`
`Filed on behalf of Akorn Inc.
`By: Michael R. Dzwonczyk
`
`Azy S. Kokabi
`
`Travis B. Ribar
`
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20037
`
`Telephone: 202-293-7060
`
`Facsimile: 202-293-7860
`mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com
`
`email:
`
`
`
`akokabi@sughrue.com
`
`
`
`tribar@sughrue.com
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`AKORN INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00594
`Patent No. 8,685,930
`____________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,685,930
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`
`Brief Overview of the '930 Patent ......................................................... 3
`
`
`
` B.
`
`Brief Overview of the Prosecution History ........................................... 4
`
`
`
` C.
`
`Brief Overview of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art ................... 8
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,979 to Ding et al. (“Ding ’979,” EX1006)8
`
`Sall et al., Two Multicenter, Randomized Studies of the Efficacy
`and Safety of Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion in Moderate
`to Severe Dry Eye Disease, 107 OPHTH. 631 (2000) (“Sall,”
`EX1007) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`iii. A. Acheampong et al., Cyclosporine Distribution into the
`Conjunctiva, Cornea, Lacrimal Gland, and Systemic Blood
`following Topical Dosing of Cyclosporine to Rabbit, Dog, and
`Human Eyes, 2 LACRIMAL GLAND, TEAR FILM, AND DRY EYE
`SYNDROMES 1001 (1998) (“Acheampong,” EX1008) .............. 10
`
`
`
` D.
`
`Brief Overview of the Level of Skill in the Art .................................. 11
`
`II. Grounds For Standing .................................................................................... 12
`
`III. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................. 13
`
`IV. Statement Of The Precise Relief Requested For Each Claim Challenged .... 15
`
`V.
`
`Statement Of Non-Redundancy ..................................................................... 15
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 16
`
`
`A.
`
`“buffer” ................................................................................................ 16
`
`
`
` B.
`
`“substantially no detectable concentration” ........................................ 17
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
` C.
`
`“therapeutically effective” ................................................................... 17
`
`VII. Background Knowledge In The Art Prior To September 15, 2003 .............. 18
`
`VIII. Detailed Explanation Of Grounds For Unpatentability ................................. 24
`
`
`
` A.
`
`[Ground 1] Claims 1-36 are Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`Ding ’979 ............................................................................................. 24
`
`i.
`
`Claims 1-10, 12-22, 24-34, and 36 ........................................... 24
`
`ii.
`
`Claims 11, 23, and 35 ............................................................... 32
`
`B.
`
`
`[Ground 2] Claims 1- 36, are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Ding ’979 and Sall ............................................................................... 44
`
`i.
`
`Claims 1-10, 12-22, 24-34, and 36 ........................................... 44
`
`ii.
`
`Claims 11, 23, and 35 ............................................................... 47
`
`
`
` C.
`
`[Ground 3] Claims 11, 23, and 35 are Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Ding ’979, Sall, and Acheampong .............................................. 51
`
`IX. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness: No Unexpected Results ................. 53
`
`
`
` No Unexpected Results ....................................................................... 54 A.
`
`
`
` No Evidence of Commercial Success ................................................. 66 B.
`
`
`
` No Industry Praise. .............................................................................. 68 C.
`
`
`
` No Long-Felt, Unmet Need ................................................................. 68 D.
`
`
`
` E.
`
`No Failure of Others ............................................................................ 69
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 70
`
`XI. Certificate Of Compliance ............................................................................. 71
`
`XII. Payment Of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103 .......................... 72
`
`XIII. Appendix – List Of Exhibits .......................................................................... 73
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On December 8, 2016, the Board instituted IPR2016-01127, stating that
`
`there was a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 8,685,930 to
`
`Acheampong et al. (“the ’930 patent,” EX1001) are unpatentable. Mylan Pharm.,
`
`Inc. v. Allergan, Inc., IPR2016-01127, slip op. at 24 (PTAB December 8, 2016)
`
`(Paper 8). The present Petition presents the same grounds of unpatentability and
`
`the same arguments and evidence as the Petition in IPR2016-01127. The present
`
`Petitioner has received permission from the petitioner in IPR2016-01127 to rely
`
`upon the same expert. The present Petition is substantially identical to the Petition
`
`filed in IPR2016-01127. Accordingly, it is believed that the present Petition
`
`should be granted for the same reasons that the Board instituted IPR2016-01127.
`
`In particular, Akorn Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests review of the ’930 patent,
`
`EX1001) that issued on April 1, 2014. PTO records indicate the ’930 patent is
`
`assigned to Allergan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). This Petition demonstrates that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-36 of the ’930 patent are unpatentable for
`
`failure to distinguish over asserted prior art. Additional petitions are being filed to
`
`address related patents that are assigned to Patent Owner. All challenged patents
`
`are continuations from the same family and are terminally disclaimed over one
`
`another. The patents claim an ophthalmic emulsion for the treatment of
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`overlapping ocular disorders, or conventional methods of administering the
`
`emulsion.
`
`In particular, the ’930 patent claims a topical ophthalmic emulsion for
`
`treating dry eye disease, such as keratoconjunctivitis sicca (“KCS”), which
`
`contains 0.05 percent by weight (“%”) cyclosporin A (“CsA”), 1.25% castor oil,
`
`and other standard emulsion ingredients in a combination well known in the art.
`
`EX1001, 14:41-16:49. In fact, each element of the emulsion, including the
`
`claimed CsA and castor oil percentages and preferred ratios for combining them,
`
`was disclosed in a single prior art reference (Ding ’979) for use in topical
`
`ophthalmic emulsions to treat dry eye disease/KCS. Indeed, during prosecution of
`
`a parent application, applicants admitted that the claimed emulsion containing
`
`0.05% CsA and 1.25% castor oil “is squarely within the teaching of the Ding
`
`[’979] reference” and “would have been obvious” to a person of skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. EX1005, 0435; EX1002, ¶18.
`
`Four years later, in prosecuting the ’930 patent as a continuation application,
`
`applicants changed course and attempted to withdraw these admissions. EX1004,
`
`0007. They argued that data collected after their earlier admissions established
`
`patentability because of an alleged unexpected result that the emulsion was
`
`“equally or more therapeutically effective for the treatment of dry
`
`eye/keratoconjunctivitis sicca than the formulation containing 0.10% by weight
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`cyclosporin A and 1.25% by weight castor oil.” EX1004, 0007, 0195; EX1002,
`
`¶¶20-22. But the supposed “unexpected results” are weak, at best, and fail to rebut
`
`the strong evidence of obviousness. The data relied upon by applicants lack
`
`scientific parameters necessary to demonstrate statistical significance and
`
`materiality and, in many cases, appear to be copies of previously published graphs
`
`from a 102(b) prior art reference, Sall. Thus, Patent Owner’s cited evidence does
`
`not support non-obviousness of the claims, and merely confirms that the results
`
`were expected in view of and were already disclosed in the prior art.
`
` Brief Overview of the '930 Patent
`A.
`
`The ’930 patent has an earliest claimed priority date of September 15, 2003.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites an emulsion of 0.05% CsA in 1.25% castor oil,
`
`polysorbate 80, acrylate/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer (“cross-polymer”)
`
`and water, wherein the topical ophthalmic emulsion is therapeutically effective in
`
`treating keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Independent claims 13 and 25 recite an
`
`identical emulsion but state respectively that it is “therapeutically effective in
`
`treating dry eye” or “therapeutically effective in increasing tear production” in the
`
`eye of the human having KCS. Claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-36 depend respectively
`
`from claims 1, 13, and 25.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Claims 2-6, 9-10, 14-18, 21-22, 26-30, and 33-34 recite that the emulsion
`
`comprises a tonicity or demulcent agent, specifically glycerine, and/or a buffer,
`
`specifically sodium hydroxide. Claims 12, 24, and 36 specify a range of pH values
`
`for the emulsion of claims 6, 18, or 30, respectively, which each comprises
`
`glycerine and a buffer. Claims 7-8, 19-20, and 31-32 specify known weight
`
`percentages of polysorbate 80 and cross-polymer, respectively. Claims 11, 23, and
`
`35 each recite that when the emulsion is administered to the eye there is
`
`substantially no detectable concentration of CsA in the blood.
`
`
`B.
`
`Brief Overview of the Prosecution History
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/961,828 (“the ’828 application”) was filed
`
`on August 7, 2013, and issued eight months later on April 1, 2014, as the ’930
`
`patent. The ’828 application is a continuation, via U.S. application 11/897,177, of
`
`U.S. application 10/927,857 (“the ’857 application,” EX1005), which claims the
`
`benefit of U.S. provisional application 60/503,137, filed September 15, 2003.
`
`During prosecution of the related ’857 application, Patent Owner admitted
`
`that Composition II, which is identical to the emulsion claimed in the ’930 patent
`
`(EX1002, ¶¶18-19), was “squarely within the teachings of Ding [’979]”:
`
`The applicants concede that it would have been obvious to modify
`
`examples 1A-1E of the Ding reference to arrive at Composition II of
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`the present application. The differences are insignificant.... 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 reference, and the Office should disregard any
`
`statements by the applicants suggesting otherwise[.]
`
`EX1005, 0435 (emphases added).
`
`During prosecution of the ‘828 application, the applicants acknowledged
`
`their prior admissions, but claimed that they had collected evidence to support the
`
`patentability of the claims “[s]ince these comments have been filed.” EX1004,
`
`0007. Patent Owner submitted an amendment, nakedly asserting that “a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness cannot be properly established,” but arguing that the
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`claims were patentable based on unexpected results. Id. at 0196. The Patent
`
`Owner also filed a terminal disclaimer for the applications or parent applications
`
`that resulted in the ’111, ’162, ’048, ’556, and ’191 patents. Id. at 0261-62 (e.g.,
`
`11/897,177).
`
`In remarks accompanying a Notice of Allowance (id. at 0268; EX1002, ¶23)
`
`the examiner stated 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 0276.
`
`The alleged “unexpected results” are addressed in the declaration of Dr.
`
`Mansoor Amiji that accompanies this Petition. EX1002, ¶¶122-46. As noted by
`
`Dr. Amiji, the data presented by applicants lacked scientific parameters necessary
`
`to demonstrate statistical significance and materiality. In many cases, the data
`
`appear to be repackaged from graphs published in the prior art Sall reference that is
`
`presently asserted against the claims. Thus, the declarations do not support a
`
`finding of surprising or unexpected results. Id.
`
`During prosecution, the Patent Owner did not identify, and the examiner did
`
`not address, deficiencies in the Schiffman and Attar Declarations that made them
`
`unreliable, which are discussed in this Petition. As such, and because of the new
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`information presented herein and supported by Dr. Amiji’s testimony, the
`
`examiner’s conclusions based on one-sided information should not receive any
`
`deference by the Board.
`
`In addition to demonstrating the flaws in Patent Owner’s alleged unexpected
`
`results, Dr. Amiji’s declaration also provides insight not previously presented to
`
`the Patent Office about how a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the
`
`disclosure of Ding ’979. Among other things, Dr. Amiji’s testimony establishes
`
`that the presently claimed emulsion would have been immediately apparent to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art based on Ding ’979. EX1002, ¶¶97-98, 114. The Patent
`
`Owner’s alleged evidence of unexpected results cannot render patentable an
`
`anticipated claim. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, (C.C.P.A. 1973).
`
`Further, this Petition presents new arguments based on expert testimony as
`
`to why the claims are obvious over Ding ’979 and other references that were not
`
`substantively analyzed during prosecution. Among other things, Dr. Amiji
`
`explains that the 1.25% castor oil emulsion vehicle of Example 2C in Ding ’979
`
`was the only vehicle that was most preferred for both the 0.05% and 0.10% CsA
`
`emulsions, and that Sall’s 0.05% and 0.10% CsA emulsions used the same castor
`
`oil vehicle. Petitioner provides an even stronger prima facie obviousness case than
`
`the examiner considered during prosecution. Accordingly, the Board should
`
`institute review without deference to the limited analysis during prosecution.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
` Brief Overview of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art C.
`
`A prior art reference anticipates a claim if it discloses all of the elements of
`
`the claim in the claimed combination, or if the claimed combination would be
`
`“immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” or “at once envisaged”
`
`from the prior art reference. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`
`683 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In obviousness cases, Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co. of Kansas City, requires an evaluation of any differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the asserted prior art. 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). As
`
`noted in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the obviousness inquiry may account for
`
`inferences that would be employed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. 550 U.S.
`
`398, 418 (2007).
`
`i.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,979 to Ding et al. (“Ding ’979,” EX1006)
`
`Ding ’979 issued on December 12, 1995, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). EX1006. Ding ’979 teaches topical ophthalmic emulsions for the
`
`treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca (“KCS” or “dry eye disease/KCS”). Id. at
`
`5:9-12; EX1002, ¶61. Claims 7-8 recite emulsions containing 0.05-0.40% CsA in
`
`0.625-5.00% castor oil, 1.00% polysorbate 80, 0.05% Pemulen® (an acrylate/C10-
`
`30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer), 2.20% glycerine, sodium hydroxide, and water,
`
`and having a pH range of 7.2-7.6. EX1006, 4:4-5; id. at 6:27-42; EX1002, ¶64.
`
`Ding ’979 teaches that CsA is effective in treating dry eye disease/KCS “as an
`-8-
`
`
`
`immunosuppressant and in the enhancement or restoring of lacrimal gland tearing.”
`
`EX1006, 1:10-16, 37-39.
`
`Ding ’979 discloses four examples of castor oil-based vehicles (Examples
`
`2A-D) for delivery of CsA. EX1006, 4:44-54; EX1002, ¶65. Example 2C is the
`
`exact same castor oil vehicle used in the challenged claims. Ding ’979 also
`
`discloses CsA-containing emulsions in Example 1 using the vehicles from
`
`Example 2. EX1006, 4:32-54. The emulsions in Example 1 have CsA percentages
`
`and castor oil percentages covering the ranges disclosed in claims 7 and 8 (0.05% -
`
`0.40% CsA and 0.625% - 5.00% castor oil) of Ding ’979. Id. at 4:32-43; EX1002,
`
`¶¶66-67. One emulsion (Example 1D) specifically used the 1.25% castor oil
`
`vehicle (Example 2C) to deliver 0.10% CsA. EX1006, 4:32-43.
`
`Ding ’979 explicitly sets forth a “more preferred” range for the ratio of CsA
`
`to castor oil of 0.02-0.12. Id. at 3:17-20; EX1002, ¶67. Each of the exemplified
`
`CsA-containing emulsions in Ding ’979 fall within an even narrower ratio range of
`
`0.04-0.08, which, for the 1.25% castor oil vehicle (Example 2C) disclosed in Ding
`
`’979, equates to a CsA range of 0.05% to 0.10% CsA. EX1006, 4:32-43; EX1005,
`
`0435; EX1002, ¶67, 94. Ding ’979 does not expressly discuss twice-daily
`
`administration of the emulsions.
`
`ii.
`
`Sall et al., Two Multicenter, Randomized Studies of the Efficacy
`and Safety of Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion in Moderate
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`to Severe Dry Eye Disease, 107 OPHTH. 631 (2000) (“Sall,”
`EX1007)
`
`Sall is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Sall describes a multi-center,
`
`randomized, double-masked Phase 3 clinical trial that assesses the safety and
`
`efficacy of increasing tear production and treating dry eye disease/KCS by twice-
`
`daily ophthalmic administration of 0.05% or 0.10% CsA in a castor oil emulsion,
`
`compared to the emulsion vehicle without CsA in the same regimen. EX1007, 631-
`
`32 & n.1; id. at figs. 1-4; EX1002, ¶¶73-74. Sall teaches that the 0.05% CsA
`
`emulsion was safe and effective, was at least as effective as the 0.10% CsA
`
`emulsion, and resulted in fewer adverse side effects and in trough CsA blood
`
`concentration below 0.1 ng/mL. EX1007, 631, 634-37; EX1002, ¶¶73-77, 80. Sall
`
`does not expressly disclose the exact composition of the castor oil vehicle, but
`
`compares the 0.05% and 0.10% CsA emulsions to the same vehicle. EX1007, 632;
`
`EX1002, ¶73.
`
`iii. A. Acheampong et al., Cyclosporine Distribution into the
`Conjunctiva, Cornea, Lacrimal Gland, and Systemic Blood
`following Topical Dosing of Cyclosporine to Rabbit, Dog, and
`Human Eyes, 2 LACRIMAL GLAND, TEAR FILM, AND DRY EYE
`SYNDROMES 1001 (1998) (“Acheampong,” EX1008)
`
`Acheampong is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Acheampong describes
`
`a study in which CsA percentages ranging from 0.05%-0.4% were administered to
`
`human patients with KCS twice a day for a period of three months. EX1008 at
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`1002; EX1002, ¶¶84-85. Acheampong measured CsA blood concentration at both
`
`peak and trough levels following topical ophthalmic administration. EX1008 at
`
`1002. No detectable amount of CsA was measured in patients receiving the 0.05%
`
`CsA emulsion. EX1008 at 1002, 1004; EX1002, ¶¶84-85.
`
` Brief Overview of the Level of Skill in the Art
`D.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant field as of September 15, 2003
`
`would likely have 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. EX1002, ¶36. Typically this person
`
`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. at ¶35. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Mansoor
`
`Amiji, is the Bouvé College Distinguished Professor in the Department of
`
`Pharmaceutical Sciences at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.
`
`EX1002, ¶1; EX1003 (CV). Dr Amiji is also an affiliate faculty member in the
`
`Departments of Chemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering at
`
`Northeastern, as well as a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Pharmacy at King
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Abdulaziz University. EX1002, ¶1 EX1003. Dr Amiji has authored or co-
`
`authored more than 200 peer-reviewed journal articles and 43 book chapters.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶6-7; EX1003. He has served on the editorial board of 13 peer-reviewed
`
`journals, including Drug Design: Development and Therapy, Expert Opinion on
`
`Drug Delivery, Pharmaceutical Formulations and Quality, and Tissue Barriers.
`
`EX1002, ¶5; EX1003.
`
`Dr. Amiji received a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Science/Biomaterials Science
`
`from Purdue University in 1992, and he has extensive experience with ophthalmic
`
`pharmaceutical emulsions, including castor oil emulsions. EX1002, ¶¶3-4;
`
`EX1003. Dr Amiji is well qualified as an expert, possessing the necessary
`
`scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge and training to assist in an
`
`understanding of the evidence presented herein, as well as possessing the expertise
`
`necessary to determine and explain the level of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`September 2003. EX1003.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the ’930 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the ’930 patent on the grounds identified in view
`
`of the Motion for Joinder submitted herewith.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) (1)): The following real party-
`
`in-interest is identified: Akorn, Inc.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) (2)): IPR2016-01127, discussed above,
`
`involves the ‘930 Patent, and that IPR was instituted on December 8, 2016. In
`
`addition, an IPR petition for the ’930 patent was previously filed by Apotex Corp.
`
`and Apotex Inc. as IPR2015-01283, as were petitions for the related patents U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,648,048 (IPR2015-01284), 8,633,162 (IPR2015-01278), 8,642,556
`
`(1PR2015-01286), and 8,629,111 (IPR2015-01282), but all were terminated prior
`
`to an institution decision. IPR petitions for the related patents 8,629,111,
`
`8,642,556, 8,633,162, 8,648,048, and 9,248,191 were also filed by the petitioner in
`
`IPR2016-01127 as IPR2016-01128, IPR2016-01129, IPR2016-01130, IPR2016-
`
`01131, and IPR2016-01132, respectively. U.S. Application No. 15/011,159, filed
`
`January 29, 2016, claims the benefit of U.S. Application No. 14/222,478 (the ’191
`
`patent), which is a continuation, via U.S. Application Nos. 13/961,828 and
`
`11/897,177, of the ’857 application.
`
`Petitioner and other entities are involved in litigation over the ’930 patent
`
`and related patents in the action styled Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
`
`USA, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01455, filed by Allergan, Inc. in the Eastern District
`
`of Texas (EX1023). A complaint asserting the ’930 patent against Petitioner was
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`served no earlier than August 24, 2015. Petitioner also identifies the following
`
`pending actions involving the ’930 patent: Allergan, Inc., v. Innopharma, Inc. and
`
`Pfizer, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-1504; Allergan, Inc., v. DEVA Holding A.S., No. 2:16-cv-
`
`01447; Allergan, Inc., v. Twi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00820;
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Famy Care Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-00401, all in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. Petitioner also identifies the following terminated action involving the ‘930
`
`patent: Allergan, Inc. v. Actavis et al., No. 2: 14-cv-00638, in the Eastern District
`
`of Texas.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) (3)):
`
`Lead Counsel: Michael R. Dzwonczyk (Reg. No. 36,787)
`
`Back-Up Counsel: Azy S. Kokabi (Reg. No. 58,902)
`
`Back-Up Counsel: Travis B. Ribar (Reg. No. 61,446)
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) (4)):
`
`Petitioner hereby consents to electronic service.
`
`Email:
`
`mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com;
`
`akokabi@sughrue.com;
`
`tribar@sughrue.com; sughrue@sughrue.com
`
`Post: Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Suite 800
`
`Washington, DC 20037
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Tel.: (202) 293-7060
`
` Fax: (202) 293-7860
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM
`CHALLENGED
`
`Petitioners request review of claims 1-36 of the ’930 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 311 and AIA § 6 and that each of the claims be canceled as unpatentable:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`1-36
`
`1-36
`
`Anticipated under § 102 by Ding ‘979
`
`Obvious under § 103 over Ding ‘979 and Sall
`
`11, 23, and 35
`
`Obvious under §103 over Ding ‘979, Sall, and
`Acheampong
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF NON-REDUNDANCY
`
`Each of the Grounds raised in this Petition is meaningfully distinct. Ground
`
`1 asserts anticipation of claims 1-36 based on Ding ’979. Ground 2 asserts
`
`obviousness of claims 1-36 based on Ding ’979 and Sall. Sall expressly teaches
`
`certain properties intrinsic to the claimed emulsion, including efficacy, relative
`
`efficacy, and substantially no detectable blood concentration at trough levels, and
`
`provides additional reasons to make and use the claimed emulsion to treat dry eye
`
`disease. Ground 3 asserts obviousness of dependent claims 11, 23, and 35 based
`
`Ding ’979, Sall, and Acheampong. Acheampong expressly teaches the claimed
`
`emulsion results in substantially no detectable blood concentration at trough and
`
`peak levels.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired patent is given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275-1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert
`
`granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 632 (U.S.
`
`Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). Claims terms are also “generally given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning,” which is the meaning that the term would have to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the
`
`specification. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Under either standard, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail
`
`with respect to the challenged claims. A few terms are discussed below.
`
`
`A.
`
`“buffer”
`
`The term “buffer” appears in claims 4-6, 9-10, 16-18, 21-22, 28-30, and 33-
`
`34 of the ’930 patent. Claims 5, 10, 17, 22, 29, and 34 state “the buffer is sodium
`
`hydroxide.” The patent states, “[t]he pH of the emulsions can be adjusted in a
`
`conventional manner using sodium hydroxide ... to a physiological pH level.”
`
`EX1001, 11:44-46. In light of the specification, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “buffer” includes sodium hydroxide. EX1002, ¶38.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“substantially no detectable concentration”
`
`The term “substantially no detectable concentration” appears in claims 11,
`
`23, and 35 of the ’930 patent with regard to measuring CsA in human blood.
`
`According to the specification, “[c]yclosporin 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.” EX1001, 5:27-33. A
`
`skilled artisan could measure blood concentration at either peak or trough levels.
`
`EX1002, ¶¶39-40. In light of the specification, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the phrase “substantially no detectable concentration” includes a
`
`blood concentration below 0.1 ng/mL measured at either peak or trough levels.
`
`
`C.
`
`“therapeutically effective”
`
`Dependent claims 1, 13, and 25 state that the emulsion is “therapeutically
`
`effective” in increasing tear production, treating dry eye disease or treating KCS.
`
`The ’930 patent characterizes KCS as “an absolute or partial deficiency in aqueous
`
`tear production.” EX1001, 3:2-5. This is consistent with its plain meaning.
`
`EX1022 at 0003 (keratoconjunctivitis sicca is an “inflammation of the conjunctiva
`
`and of the cornea” that is “associated with decreased tears” and is a species of, and
`
`is often used interchangeably with, or as a partial synonym of, dry eye disease);
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`EX1002, ¶41. During prosecution, Patent Owner relied on an increase in tearing to
`
`assert unexpected therapeutic efficacy of the claimed emulsion for treating dry eye
`
`disease/KCS. EX1004, 0195; EX1002, ¶42. The broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of the word “therapeutic” includes palliative (remediating) treatments as well as
`
`curative treatments. EX1002, ¶¶43-44; EX1022, 0007 (therapeutic), 0004
`
`(palliative), 0005 (remedy). Thus, in the context of the ’930 patent, an emulsion
`
`that is effective in increasing tear production is an example of an emulsion
`
`therapeutically effective in treating dry eye disease/KCS.
`
`VII. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
`
`The background publications below reflect knowledge skilled artisans would
`
`bring to bear in reading the prior art at the time of the invention, i.e., September 15,
`
`2003, and thereby assist in understanding why one would have been motivated to
`
`combine or modify the references as asserted in this Petition. Ariosa Diagnostics v.
`
`Verinata Health, Inc., No. 15-1215, slip op. 1, 11-12 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2015). As
`
`established in KSR, 550 U.S. at 406, the knowledge of a skilled artisan is part of
`
`the store of public knowledge that must be consulted when considering whether a
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355,
`
`1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Prior to September 15, 2003, it was known that inflammation contributed to
`
`dry eye diseases such as KCS. E.g., K. Kunert et al., Analysis of Topical
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`Cyclosporine Treatment of Patients with Dry Eye Syndrome 118 ARCH.
`
`OPHTHALMOL. 1489 (2000) (“Kunert,” EX1012); EX1002, ¶47. CsA, a known
`
`anti-inflammatory agent, had been shown to significantly reduce inflammation
`
`markers associated with dry eye upon topical ophthalmic administration. EX1012,
`
`1489; EX1002, ¶48. Dry eye disease was defined in the art as, “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].” Medications for Dry Eye (1999) IN PHYSICIANS’
`
`DESK REFERENCE FOR OPHTHALMOLOGY (27th ed.) Montvale, NJ: PDR Network
`
`(“Ophthalmic PDR,” EX1013) at 13. The Ophthalmic PDR also notes that a topical
`
`CsA therapy, Sandimmune®, was readily available, and was prescribed for ocular
`
`disorders including conjunctivitis and keratitis. Id. at 18; EX1002, ¶49.
`
`Clinical trials establishing the efficacy and safety of CsA-in-castor oil
`
`emulsions for treatment of dry eye disease/KCS were known prior to September
`
`2003. EX1002, ¶48. Several clinical studies were performed in the late 1990’s and
`
`early 2000’s. For example, Kunert established a decrease in lymphocyte activation
`
`markers after topical ophthalmic administration of a 0.05% CsA in a castor oil
`
`emulsion, teaching that treatment with 0.05% CsA in castor oil “may help to
`
`reduce the pathophysiological factors contributing to the development of KCS.”
`
`EX1012, 1495. Turner established that the 0.05% CsA-in-castor oil emulsion was
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`at least as effective in decreasing inflammation markers as the 0.10% CsA-in-
`
`castor oil emulsion. K. Turner et al., Interleukin-6 Levels in the Conjunctival
`
`Epithelium of Patients with Dry Eye Disease Treated with Cyclosporine
`
`Ophthalmic Emulsion 19 CORNEA 492 (2000) (EX1014) at 492; EX1002, ¶¶48, 51.
`
`Steven