`Filed: January 6, 2017
`
`Filed on behalf of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`By: Mark D. Schuman
`
`Gary J. Speier
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`
`
`LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, P.A.
`
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,629,111
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WALTER G. CHAMBLISS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA - EXHIBIT 1025
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 1
`
`SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’111 PATENT ........................................................... 4
`
`IV. FILE HISTORY OF THE ’111 PATENT ....................................................... 8
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 12
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME ...................... 15
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 17
`
`VIII. THE STATE OF THE ART ......................................................................... 21
`
`IX. ASSERTED REFERENCES DISCLOSE OR SUGGEST EACH OF THE
`CLAIMED FEATURES OF THE ’111 PATENT ....................................... 29
`
`A.
`
`B. Detailed Analysis of the Claims .......................................................... 45
`
`Brief Overview of the Asserted References ....................................... 29
`
`
`
`GROUND 1. EACH OF CLAIMS 1-27 IS ANTICIPATED BY
`DING ’979 .................................................................................................... 45
`
`GROUND 2. THE TEACHINGS OF DING ’979 AND SALL MAKE
`CLAIMS 1-10, 12-15, AND 17-27 OBVIOUS. .......................................... 54
`
`GROUND 3. THE TEACHINGS OF DING ’979, SALL, AND
`ACHEAMPONG MAKE CLAIMS 11 AND 16 OBVIOUS. ..................... 63
`
`
`X. NO UNEXPECTED RESULTS ................................................................... 66
`
`XI. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS ................................................................. 81
`
`XII. APPENDIX – LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................. 83
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`I, Walter G. Chambliss, declare as follows:
`
`I. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`1. My name is Walter Chambliss. I received a B.S. in Pharmacy in
`
`1977, an M.S. in Pharmaceutics in 1980, and a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutics in 1982
`
`from the University of Mississippi.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I worked for seventeen years in research and development in the
`
`pharmaceutical industry at G.D. Searle, Bristol-Myers and Schering-Plough, where
`
`I was involved in formulation development and/or process development of over
`
`300 products. I was Vice President of Research and Development for the
`
`HealthCare Products Division of Schering-Plough for five years.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`For the past seventeen years, I have been a Professor of Pharmaceutics
`
`at the University of Mississippi, where I teach graduate courses in pharmaceutics.
`
`I am also a Research Professor in the Research Institute of Pharmaceutical
`
`Sciences where I am responsible for managing pharmaceutical development
`
`projects. In addition, I am the Director of Technology Management and oversee
`
`the technology transfer activities for the University.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I provide broad research and development consulting to the
`
`pharmaceutical industry, and have been an invited speaker in the areas of
`
`formulation and product development.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over twenty publications in the field of
`
`pharmaceutical development, including a book chapter concerning delivery of
`
`pharmaceutical products to the eye, and I am a co-inventor of a U.S. patent.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I am a member of numerous technical societies, including the
`
`Academy of Pharmaceutical Research and Sciences of the American Pharmacists
`
`Association, and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. I am also
`
`a member of Rho Chi, a national professional honor society. I am a Past President
`
`of the Academy of Pharmaceutical Research and Sciences, and previously served
`
`as a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Pharmacists Association. I
`
`received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Mississippi
`
`School of Pharmacy, and have served on several external scientific advisory boards
`
`of profit and non-profit organizations. I am also a Fellow of the Academy of
`
`Pharmaceutical Research and Science of the American Pharmacists Association
`
`and the American Association of Indian Pharmaceutical Scientists. I served on the
`
`International Steering Committee for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Editions of the
`
`Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients and wrote monographs for excipients
`
`included in several editions.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I was responsible for the formulation development of numerous oil-
`
`based and water-based formulations at Bristol-Myers and Schering-Plough
`
`including formulations designed to be administered to the eye. A majority of these
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`formulations were oil-in-water emulsions for topical administration consisting of
`
`the active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) dispersed or dissolved in oil. I have
`
`significant experience in the use of polymers, including acrylate/C10-30 alkyl
`
`acrylate cross-polymer, and surfactants, including polysorbate 80, as inactive
`
`ingredients in oil-in-water emulsion formulations. In addition, I have significant
`
`experience in the selection of other inactive ingredients commonly used in oil-in-
`
`water emulsion formulations including tonicity agents, demulcents, pH adjusting
`
`agents, and buffers.
`
`8. A summary of my education, experience, publications, awards and
`
`honors, patents, publications, and presentations is provided in my CV, a copy of
`
`which is submitted separately. Ex. 1026.
`
`II. SCOPE OF WORK
`
`9.
`
`I understand that a petition is being filed with the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,629,111 (“the
`
`’111 patent,” Ex. 1001). I have been retained by the Petitioner as a technical
`
`expert to provide analysis and opinions regarding the ’111 patent. I have reviewed
`
`the ’111 patent and relevant sections of its prosecution history in the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office. Ex. 1004. I understand that the ’111 patent is
`
`currently subject to another IPR, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. Allergan, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2016-01127 (the “Mylan IPR”). I understand that Petitioner Teva seeks
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`to become a party to the Mylan IPR. I have reviewed the materials submitted with
`
`the petition filed in the Mylan IPR, including the petition itself (IPR2016-01128,
`
`Paper 3) and the Declaration of Dr. Mansoor Amiji (IPR2016-01128, Exhibit
`
`1002). I have also reviewed and considered other documents such as the relevant
`
`prior art, and cite them herein. For convenience, documents cited in this
`
`declaration are listed in the Appendix in Section XII. I note that I agree in all
`
`material respects with the analysis and opinions set forth by the petitioner Mylan’s
`
`expert, Dr. Amiji, in the declaration that was submitted in the Mylan IPR and share
`
`the same opinions below. Because my independent analysis of the claims and
`
`prior art led to the same conclusions as Dr. Amiji, coupled with the fact that the
`
`Petitioner Teva is seeking to become a party to the Mylan IPR, I have incorporated
`
`below Dr. Amiji’s opinions and characterizations as my own.
`
`10.
`
`I am compensated at the rate of $800 per hour for non-testifying time
`
`spent on this case and $1,000 per hour for time spent testifying at deposition or
`
`trial. I have no financial interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’111 PATENT
`
`
`11. The ’111 patent issued January 14, 2014. The ’111 patent is entitled
`
`“Methods of Providing Therapeutic Effects using Cyclosporin Components.” The
`
`first page of the patent states that an application for the ’111 patent (U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/967,163, “the ’163 application”) was filed on August 14, 2013
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`and claims priority through a series of continuations to U.S. Application No.
`
`10/927,857 (“the ’857 application,” Ex. 1005), and thereby to U.S. Provisional
`
`Patent Application No. 60/503,137, filed on September 15, 2003.
`
`12. The ’111 patent is generally directed to pharmaceutical
`
`compositions of cyclosporin A (referred to herein as “CsA”) for the treatment of
`
`ocular disorders. Claim 1 of the ’111 patent recites the following:
`
`1. A topical ophthalmic emulsion for treating an eye of a
`human comprising cyclosporin A in an amount of about 0.05% by
`weight, polysorbate 80, acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer,
`water, and castor oil in an amount of about 1.25% by weight;
`wherein cyclosporin A is the only peptide present in the topical
`emulsion.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 15, ll. 14-20.
`
`13. Claims 2-4 either directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and
`
`recite that the emulsion further comprises a tonicity agent or demulcent
`
`component, that the tonicity agent or demulcent component is glycerine, and that
`
`the emulsion of claim 1 further comprises a buffer. Claim 5 depends from claim 4,
`
`reciting that the buffer is sodium hydroxide. Claims 6-9 depend from claim 1,
`
`reciting that the emulsion comprises glycerine and a buffer, that the emulsion
`
`comprises polysorbate 80 in an amount of about 1.0% by weight, that the emulsion
`
`comprises acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer in an amount of about
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`0.05% by weight, and that the emulsion comprises glycerine in an amount of about
`
`2.2% by weight, water, and a buffer, respectively. Percent values refer to % by
`
`weight throughout this declaration unless otherwise indicated. Claim 10 depends
`
`from claim 9, and recites that the buffer is sodium hydroxide. Claim 11 also
`
`depends from claim 1, and recites that after administration of the emulsion to a
`
`human eye, the human’s blood has substantially no detectable concentration of
`
`CsA. Claim 12 depends from claim 6, reciting that the emulsion has a pH in the
`
`range of about 7.2 to about 7.6.
`
`14. Claim 13 of the ’111 patent is an independent claim, which narrows
`
`the formulation presented in claim 1, reciting the following:
`
`13. A topical ophthalmic emulsion for treating an eye of a
`human, wherein the topical ophthalmic emulsion comprises:
`cyclosporin A in an amount of about 0.05% by weight;
`castor oil in an amount of 1.25% by weight;
`polysorbate 80 in an amount of about 1.0% by weight;
`acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer in an amount of about
`0.05% by weight;
`a tonicity component or a demulcent component in an amount of
`about 2.2% by weight;
`a buffer; and
`water;
`wherein the topical ophthalmic emulsion has a pH in the range of
`about 7.2 to about 7.6 and wherein cyclosporin A is the only peptide
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`present in the total ophthalmic emulsion.
`Id. at col. 15, l. 52 – col. 16, l. 6.
`
`15. Claims 14-17 depend from claim 13, and recite that the buffer is
`
`sodium hydroxide, the tonicity component is glycerine, that “when the topical
`
`ophthalmic emulsion is administered to an eye of a human, the blood of the human
`
`has substantially no detectable concentration of the cyclosporin A,” and that the
`
`emulsion is effective in treating keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Id. at col. 16, ll. 7-19.
`
`16. Claim 18 of the ’111 patent is an independent claim to a more
`
`narrow formulation, and recites the following:
`
`18. A topical ophthalmic emulsion for treating an eye of a
`human, the topical ophthalmic emulsion comprising:
`cyclosporin A in an amount of about 0.05% by weight;
`castor oil in an amount of about 1.25% by weight;
`polysorbate 80 in an amount of about 1.0% by weight;
`acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer in an amount of about
`0.05% by weight;
`glycerine in an amount of about 2.2% by weight;
`sodium hydroxide; and
`water; and
`wherein cyclosporin A is the only peptide present in the topical
`ophthalmic emulsion.
`Id. at col. 16, ll. 20-31.
`
`Dependent claim 19 recites that the emulsion of claim 18 has a pH in the range of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`about 7.2 to about 7.6.
`
`17. Finally, claims 20-27 all depend from one of independent claims 1,
`
`13, or 18, and recite that the claimed emulsion is therapeutically effective in
`
`treating dry eye, therapeutically effective in treating keratoconjunctivitis sicca, or
`
`is therapeutically effective in increasing tear production.
`
`IV. FILE HISTORY OF THE ’111 PATENT
`
`18. As noted above, the instant patent that issued from the ’163
`
`application resulted from continuations of the ’857 application. During
`
`prosecution of the ’857 application, the applicant expressly admitted that the
`
`emulsion, referred to as Composition II, and which remains the emulsion recited
`
`in the claims of the ’111 patent, was squarely within the teachings of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,474,979 (filed May 17, 1994) to Ding et al. (“Ding ’979,” Ex. 1006). The
`
`applicant stated:
`
`The applicants concede that it would have been obvious to modify
`
`examples 1A-1E of the Ding [’979] reference to arrive at Composition
`
`II of the present application. The differences are insignificant. One
`
`need only use the cyclosporin concentration of Example 1E (0.05%),
`
`the castor oil concentration of Example 1D (1.250%), and the
`
`remaining ingredients of those examples. As the examiner correctly
`
`observes, one of ordinary skill in the art “would readily envisage”
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`such a composition, especially in view of Example 1B: having
`
`selected 0.05% as the concentration of cyclosporin, Example 1B
`
`(wherein the ratio of cyclosporin to castor oil is 0.04) teaches that the
`
`concentration of castor oil should be 1.250% (0.05% / 1.250% =
`
`0.04). The applicants concede that in making this selection (0.05%
`
`cyclosporin and 1.250% castor oil) there would have been a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; the differences between Examples
`
`1A-1E and Composition II are too small to believe otherwise.
`
`The formulation of Composition II is squarely within the teachings of
`
`the Ding [’979] reference, and the Office should disregard any
`
`statements by the applicants suggesting otherwise[.]
`
`Ex. 1005 at 0435.
`
`As discussed below, I agree with these statements.
`
`19.
`
`I have reviewed the content of the ’857 application concurrently
`
`with that of the ’111 patent and find Composition II of the ’857 application to be
`
`indistinguishable from the emulsion claimed in the ’111 patent. A table submitted
`
`by the applicant during prosecution of the ’857 application has been included
`
`below, and extended to include the emulsion of the ’111 patent for convenient
`
`comparison.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at 0434 (right-most column added). The ’857 application was ultimately
`
`
`
`
`
`
`abandoned. Ex. 1004 at 0002.
`
`20. As mentioned above, the ’163 application resulted from a series of
`
`continuations from the abandoned ’857 application. Id. During prosecution of the
`
`’163 application, the applicants acknowledged their prior admissions, stating that
`
`they had been collecting evidence to support the patentability of the claims “[s]ince
`
`these comments have been filed.” Ex. 1004 at 0007. The examiner thereafter
`
`rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ding ’979 and for
`
`double patenting over Ding ’979. Id. at 0170-89.
`
`21. On October 3, 2013, the examiner conducted an interview with four
`
`representatives of applicants. Id. at 0234. According to the applicants’ interview
`
`summary, the applicants presented “Data demonstrating unexpected results and
`
`commercial success of the claimed formulation” and “Data and information
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`regarding the claimed formulation’s satisfaction of a long-felt need.” Id.
`
`Applicants’ principal argument was that “the evidence of non-obviousness
`
`presented at the interview overcomes the prima facie obviousness rejection.” Id.
`
`22. On October 23, 2013, the applicants amended the claims to, among
`
`other things, substitute the generic term “acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate
`
`crosspolymer” for the trade name Pemulen® and substitute the full term
`
`“keratoconjunctivitis sicca” for the acronym “KCS.” Id. at 0230-33. The
`
`applicants stated without elaboration that “the prima facie case of obviousness has
`
`not been properly established against the pending claims,” but based their
`
`argument on their assertion that “the unexpected results, commercial success, and
`
`satisfaction of long felt need obtained with the claimed formulations and failure of
`
`others overcome the prima facie obviousness rejection asserted in the Office
`
`Action.” Id. at 0235. The applicants submitted four declarations in support of
`
`their assertions: two by Rhett Schiffman, one by Mayassa Attar, and one by Aziz
`
`Mottiwala. Specifically, applicants argued, based on one Schiffman declaration
`
`(“Schiffman Declaration 1”) and the Attar Declaration that “there are new and
`
`unexpected results relative to the prior art.” Id. at 0236 (emphasis in original).
`
`The applicants relied on “unexpected results compared to the prior art” in Schirmer
`
`Tear Testing and decreased corneal staining, as well as reduction of blurred vision
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`and decreased use of artificial tears. Id. I discuss Schiffman Declaration 1, as well
`
`as the Attar declaration, in Section X below.
`
`23. The examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on November 21, 2013.
`
`Id. at 0428. The examiner concluded that applicants had failed to demonstrate
`
`commercial success or long-felt need. Id. at 0439-41. However, relying on
`
`Schiffman Declaration 1 and the Attar Declaration, the examiner concluded that,
`
`“the specific combination of 0.05% by weight cyclosporin A with 1.25% by weight
`
`castor oil is surprisingly critical for therapeutic effectiveness in the treatment of
`
`dry eye or keratoconjunctivitis sicca,” and therefore, “demonstrate[s] surprising
`
`and unexpected results.” Id. at 0443.
`
`24. As set forth in detail throughout this declaration, I disagree with the
`
`opinions of Dr. Schiffman and Dr. Attar that the results in the submitted
`
`declarations were unexpected or surprising.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a claim is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102, for
`
`lack of novelty, if each and every element of the claim is described, either
`
`expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is not patentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103, for obviousness, if the differences between the invention and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`time the invention was made to “a person having ordinary skill in the art” to which
`
`the subject matter of the invention pertains. I understand that “a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the
`
`relevant art at the time of the invention. As discussed above, I understand that
`
`prior art for the purpose of this declaration includes references that were published
`
`at least before September 15, 2003.
`
`27.
`
`I have been instructed that, a determination of obviousness requires
`
`inquiries into (i) the scope and content of the art when the invention was made; (ii)
`
`the differences between the art and the claims at issue; (iii) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art when the invention was made; and, to the extent they exist,
`
`any secondary considerations.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a claim can be found to be obvious if all the claimed
`
`elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have
`
`combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than
`
`predictable and expected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that improper hindsight must not be used when
`
`comparing the prior art to the invention for obviousness. Thus, a conclusion of
`
`obviousness must be firmly based on the knowledge and skill of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that obviousness may also be shown by
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single
`
`piece of prior art to create the patented invention. I understand that obviousness
`
`may be demonstrated by showing that it would have been obvious to combine the
`
`teachings of more than one item of prior art. I understand that in order for a
`
`combination of references or teachings to render the claimed invention obvious,
`
`there must be some supporting rationale for combining the cited references or
`
`teachings as proposed.
`
`31.
`
`I am informed that the following are examples of principles that may
`
`indicate that it would have been obvious to combine multiple teachings, resulting
`
`in the claimed combination, if the claimed combination involves: (i) the
`
`combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; (ii) the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (iii) the use of a known technique to improve similar methods
`
`or products in the same way; (iv) the application of a known technique to a known
`
`method or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (v) the
`
`application of a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to try” (e.g.,
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success); (vi) predictable variations of a known work in
`
`one field of endeavor prompted for use in either the same field or a different field
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`based on design incentives or other market forces; or (vii) some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill
`
`to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that “secondary considerations” may be weighed
`
`against evidence of obviousness where appropriate.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that such secondary considerations, where in evidence,
`
`may include: (i) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (ii) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (iii) failure of
`
`others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (iv) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention by others; (v) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; (vi) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (vii) lack of
`
`independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of time;
`
`and (viii) teaching away from the invention in the prior art. Secondary
`
`considerations are relevant where there is a nexus between the evidence and the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME
`
`34.
`
`I have been advised that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at
`
`the time of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`ordinary creativity. I understand that the relevant timeframe for assessing the
`
`validity of claims of the ’111 patent for the purposes of this declaration is assumed
`
`to be September 15, 2003, the earliest alleged priority date of the application that
`
`led to the ’111 patent. Unless otherwise specifically noted, all of my opinions
`
`expressed herein regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art apply to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of September 15, 2003.
`
`35. By virtue of my education, experience, and training, I am familiar
`
`with the level of skill in the art of the ’111 patent prior to September 15, 2003. In
`
`my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field as of September 15,
`
`2003 would typically have an advanced degree, such as a medical degree, or a
`
`Ph.D. inorganic chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, medicinal chemistry,
`
`pharmaceutics, physical pharmacy, or a related field, or could have less education
`
`but considerable professional experience in one or more of these fields.
`
`Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the
`
`information known in the art relating to dry eye/KCS, its causes and known, useful
`
`treatments, whether palliative or therapeutic.
`
`36.
`
`In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would likely have some
`
`combination of the following skills and experience: (i) experience formulating
`
`pharmaceutical products; (ii) experience designing and preparing drug
`
`formulations intended for topical ocular administration; (iii) the ability to
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`understand results and findings presented or published by others in the field,
`
`including the publications discussed in this declaration.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`37.
`
`I have been advised that, in the present proceeding, the ’111 patent
`
`claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the
`
`specification. I also understand that, absent some reason to the contrary, claim
`
`terms are typically given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. I have followed these principles in
`
`my analysis throughout this declaration. The ’111 patent provides definitions for
`
`certain claim terms. In my opinion, these definitions are conventional. Certain
`
`claim terms are not defined in the ’111 patent. I discuss a few terms below and
`
`what I understand as constructions of these terms.
`
`38. Claims 4-6, 9-10, and 13-14 recite that the claimed emulsion
`
`comprises a “buffer,” while claims 5, 10, and 14 recite that “the buffer is sodium
`
`hydroxide.” As discussed in the specification, “[t]he pH of the emulsions can be
`
`adjusted in a conventional manner using sodium hydroxide . . .to a physiological
`
`pH level.” Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 17-19. The specification also notes that “suitable
`
`buffer components, for example, and without limitation, phosphates, citrates,
`
`acetates, borates and the like and mixtures thereof, may be employed to maintain a
`
`suitable pH.” Id. at col. 12, ll. 24-27. Based on the specification of the ’111
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “buffer” to
`
`include “sodium hydroxide.”
`
`39. Claims 11 and 16 recite that following administration of the claimed
`
`emulsion, “the blood of the human has substantially no detectable concentration of
`
`the cyclosporin A.” According to the specification: “Cyclosporin component
`
`concentration in blood preferably is determined using a liquid chromatography-
`
`mass spectroscopy-mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS), which test has a cyclosporin
`
`component detection limit of 0.1 ng/ml. Cyclosporin component concentrations
`
`below or less than 0.1 ng/ml are therefore considered substantially undetectable.”
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 65 – col. 6, l. 4. Notably, neither the claims nor the
`
`specification discuss the time point at which the blood levels of CsA are measured.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art could measure blood concentration at either
`
`peak or trough levels, e.g., taking blood samples at serial time points, and
`
`determining the maximal concentration, or by taking and testing a blood sample
`
`just prior to a second administration of the drug to determine the trough level of the
`
`drug in the blood. Taking the broadest reasonable construction for the purposes of
`
`this proceeding, the phrase “substantially no detectable concentration” of CsA
`
`includes CsA blood levels measured at a concentration below 0.1 ng/mL taken at
`
`either peak or trough levels.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`40. Dependent claims 20, 23, and 25 recite that the emulsion of
`
`independent claims 1, 13, and 18, respectively, are “therapeutically effective in
`
`treating dry eye.” Dependent claims 21 and 26 recite that the emulsion of
`
`independent claims 1 and 18, respectively, are “therapeutically effective in treating
`
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca.” Dependent claim 17 recites that the emulsion of
`
`independent claim 13 is also “effective in treating keratoconjunctivitis sicca.”
`
`Dependent claims 22, 24, and 27 recite that the emulsion of independent claims 1,
`
`13, and 18, respectively are “therapeutically effective in increasing tear
`
`production.”
`
`41. The ’111 patent equates KCS with dry eye disease (Ex. 1001, col. 2,
`
`ll. 64-66, “The present invention is particularly effective in treating dry eye
`
`syndrome. Cyclosporin has been found as effective in treating immune mediated
`
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS or dry eye disease).”) and characterizes KCS as
`
`“an absolute or partial deficiency in aqueous tear production.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 3-5;
`
`see also STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 27TH EDITION (M.B. Pugh ed.
`
`2000) (“Stedman’s,” Ex. 1022) at 0003 (KCS is an “inflammation of the
`
`conjunctive and of the cornea” that is “associated with decreased tears” and is a
`
`synonym of dry eye syndrome).
`
`42. During prosecution, the applicants relied on an increase in tearing as
`
`demonstrated by the Schirmer Tear Test to assert unexpected efficacy of the
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`claimed emulsion for treating dry eye disease/KCS. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at 0240
`
`(arguing that the claimed emulsion was “therapeutically effective for the treatment
`
`of dry eye or keratoconjunctivitis sicca . . . according to corneal staining score,
`
`Schirmer score,” and other measures). In light of the discussion above and in the
`
`context of the specification of the ’111 patent, I understand that an emulsion
`
`effective in increasing tear production is an example of an emulsion effective in
`
`treating dry eye disease/KCS.
`
`43. Independent claims 19-27 recite that the emulsion is “therapeutically
`
`effective.” The word “therapeutic” means “[r]elating to . . . the treatment,
`
`remediating, or curing of a disorder or disease.” Ex. 1022 at 0007. This includes
`
`palliative treatments, which focus on remediation of a disease—i.e., they alleviate
`
`the symptoms of the disease. Id. at 0004-05.
`
`44. This comports with what the art recognized as a treatment for dry eye
`
`disease/KCS. See Medications for Dry Eye (1999) In PHYSICIANS’ DESK
`
`REFERENCEFOR OPHTHALMOLOGY (27th ed.) Montvale, NJ: PDR Network
`
`(“Ophthalmic PDR,” Ex. 1013) at 13 (“Dry eye is treated with artificial tear
`
`preparations and ophthalmic lubricants.”) A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not understand the phrases “therapeutically effective” or “therapeutic
`
`effectiveness” to be limited to treatment of an immune-mediated response
`
`sometimes contributing to the condition.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`45.
`
`I have followed these definitions in my analysis throughout this
`
`declaration.
`
`VIII. THE STATE OF THE ART
`
`46. Below I describe some of the relevant aspects of what was
`
`generally known in the art as of September 15, 2003.
`
`47. CsA, a well-known immunosuppressant, has been utilized for
`
`decades in the treatment of inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis and rheumatoid
`
`arthritis, as well as in the prevention of transplant rejection. K. Kunert et al.,
`
`Analysis of Topical Cyclosporine Treatment of Patients with Dry Eye Syndrome
`
`118 ARCH. OPHTHALMOL. 1489 (2000) (“Kunert,” Ex. 1012). In the 1990’s,
`
`CsA was administered topically for the treatment of dry eye disease/KCS, “a
`
`deficiency in either the aqueous or mucin components of the precorneal tear film.
`
`The most commonly encountered aqueous-deficient dry eye in the United States is
`
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca [KCS].” Ex. 1013 at 13. Regarding CsA-based
`
`ophthalmic preparations, Kunert teaches: “Topical CsA has been used as treatment
`
`of ocular conditions such as vernal keratoconjunctivitis, corneal transplants,
`
`corneal ulcers, and herpetic stromal keratitis.” Ex. 1012 at 1490. Kunert further
`
`teaches, “Clinical trials with this drug have shown improvement in various
`
`objective measures of KCS such as corneal staining and Schirmer test values.” Id.
`
`48. These clinical trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of various
`
`
`