`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ACTAVIS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01100
`Patent 8,853,260 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF EDMUND J. ELDER, Jr., Ph.D., R.Ph.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 1 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 2
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS USED IN MY ANALYSIS ...................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prior art .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Person of ordinary skill in the art .......................................................... 7
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. OBVIOUSNESS ............................................................................................ 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Increasing the concentration of active drug in pharmaceutical
`formulations was generally obvious and routine as of June 1997. ..... 13
`
`Reducing the particle size of pharmaceutical formulations was
`generally obvious and routine as of June 1997. .................................. 15
`
`Optimizing the physical stability of pharmaceutical suspensions
`was generally obvious and routine as of June 1997. ........................... 17
`
`The allegedly “unexpected” results asserted by Patent Owner
`regarding stability would have been expected as of June 1997. ......... 20
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 2 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS CITED
`
`Description
`
`Desai et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,853,260 B2, “Formulations of Phar-
`macological Agents, Methods for the Preparation thereof and Meth-
`ods for the Use thereof” (issued Oct. 7, 2014) (the “(cid:1932)260 patent”)
`Declaration of Cory J. Berkland, Ph.D.
`in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Desai et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,439,686, “Methods for In Vivo Deliv-
`ery of Substantially Water Insoluble Pharmacologically Active
`Agents and Compositions Useful therefor” (issued Aug. 8, 1995)
`(“Desai”)
`Shively, U.S. Patent No. 5,407,683, “Pharmaceutical Solutions and
`Emulsions Containing Taxol” (issued Apr. 18, 1995) (“Shively”)
`Liversidge et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,399,363, “Surface Modified An-
`ticancer Nanoparticles” (issued Mar. 21, 1995) (“Liversidge”)
`Remington’s Pharmaceutical Sciences (18th ed. 1990), Chapt. 19,
`“Disperse Systems,” and Chapt. 78, “Sterilization” (“Remington’s”)
`U.S. Application No. 11/520,479, Supplemental Declaration of Neil
`P. Desai Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 (dated Nov. 1, 2013)
`(“Second Inventor Declaration”)
`List et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,389,382, “Hydrosols of Pharmacologi-
`cally Active Agents and their Pharmaceutical Compositions Com-
`prising Them” (issued Feb. 14, 1995) (“List”)
`
`
`
`EX
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1024
`
`1027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 3 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Edmund J. Elder, Jr., Ph.D., R.Ph., hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I am the Director of the Zeeh Pharmaceutical Experiment Station at
`
`the School of Pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I have been re-
`
`tained by Petitioner Actavis LLC in connection with its request for inter partes re-
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 8,853,260 (“the ’260 patent”). A copy of the ’260 patent
`
`has been marked EX1001. I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’260 patent.
`
`Generally, it describes and claims pharmaceutical compositions comprising the an-
`
`ticancer drug paclitaxel bound to the protein albumin and formulated as nanoparti-
`
`cles, and methods of using such compositions to treat diseases including cancer.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent opinions regarding the
`
`patentability of claims 1–27 of the ’260 patent (the “challenged claims”) and to re-
`
`view the Declaration of Cory J. Berkland in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review, which has been marked EX1002. This declaration includes a discussion
`
`of my background and qualifications, the legal standards used in my analysis, and
`
`my opinions and relevant experiences as a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`June 1997 (a “skilled artisan”) regarding the subject matter of the (cid:1932)260 patent.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this proceeding at my stand-
`
`ard hourly consulting rate of $500.00 per hour. My compensation is in no way
`
`contingent on the substance of my opinions or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 4 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`As set forth more fully below, it is my opinion that the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable because they would have been obvious to a skilled artisan
`
`as of June 1997 in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,439,686 to Desai et al. (“Desai”)
`
`(EX1003), U.S. Patent No. 5,407,683 to Shively (“Shively”) (EX1004), U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 5,399,363 to Liversidge et al. (“Liversidge”) (EX1005), and Remington’s
`
`Pharmaceutical Sciences (18th ed. 1990) (“Remington’s”) (EX1006). The bases
`
`for my opinions are set forth in this declaration.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I obtained my Bachelor of Science degree in Pharmacy, and my Doc-
`
`tor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences, from the Medical
`
`University of South Carolina in 1985 and 1989, respectively. I have over 30 years
`
`of experience characterizing materials used in the preparation of pharmaceutical
`
`products, formulating pharmaceutical products, and testing such formulations.
`
`6. My current responsibilities as Director of the Zeeh Pharmaceutical
`
`Experiment Station at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (“the Station”) include
`
`overseeing all aspects of our services, including providing pharmaceutical pre-for-
`
`mulation and formulation expertise to support pharmaceutical and biopharmaceuti-
`
`cal development collaborations across the University of Wisconsin system cam-
`
`puses and for clients outside the University. The Station works for both academia
`
`and pharmaceutical industry clients in developing and characterizing drugs and
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 5 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`pharmaceutical formulations, and providing technical expertise regarding issues
`
`arising during pharmaceutical formulation development and manufacture.
`
`7.
`
`I actively participate in educational programs sponsored by the Station
`
`in collaboration with the Division of Pharmacy Professional Development, a de-
`
`partment in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in
`
`which I teach pharmaceutical industry scientists and others in related fields about
`
`the process and science of drug development. I also serve as a guest lecturer for
`
`the graduate students in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Division providing lectures
`
`on an overview of pharmaceutical development and an introduction to formulation
`
`development, with a focus on properties of materials.
`
`8.
`
`Additionally, I am the course coordinator and senior lecturer for the
`
`Biotechnology Operations course in the Master of Science in Biotechnology pro-
`
`gram in the School of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Wisconsin-
`
`Madison. I teach sessions that include an overview of biopharmaceutical develop-
`
`ment, regulatory operations, CMC (chemistry, manufacturing, and controls) opera-
`
`tions, pre-clinical operations, and clinical operations.
`
`9.
`
`Prior to my employment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I
`
`was the Global Pharmaceutical Development Director / Applications Development
`
`Leader from April 2004 until April 2006 at Dowpharma, a business unit of the
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 6 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Dow Chemical Company that was dedicated to serving the pharmaceutical and bio-
`
`pharmaceutical industries. From August 2000 until April 2004, I was Pharmaceu-
`
`tics Director / Technical Leader of the Pharmaceutics Technologies group at The
`
`Dow Chemical Company. From February 1997 until August 2000, I was Group
`
`Leader, then Senior Group Leader, for formulation and process development at
`
`Glaxo Wellcome Inc. (now GlaxoSmithKline, Inc.).
`
`10.
`
`I began my industrial career in 1989, at the predecessor company,
`
`Glaxo Inc. From September 1989 to February 1997, I progressed from Senior Sci-
`
`entist, to Research Investigator, to Research Leader for Pharmaceutical Technol-
`
`ogy Development, to Research Leader for Liquids Process Development. As of
`
`June 27, 1997, I was the Group Leader for formulation development. During my
`
`time at Glaxo from 1989 to 1997, I regularly worked directly in formulation and
`
`process development, as well as optimization and scale-up of pharmaceutical for-
`
`mulations, including formulations of poorly soluble drugs.
`
`11.
`
`I have at least ten publications, three book contributions, and 68 scien-
`
`tific presentations (17 invited).
`
`12.
`
`I have been licensed as a pharmacist in South Carolina from 1985 to
`
`present and in Wisconsin from 2010 to present.
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 7 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I am on the Editorial Advisory Board for the journal Drug Develop-
`
`ment and Industrial Pharmacy. I have reviewed journal articles in the pharmaceu-
`
`tical sciences submitted for publication to AAPS PharmSci Tech; the European
`
`Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics; the Journal of Biomedical Nano-
`
`technology; the International Journal of Pharmaceutics; Pharmaceutical Re-
`
`search; and Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy. I have also screened sci-
`
`entific papers submitted for annual meetings of the American Association of Phar-
`
`maceutical Scientists.
`
`14.
`
`I have presented lectures and seminars at 20 Schools or Colleges of
`
`Pharmacy throughout the United States on drug development, assessment and opti-
`
`mization of drug manufacturing processes, formulation development, excipient
`
`considerations in formulations, scale-up, technology transfer, and applications of
`
`particle engineering to nanotechnologies. I have also been an instructor at continu-
`
`ing education Short Courses presented to pharmaceutical industry scientists
`
`through the UW-Madison, School of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmacy Professional
`
`Development, giving over 180 lectures covering dosage form design, drug solubili-
`
`zation, drug delivery, drug stability, and particle engineering/nanotechnology.
`
`15.
`
`I am a member of the 2015–2020 Compounding Expert Committee of
`
`the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), which is responsible for setting global
`
`standards for pharmaceuticals. I also served on the USP Compounding Expert
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 8 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Committee for the 2010–2015 review cycle. I have been a member of the Ameri-
`
`can Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists since 1987. I am also a member of
`
`Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, and a Life Member of the National Ea-
`
`gle Scout Association.
`
`16. My curriculum vitae, the Appendix to this Declaration, contains fur-
`
`ther details on my education and professional experience, as well as all of my pub-
`
`lications for the past 10 years.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS USED IN MY ANALYSIS
`17.
`I am not a patent attorney, nor have I independently researched patent
`
`law. Counsel for Petitioner have explained certain legal standards to me that I
`
`have relied upon in forming my opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`A.
`18.
`
`Prior art
`
`I have been informed that the law provides certain categories of infor-
`
`mation, known as prior art, that may be used to render patent claims anticipated or
`
`obvious. The reference materials I discuss in this declaration are prior art at least
`
`because they would have been available to members of the public as of June 27,
`
`1997, and are relevant to the subject matter of the (cid:1932)260 patent. The references I
`
`discuss herein are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even
`
`if they address a different problem), and/or are reasonably pertinent to the problem
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 9 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`faced by the inventor (even if they are not in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention).
`
`B.
`19.
`
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`I understand that U.S. provisional application no. 60/051,021, to
`
`which the ’260 patent claims priority, was filed on June 27, 1997, as stated on the
`
`front of the patent under the title “Related U.S. Application Data.” For purposes of
`
`my analysis, and without offering any opinion as to whether the (cid:1932)260 patent’s
`
`claim to priority is valid or appropriate, I have used the June 27, 1997 date as the
`
`relevant date for my analysis of the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the assessment of the patentability of the claims of
`
`the ’260 patent must be undertaken from the perspective of a hypothetical person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of the earliest priority date of the ’260 patent, i.e., a
`
`skilled artisan. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who
`
`is presumed to have known the relevant art as of the effective filing date. Factors
`
`that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may in-
`
`clude, (i) type of problems encountered in the art, (ii) prior art solutions to those
`
`problems, (iii) rapidity with which innovations are made, (iv) sophistication of the
`
`technology, and (v) educational level of active workers in the field. I understand
`
`that in a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may
`
`predominate.
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 10 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capa-
`
`bility of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the
`
`pertinent art. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. In many cases a person of ordi-
`
`nary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents or prior art references
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`22. Based on these factors, my knowledge and expertise, and the prior art
`
`to the ’260 patent (i.e., publications before June 27, 1997), I agree with Dr. Berk-
`
`land’s opinion that a skilled artisan would include a person with an advanced de-
`
`gree in chemistry, chemical engineering, pharmaceutics, pharmacy, or a related
`
`discipline, and/or having experience formulating compounds for use in pharmaceu-
`
`tical compositions, including nanoparticle suspensions, for several years. Further,
`
`it is my opinion that the skilled artisan would know how to evaluate potential drug
`
`therapies for in vitro and in vivo activity, including with biological assays.
`
`23. Based on my qualifications and experience as of June 27, 1997, I
`
`would have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art under this definition.
`
`C. Obviousness
`24.
`I have been informed that, even if every element of a claim is not
`
`found explicitly or implicitly in a single prior art reference, the claim may still be
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 11 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the claim and the prior art are such that the
`
`claim as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the in-
`
`vention was made. For purposes of obviousness, I understand that a skilled artisan
`
`may rely on a single prior art reference, or multiple references in combination.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that the following four factors are considered
`
`when determining whether a patent claim would have been obvious to a skilled ar-
`
`tisan: (a) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (b) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art; (c) the differences between the prior art and the claim; and (d) any “secondary
`
`considerations” tending to prove nonobviousness. These secondary considerations,
`
`which I understand are also called “objective indicia” or “objective evidence,” may
`
`include factors such as: (i) the invention’s satisfaction of a long-felt unmet need in
`
`the art; (ii) unexpected results of the invention; (iii) skepticism of the invention by
`
`experts; (iv) teaching away from the invention in the prior art; (v) commercial suc-
`
`cess of an embodiment of the invention; and (vi) praise by others for the invention.
`
`I have also been informed that there must be an adequate nexus or connection be-
`
`tween the evidence that is the basis for an asserted secondary consideration and the
`
`scope of the invention claimed in the patent.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that when every limitation of a claim is disclosed in the
`
`cited prior art references, the question of obviousness turns on whether a hypothet-
`
`ical person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine those
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 12 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`teachings to derive the claimed subject matter with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success. Further, I understand that obviousness does not require absolute predicta-
`
`bility. Only a reasonable expectation that the beneficial result will be achieved is
`
`necessary to show obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention can be rendered obvi-
`
`ous by the combination of teachings in the prior art even if there is no explicit
`
`teaching to combine them. Instead, any problem known in the field at the time of
`
`the alleged invention can provide a sufficient rationale to combine the elements of
`
`the prior art in the manner claimed in the patent.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that examples of sufficient rationales for estab-
`
`lishing obviousness include the following:
`
`(cid:120) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`(cid:120) substituting known elements for other known elements to obtain
`predictable results;
`
`(cid:120) using a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or
`products in the same way;
`
`(cid:120) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that
`would be obvious to try; and
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 13 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:120) providing some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the
`prior art reference or to combine teachings in prior art references to
`arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that where there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and
`
`the claimed invention falls within that range, the burden of production falls upon
`
`the patentee to come forward with evidence that (1) the prior art taught away from
`
`the claimed invention; (2) there were new and unexpected results relative to the
`
`prior art; or (3) there are other pertinent secondary considerations. For purposes of
`
`this analysis, I understand that a prior art reference does not “teach away” from a
`
`claimed invention unless it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investi-
`
`gation into the invention claimed.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that even if a claim limitation is missing from the
`
`prior art, the missing limitation does not preclude obviousness if it merely recites a
`
`latent or inherent characteristic or property of the claimed invention, e.g., a natural
`
`result that necessarily flows from the other claim limitations, even if that result was
`
`not appreciated by persons of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`IV. OBVIOUSNESS
`31.
`I have reviewed the ’260 patent, the exhibits cited herein, and the
`
`Declaration of Cory J. Berkland, Ph.D., in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Re-
`
`view, which has been marked as EX1002 in this proceeding. I have also reviewed
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 14 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`all of the exhibits cited in Dr. Berkland’s Declaration and listed in the “Exhibits
`
`Cited” table at pages 5–6 of EX1002.
`
`32. Based on my independent review, I agree with Dr. Berkland’s conclu-
`
`sion that claims 1–27 of the (cid:1932)260 patent would have been obvious to a skilled arti-
`
`san as of June 27, 1997, in view of the combined teachings of Desai (EX1003),
`
`Shively (EX1005), Liversidge (EX1005), and Remington’s (EX1006). As I ex-
`
`plain below, Dr. Berkland’s analysis and conclusions regarding the obviousness of
`
`claims 1–27 of the (cid:1932)260 patent from the perspective of a hypothetical skilled arti-
`
`san as of June 27, 1997, comport with my view of what a hypothetical skilled arti-
`
`san would have known and done at the time and the actual practices and problem-
`
`solving approaches of real-life skilled artisans who were working in the pharma-
`
`ceutical industry as of that time.
`
`33. Claim 1 of the (cid:1932)260 patent is generally directed to a pharmaceutical
`
`formulation that “comprises nanoparticles comprising a solid core of paclitaxel and
`
`an albumin coating,” and that further meets certain requirements regarding the
`
`paclitaxel concentration, particle size, and stability of the albumin-paclitaxel nano-
`
`particle formulation. EX1001, 67:32–42. I agree with Dr. Berkland that, as of
`
`June 1997, albumin-paclitaxel nanoparticle formulations including the formulation
`
`of claim 1 of the (cid:1932)260 patent were generally disclosed and covered by Desai, which
`
`taught that a “method of delivering a poorly water-soluble drug such as taxol [i.e.,
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 15 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`paclitaxel] within a polymeric shell is to prepare a shell of polymeric material
`
`around a solid drug core,” wherein the “preferred protein for use in the formation
`
`of the polymeric shell is albumin.” EX1003, 15:53–55, 16:14–15.
`
`34. The only differences between the broad disclosure of albumin-coated,
`
`solid-core paclitaxel particles in Desai and claim 1 of the (cid:1932)260 patent is that the lat-
`
`ter recites the specific requirements that the formulation (a) have a paclitaxel con-
`
`centration of about 5 mg/ml to about 15 mg/ml, (b) have a particle size less than
`
`400 nm, and (c) remain stable for at least three days under at least one of room
`
`temperature or refrigerated conditions. EX1001, 67:32–42. As of June 1997,
`
`based on my experience at a major pharmaceutical company, a skilled pharmaceu-
`
`tical formulator looking to design, make, or optimize an aqueous suspension for-
`
`mulation would have been aware that these parameters—(a) active drug concentra-
`
`tion, (b) particle size, and (c) stability—had substantial and important effects on
`
`the final formulation, and would have been motivated with a reasonable expecta-
`
`tion of success to favorably adjust each of these parameters.
`
`A.
`
`Increasing the concentration of active drug in pharmaceutical for-
`mulations was generally obvious and routine as of June 1997.
`35. First, as of June 1997, I and my pharmaceutical industry colleagues
`
`frequently undertook projects to adjust and raise the concentration of active drug in
`
`existing pharmaceutical formulations. It was generally considered desirable to in-
`
`crease the concentration of active drug in a pharmaceutical preparation in order to
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 16 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`reduce the volume that needs to be administered to a patient. Accordingly, I and
`
`other formulators as of June 1997 agreed with the teaching in Desai that “the deliv-
`
`ery of high doses of the pharmacologically active agent in relatively small vol-
`
`umes” is generally desirable—including for injectable dosage forms, because
`
`“[t]his minimizes patient discomfort at receiving large volumes of fluid.” EX1003,
`
`5:22–27.
`
`36. For example, in my own experience, I recall a proprietary project
`
`prior to June 1997 in which my task was to increase the concentration of active
`
`drug in an existing oral capsule dosage form, in order to reduce the size of the cap-
`
`sule, because it was easier and more convenient for patients to ingest smaller cap-
`
`sules. There was nothing unusual, surprising, or particularly difficult about this
`
`project. On the contrary, it was considered obvious and routine at the time to opti-
`
`mize a drug formulation to reduce the volume that was necessary for patients to in-
`
`gest, to accomplish that goal by increasing the drug concentration in the dosage
`
`form, and to be motivated for various reasons including patient compliance to ac-
`
`complish that task. This task of increasing the drug concentration of an oral dos-
`
`age form was analogous and conceptually similar in many respects to the increase
`
`in drug concentration discussed in Desai and claimed in the (cid:1932)260 patent for an in-
`
`jectable dosage form. In either case, the goal was to decrease the amount of phar-
`
`maceutical preparation that was needed to deliver a given dose.
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 17 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Similarly, on a number of occasions prior to June 1997, I also worked
`
`on increasing the concentration of active drug in injectable dosage forms for toxi-
`
`cology studies in animals, which frequently required formulations containing high
`
`doses of active drug in small infusion volumes—i.e., high concentrations of active
`
`drug. Increasing the concentration of active drug in such formulations was gener-
`
`ally a routine and predictable task. I and other skilled formulators before June
`
`1997 generally had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying and optimiz-
`
`ing existing drug formulations to accomplish this goal.
`
`38. This motivation and reasonable expectation of success in increasing
`
`the concentration of active drug for pharmaceutical compositions in the context of
`
`other active ingredients would have applied equally to the albumin-paclitaxel for-
`
`mulation of Desai. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan as of June
`
`1997 to optimize the concentration of paclitaxel in Desai’s albumin-paclitaxel for-
`
`mulations, as claimed in claim 1 of the (cid:1932)260 patent.
`
`B. Reducing the particle size of pharmaceutical formulations was gen-
`erally obvious and routine as of June 1997.
`39. Second, as of June 1997, I and my pharmaceutical industry colleagues
`
`routinely reduced the particle size of insoluble and poorly soluble drugs, both in
`
`suspensions and other dosage forms, in order to increase the bioavailability of the
`
`insoluble drug. In this respect, my experience in the pharmaceutical industry as of
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 18 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`June 1997 was in line with the teaching of Liversidge that “[b]ioavailability” de-
`
`pends largely on the “dissolution rate of the drug,” and that “[i]t is known that the
`
`rate of dissolution of a particulate drug can increase with increasing surface area,
`
`i.e., decreasing particle size.” EX1028, 1:13–30 (incorporated by reference in
`
`EX1005, 1:8–11). This teaching and understanding was relevant to paclitaxel,
`
`which, as Desai taught, has “poor aqueous solubility.” EX1003, 1:41–46.
`
`40.
`
`In addition, it was routine for me and my colleagues to decrease the
`
`particle size of drugs in colloidal suspensions in order to improve suspension sta-
`
`bility. In this respect, my experience in the pharmaceutical industry as of June
`
`1997 was in line with the teachings of Remington’s that, “[b]ecause of their small
`
`size, colloidal dispersions undergo little or no sedimentation or creaming: Brown-
`
`ian motion maintains the disperse particles in suspension.” EX1006, 20. This was
`
`well known in the art as of June 1997.
`
`41. As a general matter, there was nothing surprising, inventive, or unex-
`
`pected about reducing the particle size of a poorly soluble drug in order to improve
`
`its bioavailability or its physical stability in an aqueous suspension. On the con-
`
`trary, reducing the particle size of such drugs was a routine optimization step, for
`
`which I and other skilled formulators at the time generally had a reasonable expec-
`
`tation of success. Indeed, a skilled artisan as of June 1997 had several methods
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 19 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`available for reducing the particle sizes of pharmaceutical products, including mi-
`
`cronization by milling or grinding, sonication, and high-pressure homogenization.
`
`42. This general motivation and reasonable expectation of success in de-
`
`creasing the particle size of a poorly soluble pharmaceutical composition in order
`
`to improve its bioavailability and suspension stability would have applied equally
`
`to the albumin-paclitaxel formulation of Desai. Thus, it would have been obvious
`
`to a skilled artisan as of June 1997 to optimize the particle size of Desai’s albumin-
`
`paclitaxel nanoparticle formulations, as claimed in claim 1 of the (cid:1932)260 patent.
`
`C. Optimizing the physical stability of pharmaceutical suspensions
`was generally obvious and routine as of June 1997.
`43. Third, it was routine for me and my colleagues in the pharmaceutical
`
`industry as of June 1997 to optimize drug formulations to remain stable for given
`
`periods of time. Physical stability was and is an important part of a pharmaceutical
`
`formulation, because it is desirable that pharmaceutical preparations remain usable
`
`for longer, rather than shorter, periods of time. In my work on preparing concen-
`
`trated drug formulations for injection in toxicology studies, for example, my task
`
`was frequently to formulate suspensions with a given drug concentration that
`
`would remain stable in suspension for a given number of days, or even multiple
`
`weeks, in order to allow the toxicology study to be completed with the same batch
`
`of pharmaceutical preparation, or for extended studies, to reduce the frequency at
`
`which batch preparation was required.
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 20 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`I and other skilled formulators in the pharmaceutical industry as of
`
`June 1997 were highly familiar with the concepts of stability discussed in Dr.
`
`Berkland’s declaration, including the sedimentation or creaming of particles sus-
`
`pended in aqueous media according to Stokes’ law; the displacement of such parti-
`
`cles due to Brownian motion; and the use of surfactants or other surface modifiers
`
`(including polymers such as albumin) to stabilize colloidal suspensions against
`
`particle size changes due to phenomena such as Ostwald ripening. In this respect,
`
`the knowledge and level of skill of a skilled artisan as of June 1997 was in line
`
`with the teachings of these basic concepts in Remington’s, which was considered a
`
`standard pharmaceutical textbook at the time. See EX1006, 30.
`
`45.
`
`I and my colleagues before June 1997 frequently stabilized colloidal
`
`suspensions by a process of routine experimentation. For example, if I needed to
`
`prepare a suspension that would remain stable for a given period of time, one tech-
`
`nique I frequently used before June 1997 was to prepare multiple formulation
`
`batches with progressively smaller particle sizes until I reached a size that allowed
`
`the particles to remain in suspension for the desired period of time. For instance, I
`
`would micronize a powdered drug product using a milling technique several times,
`
`and set aside an equal amount of micronized product after each milling, which
`
`would produce batches with progressively smaller particles. If needed, I would
`
`also experiment with various well-known surfactants or surface modifiers. I would
`
`
`
`Actavis - IPR2017-01100, Ex. 1034, p. 21 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`then use routine stability tests to determine which batches provided the desired
`
`level of physical stability—i.e., substantially no precipitation and substantially no
`
`change in particle size—for the desired amount of time.
`
`46. With respect to the three-day stability claimed by claim 1 of the (cid:1932)260
`
`patent, I agree with Dr. Berkland’s opinions that such stability is an inherent prop-
`
`erty of the claimed composition, and also would have been expected to a skilled ar-
`
`tisan as of June 1997—even before he or she conducted any stability testing—
`
`based on simple mathematical calculations using Stokes’ law and other well-
`
`known equations outlined in Remington’s. EX1006, 30.
`
`47.
`
`Independently, however, it is also my opinion that a skilled artisan as
`
`of June 1997 would have been motivated and able to obtain the three-day stability
`
`claimed by claim 1 of the (cid: