Suspensions ......................................................................... 29
`
`E. Role of Uniformity in Drug Formulations ........................................... 31
`
`Flavoring of Pharmaceutical Formulations .......................................... 33
`
`F.
`
`IX. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES .............. 33
`
`
`A. WO 200/42992 (Chen) (Ex. 1005) ...................................................... 33
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,067,116 (Bess) (Ex. 1004) .................................... 40
`
`C.
`
`CA 2274910 (Cremer) (Ex. 1006) ..................................................... 41
`
`X.
`
`INVALIDITY OF THE ‘514 PATENT ........................................................ 42
`
`Claims 1 and 62 of the ‘514 Patent are Obvious over
`Bess in view of Chen .......................................................................... 42
`
`A.
`
`
`B. A POSA would combine the Teaching of Bess and Chen
`
`along with the Knowledge in the Art .................................................. 46
`
`C. Additional Limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 62
`
`do not render those claims Nonobvious over Bess and Chen ............. 47
`
`The Dependent Claim Limitations Do Not Render the ‘514x
`Asserted Claims Nonobvious over Bess and Chen.. ........................... 47
`
`Claims 1 and 62 of the ‘514 Patent are Obvious over
`Chen and Cremer ................................................................................ 49
`
`A POSA would combine the Teachings of Chen and Cremer
`along with the Knowledge in the Art .................................................. 54
`
`D.
`
`
`E.
`
`
`F.
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL003
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`(Continued)
`
`
`G. Additional Limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 62
`do not render those claims Nonobvious over Chen and
`Cremer ................................................................................................. 55
`
`
`
`
`
`H.
`
`
`
`The Dependent Claim Limitations do not render the
`those Claims Nonobvious over Chen and Cremer.. ............................ 55
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 57
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL004
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, Metin Çelik, Ph.D. declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Metin Çelik. I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. of 107 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540 and
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. of 8-2-337, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,
`
`India 500034) (collectively, “Dr. Reddy’s”) to provide opinions relating to U.S.
`
`Patent 8,603,514 (“the ‘514 Patent”). I further understand that Dr. Reddy’s
`
`requests that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) cancel
`
`certain claims of the ‘514 patent as unpatentable. I submit this expert declaration,
`
`which addresses and supports the petition of Dr. Reddy’s.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2. I am currently the President of Pharmaceutical Technologies
`
`International, Inc. (“PTI”), a company that I founded in 1997. PTI develops
`
`management tools, databases and expert systems for the pharmaceutical industry
`
`worldwide and provides expert consultant services to various international
`
`pharmaceutical, food, excipient and equipment companies and to law firms
`
`throughout North America.
`
`3. Since 2008, I am also a Research Professor of Pharmaceutical
`
`Technology at the College of Pharmacy, Near East University in Cyprus where I
`
`have established a tabletting research center.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL005
`
`
`
`4. Over the past thirty years, working in industry, academia, and as a
`
`consultant, I have been continuously involved in the development and formulation
`
`of pharmaceutical products. I have also provided expert consultant services to the
`
`Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
`
`5. My involvement in the formulation and process of pharmaceutical
`
`products has given me specialized expertise in the areas of solid dosage forms,
`
`integrated compaction research systems, the theory and practice of pharmaceutical
`
`compaction, excipient functionality testing, multiunit dosage form development,
`
`artificial neural networks, design and development of pharmaceutical formulation
`
`and processing expert systems, preformulation and compaction databases and the
`
`development of Management Information Systems for FDA inspection
`
`preparations and general project management purposes.
`
`6. With respect to formulation and process of oral dosage forms, my
`
`practical experience began at Novartis (formerly known as Sandoz) – Switzerland
`
`in 1984. My knowledge in this area continued to develop during my time at
`
`Novartis, in Switzerland and Turkey, and then as a professor in the College of
`
`Pharmacy at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. As a member of the
`
`faculty at the latter institution, I lectured in this field (within and outside the
`
`University) and conducted research both as an advisor to a Ph.D. project and as a
`
`consultant to the pharmaceutical industry.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL006
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Education and Work Experience
`
`7.
`
`I earned my B.Sc. (Hons.) degree in Pharmacy from Hacettepe
`
`University in Turkey in 1979.
`
`8.
