Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: October 10, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTAVIS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, RAMA G. ELLURU, and SUSAN L. C.
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: October 10, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTAVIS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, RAMA G. ELLURU, and SUSAN L. C.
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Petitioner Actavis LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–16 (the “challenged claims”)
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,923,536 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’536 patent”). Patent
`Owner Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter
`partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the
`Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’536 patent.
`Therefore, we institute an inter partes review for claims 1–16 of the ’536
`patent.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’536 patent was asserted in Abraxis
`BioScience, LLC v. Actavis LLC, C.A. No. 16-1925-JMV-MF (D.N.J. April
`6, 2016), and in Abraxis BioScience, LLC v. Cipla Ltd., C.A. No. 16-9074-
`JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 7, 2016). Pet. 4–5. Petitioner has also filed three
`additional requests for inter partes review of other patents owned by
`Abraxis, two of which are related to the ’536 patent: IPR2017-01100
`(involving U.S. Patent No. 8,853,260); IPR2017-01101 (involving U.S.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`Patent No. 7,820,788); and IPR2017-01104 (involving U.S. Patent No.
`8,138,229). Pet. 5.
`
`C. The ’536 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’536 patent involves methods of formulating pharmaceuticals
`with carriers to “reduce one or more side effects.” Ex. 1001 at 3:57–62.
`Such methods specifically involve formulating taxol (paclitaxel), an agent
`active against carcinomas, (id. at 4:33–35), with albumin, a protein found in
`human plasma (id. at 5:7–18).
`The ’536 patent specifically prefers that the composition “have a
`particle or droplet size less than about 200 nanometers” (id. at 9:52). The
`’536 patent states that:
`
`While the ratio of protein to pharmaceutical agent will have to
`be optimized for different protein and pharmaceutical agent
`combinations, generally the ratio of protein, e.g., albumin, to
`pharmaceutical agent is about 18:1 or less (e.g., about 15:1,
`about 10:1, about 5:1, or about 3:1). More preferably, the ratio
`is about 0.2:1 to about 12:1. Most preferably, the ratio is about
`1:1 to about 9:1.
`Id. 11:61–67. The ’536 patent also prefers a formulation “essentially free of
`cremophor” because “cremophor typically is used as a solvent for paclitaxel,
`and is associated with side effects that can be severe” (id. at 12:1–6).
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is the sole independent claim of the
`’536 patent. The remaining challenged claims 2–16 depend directly or
`indirectly from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged claims and
`recites:
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`1. A method of treating cancer in a human individual,
`comprising injecting into the individual an effective amount
`of a pharmaceutical composition comprising paclitaxel and a
`pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, wherein the
`pharmaceutically acceptable carrier comprises albumin,
`wherein the albumin and the paclitaxel in the composition
`are formulated as particles, wherein the particles in the
`composition have a particle size of less than about 200 nm,
`and wherein the weight ratio of albumin to paclitaxel in the
`composition is about 1:1 to about 9:1.
`
`Ex. 1001, 37:20–29.
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`on the following grounds and asserted references. Pet. 1–3.
`References
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`§ 102(b)
`1–16
`§ 103(a)
`1–16
`§ 103(a)
`1–16
`
`Desai1
`Desai
`Desai, Kadima,2 and
`Liversidge3
`
`Petitioner relies also on the Declaration of Cory Berkland, Ph.D. Pet.
`1–73; see Ex. 1002.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`
`1 WO 99/00113 A1, published Jan. 7, 1999 (Ex. 1006, “Desai”).
`2 WO 00/06152 A1, published Feb. 10, 2000 (Ex. 1004, “Kadima”).
`3 US 5,399,363, issued Mar. 21, 1995 (Ex. 1005, “Liversidge”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation approach, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We determine that the following claim
`language needs to be discussed.
`
`1. “the weight ratio of albumin to paclitaxel in the composition”
`Petitioner offers an interpretation of the claim phrase “the weight ratio
`of albumin to paclitaxel in the composition” as “at least the albumin-
`paclitaxel ratio in the starting ingredients used to make the composition.”
`Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36, 48). Petitioner states a “skilled artisan
`reading [the ’536 patent’s] examples would understand that the ‘ratio of
`albumin to paclitaxel’ was based on the amounts used to make the
`composition.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37).
`Patent Owner disagrees, and offers an interpretation that the “claimed
`ratio term should be construed to mean the weight ratio of albumin-to-
`paclitaxel in the finished pharmaceutical composition for injection.” Prelim.
`Resp. 10 (emphasis added). Patent Owner states
`the claim requires that the ratio be of the albumin to paclitaxel
`“in the composition,” and that “composition” is plainly the
`“pharmaceutical composition” to be “inject[ed] into the
`individual”—i.e., the finished pharmaceutical product. (Id.,
`claim 1.) . . . Thus, based on the plain claim language, the ratio
`refers to the claimed finished pharmaceutical product, not the
`albumin and paclitaxel starting materials prior to the formation
`of the nanoparticles.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner notes “the prosecution history confirms this
`construction . . . The Examiner . . . understood that the 9:1 ratio was
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`referring to the finished nanoparticle pharmaceutical composition.” Prelim.
`Resp. 12–13.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction at this stage of
`the proceeding on the record before us. The ’536 patent claims use the
`definite article “the” in providing antecedent basis for “the composition” in
`the claim phrase “the weight ratio of albumin to paclitaxel in the
`composition.” See ’536 patent, claim 1. The article “the” refers to “a
`pharmaceutical composition” that is “injecting into the individual,” in the
`preceding claim language. See ’536 patent, claim 1. Therefore, the
`reasonable intrinsic interpretation requires “the composition” to be the
`“pharmaceutical composition.” See Warner–Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp.,
`316 F.3d 1348, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[I]t is a rule of law well established
`that the definite article ‘the’ particularizes the subject which it precedes. It
`is a word of limitation as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of
`‘a’ or ‘an.’”).
`
`Consequently, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`“pharmaceutical composition” is that it refers to the final product because it
`is injected into the patient. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner on this record
`that the 9:1 ratio of “the composition” in claim 1 of the ’536 patent must be
`the ratio of albumin to paclitaxel in the final product injected into the
`patient. We also agree with the Patent Owner that the Specification of the
`’536 patent and the prosecution history also tend to support this
`interpretation, but we need not rely on such evidence here to construe the
`claim term at this stage of the proceeding as the plain language of the claim
`supports our interpretation. See Prelim. Resp. 11–13.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`2. “a particle size of less than about 200 nm”
`Petitioner offers an interpretation of the claim term “a particle size of
`less than about 200 nm” to “include[] particle sizes of 220 nm or less,
`measured as the Z-average diameter using a Malvern Zetasizer.” Pet. 21
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). Petitioner points out that “every example in the ʼ536
`patent that mentions particle size refers to ‘the typical average diameter’ of
`the particles and discloses a particle size range of ‘50–220 nm (Z-average,
`Malvern Zetasizer).’” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 40; Ex. 1001, Examples 1,
`2, 4–14, 47–49).
`
`Patent Owner states that except for the claim term discussed above,
`“[a]ny other terms do not need construction as they are not determinative of
`any dispute presented by the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 16.
`Because the parties do not disagree about whether the art teaches the
`claimed particle sizes, see Pet. 21; Prelim. Resp. 16, and our decision does
`not require an express construction to resolve any dispute at this point in the
`proceeding, we do not need to interpret expressly the claim term “a particle
`size of less than about 200 nm.” See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem.
`Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be
`construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999)).
`
`B. Section 325(d) – Discretion to Decline to Institute
`Patent Owner urges us to decline to institute the asserted grounds
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the ground “Petitioner’s asserted art was
`already before the Office, and Petitioner’s arguments based on that art are
`the same or substantially the same as what the Office considered (i.e., that
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`the skilled person would have optimized the ratio of albumin to paclitaxel in
`the composition).” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Pet. 14). Patent Owner
`concludes that “[b]ecause Desai provides no relevant disclosures beyond that
`which the Office considered regarding [another reference], Petitioner’s use
`of Desai adds nothing new . . . . Without any new evidence or other reason
`to revisit the Examiner’s determinations, the Petition merely seeks to have
`the Board second-guess the Examiner.” Id. at 18–19.
`Under § 325(d), we have discretion to “reject the petition or request
`because[] the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Considering
`all of the relevant facts and circumstances, Patent Owner’s argument is
`insufficient to persuade us to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition.
`For example, Petitioner relies on a declaration from Dr. Berkland, which
`Patent Owner does not allege are duplicative of evidence previously
`presented to the Office. See Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc., Case
`IPR2013-00333, 2013 WL 8595289, at *2 (PTAB Dec. 9, 2013) (Paper 16)
`(declining to deny petition under § 325(d) where petitioner presented new
`declaration evidence); Chimei Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab.
`Co., Case IPR2013-00066, 2013 WL 8595548, at *5 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)
`(Paper 10) (same). Also, the Examiner relied upon testimonial evidence that
`was not subject to cross-examination in determining patentability of the
`claims that are contested in this proceeding, and Desai was not prior art upon
`which the Examiner relied for any rejection. See Ex. 1023. We, therefore,
`determine that Petitioner’s petition does not present the same or substantially
`the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`C. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if a single prior art
`reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation as set
`forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368,
`1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without
`disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily
`present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754
`F.3d 952, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm.,
`339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In KSR, the
`Supreme Court also stated that an invention may be found obvious if trying a
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`course of conduct would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`skill:
`
`When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
`the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
`to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that
`instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might
`show that it was obvious under § 103.
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. “KSR affirmed the logical inverse of this statement
`by stating that § 103 bars patentability unless ‘the improvement is more than
`the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`functions.’” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359−60 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 417).
`We are mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art also is
`reflected by the prior art of record.4 See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir.
`1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`4 Petitioner states that the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention
`is a person who has a “advanced degree in chemistry, chemical engineering,
`pharmaceutics, pharmacy, or a related discipline, and/or having experience
`formulating compounds for use in pharmaceutical compositions, including
`nanoparticle suspensions, for several years.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 20).
`Patent Owner “adopts Petitioner’s definition of a POSA.” See Prelim. Resp.
`9. We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art,
`which is supported by Dr. Berkland, because of the sophistication of the
`technology and the educational level of those who work in this area. See In
`re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`D. Anticipation by Desai
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Desai. Pet. 22; see Prelim Resp. 11. Petitioner
`asserts that “Desai as a whole is directed to treating cancer in humans by
`injecting effective amounts of paclitaxel”; that “Example 45 of Desai
`discloses a method of treating mammary tumors by injecting an effective
`amount of albumin-paclitaxel nanoparticles”; and that “Example 1 of Desai
`discloses a method of producing albumin-paclitaxel nanoparticles with a
`typical average diameter of 160–220 nm” (Pet. 22–24).
`Petitioner asserts with regard to the albumin-paclitaxel ratio that:
`Example 1 of Desai discloses an albumin-paclitaxel ratio of
`about 9:1 by providing that “30 mg paclitaxel is dissolved in
`3.0 ml methylene chloride,” which “was added to 27.0 ml of
`human serum albumin solution (1% w/v).” EX1006, 62. A
`skilled artisan would have known that 27 ml of 1% (w/v)
`albumin contains 270 mg of albumin, which, when combined
`with 30 mg of paclitaxel, necessarily results in a composition
`with an albumin-paclitaxel weight ratio of 270:30—i.e., a ratio
`of exactly 9:1. EX1002 ¶98. That is an express disclosure of
`the claimed 9:1 ratio. Even if Patent Owner were to argue that
`it is not expressly disclosed because the language “9:1” does
`not appear, the listing of the ingredients and their amounts in
`the example is still an inherent disclosure of the claimed ratio.
`
`(Pet. 26).
`Patent Owner asserts that this ground fails, among other reasons,
`because “Petitioner relies on its incorrect construction of the ratio term as
`referring to the amounts of the starting ingredients as opposed to the finished
`nanoparticle composition” and “the measurements in Example 1 concern the
`starting amounts of the albumin and paclitaxel ingredients—before the many
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`steps are conducted that are required to form a composition.” Prelim. Resp.
`21. Patent Owner asserts
`as explained by Patent Owner’s declarant and nanoparticle
`formulation expert, Dr. Nicholas A. Peppas (EX2001), a POSA
`would understand that the process described in Example 1
`would lead to substantial loss of paclitaxel, and thus the
`finished pharmaceutical product would have a higher ratio of
`albumin to paclitaxel than the 9:1 starting ratio.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 25. Patent Owner asserts this loss of paclitaxel is based on
`evidence showing “paclitaxel rapidly and nonspecifically adsorbs (sticks and
`accumulates) to most surfaces, including plastic, glass, and metal.” Prelim.
`Resp. 26.
`
`1. Desai (Ex. 1006)
`Desai teaches using “anti-cancer drugs, e.g., Taxol, in the form of
`nanoparticles.” Ex. 1006, 26:12–13.
`
`Capxol™ is a novel, cremophor-free formulation of the
`anticancer drug paclitaxel . . . . Capxol™ is a lyophilized
`powder for reconstitution and intravenous administration.
`When reconstituted with a suitable aqueous medium such as
`0.9% sodium chloride injection or 5% dextrose injection,
`Capxol™ forms a stable colloidal solution of paclitaxel. The
`size of the colloidal suspension may range from 20nm to 8
`microns with a preferred range of about 20-400 nm. The two
`major components of Capxol™ are unmodified paclitaxel and
`human serum albumin (HSA).
`Ex. 1006, 27:29 to 28:13. Desai teaches “Capxol™ is merely a shorthand
`means of reference to protein-coated paclitaxel nanoparticles produced by
`the method of Example 1” and that “[e]ach vial of Capxol™ contains 30 mg
`of paclitaxel and approximately 400 mg of human serum albumin.” Ex.
`1006, 38:17–29. Example 1 of Desai teaches
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`30 mg paclitaxel is dissolved in 3.0 ml methylene chloride. The
`solution was added to 27.0 ml of human serum a[l]bumin
`solution (1% w/v). The mixture was homogenized for 5
`minutes at low RPM (Vitris homogenizer, model: Tempest I.Q.)
`in order to form a crude emulsion, and then transferred into a 30
`high pressure homogenizer (Avestin). The emulsification was
`performed at 9000-40,000 psi while recycling the emulsion for
`at least 5 cycles. The resulting system was transferred into a
`Rotary evaporator, and methylene chloride was rapidly
`removed at 40°C, at reduced pressure (30 mm Hg), for 20-30
`minutes. The resulting dispersion was translucent, and the
`typical diameter of the resulting paclitaxel particles was 160-
`220 (Z-average, Malvern Zetasizer).
`Ex. 1006, 63:25 to 63:6.
`In Example 4, Desai teaches the “dispersion is filtered through a 0.22
`micron filter (Millipore), without any significant change in turbidity, or
`particle size. HPLC analysis of the Taxol content revealed that more than
`97% of the Taxol was recovered after filtration.” Ex. 1006, 65:24–27.
`Example 16 of Desai summarizes a preferred manufacturing process with 1
`gram of paclitaxel and 431 ml of a 3% albumin solution that is filtered
`during the manufacturing process. Ex. 1006, 75:17–77:24.
`
`Analysis
`2.
`Petitioner asserts “the fact that Example 1 of Desai discloses
`quantities of paclitaxel and albumin in a 9:1 ratio is sufficient to establish a
`reasonable likelihood of anticipation.” Pet. 29. Petitioner asserts “there is
`no evidence that Example 1 results in any loss of paclitaxel during
`manufacturing that would affect the composition’s albumin-paclitaxel ratio.
`There is no mention in Desai of any paclitaxel loss, and no reason why any
`of Example 1’s steps would result in such loss.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002
`¶ 106). Petitioner supports this assertion by noting
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`a skilled artisan would have understood that Example 16 is
`consistent with Example 1 but more specifically describes the
`production of Capxol™ . . . Example 16 uses 1 g (i.e., 1,000
`mg) of paclitaxel, which results initially in an albumin-
`paclitaxel ratio of 12.93:1. Id.; EX1002 ¶64. The resulting
`suspension is sterile filtered using a 200 nm filter before being
`filled into vials containing 30 mg of paclitaxel, and then
`lyophilized. EX1006, 76–66. That filtration step in Example
`16 results in a ratio of 13.3:1. . . . Thus, a skilled artisan would
`have understood that the precise method of obtaining
`Capxol™’s 13.3:1 ratio was disclosed in Example 16—not
`Example 1—which instead results in a 9:1 ratio.
`
`Pet. 32–33, citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–65.
`In addition, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Berkland, states regarding
`Example 49 of the ’536 patent that: “In other words, 135 mg of paclitaxel
`was combined with 1,350 mg of albumin (27 ml of 5% w/v solution),
`corresponding to a 10:1 ratio.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 38. Dr. Berkland concludes
`“therefore, the albumin-paclitaxel ratio of Example 49 was either
`‘calculated’ based on the starting materials, or measured after the process
`steps were completed, at which point the ratio remained the same as the ratio
`of starting materials.” Ex 1002 ¶ 38. Dr. Berkland also points out that:
`“There is no suggestion in the ʼ536 patent that the ratio of albumin to
`paclitaxel materially changes during the manufacturing process. Nor is there
`any disclosed assay or discussion of how to measure or predict the ratio of
`albumin to paclitaxel in the final pharmaceutical composition.” Ex. 1002
`¶ 39.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that
`Example 1’s method is used to produce Capxol™, and “[e]ach
`vial of Capxol™ contains 30 mg of paclitaxel and
`approximately 400 mg of human serum albumin,” i.e., a 13.3:1
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`albumin-to-paclitaxel ratio for the finished product. (EX1006,
`36:16–19, 28–29.) Thus, the ratio of albumin to paclitaxel does
`not remain 9:1 for the finished product. Rather, the ratio
`increases almost 50%.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner further asserts “Petitioner attempts to run
`away from this confirmation by incorrectly arguing that a POSA would
`understand that Capxol™ was produced not by Desai’s Example 1, but
`rather by its Example 16.” Prelim. Resp. 22–23. Patent Owner asserts
`“Petitioner’s assertion is directly contradicted by the explicit teachings of
`Desai, which clearly states that ‘Capxol™ . . . is produced by the method of
`Example 1.’” Prelim. Resp. 23.
`
`Patent Owner also asserts that
`as explained by Patent Owner’s declarant and nanoparticle
`formulation expert, Dr. Nicholas A. Peppas (EX2001), a POSA
`would understand that the process described in Example 1
`would lead to substantial loss of paclitaxel, and thus the
`finished pharmaceutical product would have a higher ratio of
`albumin to paclitaxel than the 9:1 starting ratio.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–36). Patent Owner asserts that:
`“Due to its notoriously high hydrophobicity and other properties, paclitaxel
`rapidly and nonspecifically adsorbs (sticks and accumulates) to most
`surfaces, including plastic, glass, and metal.” Prelim. Resp. 26, citing
`Ex. 2001, 2031–2036.
`We are not persuaded that Desai’s Example 1 is necessarily used to
`produce Capxol™. Rather, we agree with Petitioner’s interpretation of
`Desai’s statement that Capxol™ is “produced by the method of Example 1”
`as exemplary, rather than limiting. Because Example 1 of Desai only
`combines 30 mg of paclitaxel with 270 mg albumin, Petitioner’s
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`interpretation is consistent with Desai’s further statement, in the same
`paragraph, that: “Each vial of Capxol™ contains 30 mg of paclitaxel and
`approximately 400 mg of human serum albumin.” Ex. 1006, 36:17–29. If
`Example 1 were the process used to produce Capxol™, the amounts of
`albumin should be identical, not different.
`We further agree that the current evidence of record, as supported by
`Dr. Berkland, better supports the position that Example 16 represents the
`process used to produce Capxol™ itself. Specifically, Example 16 is titled
`“[p]resently [p]referred [m]anufacturing [p]rocess” and exemplifies filling
`vials with 30 mg of paclitaxel. Ex. 1006, 73:16–17, 74:23–24; Ex. 1002 ¶¶
`64–65.
`Furthermore, Example 4 of Desai could be reasonably understood as
`teaching a specific working example demonstrating an actual experiment
`where 97% of the starting amount of Taxol is recovered after filtration. Ex.
`1006, 63:9–28.5
`Thus, as Petitioner points out, the manufacturing process of Example
`16 results in a 12.93:1 ratio, and based on Example 4, “one would expect to
`recover approximately 97% of the paclitaxel after sterile filtration, thereby
`raising the 12.93:1 ratio of albumin to paclitaxel in the starting materials of
`Example 16 to 13.3:1, i.e., the ratio of Capxol as disclosed in Desai.” Ex
`1002 ¶ 65; Pet. 32.
`
`
`5 We note that Petitioner (or Patent Owner) may still avail themselves of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(b) and experimentally reproduce the process of Example 1
`of Desai to unequivocally demonstrate whether a starting ratio of 9:1
`albumin-paclitaxel does or does not result in a final ratio that is “about 9:1”
`as required by claim 1 of the ’536 patent.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`
`Example 1 is therefore reasonably read as one of several alternative
`embodiments shown by Desai that was not the final process used to produce
`Capxol™, while Example 16 is a process that matches the ratios used to
`produce Capxol™. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–66.
`Therefore, on this record, the combination of teachings in Example 1
`of Desai of a 9:1 starting ratio of albumin to paclitaxel combined with the
`teaching in Example 4 that 97% of the Taxol was recovered after filtration,
`reasonably supports Petitioner’s position that Desai teaches a cancer
`treatment using a final pharmaceutical composition with a ratio of albumin
`to paclitaxel that is “about 9:1” as required by claim 1 of the ’536 patent.
`This conclusion of a 9:1 ratio in Desai is also supported because the
`identical processes are performed in Examples 1 and 4 of Desai and
`Example 49 of the ’536 patent. Example 49 of the ’536 patent teaches
`135 mg of paclitaxel was dissolved in 3.0 ml methylene
`chloride. The solution was added to 27 ml of human serum
`albumin solution (5% w/v). Deferoxamine was added as
`necessary. The mixture was homogenized for 5 minutes at low
`RPM (Vitris homogenizer, model Tempest I.Q.) in order to
`form a crude emulsion, and then transferred into a high pressure
`homogenizer (Avestin). The emulsification was performed at
`9000-40,000 psi while recycling the emulsion for at least 5
`cycles. The resulting system was transferred into a rotary
`evaporator, and methylene chloride was rapidly removed at 40°
`C., at reduced pressure (30 mm Hg) for 20-30 minutes. The
`resulting dispersion was translucent, and the typical average
`diameter of the resulting paclitaxel particles was in the range
`50-220 nm (Z-average, Malvern Zetasizer). . . . The calculated
`ratio (w/w) of albumin to paclitaxel in this invention
`composition is approximately 10.
`
`Ex. 1001, 35:59 to 36:11.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`Therefore, Example 49 of the ’536 patent used a starting ratio of 10:1
`albumin to paclitaxel (Ex. 1002 ¶ 38) and stated, after the process was
`complete, that the “calculated ratio (w/w) of albumin to paclitaxel in this
`invention composition is approximately 10.” Ex. 1001, 36:10–11. Given
`the similarities in the processes between Example 49 of the ’536 patent and
`Examples 1 and 4 of Desai, we determine that Desai’s examples would
`likewise yield an amount of Capxol™ that was not significantly different
`that the starting ratios of materials.
`
`We recognize Patent Owner’s assertion that paclitaxel would be lost
`during Desai’s processing as supported by Dr. Peppas.6 Prelim. Resp. 25
`(citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–36). Patent Owner and Dr. Peppas, however, do not
`cite specific evidence regarding quantitative amounts of paclitaxel that
`would have been lost during the processing performed in the Examples of
`Desai, but rather provide general citations regarding the solubility or
`adsorption of paclitaxel in other solvent systems (see, e.g., Ex. 2034–2041).
`Even Fukazawa (Ex. 2036), the closest quantitative comparison to Desai,
`though not in the same microparticle context as Desai, does not necessarily
`support Patent Owner’s position. In Fukazawa, while paclitaxel was shown
`to be heavily adsorbed to regular polystyrene microplates, low adsorption
`microplates showed much lower adsorption levels of paclitaxel, as little as
`10% (see Ex. 2036, Fig. 6). A 10% change in the 9:1 ratio of Example 1 of
`Desai could reasonably be interpreted to remain “about 9:1” as required by
`claim 1 of the ’536 patent.
`
`
`6 We note that Patent Owner may wish to provide evidence from actual
`Capxol™ or Abraxane® production that demonstrates significant loss of
`paclitaxel during commercial synthesis of the nanoparticles.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01103
`Patent 7,923,536 B2
`
`Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has successfully shown that it has
`
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on one of claims 1–16 as
`anticipated by Desai.
`
`E. Obviousness over Desai alone or in combination with Kadima and
`Liversidge
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 as obvious over Desai alone and over Desai in combination with
`Kadima and Liversidge. Pet. 33–51.
`Petitioner states “Desai discloses a range of albumin-paclitaxel ratios,
`and about 9:1 falls within that range. As discussed, Example 1 discloses a
`9:1 ratio.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 122). Petitioner further states:
`Even assuming (incorrectly) that Example 1 does not
`disclose a 9:1 ratio, this ratio falls within a range covered by
`Desai. Id. ¶123. As Desai explains, during preparation of the
`nanoparticles, albumin “is added at a concentration in the range
`of about 0.05 to 25% (w/v), more preferably in the range of
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
