`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Patent 8,648,048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN D. SHEPPARD, M.D., M.M.Sc.
`
`
`
`
`
`ALL 2024
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`
`
`I, John D. Sheppard, M.D., M.M.Sc., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Experience and Qualifications
`1.
`I graduated in 1974 with a S.B. in Biology from Brown University. I
`
`then earned the M.M.Sc. in Medicine from Brown University in 1976. I obtained
`
`my medical degree from Brown University in 1978. Following medical school, I
`
`completed a one-year internship in pediatric medicine at the University of Virginia
`
`(1978-1979). I was then on active duty in the Navy from 1979-1983. Following
`
`active duty, I completed my residency at the University of Pittsburgh in
`
`Ophthalmology (1983-1986) and a fellowship at the Proctor Foundation at the
`
`University of California, San Francisco where I conducted research involving the
`
`cornea and uveitis (1986-1988). I have been a board certified ophthalmologist
`
`since 1988, passing the oral examination with honors at the first sitting.
`
`2.
`
`Following my studies, I joined Virginia Eye Consultants in Norfolk
`
`Virginia in 1989, where I am currently employed and serve as the President, Senior
`
`Partner and Managing Partner. In this role, I have a busy and comprehensive
`
`ophthalmology practice where I treat a diverse population for a variety of
`
`ophthalmic conditions, including corneal and external disease, glaucoma, retinal
`
`disease, dry eye disease, cataract and ophthalmic manifestations of systemic,
`
`neurological and immune diseases.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`In addition to my medical and surgical practice, I have been involved
`
`3.
`
`in over 120 clinical studies, approximately 50 of which involved dry eye disease.
`
`For example, I was a clinical investigator involved in the Phase 3 clinical trials for
`
`RESTASIS® for the treatment of dry eye.
`
`4.
`
`Over the course of my career, I have diagnosed and treated thousands
`
`of patients with dry eye disease. Among various treatments, I have used
`
`RESTASIS® in treating patients with dry eye disease since the FDA approved it in
`
`2003. Through my training and in my practice over the years, including my
`
`interactions with scientists and representatives in the pharmaceutical industry I am
`
`familiar with the formulation of ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations, including
`
`RESTASIS®.
`
`5.
`
`Between 1989-2008, I served as the Ophthalmology Program Director
`
`at Eastern Virginia Medical School, overseeing the education of ophthalmology
`
`residents. In addition, I have served as a visiting professor at several universities
`
`including Duke University, Yale University, University of Texas, University of
`
`Florida, and the University of California San Diego where I taught courses to
`
`practicing physicians, residents and medical students covering ocular diseases,
`
`including ocular inflammation and dry eye disease, as well as treatments for ocular
`
`diseases with various ophthalmic formulations.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`I have served or currently serve on a number of professional societies
`
`6.
`
`including the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Board of
`
`Ophthalmology, American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery, the
`
`American Uveitis Society, the Association of University Professors of
`
`Ophthalmology and the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
`
`7.
`
`I have authored numerous publications in the field of ophthalmology
`
`including articles, textbook chapters, and case reports. A significant portion of
`
`these publications focus on treatments for dry eye. In addition to actively
`
`publishing, I also serve on the editorial and advisory boards for several journals
`
`including Clinical Ophthalmology and Eye and Contact Lens, and also serve as
`
`Chief Medical Editor for Web MD Medscape Ophthalmology.
`
`8.
`
`I also serve or have served on numerous medical and scientific
`
`advisory boards. For example, I currently serve or have previously served on
`
`boards for the following companies: Alcon, Novartis, Aldeyra, Allergan, Bausch
`
`& Lomb, Valeant, Ciba Vision Opthalmics, EyeRx Research, Parion, Topivert,
`
`EyeGate, Shire, Santen Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma and Isis Pharmaceuticals.
`
`9.
`
`I have received numerous honors and awards over the course of my
`
`professional career, including for example, Armed Forces Health Professions
`
`Scholarship, National Society to Prevent Blindness Burroughs-Wellcome
`
`Scholarship, National Research Service Award from the National Eye Institute,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`Senior Honor Award from the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Best
`
`Doctors in America Award.
`
`10. A more thorough summary of my education, experience, publications,
`
`awards, honors, and presentations is provided in my CV, which is attached to this
`
`declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`II.
`
`Scope of Work
`11.
