throbber
Paper No. 1 Filed: May 31, 2016
`
`Filed on behalf of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.
`and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`Jeffery B. Arnold
`jarnold@cantorcolburn.co
`m Cantor Colburn LLP
`1180 Peachtree Street, Suite 2050 Atlanta,
`Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 607-9991
`Facsimile: (404) 607-9981
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.,DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, LTD. AND DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`v.Petitione
`
`rs, v.
`
`MONOSOL RX, LLC, Patent OwnerU.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,017,150 Issue Date: September 13, 2011
`Title: POLYETHYLENE OXIDE-BASED FILMS AND DRUG
`DELIVERY SYSTEMS MADE THEREFROM
`CaseInter Partes Review No. IPR2016: Unassigned-XXXXX
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT
`NO. 8,017,150
`
`MonoSol2002-0001
`
`Dr. Reddys v. MonoSol
`IPR2016-01112
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Brief Overview of the ’150 Patent
`
`Brief Overview of the Prosecution History
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Related Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE (§ 42.104(b))
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’150 PATENT
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`THE ‘150 PATENT PRIORITY DATE
`
`SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`The Prior Art as of May 28, 2003
`
`WO 2000/042992 (“Chen”) (Ex. 1021)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,713,243 (“Schiraldi”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`U.S. Application Pub. No. 2002/0147201 (“Chen II”)
`(Ex. 1049)
`
`
`
`-ii--ii-
`
`8
`
`8
`
`8
`
`9
`
`11
`
`12
`
`12
`
`12
`
`14
`
`15
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`23
`
`23
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`MonoSol2002-0002
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,322,811 (“Verma”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,656,296 (“Khan”) (Ex. 1046)
`
`The Prior Art as of April 22, 2008
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 2005/0037055 (“Yang”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, And 12-14, and 16-18 Are Obvious
`Over Chen In View Of Schiraldi And Claims 6 and 15 Are
`Obvious Over Chen In View Of Schiraldi And Additionally
`In View Of Chen II
`
`Claim Chart: Chen in view of Schiraldi
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10, 13-14, and 17 Are Obvious
`Over Schiraldi in View of Verma
`
`Claim Chart: Schiraldi in View of Verma
`
`Ground 3: Claims 6-7, 9, 15-16, and 18 Are Obvious Over
`Schiraldi in View of Verma and Khan
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-18 Are Obvious Over Yang
`
`Claim Chart: Yang
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`27
`
`28
`
`28
`
`28
`
`30
`
`30
`
`33
`
`39
`
`42
`
`49
`
`50
`
`51
`
`58
`
`-iii-
`
`MonoSol2002-0003
`
`

`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 8,017,150 (filed Apr. 22, 2008)
`File History, U.S. Patent No. 8,017,150
`Expert Declaration of Nandita DasRussell J. Mumper, Ph.D. In
`Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,017,150
`U.S. Patent No. 4,713,243 (filed June 16, 1986) (“Schiraldi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,322,811 (issued November 27, 2001) (“Verma”)
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2005/0037055 (published
`February 17, 2005) (“Yang”)
`
`[Intentionally Left Blank]
`E.W. Flick, Water-Soluble Resins – An Industrial Guide (2nd ed.
`1991) (“Flick”)
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
`Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., CA No. 14-1451-RGA
`(November 17, 2015), D.I. 91
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/328,868
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/473,902
`[Intentionally Left Blank]
`Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order, Reckitt Benckiser
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., C.A. No.
`13-cv-0167-RGA, D.I. 347
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Watson
`Laboratories, Inc et al, CA No. 13-1674-RGA, D.I. 364 (“Proposed
`[Intentionally Left Blank]
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Reference
`
`- 4-
`
`MonoSol2002-0004
`
`

`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Trial Transcript, Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., CA
`No. 14-1574-RGA (Nov. 3-4, 2015) (“Trial Tr.”)
`
`U.S. App. No. 10/856,176
`Anders & H.P. Merkle, Evaluation of Laminated
`R.
`Muco-Adhesive Patches for Buccal Drug Delivery, 49 Int’l J.
`Pharmaceutics 231 (1989) (“Anders”)
`
`Viralkumar F. Patel et al., Advances in Oral Transmucosal Drug
`Delivery, 153 J. Controlled Release 106 (2011)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,948,430 (filed August 1, 1997) (“Zerbe”)
`WO 00/42992 (published July 27, 2000) (“Chen I”)
`Guo & Zerbe, Water-Soluble Film for Oral Administration, 13th
`International Symposium on Controlled Release of Bioactive
`Materials, 227 (1997) (“Guo”)
`
`EP No. 0,090,560 (published May 3, 1989) (“Mitra”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,849,246 (issued July 18, 1989) (“Schmidt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,552,024 (filed November 5, 1999) (“Chen
`Le Person et al., Near Infrared Drying of Pharmaceutical
`S.
`Thin Films: Experimental Analysis of Internal Mass Transport, 37
`Chemical Engineering & Processing 257 (1998) (“Le Person”)
`
`Gary DeGrande et al., Specialized Oral Mucosal Drug Delivery
`Systems, in Oral Mucosal Drug Delivery (James Swarbrick, ed.,
`1995)
`
`Apicella et al., Poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) and
`A.
`Different Molecular Weight PEO Blends Monolithic
`Devices for Drug Release, 14(2) Biomaterials 83 (1993)
`(“Apicella”)
`Hans P. Merkle et al., Mucoadhesive Buccal Patches for Peptide
`Delivery, in Bioadhesive Drug Delivery Systems (Vincent Lenaerts
`& Robert Gurny, eds., 1990)
`
`- 5-
`
`MonoSol2002-0005
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Reference
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`1040
`1041
`
`& Robert Gurny, eds., 1990)
`Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences (Alfonso R. Gennaro,
`ed.,17th ed. 1985)
`
`C.S. Fuller et al., Interactions in poly(ethylene oxide)—
`hydroxypropyl methylcellulose blends, 42 Polymer 9583 (2001)
`(“Fuller”)
`
`J.P. Cassidy et al., Controlled buccal delivery of buprenorphine,
`25 Journal of Controlled Release 21 (1993) (“Cassidy”)
`
`Jian-Hwa Guo & K. M. Cooklock, Bioadhesive Polymer Buccal
`Patches for Buprenorphine Controlled Delivery: Solubility
`Consideration, 21(17) Drug Dev. & Indus. Pharmacy 2013 (1995)
`(“Guo & Cooklock”)
`
`Gordon L. Amidon et al., A Theoretical Basis for a
`Biopharmaceutic Drug Classification: The Correlation of in Vitro
`Drug Product Dissolution and in Vivo Bioavailability, 12(3)
`Pharmaceutical Res. 413 (1995) (“Amidon”)
`
`Marilyn N. Martinez & Gordon L. Amidon, A Mechanistic
`Approach to Understanding the Factors Affecting Drug
`Absorption: A Review of Fundamentals, 42 J. Clinical
`Pharmacology 620 (2002) (“Martinez”)
`
`Robert O. Ebewele, Polymer Science and Technology (2000)
`(“Polymer Science and Technology”)
`
`Philip E. Slade, Jr., Polymer Molecular Weights (in two parts),
`Part I (1975)
`
`G.S. Misra, Introductory Polymer Chemistry (1993)
`Textbook of Polymer Science (2nd ed. 1971)
`WO 2000/02955 (published January 20, 2000) (“Wang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,562,375 (filed August 1, 2000) (“Sako”)
`- 6-
`
`MonoSol2002-0006
`
`

`
`1042
`
`Exhi
`bit
`
`1043
`1044
`1045
`
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`
`ReferenceMichael A. Repka & James W. McGinity, Influence
`
`Michael A. Repka & James W. McGinity, Influence of Vitamin E
`TPGS on the Properties of Hydrophilic Films Produced by Hot-
`U.S. Patent No. 4,764,378 (filed February 10, 1986) (“Keith”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,273,758 (filed Apr. 13, 1992) (“Royce”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,284,534 (filed October 24, 1980) (“’534
`patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,656,296 (filed August 12, 1997) (“Khan”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Nandita DasRussell J. Mumper, Ph.D.
`List of Materials Consideredconsidered by Nandita DasRussell J.
`US Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/00147201, published
`Oct. 10, 2002. (“Chen II”)
`
`- 7-
`
`MonoSol2002-0007
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Brief Overview of the ’150 Patent
`
`Brief Overview of the Prosecution History
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party In Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Related Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE (§ 42.104(B))
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’150 PATENT
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`THE ’150 PATENT PRIORITY DATE
`
`SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`The Prior Art as of May 28, 2003
`The Prior Art as of April 22, 2008
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`5
`
`6
`
`8
`
`8
`
`9
`
`9
`
`11
`
`13
`
`16
`
`16
`19
`
`DETAILED EXPLAINATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY21
`i- 8
`
`MonoSol2002-0008
`
`

`
`GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 4-5, 8, 10, 13-14, AND 17 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER SCHIRALDI IN VIEW OF VERMA
`
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 6-7, 9, 15-16 AND 18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`SCHIRALDI IN VIEW OF VERMA AND KHAN
`
`21
`
`31
`
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 4-10, AND 13-18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER YANG.
`
`33
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`41
`
`Page(s)
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
`USA, Inc., Case No. 1-14-cv-01451 (D.
`Del.)..............................................................4, 6, 11
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Watson Laboratories,
`Inc. et al.
`Case No. 13-cv-0167 (D. Del.) ...........................................................6, 14, 15,
`34
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................................................................16,
`20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ......................................................................................................1,
`
`8 O
`
`ther Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2163
`
`i- 9
`
`1
`
`5
`
`4
`
`11
`
`33
`
`MonoSol2002-0009
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, § 6 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`(“AIA”), and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Teva Pharmaceuticals USADr. Reddy’s
`
`Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr.
`
`Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“Tevacollectively – “Dr. Reddy’s” or “Petitioner”)
`
`respectfully requests inter partes reviewInter Partes Review of claims 1, 43-10,
`
`and 1312-18 of U.S. Patent 8,017,150 (“the ’150 patent”), which is currently
`
`assigned to MonoSol RX, LLC (“Patent Owner”). This petition and supporting
`
`exhibits demonstrate that claims 1, 43-10, and 1312-18 of the ’150 patent are
`
`unpatentable over the prior art and should be canceled.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Brief Overview of the ’150 Patent
`
`The ’150 patent is entitled “Polyethylene Oxide-based Films and Drug
`
`Delivery Systems Made Therefrom.” The ’150 patent is directed to a uniform,
`
`mucosally-adhesive, water-soluble, dissolving film product for delivering an active
`
`pharmaceutical ingredient and methods for preparing such film products. (Ex. 1001
`
`at Abstract.) It discloses the application of well-known methods for forming uniform
`
`film products along with well-known compositions for such film products, such as
`
`the use of both low and high molecular weight polyethylene oxide (“PEO”) for
`
`adjusting various properties of the finished film product. (Id.)
`
`i-10
`
`MonoSol2002-0010
`
`

`
`Brief Overview of the Prosecution History
`
`The ’150 patent was filed on April 22, 2008, as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/107,389 (“the ’389 application”), and is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 10/856,176, which was filed on May 28, 2004 (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,666,337), which is a continuation-in-part of PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/US02/032575, filed on Oct. 11, 2002, and a continuation-in-part of PCT
`
`Application No. PCT/US02/32594, filed on Oct. 11, 2002, and a continuation-in-
`
`part of PCT Application No. PCT/US02/32542, filed on Oct. 11, 2002. The ’150
`
`patent issued on September 13, 2011.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner rejected certain claims as obvious over
`
`Schiraldi11 in view of Flick2.2. Among other things, Schiraldi disclosed polymers
`
`having molecular weights “above 100,000 and preferably above 3,000,000.” (Ex.
`
`1002, Non-Final Rejection, April 29, 2010, at 3.)
`
`In response, the Applicants argued that Schiraldi failed to teach a claimed
`
`combination of molecular weights. (Ex. 1002, Response to Office Action, July 29,
`
`2010, at 2-3.) Applicants also argued that they had “discovered that the particular
`
`1 Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 4,713,243 (“Schiraldi”).
`2 Ex. 1008, E.W. Flick, Water-Soluble Resins – An Industrial Guide (2nd ed. 1991)
`
`(“Flick”). combination of molecular weights and polymers claimed provides a
`
`suitable release profile for an opiate.” (Id.) Finally, the Applicants emphasized that
`-11
`
`MonoSol2002-0011
`
`

`
`“[t]he
`
`1Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 4,713,243 (“Schiraldi”).
`2 Ex. 1008, E.W. Flick, Water-Soluble Resins – An Industrial Guide (2nd ed.
`1991) (“Flick”).
`
`-12
`
`MonoSol2002-0012
`
`

`
`claims recite a particular combination of polymers, having a particular molecular
`
`weight, in a particular ratio. . . .
`
`This is not a matter of simply testing different
`
`molecular weights, or simply testing different ratios.” (Id. at 4.4).
`
`On October 13, 2010, the Examiner issued a Final Office Action maintaining
`
`the rejection of claims 1-18 as obvious in view of Schiraldi. The Examiner found
`
`that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the present invention to modify the Schiraldi film product by using polyethylene
`
`oxide resins of different molecular weight and varying the weight ratio of
`
`polyethylene oxide:hydrophilic cellulosic polymer [“HPC”] as motivated by the
`
`combined teachings of Schiraldi and Flick.” (Ex. 1002, Final Office Action dated
`
`October 13, 2010 at 4.) Such motivation, the Examiner correctly reasoned, is found
`
`in Schiraldi because it teaches that various types of film products may be
`
`formulated by varying the polymer weight ratio, and by choosing and blending
`
`different polymers.
`
`(Id.) In response, Applicants reiterated the same arguments
`
`presented in their July 2010 remarks, admitting that “Schiraldi does disclose the
`
`general combination of a hydroxypropyl cellulose and a homopolymer of ethylene
`
`oxide,” (Ex. 1002, Response to Office Action dated December 13, 2010, at 2),
`
`butarguing argued that Schiraldi did not disclose the particular claimed molecular
`
`weight combination.
`
`The Examiner maintained the rejection in an Advisory Action (Ex. 1002,
`
`-10-
`
`MonoSol2002-0013
`
`

`
`Advisory Action dated December 28, 2010, at 2.) Applicants filed a Notice of
`
`Appeal and requested a Pre-Brief Appeal Conference, maintaining their earlier
`
`argument and further alleging that Applicants “unexpectedly discovered that the
`
`particular combination of molecular weights and polymers claimed provides a
`
`suitable release profile for an opiate, and still provides a suitable dosage form.” (Ex.
`
`1002, Pre-Brief Appeal Conference Request dated January 13, 2011, at 2 (emphasis
`
`in original).) On February 8, 2011, a decision in the Pre-Brief Appeal Conference
`
`indicated the claims under consideration were allowable. (Ex. 1002, Pre-Brief
`
`Appeal Conference Decision dated February 8, 2011.)
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(aA)
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuantPursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner
`
`hereby certifies that the ’150 patent is available for inter partes review and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging
`
`the claims of the ’150 patent on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner
`
`was served with a complaint asserting the ’150 patent on December 3, 2014 in
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc., RB Pharmaceuticals Limited, et al v. Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civil Action 14-1451 (D. Del.). This petition isherein.
`
`timely filed on December 3, 2015.
`
`-11-
`
`MonoSol2002-0014
`
`

`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party -In -Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real partyparties-in-interest is Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (“Tevaare
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr.
`
`Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively – “Dr. Reddy’s” or “Petitioner”).3
`
`Related Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The following proceedings may affect or be affected by a decision in this
`
`proceeding:
`
`Name
`
`Number
`
`District
`
`Indivior Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc.
`
`1-15-cv-01051
`
`DED
`
`Indivior Inc. et al v. Mylan Technologies Inc.
`
`et al
`
`Indivior Inc. et al v. Mylan Technologies Inc.
`
`et al
`
`1-15-cv-00209 WVND
`
`1-15-cv-01016
`
`DED
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al
`
`v.
`
`Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc.
`
`1-15-cv-00477
`
`DED
`
`3 Teva is owned directly or indirectly by: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.,
`
`Orvet UK, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V., Teva Pharmaceutical Holdings
`
`Coöperatieve U.A., and IVAX LLC.
`
`-12-
`
`MonoSol2002-0015
`
`

`
`Related Proceeding
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al.
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
`Inc.
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`v. Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc.et al.
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
`Inc.
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
`Inc. et al. v Par Pharmaceutical Inc. et
`Related Proceeding
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
`Inc. et al. v. Watson Laboratories Inc.
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
`Inc.
`
`Indivior Inc. et al v. Mylan
`Technologies Inc. et al.
`Indivior Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc.
`RGA Indivior Inc. et al. v. Teva
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`
`Case No.
`Jurisdiction
`1:13-cv-01461-RGA U.S. District
`Court District
`of Delaware
`(Wilmington)
`(“DED”)
`DED
`
`1:13-cv-01674-RGA
`
`1:13-cv-02003-RGA DED
`
`1:14-cv-00422-RGA
`
`DED
`
`1:14-cv-01451-RGA
`
`DED
`
`1:14-cv-01573-RGA DED
`
`Jurisdiction
`Case No.
`1:14-cv-01574-RGA DED
`
`1:15-cv-00477-RGA DED
`
`1:15-cv-01016-RGA DED
`
`1:15-cv-01051-RGA DED
`1:16-cv-00178-RGA DED
`
`-13-
`
`MonoSol2002-0016
`
`

`
`Indivior Inc. et al v. Mylan
`Technologies Inc. et al.
`
`1:15-cv-00209-IMK
`
`BioDelivery Sciences International,
`Inc.
`v.
`
`Reckitt Benckiser
`
`BioDelivery Sciences International,
`Inc.
`v.
`
`Reckitt Benckiser
`
`BioDelivery Sciences International,
`Inc.
`v.
`
`Reckitt Benckiser
`
`United States
`District
`Court/Northern
`District of West
`Virginia
`(Clarksburg)
`USPTO/PTAB
`
`IPR2014-00325
`
`IPR2014-00998
`
`USPTO/PTAB
`
`IPR2016-00280
`
`USPTO/PTAB
`
`-14-
`
`MonoSol2002-0017
`
`

`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.
`
`v.
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`
`1-14-cv-01451
`
`DED
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al
`
`v.
`
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al
`
`v.
`
`Alvogen Pine Brook Inc.
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al
`
`v.
`
`Watson Laboratories Inc., et al.
`
`1-14-cv-00422
`
`DED
`
`1-13-cv-02003
`
`DED
`
`1-13-cv-01674
`
`DED
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
`
`v.
`
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al
`
`1-13-cv-01461
`
`DED
`
`Petitioner is not aware of anyThe following administrative proceedings may affect or
`be affected by a decision in this proceeding.: The ’150 patent has been the subject of
`one Inter Partes Review: IPR20015- 00282 (“282 IPR”) initiated by Teva
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The Patent Trial and appeal Board denied institution
`of the Inter Partes Review of the 282 IPR for being time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §
`315(b) with reaching the merits. (IPR2016- 00282, Paper 19 at 14.)
`Lead and Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`-15-
`
`MonoSol2002-0018
`
`

`
`Jeffery B. Arnold
`USPTO Reg. No.
`39,540
`Cantor Colburn LLP
`1180 Peachtree Street, Suite 2050
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Telephone: (404) 607-9991
`Facsimile: (404) 607 9981
`jarnold@cantorcolburn.com
`
`Leslie-Anne Maxwell, Ph.D.
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,778
`Cantor Colburn LLP
`20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
`Hartford, Connecticut 06103
`Telephone: (860) 286-2929
`Facsimile: (860) 286-0115
`amaxwell@cantorcolburn.com
`
`Peter R. Hagerty
`USPTO Reg. No.
`42,618
`Cantor Colburn LLP
`1180 Peachtree Street, Suite
`
`-16-
`
`MonoSol2002-0019
`
`

`
`Lead Counsel
`Elizabeth Holland (Reg. No. 47,657)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`The New York Times Building
`
`Backup Counsel
`Eleanor M. Yost (Reg. No.
`58,013)Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`J. Coy Stull
`Telephone: (404) 607-9991
`Facsimile: (404) 607-9981
`phagerty@cantorcolburn.com
`
`Andrew C. Ryan
`USPTO Reg. No.
`43,070
`Cantor Colburn LLP
`20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
`Hartford, Connecticut 06103
`
`620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile) eholland@goodwinprocter.com
`
`-17-
`
`MonoSol2002-0020
`
`

`
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`901 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001
`
`(202) 346-4000 (telephone)
`
`(202) 346-4000 (facsimile) eyost@goodwinprocter.com
`
`jstull@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Elaine H. Blais
`
`Robert Frederickson III
`
`(both to seek pro hac vice admission) GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`Exchange Place 53 State Street
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
`(617) 570-1000 (telephone)
`
`(617) 523-1231 (facsimile) eblais@goodwinprocter.com
`
`rfrederickson@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Robert V. Cerwinski
`
`(to seek pro hac vice admission)
`
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`The New York Times Building 620
`
`Eighth Avenue
`
`-18-
`
`MonoSol2002-0021
`
`

`
`New York, NY 10018
`
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile)
`
`rcerwinski@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please direct all correspondence to counsel at the contact information above.
`
`Petitioner consents to service by electronic mail.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE
`CHALLENGE (§ 42.104(bB))
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 43-10, and 1312-18 of the ’150 patent, and
`
`requests review of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and AIA § 6. Petitioner’s
`
`grounds of challenge are as follows:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Description
`
`1, 3-10, 12-18
`
`1, 4-5, 8, 10, 1312-14,
`
`Obvious under § 103 over Chen3 in view of
`Schiraldi, and (claims 6 and 15 only)
`additionally in view Chen II4.
`Obvious under § 103 over Schiraldi in view of
`Verma45.
`
`and 17
`6-7, 9, 15-16, and 18 Obvious under § 103 over Schiraldi in view of
`Verma and Khan56.
`
`1
`
`12
`
`23
`
`-19-
`
`MonoSol2002-0022
`
`

`
`1, 4-10, and 13-18
`
`Obvious under § 103 over Yang67.
`
`34
`
`In support of these grounds of unpatentability, this Petition is accompanied
`
`by the declarationDeclaration of Dr. Nandita Das (“DasRussell J. Mumper
`
`(“Mumper Decl.,” Ex. 1003).
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill would include a person who possesses a Master’s
`
`degree or Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences, chemistry, or a related filed, and a
`
`number of years of experience. (Ex. 1003, DasMumper Decl. at ¶ 30.40.)
`
`3 Ex. 1021, Chen.
`4 Ex. 1049, Chen II.
`5 Ex. 1005, Verma.
`6 Ex. 1046, Khan.
`7 Ex. 1006, Yang.
`
`-20-
`
`MonoSol2002-0023
`
`

`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’150 PATENT
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 43-10, and 1312-18. Independent claims 1 and
`
`10 provide:
`
`A mucosally-adhesive water-soluble film product
`comprising: an analgesic opiate pharmaceutical active;
`and
`
`4 Ex. 1005, Verma.
`
`5 Ex. 1046, Khan.
`
`6 Ex. 1006, Yang.
`an analgesic opiate pharmaceutical active; and
`at least one water-soluble polymer component consisting of
`polyethylene oxide in combination with a hydrophilic cellulosic
`polymer; wherein:
`
`the water-soluble polymer component comprises greater than
`75% polyethylene oxide and up to 25% hydrophilic cellulosic polymer;
`the polyethylene oxide comprises one or more low molecular weight
`polyethylene oxides and one or more higher molecular weight
`polyethylene oxides, the molecular weight of the low molecular weight
`polyethylene oxide being in the range 100,000 to 300,000 and the
`molecular weight of the higher molecular weight polyethylene oxide
`being in the range 600,000 to 900,000; and the polyethylene oxide of
`low molecular weight comprises about 60% or more in the polymer
`component.
`A mucosally-adhesive water-soluble film product
`
`10.
`
`-21-
`
`MonoSol2002-0024
`
`

`
`comprising: an analgesic opiate pharmaceutical active; and
`at least one water-soluble polymer component consisting of
`polyethylene oxide in combination with a hydrophilic cellulosic
`polymer; wherein:
`
`-22-
`
`MonoSol2002-0025
`
`

`
`the water-soluble polymer component comprises the hydrophilic cellulosic
`polymer in a ratio of up to about 4:1 with the polyethylene oxide; the polyethylene
`oxide comprises one or more low molecular weight polyethylene oxides and one or
`more higher molecular weight polyethylene oxides, the molecular weight of the low
`molecular weight polyethylene oxide being in the range 100,000 to 300,000 and the
`molecular weight of the higher molecular weight polyethylene oxide being in the
`range 600,000 to 900,000; and the polyethylene oxide of low molecular weight
`comprises about 60% or more in the polymer component.
`(Ex. 1001 at claims 1 and 10.) Dependent claims 4-9 and 13-18 of the ’150
`
`patent relate to the addition of other pharmaceutical actives, sweeteners, flavors and
`
`buffers to the formulation.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim subject to Inter Partes Review receives the broadest reasonable
`
`construction or interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears because, among other reasons, the patent owner has an opportunity to
`
`amend the claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, two claim terms warrant a specific
`
`construction:
`
`“at least one water-soluble polymer component consisting of
`polyethylene oxide in combination with a hydrophilic cellulosic
`
`-23-
`
`MonoSol2002-0026
`
`

`
`polymer… up to 25% hydrophilic cellulosic polymer” In a district
`court case involving the ’150 patent, Reckitt Benckiser
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case
`No. 1-14-cv-01451 (D. Del.), Patent Owner proffered the following
`construction of the claim term to the district court: “at least one water-
`soluble polymer component consisting of polyethylene oxide and
`optionally hydrophilic cellulosic polymer.” (Ex. 1009, Joint Claim
`Construction Chart, at 5 (emphasis added).).8 In other words,
`Patent Owner urged that hydrophilic cellulosic polymer is not a
`limitation of the claims.
`Petitioner requests that the Board
`construe this term at least as broadly as the definition proffered
`by the Patent Owner to the district court.
`optionally hydrophilic cellulosic polymer.” (Ex. 1009, Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart, at 5 (emphasis added).).7 In other words, Patent
`
`Owner urged that hydrophilic cellulosic polymer is not a limitation of
`
`the claims. Petitioner requests that the Board construe this term at
`
`least as broadly as the definition proffered by the Patent Owner to the
`
`district court.
`
`“at least one water soluble polymer component consisting of
`polyethylene oxide in combination with a hydrophilic cellulosic
`polymer; wherein: the water-soluble polymer component
`comprises the hydrophilic cellulosic polymer in a ratio of up to
`about 4:1 with the polyethylene oxide” In the district court case
`cited above, Patent Owner proffered the following construction of this
`claim term: “at least one water-soluble polymer component consisting
`-24-
`
`MonoSol2002-0027
`
`

`
`of polyethylene oxide and optionally hydrophilic cellulosic
`polymer, wherein the ratio of hydrophilic cellulosic polymer to
`polyethylene may be up to about 4:1.” (Ex. 1009, Joint Claim
`Construction Chart,
`
`7 Petitioner8 The defendant in that case , Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
`(under the Philips standard) proffered a different construction of this claim term to
`the district court: “at least one watersolublewater-soluble polymer component
`consisting of polyethylene oxide in combination with a hydrophilic cellulosic
`polymer; wherein: the water-soluble polymer component comprises greater than
`75% polyethylene oxide and up to 25% hydrophilic cellulosic polymer” (Ex. 1009,
`Joint Claim Construction Chart at 4-5.)
`
`-25-
`
`MonoSol2002-0028
`
`

`
`of polyethylene oxide and optionally hydrophilic cellulosic polymer, wherein
`the ratio of hydrophilic cellulosic polymer to polyethylene may be up to
`about 4:1.” (Ex. 1009, Joint Claim Construction Chart, at 5 (emphasis
`added).).
`Petitioner requests that the Board construe this term at least as broadly as the
`
`definition proffered by the Patent Owner to the district court.
`
`To the extent that the Board adopts Patent Owner’s construction from the
`
`district court litigation and determines that HPC is not a limitation of the challenged
`
`claims, the claims are entitled to a 2003 priority date (see Section IX, infra). If the
`
`claims are entitled to a 2003 priority date, they are obvious for the reasons
`
`described below in connection with Grounds 11, 2, and 2.3. To the extent that the
`
`Board determines that HPC is a limitation of the challenged claims, though, the
`
`claims are entitled to a 2008 priority date at the earliest (see Section IX, infra), and
`
`are obvious for the reasons described below in Ground 3.4.
`
`THE ‘150 PATENT PRIORITY DATE
`
`In a related litigation, Patent Owner alleged that the ’150 patent is entitled
`
`to a priority date of May 28, 2003 (the filing date of its parent application).89 But
`
`to the extent that the Board construes the challenged claims as requiring (1) a
`
`combination of PEO and HPC, (2) combinations of low and high molecular weight
`
`PEOs, and (3)
`
`60% or greater of the polymer component is low molecular weight PEO, the
`(3)
`IX. THE ’150 PATENT PRIORITY DATE
`26
`
`MonoSol2002-0029
`
`

`
`9Ex. 1013, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Watson
`Laboratories, Inc. et al. C.A. No. 13-cv-0167-RGA D.I. 347 (“Joint Pretrial
`Order”), Ex. 2 at 48.
`-20-
`
`IX. THE ’150 PATENT PRIORITY DATE
`27
`
`MonoSol2002-0030
`
`

`
`claims are entitled to only a 2008 priority date910 at the earliest, because none of
`
`the applications in the priority chain leading up tofor the application that matured
`
`into the ’150 patent included a disclosure sufficient to show possession of the
`
`alleged invention of the claims.
`
`The earliest application to which the ’150 patent claims priority is U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/328,868 (“the ’868 application”), which was filed
`
`on October 12, 2001. (Ex. 1010.) That provisional application, however, discloses
`
`film formulations containing PEG only, and not a mucosally-adhesive, water-
`
`soluble film product comprising a water-soluble polymer component consisting of
`
`PEO in combination with HPC, as required by the challenged claims. (Ex. 1003,
`
`8 Ex. 1013, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Watson Laboratories,
`
`Inc. et al. C.A. No. 13-cv-0167-RGA D.I. 347 (“Joint Pretrial Order “), Ex. 2 at
`
`48. 9 The filing date of the ’389 application, the application that matured into the
`
`’150Das Decl. at ¶ 44.) Mumper Decl. at ¶ 54.) There is also no disclosure of
`
`combinations of low and high molecular weight PEOs, or any specific percentage
`
`of low molecular weight PEO in the composition. (Id.)
`
`The combination of PEO and HPC was not disclosed until U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/473,902 (“the ’902 application”), filed on May 28, 2003. But
`
`even in that application, there is no disclosure of a combination of PEO and HPC
`
`-21-
`
`MonoSol2002-0031
`
`

`
`plus a specific percentage of low molecular weight PEO. (Id. at 46.)
`
`It was only
`
`the claims of the ’150 patent itself, as amended during prosecution, that provided
`
`10The filing date of the ’389 application, the application that matured into the
`’150 patent.
`any disclosure of compositions containing PEO and HPC and a polymer component
`
`comprising at least 60% low molecular weight PEO.
`
`(Ex. 1002, April 22, 2008
`
`Claims, at 91.)
`
`In a co-pending litigation in district court, Patent Owner asserted that the
`
`’902 Application disclosed to a person of ordinary skill that the inventors had
`
`possession of the claimed products having about 60% or more of the lower
`
`molecular weight PEO in the polymer component, and referred to the composition
`
`“DW” in Table 22 in the specification of the ‘902 Application for support.
`
`(Ex.1016, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al v. Watson Laboratories,
`
`Inc. et al, C.A. No. 13-cv-01674-RGA, November 4, 2015 Tr. Test
`
`661:14-669:18,
`
`688:9-689:12.) This Table shows, in the leftmost column, various film
`
`compositions. (Ex. 1002, April 22, 2008 Specification, at 80.) The top row shows
`
`the various molecular weight of PEO.
`
`(Id.) The right-hand column shows HPC.
`
`(Id.) The composition “DW” has 80%/wt of the 200,000 molecular weight PEO,
`
`and 20%/wt of the 900,000 molecular weight PEO, but does not have any HPC.
`
`(Id.)
`
`-22-
`
`MonoSol2002-0032
`
`

`
`Because Applicants failed to provide a sufficient disclosure of the alleged
`
`invention claimed in the ’150 patent—specifically, the combination of PEO and
`
`HPC, wherein the PEO is composed of both low and high molecular weight PEOs
`
`and wherein the polymer component of the formulation comprises at least 60% low
`
`molecular weight PEO—they are entitled to a priority date no earlier than April 22,
`
`2008.
`
`SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`The Prior Art as of May 28, 2003
`
`1. WO 2000/042992 (“Chen”) (Ex. 1021)
`
`Chen, titled “Compositions and Methods for Mucosal Delivery,”
`
`published July 27, 2000,

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