throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 5,886,035
`
`DECLARATION OF MITCHELL A. DELONG, PH.D.
`
`I, Mitchell A. deLong, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`A. Qualifications
`I am Vice President (Chemistry R&D) of Aerie Pharmaceuticals and
`
`1.
`
`an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Chemistry at Duke University. I am an
`
`expert in synthetic organic and medicinal chemistry with more than 25 years of
`
`experience in the chemical arts.
`
`2.
`
`I earned my Ph.D. in Synthetic Organic and Medicinal Chemistry
`
`with a concentration in Cancer Biology from Stanford University in 1991.
`
`3.
`
`I also earned in 1982 a multidisciplinary Bachelor of Science degree
`
`in Biology and Chemistry from Michigan State University-Lyman Briggs College
`
`during which I was a 4-year National Merit Scholar.
`
`4.
`
`I have led research and development teams including a team at the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027
`
`

`

`Duke Eye Center at Duke University that has resulted in three spinoff companies.
`
`In 2006, one of the companies filed an Investigational New Drug Application
`
`(IND) to advance a novel prostaglandin prodrug named AR-102 that subsequently
`
`completed Phase 2 clinical trials.
`
`5. My expertise and experience in organic synthetic and medicinal
`
`chemistry include research and development of analogues of naturally occurring
`
`prostaglandins. I have synthesized prostaglandin analogues and tested them in
`
`various animal models to study their potential for use in treating glaucoma and
`
`ocular hypertension.
`
`6.
`
`I am named as inventor on 45 issued patents and 85 published patent
`
`applications in the United States. A number of these patents and published
`
`applications relate to the subject matter of prostaglandin analogues, their
`
`preparation and their use in the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
`
`7.
`
`I have published research in several peer-reviewed academic journals
`
`and also given numerous invited talks and scientific presentations on a variety of
`
`subjects including prostaglandins and glaucoma treatments.
`
`8. My curriculum vitae provided as Appendix B contains additional
`
`details relating to my background including experience and publications.
`
`B.
`
`9.
`
`Scope of Work
`
`I have been retained by the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
`
`2
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-2
`
`

`

`LLP (“Pillsbury”) on behalf of Petitioners Micro Labs Limited and Micro Labs
`
`USA Inc. ("Micro") to consult in connection with this matter. My compensation
`
`on this matter is $250 per hour and it is neither dependent on the substance of my
`
`testimony nor the outcome of this matter.
`
`10.
`
`For purposes this declaration, I have been asked to assess whether a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), which I define later in my declaration,
`
`would have found the subject matter claimed in the claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,886,035 (“the ’035 patent,” Ex. 1001) obvious in view of the prior art and the
`
`general knowledge of the POSA.
`
`11.
`
`In relation to the above, I was asked to review and discuss in my
`
`declaration the problems to be solved by and also the understandings and
`
`motivations of the POSA researching and developing prostaglandin analogues that
`
`could be used for treatment and/or management of elevated intraocular pressure
`
`(IOP)/ocular hypertension and glaucoma. I was asked to discuss the preceding in
`
`view of the prior art that I reviewed and to assess what would have been the
`
`POSA’s starting point for a lead compound and what modifications in view of the
`
`prior art teachings the POSA would have made to the lead compound.
`
`12.
`
`This declaration summarizes only my current opinions, which are
`
`subject to change depending upon additional information and/or analysis. I reserve
`
`the right to respond as needed to any additional information or any response to my
`
`3
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-3
`
`

`

`declaration.
`
`13.
`
`I and others working under my direction prepared and referenced the
`
`exhibits I reviewed and relied upon for my declaration. The entirety of my
`
`declaration, including exhibits and referenced materials, supplies the basis for my
`
`analysis and conclusions. The organizational structure of the declaration is for
`
`convenience.
`
`14.
`
`To the extent that facts and other considerations overlap, I generally
`
`discuss such information and issues related to them only once for the sake of
`
`brevity and those reviewing my declaration should refer to my earlier discussions
`
`in the declaration as needed. Neither the specific order in which each issue is
`
`addressed nor the organization of my declaration or exhibits affects the ultimate
`
`outcome of my analysis and conclusion.
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,886,035 (Ex. 1001)
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the ’035 patent in that I have read and familiarized
`
`myself with it.
`
`16.
`
`I understand based on my review that the ’035 patent has 14 claims
`
`and is directed to fluorine-containing prostaglandin derivatives, specifically
`
`derivatives having two fluorine atoms at the C-15 position, their alkyl esters, or
`
`their salts, and to medicines containing one of these compounds as an active
`
`ingredient. These compounds are intended for use in medicine to treat eye diseases
`
`4
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-4
`
`