`I understand that the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) has instituted inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,629,111,
`
`8,633,162, 8,642,556, 8,648,048, 8,685,930 and 9,248,191 (collectively “the
`
`patents-in-suit”). (IPR2016-01128, -01130, -01129, -01131, -01127 and -01132,
`
`respectively). I have been engaged in the present matter to provide my
`
`independent analysis of the issues raised in the petitions for inter partes review of
`
`the patents-in-suit.
`
`12.
`
`I am compensated for my work at the rate of $1000 per hour during
`
`normal business hours, and $450 per hour for work conducted after 6:00 PM and
`
`over the weekend. For any part of the case that requires work away from my home
`
`and office, I am being compensated at $9,000 per day. My compensation does not
`
`in any way depend on the outcome the litigation or the inter partes reviews.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`In writing this Declaration, I have reviewed the patents-in-suit
`
`13.
`
`assigned to Allergan, Inc.1 I have also considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience in the field of ophthalmology, including my work
`
`experience in treating patients with dry eye, my experience in working with others
`
`involved in the field of ophthalmology, and the state of the art as of the priority
`
`date of the patents-in-suit. I have also reviewed and considered other documents in
`
`arriving at my opinions, a complete list of which are included as Exhibit B to my
`
`declaration.
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill at the Relevant Time
`14.
`I understand that Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would likely have had “some combination of: (a) experience formulating
`
`pharmaceutical products; (b) experience designing and preparing drug emulsions
`
`intended for topical ocular administration; and (c) the ability to understand results
`
`and findings presented or published by others in the field.” Paper 8 (citing Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 36). “Petitioner further contends that this person typically would have an
`
`advanced degree, such as a medical degree, or a Ph.D. in organic chemistry,
`
`pharmaceutical chemistry, medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutics, physical
`
`pharmacy, or a related field, or less education but considerable professional
`
`experience in these fields.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35).
`
`
`1 I note the specifications of the patents-in-suit are seemingly identical.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`I understand the PTAB has adopted Petitioner’s definition of the level
`
`15.
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in IPR2016-01132 and IPR2016-01130. (IPR2016-
`
`01132 Paper 8, at 7; IPR2016-00130 Paper 8, at 7-8). As of 2002-2003, I had at
`
`least these qualifications of a person of skill in the art. I have applied this
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art while conducting my analysis.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`16.
`I understand that in the context of the inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,648,048, the PTAB has construed the term “effective in treating
`
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca” to encompass both the treatment of the symptoms of dry
`
`eye disease as well as the disease itself. (IPR2016-01131 Paper 8, at 7-9). I have
`
`applied this definition throughout my analysis.
`
`17.
`
`I further understand that the PTAB has determined it was unnecessary
`
`to expressly construe any other claim terms at this time. (Id. at 9). So, I have
`
`interpreted other claim terms according to their ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`as one of ordinary skill in the art would understood them.
`
`V.
`
`Background
`18. A normal, healthy eye is protected by a layer of natural tear film. The
`
`tear film is important to the health of the eye—tears protect the surface of the eye
`
`from bacteria, moisten the eyes to prevent abrasion, and wash away foreign bodies
`
`and irritants. Tears also deliver oxygen to the cornea, the transparent front part of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`the eye that, along with the lens, refracts light and accounts for approximately two-
`
`thirds of the eye’s optical power.
`
`19. Dry eye is a disease affecting the ocular surface, the tear film and
`
`related ocular tissues and organs. Stevenson et al., at 967 (EX. 1015). Dry eye is a
`
`condition characterized by sensations of discomfort, ocular grittiness, burning,
`
`irritation, photophobia and blurred vision, which can be frustrating for patients,
`
`substantially altering their productivity and quality of life. Small et al., at 411-12
`
`(EX. 1021). Some patients are unable to cry irritative or emotional tears. Kunert
`
`et al., at 1489 (EX. 1012); Sall et al., at 631 (EX. 1007). Dry eye disease is not a
`
`trivial matter. Rather, dry eye disease can be severe, debilitating and sight-
`
`threatening. Depending on the duration and severity of the disease, damage to the
`
`ocular surface may occur, and those with chronic, uncontrolled disease have an
`
`increased risk of ocular infections. Stevenson et al., at 967 (EX. 1015).
