`
`Paper No.
`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. 8,648,048
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WALTER CHAMBLISS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA - EXHIBIT 1025
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 1
`
`Brief Overview of the Asserted References ....................................... 31
`
`SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘048 PATENT ........................................................... 4
`
`IV. FILE HISTORY OF THE ‘048 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 ......................................................................... 22
`
`IX. ASSERTED REFERENCES DISCLOSE OR SUGGEST EACH OF THE
`CLAIMED FEATURES OF THE ‘048 PATENT ....................................... 31
`
`A.
`
`B. Detailed Analysis of the Claims ......................................................... 48
`
`
`
`GROUND 1. THE TEACHINGS OF DING ’979 AND SALL MAKE
`CLAIMS 1-10, 12-14, 16-20, 22, AND 23 OBVIOUS. ............................... 49
`
`GROUND 2. THE TEACHINGS OF DING, SALL, AND
`ACHEAMPONG MAKE CLAIMS 11 AND 21 OBVIOUS. ..................... 66
`
`GROUND 3. THE TEACHINGS OF DING SALL, AND
`GLONEK MAKE CLAIMS 11 AND 21 OBVIOUS. ................................. 69
`
`
`X. NO UNEXPECTED RESULTS ................................................................... 72
`
`XI. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS ................................................................. 87
`
`XII. APPENDIX – LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................. 89
`
`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. 8,648,048 (“the
`
`’048 patent,” Ex. 1001). I have been retained by the Petitioner as a technical
`
`expert to provide analysis and opinions regarding the ’162 patent. I have reviewed
`
`the ’048 patent and relevant sections of its prosecution history in the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office. Ex. 1004. I understand that the ’048 patent is
`
`currently subject to another IPR, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. Allergan, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2016-01130 (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 (IPR2016-01131,
`
`Paper 3) and the Declaration of Dr. Mansoor Amiji (IPR2016-01131, 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 ‘048 PATENT
`
`11. The ‘048 patent issued February 11, 2014. The ‘048 patent is entitled
`
`“Methods of Providing Therapeutic Effects using Cyclosporin Components.” The
`
`first page of the patent states that an application for the ‘048 patent (U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/967,168, “the ’168 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 ‘048 patent is generally directed to methods of treatment of
`
`ocular disorders using pharmaceutical compositions of cyclosporin A (referred to
`
`herein as “CsA”). Claim 1 of the ’048 patent recites the following:
`
`
`A method of increasing tear production in the eye of a human, the
`1.
`method comprising topically administering to the eye of the human in need
`thereof an emulsion at a frequency of twice a day, wherein the emulsion
`comprises 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; and
`wherein the topical ophthalmic emulsion is effective in
`increasing tear production.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 15, ll. 15-23.
`
`13. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that the emulsion further
`
`comprises a tonicity agent or a demulcent component. Claim 3 further depends
`
`from claim 2, and recites that the tonicity agent or demulcent component is
`
`glycerine. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, reciting that the emulsion further
`
`comprises a buffer; claim 5 further depends from claim 4, and recites that the
`
`buffer is sodium hydroxide. Claims 6-9 also depend from claim 1, reciting that the
`
`topical ophthalmic emulsion further comprises glycerine and a buffer, that the
`
`emulsion comprises polysorbate 80 in an amount of 1.0% by weight, that the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`emulsion comprises acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer in an amount of
`
`about 0.05% by weight, and that the emulsion further comprises glycerine in an
`
`amount of 2.2% by weight and a buffer, respectively. Claim 10 depends from
`
`claim 9, reciting that the buffer is sodium hydroxide. Percent values refer to % by
`
`weight throughout this declaration unless otherwise indicated.
`
`14. Claim 11 depends from claim 1, reciting, “when the emulsion is
`
`administered to an eye of a human in an effective amount in increasing tear
`
`production, the blood of the human has substantially no detectable concentration of
`
`cyclosporin A.” Id. at col. 15, ll. 44-47. Claim 12 depends from claim 6, reciting
`
`that the emulsion has a pH in the range of about 7.2 to about 7.6. Claims 13 and 14
`
`depend from claim 1, reciting respectively that the emulsion is “as substantially
`
`therapeutically effective as” and “achieves at least as much therapeutic
`
`effectiveness as,” a similar emulsion comprising CsA in an amount of 0.10% by
`
`weight and castor oil in an amount of 1.25% by weight. Id. at col. 15, l. 50 – col.
`
`16, l. 3. Similarly, claim 15 depends from claim 1, reciting that the emulsion
`
`breaks down more quickly in the eye of a human, “thereby reducing vision
`
`distortion” as compared to a second emulsion that contains only 50% as much
`
`castor oil. Id. at col. 16, ll. 4-8. Claim 16 depends from claim 1, reciting that the
`
`emulsion, when administered to the human eye, demonstrates “a reduction in
`
`adverse events” as compared to a second emulsion comprising 0.10% by weight
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CsA and 1.25% castor oil. Id. at col. 16, ll. 9-14. Claim 17 further depends from
`
`claim 16, reciting that the adverse events are side effects.
`
`15. Claim 18 of the ’048 patent is an independent claim to a method of
`
`treatment, and recites the following:
`
`18. A method of treating keratoconjunctivitis sicca, the
`method comprising the step of topically administering to an eye of a
`human in need thereof an emulsion at a frequency of twice a day, the
`emulsion comprising:
`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 emulsion is effective in treating
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca and wherein the topical ophthalmic
`emulsion has a pH in the range of about 7.2 to about 7.6.
`
`Id. at col. 16, ll. 17-32.
`
`16. Claims 19-21 depend from claim 18, and recite that the buffer is
`
`sodium hydroxide, the tonicity/demulcent component is glycerine, and that “when
`
`the emulsion is administered to the eye of a human in an effective amount in
`
`treating keratoconjunctivitis sicca, the blood of the human has substantially no
`
`detectable concentration of the cyclosporin A.” Id. at col. 16, ll. 37-41.
`
`17. Claim 22 of the ’048 patent is an independent claim to a method for
`
`the treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca, and recites the following:
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`22. A method comprising:
`administering an emulsion topically to the eye of a human having
`keratoconjunctivitis sicca at a frequency of twice a day, wherein the
`emulsion comprises:
`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 the emulsion is effective in increasing tear production in the
`human having keratoconjunctivitis sicca.
`
`Id. at col. 16, ll. 42-55. Finally, claim 23 depends from claim 22, reciting that the
`
`emulsion has a pH in the range of about 7.2 to about 7.6.
`
`IV. FILE HISTORY OF THE ‘048 PATENT
`
`
`18. As noted above, the instant patent that issued from the ’168
`
`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 ‘048 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
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`of those examples. As the examiner correctly observes, one of ordinary
`skill in the art “would readily envisage” 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 ‘048 patent and find Composition II of the ’857 application to be
`
`indistinguishable from the emulsion claimed in the ‘048 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 ‘048 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 ’168 application resulted from a series of
`
`continuations from the abandoned ’857 application. Id. During prosecution of the
`
`’168 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 0178-92.
`
`21. On October 3, 2013, the examiner conducted a telephone interview
`
`with four representatives of applicants. Id. at 0246. According to the applicants’
`
`interview summary, the applicants presented “Data demonstrating unexpected
`
`results and commercial success of the claimed method” and “Data and information
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`regarding the claimed method’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 14, 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 0185-89. The
`
`applicants stated without elaboration that “a prima facie case of obviousness
`
`cannot be 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 from the claimed methods and the failure of
`
`others overcome the prima facie obviousness rejection asserted in the Office
`
`Action.” Id. at 0247. 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 0248 (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 December 2, 2013. Id.
`
`at 0461. The examiner concluded that applicants had failed to demonstrate
`
`commercial success or long-felt need. Id. at 0469-71. 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 0473.
`
`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 ‘048 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 ‘048 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 ‘048 patent prior to September 15, 2003. In
`
`my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field as of September 15,
`
`2003would 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 ‘048 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 ‘048 patent provides definitions for
`
`certain claim terms. In my opinion, these definitions are conventional. Certain
`
`claim terms are not defined in the ‘048 patent. I discuss a few terms below and
`
`what I understand as constructions of these terms.
`
`38. Claims 4-6, 9, 10, 18, and 19 recite that the emulsion of the claimed
`
`method comprises a “buffer,” while claims 5, 10, and 19, 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. 15-17. 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. 22-25. Based on the specification of the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`‘048 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “buffer”
`
`to include “sodium hydroxide.”
`
`39. Claims 11 and 21 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, l. 64 – col. 6, l. 3. 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.
`
`Independent claim 1 states that the claimed emulsion is “effective in
`
`increasing tear production” and independent claim 22 states that the emulsion is
`
`“effective in increasing tear production in the human having keratoconjunctivitis
`
`sicca [(KCS)].” Independent claim 18 states that the emulsion is “effective in
`
`treating keratoconjunctivitis sicca [(KCS)].” The ’048 patent characterizes KCS as
`
`“an absolute or partial deficiency in aqueous tear production.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll.
`
`2-5; 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). During prosecution, the applicants relied on an
`
`increase in tearing as demonstrated by the Schirmer Tear Test to assert unexpected
`
`efficacy of the claimed emulsion for treating dry eye disease/KCS. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1004 at 0253 (arguing that the claimed method was “therapeutically effective for
`
`the treatment of dry eye or [KCS] . . . 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 ’048 patent, I understand that an emulsion effective in
`
`increasing tear production is an example of an emulsion effective in treating KCS.
`
`41. Dependent claims 13 and 14 respectively describe the emulsion as
`
`being “as substantially therapeutically effective as” and having “at least as much
`
`therapeutic effectiveness as” a second emulsion with 0.10% CsA and 1.25% castor
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`oil. 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. This comports with what the art
`
`recognized as a treatment for dry eye disease/KCS. See Medications for Dry Eye
`
`(1999) In PHYSICIANS’ DESK REFERENCE FOR 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
`
`immunemediated response sometimes contributing to the condition.
`
`42. Claims 13 and 14 each depend from claim 1, and therefore a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the phrases “as substantially
`
`therapeutically effective as” and “at least as much therapeutic effectiveness as” to
`
`refer back to the efficacy recited in claim 1, “effective in increasing tear
`
`production.” Even if these phrases were understood somehow to import the term
`
`“keratoconjunctivitis sicca” found in independent claim 18, but not in claims 1 or
`
`13-14, a person of ordinary skill would still understand the phrases to include
`
`efficacy in increasing tear production because, as discussed above, an emulsion
`
`effective in increasing tear production is an example of an emulsion effective in
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`treating KCS. Accordingly, the plain meanings