`

`or conditions, such as glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the ’035 patent is assigned to Patent Owners Santen
`
`Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (“Santen”) and Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. (“Asahi”) and is
`
`alleged to cover the commercially-available drug product ZIOPTAN®, which is an
`
`ophthalmic solution containing the active compound tafluprost. I further
`
`understand that the ’035 patent is listed in the FDA’s Electronic Orange Book:
`
`Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations in connection
`
`with Oak Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Oak”) New Drug Application (NDA) for
`
`ZIOPTAN®. (Patent and Exclusivity for N202514, Ex. 1017). I understand that
`
`the claims of the ’035 patent is alleged to cover tafluprost and medicines that
`
`contains tafluprost.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that Micro is being sued for patent infringement by Oak,
`
`Santen and Asahi on claims 1-14 of the ’035 patent in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware. I am aware that the basis for this lawsuit is a
`
`technical act of infringement based on Micro’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug
`
`Application seeking FDA approval to commercially market Micro’s proposed
`
`generic tafluprost product prior to the expiration of the ’035 patent. I understand
`
`that this case has been docketed as Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Asahi Glass
`
`Co., Ltd. and Oak Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Micro Labs limited and Micro Labs
`
`USA Inc., Case No. 16-cv-00353 (D. Del. 2016).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-5
`
`

`

`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Legal Understanding of the Law of Obviousness
`1.
`Interpreting the Claims
`
`19.
`
`I am aware that each of the claims of a patent define the scope of the
`
`subject matter claimed by the patent. I understand that for purposes of determining
`
`the question of whether the claims of the ’035 patent would be obvious to a POSA
`
`they are to be construed as understood by a POSA using the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification. I understand that unless given a
`
`specific meaning in the patent specification, the claim terms are to be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning as informed by how the POSA would understand
`
`them.
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion in reviewing the claims of the ’035 patent that there
`
`are no claim terms that require special interpretation as given by the inventors
`
`beyond that of the plain and ordinary meaning that would be given by a POSA.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`Understanding Invalidity of Claims Based on
`Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as obvious if the subject
`
`matter of the claim would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the
`
`invention. I understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine
`
`whether claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between the scope of the claim of the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-6
`
`

`

`patent under consideration and the scope of the prior art; and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art references can be combined to find that a
`
`claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 when there was a reason for a POSA, at
`
`the time of the invention, to combine the references or make obvious modifications
`
`in view of them based on but not limited to: (1) identifying a teaching, suggestion,
`
`or motivation to combine prior art references; (2) combining prior art methods
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; (3) substituting one
`
`known element for another to obtain predictable results; (4) using a known
`
`technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (5) applying a known
`
`technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(6) trying a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; or (7) identifying that known work in one field
`
`of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a
`
`different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
`
`predictable to a POSA.
`
`23.
`
`I further understand that in the chemical arts the structural similarity
`
`between the claimed compound or molecule and the prior art subject matter creates
`
`what is known as a prima facie case of obviousness when the prior art gives a
`
`reason to combine or modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed
`
`7
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-7
`
`

`

`compound. I understand that this prima facie case of obviousness is established
`
`where the structural relationships indicate a motivation to combine or modify the
`
`prior art. I also understand that important to the establishment of a prima facie
`
`case of obviousness is the proper selection of a so-called lead compound where the
`
`prior art available to a POSA would have led that person to modify a known
`
`compound in a particular manner.
`
`24. My understanding is that to qualify as a starting point in the lead
`
`compound selection, a prior art compound must have sufficiently attractive
`
`properties to motivate a POSA to select that particular compound over others
`
`identified in the prior art. I understand that the selection of a so-called lead
`
`compound by a POSA cannot be made simply because of structural similarity. I
`
`understand that in determining and describing a prima facie case of obviousness I
`
`am to avoid using hindsight. That means that stepping into the role of a POSA, I
`
`must avoid using the patent of the claimed subject matter as a “roadmap” to arrive
`
`at selecting a structurally similar compound and subsequently subjecting it to
`
`modification. Accordingly, it is my understanding that selecting a prior art
`
`compound requires that I look beyond simply structural similarity and take into
`
`consideration the known functional properties and limitations of the prior art
`
`compounds in the relevant field.
`
`25.
`
`Finally, I have been informed that there are so-called objective indicia
`
`8
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-8
`
`

