throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFI CE
`
`BIEFORE "l.‘Hl£ PA"I"I*IT\l'l‘ 'l'R'lAI, ANT) APPI."-Al, BOARD
`
`Ametigen Pltarrnaceuticals Limited and Argentum Pltarmaeeuticals LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Janssen Oncology, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,322,438 to Auerbach et :1!
`Issue Date: September 2, 2014
`Title: I\/Icthnds and Compositions for Treating Cancer
`
`4
`
`Inter Panes Review No. 2016-00286‘
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SCOTT R. SERELS, MD.
`
`I declare that all slatetttents made lterein on my own lmowletlge are true and that
`all statements made on it1l’or1n.ation and bclicfare believed 10 be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made. with the knowledge that willful false
`statements and the like so made are punishable by line or imprisonment, or
`both, under Section 1001 ofT1'tlc I8 of the United States Code.
`'
`‘K
`.-
`,
`,
`I
`/ .
`/‘
`./
`
`é//’
`
`///6//7
`
`Scott R. Serels, M.D.
`
`Date I
`
`‘ Case IPR2(ll6—0l3 I 7 has been joined with thix proceeding.
`
`JANSSEN EXHIBIT 2122
`
`Mylan v. Janssen IPR2016-01332
`
`JANSSEN EXHIBIT 2122
`Mylan v. Janssen IPR2016-01332
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ .. 3
`
`II. Mechanism of Action of Ketoconazole and Abiraterone Acetate .......................... ..4
`
`III. Overstaternent of Gerber According to Dr. Chodak .................................................. ..7
`
`IV. Secondary Considerations Do Not Indicate that the Claims of the ‘438 Patent
`Are Non—Obvious ......................................................................................................................... .. 12
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`

`

`I, Scott R. Serels, M.D., do hereby declare:
`
`I. Introduction
`
`1.
`
`My qualifications are generally described in Section A, paragraphs 4-
`
`7, of my declaration submitted on December 5, 2015, (AMG 1002).
`
`2.
`
`I
`
`am making this declaration at
`
`the
`
`request of Amerigen
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., in the matter of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,822,438 (the “’438 Patent”), as set forth in the above caption.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of
`
`$500.00 per hour. My compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. The opinions I set forth herein are my own, and are based on the
`
`education, experience, training and skill that I have accumulated in the course of my
`
`career as a practicing urologist and researcher, as well as the materials I have
`
`reviewed in connection with this case.
`
`4.
`
`For this declaration, I was asked to review and discuss the declarations
`
`of Patent Owner’s experts, Dr. Chodak (JSN 2042), Dr. Auchus (JSN 2040) and Dr.
`
`Vellturo (JSN 2044).
`
`I have reviewed their declarations and the transcripts of their
`
`depositions in this matter.
`
`I have also reviewed the declarations of Dr. Dorin (AMG
`
`1093) and Dr. Ratain (AMG 1091).
`
`5.
`
`Initially, I note that the Petition states that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`w,w,.»,yw,r.-m,,,.p,,.r,,,,.....*..,
`
`

`

`the art (“POSA”) would be a physician specializing in urology or oncology, or
`
`holding a Ph.D.
`
`in pharmacology, biochemistry or a related discipline with
`
`additional experience substituting for the advanced degree.
`
`I understand that the
`
`Patent Owner has disagreed with this definition because “it includes ‘a Ph.D. in
`
`pharmacology, biochemistry or a related discipline’ and a physician ‘specializing in
`
`urology or oncology’ who does not treat or study prostate cancer.” My opinion
`
`would not change whether we use the Patent Owner’s definition of a POSA or the
`
`definition according to the Petition.
`
`6.
`
`I have reviewed the declaration of Dr. Auchus (JSN 2040) and
`
`understand that he asserts that a POSA, a urologist or oncologist with experience
`
`treating patients with prostate cancer, would work in a team or setting that includes
`
`access to one or more or individuals who have expertise in endocrinology,
`
`biochemistry, pharmacology, and/or molecular biology or a related field of science.
`
`I agree that a POSA would not be an endocrinologist but would have access to an
`
`endocrinologist, to the extent needed.
`
`11. Mechanism of Action of Ketoconazole and Abiraterone Acetate
`7.
`I have read the declaration of Dr. Auchus and understand that he
`
`disagrees with part of a conclusion in my declaration (AMG 1002,
`
`ll 34) that
`
`ketoconazole “was known to reduce cortisol
`
`levels and potentially result
`
`in
`
`mineralocorticoid excess.” (JSN 2040 (Auchus Declaration) ll 36.) While he agrees
`
`*1: 133 (170
`
`(D 4;
`
`

`

`with my explanation that ketoconazole was known to reduce cortisol
`
`levels, he
`
`disagrees that ketoconazole potentially results in mineralocorticoid excess. As I
`
`explained in my declaration at paragraph 33, ketoconazole is a non—specific inhibitor
`
`of 17-0 hydroxylase, an enzyme critical to steroid synthesis.
`
`In my declaration I
`
`contrasted the non-specificity of ketoconazole with that of abiraterone acetate, which
`
`is a selective CYPI 7 inhibitor (paragraphs 26, 45). Although both compounds were
`
`known to reduce cortisol levels and therefore would have been expected to share
`
`common adverse effects because of those reduced levels, e.g., increased ACTH
`
`drive, the lack of specificity of ketoconazole will result in additional effects that are
`
`not seen with abiraterone acetate. Nonetheless, the common inhibitory effect on
`
`cortisol production and resulting increase in ACTH as a consequence of
`
`administering either abiraterone acetate or ketoconazole would have plainly and
`
`sufficiently suggested to a POSA the use of a glucocorticoid, such as prednisone,
`
`with both compounds as glucocorticoid replacement therapy.
`
`8.
`
`At the time I prepared my declaration,
`
`I did not fully consider the
`
`various mechanisms by which ketoconazole was known to inhibit adrenal steroid
`
`synthesis beyond that of inhibiting CYP 17 enzyme activity.
`
`In forming my
`
`opinions, I relied primarily on the disclosures in the prior art regarding the inhibition
`
`by ketoconazoleof CYP l7 enzymatic activity, including the specific disclosures in
`
`O’Donnell (AMG 1003 at 2318) and Barrie (AMG 1005 at col. 24, lines 61-62),
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`because inhibition of CYP 17 enzymatic activity is the mechanism by which both
`
`ketoconazole and abiraterone acetate inhibit adrenal production of testosterone.
`
`(JSN 2037 (Serels Tr) page 59, lines 2-24). This was a reasonable approach to take
`and, in fact, one of the inventors of the ‘438 Patent, Dr. de Bono, characterized both
`
`ketoconazole and abiraterone acetate as treating prostate cancer by inhibiting adrenal
`
`androgen synthesis: “through the inhibition of key enzymes in the adrenal steroid
`
`biosynthesis pathways with agents such as ketoconazole or the CYP17 inhibitor
`
`abiraterone acetate.” (Vidal, AMG 1147, pp 7-8).
`
`9.
`
`I have read the rebuttal opinion of Dr. Dorin, Petitioners’ expert in the
`
`field of endocrinology.
`
`1 have considered Dr. Dorin’s explanation of the predicted
`
`impact of long-term administration ofabiraterone acetate at dosages to treat patients’
`
`mCRPC. (AMG 1093 (Dorin) e.g., W 15, 16, 22-26.) As a result, I understand that
`
`the potential adverse effects of the predicted cortisol deficiency and increased ACTH
`
`drive in such patients would have been understood by an expert in the field of
`
`endocrinology to include both adrenal insufficiency (as is the case with the long-
`
`term administration of ketoconazole to treat patients with mCRPC) and secondary
`
`mineralocorticoid excess. (AMG 1093 (Dorin) e.g., W 20-27, 31-35, 69, 70.)
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed the steroid synthesis pathways as discussed in my
`
`deposition and now more fully appreciate the differences and that mineralocorticoid
`
`excess would not occur with ketoconazole.
`
`Nevertheless,
`
`this additional
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`understanding does not change my opinion that cortisol deficiency would have been
`
`expected to have significant negative clinical impact in mCRPgC patients treated with
`
`abiraterone based on the disclosures in O’Donnell (AMG 1003) and Barrie (AMG
`
`1005).
`
`It also does not change my opinion that a POSA would have been motivated
`
`to co-administer a glucocorticoid, and in particular prednisone, as a first choice to
`
`suppress predicted ACTH drive in patients administered abiraterone acetate to treat
`
`mCRPC.
`
`III. Overstatement of Gerber According to Dr. Chodak
`
`1 l.
`
`I have read the declaration of Dr. Chodak (JSN 2042) and understand
`
`that he now states that the conclusion of Gerber (AMG 1004), an article on which
`
`he is a co-author, is overstated. According to Dr. Chodak, the conclusion, “there
`
`appears to be a small subgroup of patients who will derive significant benefit from
`
`the combination of ketoconazole and glucocorticoid replacement
`
`therapy,”
`
`overstates the results.
`
`I question the relevance of this “overstatement” to a POSA
`
`reading the article because a POSA would be sufficiently capable of reviewing the
`
`article critically and not just rely on the conclusions. Further, based on my review
`
`of Gerber (AMG 1004), a later publication by Dr. Chodak as a letter to the editor of
`
`the journal in which Gerber was published (JSN 2049), and his explanation of the
`
`“overstatement” made during his deposition (AMG 1148), the conclusion a POSA
`
`would take from Gerber is not changed.
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`12. With respect to Dr. Chodak’s assertion that Gerber “overstated the
`
`observed outcomes,” a POSA reading Gerber would exercise his/her judgment,
`
`including determining whether or not any conclusions were supported by the results.
`
`As a POSA, I believe that a fair reading of Gerber would lead a POSA to reach the
`
`same conclusion that Dr. Chodak made when he submitted Gerber for publication.
`
`13.
`
`In the medical community we give a lot of credence to what is published
`
`in a peer reviewed journal. If an author decides that an article contains inaccuracies
`
`that author should withdraw the article and publish a revised account of the data. To
`
`my knowledge, this has not been done with Gerber and the medical community
`
`would have relied on Gerber for what it disclosed. Dr. Chodak’s attempt now to
`
`reorient his article for purposes of this legal proceeding does not affect how the
`
`medical community in 2006 would have viewed his article.
`
`14.
`
`However, in 1992 in response to a letter to the editor by Dr. Clyde
`
`Blackard in the same journal of Gerber, Dr. Chodak reaffirmed the conclusion of his
`
`original article by arguing that “the observations by others as well as our own
`
`findings suggest that more investigation with ketoconazole or its analog appears to
`
`be warranted, since the drug does appear to have some clinical benefit in these
`
`patients in addition to its effect on serum PSA.” (JSN 2049)
`
`15.
`
`Beyond his surprising attempt to reinterpret his conclusion in Gerber, I
`
`note that when I read Dr. Chodak’s deposition 1 was surprised to see that he was
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`commenting on my declaration without even having read the declaration.
`
`2 3
`2 4
`
`Q. Ol<a_\'. Sorrfv. Ol<a_v.
`Did jvou re\'ie\\' the clepossition
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`1 O
`
`1 1
`1 2
`1 3
`
`14
`1 5
`1 6
`
`A.
`
`3110.
`
`l;)id you review the cleclaratioii
`Q. No?’
`of1")r. Serels‘?
`
`A. No.
`
`Q. Did you review -— do fizou lmow who
`Scott Serels is ii;1tl1is case‘?
`A. Na‘),
`
`is it --
`l\«IS. Z\—'I(fi)N.‘3EZ\5' Pm sorry (j)l*>je-ction
`to form.
`
`Is it fair to sax’ that you didn't
`Q.
`review the references 3 cited in im
`de<:la1’atiox1‘?
`
`(")l>jecIic'»1i. form.
`.‘\/l(f)NSF§T\E:
`l\~lf%§.
`I don'tl<i1owwl1e11 what refereiices
`A.
`are in his cleclziration.
`
`AMG 1148 (Chodak Tr.) page 14, line 23 through page 15, line 16.
`
`16.
`
`I also find it surprising that Dr. Chodak only became aware of his
`
`“overstatement” after Patent Owner’s attorneys asked him to review the paper and
`
`that he never communicated this “overstatement” to his co—author, Dr. Gerber.
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`9
`1 O
`1 1
`1 2
`1 3
`1 4
`1 S
`1 6
`1 '7
`18
`1 9
`
`2 0
`
`Q. C)l«:av. So this overstatement. the
`sentence tl.1at\\'e’r'e referi‘iiig to. wliere the
`word "signif1ca11t" is iised in the last
`pa1'agrapl1, wlieii did j<;ou 136601116 aware ofthe
`ox‘er:statement. this ovexstateinent seiiterice in
`the article‘?
`
`M(f)NSl3N: Objection to form.
`\Vl1€11 I xx’:/195 asked to review the
`paper. 13ecau.se 1 never revisited it again.
`Q. Ol«:a_\1 Did you coiiniiuiiicate with
`Dr. (jerber about this o\'er‘state1iient in the
`
`article‘?
`
`A. New.
`2 1
`Q. And did yc>u send aiijvtliiiig like a
`2 2
`l'€I§1.”2‘1CIlO11
`to the Journal of l_§i‘olog_\x to
`2 3
`com:-ct this overstateriieiit‘?
`2 4
`.%..§......,................,......l.§:l..?§.;....1§:1.£;m.>ifl.;:....1?1:iss1és2i1§s:.i§<.¢m2.a..,s.W.W1.W
`Page 43
`
`1
`
`A. There would be no need to do Ilia‘-it.
`
`AMG 1148 (Chodak Tr.) page 42, line 9 through page 43, line 1.
`
`Dr. Chodak indicates that he was not aware of the overstatement because he was
`
`never asked to revisit the article again, although he revisited the article more than a
`
`one year after its publication when he replied to the letter to the editor from Dr.
`
`Clyde Blackard commenting on the original Gerber article.
`
`17.
`
`I also note that in an article published in 2004, almost fifteen years after
`
`he published the Gerber article, Dr. Chodak still believed that ketoconazole could
`
`still be used to treat prostate cancer: “there appears to be a reasonable number of
`
`patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer who may derive some benefit from
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`intermediate-dose ketoconazole.” [AMG 1077, Abstract, page 584 Wilkinson]
`
`In
`
`this study, Dr. Chodak administered ketoconazole to mCRPC patients with
`
`replacement hydrocortisone, a corticosteroid.
`
`In his deposition, Dr. Chodak
`
`admitted that hydrocortisone was given with the ketoconazole for the same reasons
`
`that prednisone was given with ketoconazole in Gerber — to prevent the side effects
`
`of adrenal insufficiency.
`
`2 1
`2 2
`2 3
`
`2 4
`
`2 5
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`1 O
`1 1
`12
`
`Q. So fl}cf."\' were treated \\'l{lt1
`ketoconazole with l1jvc11‘<:>co1"tisoi1e; is that
`correct‘?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Is. h}”ch*oco1*tis0i1e it cortico:~sIer<.wicl‘f’
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Would you have 21C.l11ll1llSI€1'C’(;l
`l‘1_vd1‘ocortisone l1€‘i’€
`jttst for the same 1'€8.‘SC)11
`you would sidiriiriister prednisoiie‘7
`MONSEN: Objection. form.
`H_v<;lro<:<;>1'Iiso11e was Ltsetl here
`A.
`to prevent sicie effects of aclrenal
`i11suff1cie11c}'.
`Q. Wlrat would p1‘eclmE's«:>1f1e l12‘t\’ti’ beeii
`acl111inisterecl. for‘?
`l\*ION’fSEN:
`A. Saine.
`
`(j)bjectioi1. form.
`
`Page 54
`
`AMG 1148 (Chodak Tr.) page 53, line 21 through page 54_. line 12.
`
`18. During his deposition, Dr. Chodak also admitted that at the time he
`
`Page 1 1
`
`

`

`submitted the article, “given the knowledge that we had, it seemed like a reasonable
`
`thing to write.”
`
`is it fair to asstiiiie that if
`Q. C)l<ay,
`1 '7
`ifou c1.i¥.;agreecl\.x'itli a sentence 7;otiwou1d:1i’t
`1 8
`ha\'e been czoinfortable subniittiiig it for
`1 9
`publication‘?
`2 O
`MS. M(I)NSE‘:\1: Olojeetioii, form.
`2 1
`lfl xvas stibiiiittiiig the paper toclay
`A.
`2 2
`1 woiilcl Write it clifferemlv. Tliat cloes not
`2 3
`iiiemi that it \m:s -- it \V'21S again an
`24
`(}\'€1‘Si2'ii€111€11i
`like the Ci€l'l3$i;%l}a§:iARw§:1:“:&_¥ But at
`2 S
`hVaw«»«Aa»teuw»vv~mA»wNo«M»v««aa»«mvwo«w-Mv»ms<w<u¢v»wvwaw»-wI¢»mvrnwz1mou~A\vn«Vv9r»wvnxmmuwmww/m>%wh&Amwn«/»Mwk4.Jwwu««sammzmiwwwa
`
`it
`
`the time. given the ldiowleclge 1i1&1t\‘.’€l1?tCl..
`1
`sseeiiied like :1 1‘t1‘Ei$_iL“)11E‘tl‘>l<2 thing to W“I.'1'[<;‘.
`In
`2
`retmszpiect, 1 wouldirt write it that way. It
`3
`cioemft retlect reall};w1iz1t we l<how Abtizlli the
`4
`effects of lietoeoriazole on p1'0Si8i€ czaneer.
`5
`6 which that it cloes not iiiiprove rstirvival.
`7 We l1:§i\'€1”iQ real good exfidence £1121: it plays a
`8
`role. amd again. the C(.")1‘1lE<3Xi\\}':‘!f%§ we had no
`9
`otlier approxed treatment tliat \voi.tlz;l iiicrease
`O
`surx'ix'al at the 1i111€Il1€‘Es€
`papers; were
`
`1
`
`written.
`
`AMG 1148 (Chodak Tr.) page 60, line 17 through page 61, line 11.
`
`IV. Secondary Considerations Do Not Indicate that the Claims of the ‘438
`Patent Are Non—Obvious
`19.
`I disagree with Dr. Vellturo’s assertion at paragraph 49 that
`
`an $33(IQ
`
`(D ,_ |\)
`
`

`

`administering the combination of abiraterone acetate and prednisone to treat prostate
`
`cancer patients “indicates that the therapeutic effects ofthe two drugs in combination
`
`reflects more than the simple additive effects of each drug individually.” JSN 2044
`
`1] 49.
`
`I disagree.
`
`I write both prescriptions to avoid the side effects that are set out
`
`in the prescribing information of Zytiga®. The FDA prescribing information
`
`provides Warnings and Precautions at Section 5, which state that use of Zytiga “may
`
`cause hypertension, hypokalemia and fluid retention as a consequence of increased
`
`mineralocorticoid levels resulting from CYPI7 inhibition.
`
`Co-administration of
`
`a corticosteroid suppresses adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) drive, resulting in
`
`a reduction in the incidence and severity of these adverse reactions." AMG 1018.
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`

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