`
`20. Dry eye disease is commonly diagnosed using the Schirmer’s tear test
`
`with anesthesia. In 2002-2003, the Schirmer’s tear test with anesthesia was the
`
`primary test used to evaluate whether the lacrimal glands produce enough tears to
`
`keep it moist. Even today, Schirmer’s tear test with anesthesia is a readily
`
`available standard test used by ophthalmologists to diagnose dry eye disease, and
`
`to determine whether a given treatment, like RESTASIS®, is working to increase a
`
`patient’s tear production.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`21. A Schirmer’s tear test is performed by placing a small strip of test
`
`paper inside the lower eyelid. The eyes are closed for 5 minutes and then the paper
`
`is removed and the amount of moisture absorbed on the paper is measured. The
`
`Schirmer’s tear test is administered in conjunction with a topical anesthetic to
`
`ensure that only basal tears, the tears produced by the lacrimal gland, are
`
`measured, rather than reflexive tears which are produced in response to an irritant
`
`(such as the test paper). Generally speaking, healthy persons normally moisten
`
`about 15 mm or more of each paper strip after 5 minutes. Patients with mild dry
`
`eye will moisten approximately 14-9 mm of the paper after 5 minutes, whereas
`
`severe dry eye patients will moisten less than 4 mm in the same timeframe. A
`
`person of skill in the art would understand that Schirmer’s tear test with anesthesia
`
`was the primary test used to measure a patient’s basal tear production as of 2002-
`
`2003.
`
`22. Researchers have made significant advances in understanding the
`
`pathology of dry eye disease. In normal individuals, neural reflexes control tear
`
`secretion. Stimulation of the ocular surface induces neural stimulation of the
`
`lacrimal glands which results in tear production. Under normal conditions in the
`
`eye, trafficking immune cells, such as T-cells, migrate through the lacrimal glands
`
`and ocular surface tissues in an inactivated state as part of the body’s
`
`immunovigilance system. These T-cells undergo normal cell death as they exit the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`lacrimal glands and travel toward the lymph nodes. Under normal conditions, the
`
`ocular machinery is in a state of immunoquiescence and homeostasis is sustained.
`
`Sall et al., at 637 (EX. 1007).
`
`23. While the exact mechanism underlying dry eye disease has yet to be
`
`fully elucidated, evidence suggests that dry eye results from multifactorial
`
`etiologies that result in a common immune-based inflammation of the lacrimal
`
`glands and ocular surface. Sall et al., at 631-32 (EX. 1007); Kunert et al., at 1497
`
`(EX. 1012).
`
`24. Two distinct mechanisms can trigger dry eye disease. First, a
`
`localized autoimmune event occurs in the ocular tissues, which results in a loss of
`
`normal hormonal and neurogenic support to the lacrimal tissues. This creates a
`
`local environment that facilitates initiation of the inflammatory process, in which
`
`activated T-cells are recruited to the ocular surface and lacrimal glands of dry eye
`
`patients. Small et al., at 411-12 (EX. 1021). These T-cells play an important role
`
`in the inflammatory response through cytokine synthesis, which in the case of dry
`
`eye disease, further feeds the cycle of repeated inflammation and further T-cell
`
`activation that can ultimately destroy the lacrimal glands. Small et al., at 411-12
`
`(EX. 1021).
`
`25. Second, chronic physical irritation to the ocular surfaces may occur,
`
`as a result, for example, from environmental factors such as wind, low humidity,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`elevated osmolarity, or increased abrasive forces from blinking over an ocular
`
`surface with inadequate tear film. The result of this irritative pro-inflammatory
`
`response is once again immune activation.
`
`26. Either etiology alone or the combination of these etiologies results in
`
`ocular surface inflammation with immune involvement and produces symptoms
`
`that are indistinguishable in the patient.
`
`27. Prior to the development of RESTASIS®, the most commonly used
`
`treatment for dry eyes consisted of topical application of artificial tears and
`
`lubricants. Kunert et al., at 1490 (EX. 1012). Artificial tears may provide
`
`temporary comfort to the eye, but they do not mediate the immune-based
`
`inflammatory process responsible for dry eye disease. Kunert et al., at 1490 (EX.
`
`1012).
`
`28. Steroids were also used to treat dry eye, but they were generally
`
`recommended only for short-term use because prolonged application can result in
`
`adverse events including ocular infection, delayed wound healing, glaucoma, and
`
`cataracts. Agarwal & Rupenthal, at 1 (EX. 2011).
`
`29. Additional measures used to treat dry eye disease include punctal
`
`plugs and punctal surgery to restore tear volume. Murphy, at 2-3 (EX. 1020); Sall
`
`et al., at 631 (EX. 1007). Punctal plugs, which can be either temporary or
`
`permanent, partially alleviate the symptoms of dry eye disease by prohibiting tears
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`from draining from the eyes. Sall et al., at 631 (EX. 1007). In some extreme
`
`cases, patients opt for punctal surgery, in which the tissue at the opening of the
`
`punctum is cauterized, sealing the eye’s fluid drainage system permanently.
`
`However, until RESTASIS® entered the market in 2003, there was no medication
`
`or treatment on the market that increased tear production or directly impacted the
`
`underlying immunological cause of dry eye disease.
`
`VI. RESTASIS®, an emulsion of 0.05% cyclosporin A in a 1.25% castor oil
`vehicle
`30.
` RESTASIS® is a cyclosporin A oil-in-water emulsion developed by
`
`Allergan. RESTASIS®, unlike any prior dry eye product, had the ability to
`
`increase a patient’s own tear production. The proven increased tear production in
`
`patients treated with RESTASIS® was critical to the FDA’s approval of the drug.
`
`As a result, when RESTASIS® was approved, it received a label that stated it was
`
`“indicated to increase tear production in patients whose tear production is
`
`presumed to be suppressed due to ocular inflammation associated with
`
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca.” RESTASIS® Label (EX. 2008). To this date,
`
`RESTASIS® is the only product ever approved by the FDA to increase tear
`
`production.
`
`31. RESTASIS® is an emulsion that delivers cyclosporin A (CsA) to a
`
`patient’s eye using a drug-delivery vehicle comprised of castor oil, water and other
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`excipients. (Id.)2 I understand that Allergan has represented to the FDA that
`
`RESTASIS® is a commercial embodiment of the patents-in-suit. Approved Drug
`
`Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (37th. ed. 2017), Patent and
`
`Exclusivity for N050790, Products 001 & 002,
`
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/patent_info.cfm?Product_No=001&
`
`Appl_No=050790&Appl_type=N;
`
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/patent_info.cfm?Product_No=002&
`
`Appl_No=050790&Appl_type=N (EX. 2021).
`
`32. Unlike prior dry eye treatments, the active ingredient in RESTASIS®,
`
`cyclosporin A, directly treats the underlying immune-mediated inflammatory
`
`disease. The RESTASIS® approval was groundbreaking, as it became the first
`
`product to treat the underlying immune-modulated inflammatory condition that
`
`causes dry eye. I prescribe RESTASIS® to my patients with dry eye disease
`
`because it increases tear production as described in the RESTASIS® label and as is
`
`claimed in the patents-in-suit.
`
`33. CsA is a cyclic polypeptide that functions as an immunosuppressant.
`
`Acheampong et al., U.S. 8,648,048 (EX. 1001), 9:7-8. CsA has previously been
`
`
`2 An emulsion is a mixture of insoluble liquids. Unlike RESTASIS®, most
`
`ophthalmic drugs are formulated as solutions or suspensions.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`used to treat various autoimmune disorders, for example, uveitis, psoriasis,
`
`rheumatoid arthritis, myasthenia gravis and diabetes mellitus type 1. Kanpolat et
`
`al., at 119 (EX. 1018). CsA also possesses anti-inflammatory properties,
`
`selectively inhibiting T lymphocyte activation. Kaswan, at 654 (EX. 1011).
`
`34. CsA, when delivered to the eye, suppresses the immune-mediated
`
`inflammatory process responsible for dry eye disease. While the exact mechanism
`
`has yet to be elucidated, it is believed that CsA generally affects T-helper cells by
`
`modulating their activation and ability to recruit additional T-cells to the ocular
`
`surface tissues. Kaswan, at 650 (EX. 1011). By modulating activation of T-cells
`
`on the ocular surface and lacrimal glands, CsA prevents the production of
`
`inflammatory cytokines, which are necessary for the regulation and amplification
`
`of inflammatory responses. Small et al., at 412 (EX. 1021); Turner et al., at 496
`
`(EX. 1014). The disruption in inflammation, via inhibition of T-cell activation and
`
`down-regulation of inflammatory cytokines in the conjunctiva and lacrimal gland,
`
`is believed to result in enhanced tear production. Kaswan, at 650 (EX. 1011).
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`VII. 0.05% CsA in a 1.25% Castor Oil Vehicle Increases Tear Production
`and Treats Dry Eye
`35. This specific formulation of RESTASIS®—0.05% CsA in a 1.25%
`
`castor oil vehicle3—is critical for increased tear production in dry eye patients.
`
`36. To obtain FDA approval for RESTASIS®, Allergan conducted two
`
`multicenter, randomized, double-masked Phase 3 clinical trials of the efficacy and
`
`safety of cyclosporin ophthalmic emulsions in patients with moderate to severe dry
`
`eye disease. Results of these trials were reported by Sall et al. Sall et al., at 631-
`
`34 (EX. 1007).
`
`37. The Phase 3 trial reported in Sall et al. involves the parallel
`
`assessment of the efficacy and safety of emulsions containing 0.05% CsA in a
`
`castor oil vehicle and 0.10% CsA in a castor oil vehicle for the treatment of dry
`
`eye. Sall et al., at 632 (EX. 1007). The safety and efficacy of these formulations
`
`were compared to a control castor oil vehicle. Sall et al., at 631-34 (EX. 1007).
`
`In this study, the CsA/castor oil vehicle formulations were administered to patients
`
`
`3 The 1.25% castor oil vehicle includes 1.25% castor oil, 1.00% polysorbate 80,
`
`0.05% acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer (e.g. Pemulen® TR-2,
`
`Carbomer 1342), 2.20% glycerin, 0.397% sodium hydroxide, and 95% purified
`
`water. NDA 21-023 (EX. 2001), tbl.3.3.2.1-1.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`in separate groups twice a day and various measurements were tracked and
`
`recorded. Sall et al., at 632-33 (EX. 1007).
`
`38. Notably, Sall et al. did not disclose the specific compositions of the
`
`formulations used in the Phase 3 clinical trials, other than noting the amount of
`
`CsA in each formulation. Sall et al., at 631-34 (EX. 1007). Instead, the Sall
`
`publication states “the CsA emulsions and vehicle were sterile, nonpreserved
`
`castor oil in water emulsions whose precise formulation is proprietary.” Sall et al.,
`
`at 632 (EX. 1007.) Thus, skilled artisans reading Sall et al. would not have known
`
`the amount of castor oil in each formulation, including the control formulation, or
`
`whether each of the formulations had the same amount of castor oil and other
`
`excipients or not.
`
`39. The shared specification of the patents-in-suit, which published in
`
`2013, disclose the amount of castor oil vehicle in the formulations. Acheampong
`
`et al., U.S. 8,648,048 (EX. 1001), 14:25-41. Specifically, the specification states
`
`Composition I and Composition II were used in the “Phase 3, double-masked,
`
`randomized, parallel group study for the treatment of dry eye disease.”
`
`Acheampong et al., U.S. 8,648,048 (EX. 1001), 14:25-41. Composition I contains
`
`0.1% CsA in a 1.25% castor oil vehicle and Composition II contains 0.05% CsA in
`
`a 1.25% castor oil vehicle. Id. This portion of the specification is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`
`
`
`Id. It was only after the publication of the patents-in-suit that a skilled artisan
`
`would have known the formulation of the compositions studied in the Phase 3
`
`clinical trials.
`
`40. Data from Allergan’s Phase 3 study confirm the RESTASIS®
`
`formulation, which contains 0.05% CsA/1.25% castor oil vehicle, acts differently
`
`than a formulation of 0.1% CsA/1.25% castor oil vehicle, and is critical for
`
`increased tear production in dry eye patients. As discussed above, the primary
`
`measure available for determining whether basal tear production was increased at
`
`the time of the Phase 3 clinical studies was the Schirmer’s tear test with anesthesia.
`
`The Schirmer’s tear test with anesthesia in Allergan’s Phase 3 clinical trials is
`
`reported in Figure 2 of Sall et al., which reports the change from baseline in
`
`categorized Schirmer values measured with anesthesia for patients who received
`
`(a) 0.05% CsA, (b) 0.1% CsA, or (c) control vehicle after 3 and 6 months of
`
`treatment. While it is now known that all three formulations in this study
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`contained 1.25% castor oil vehicle, as discussed above, skilled artisans did not
`
`know the composition of the formulations, including the amount of castor oil in
`
`each formulation, at the time of the Phase 3 study and after reading Sall et al.
`
`Acheampong et al., U.S. 8,648,048 (EX. 1001), 14:14-25.
`
`41. As discussed throughout this declaration, the Schirmer tear test with
`
`anesthesia was the primary test for increased basal tear production as of 2002-
`
`2003. Thus, a person of skill in the art reviewing Sall et al. would have
`
`understood the data presented in Figure 2 reports on the ability of each formulation
`
`to increase tear production. The data demonstrate that, at month 3, the Schirmer
`
`tear test (with anesthesia) values for the group of patients treated with 0.05% CsA
`
`was significantly greater than the control 1.25% castor oil vehicle group. In fact,
`
`there was a significant worsening with the control 1.25% castor oil vehicle group
`
`demonstrating the CsA—not the 1.25% castor oil vehicle—was responsible for the
`
`therapeutic effect. This was also the case after 6 months of treatment. I note that
`
`RESTASIS® was approved by the FDA specifically because of the statistically
`
`significant increase in Schirmer tear test with anesthesia as shown in Sall et al.,
`
`Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`
`
`Id.
`
`
`42. These data also demonstrate that the 0.05% CsA formulation resulted
`
`
`
`in a statistically significant change in tear production at month 3 as compared to
`
`the control 1.25% castor oil vehicle whereas the 0.1% CsA formulation did not. At
`
`month 6, the 0.05% CsA formulation increased tear production to a greater extent
`
`than the 0.10% CsA formulation.
`
`43.
`
`I note U.S. Patent No. 5,981,607 patent (“Ding ’607”) (EX. 1010)
`
`discloses Schirmer tear test results from the administration of a formulation
`
`containing 2.5% castor oil (and no CsA). Ding ’607 (EX. 1010), 6:49-63. Ding
`
`‘607 does not state whether the Schirmer tear tests were conducted with or without
`
`anesthesia. As discussed above, the use of anesthetic in the Schirmer tear test
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`ensures that only basal tears produced by the lacrimal gland are measured, rather
`
`than reflexive tears, which are produced in response to an irritant such as the test
`
`strip itself. Thus, skilled artisans reviewing Ding ’607 would not know how the
`
`data was generated (i.e., utilizing a Schirmer tear test with or without anesthesia)
`
`and would not know whether the data reports on basal tearing or reflexive tearing.
`
`44.
`
`In contrast to Ding ’607, the Schirmer tear test with anesthesia data
`
`presented in Sall et al., Fig. 2 informs skilled artisans that the 1.25% castor oil
`
`vehicle formulation does not increase basal tear production. Based on the data
`
`presented in Ding ’607 (which does not disclose whether the Schirmer tear test was
`
`conducted with or without anesthesia) and Sall Fig. 2 (in which the Schirmer tear
`
`test was conducted with anesthesia and the 1.25% castor oil vehicle formulation
`
`reduced tear production), a skilled artisan would not conclude the castor oil vehicle
`
`increased tear production. I have also reviewed the declaration of Dr. Loftsson,
`
`and in particular, I have reviewed his summary of the thermodynamic principles
`
`governing ocular drug release from oil-in-water emulsions. Loftsson Decl’n (EX.
`
`2025), ¶¶ 37-47. I understand and agree with the principles disclosed in Dr.
`
`Loftsson’s declaration, and for that reason, it is my opinion that skilled artisans
`
`would have expected less CsA to be released from a formulation of 0.05% CsA in
`
`a 1.25% castor oil vehicle to the lacrimal glands as compared to a formulation of
`
`0.1% CsA in a 1.25% castor oil vehicle. It is further my opinion that it would have
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`been unexpected that a formulation of 0.05% CsA in a 1.25% castor oil vehicle
`
`would be more effective at increasing tear production as compared to a formulation
`
`of 0.1% CsA in a 1.25% castor oil vehicle after three months of treatment, as
`
`demonstrated by Sall et al. Figure 2. Sall et al., fig.2 (EX. 1007). Similarly, it
`
`would have been unexpected that at month six, the 0.05% CsA/1.25% castor oil
`
`vehicle formulation increased tear production to a greater extent than the 0.10%
`
`CsA/1.25% castor oil vehicle formulation.
`
`45. Collectively, these data demonstrate that 0.05% CsA (and not the
`
`1.25% castor oil vehicle) is responsible for the therapeutic effects of RESTASIS®
`
`in restoring tear production and treating dry eye. As discussed above, the ability of
`
`RESTASIS® to increase tear production is unique and unexpected, and was critical
`
`to the FDA’s approval of RESTASIS®.
`
`46. Based on this data, it is my opinion that the specific formulation of
`
`RESTASIS®, 0.05% CsA in a 1.25% castor oil vehicle, acts differently than a
`
`0.1% CsA/1.25% castor oil vehicle formulation, and the formulation of
`
`RESTASIS® is critical to increasing tear production and treating dry eye disease.
`
`47.
`
`In addition, I have also reviewed the declarations submitted by Dr.
`
`Schiffman and Dr. Attar to the Patent Office. I note that they also concluded that
`
`the specific combination of the 0.05% by weight cyclosporin in the 1.25% castor
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`oil vehicle is unexpectedly and surprisingly critical for optimal therapeutic
`
`effectiveness.
`
`VIII. Conclusion
`48.
`I currently hold the opinions set expressed in this declaration. But my
`
`analysis may continue, and I may acquire additional information and/or attain
`
`supplemental insights that may result in added observations.
`
`49.
`
`I declare that all statements made in this declaration are of my own
`
`knowledge and are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; that these statements were made with the knowledge that
`
`willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John D. Sheppard, M.D., M.M.Sc.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: March 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`CURRICULUM VITAE
`
`John D. Sheppard, M.D.
`NAME
` OFFICE ADDRESS
`Virginia Eye Consultants
`241 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 210
`Norfolk, VA 23502*
`Fax: 757-622-4866
`Phone: 757-622-2200
`
` SATELLITE OFFICES
`*preferred mailing address
`2463 Pruden Blvd.
`2101 Executive Drive, Suite 160
`Suffolk, VA 23434
`Hampton, VA 23666
`
`757-925-1136
`
`Phone: 757-826-4702
`
`757-925-0353
`Fax: 757-826-3591
`
` HOME ADDRESS
`3274 Butlers Bluff Drive
`Cape Charles, VA 23310
`
`Fax: 757-331-3333
`Phone: 757-331-3131
`
` EMAIL ADDRESS
`jsheppard@vec2020.com, docshep@hotmail.com
` CITIZENSHIP
`United States of America
` MILITARY
`Navy, Medical Corps, retired
` ETHNIC/RACIAL SELF IDENTIFICATION
`
`non-Hispanic, white
` EDUCATION
` High School: Mt. Lebanon HS
`1968-71
`Magna Cum Laude
`1971-74
`Premedical: Brown University
`S.B. Biology
`1973-76
`Graduate: Brown University
`M.M.Sc. Medicine
`1974-78
`Medical: Brown University
`M.D. Signa Xi Honorary
`1987-89
`Doctoral: UCSF PhD Candidate
`Immunology
`1978-79
`Internship: University of Virginia
`Pediatrics
`1983-86
`Residency: University of Pittsburgh
`Ophthalmology
`Fellowship: Proctor Foundation UCSF
`Research, Cornea, Uveitis 1986-88
`Postdoctoral Training: Ph.D.
`Immunology (initial year) 1987-88
` MEDICAL LICENSURE
` State of Pennsylvania
`# MD-030015-E
`1983
`
`State of California
`# G 058805 (inactive)
`1986
`State of Virginia
`# 0101 043383
`
`1989
`Drug Enforcement Administration
`# AS 2337827
`
`1978
`American Board of Ophthalmology
`No expiration
`
`1988
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`HOSPITAL STAFF MEMBERSHIPS
` Sentara Norfolk General
`1989-Present
`1989-2014
`Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters
`1989-1999
`Hampton Veterans Administrative Hospital
`1989-1999
`Portsmouth Navy Regional Medical Center
`1986-1989
`University of California San Francisco
`1983-1986
`University of Pittsburgh Hospital
`1978-1979
`University of Virginia Hospital
` PROFESSIONAL AND HOSPITAL POSITIONS
` Virginia Eye Consultants, Norfolk, Virginia, Physician
`1989 - Present
`
`
`1989 - Present
`
`NRMC Portsmouth, Virginia, Cornea and Uveitis Consults
`1987-1988
`
`Kaiser Foundation, San Francisco, Corneal Consult
`
`1981-1983
`
`US Navy, NSA Detachment Gaeta, Chief of Family Medicine
`1980-1981