`

`of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations,” that are to be
`
`considered when assessing the strength of the prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`These secondary considerations include: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but
`
`unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem that the inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also understand
`
`that evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate in
`
`scope with the claimed subject matter.
`3.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in order to assess whether a claim in a patent would
`
`have been obvious in light of the prior art, I must step backward in time and into
`
`the shoes worn by the hypothetical POSA when the invention was unknown and
`
`just before it was made, which I understand is December 26, 1996 for the present
`
`matter.
`
`27.
`
`I am informed that this POSA is presumed to have known the relevant
`
`art at the time including the prior art and thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art. I am informed that this means a POSA is a person of ordinary creativity and
`
`he or she is not simply a pair of hands following directives but presumed to have
`
`an understanding of the prior art and its technical implications, as well as the
`
`problems faced by those working in the field, and is able to apply common
`
`9
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-9
`
`

`

`knowledge to attempt to solve a given problem.
`
`28. Based on my knowledge and experience, it is my opinion in
`
`reviewing the ’035 patent that the POSA with respect to the subject matter of
`
`the ’035 patent is a person with a Ph.D. in medicinal and/or organic chemistry
`
`having at least several years of experience researching and developing preventative
`
`or therapeutic medicines for treatment of eye diseases. It is my further opinion that
`
`this person would have familiarity designing, formulating and evaluating
`
`ophthalmic compositions for treatment of eye conditions that include glaucoma or
`
`ocular hypertension. It is my opinion that this person would also have sufficient
`
`familiarity interpreting or evaluating studies that use animal models to test for
`
`IOP-reducing activity and side effects of compounds having the potential to treat
`
`glaucoma or ocular hypertension or could draw upon the specialized experiences
`
`and skills of others on his team with these skills since it would be reasonable that
`
`the POSA would be working as part of a multi-disciplinary team with respect to
`
`the subject research.
`B. Materials/References
`I have formulated my opinions herein based in part upon my review
`
`29.
`
`of the materials tabulated in Appendix A of this declaration, which includes
`
`the ’035 patent and the prior art discussed in my declaration further below.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-10
`
`

`

`III. BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`30. Unless I specifically note otherwise, my discussion here of the
`
`background and state of the prior art is based on what was known or being done at
`
`the time of the alleged invention of the ’035 patent.
`
`31. Naturally occurring prostaglandins (PGA, PGB, PGE, PGF and PGI)
`
`are C-20 unsaturated fatty acids. They are known to possess a wide range of
`
`pharmacological activities that include relaxation of smooth muscle, induction of
`
`labor and reduction of intraocular pressure. Although naturally occurring
`
`prostaglandins are characterized by their activity against a particular receptor, they
`
`generally are not specific for any one prostaglandin receptor. Therefore, naturally
`
`occurring prostaglandins are known to cause side effects such as inflammation as
`
`well as irritation when administered systemically. It is generally believed that the
`
`rapid metabolism of naturally occurring prostaglandins following their release in
`
`the body limits the effects of the prostaglandin to a local area.
`
`32.
`
`Prior to December 26, 1996, the naturally occurring the Prostaglandin
`
`F in humans PGF2α had been known since the early 1980’s to effect reduction of
`
`intraocular pressure. (Camras et al. “Reduction of intraocular pressure in normal
`
`and glaucomatous primate (Aotus trivirgatus) eyes by topically applied PGF2α,”
`
`Curr. Eye Res. 1:205-209 (1981) (Ex. 1009)). PGF2α is characterized by hydroxyl
`
`groups at the C9 and C11 positions on the alicyclic ring, a cis-double bond between
`
`11
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-11
`
`

`

`C5 and C6, and a trans-double bond between C13 and C14.1 Thus, PGF2α has the
`
`following formula:
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Prompted by the IOP-reducing activity of PGF2α, many researchers
`
`prepared PGF2α analogues and studied these in an effort to find compounds
`
`suitable for the treatment of ocular hypertension (i.e., elevated IOP) and glaucoma.
`
`34. Ocular hypertension refers to a situation when pressure inside the eye
`
`is higher than normal (i.e., elevated IOP). Ocular hypertension is a concern
`
`because it can lead to glaucoma, which is a disease of the eye that causes vision
`
`loss or blindness when, among other causes, it is thought that high pressure in the
`
`eye damages the optic nerve.
`
`PGF2α analogues that could be used to treat ocular hypertension and
`35.
`
`1 The subscripted “2” in the PGF2α refers to the number of double bonds in the
`
`prostaglandin, which in the case of PGF2α is two, and the subscripted “α” refers to
`
`the orientation of the hydroxyl group at C-9 on its ring. (See Nelson, N.A.
`
`“Prostaglandin Nomenclature,” J. Med. Chem., 1974, 17 (9), pp. 911–918, Ex.
`
`1026, p. 911-912).
`
`12
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-12
`
`

`

`glaucoma have been disclosed in the prior art. In order to determine and assess
`
`their pharmacological activities, these analogues are tested in animals using animal
`
`models to test for IOP-reducing activity and potential side effects. These animal
`
`models include cynomolgus monkey models to test for IOP-reducing activity and
`
`guinea pigs to test for potential to induce the negative side effect of hyperemia.
`
`36. Hyperemia is a condition that presents as redness in the eye.
`
`Hyperemia can affect patient compliance with taking a medicine for treating
`
`glaucoma or ocular hypertension. This is because patients experiencing redness in
`
`the eye depending on its severity may decide to not take the medicine as regularly
`
`as required or may discontinue the use of the medicine entirely.
`
`37.
`
`Therefore, prior to December 26, 1996, a further consideration for
`
`researchers that were seeking to develop a PGF2α analogue useful for treating
`
`ocular hypertension and glaucoma was the potential of the analogue to induce
`
`hyperemia. During this time, researchers were investigating reducing side-effects
`
`and improving bioavailability through preparation of isopropyl esters of PGF2α as a
`
`prodrug (Alm A 1989 Progress in Clin and Biological Research pp. 447-458, Ex.
`
`1014) in addition to the use of a phenyl ring at the distal end of the PGF system
`
`(Stjernschantz J 1992 Drugs of the Future, pp. 691-704, Ex. 1015).
`
`38.
`
`The isopropyl ester was well-known to be the preferred ester prodrug
`
`form of choice for PGF2a analogues for ophthalmic administration. (Ex. 1010).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-13
`
`

`

`This optimized form was realized in the development of latanoprost, which is an
`
`isopropyl ester PGF2α analogue that emerged in 1996 as an early success for
`
`treating ocular hypertension and glaucoma. (Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 31-37; Ex. 1015).
`
`The isopropyl ester was the preferred prodrug over the free acid and was adopted
`
`by others in discovery of similar IOP reducing drugs isopropyl unoprostone and
`
`travoprost. (Ex. 1013, at 1134).
`
`39.
`
`Latanoprost was used in both the United States and Europe. In the
`
`United States, latanoprost obtained FDA approval in June of 1996 as the active
`
`ingredient contained in the ophthalmic solution marketed as XALATAN® (Ex.
`
`1016).
`
`40. Other compounds under consideration to treat glaucoma and elevated
`
`IOP tested against latanoprost, prior to December 26, 1996, included PGF2α
`
`analogues: 16-phenoxy-17,18,19,20-tetranorprostaglandin F2α, isopropyl ester
`
`(hereinafter referred to also as “compound C”), cloprostenol isopropyl ester and
`
`fluprostenol isopropyl ester. (EP 0639563A2 to Klimko et al. (“Klimko”), Ex.
`
`1003, p. 15, Table 2). These compounds are structurally close to latanoprost.
`
`41. Compound C is structurally very similar to tafluprost, which is a
`
`compound covered by the ’035 patent and the active ingredient in ZIOPTAN®.
`
`Compound C differs in its chemical structure from tafluprost only slightly in that at
`
`the C-15 position of Compound C, where there is a hydroxyl substituent (i.e., —
`
`14
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-14
`
`

`

`OH), tafluprost is substituted with two fluorine (F) atoms.
`
`
`
`42. Compound C, cloprostenol isopropyl ester and fluprostenol isopropyl
`
`ester, along with similar analogues bearing a 16-phenoxy functionality,
`
`demonstrated superior IOP-reducing activity over latanoprost while presenting
`
`slightly elevated occurrence of the undesired side effect of hyperemia when
`
`compared to latanoprost. (Ex. 1003, pp. 15-19).
`
`43. However, prior to December 26, 1996, it was also known in the prior
`
`art that the 15-hydroxyl group on the prostaglandin omega side chain at C-15 was
`
`responsible, in part, for the negative side effect of hyperemia. (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,292,754 to Kishi et al. (“Kishi”), Ex. 1005 col. 1, l. 65-col. 2, l. 11). The prior
`
`art in a reference referred to later as Kishi in my declaration demonstrated that
`
`hyperemia could be eliminated by removing the 15-hydroxyl group. (Id.). A
`
`compound that has the potential for inducing unwanted hyperemia would suggest
`
`to a POSA that structural modifications would be needed to alleviate these effects.
`
`44. On November 12, 1996, prior to the earliest filing date of the ’035
`
`patent, a group at Alcon unrelated to the inventors of the ’035 patent filed a
`
`15
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-15
`
`

`

`provisional application disclosing a series of 15-fluoro-15-deoxy analogues as
`
`effective ocular hypotensives. (PCT/US97/20671 (the “’671 application, Ex.
`
`1012), claiming priority to Provisional U.S. Application No. 60/030,519 (“’519
`
`provisional, Ex. 1013”))2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`The ’671 application recognized the problem with side effects of
`
`existing prostaglandin analogues, including hyperemia, as well as the
`
`prostaglandins’ instability in vivo, and prepared the 15-deoxy-15-fluoro analogues
`
`as a response. (Ex. 1012 p. 3, ll. 1-17; Ex. 1013 p. 2, l. 27-p.3, l. 15). The ’671
`
`application also cites numerous prior art references for the proposition of
`
`substituting the 15-hydroxy group at the C-15 position of a prostaglandin with
`
`
`2 The ’671 publication disclosed compounds 5-8 but only compounds 6-8 were
`
`disclosed in the ’519 provisional.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-16
`
`

`

`fluorine. (Ex. 1012, p. 3, ll. 16-23). I understand that this ’671 application is not
`
`statutory prior art but it does reflect in my opinion and provides evidence of the
`
`state of the art just prior to December 26, 1996, as the provisional for this
`
`application was filed by others conducting research in the same area at the named
`
`inventors of the ’035 patent just prior to the December 26, 1996 date.
`
`46. Compounds 6-8 of the ’671 application represents the state of the art
`
`and also the general thinking of the POSA prior to December 26, 1996, which was
`
`to make PGF2α analogues with fluorine substitutions at the C-15 position. The
`
`preparation of a PGF2α analogue substituted at the C-15 carbon with a fluorine was
`
`also already known in the prior art as acknowledged by the ’035 patent as it stated
`
`that the prior art disclosed a prostaglandin, 15-fluoro-15-deoxy PGF2α, analogue.
`
`(Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 48-51.)
`
`47. As such, given the state of the art and what was known in the prior
`
`art, there is nothing “inventive” or non-obvious with respect to tafluprost, as the
`
`introduction of a fluorine (F) atom at the C-15 position was already being done by
`
`others and the introduction of two fluorine (F) atoms as this same position was also
`
`taught by the prior art as I discuss further below.
`
`IV. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`1.
`
`European Patent Application EP 0 639 563 A2 (“Klimko”
`Ex. 1003)
`I have reviewed European Patent Application EP 0 639 563 A2 to
`
`48.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-17
`
`

`

`Klimko et al. (“Klimko”), which published on February 22, 1995. Klimko
`
`describes the use of prostaglandin analogues, and their pharmaceutically
`
`acceptable salts and esters, for treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension.
`
`49. Klimko discloses four PGF2α analogues designated as compounds A
`
`through D that are compared with respect to their IOP-reducing capabilities and
`
`potential to induce hyperemia to the reference standard compound latanoprost (Ex.
`
`1003, p. 14, l. 47-p. 19, l. 36 and p. 30, Figure 2). Latanoprost is identified as
`
`compound E.
`
`50.
`
`Each of compounds A through D retains the 15-postion hydroxyl (—
`
`OH) group of naturally occurring PGF2α and is reported by Klimko to exhibit
`
`greater IOP-reducing activity than latanoprost. (Id.). Compound A and B are the
`
`compounds that are the subject of the invention by Klimko whereas compounds C,
`
`D and E (latanoprost) are compounds previously known in the prior art prior to the
`
`disclosure of compounds A and B. (Id., p. 3, ll. 46-50 and p. 14, l. 47-p. 15, l. 50).
`
`51.
`
`The structure and name of compounds A through E appear in Table 2
`
`in Klimko. (Id., p. 15, Table 2).
`
`52. Compound A is the isopropyl ester of cloprostenol.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-18
`
`

`

`OH
`
`O
`
`O
`
`HO
`
`O
`
`H OH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Compound A
`
`
`
`Cl
`
`
`
`53. Compound B is the isopropyl ester of fluprostenol. Compound B
`
`differs from compound A by replacement of the chlorine atom (Cl) with a
`
`trifluoromethyl (CF3) group.
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`O
`
`HO
`
`O
`
`H OH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Compound B
`
`CF3
`
`
`
`54. Compound C is shown below. It differs from Compound A by
`
`replacement of the chlorine atom (Cl) with a hydrogen (H) atom.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55. Compound D is shown below. Compound D differs from compound
`
`19
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-19
`
`

`

`C by replacement of the omega side-chain oxygen atom of a phenoxy group with a
`
`methylene (-CH2-) group.
`
`OH
`
`O
`
`O
`
`HO
`
`H OH
`
`
`
`
`
`Compound D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56.
`
`The compounds in Table 2 were studied using animal models to test
`
`their IOP-reducing potential and potential for inducing hyperemia. (Id., p. 14, l.
`
`47-p. 19, l. 35 and p. 30, Figure 2). I have examined and relied on data derived
`
`from testing using animal models in my own research. I am therefore very familiar
`
`with such tests even though I do not directly perform such studies myself in the
`
`laboratory. More specifically, I am very familiar with the animal model studies
`
`that are described in Klimko including how a POSA would interpret the data
`
`resulting from these studies.
`
`57.
`
`In the study in Example 6 of Klimko, cynomolgus monkeys were
`
`used as an animal model to test the IOP-reducing capabilities of compounds A
`
`through E. (Id., p. 18, l. 8-p. 19, l. 35 and p. 30, Figure 2). Klimko describes that
`
`in this study the right eyes of the cynomolgus monkeys were first treated with a
`
`laser to induce ocular hypertension. (Id., p. 18, l. 12-23). The monkeys were then
`
`20
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-20
`
`

`

`subjected to a five-dose treatment administered to the lasered right eyes of the
`
`cynomolgus monkeys using test formulations of compounds A-E. (Id.).
`
`58. Klimko describes how baseline IOP values were initially determined
`
`prior to treatment with the test formulation. (Id.). IOP values were then
`
`determined from 1 to 7 hours after the first dose, 16 hours after the fourth dose,
`
`and 1 to 6 hours after the fifth dose. (Id.). The same amount (0.3 µg per dose) of
`
`each of compounds A-E were compared in Table 4 for their IOP reduction activity.
`
`(Id.). Klimko states that the study’s test protocol included a five dose treatment
`
`regimen because of the typical delayed response to prostaglandins. (Id.).
`
`59.
`
`Table 4 in Klimko (reproduced below) tabulates the results of the
`
`study in Example 6. (Id., p. 18, Table 4). Table 4 shows “Percent IOP Reduction”
`
`for each of compounds A to E 16 hours after the fourth dose (16/4), 2 hours after
`
`the fifth dose (2/5), 4 hours after the fifth dose (4/5) and six hours after the sixth
`
`dose (6/5).
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-21
`
`

`

`60.
`
`Figure 2 in Klimko (reproduced below) depicts a graphical
`
`representation of the data in Table 4 where “Mean % Change in IOP from
`
`Baseline” for each of compounds A-E is plotted relative to the time in “Hours
`
`After Preceding Dose” from 16 hours after the fourth dose (16/4), 2 hours after the
`
`fifth dose (2/5), 4 hours after the fifth dose (4/5) and 6 hours after the fifth dose
`
`(6/5). (Id., p. 30, Figure 2).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`61.
`
`It is my opinion that the data tabulated in Table 4 and depicted
`
`graphically in Figure 2 indicate to a POSA that there is significant IOP-reducing
`
`activity for compounds A, B, C and D relative to compound E (latanoprost) with
`
`22
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-22
`
`

`

`compound C showing longer-lasting efficacy than the other compounds up through
`
`6 hours after administration of the fifth dose (6/5). (See id., p. 18, Table 4 and p.
`
`30, Figure 2).
`
`62.
`
`Specifically, following the administration of the fifth dose, IOP is
`
`measured at two hour intervals and efficacy of compound C after the
`
`administration of the fifth dose lasts longer than the other compounds. This is
`
`evident from the data in Table 4 where in contrast to the other compounds,
`
`compound C’s IOP Percent Reduction is increasing from the 4/5 mark to the 6/5
`
`mark from 23.6% to 28.9%. (See id., p. 18, Table 4).
`
`63. Compounds A, B, D and E begin to show reduced effectiveness 4 to 6
`
`hours after administration of the fifth dose (i.e., from 4/5 to 6/5). (See id., p. 18,
`
`Table 4, p. 30, Figure 2). Compounds A and B show about a two hour delay to
`
`reach the IOP-reducing effectiveness of Compound C and then between hours 4
`
`and 6 after administration of the fifth dose, IOP-reducing effectiveness begins to
`
`diminish. (Id.). Compound D shows the most dramatic IOP-reducing effect in
`
`hours 2 and 4, but then experiences a substantial drop off in IOP-reducing
`
`effectiveness from 4 to 6 hours following the fifth dose. (Id.).
`
`64. A POSA would realize that of the candidate compounds A through D
`
`that could be selected as a lead compound, compound C is the only compound that
`
`does not begin to experience diminished IOP-reducing effectiveness based on the
`
`23
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-23
`
`

`

`available data in Example 6 and that if the data is extrapolated past 6 hours after
`
`the fifth dose it is only compound C that would be reasonably expected to exhibit
`
`less diminishment in IOP-reducing effectiveness. (See id.). Therefore, compound
`
`C would be the compound of choice as lead compound due to its apparent long-
`
`lasting efficacy relative to the other compounds. This attribute of compound C is
`
`clearly reflected in Figure 2, which shows that compound C is the only line on the
`
`graph having a downward curve from 16/4 through to 6/5 reflecting whereas all of
`
`the other compounds have lines that are upward curves reflecting that IOP-
`
`reducing efficacy is diminishing. (Id., p. 30, Figure 2).
`
`65. A POSA would also find compound C a compelling lead compound
`
`candidate because it exhibits superior IOP-reducing activity relative to latanoprost
`
`and of the candidate compounds is the only one that does not exhibit diminished
`
`IOP-reducing effectiveness through the 6/5 mark. A POSA would understand this
`
`to mean that compound C has the potential to be more long-lasting in IOP-
`
`reducing effectiveness and would thus POSA would be interested in selecting
`
`compound C as a lead compound. Moreover, a POSA would also recognize from
`
`Figure 2 that IOP-reducing effectiveness could potentially be increasing beyond
`
`the 6/5 mark as compared to the other compounds. In addition, a POSA would
`
`have also selected compound C as a lead compound because this compound has
`
`the greatest mean % change in IOP from baseline 16 hours after administration of
`
`24
`
`
`
`Micro Labs Exhibit 1027-24
`
`

`

`the fourth dose (16/4) compared to all other compounds. (Id., p. 18, Table 4:
`
`Compare Percent IOP reduction of 32.2% to percentages of other compounds.).
`
`66.
`
`In Example 5 in Klimko screening for hyperemia was conducted for
`
`compounds A-E using a guinea pig animal model. (Id., pp. 16-18). Klimko
`
`describes that the objective of the guinea pig conjunctival hyper

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket