`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALCON RESEARCH, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STEPHEN SHANNON, MBA, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`ALCON 2007
`Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd.
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`I, Stephen Shannon, MBA, Ph.D., hereby declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen and otherwise competent to make this
`
`declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by counsel to provide a declaration attesting to how
`
`certain data in the specification of U.S. Patent No. 8,268,299 (the “’299 patent”)
`
`related to preservative efficacy testing (“PET”), sometimes called antimicrobial
`
`effectiveness testing (“AET”), were generated.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`I am currently the Alcon R&D Microbiology Function Head, and, as
`
`such, I am responsible for the management and oversight of preservative efficacy
`
`testing conducted at Alcon.
`
`4.
`
`Prior to assuming my current position in 2015, I was part of the R&D
`
`Microbiology Management Team, which included managing the PET working
`
`group at Alcon. I held that position for more than six years.
`
`5.
`
`I have been involved with PET at Alcon since I began my
`
`employment with the company in 1995.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Quantitative Biology (Microbiology) from The
`
`University of Texas in 2006. I also received an MBA (Information Systems) from
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`The University of Texas in 2001, and a Bachelors of Science degree (Marine
`
`Biology) from Texas A&M University in 1991.
`
`III. DATA IN THE ’299 PATENT SPECIFICATION
`7.
`As a Manager in the R&D Microbiology Department, I was involved
`
`in the preservative efficacy testing the R&D Microbiology Department conducted
`
`of certain formulations described in the specification of the ’299 patent, including
`
`the Examples discussed herein. As such, I have first-hand knowledge of the testing
`
`described below.
`
`8.
`
`Preservative efficacy refers to the ability of a formulation to maintain
`
`acceptable levels of antimicrobial activity. The requirements for preservative
`
`efficacy are spelled out in the United States Pharmacopeia (“USP”), or in one of its
`
`various foreign counterparts, such as the European Pharmacopeia (“Ph. Eur.”).
`
`9.
`
`At Alcon, the R&D Microbiology Department performs PET on
`
`formulations prepared by another group; the R&D Microbiology Department does
`
`not prepare the formulations to be tested. Rather, a separate group prepares the
`
`formulations and provides them to the R&D Microbiology Department for testing.
`
`10.
`
`I am familiar with the way in which Alcon keeps its records related to
`
`PET. In its usual and ordinary course of business, Alcon issues numbered
`
`laboratory notebooks to scientists, who use the notebooks to record their work
`
`relating to the testing of formulations, including PET. Notebooks may relate to
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`more than one project. Each notebook page should generally identify the particular
`
`notebook number and the page number, the title of the experiment and the project
`
`number.
`
`11. Alcon also maintains an electronic database of PET results. This
`
`database is called the Laboratory Information Management System, referred to as
`
`LIMS.
`
`12. Alcon maintains laboratory notebooks and LIMS reports in the usual
`
`and ordinary course of its business, and did so during the time of the PET
`
`discussed herein of certain Example formulations described in the ’299 patent.
`
`13. Examples D – F, L – N, and U – W as set forth in the specification of
`
`the ’299 patent describe formulations which were provided to the Microbiology
`
`Department for PET. The ’299 patent identifies the particular formulation by
`
`listing the formulation identification number (“FID”) and lot number for each
`
`formulation. I am familiar with the PET of the particular formulations described in
`
`Examples D – F, L – N, and U – W of the ’299 patent, which was conducted by the
`
`scientists in the Microbiology Department.
`
`14. Each formulation described in Examples D – F, L – N, and U – W of
`
`the ’299 patent was tested according to standard practices used within the field of
`
`microbiology. The formulations in Examples D – F and L – N were subject to an
`
`organism challenge test, according to the methods described in the USP 24 for
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`category 1A products (which includes ophthalmic products). In an organism
`
`challenge test, a sample of a particular formulation is inoculated with known levels
`
`of different types of bacteria and fungi. The samples are then evaluated at intervals
`
`of 7, 14 and 28 days to determine if the preservative system in the formulation was
`
`capable of killing, or inhibiting the propagation of, the organisms introduced into
`
`the formulation.
`
`15. The amount of antimicrobial activity at the particular time intervals is
`
`used to assess whether the formulation satisfies USP 24 requirements. In general,
`
`for bacteria, formulations must have sufficient anti-bacterial activity to reduce an
`
`initial inoculum of approximately 105 to 106 bacteria by one log (i.e., a 90%
`
`reduction in the population) over a period of seven days and by three logs (i.e., a
`
`99.9% reduction in the population) over a period of fourteen days, and must also
`
`show no increase in the microorganism population following the conclusion of the
`
`14-day period. For fungi, the formulations must maintain stasis (i.e., no growth)
`
`relative to the population of the initial inoculum over the entire 28-day test period.
`
`These USP 24 standards are substantially the same as the requirements in the
`
`subsequent versions of the USP up through and including USP 27.
`
`16. The formulations described in Examples U – W were tested using a
`
`modified PET screen test. The test method itself is similar to that described in the
`
`preceding paragraphs, but different time intervals are applied during the testing.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`Instead of the samples being evaluated at 7, 14 and 28 days, bacterial levels are
`
`assessed at 6 hours, 24 hours, and 7 days, and fungi levels are assessed at 7 days.
`
`The modified test has been shown to be reliable for predicting whether a
`
`composition will meet either the USP or Ph. Eur. B. standards.
`
`17. To satisfy the Ph. Eur. B standard, the formulation must show a
`
`reduction as to the bacteria of 1 log at 24 hours, and 3 logs at 7 days, with no
`
`increase thereafter, and, for the fungi, a reduction of 1 log by day 14, and no
`
`increase thereafter.
`
`18. The procedures and results for each test are described in detail in the
`
`respective laboratory notebook entries. True and correct copies of the relevant
`
`laboratory notebook entries are attached as exhibits to this declaration as follows:
`
`SAMPLE ID
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`EXAMPLE
`
`FID
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`L
`
`M
`
`N
`
`U
`
`106737
`
`106757
`
`106039
`
`107047
`
`109032
`
`109033
`
`112148
`
`LOT
`NO.
`04-
`36171
`04-
`36176
`04-
`36405
`04-
`37157
`05-
`40452
`05-
`40453
`07-
`46931
`
`LAB NB NO.
`& PAGE
`10750:19
`
`200191978
`
`10545:41
`
`200191982
`
`10750:21
`
`200193447
`
`10545:51
`
`200197918
`
`10750:81
`
`200213082
`
`10750:81
`
`200213084
`
`12586:63
`
`200249214
`
`6
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2011
`
`2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V
`
`W
`
`112286
`
`112287
`
`07-
`47249
`07-
`47250
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`12034:91
`
`200250480
`
`12034:91
`
`200250481
`
`2022
`
`2022
`
`19. For clarity, there is a typographical error in the formulation lot
`
`number listed in the ’299 patent for example W. The specification incorrectly lists
`
`the lot number as 07-47632. The correct lot number is 07-47250, as is reflected in
`
`the laboratory notebook.
`
`20. Once testing on each formulation was completed, the final results
`
`were recorded in the laboratory notebooks and entered into LIMS. A form
`
`reflecting the data recorded in LIMS was then provided to Alcon’s formulation
`
`development group, or the data were made available to them in LIMS.
`
`21. Based on my involvement and the involvement of the R&D
`
`Microbiology Department in the preservative efficacy testing of Examples D – F,
`
`L – N, and U – W, I have personal knowledge that, aside from the one
`
`typographical error mentioned in paragraph 19, the PET data set forth in the ’299
`
`patent are true and correct for Examples D – F, L – N, and U – W.
`
`22.
`
`I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`
`States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that all statements
`
`made of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1PR2017-01053
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`