throbber
Paper No. ___
`Filed: April 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS
`LLC, ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
`INC., SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTIRES, LTD., SUN
`PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., AND SUN PHARMA GLOBAL
`FZE,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS A.G.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`IPR2017-008541
`Patent No. 9,187,405
`_____________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. WILLIAM JUSKO
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-01550, IPR2017-01946, and IPR2017-01929 have been joined
`
`with this proceeding.
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioners hereby submit observations on the deposition testimony of
`
`Novartis's declarant Dr. William Jusko given on April 10, 2018 (EX1064).
`
`1.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 17:18-18:10, 128:11-129:25, Dr. Jusko agreed that the average
`
`weights of American women he used were "in concordance" regardless of their
`
`time-frame. This is relevant because Dr. Jusko's abandonment of his previous
`
`reliance on lower weights (e.g., 70 kg) for fingolimod animal to human
`
`conversions is not justified by a change in average weight over time. EX2095 (4th
`
`Jusko Decl), ¶20; EX2024 (2nd Jusko Decl), ¶50.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 34:7-36:8, Dr. Jusko testified that he often uses mathematics.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's credibility based on his refusal during the deposition
`
`to confirm simple calculations or use a calculator when asked. See e.g., id., 72:7-
`
`90:19; EX2095, ¶¶25, 41; Paper 63, 8; EX2005 (1st Jusko Decl), ¶¶4, 21-22;
`
`EX2024, ¶¶14, 83.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 49:10-51:4, Dr. Jusko agreed that he relied upon the FDA
`
`Guidance (EX1049) at page 10 as discussing the impact on animal scaling of steep-
`
`dose response curves for efficacy, acknowledged that the Guidance was instead
`
`"talking about steep dose-response curve for significant toxicities," and admitted
`
`that caveats regarding steep dose response for significant toxicities "would not
`
`apply for toxicity of fingolimod." Id., 52:6-56:7. This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's
`
`assertion that the FDA Guidance scaling factors Dr. Benet relied upon should not
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`be used because fingolimod allegedly had a steep dose response curve for efficacy.
`
`EX2095, ¶16; Paper 63, 7-8; Paper 56, 15; EX1047, ¶¶59-60, 104-05.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 58:18-60:5, Dr. Jusko testified that direct conversion of rodent
`
`to human doses, when accounting for the difference in bioavailability between
`
`species, would result in a 0.1 mg/kg dose in a mouse being about 14 mg in a
`
`human. This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's assertions that "primates would thus need an
`
`oral dose twice as large as rats to receive the same amount of drug." EX2095, ¶16.
`
`It is relevant because it demonstrates that many of Dr. Jusko's animal conversion
`
`arguments lead to human equivalent doses that are much higher than the doses
`
`already found maximally efficacious in humans in Kappos 2005. Id., ¶¶20, 25, 40-
`
`41; Paper 63, 7-8; see also, Paper 56, 15; EX1047, ¶¶60, 70, 104-05.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 60:6-16, Dr. Jusko agreed that the use of 70 kg human in his
`
`Fourth Declaration (EX2095, ¶20) was "a place where [he] hadn't updated the
`
`weights from 70 to 75 [kg]." This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's assertions that Dr.
`
`Benet's human equivalent dose calculations were inadequate because they did not
`
`focus exclusively on a 75 kg person. It is relevant because it indicates Dr. Jusko
`
`selected the 75 kg weight to achieve a predetermined outcome. Id., ¶¶24-25, 31,
`
`39-41; Paper 63, 7-8; EX2024, ¶50 (70 kg); EX1047, ¶¶69-70; Paper 56, 15.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 62:6-66:14, 67:15-69:6, Dr. Jusko agreed that his clearance
`
`methodology for converting 0.1 mg/kg in rats to human doses resulted in a human
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`equivalent dose of 1.43 mg, that this suggested that 1.43 milligrams "should be an
`
`effective dose in humans" and would be "a reasonable effective dose in humans,"
`
`that this "is not about [the] lowest effective dose," and that "one needs more
`
`information to get to a question like lowest effective dose." This is relevant to
`
`Novartis's arguments that 0.1 mg/kg in rats was "their" lowest effective dose that
`
`Kataoka tested. Id., 69:15-70:12. This is relevant because Thomson (EX1005) and
`
`Kappos 2005 (EX1007) had already shown that 1.43 mg was not the lowest
`
`effective dose in humans and that the efficacy of an even lower dose, 1.25 mg, was
`
`still on the plateau of the dose-response curve. EX2095, ¶¶20, 25, 40-41; Paper 63,
`
`7-8; see also, e.g., Paper 56, 15; EX1047, ¶¶60, 70, 104-05.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 72:7-16, 75:18-76:7, 86:2-21, Dr. Jusko agreed that the FDA
`
`Guidance's standard rat conversion factor of 0.162 is roughly double its standard
`
`mouse conversion factor of 0.081, that using these factors to convert from 0.1
`
`mg/kg in mice to a human equivalent dose and from a human equivalent dose to
`
`rats results in 0.05 mg/kg in rats, and that this conversion illustrates the
`
`consequence of the standard rat conversion factor being roughly double the
`
`standard mouse conversion factor. This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's argument that he
`
`did not know why Dr. Benet did not adopt 0.1 mg/kg in rats as the lowest dose of
`
`fingolimod proven to be effective in any animal. EX2095, ¶¶3, 33-36; Paper 63, 7-
`
`8; see also, e.g., EX2024, ¶¶68-70; EX2096, ¶¶70-74; EX2098 (Chun
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`Decl), ¶¶18-21; EX1047, ¶¶67-70, 102-05; Paper 56, 14-15.
`
`8.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 91:21-92:13, Dr. Jusko testified that he selected a human
`
`clearance value for fingolimod for converting rat doses to human doses by first
`
`excluding an "extreme outlier" of 23.7 L/hr, then "pick[ing] a simple number that
`
`was in the middle of all those" remaining values (7.7, 7.4, 9.5, 13.4, 9.4). When Dr.
`
`Jusko was confronted with the fact that the simple arithmetic mean of these values
`
`was 9.48 L/hr, he said at first that one would do this "more precisely" by
`
`multiplying the clearance values "by the number of subjects, " but then said that he
`
`selected 10 L/hr as the coalesced value by performing a "weighted average
`
`calculation" mentally, that the value of 10 "would be the equivalent of" doing the
`
`weighted arithmetic average, and that his mental calculation of the weighted
`
`arithmetic average was his explanation for how he arrived at that number. Id.,
`
`94:21-95:17, 98:4-25, 100:15-101:10. Dr. Jusko subsequently confirmed that the
`
`weighted arithmetic average was the method he described using in his declaration
`
`and that it yielded a value of 9.44 L/hr. Id., 123:11-22. This is relevant to Dr.
`
`Jusko's credibility. It is also relevant to his assertion that the Board should reject
`
`Dr. Benet's use of the FDA Guidance's standard conversion factors for generating a
`
`human equivalent dose from mice and rat data because Dr. Jusko's testimony
`
`validates Dr. Benet's use of the FDA Guidance's standard conversion factors as
`
`being appropriate for fingolimod. EX2095, ¶¶22-26; Paper 63, 7-8; see also, e.g.,
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`EX1031, 1082 & Table 2; EX1047, ¶¶49-53, 104-05; Paper 56, 15.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 102:12-105:13, 112:2-113:6, Dr. Jusko testified that it "would
`
`be reasonable" to calculate the clearance per kg for the fingolimod patients in
`
`Kahan 2003 using their average weight (80.7 kg) instead of using the average
`
`weight of adult females in the United States, and that doing so would result in his
`
`conversion ratio from rat to human doses going down from 0.19 to about 0.17. This
`
`is relevant to Dr. Jusko's assertion the Board should reject Dr. Benet's use of the
`
`FDA Guidance's standard conversion factors for generating a human equivalent
`
`dose from mice and rat data because it validates Dr. Benet's use of the FDA
`
`Guidance's standard conversion factors as being appropriate for fingolimod.
`
`EX2095, ¶¶22-26, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8; EX1031, 1082 & Table 2; EX1047,
`
`¶¶49-53, 69-70, 104-05; Paper 56, 15.
`
`10.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 110:18-111:15, Dr. Jusko testified that all patients in Kahan
`
`2003 were treated with corticosteroids that could increase water and fat retention,
`
`but that there was still a difference in weight between the fingolimod-treated
`
`patients and the placebo patients. This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's post-hoc argument
`
`(Id., 108:14-109:2) that he would no longer use the weight of the fingolimod-
`
`treated patients when converting the clearance of those same patients to clearance
`
`per kg once he realized it would make his conversion ratio more like the FDA
`
`Guidance standard conversion factor. It is relevant because it undermines Dr.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`Jusko's credibility and his post-hoc argument. EX2095, ¶¶22-25, 31, 39-41; Paper
`
`63, 7-8; EX1031, 1081-82; EX1047, ¶¶49-53; Paper 56, 15.
`
`11.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 114:17-120:20, 123:11-22, 124:4-126:12, Dr. Jusko testified
`
`about how to calculate the weighted arithmetic average of the clearance values
`
`from Kahan 2003, confirmed that the weighted arithmetic average of those
`
`clearance values was 9.44 L/hr, and confirmed that using the weighted arithmetic
`
`average clearance value of 9.44 L/hr and the average weight (80.7 kg) of
`
`fingolimod-treated patients from whom that clearance value was derived resulted
`
`in a rat-to-human conversion factor of 0.167 that was very similar to the standard
`
`FDA conversion factor of 0.162. This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's assertion the Board
`
`should reject Dr. Benet's use of the FDA Guidance's standard conversion factors
`
`for generating a human equivalent dose from mice and rat data because it validates
`
`Dr. Benet's use of the FDA Guidance's standard conversion factors as being
`
`appropriate for fingolimod. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8; see also,
`
`e.g., EX1031, 1082 & Table 2; EX1047, ¶¶49-53; Paper 56, 15.
`
`12.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 120:21-124:3, Dr. Jusko testified when he realized that the
`
`weighted average clearance was 9.44 L/hr, and not 10 L/hr as he initially thought,
`
`he wanted to include the 23.7 L/hr " extreme outlier" that he previously excluded
`
`back in the data set in order to get a number that was closer to the number he
`
`originally chose, but that a clearance of 9-12 L/hr was " more reflective." This is
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`relevant to Dr. Jusko's credibility. It is relevant because it indicates Dr. Jusko
`
`selected a clearance value of 10 L/hr to achieve a predetermined outcome to
`
`benefit Novartis's case. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8; see also, e.g.,
`
`EX1031, 1082 & Table 2; EX1047, ¶¶49-53; Paper 56, 15.
`
`13.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 130:2-16, Dr. Jusko testified he used average adult female
`
`weights when converting doses from mg/kg to kg in humans because it was his
`
`understanding that women are the predominant victims of MS and he was using
`
`women as a proxy for the average weight of a person with MS. This is relevant to
`
`Dr. Jusko's later argument that he wanted to include the weight of men in his
`
`calculation when he realized that MS patients may have lower-than-average adult
`
`weight due to glycocorticoid (e.g., prednisone and/or prednisolone) treatment in
`
`order to keep the average weight closer to the 75 kg value he selected in his Fourth
`
`Declaration. Id., 164:17-165:8; EX1058, 130-11. This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's
`
`credibility. It is relevant because it indicates Dr. Jusko selected 75 kg to achieve a
`
`predetermined outcome to benefit Novartis's case. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41;
`
`Paper 63, 7-8; EX2024, ¶50; EX1047, ¶¶69-70; Paper 56, 15.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 130:17-24, Dr. Jusko testified that he could not recall doing
`
`any research to determine if there were studies that reported average weights for
`
`MS patients. This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's credibility. It is relevant because it
`
`indicates Dr. Jusko selected a weight of 75 kg to achieve a predetermined outcome
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`that he thought would benefit Novartis's case. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper
`
`63, 7-8; see also, e.g., EX2024, ¶50; EX1047, ¶¶69-70; Paper 56, 15.
`
`15.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 130:25-132:21, 134:24-135:9, Dr. Jusko testified that the
`
`Matarese paper (EX1057) published in 2005 in Proceedings of the National
`
`Academy of Science and that it reported an average weight for 126 RRMS patients
`
`of 65.9 kg. This is relevant because it undermines Dr. Jusko's assumption that the
`
`weight of RRMS patients would not be lower than the average weight of all adult
`
`American females. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8.
`
`16.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 135:11-137:11, 139:3-10, Dr. Jusko testified that the Formica
`
`paper (EX1058) published in 1997 in the Journal of Calcified Tissue and that the
`
`average weight of the MS patients from the United States reported in Table 1 was
`
`63.0 kg. This is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Jusko's assumption that the
`
`weight of RRMS patients would not be lower than the average weight of adult
`
`American females. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8.
`
`17.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 139:12-141:22, Dr. Jusko postulated that MS patients in the
`
`Formica paper (EX1058) had lower weights because they had been treated for MS
`
`with corticosteroids and testified that Formica teaches that management of MS
`
`includes intermittent or continuous treatment with corticosteroids. When asked
`
`whether corticosteroid use is a major feature of MS treatment, Dr. Jusko testified,
`
`"Obviously I'm not a clinician…I don't have expertise. There's multiple forms or
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`ways that MS is described, and I would expect it's used during certain acute attacks
`
`but not exactly entirely." EX1064, 142:23-143:20. This is relevant because Dr.
`
`Jusko did not account for the effect of corticosteroid use on weight of MS patients
`
`when he decided to use the average weight of all adult American females for his
`
`dose conversion calculations. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8.
`
`18.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 143:23-144:24, 146:11-23, 148:4-150:11, Dr. Jusko testified
`
`that the Ghadirian paper (EX1059) published in 1998 in the International Journal
`
`of Epidemiology and that it reported an average weight of 60 kg for female MS
`
`patients, and the data provided an average weight of about 65 kg for male and
`
`female MS patients together. This is relevant because it undermines Dr. Jusko's
`
`assumption that the weight of RRMS patients would not be lower than the average
`
`weight of all adult American females. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8.
`
`19.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 158:8-160:7, Dr. Jusko testified that the Stepan paper
`
`(EX1060) was published in 2004 in Clinica Chimica Acta and that it reported an
`
`average weight of female MS patients of 60.4 kg and an average weight of all MS
`
`patients in the study of 65.8 kg. This is relevant because it undermines Dr. Jusko's
`
`assumption that the weight of RRMS patients would not be lower than the average
`
`weight of all adult American females. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8.
`
`20.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 161:16-163:7, Dr. Jusko agreed that the MS patients treated
`
`with glucocorticosteroids in America and in Europe had about the same average
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`weight. This is relevant to Dr. Jusko's argument that European MS patients' weight
`
`is lower on average than American MS patients' weight. Id., 161:8-15. It is relevant
`
`because it undermines Dr. Jusko's argument regarding the weight difference.
`
`EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31, 39-41; Paper 63, 7-8.
`
`21.
`
`
`
`In EX1064 at 163:19-164:17, 165:9-24, 166:16-168:6, Dr. Jusko testified
`
`that his calculation of the human equivalent dose for 0.1 mg/kg in mice using the
`
`body surface area exponent of 0.67 would be 0.4875 mg if he used 65 kg and that
`
`the difference between a 0.4875 mg dose of fingolimod in humans and a 0.56 mg
`
`fingolimod dose in humans was trivial and very small. This is relevant to Dr.
`
`Jusko's credibility because it indicates Dr. Jusko selected a weight of 75 kg to
`
`achieve a predetermined outcome to benefit Novartis's case. EX2095, ¶¶24-25, 31,
`
`38-41; Paper 63, 7-8; see also, e.g., EX2024, ¶50; EX1047, ¶¶69-70; Paper 56, 15.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 16, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Steven W. Parmelee /
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Reg. No. 31,990
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Motion for Observations, on this 16th day of April, 2018, on the Patent
`
`Owner at the correspondence address of the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Jane M. Love, Ph.D.
`Robert W. Trenchard
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
`New York, NY 10166
`Email: jlove@gibsondunn.com
`Email: rtrenchard@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`
`Dated: April 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Steven W. Parmelee /
` Steven W. Parmelee, Lead Counsel
` Reg. No. 31,990
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket