`
`Attorney Docket No. 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`PATENT
`
`In re Application of:
`
`John R. Evans et al.
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`
`Filed: October15, 2008
`
`For:
`
`FORMULATION
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. BOX 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`xyx./g/xyg/g/g/g/g
`
`Group Art Unit: 1628
`
`Examiner: HUI, San Ming R.
`
`Confirmation No.: 1199
`
`VIA EFS-WEB
`
`DECLARATION UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`
`1.132 OF RONALD J. SAWCHUK
`
`I, Ronald J. Sawchuk, declare as follows:
`
`Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`My academic background and work experience are summarized in my
`
`curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`2.
`
`Currently, I am a Professor of Pharmaceutics, Emeritus, and Morse
`
`Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professor.
`
`I am also the Director of the Bioanalytic and
`
`Pharmacokinetic Services Laboratory at the University of Minnesota.
`
`3.
`
`I obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in Pharmacy in 1963 from the
`
`University of Toronto.
`
`I also received a Masters of Science Degree in Pharmaceutics
`
`from the University of Toronto in 1966 and completed a Doctoral Degree (Ph. D.) in
`
`Pharmaceutical Chemistry (pharmacokinetics emphasis) at the University of California,
`
`San Francisco in 1972.
`
`InnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0001
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—00000
`
`4.
`
`I joined the University of Minnesota in 1971 as an Instructor in
`
`Pharmaceutics, and served from 1972 to 1977 as an Assistant Professor of
`
`Pharmaceutics, from 1977 to 1983 as an Associate Professor of Pharmaceutics, and as
`
`a full Professor of Pharmaceutics from 1983 until my retirement in July of 2010.
`
`5.
`
`At the University of Minnesota, I served as a member of the graduate
`
`programs in Pharmaceutics, Neurosciences, and Experimental and Clinical
`
`Pharmacology. From 1983 to 1989 and 1991 to 1994 I was the Director of Graduate
`
`Studies in Pharmaceutics at the University. From 1998 to 1999 I served as the Head of
`
`the Department of Pharmaceutics at the University of Minnesota.
`
`6.
`
`Also, from 1982 to 1995, I served as Director of the Clinical
`
`Pharmacokinetics Laboratory at the College of Pharmacy at the University of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`7.
`
`During my career, I received several honors, scholarships and awards,
`
`including the Weaver Medal of Honor in 2001, the Meritorious Manuscript Award from
`
`the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists in 1999 and the Hallie Bruce
`
`Memorial Lecture Award in 1996.
`
`In 2007, I received the American Pharmacists
`
`Association (APhA) Research Achievement Award in the Basic Pharmaceutical
`
`Sciences.
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of numerous scientific and clinical societies.
`
`I am a Fellow
`
`of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists and of the American
`
`Association for the Advancement of Science.
`
`I have been a member of the International
`
`Society of Anti—infective Pharmacology and the International Society for the Study of
`
`InnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0002
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`Xenobiotics (ISSX).
`
`I recently served as a member—at—Iarge on the American
`
`Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) Executive Council.
`
`9.
`
`I have served on the editorial boards of scientific journals such as the
`
`Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and the Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal.
`
`I am
`
`currently on the Editorial Board of the AAPS Journal, and on the ISSX Journal,
`
`Xenobiotica.
`
`I have also served on numerous advisory committees and review panels.
`
`10.
`
`I have participated in multiple research projects focused in the areas of
`
`preclinical and clinical pharmacokinetics, both publicly and privately funded. I am a
`
`named author on over 100 refereed scientific publications, in addition to several book
`
`chapters, a book that I co—edited on drug bioavailability, and over 170 abstracts which
`
`have been presented at scientific meetings.
`
`I have also given hundreds of invited
`
`lectures.
`
`11.
`
`I have significant experience in the areas of pharmaceutical research,
`
`pharmacokinetics, and drug development. Therefore, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`render the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`12.
`
`I have read the Office Action dated September 16, 2011 (“Office Action”),
`
`which is attached as Exhibit 2. Among other rejections, I understand that the Office
`
`Action rejects the claims pending in the captioned application as unpatentable over the
`
`following references:
`
`a.
`
`McLeskey et al., “Tamoxifen—resistant fibroblast growth factor—transfected
`
`MCF—7 cells are cross—resistant in vivo to the antiestrogen ICI 182,780 and
`
`InnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0003
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—00000
`
`two aromatase inhibitors”, Clinical Cancel Research 42697-711 (1998)
`
`(“McLeske)/’, attached hereto as Exhibit 3);
`
`b.
`
`European Patent Specification No. EP 0 346 014, which names Michael
`
`Dukes as inventor (“Dukes”, attached hereto as Exhibit 4);
`
`c.
`
`Osborne et aI., “Comparison of the effects of a pure steroidal antiestrogen
`
`with those of tamoxifen in a model of human breast cancer”, J. National
`
`Cancer Institute, 87(20):746—75O (1995) (“Osborne”, attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 5); and
`
`d.
`
`the abstract of Wakeling et al., “|C| 182,780, a new antioestrogen with
`
`clinical potential”, J. Steroid Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, 43(1-
`
`3):173—177 (1992) (“Wakeling”, attached hereto as Exhibit 6);
`
`13.
`
`I have read the instant application (“the ’887 application”), which I believe
`
`corresponds to U.S. Application Publication No. US 2010/0152149 (attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 7.)
`
`14.
`
`I attach hereto Exhibit 8, which I believe is a copy of the pending claims in
`
`the ’887 application with proposed amendments.
`
`I understand the claims in Exhibit 8
`
`will be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office as part of the response to the Office
`
`Action.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the earliest priority date for the ’887 application is
`
`January 10, 2000.
`
`In the paragraphs below, I will refer to the state of the art in the
`
`areas of pharmaceutical research, pharmacokinetics, and drug development prior to
`
`January 10, 2000.
`
`I will also explain how a person of ordinary skill in that art at that time
`
`InnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0004
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`would have understood the references cited in the Office Action and how such a person
`
`would have interpreted certain experimental results related to various fulvestrant
`
`formulations.
`
`Disclosure in McLeskey regarding the castor oil fulvestrant composition
`
`16. McLeskey discloses two fulvestrant compositions. One composition was
`
`prepared by dissolving powdered drug in 100% ethanol and then spiking it into warmed
`
`peanut oil to give a final concentration of 50 mg/ml (“the McLeskey peanut oil
`
`composition”). McLeskey at 698, col. 2, under “Drugs”. The second composition is a
`
`50 mg/ml fulvestrant composition “in a vehicle of 10% ethanol, 15% benzyl benzoate,
`
`10% benzyl alcohol, brought to volume with castor oil” (“the McLeskey castor oil
`
`composition”).
`
`Id. McLeskey does not specify whether the percentages in the castor oil
`
`composition are in weight/volume units (% w/v, as recited in the claims of the ’887
`
`application) or in volume/volume units (% v/v).
`
`17.
`
`In a liquid composition, when a solute or cosolvent is a liquid, it is often
`
`convenient to express its concentration as a volume percent, i.e., % v/v. For the
`
`reasons that follow,
`
`I believe one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded the
`
`McLeskey castor oil composition was described in volume/volume units (% v/v).
`
`18.
`
`For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,164,520 (“the ’52O patent”, attached as
`
`Exhibit 9) entitled “|njectable Steroid Compositions Containing at least 75% Benzyl
`
`Benzoate” discloses the preparation of parenteral injections of steroid drugs in
`
`formulations containing benzyl benzoate, and often also containing castor oil or sesame
`
`oil. See, e.g., the working examples. The ’52O patent states: “The amount of benzyl
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0005
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—00000
`
`benzoate which may be employed in the compositions of this invention while still
`
`yielding satisfactory results has been found to range from about 75% to 100% by
`
`volume of the pharmaceutical vehicle employed.” The ’520 patent at col. 2, II. 10-14.
`
`In
`
`addition, each of the four claims of the ’520 patent refers to a parenteral steroid
`
`formulation in a pharmaceutical vehicle or pharmaceutical carrier wherein at least 75%
`
`by volume of said vehicle is benzyl benzoate.
`
`19.
`
`Raymond Huber, the named inventor of the ’520 patent, is a co—author of a
`
`similar publication in which parenteral formulations of steroid hormones in castor oil are
`
`described. Riffkin, C., Huber, R., and Keysser, C.H., “Castor oil as a vehicle for
`
`parenteral administration of steroid hormones”, J Pharm Sci, 53(8): 891-95 (1964)
`
`(“Riffkin”, attached as Exhibit 10). Riffkin lists the compositions of various vehicles
`
`prepared in Tables IV to VI, which reference liquid components and their proportions in
`
`the overall composition in terms of percentage units (“%”). Although Riffkin does not
`
`specifically state that those compositions are % v/v, one would understand them to be
`
`% v/v because Riffkin refers to the concentrations of the solid solutes (the steroids) in
`
`terms of w/v, (e.g., mg./m|.), whereas the concentrations of the liquid components are
`
`simply reported in terms of “%” units. See, e.g., Tables V and VI. One would
`
`reasonably assume that, had Riffkin intended the concentration of the liquid
`
`components to be in terms of % w/v units, Riffkin would have explicitly indicated that
`
`fact, as it did for the solid components. Footnote 4 is another example of the use of the
`
`above nomenclature. Footnote 4 refers to the concentration of estradiol valerate in the
`
`injectable formulations, in terms of “mg./m|.”, but refers to a “%” value for the liquids—
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0006
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`castor oil, benzyl benzoate, and benzyl alcohol. Therefore, one would conclude that the
`
`composition of the solvents in Riffkin’s vehicles is expressed as % v/v.
`
`20.
`
`Other publications also describe the composition of injectable formulations
`
`comprising liquid solvents or co—so|vents on a “by volume” basis. For example, a
`
`published review tabulates various excipients included in the formulation of injectable
`
`products marketed in the Unites States. Neema, S, Washkuhn, R.J., and Brendel, R.J.,
`
`“Excipients and their use in injectable products”, PDA JPharm Sci Tech, 51(4):166—171
`
`(1997)(“Neema”, attached as Exhibit 11). Neema lists liquid solvents, co—so|vents, and
`
`solubilizing agents, and identifies commercial products in which the content of such
`
`liquid agents is described on a % v/v basis (e.g., benzyl benzoate, 20% v/v; PEG 40
`
`castor oil, 11.5% v/v; sorbitol, 50% v/v). See, e.g., Tables I and II.
`
`21.
`
`Considering the above examples, and because all of the components of
`
`the vehicle disclosed in McLeskey are liquids, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`concluded that the composition was described in terms of volume/volume percent units
`
`(% v/v).
`
`22.
`
`Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that the
`
`McLeskey castor oil composition on page 698 was reported in % v/v units and referred
`
`to a composition containing 10% y/v ethanol, 15% v/v benzyl benzoate, and 10% ylv
`
`benzyl alcohol in a castor oil vehicle. This composition is different from a composition
`
`containing 10% w/v ethanol, 15% w/v benzyl benzoate, and 10% w/v benzyl alcohol in
`
`a castor oil vehicle.
`
`lnnoPharma Exhibit 1019.000?
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—0O0OO
`
`23.
`
`It is possible to convert % v/v values for a given component in a liquid
`
`composition into % w/v values by calculating the weight of the corresponding volume of
`
`that component in the composition. As a first approximation, the weight of the
`
`component can be calculated by multiplying the volume of the component by its density.
`
`24.