`
`I was awarded a Ph.D. degree in Pharmaceutical Technology by the
`
`Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, School of Pharmacy, De Montfort
`
`University (formerly known as Leicester Polytechnic), the United Kingdom, in
`
`1984.
`
`9. After completing my Ph.D. in 1984, I took a position in the Galenical
`
`R&D Department at Novartis in Switzerland, where I was involved in
`
`pharmaceutical technology research and development. I was then promoted to
`
`Development Co-ordinator, Galenical R&D at Novartis in Turkey, where I was
`
`responsible for establishing a pharmaceutical research department.
`
`10. In 1986, I joined Smith Kline & French Laboratories (presently known
`
`as GlaxoSmithKline) in Swedeland, Pennsylvania, where I developed and
`
`established the first state-of-the-art Compaction Simulator System in the Western
`
`hemisphere.
`
`11. In 1988, I joined the faculty at the College of Pharmacy, Rutgers
`
`University, where I stayed until 1997. During my tenure at Rutgers, I taught
`
`various courses to both undergraduate and graduate students that focused on the
`
`theory and practice of pharmaceutical formulation and process development. Such
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL007
`
`
`
`courses included Drug Delivery, Problems in Pharmaceutics, and Pharmaceutical
`
`Processes and Equipment.
`
`12. At Rutgers, in my position as Director of Pharmaceutical Compaction
`
`Research Laboratory & Information Center, I developed a second Compaction
`
`Simulator System. The Compaction Simulator System at Rutgers was the first to
`
`be developed in academia in the U.S.A., and consequently established Rutgers as
`
`an internationally recognized pharmaceutical research centre.
`
`13. Between 2004 and 2008, I was a Pharmaceutical Processing Research
`
`Professor at the Department of Industrial Engineering (2004-2008) at Rutgers
`
`where I was involved in the development of a Process Analytical Technology
`
`(PAT) program at Rutgers.
`
`B. Professional Affiliations, Activities, and Awards
`
`14. I am or have been a member of the following professional
`
`organizations: the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS),
`
`the New Jersey Pharmaceutical Association of Science and Technology
`
`(NJPhAST), the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), and the
`
`Ankara Chamber of Pharmacists (ACP).
`
`15. I have been extensively involved with several groups in the AAPS. For
`
`example, from 1995 to 1998, I held the position of chair of the AAPS Process
`
`Development Focus Group. I am also a founder and the former chair of the AAPS
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL008
`
`
`
`Excipients Focus Group and a founder and the former chair of the AAPS Expert
`
`Systems Focus Group. I have also served as a member of the Pharmaceutical
`
`Technology Section Programming Committee.
`
`16. In 1991, 1993, and 1994, I received the Faculty Academic Service
`
`Increment Program Award in recognition of my service at Rutgers.
`
`17. I am also listed in the Who’s Who in Science and Engineering (1995).
`
`In 1996, I received the Commission of Science & Technology of New Jersey
`
`Award.
`
`18. While at Rutgers, I also received more than fifty grants from a wide
`
`variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Glaxo and SmithKline Beecham,
`
`totaling more than $1.1 million.
`
`C. Publications and Educational Involvement
`
`19. I have organized over thirty national and international symposia and
`
`short courses. I have published a book, nine book chapters, and more than thirty
`
`articles relating to pharmaceutical formulation and processing issues, along with
`
`numerous abstracts and papers presented at scientific conferences.
`
`20. I have also served as an editorial board member and/or reviewer for
`
`journals such as Pharmaceutical Technology, Drug Development and Industrial
`
`Pharmacy, the European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, and the International
`
`Journal of Pharmaceutics. In addition, I have made over 200 presentations at
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL009
`
`
`
`industry, academic, national and international meetings, and conferences, most of
`
`which by invitation.
`
`D. Prior Testimonies
`
`21. Since 2000, the following are a list of matters in which I have
`
`testified at trial or by deposition. (See Appendix A to Exhibit A, Curriculum
`
`Vitae).
`
`22. Attached to this Declaration as Appendix A is a copy of my
`
`Curriculum Vitae detailing my professional expertise in relation to the fields of
`
`pharmaceutical formulation and process development.
`
`III. SCOPE OF THE WORK AND COMPENSATION
`
`23. I have been asked by counsel for Dr. Reddy’s to provide opinions
`
`relating to U.S. Patent 8,603,514 (“the ‘514 Patent”)
`
`24. I am being compensated for my time spent on this matter at my usual
`
`consulting rate of $625.00 per hour. My compensation does not depend on the
`
`outcome of this matter. 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 Dr. Reddy’s. I do not have any
`
`current or past affiliation with Monosol RX, LLC, or any of the named inventors
`
`on the ‘514 Patent.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL010
`
`
`
`A. Bases for Opinion and Materials Considered
`
`
`
`25. Exhibit 1035 includes a list of the materials I considered, in addition to
`
`my experience, education, and training, in providing the opinions contained herein.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`
`26. As explained in detail in Section VIII, it is my opinion that all of the
`
`challenged claims (1-3, 9, 15, 62-65, 69-73 and 75) of the ‘514 patent would have
`
`been obvious in view of the prior art, including the references cited below, which
`
`collectively teaches and motivates a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and
`
`use the same film formulation compositions that are claimed by the ’514 patent.
`
`27. It is my opinion that the challenged claims – claims 1-3, 9, 15, 62-65,
`
`69-73, and 75 – are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the prior art,
`
`including the references cited below, which collectively teaches and motivates a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the same film formulation
`
`compositions that are claimed by the ‘514 patent.
`
`28. I have reviewed the uniform thin film drug delivery prior art, and find
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Bess1 and Chen2
`
`references as well as the Chen and Cremer3 references render obvious the
`
`challenged claims of the ’514 patent.
`
`
`1 Bess, Ex. 1004
`2 Chen, Ex. 1005
`3 Cremer, Ex. 1006
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL011
`
`
`
`29. The allegedly inventive concepts of the ’514 patent were all well-
`
`known in the prior art. It was known at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘514
`
`patent that uniform suspensions are important for use in drug delivery. Dispersion
`
`of pharmaceutical actives uniformly throughout a suspension was well known in
`
`the art. Uniformity was known to be challenging for those compounds that were
`
`not readily soluble, thereby forming suspensions. It would have thus been obvious
`
`by the priority date to use uniform dispersion of pharmaceutical actives throughout
`
`a suspension.
`
`30. It was also known that uniform suspensions of particulate agents
`
`(before or after casting) were highly dependent on viscosity. One of skill in the art
`
`would have understood that uniformity in film formulations meant for human use
`
`was expected and readily achieved. (See, e.g., Ex. 1013, The Theory and Practice
`
`of Industrial Pharmacy, at 56-57, 358-359, 368-369.)4 The ’233 patent5 discloses
`
`that homogeneous suspensions of various polymers, including vinyl acetate and
`
`cellulose, were used for cast films. (Ex. 1022, ‘233 patent, at Abstract.) These films
`
`were also dried and considered to be homogenous. (Id. at 4:59-5:3.) Further, it was
`
`well known in the art that the uniformity of particulates in a suspension was
`
`directly related to the suspension’s viscosity. (Ex. 1013, The Theory and Practice
`
`
`4 Ex. 1013, The Theory and Practice of Industrial Pharmacy (Lachman et al., eds.,
`3d. ed. 1986).
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL012
`
`
`
`of Industrial Pharmacy, at 484.) The uniformity could also be affected by the
`
`mixing time and speed used for making a suspension. (Id. at 491-492.) Stoke’s
`
`law, well known in the art by 2001, taught that settling of particulates in a
`
`suspension is directly related to, among other things, the density of the particles and
`
`the viscosity of the solution (Ex. 1014, Theory of Pharmaceutical Systems,
`
`Volume II: Heterogenous Systems, at 9.)5 Therefore, one of skill in the art would
`
`understand that to achieve a desired uniformity, particularly for pharmaceutical
`
`particles, one would necessarily consider the viscosity of the suspension.
`
`31. It was well known that uniform particle distribution within a film,
`
`whether cast or sprayed onto a drug dosage form, such as a tablet, was critical. (Ex.
`
`1013, The Theory and Practice of Industrial Pharmacy, at 362-364.) One way to
`
`achieve uniformity of particulates, such as in the case of colorants, was to “mill[]”
`
`the colorant in the coating solution. (Id. at 369.) It was also well known that the
`
`viscosity of the coating solution would affect the “uniform dispersion of the
`
`colorants[’]” particle dispersion. (See id. at 369; Ex. 1014, Theory of
`
`Pharmaceutical Systems, Volume II: Heterogeneous Systems, 1973, p. 9.)
`
`32. It was well known that one could vary the viscosity of a suspension.
`
`(Ex. 1013, The Theory and Practice of Industrial Pharmacy, at 484,491-492.)
`
`
`5 Ex. 1014, Cartensen, Theory of Pharmaceutical Systems, Volume II:
`Homogenous Systems (1973).
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL013
`
`
`
`Lachman, for example, discloses that adding specific polymers, which have
`
`different viscosities, could “cause loss of . . . the tendency to agglomerate.” (Id. at
`
`654-55.) In other words, this could increase uniformity of the particles. Chen, too,
`
`taught that “the viscosity of the hydrocolloid” is important to the properties of the
`
`composition. (Chen, Ex. 1005, at 13:1-6, Tables 9a, 9b.) Multiple polymers with
`
`various viscosities were available and could be used in films. (Ex. 1013, The
`
`Theory and Practice of Industrial Pharmacy, at 365-368.)
`
`33. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know by the priority date
`
`that one of several methods to achieve rapid dissolution of pharmaceutical actives
`
`is to employ mucoadhesive, uniform, oral films comprising polymers. Mucosally-
`
`adhesive, oral dosage forms made of water- soluble polymers used to deliver
`
`therapeutic agents have been known since at least 1997. (See Ex. 1023, Guo &
`
`Zerbe, “Water soluble film for oral administration,” Proceedings of the 24th Int’l
`
`Symposium on Controlled Release of Bioactive Materials, 227 (1997) (“Guo”), at
`
`227; Ex. 1024, Cassidy et al., “Controlled buccal delivery of buprenorphine,” J.
`
`Controlled Release, 25:21-29 (1993) (“Cassidy”) at 21-22; Ex. 1006, Cremer et al.,
`
`Canad. Pat. No. CA2274910 (“Cremer”) at 10; Ex. 1027, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,948,430 to Zerbe et al., Abstract; and Ex. 1033, WO2001/70194 to Park et al.,
`
`Abstract)
`
`34. Some mucosally-adhesive films left an unpleasant residue in an user’s
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL014
`
`
`
`mouth after dissolution. (Ex. 1023, Guo at 227.) Rapidly dissolving films were
`
`developed to alleviate this problem because they were manufactured without an
`
`adhesive layer. These rapidly-dissolving films were used to deliver
`
`pharmaceutically active agents and were typically made from water-soluble
`
`polymers. (Id.; Ex. 1024, Cassidy at 21-22.) Rapidly dissolving films were
`
`manufactured using conventional techniques, such as casting and drying. (Ex. 1013,
`
`The Theory and Practice of Industrial Pharmacy, at 363.) The films were cut to
`
`the desired size that satisfied appropriate requirements and then packaged. (Ex.
`
`1023, Guo, at 227.) Chen discloses a cast film formulation formed from “a
`
`substantially homogenous preparation” for oral delivery of a pharmaceutical active.
`
`(Chen, Ex. 1005, at 4:24-32.) The components of the film were mixed to ensure
`
`the components were “uniformly dispersed . . . in the hydrocolloid.” (Chen, Ex.
`
`1005, at 17:6-11.)
`
`35. Hydrogel films were also known in the art. According to dissolution
`
`studies, hydrogel films were uniform when compared to one another. (Ex. 1024,
`
`Cassidy, at 25, Fig. 3.) Hydrogel films were also cast and contained pharmaceutical
`
`actives for oral delivery to achieve “rapid absorption.” (Ex. 1024, Cassidy, at 21-
`
`22.) It was well-known in the art that dosage forms delivering pharmaceutical
`
`agents to patients needed to be uniform with respect to the amount of drug found in
`
`each individual film dose. (See, e.g., Ex. 1023, Guo, at 227-28.) Cassidy
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL015
`
`
`
`demonstrated, via dissolution studies, that the hydrogels exhibited uniform
`
`dissolution of the measured components. (Ex. 1024, Cassidy, at 25, Fig. 3.)
`
`36. A person of ordinary skill would have known to optimize uniformity
`
`of pharmaceutical actives in drug dosage forms, including films. No later than 1989,
`
`the Pharmakopoea Europae suggested that “uniformity of the weight of individually
`
`dosed drugs” should differ by no more than 5% across the dosage forms. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1025, U.S. Pat. No. 4,849,246 (“the ’246 patent”), at 1:63- 68.) And over the
`
`years, uniform films complying with this standard were developed. (See Ex. 1026,
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,393,528 (“the ’528 patent”), at 9:11-12 (the active agent “is evenly
`
`dispersed throughout the film matrix.”); Ex. 1028, Zerbe et al., U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,629,003, at 1:54-57 (“homogeneous, water-soluble films intended for buccal
`
`administration of hormones”) (citing prior art to Zerbe).) The ‘528 patent, like
`
`others well-known in the art, included polymers. (Ex.1026,’528 patent, at Abstract,
`
`10:66-11:3.) Uniform, cast films were also well known in the art. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1028, U.S. Pat. No. 5,629,003, at 3:40, 5:51-53; Ex. 1029, Eur. Pat. No.
`
`EP0090560, at 4:15.) For example, in 1997 Guo disclosed film formulations
`
`containing pharmaceutical actives that could be manufactured using “conventional”
`
`techniques that “meet the requirements of the specific application.” (Ex. 1023, Guo
`
`at 227.)
`
`37. A person of ordinary skill would have known to use taste-masking
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL016
`
`
`
`agents, particularly when the pharmaceutical active of interest was known to be
`
`bitter or to have a bad taste. By 2001, many oral films included taste-masking
`
`agents. (Ex. 1004, Bess at 6:8-7:40.) These were also used by Chen “to achieve
`
`masking of taste for active agents that are bitter.” (Ex. 1005, Chen at 9:14-16.)
`
`Chen further disclosed that “encapsulation of the active agents may also be utilized
`
`to achieve masking of taste for active agents.” (Id. at 9:14-16.)
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`38. I understand that a preponderance of evidence must be presented to
`
`render a patent claim invalid in this proceeding.
`
`39. 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).
`
`
`40. 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
`
`general knowledge held by a person of ordinary skills in the art, and that such a
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL017
`
`
`
`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 POSA.
`
`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.
`
`41. 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.
`
`42. 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 POSA would have been motivated to combine
`
`the teachings of the prior art and would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in doing so.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL018
`
`
`
`43. 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.
`
`44. 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
`
`
`45. It is my opinion that in the context of the ’514 patent, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would include a person who possesses a
`
`Master’s or Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences, formulation chemistry, or a related
`
`field, plus a number of years of relevant experience in developing drug
`
`formulations.
`
`VII. THE ‘514 PATENT
`
`
`46. I have read the ’514 patent and the issued claims, entitled “Uniform
`
`Films
`
`for Rapid Dissolve Dosage Form
`
`Incorporating Taste-Masking
`
`Compositions.” The ’514 patent claims priority to several applications, listed on
`
`the face of the patent, the earliest of which is October 12, 2001, which I understand
`
`to be a provisional application. The ’514 patent issued December 10, 2013, and
`
`names Robert K. Yang, Richard C. Fuisz, Garry L. Myers, and Joseph M. Fuisz as
`
`inventors.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL019
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Priority Date of the’514 Patent
`
`47. The ’514 patent was filed July 10, 2007, and is a continuation-in-part of
`
`application No. 10/768,809, filed on Jan. 30, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,357,891, and a
`
`continuation-in-part of application No. PCT/US02/32575, filed on Oct. 11, 2002,
`
`and a continuation-in-part of application No. 10/074,272, filed on Feb. 14, 2002,
`
`now Pat. No. 7,425,292; said application No. 10/768,809 is a continuation-in-part
`
`of application No. PCT/US02/32594, filed on Oct. 11, 2002, and a continuation-in-
`
`part of application No. 10/074,272; said application No. 10/768,809 is a
`
`continuation-in-part of application No. PCT/US02/32542, filed on Oct. 11, 2002,
`
`and a continuation-in-part of application No. 10/074,272, application
`
`No.11/775,484, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 10/856,176, filed
`
`on May 28, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,666,337, and a continuation-in-part of application
`
`No. 10/768,809.
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`
`48. The challenged claims of the ‘514 patent include claims 1- 3, 9, 15, 62-
`
`65, 69-73, and 75 of the ’514 patent. The ’514 patent includes two illustrative
`
`independent claims, claims 1 and 62. Independent claim 1 recites:
`
`A drug delivery composition comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`(i)
`
`a cast film comprising a flowable water-soluble or water
`
`swellable film-forming matrix comprising one or more substantially
`
`-16-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL020
`
`
`
`water soluble or water swellable polymers; and a desired amount of at
`
`least one active; wherein said matrix has a viscosity sufficient to aid in
`
`substantially maintaining non-self- aggregating uniformity of the
`
`active in the matrix;
`
`(ii)
`
`a particulate active substantially uniformly stationed in the
`
`matrix; and
`
`(iii) a taste-masking agent coated or intimately associated with said
`
`particulate to provide taste-masking of the active; wherein the
`
`combined particulate and taste-masking agent have a particle size of
`
`200 microns or less and said flowable water- soluble or water
`
`swellable film-forming matrix is capable of being dried without loss of
`
`substantial uniformity in the stationing of said particulate active
`
`therein; and wherein the uniformity subsequent to casting and drying
`
`of the matrix is measured by substantially equally sized individual unit
`
`doses which do not vary by more than 10% of said desired amount of
`
`said at least one active.
`
`49.
`
`Independent claim 62 recites:
`
` A
`
` drug delivery composition comprising:
`
`
`(i)
`
`a cast film comprising a flowable water-soluble or water
`
`swellable film-forming matrix comprising one or more substantially
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL021
`
`
`
`water soluble or water swellable polymers; and a desired amount of at
`
`least one active; wherein said matrix has a viscosity sufficient to aid in
`
`substantially maintaining non-self- aggregating uniformity of the
`
`active in the matrix;
`
`(ii)
`
`a particulate active substantially uniformly stationed in the
`
`matrix; and
`
`(iii)
`
` a taste-masking agent selected from the group consisting of
`
`flavors, sweeteners, flavor enhancers, and combinations thereof to
`
`provide taste-masking of the active; wherein the particulate active has
`
`a particle size of 200 microns or less and said flowable water-soluble
`
`or water swellable film-forming matrix is capable of being dried
`
`without loss of substantial uniformity in the stationing of said
`
`particulate active therein; and wherein the uniformity subsequent to
`
`casting and drying of the matrix is measured by substantially equally
`
`sized individual unit doses which do not vary by more than 10% of
`
`said desired amount of said at least one active.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that the claim terms in the ’514 patent are interpreted
`
`according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” In rendering my opinions, I applied only one
`
`specific construction:
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL022
`
`
`
`
`
`“dried without the loss of substantial uniformity” (’514
`
`Patent, Ex. 1001, at claim 1 and 62) should be construed as “any
`
`method of drying.”
`
`51.
`
`I understand that in a co-pending litigation, Patent Owner’s expert
`
`witness on validity of the ‘514 patent, Dr. Langer, testified that the claims were not
`
`limited to any particular form of drying, or any particular drying parameters.
`
`
`
`52.
`
`I understand that during the prosecution of the ’514 patent, the
`
`pending claims were rejected as obvious over the Chen and Bess references.
`
`Applicants argued, in response to this rejection, that “‘the uniformity subsequent to
`
`casting and drying of the matrix is measured by substantially equally sized
`
`individual doses which do not vary by more than 10% of said desired amount of
`
`said at least one active’ in the claims overcomes the [Bess] and Chen references.”
`
`(Ex. 1002, ‘514 File History at 163 (May 10, 2013 Amendment and Response After
`
`Final Action).) Applicants also argued that Bess did not disclose the claimed
`
`uniformity because the purported invention required a particular drying technique
`
`that is not disclosed in Bess. (Ex. 1002, ‘514 File History, at 74 (April 4, 2011
`
`Amendment and Response).) Additionally, Applicants argued the specification of
`
`the ‘514 patent supported this position because it described an apparent deficiency
`
`in teaching drying methods that could accomplish the claimed uniformity. (Ex.
`
`1002, ‘514 File History at 74 (April 4, 2011 Amendment and Response); ‘514
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`DRL - EXHIBIT 1003
`DRL023
`
`
`
`patent at 4:7-11.)
`
`
`
`53.
`
`I understand, though, that Patent Owner no