`
`In order to facilitate this calculation, I assumed the preparation of 100 ml
`
`of the McLeskey castor oil composition and reported the associated volume and weight
`
`values in Table 1 below, using densities reported or calculated at 25°C. The resulting %
`
`w/v values are independent of the choice of a particular volume of the McLeskey castor
`
`oil composition for this calculation. However, a volume of 100 ml of the castor oil
`
`composition was selected for simplicity to show the corresponding volumes and
`
`weights. The differences between % v/v and % w/v compositions for each of the three
`
`components can be seen by comparing the values in Columns A and E.
`
`It should be
`
`noted that although these compositions are identical, they are described differently; in
`
`Column A, the composition is described on a percentage “by volume” (% v/v) basis, and
`
`in Column E, the composition is described on a percentage “by weight” (% w/v) basis.
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0008
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—00000
`
`Table 1. Information for 100 ml of the fulvestrant McLeskey castor oil composition‘
`
`jj
`“‘:L‘:.3“°
`i’..‘:3?.:fI
`“?;%’“‘
`°-°°°
`
`E‘“a“°'
`Benzyl
`
`
`
`Benzyl
`
`25.
`
`In Table 1, Column A represents the concentration of each component in
`
`the McLeskey castor oil composition in % vlv units (i.e., as one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in would have understood the McLeskey disclosure). Column B represents the volume
`
`in milliliters (ml) of each component necessary to prepare 100 ml of the McLeskey
`
`castor oil composition.
`
`26.
`
`Column C represents the density of each component in g/ml at 25°C,
`
`reported or calculated from published relative density data from the Merck Index,
`
`Exhibit 12. The Merck Index reports specific gravity values for liquid substances as the
`
`ratio of the density of the substance at a given temperature relative to the density of
`
`water at a reference temperature. Exhibit 12 at p. xiv (entry for “d”). Regarding the
`
`benzyl benzoate and benzyl alcohol values, their densities were reported at 25°C and
`
`1 McLeskey does not indicate whether the ethanol used in its castor oil fulvestrant
`composition is dehydrated ethanol or the binary azeotropic ethanol composition
`containing about 96% ethanol by volume (see entry no. 3806 for ethanol in the Merck
`Index, 12th Ed., Merck & Co., Inc. (1996) at pp. 641-642 (“the Merck Index”, relevant
`copies attached as Exhibit 8)). The value in Table 1 for the density of ethanol
`corresponds to the density of the azeotropic ethanol composition. The density of
`dehydrated ethanol is 0.789 mg/ml at 20°C (Exhibit 8), which would produce an even
`lower w/v% value for ethanol than that reported in Table 1.
`
`InnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0009
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—00000
`
`the density of water was reported at 4°C (Exhibit 12 at entries no. 1159, 1162;
`
`pp. 189-190). Because the density of water at 3.98°C is 1.0000 g/ml (Exhibit 12 at
`
`entry 10175; p. 1715), the values reported in the Merck Index for benzyl benzoate and
`
`benzyl alcohol were used in Table 1 as the corresponding densities in mg/ml
`
`(considering that 3.98°C is 4°C for purposes of this calculation). For ethanol, the Merck
`
`Index reports a specific gravity of 0.810 at 25°C with respect to the density of water at
`
`25°C (Exhibit 12 at entry no. 3806; p. 642). Thus, to obtain the density of ethanol (the
`
`binary azeotrope) at 25°C, I multiplied the density of water at 25°C, 0.997 mg/ml
`
`(Exhibit 12 at entry no. 10175; p. 1715), by the specific gravity reported in the Merck
`
`Index (0.810) to produce a value of 0.808 mg/ml for the density of ethanol at 25°C.
`
`27.
`
`Column D represents the weight of each component, obtained by
`
`multiplying the volume of each component (Column B) by its density (Column C).
`
`Column E represents the concentration of each component in the McLeskey castor oil
`
`composition in w/v% units, which is the weight of each component (Column D) in 100 ml
`
`of solution (the total volume of the composition) after rounding the value to a single
`
`decimal place.
`
`28.
`
`Accordingly, based on the values in Table 1, a composition containing
`
`10% v/v ethanol, 15% v/v benzyl benzoate, and 10% v/v benzyl alcohol translates into a
`
`composition containing about 8.1% w/v ethanol, about 16.8 % w/v benzyl benzoate, and
`
`about 10.4% w/v benzyl alcohol.
`
`29.
`
`Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art reading McLeskey would have
`
`concluded that McLeskey described a composition containing about 8.1% w/v ethanol,
`
`-10-
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0010
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`about 16.8 % w/v benzyl benzoate, and about 10.4% w/v benzyl alcohol in a castor oil
`
`vehicle.
`
`30.
`
`Neither McLeskey nor any of the references cited in the Office Action
`
`contain any disclosure that would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
`
`modification of a composition containing about 8.1% w/v ethanol, about 16.8 % w/v
`
`benzyl benzoate, and about 10.4% w/v benzyl alcohol (i.e., the McLeskey castor oil
`
`composition) in an attempt to produce a composition as recited in the claims containing
`
`about 10% w/v ethanol, about 15% w/v benzyl benzoate, and about 10% w/v benzyl
`
`alcohol.
`
`Disclosure in McLeskey regarding administration of fulvestrant compositions
`
`31.
`
`As mentioned above, McLeskey disclosed two different fulvestrant
`
`compositions, the peanut oil composition and the castor oil composition. McLeskey at
`
`698. McLeskey, however, did not provide any experimental data that would have
`
`allowed one of ordinary skill in the art to compare any aspect of the performance of the
`
`two fulvestrant compositions for the treatment of cancerous tumors. Therefore,
`
`McLeskey provided no information that would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art the desirability of either of its fulvestrant compositions over other known
`
`fulvestrant formulations.
`
`32. McLeskey did not disclose plasma or blood levels of fulvestrant in mice
`
`after subcutaneous administration of either the peanut oil or the castor oil compositions.
`
`Thus, no information regarding the rate and/or extent of absorption of fulvestrant from
`
`-11-
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0011
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`the subcutaneous injection site is available to one of ordinary skill in the art for either
`
`composition.
`
`33. McLeskey concluded that treatment with fulvestrant (ICI 182,780), using
`
`either of the disclosed compositions was not effective in that it “did not slow estrogen-
`
`independent growth or prevent metastasis of tumors produced by FGF—transfected
`
`MCF—7 cells in ovariectomized nude mice.” McLeskey at Abstract. Thus, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have been informed about the usefulness of either
`
`fulvestrant formulation when administered subcutaneously to a mouse for the treatment
`
`of cancerous tumors.
`
`34. McLeskey also reports that fulvestrant “retained activity” based on the
`
`results from injecting fulvestrant into “reproductive|y intact female mice for two
`
`weeks .
`
`.
`
`. at the same doses used in the above experiment” and the uteri subsequently
`
`harvested from those mice “weighed less than those from control mice and exhibited a
`
`complete lack of endometrial glandular structures (data not shown).” Id. at ‘H bridging
`
`701-702. Unfortunately, McLeskey does not specify which of the two fulvestrant
`
`formulations, if any, (the peanut oil composition or the castor oil composition), was used
`
`in these experiments. McLeskey does not disclose the route of administration
`
`(subcutaneous, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, etc.) for the injection of fulvestrant into
`
`those “reproductive|y intact female mice.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art reading
`
`McLeskey cannot draw any conclusions regarding the extent to which fulvestrant
`
`administered subcutaneously became absorbed, if at all, when using the peanut oil or
`
`the castor oil compositions.
`
`-12-
`
`lnnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0012
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—00000
`
`35.
`
`Indeed, because of the lack of fulvestrant efficacy and the absence of
`
`pharmacokinetic data in McLeskey, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`unable to conclude whether either of the two fulvestrant McLeskey compositions
`
`(peanut oil or castor oil) was able to deliver a dose of fulvestrant that had an antitumor
`
`therapeutic effect in the mice when administered subcutaneously, nor any insight about
`
`fulvestrant absorption characteristics (rate and extent) when administered via the
`
`intramuscular route in any species, including humans.
`
`36.
`
`Thus, McLeskey provides no information that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have a preference for either the peanut oil or the castor oil
`
`fulvestrant compositions over the other one, or even a preference for one of the two
`
`McLeskey fulvestrant compositions over other fulvestrant compositions known in the art
`
`prior to January 10, 2000.
`
`37. While I have not performed a search for fulvestrant compositions known in
`
`the art prior to January 10, 2000, I note that some of the references cited by the
`
`Examiner in the Office Action do disclose other fulvestrant compositions. For example,
`
`Osborne discloses experiments in which a composition of fulvestrant “in castor oil’’ was
`
`injected subcutaneously to female nude mice. Osborne (Exhibit 5) at 747, col. 1.
`
`Based on the positive results of those experiments, Osborne concludes that fulvestrant
`
`“is a more effective estrogen antagonist than tamoxifen in the MCF—7 tumor cell/nude
`
`mouse model system.” Osborne at Abstract.
`
`38.
`
`The fulvestrant composition in Wake/ing is described as having fulvestrant
`
`“in oil suspension” for parenteral administration to mice. Wake/ing (Exhibit 6) at
`
`-13-
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 10190013
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`Abstract. Wake/ing reports that, “over a 1 month period, a single injection of
`
`[fulvestrant] in oil suspension achieved effects comparable with those of daily tamoxifen
`
`treatment.” Id.
`
`39.
`
`Dukes discloses two different fulvestrant compositions for intramuscular
`
`injection, one containing fulvestrant dissolved “in a mixture of propylene glycol: ethanol:
`
`water: poloxamer 407” administered daily by intramuscular injection to rats. Dukes
`
`(Exhibit 4) at Example 2, p. 8. The second composition contained 50 mg of fulvestrant,
`
`“4OO mg of benzyl alcohol and sufficient castor oil to bring the solution to a volume of 1
`
`ml.” Id. at Example 3, p. 9. For each composition, Dukes reports that “at all doses
`
`tested the compound [fulvestrant] selectively inhibits the action of the animals’
`
`endogenous oestrogen on their uteri.” Id. at Examples 2 & 3, pp. 8-9.
`
`40.
`
`Thus, it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art had other choices
`
`besides the McLeskey castor oil composition with respect to potential fulvestrant
`
`formulations that could have been further investigated for the development of a method
`
`of treating humans with intramuscularfulvestrant. However, none of the references
`
`cited in the Office Action provides any information that would have guided one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to select the McLeskey castor oil composition, over any of the
`
`other fulvestrant compositions mentioned above, for the potential development of such
`
`a method of treatment.
`
`41. Moreover, none of the references cited by the Examiner provides any
`
`guidance as to the relevant factors to consider when selecting a formulation for the
`
`potential development of a method of treatment as recited in the instant claims.
`
`-14-
`
`lnnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0014
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—0O0OO
`
`However, judging solely on the basis of efficacy, the McLeskey castor oil composition
`
`would have been among the least favored compositions to select for further
`
`development from the fulvestrant compositions discussed above because the McLeskey
`
`experiments were ineffective and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
`
`able to conclude from the information in McLeskey whether fulvestrant, using that
`
`composition, was sufficiently bioavailable to have an antitumor effect.
`
`In this regard,
`
`and considering only efficacy, the fulvestrant oil suspension from Wake/ing would have
`
`been among the most favored formulations to select for further development from
`
`among those discussed above because at least that formulation, when given as a single
`
`injection, showed a therapeutic antitumor effect in mice for over a one—month period.
`
`Lack of disclosure in McLeskey regarding intramuscular efficacy of either
`
`fulvestrant composition disclosed therein
`
`42.
`
`The mode of administration of a drug (e.g., oral, intramuscular,
`
`subcutaneous, etc.) and the dose administered affects the release profile of the drug.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that results from subcutaneous
`
`administration in general, and including those reported in McLeskey, cannot be
`
`extrapolated to intramuscular administration. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have had an expectation as to whether the McLeskey castor oil composition
`
`would have had a therapeutic effect when administered intramuscularly before actually
`
`performing suitable in vivo experiments.
`
`43.
`
`There is abundant evidence in the scientific literature that the
`
`intramuscular and subcutaneous administration of a drug to the same animal or human
`
`-15-
`
`lnnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0015
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`may produce very different plasma level curves, and therefore very different
`
`pharmacologic effects. These effects include the desired effects (efficacy) and those
`
`that are not desired (adverse events, or side effects).
`
`If a drug is poorly absorbed from
`
`the injected site, (e.g., too slowly, or to only a modest extent) the drug may show no
`
`effects whatsoever.
`
`44.
`
`For example, a study in sheep using probenecid, a drug which may be
`
`used to prolong the half—life of some antibiotics in animals, demonstrates significant
`
`differences in the absorption of intramuscular and subcutaneous injections of
`
`probenecid. Guerrini V.H., Filippich L.J., English P.B., Schneider J., Cao G.R. and
`
`Bourne D.W.A., “Pharmacokinetics of probenecid in sheep”, J Vet Pharmacol Ther.
`
`8(2):128—35 (1985) (“GuerrinI”, attached as Exhibit 13).
`
`45.
`
`Those investigators administered probenecid to ewes in doses of 1 gram
`
`by both intramuscular and subcutaneous injection. Guerrini at 129. The study shows
`
`that the absorption of probenecid is more rapid and complete following intramuscular
`
`injection, compared to subcutaneous injection.
`
`Id. at Abstract. Guerrini reports that the
`
`bioavailability of the intramuscular dose was 135% of that of the subcutaneous dose
`
`(corresponding to an average bioavailability of 46% for intramuscular injection
`
`compared with an average bioavailability of 34% for subcutaneous injection).
`
`Id. The
`
`subcutaneous dose was also absorbed more slowly, with average plasma levels of the
`
`drug peaking at 1.5 hr, compared to 0.67 hrfor the intramuscular dose. Id. at 131.
`
`Because of this slower absorption following subcutaneous dosing, probenecid plasma
`
`concentrations remained higher after 2 hours when the drug was administered
`
`-16-
`
`lnnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0016
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—00000
`
`subcutaneously than when it was administered intramuscularly.
`
`Id. at 135. Consistent
`
`with these observations, the rate constant for absorption for the intramuscular dose was
`
`41% greater than for the subcutaneous dose (5.45 vs. 3.87 hr '1).
`
`Id. at 133.
`
`46.
`
`In this case, despite the overall higher bioavailability of intramuscular
`
`probenecid, the “higher and more prolonged plasma probenecid concentration”
`
`following subcutaneous administration resulted in “similar plasma concentrations to
`
`those found in man after oral administration.” Id. at 135. Guerrini concludes that “[t]he
`
`s.c. [subcutaneous] administration of probenecid in animals is preferred [to
`
`intramuscular administration] because muscle damage is avoided and it provided useful
`
`plasma concentrations.” Id. Thus, this is an example where subcutaneous
`
`administration achieves a certain desired result but where intramuscular administration
`
`does not accomplish the same result.
`
`47.
`
`Another study shows that, contrary to the pharmacokinetic profiles
`
`observed in Guerrini, subcutaneous administration resulted in faster absorption
`
`compared to intramuscular injection. Lavy E, Ziv G, Shem—Tov M, Glickman A, Dey A.,
`
`“Pharmacokinetics of clindamycin HCI administered intravenously, intramuscularly and
`
`subcutaneously to dogs”, J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 22(4):261—5 (1999) (“Lavy/’, attached
`
`as Exhibit 14).
`
`48.
`
`Lavy reports that when a 10 mg/kg dose of clindamycin HCI, an antibioitic,
`
`was given subcutaneously to dogs, the average maximum blood serum concentration
`
`(Cmax) of clindamycin was 20.8 ug/ml, and the time when this maximum occurred
`
`(Tmax) averaged 46.7 min. Lavy at Table 3. When the same dose was given
`
`-17-
`
`|nnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0017
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—0O0OO
`
`intramuscularly to the same animals, the corresponding values for Cmax and Tmax
`
`were 4.4 ug/ml and 73 min, exhibiting a very much slower rate of absorption.
`
`Id.
`
`In
`
`addition, the exposure of the dogs to clindamycin, assessed through an analysis of the
`
`plasma serum area under the curve (AUC) was 2.9 times greater for the subcutaneous
`
`dose than for the intramuscular dose.
`
`Id. This means that the bioavailability of the
`
`subcutaneous dose of this drug is 2.9 times that of the intramuscular dose.
`
`49.
`
`Based on the differences in pharmacokinetic profiles for subcutaneous
`
`and intramuscular administration, Lavy concludes that “it appears from the present
`
`study that the s.c. [subcutaneous] route is superior to the i.m. [intramuscular] in practical
`
`terms by permitting a longer treatment interval.” Id. at 265. This is another example in
`
`which subcutaneous administration is able to fulfill certain design criteria (maintain a
`
`therapeutic plasma concentration for a longer period of time) better than intramuscular
`
`administration. Therefore, under these circumstances, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not have been able to rely on data from subcutaneous administration to predict
`
`results of intramuscular administration because intramuscular administration would not
`
`have produced the same level of Iong—term efficacy achieved by subcutaneous
`
`administration.
`
`50.
`
`There are other reports in the literature that show that, in contrast to the
`
`results from Lavy, the absorption of a drug is more rapid and complete following
`
`intramuscular dosing than after subcutaneous injection. For example, when the
`
`fluoroquinolone antimicrobial agent difloxacin was given by these routes to the same
`
`calves in a crossover study, the rates of absorption differed greatly, with intramuscular
`
`-18-
`
`InnoPharma Exhibit 1019.0018
`
`
`
`Application No.: 12/285,887
`Attorney Docket No.: 11285.0056—OOOOO
`
`injection showing higher and earlier peak plasma concentrations, confirming much more
`
`rapid absorption.
`
`Ismail M., “Disposition kinetics of difloxacin after intravenous,
`
`intramuscular and subcutaneous administration in calves”, Vet Res Commun.,
`
`31(4):467—76 (2007) (“IsmaiI”, attached as Exhibit 15).
`
`51.
`
`After intramuscular and subcutaneous dosing, maximum plasma
`
`concentrations (Cmax) of 3.38 and 2.18 pg/ml were observed after (Tmax) 1.22 and 3.7
`
`hr, respectively.
`
`Ismail at Abstract. The time for half of the dose to be absorbed when
`
`given by intramuscular injection was only 0.38 hr, whereas the corresponding time for
`
`absorption of the subcutaneously injected dose was 2.1 hr, over 5 times as long.
`
`Id. at
`
`473.
`
`52.
`
`Under the conditions of its study, Ismail concludes that “the doses of
`
`difloxacin used in this study are likely to involve better pharmacodynamic characteristics
`
`that are associated with greater clinical efficacy following i.m. [intramuscular]
`
`administration than following s.c. [subcutaneous] administration.” Id. at Abstract.
`
`In this
`
`case, contrary to the two examples above, the intramuscular administration was
`
`considered to be associated with greater clinical efficacy.
`
`53.
`
`These three examples above show that there are significant differences in
`
`the rate and extent of absorption of a drug given by the intramuscular and
`
`subcutaneous route, even when given to the same animals in a crossover study. As a
`
`result